8.2 Operationalization of CES
A literature review by Cheng et al. (2019) on the CES valuation methods in 293 publications showed that the rate of publications increased from 3 papers per year in 2005
to 90 papers per year until 2017. This fact reveals the increasing need to operationally
define CES in socio-economic models. The multitude of perspectives for approaching
CES reflects a new multidisciplinary dynamic field under progress, but it also shows a
lack of well-established and readily applicable research framework. Different conceptual frameworks have been used for the categorization and definition of the CES,
attempting to find an approach that can render the CES operational, not only in the
research but also in policy agenda and in decision-making.
The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment first defined ES as the “benefits that
people obtain from ecosystems” (MEA 2005) and divided them in provisioning,
regulating and supporting cultural services. In MEA, CES are defined as mostly
intangible and invisible that related to the “non-material benefits that people obtain
from the ecosystem” and influence the quality of life, while the provisioning,
regulating and supporting ES are considered as material services. In the same
framework, the classification is based on the practices and experiences that arise in
the environmental spaces under consideration, and for that reason, it has been
criticized in various occasions. The notion behind the critique is that some practices
such as recreation (consumptive or non-consumptive) fall into two services categories (e.g. cultural and provisioning), a fact that may result in double-counting.
Another classification is the Common International Classification of Ecosystem
Services (CICES) developed in 2013 by the European Environment Agency (EEA)
as part of the work on environmental-economic accounting, which is led by the
United Nations Statistical Division. Its central focus is the standardization of the ES
description to ease their accounting. Besides ES valuation, it introduces the need of
mapping. CICES divides all ES in classes, where each ES is made up of a biophysical output and an eventual use or benefit. In CICES, services are distinguished from
benefits and CES are defined as “the characteristics of elements of nature that
provide opportunities for people to derive cultural goods or benefits”. Further CES
subcategorization depends on whether the opportunities are realized from direct
contact or remote interaction with nature (Haines-Young and Potschin 2018). This
classification became the link with the Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystem and
their Services (MAES), a flagship project of the EU which proposes specific
indicators for the measurement of the condition of terrestrial, freshwater and marine
ecosystems (European Commission 2018).
A third classification system is the UK National Ecosystem Assessment and its
follow-on phase (UK NEAFO) that categorizes values according to the environmental settings or spaces were CES can be identified. Specifically, the system mentions
that CES “encompass the environmental spaces and cultural practices that give rise
to a range of material and non-material benefits to human well-being (Jobstvogt et al.
2014). These spaces and practices interact with contemporary cultural values to
shape people’s identities, provide experiences that contribute benefits in terms of
8 Monetary and Non-monetary Valuation of Cultural Ecosystem Services in Marine. . .
127
A literature review by Cheng et al. (2019) on the CES valuation methods in 293 publications showed that the rate of publications increased from 3 papers per year in 2005
to 90 papers per year until 2017. This fact reveals the increasing need to operationally
define CES in socio-economic models. The multitude of perspectives for approaching
CES reflects a new multidisciplinary dynamic field under progress, but it also shows a
lack of well-established and readily applicable research framework. Different conceptual frameworks have been used for the categorization and definition of the CES,
attempting to find an approach that can render the CES operational, not only in the
research but also in policy agenda and in decision-making.
The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment first defined ES as the “benefits that
people obtain from ecosystems” (MEA 2005) and divided them in provisioning,
regulating and supporting cultural services. In MEA, CES are defined as mostly
intangible and invisible that related to the “non-material benefits that people obtain
from the ecosystem” and influence the quality of life, while the provisioning,
regulating and supporting ES are considered as material services. In the same
framework, the classification is based on the practices and experiences that arise in
the environmental spaces under consideration, and for that reason, it has been
criticized in various occasions. The notion behind the critique is that some practices
such as recreation (consumptive or non-consumptive) fall into two services categories (e.g. cultural and provisioning), a fact that may result in double-counting.
Another classification is the Common International Classification of Ecosystem
Services (CICES) developed in 2013 by the European Environment Agency (EEA)
as part of the work on environmental-economic accounting, which is led by the
United Nations Statistical Division. Its central focus is the standardization of the ES
description to ease their accounting. Besides ES valuation, it introduces the need of
mapping. CICES divides all ES in classes, where each ES is made up of a biophysical output and an eventual use or benefit. In CICES, services are distinguished from
benefits and CES are defined as “the characteristics of elements of nature that
provide opportunities for people to derive cultural goods or benefits”. Further CES
subcategorization depends on whether the opportunities are realized from direct
contact or remote interaction with nature (Haines-Young and Potschin 2018). This
classification became the link with the Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystem and
their Services (MAES), a flagship project of the EU which proposes specific
indicators for the measurement of the condition of terrestrial, freshwater and marine
ecosystems (European Commission 2018).
A third classification system is the UK National Ecosystem Assessment and its
follow-on phase (UK NEAFO) that categorizes values according to the environmental settings or spaces were CES can be identified. Specifically, the system mentions
that CES “encompass the environmental spaces and cultural practices that give rise
to a range of material and non-material benefits to human well-being (Jobstvogt et al.
2014). These spaces and practices interact with contemporary cultural values to
shape people’s identities, provide experiences that contribute benefits in terms of
8 Monetary and Non-monetary Valuation of Cultural Ecosystem Services in Marine. . .
127