94
E.C.M. Ruijgrok . P. Vellinga
The basic rationale of the functional view is that nature produces income just like
any other type of production capital. As income generation is the objective of society,
one can endlessly substitute according to social preferences. One can however not tell
whether the substitutions performed today are sustainable, since sustain ability implies
that we should also satisfy the preferences of future generations and these remain unknown. Saving some natural capital additional to the stock preferred by our present
generation, does not make sense since it deprives the future generation of produced
or social capital that they might prefer.
5.4.3
Coevolution
Accrrding to the coevolution view nature has both an ecological and a socio-economic
value. In this approach a balanced interaction between nature an society is desirable.
Social preferences and ecological qualities need to be realized through a balanced
multifunctional use of nature; only user functions which do not damage the natural
system are allowed, such as naturally friendly forms of recreation and sustainable forms
of harvest. Both society and nature are allowed to change and to inflict change upon
each other as long as neither of them suffers serious damage, threatening its existence.
The objective of this view is maximisation of social welfare derived from nature, without reducing its future welfare potential and without reducing its ecological value. This
means that natural capital may in principle not be replaced by other forms of capital.
Substitution within the natural capital stock is however allowed as long as the total
welfare generating capacity and the ecological quality of nature are not reduced. There
are limits to the substitution possibilities within the natural capital stock, because too
much substitution may jeopardize e.g. biodiversity and thereby the ecological value
the natural capital stock. Nature development and economic development should receive equal chances. Consequently the substitution ratio within the natural capital stock
is between zero and one as illustrated by the convex isoquant in Fig. 5.2.
The rationale behind the coevolution view is that substitution possibilities offer
efficiency possibilities but they are not a purely economic matter. There are physical
restrictions related to the characteristics of natural capital, which may evoke conservation in spite of present preferences towards more substitution. An example of
the coevolution view is the compensation principle as laid down in the "Structure
Schema of the Green Space". This compensation principle says that if it is decided
to implement a project that is of great socio-economic importance but which harms
nature, both mitigating and compensating measures should be taken. The criterion
is no net loss of natural values in terms both quantity and quality. This criterion can
be met by landscape adjustment, mitigating measures and physical compensation.
Physical compensation can be achieved through developing a natural site in the
vicinity of the project (LNV 1993). As such the compensation principle allows for substitution within the natural capital stock if equal ecological values are realized. Note:
Because the compensation principle occasionally also allows for financial compensations in case of 'great socio-economic importance', substitution between natural and
produced capital is not fully rejected. This means that the compensation principle does
not perfectly correspond with the view of coevolution; a slight Functional influence
can be discerned.
E.C.M. Ruijgrok . P. Vellinga
The basic rationale of the functional view is that nature produces income just like
any other type of production capital. As income generation is the objective of society,
one can endlessly substitute according to social preferences. One can however not tell
whether the substitutions performed today are sustainable, since sustain ability implies
that we should also satisfy the preferences of future generations and these remain unknown. Saving some natural capital additional to the stock preferred by our present
generation, does not make sense since it deprives the future generation of produced
or social capital that they might prefer.
5.4.3
Coevolution
Accrrding to the coevolution view nature has both an ecological and a socio-economic
value. In this approach a balanced interaction between nature an society is desirable.
Social preferences and ecological qualities need to be realized through a balanced
multifunctional use of nature; only user functions which do not damage the natural
system are allowed, such as naturally friendly forms of recreation and sustainable forms
of harvest. Both society and nature are allowed to change and to inflict change upon
each other as long as neither of them suffers serious damage, threatening its existence.
The objective of this view is maximisation of social welfare derived from nature, without reducing its future welfare potential and without reducing its ecological value. This
means that natural capital may in principle not be replaced by other forms of capital.
Substitution within the natural capital stock is however allowed as long as the total
welfare generating capacity and the ecological quality of nature are not reduced. There
are limits to the substitution possibilities within the natural capital stock, because too
much substitution may jeopardize e.g. biodiversity and thereby the ecological value
the natural capital stock. Nature development and economic development should receive equal chances. Consequently the substitution ratio within the natural capital stock
is between zero and one as illustrated by the convex isoquant in Fig. 5.2.
The rationale behind the coevolution view is that substitution possibilities offer
efficiency possibilities but they are not a purely economic matter. There are physical
restrictions related to the characteristics of natural capital, which may evoke conservation in spite of present preferences towards more substitution. An example of
the coevolution view is the compensation principle as laid down in the "Structure
Schema of the Green Space". This compensation principle says that if it is decided
to implement a project that is of great socio-economic importance but which harms
nature, both mitigating and compensating measures should be taken. The criterion
is no net loss of natural values in terms both quantity and quality. This criterion can
be met by landscape adjustment, mitigating measures and physical compensation.
Physical compensation can be achieved through developing a natural site in the
vicinity of the project (LNV 1993). As such the compensation principle allows for substitution within the natural capital stock if equal ecological values are realized. Note:
Because the compensation principle occasionally also allows for financial compensations in case of 'great socio-economic importance', substitution between natural and
produced capital is not fully rejected. This means that the compensation principle does
not perfectly correspond with the view of coevolution; a slight Functional influence
can be discerned.