Valuing nature

点击翻译按钮获取中文摘要

In recent years, it has been argued-increasingly-by government and business that we ought to conceptualise the natural world as 'natural capital': that we ought to think of nature as a kind of 'capital', just like machinery or money are classed as 'capital'. We live in a capitalist society: but then (so it is said) we risk not 'counting' nature adequately if we don't count _it_ as capital, too. The idea is that if we do conceive of nature in this way, it is possible to secure a 'rigorous', market-based method of putting the value of nature at the heart of decision-making, whether at the level of government, private enterprise or the individual. Our aim in this research network is to think through the assumptions behind the characterisation of nature as a form of capital. In particular, we propose to address an issue that appears to underpin the concept of natural capital: how we conceptualise the _value_ of nature. We will explore the extent to which the monetary analysis of nature's value, with its apparent emphasis on the substitutability of 'pieces' of nature for other such 'pieces' (so called 'biodiversity-offsetting', for example), can accommodate: (A) the specificity of particular places and habitats; and (B) the complex interdependence of these places, habitats and ecosystems, considered as necessary parts of a functioning whole, a whole (ultimately, our planetary home) that needs to be kept resilient. To what extent, in other words, can _economic_ analysis capture the actual dynamics of ecological systems? Do quantitative analyses of natural value alienate key stakeholders, who relate to and interact with nature in non-quantitative ways? Does it make sense to think of a forest as essentially money waiting to be harvested; or as a special or even sacred place? What resources does the philosophical tradition offer that should help us conceptualise nature in a more holistic way? To what extent does the idea of nature providing what are increasingly now called "cultural ecosystem services"-such as forms of non-material, spiritual fulfilment-mitigate worries about utilitarian or reductive tendencies in the natural capital approach? How exactly ought we to understand our aesthetic and religious and leisure-ly experiences of nature as valuable in relation to human health and well-being; just how exactly can nature nourish us? For example, is my experience of the beauty of a landscape a _cause_ of my well-being or an irreducible _component_ of it? Is the idea of "cultural ecosystem services" in conflict with the notion of nature having "intrinsic value"? Should we be troubled that talk of 'natural resources' or 'ecosystem services' stresses what nature has done for us, but doesn't encourage us directly to ask what service we should be providing to nature?Our bringing together interested parties from across the spectrum -- including politicians, artists, and interested members of the public -- will help clarify what is at stake when we address these urgent issues and questions. We aim for what we come up with therefore to impact the way that governments and bureaucrats compute and decide these questions of how to 'count' nature. We intend to introduce a Cambridgeshire-focused perspective into the project by examining the question of the value and application of the concept of natural capital in relation to one particular site: the East Anglian Fens. This will, we believe, concentrate minds; and enable what can seem abstract questions to be seen in their concrete reality. What is/are the value(s) of Fen-lands?The research-network will begin by bringing together interested parties (mostly from the east-of-England region), and we intend for it to end by producing new policy-proposals for how to think the value of nature. The results of the network will be made directly available to the public at an Exhibition, in a panel-discussion and an open conference, and online - as well as in the local, regional and national media.