Valuing nature

近年来，越来越多的政府和企业认为，我们应该将自然世界概念化为“自然资本”：我们应该将自然视为一种“资本”，就像机器或货币被归类为“资本”一样。我们生活在一个资本主义社会：但是（据说）如果我们不把自然也算作资本，我们就有可能没有充分地“计算”自然。这个想法是，如果我们以这种方式看待自然，就有可能确保一种“严格”的、基于市场的方法，将自然的价值置于决策的核心，无论是在政府、私营企业还是个人层面。我们在这个研究网络中的目标是思考将自然描述为一种资本形式背后的假设。特别是，我们建议解决一个似乎是自然资本概念的基础的问题：我们如何概念化自然的价值。我们将探讨对自然价值的货币分析在多大程度上，它显然强调自然的“碎片”对其他"碎片“的可替代性。（例如，所谓的“生物多样性抵消”），可以适应：（A）特定地方和栖息地的特殊性;以及（B）这些地方、生境和生态系统之间复杂的相互依存关系，被视为一个功能整体的必要组成部分，（最终，我们的地球家园）需要保持弹性。换句话说，经济分析能在多大程度上捕捉到生态系统的实际动态？对自然价值的定量分析是否疏远了以非定量方式与自然发生关系和互动的主要利益攸关方？把森林看作是等待收获的金钱，或者是一个特殊甚至神圣的地方，这有意义吗？哲学传统提供了哪些资源，可以帮助我们以更全面的方式概念化自然？大自然提供现在越来越多地被称为“文化生态系统服务”的想法--例如非物质形式的精神满足--在多大程度上减轻了人们对自然资本方法中功利主义或还原倾向的担忧？我们应该如何确切地理解我们对自然的审美、宗教和休闲体验对人类健康和福祉的价值;大自然究竟如何滋养我们？例如，我对风景之美的体验是我幸福的原因，还是幸福的一个不可约的组成部分？“文化生态系统服务”的概念是否与自然具有“内在价值”的概念相冲突？我们是否应该感到困扰，谈论“自然资源”或“生态系统服务”强调了大自然为我们做了什么，但不鼓励我们直接问我们应该为大自然提供什么服务？我们将来自各个领域的有关各方-包括政治家、艺术家和感兴趣的公众-聚集在一起，将有助于澄清我们在解决这些紧迫问题时所面临的利害关系。因此，我们的目标是，我们提出的东西将影响政府和官僚计算和决定如何“计算”自然的方式。我们打算引入一个剑桥郡为重点的角度到该项目中，通过研究的价值和应用的自然资本的概念，在一个特定的网站：东盎格鲁沼泽的问题。我们相信，这将使人们集中精神，并使那些看似抽象的问题能够在其具体的现实中被看到。Fen-lands的价值是什么？这个研究网络开始时，将把有关各方（主要来自英格兰东部地区）聚集在一起，我们打算在它结束时，提出关于如何思考自然价值的新政策建议。该网络的成果将通过展览、小组讨论和公开会议、网上以及地方、区域和国家媒体直接向公众公布。

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.