A public engagement project by scientists looking at the public’s views on ecosystem services and valuing nature has yielded interesting results.

image expired

Last week, a group of researchers from the University of Reading criticised the scope of current ecosystem services assessments, warning that the reliance on 'simple metrics' could lead to the extinction of insects and other pollinating species which could become hugely important to humans and the rest of the natural world as climate change progresses or domestic pollinators like honey bees continue to decline.

Naturally speaking…

The aim of the ‘Naturally Speaking’ meetings was to share the concepts used in policy making with members of the public, and allow them to scrutinise policy and practice.

Dr Robert Fish, now based at the University of Kent, who led the project, said the research “Both confirms and challenges prevailing wisdoms about how people think about the natural environment and what they think policy makers should be doing about it.”

He added, “In our talks with the public the most prominent elements that shone through were the cultural and health dimensions. Alongside these benefits participants also understood the natural environment as a physical power that could threaten and overwhelm human livelihoods.”

Researchers on the project noted that “A fundamental and unambiguous connection was drawn between the natural environment and the well-being of people,” and yet those who took part in the sessions were “Generally pessimistic about the future of their local natural environments.”

Although they said that most participants in discussions were “cautiously positive” about the ecosystem services framework, researchers acknowledged that “A significant minority” were sceptical about using the term ‘services’, which they felt expressed a consumerist outlook and carried the potential for enclosure - namely “that people would end up paying for things they currently have the right to access and use freely.”

Members of the public also expressed “Concern that human responsibilities and duties of care towards nature [may be] obscured by the concept of ‘services’” and were suspicious about the involvement of businesses in delivering for the natural environment, suggesting that state and third sector groups without a profit incentive and with a remit for the ‘public good’ were better placed for this.

Although researchers emphasised that participants in the project felt ascribing values to aspects of the natural environment could be used to make a case for their preservation or restoration, they were sceptical of the political and ethical implications, and questioned how the values used as evidence for policy makers are created. Participants in the talks also felt that monetary valuations alone are an insufficient basis for decision making where the environment is concerned, and that cultural and moral considerations should also play key roles.

Reacting after one of the events, Fiona Mills, from the Firth of Clyde Forum - a local partnership that took part in the project - said, “You need your experts, but you also need to understand what the public think, because what we’ve seen from today is that the public are very switched on, and once they understand what your issue is they can really bring a lot of fresh thinking to solving it.”