I think, an issue arises if you mix different kind of valuation approaches such as market prices (e.g. timber price) and non-market prices (e.g. willingness to pay for recreation in forest). Probably there is no ultimate answer to your question as it is certainly a discussed issue. To contribute to a discussion, I recommand to read the publication of Spangenberg and Settele I attached. This gives a nice overview over the limitations of ESS valuation.

Article Precisely incorrect? Monetising the value of ecosystem services

I believe that ghe only real approach is consifering that ecosystem goods are invluable.iThis should be the background.As this this is not posible due to the social pressure, an approach to your question is considering the expenses that an ecosystem or its features  would cause in case of their absence.

There is some exoetience concerning soil and ecosystem effect on mitigating erosion floods etc.Luva Montanarella t the JRC has published sme interesting data for that.

The Total Economic Value (TEV) method based on ecosystems services has become a pragmatic and popular approach in nature valuation. Yet criticisms have been raised.

One major point of critique is that total economic value bases the monetary value of ecosystems purely on the flow of human benefits of services of ecosystems and consequently ignores questions of sustainable use of natural capital per se. The paper by Admiraal et al (2013) Ecological Economics explains why total economic value by itself is in principle an inadequate concept to guide sustainable use of ecosystems and gives an overview of essential ecological theory that needs to be taken into account in addition to total economic value to fully include ecosystem

sustainability.

The attached report by Knights et al.  resulting from the EU FP-7 BIOMOT project offers an additional, wider perspecive.  This report focuses on the limitations of standard economic approaches to environmental and biodiversity valuation and how alternative, non-economic valuation approaches avoid these limitations. 

Article More than total economic value: How to combine economic valu...

Technical Report Economic Environmental Valuation: An Analysis of Limitations...

Integrating different values in the ESA is possible, or at least this is what we argue in the paper that you will find enclosed. Your question, though, is if these different values can be elicited and visualised with different methods at the same time. For this to happen, it is necessary to clarify how the results will be used in the assessment process, who will use them, and which level of aggregation is accepted. The less aggregation, the more acceptance of different approaches at once. Once this is clear, you should understand the redundancies entailed in the methods in order to make the assessment process more efficient. A certain level or redundancy may be unavoidable. It exists in nature at all levels.

Article An integrative modelling approach for linking environmental ...

Dear Mr. Betz,

Thank you for your answer. I knew the work of Spangenberg and Settele.

I was trying to understand the arguments of those defending the complementarity of economic TEV valuation with other types of values, and the way in which these advocates of ESA approach think that it is possible to integrate them.

Thank you, Juan. I agree with you when you say that ecosystem services are invaluable, although I think that it depends on the concept of value that you use. Maybe this is the trick...

Dear Ms. Wossink,

I think that the bigg issue with TEV approach to valuation is that "everything that can be valued is valued by TEV in monetary terms" and "everything that cannot be valued in monetary terms by TEV is not valued"....

Some of the advocates of ESA approach argue that it is possible to use TEV as a complementary approach to other approaches for different types of values... Is it possible? How?

I just would like mentioning a example, the historical evolution of the 'land' valie. Just some decades ago rural famiies were extremely reluctant to sell their land, just because they FELT land was the only permnnet suport to their lives. In case of ereme ecessity they sold but convinced that the loosed someething invaluable. My question is: If e try tu put vakues to tghe Ecosysem Services to better protect them, what involves a bette prtection, a burocratic evaluation of ecosystems services or a vital convincement thattheir lost feprsent losing something that never will be recovered nor part of our lives?

Hi Pedro,

Ecosystem values in terms of services provided are only one of the bases on

which decisions on ecosystem management are and should be made. Many

other factors, including notions of intrinsic value and other objectives that

society might have, such as equity among different groups will also feed into the decision framework.

Multi criteria analysis (MCA) offers the methodological and mathematical tools to deal with these decision problems in a sytematic manner. MCA evaluation techniques have a long tradition in economics and allow conflictual, multidimensional, incommensurable and uncertain effects of decisions to be taken into account. This is explained in Chapter 5 of the report  Economic Environmental Valuation: An Analysis of Limitations and Alternatives by P. Knights et al. 

Technical Report Economic Environmental Valuation: An Analysis of Limitations...

Hi Beatriz,

Of course, I think that it is possible to take decisions using different criteria. Probably, we are using different definitions of “ESA”, or even of “value” (a very usual problem with ESA).

My question was focused on the complementarity of “ecological values”, “cultural values” and “economic values” within the ESA. In literature, there are multitudes of conceptual frameworks in which you can see these “values” organized in a complementary framework (for example, the TEEB framework).

But within the ESA, “economic values” are estimated by using the TEV approach. My question can be reformulated by saying: Is TEV approach complementary to any other approach? I mean, within TEV approach every single value (also option values, existence values, etc.) can be estimated by using different economic tools (real, stated or revealed preferences). Of course, ecology, sociology, anthropology, etc. have their own systems of value with different indicators expressed in their specific valuation languages, and decisions taking account of socio-economic and ecological information can be made. But I am not sure if this is possible if we use the TEV approach to “economic values”, so that every single possible value has already been estimated, and the decision-making process associated to Cost-Benefit Analysis has been started.

This is my doubt. Thank you for your answer,

Pedro.