Reflections on the ecosystem services of whales and valuing their contribution to human well-being

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2020.105100Get rights and content

Highlights

  • Whales provide a broad array of ecosystem services, especially cultural.

  • Valuation of human well-being benefits of whales an unexplored topic in literature.

  • Pluralist approach to valuation favoured, necessitating integrated valuation.

  • Multi Criteria Decision Analysis advanced as a potential tool for integrated valuation.

  • Currently limited scope and Multi Criteria Decision Analysis studies in whale context.

Abstract

Although whale ecosystem services have been scarcely explored in the academic literature, they illustrate many of the threats, trade-offs and decision-making dilemmas common to marine ecosystem services in general – climate change impacts, the ongoing need to provide remote communities with forms of sustenance, and the potential development of new economic sectors which are prosperous but undermine traditional ways of life. In this paper, the first evaluation is carried out of the ecosystem services specific to whales, involving (a) their classification using the established Common International Classification Ecosystem Services (CICES) framework, (b) an assessment of the most suitable methods for their valuation, and (c) implications for decision-making. Our findings are that whale ecosystem services belong to all three categories of the CICES classification and cultural services are the most common type. The most suitable approach for the respective valuation of each service depends on the local socio-cultural context, a fundamental ingredient in value formation, which can formulate on either an individual or collective basis. In the case of individual value formation, this paper recommends the use of economic information derived from non-market valuation techniques; for collective, non-monetary techniques are advised. Given the complexity of human-environment interactions, a pluralist approach to valuation is likely to be required, whereby decision-makers are informed about impacts to whale ecosystem services through a mixture of economic and non-monetary information. A logical consequence of value pluralism is the need for decision-support platforms which can satisfactorily integrate different types of information concerning ecosystem service impacts, evaluating these against multiple marine management objectives. The paper briefly reflects on the potential of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis to fulfil this ambition, before discussing some of the current challenges and barriers which have limited the uptake of ecosystem services research in marine planning and decision-making.

Introduction

Ecosystem services (ES) relate to the gains in human well-being secured, either directly or directly, from the natural environment (Costanza et al., 1997; Daily, 1997; MEA, 2005; Haines-Young and Potschin, 2010). Determining the physical links between the processes and functionality of ecosystems and valuing their contribution to human well-being is of considerable importance to a broad range of decision-making contexts (MEA, 2005), including spatial planning, conservation policy formation, and evaluations of the trade-offs associated with economic development. The oceans on a collective scale represent the largest ecosystem on the planet, providing the world's largest carbon sink and a source of protein for more than one billion people (Blasiak et al., 2015). The overall scale of marine ES is likely considerable, approximated by Costanza et al. (2014) as constituting over 65% of the total value of the world's ES. The United Nations has also recognized the importance of marine resources in terms of their contribution to the support and advancement of human well-being, with Goal 14 of the Sustainable Development Goals, ‘Life Below Water’, emphasizing the need to “conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine resources for sustainable development” (UN General Assembly, 2015, p. 23).

Despite an increase in the number of ES valuation studies in a marine context, the evidence demonstrating their actual use in decision-making contexts is currently sparse (Guo and Kildow, 2015; Hanley et al., 2015). A number of publications have observed an information deficit relating to marine ES (Halpern et al., 2012; Maes et al., 2012; Villasante et al., 2016; Nahuelhual et al., 2017). The location of many marine ES – especially those derived from the remote high seas – presents particular challenges for ES practitioners (Blasiak et al., 2015; O'Garra, 2017). However, their geographical remoteness should not distract attention from the importance of their physical quantification and valuation across the full spectrum of marine resource contexts, which might otherwise be overlooked or underestimated (Magnussen and Kettunen, 2013; Hasler, 2016; Gunderson et al., 2017). Others have reported on a need for greater collaboration between scientists, decision-makers and environmental economists in order for marine ES valuation studies to be better understood by those surveyed and, ultimately, more widely used by decision-makers (Börger et al., 2014). Torres and Hanley (2016) explain that communication issues have prevented the widespread adoption of non-market valuation studies in a marine context, particularly emphasize the importance of improved cooperation as a means of furthering transdisciplinary work.

The focus of this paper concerns the marine resource context of whales, which have been lightly studied in ES research (Malinauskaite et al., 2020). This is despite obvious socio-ecological interactions, particularly connected to many coastal communities (Torres and Hanley, 2017), and the delivery of multiple benefits to human well-being, such as primary production, nutrient cycling, recreation (including ecotourism), education, food provision, and carbon sequestration (Roman et al., 2014). As far as the authors are aware, the study by Roman et al. (2014) remains the only publication to date to begin to outline, in a thematic rather than location-specific sense, the ES human beings derive from whales. No authors have yet taken the next step, which is to consider how such benefits should be valued, which is necessary in order to better understand the various trade-offs associated with changes to whale populations, such as development pressures, expanded eco-tourism, and climate change. This literature gap was restated in a Workshop Report by the Society for Conservation Biology, which opined that the valuation of whale ES represents an important step towards improved marine policy-making (Roman and Galletti, 2017). The three aims of this review paper are as follows: (1) identify an inventory of whale ES, (2) consider how the respective whale ES could be valued and review the likely threats and trade-offs affecting whale ES, and (3) discuss the likely implications for decision-making, given the potential presence of value pluralism, the idea that there may be several equally valid and fundamental values in conflict with each other.

This paper is structured as follows. Section 2 classifies an inventory of whale ES using the Common International Classification for Ecosystem Services (CICES) typology. Section 3 constructs a framework for valuing the respective whale ES, linking these to the various economic and non-monetary techniques available, and outlines some of the likely threats and trade-offs of economic developments and environmental change. In addition, existing valuation studies in the context of whale ES are outlined and the implications of value pluralism analysed in terms of the need for decision-support tools that can integrated multiple values of the environment. Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) is explored as an example of one possible integrated valuation technique that could be applied in a whale ES context. Section 4 then discusses the challenges of conducting economic, non-monetary and integrated valuation studies in a whale ES and general marine context, before reflecting on opportunities for further whale ES research.

Section snippets

Defining and classifying ES

A wide range of definitions exist for ES, all of which derive from an understanding that ES relate to human well-being benefits obtained from ecological phenomena. Perhaps the most widely cited definition has been set out by the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA), which articulates ES as the benefits that people obtain from ecosystems (MEA, 2005). This understanding has been further advanced through the delineations of Fisher et al. (2009), who contributed three main points: (1) that ES are

Valuing ES and concept of value pluralism

The importance of marine ecosystems to human welfare and the public goods characteristics of the many ES sourced from such environments adds weight to arguments in favour of gaining better understanding of these benefits (Hattam et al., 2015; Torres and Hanley, 2017). Studies such as TEEB (2010) have helped to highlight the importance of ES in terms of their contribution to marketed and non-marketed economic activities, and human well-being. They have also underscored the need to embed ES

Challenges of valuing whale ES and conducting ES valuation in marine contexts

The challenges involved in conducting ES assessments involving whales have many parallels with the difficulties of conducting such studies in other marine contexts, and indeed in general. An important consideration relating to Table 2 is that although specific non-market valuation techniques may be available for valuing many whale ES, the particular study context will be a determining factor in their ultimate suitability. In the case of provisioning resources such as whale meat, market pricing

Conclusion

Whale ES are diverse and provide an example of human well-being benefits that have been largely ignored in the ES literature, which contains neither a detailed thematic review of services nor consideration of how these can best be valued in order to inform decision-makers. The example of whale ES highlights issues common to the valuation of marine ES in general, whereby different types of values – utilitarian and socio-cultural – may underpin the sourcing of human well-being. Through this

Declaration of competing interest

I wish to confirm that we have read, understood and fully complied with the journal's ethical guidelines. This manuscript is our own work and has not been submitted for review to another journal. There are no conflicts of interest that impinge on the publication of this paper.

Acknowledgements

This paper has been funded by NordForsk (grant number 76654) via their financial support to the Nordic Centre of Excellence ARCPATH (Arctic Climate Predictions – Pathways to Resilient, Sustainable Communities).

References (135)

  • G. Dapueto et al.

    A spatial multi-criteria evaluation for site selection of offshore marine fish farm in the Ligurian Sea, Italy

    Ocean Coast Manag.

    (2015)
  • B. Fisher et al.

    Defining and classifying ecosystem services for decision making

    Ecol. Econ.

    (2009)
  • E. Gómez-Baggethun et al.

    Classifying and valuing ecosystem services for urban planning

    Ecol. Econ.

    (2013)
  • J. Guo et al.

    The gap between science and policy: assessing the use of nonmarket valuation in estuarine management based on a case study of US federally managed estuaries

    Ocean Coast Manag.

    (2015)
  • B.S. Halpern et al.

    Near-term priorities for the science, policy and practice of coastal and marine spatial planning (CMSP)

    Mar. Policy

    (2012)
  • W.M. Hanemann

    Information and the concept of option value

    J. Environ. Econ. Manag.

    (1989)
  • R. Hastik et al.

    Renewable energies and ecosystem service impacts

    Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.

    (2015)
  • C. Hattam et al.

    Marine ecosystem services: linking indicators to their classification

    Ecol. Indicat.

    (2015)
  • M.P. Heide-Jørgensen et al.

    Narwhals and seismic exploration: is seismic noise increasing the risk of ice entrapments?

    Biol. Conserv.

    (2013)
  • K. Jax et al.

    Ecosystem services and ethics

    Ecol. Econ.

    (2013)
  • A. La Notte et al.

    Ecosystem services classification: a systems ecology perspective of the cascade framework

    Ecol. Indicat.

    (2017)
  • L. Lundsten et al.

    Biological characterization of a whale-fall near Vancouver island, British Columbia, Canada

    Deep Sea Res. Oceanogr. Res. Pap.

    (2010)
  • J. Maes et al.

    Mapping ecosystem services for policy support and decision making in the European Union

    Ecosyst. Serv.

    (2012)
  • L. Malinauskaite et al.

    Willingness to pay for expansion of the whale sanctuary in Faxaflói Bay, Iceland: a contingent valuation study

    Ocean Coast Manag.

    (2020)
  • B. Martín-López et al.

    Trade-offs across value-domains in ecosystem services assessment

    Ecol. Indicat.

    (2014)
  • L. Nahuelhual et al.

    Mapping ecosystem services for marine spatial planning: recreation opportunities in Sub-Antarctic Chile

    Mar. Policy

    (2017)
  • T. O'Garra

    Economic value of ecosystem services, minerals and oil in a melting Arctic: a preliminary assessment

    Ecosyst. Serv.

    (2017)
  • M.L. Paracchini et al.

    Mapping cultural ecosystem services: a framework to assess the potential for outdoor recreation across the EU

    Ecol. Indicat.

    (2014)
  • U. Pascual et al.

    Valuing nature's contributions to people: the IPBES approach

    Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain.

    (2017)
  • E. Primmer et al.

    Operationalising ecosystem service approaches for governance: do measuring, mapping and valuing integrate sector-specific knowledge systems?

    Ecosyst. Serv.

    (2012)
  • J. Ren et al.

    Measuring the sustainability of marine fuels: a fuzzy group multi-criteria decision making approach

    Transp. Res. D Transp. Environ.

    (2017)
  • A. Allen

    Cetacean Conservation in the Age of Oil and Gas: Minimizing Acoustic Disturbance to the Northern Bottlenose Whale (Hyperoodon Ampullatus) through Spatio-Temporal Mitigation

    (2015)
  • M.S. Anderson et al.

    Onboard marine environmental education: whale watching in the san juan islands. Washington

    Tour. Mar. Environ.

    (2006)
  • G. Atkinson et al.

    Environmental cost-benefit analysis

    Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour.

    (2008)
  • C.G. Bertulli et al.

    Can whale-watching and whaling co-exist? Tourist perceptions in Iceland

    J. Mar. Biol. Assoc. U. K.

    (2016)
  • B. Bodenhorn

    Whales, souls, children, and other things that are'good to share': core metaphors in a contemporary whaling society

    Camb. Anthropol.

    (1988)
  • A.S. Brierley et al.

    Whaling permits: Japan's whaling is unscientific

    Nature

    (2016)
  • D.G. Burnett

    The Sounding of the Whale: Science and Cetaceans in the Twentieth Century

    (2012)
  • K.M. Chan et al.

    Opinion: why protect nature? Rethinking values and the environment

    Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.

    (2016)
  • F. Christiansen et al.

    Whale watching disrupts feeding activities of minke whales on a feeding ground

    Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser.

    (2013)
  • N. Cooper

    The Spiritual Value of Ecosystem Services: an Initial Christian Exploration

    (2009)
  • R. Costanza et al.

    Nature

    (1997)
  • G. Daily

    Nature's Services: Societal Dependence on Natural Ecosystems

    (1997)
  • J. Dixon et al.

    Economic Analysis of Environmental Impacts

    (2013)
  • G.P. Donovan

    Aboriginal/subsistence whaling (with special reference to the Alaska and Greenland fisheries). Reports of the international whaling commission. Special issue, 4

  • S.F. Edwards

    Ethical preferences and the assessment of existence values: does the neoclassical model fit

    Northeast. J. Agric. Resour. Econ.

    (1986)
  • N. Einarsson

    From good to eat to good to watch: whale watching, adaptation and change in Icelandic fishing communities

    Polar Res.

    (2009)
  • N. Einarsson

    All animals are equal but some are cetaceans: conservation and culture conflict

  • M.M. Freeman

    The International Whaling Commission, small-type whaling, and coming to terms with subsistence

    Hum. Organ.

    (1993)
  • M. García-Llorente et al.

    Spanish National Ecosystem Assessment: Socio-Economic Valuation of Ecosystem Services in Spain

    (2016)
  • Cited by (34)

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text