Non-monetary valuation mapping is about spatial-ly-explicit analysis and visualization of ecological and sociocultural values (see Table. 4.1.1). Using non-monetary methods helps to achieve a more complete picture of the human well-being brought about by the ecosystem services, including materi-al, physicmateri-al, socimateri-al, and spiritual aspects. This gives visibility to both the tangible and intangible con-tribution provided by nature to society. Informa-tion on sociocultural, ethical and spiritual values should complement monetary values in the deci-sion-making process to capture the ‘true’ or total value of an ecosystem service or a bundle of servic-es (de Groot et al. 2010). In an ideal case, mapping of ecological and sociocultural values leads to joint learning outcomes where stakeholders achieve a better understanding of ecosystem functions and ecosystem services. This also results in the stake-holders comprehending their own and others’ ar-guments better, which is important in reconciling conflicting views (Kopperoinen et al. 2014).
There is a multiplicity of methods for mapping ecological and sociocultural non-monetary values.
The methods can be classified into three categories:
quantitative, qualitative and deliberative methods (Figure 4.1.1). However, there are many mixed methods that combine characteristics of more than one category.
Valuation mapping techniques
Quantitative (predominantly)
Non-consultative E.g. Empirical spatial modelling
Consultative E.g. Spatial matrix approaches
Qualitative (predominantly)
Non-consultative E.g. Valuation mapping based
on Document analysis
Consultative E.g. Spatial analysis based on
data gathered by Public participation GIS methods,
Focus groups, Field observations etc.
Deliberative (discourse based) Valuation mapping based on
discussions e.g.in Citizens’
juries or Consensus conferences
figure 4.1.1. valuation mapping techniques according to methodological similarities. it has to be noted that valuati-on mapping techniques may comprise both quantitative and qualitative features and the examples given are indicative.
(Graph inspired by Kelemen et al. 2014: 2.).
table 4.1.1. Characteristics of ecological, sociocultural, and monetary values of ecosystem services (es) (cf. section 2.4).
ecological (supply of es) sociocultural (demand of es) monetary 1 Importance of a given ecosystem
• in sustaining human and non-human life o Objectively important
• in satisfying physiological human needs of society, e.g.
o Food o Freshwater o Air purification o Water regulation
• in ensuring the maintenance of other es that are essential for satisfying other fundamental human needs, e.g.
o Affection o Identity o Leisure o Creativity
2 Ecosystem functions, processes and components
integrity of regulating and habitat functions of an ecosystem
• ecosystem parameters o Complexity
o Diversity o Rarity o Stability
integrity of service-providing units
• Component populations
• Communities
• functional groups
• Abiotic components
• habitat type 3 Insurance value
• ecosystem resilience
o Self-repairing capacity of ecosystems
• maintenance of critical amounts of ecological infrastructure and key service-providing units
• Precautionary conservation of stocks
• setting of safe minimum standards 4 Biophysical measures as values
• need to be put in relation to some attribution of societal importance
• Conversion of biophysical indicators into constructed scales
1 Non-material, experiential values
• People obtain through o Spiritual enrichment o Cognitive development o Reflection
o Recreation
o Aesthetic experience
• Created in the mind of es beneficiaries
• the value depends on who is the observer
2 Material, moral, spiritual, aesthetic, therapeutic values 3 Emotional, affective and symbolic values
4 Artistic, educational, scientific values
5 Place value 6 Heritage value 7 Sense of community 8 Social cohesion
1 Use values
Conscious use and enjoyment of es
• Direct use
o Extractive / Consumptive – provisioning ES
o extractive / Non-consumptive – cultural ES
• indirect use o Regulating ES
• option values
o Potential future direct and indirect uses of ES
2 Non-use values
satisfaction from the knowledge that BD and es are maintained and that other people have or will have access to them
• existence values
• Altruist values (intra-generational equity)
• Bequest values (inter-generational equity)
Source: Compiled based on Gómez-Baggethun et al. 2014.
42 The Finnish Environment 1en | 2015
Ecological values often refer to ecosystem func-tions, processes and components, which can be mapped by using a variety of biophysical mapping methods, for example. Ideally, these methods are based on quantitative assessments. When empiri-cal quantitative data is scarce or unavailable, proxy or surrogate data, and/or expert and stakeholder judgments may also be relied on. Surrogates should be analyzed carefully and treated with caution in order to avoid faulty conclusions. For example, rich biodiversity or high level of supply of one eco-system service does not necessarily indicate high supply of all ecosystem services (Egoh et al. 2008).
However, using for example an area of different forest types as spatial surrogates for mapping the variation in wild berry production can produce plausible results (Maes et al. 2014).
If biophysical measures are used as a basis for valuation mapping, they need to be related to some type of societal importance as well as converted in-to constructed scales of importance for a particular purpose (Gómez-Baggethun et al. 2014). Examples of such valuation mapping methods comprise for example supply, demand, and budgets of ecosys-tem service provision based on score matrices of land use and land cover classes (e.g. Burkhard et al. 2009, Burkhard et al. 2012) or of biotope classes (Vihervaara et al. 2012). Instead of just one spatial dataset like land cover, a wide variety of spatial datasets can be deployed along with scientific expert and local stakeholder scorings for assess-ing spatial variation in the provision potential of ecosystem services over the landscape. The Green-Frame method using this approach is presented as an example of non-monetary valuation mapping methods in Section 4.2 (Kopperoinen et al. 2014).
Ecological valuation mapping can also be based on (predominantly) quantitative biophysical mod-els, which valuate the ecosystems, for example, based on their capacity to regulate local climate or sequestrate carbon (e.g. Bastian et al. 2012), with several examples in Kareiva et al. (2011)).
In sociocultural valuation mapping, the focus is on the importance, preferences, needs or demands on nature, expressed by people or groups of people, and the plural values (i.e. valuing something for several reasons), through a variety of qualitative and quantitative measures (Chan et al. 2012). The diversity of sociocultural valuation methodologies is presented in Figure 4.1.1. When a spatial extent is added to these valuation methodologies, they are also often referred to as demand mapping.
Sociocultural values are difficult – or impossible – to map based on biophysical parameters only.
Acknowledging this problem, participatory map-ping methodologies and, for example, photo-based methods have been developed to capture the val-ues (Milcu et al. 2013).
Participatory mapping methods (including PPGIS: public participatory GIS) comprise In-ternet-based surveys, interviews, surveys, focus groups, citizens’ juries, community or group pro-cess mapping, and modelling from participatory mapping of landscape values (Brown, 2013, Kyt-tä & Kahila 2011, KytKyt-tä et al. 2013, Kelemen et al.
2014). These methods provide systematic identi-fication and measurement of values based on lo-cal ecologilo-cal knowledge and people’s experien-tial values, which are seen critical in developing place-based solutions to societal problems such as biodiversity loss, and in supporting robust and adaptive socioecological systems and expanding public participation and community consultation (Raymond et al. 2009, Brown 2013).
Some examples of sociocultural valuation mapping tools that are publicly available are listed below.
• Tools for collecting citizen knowledge for bringing together resident insight and plan-ning expertise, for example Maptionnaire (http://maptionnaire.com/en/) and Harava (https://www.eharava.fi/en/).
• SolVES model (Social Values for Ecosystem Services) (http://solves.cr.usgs.gov/) provi-des functionality to assess, map, and quantify social values such as aesthetics, biodiversity and recreation by deriving social value maps of a 10-point Value Index from a combination of spatial and non-spatial responses to stake-holder attitude and preference surveys. It also calculates metrics characterizing the under-lying environment, such as average distance to water and dominant land cover. (Sherrouse
& Semmens 2012)
Integrated valuation represents the idea of appreci-ating plural values, which can however be difficult to compare with each other or cannot be measured using commensurable metrics. In integrated valua-tion these various values – ecological, sociocultural and monetary – are integrated in a consistent way to support decision-making (Gómez-Baggethun et al. 2014). Trade-offs and conflicts as well as power relations between values are presented. This re-quires inter-disciplinarity, trans-disciplinarity and methodological pluralism (Norgaard 1989).
4.1.2