Ecological Economics 86 (2013) 274–284
Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect
Ecological Economics
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolecon
Ecosystem services as technology of globalization: On articulating values in urban nature
Henrik Ernstson a, c,⁎, Sverker Sörlin b, c
a
b
c
African Centre for Cities, University of Cape Town, Upper Campus, Pvt Bag X3, 7701 Rondebosch, Cape Town, South Africa
Division of History of Science, Technology and Environment, Royal Institute of Technology, SE-100 44 Stockholm, Sweden
Stockholm Resilience Centre, Stockholm University, SE-106 91 Stockholm, Sweden
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history:
Received 6 February 2012
Received in revised form 20 August 2012
Accepted 6 September 2012
Available online 16 November 2012
Keywords:
Urban nature protection
Postpolitical
New Public Management (NPM)
Actor-Network Theory (ANT)
The Economics of Ecosystems and
Biodiversity (TEEB)
ICLEI—Local Governments for Sustainability
a b s t r a c t
The paper demonstrates how ecosystem services can be viewed and studied as a social practice of value articulation. With this follows that when ecosystem services appear as objects of calculated value in decision-making they
are already tainted by the social and cannot be viewed as merely reflecting an objective biophysical reality. Using
urban case studies of place-based struggles in Stockholm and Cape Town, we demonstrate how values are relationally constructed through social practice. The same analysis is applied on ecosystem services. Of special interest
is the TEEB Manual that uses a consultancy report on the economic evaluation of Cape Town's ‘natural assets’ to
describe a step-by-step method to catalog, quantify and price certain aspects of urban nature. The Manual strives
to turn the ecosystem services approach into a transportable method, capable of objectively measuring the
values of urban nature everywhere, in all cities in the world. With its gesture of being universal and objective,
the article suggests that the ecosystem services approach is a technology of globalization that de-historicizes
and de-ecologizes debates on urbanized ecologies, effectively silencing other—and often marginalized—ways of
knowing and valuing. The paper inscribes ecosystem services as social practice, as part of historical process, and
as inherently political. A call is made for critical ethnographies of how ecosystem services and urban sustainability
indicators are put into use to change local decision-making while manufacturing global expertise.
© 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
“You cannot manage what you do not measure.”
The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB), http://
www.teebweb.org/, January 15, 2012.
“Everything is politics.”
Thomas Mann, The Magic Mountain, 1924.
1. Introduction
Rather than as a signifier of objective value, when ecosystem services are studied as one of several social practices of value articulation,
they are opened towards debate and contestation on how to value nature and ecological complexity. This article focuses on such practices
and uses the urban landscape as the quintessential place for such elaboration. Indeed, as cities continue to grow in size and numbers, increasing intellectual energies have been mobilized to develop analytical and
policy tools that can be used to sensitize urban decision-making to complex biophysical processes. Alongside parks, greenbelts, urban gardens
and areas of food production, with a history going back decades and
Abbreviations: ANT, Actor-Network Theory; ESS, Ecosystem services; MA, Millennium Ecosystem Assessment; NPM, New Public Management; ICLE, ICLEI—Local Governments for Sustainabilitity; TEEB, The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity.
⁎ Corresponding author at: African Centre for Cities, University of Cape Town, Upper
Campus, Pvt Bag X3, 7701 Rondebosch, Cape Town, South Africa. Tel.: +27 216505903,
+27 790824332 (Mobile); fax: +46 216502032.
E-mail addresses: henrik.ernstson@uct.ac.za (H. Ernstson), sorlin@kth.se (S. Sörlin).
0921-8009/$ – see front matter © 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.09.012
in some cases centuries (Barthel et al., 2010), there have in recent
years been an upsurge of initiatives such as green dispersal corridors
(Tannier et al., 2012), urban nature reserves (Borgström, 2009), and
urban biospheres (Alfsen-Norodom, 2004), building explicitly on ecological knowledge. In this plethora of urban nature protection initiatives
there has also been a growing interest in economic approaches, prominently that centered on ecosystem services, below ESS. ESS has been described as the biophysical processes that benefit society and human
well-being (Daily, 1997; MA, 2005) and there is considerable expectation that an ESS approach1 to the economics and management of
1
We will use the expression ‘ESS approach’ when we refer to the integrated project of
using the idea and concept of ecosystem services for a designated application. This means
that we include the underlying scientific thinking, largely derived from ecology and economics (and ecological economics), related concepts, methodologies, principles as well as texts,
documents, websites which codify these ideas and principles, the institutions and organizations set up to promote and implement them, including research institutions, designated educational programs, emerging consultancies, and, notably, the practices of researching, using,
and applying ESS and the practitioners that are involved in this by now quite major undertaking. This admittedly wide definition has been chosen in order to include both the ideas—in
the case of ESS we might even talk of an ideology, a certain belief-system to which we will
return below—the institutions, and the practitioners. This is in some distinction from previous analyses which has talked about the ESS ‘framework’ (Norgaard, 2010) which is similar
but in our view signifies a somewhat more static, readymade structure of institutions and
principles. Our take on this is that the ESS approach is dynamic and plastic, evolves quickly
and will continue to do so. Evidently our concept, the ESS approach, subsumes under it
‘ecosystem goods and services’ (MA, 2005) and methodologies like Total Economic Value
(TEV) and Integrated Valuation of Ecosystem Services and Tradeoffs (InVEST; Daily et al.,
2009) as methods for economic evaluation of ecosystems.
H. Ernstson, S. Sörlin / Ecological Economics 86 (2013) 274–284
space and resources will be able to significantly enhance the potential
for nature protection and sustainability in cities and urban regions
(Bolund and Hunhammar, 1999; Elmqvist and Maltby, 2010; Ring et
al., 2010; TEEB, 2010).
However, there are also indications that this might not be the case
and the literature that expresses concern with the ESS approach has
been growing considerably over the last few years, not least in this journal (see below). We are at present in a situation when it has become increasingly urgent, therefore, to analyze the ESS approach. How can we
understand its appeal in discussions of urban green planning and how
shall we regard its potential function in the ongoing quest for urban sustainability? This paper aims to contribute to a timely and critical reflection upon the concept of ecosystem services and the academic and
political project in which it has been embedded.
ESS has made a rapid career as a concept and in urban sustainability
discourse. It started as a heuristic metaphor, alluding to a difficulty to
operationalize and elusive, still essentially economic value. However,
since the late 1990s, there has been a gradual turn towards a framework
for defining ‘value of nature’, with quantification and pricing as a standard practice of what became increasingly referred to as ecosystem services (early publications are Costanza et al., 1997; Jansson and
Nohrstedt, 2001; and now a dedicated journal exist called Ecosystem
Services). Why the concept became ecosystem services is not entirely
clear—‘nature's services’ was used still in the late 1990s (Daily, 1997)—
although it certainly reflected the hegemonic role of ecologists,
and of environmental and ecological economics, in the ESS approach,
despite the fact that the range of services go far beyond ecological
expertise, for example productive soils or clean water (clearly the
expertise of soil scientists, agronomists, hydrologists, biogeochemical
experts, etcetera), not to speak of ‘cultural ecosystem services’ including
aesthetic appreciation and spiritual experience.
This transition from metaphor to operationalized and institutionalized framework, which has been presented in the ESS approach as a
science-based development, is crucial for the understanding of ESS in
current urban decision-making. One of the key points in this article is
to demonstrate that when ecosystem services appear as objects of calculated value—guided by the ambition to attain influence in decisionmaking—they cannot be viewed as reflecting an objective biophysical
reality, but should be understood and researched as a social practice
to articulate value. Indeed, we aim to show how ecosystem services
are socially and culturally embedded, and how they can be researched
as such. This is done in three steps. After having reviewed the growth
and critique of ESS, we first demonstrate how the ESS approach can
be viewed as one among several ways to articulate value in urban environments. We here position the ESS approach against a backdrop of literature on urban contestations over green space. Through case studies
of place-based struggles we describe other practices of value articulation, animated by local, or in-place ways of knowing and valuing. We
then apply the same analysis on the ESS approach, showing how this
type of value articulation is distinct through its gesture of being quantitative, universal, objective, and science-based. In a third step, we strive
to account for the emergence and function of the ESS approach in contemporary discourse on urban sustainability by interpreting the ESS approach within recent processes of globalization, drawing in particular
on the literature on new public management (NPM). Most commentators would have it that the increasing use of ESS is due to an ecological
crisis and a perceived need to handle complexity. We argue that an
often overshadowed reason lies in that the ESS approach simply fits
well with a different type of change, namely a particular transformation
of governing over the last thirty years towards standardizing management and accountability. This transformation has matured within
other fields of governing (e.g. water billing, medical care, and even library services) and now finds a partner in the ESS approach to include,
within its realm, the governing of ecological complexity. Thus, the
paper's main contribution lies in showing how ESS can be viewed and
researched as a relational practice to articulate value, and how the ESS
275
approach is part of globalization, embedded in a wider historical and
political process of change in governing. In conclusion, we suggest certain effects that the ESS approach brings, and how those could be
researched. Throughout we will use some conceptual tools derived
from Science and Technology Studies literature, and its use of
actor-network theory (Latour, 2005; Law, 2009; Sismondo, 2004).
2. Emergence and Growth of ESS
Although the idea of economically beneficial services in nature is in
itself more than a century old, used frequently among the first generation of nature conservationists who quickly learned that money was a
convincing argument (Barrow and Mark, 2009), ESS (or nature's services) as a concept was coined only in the 1970s (Westman, 1977). It
generated emerging interest in the 1980s and saw a rapid increase in
usage in the following decades (Norgaard, in press). Since the middle
of the 1990s there has been an exponential use of the concept in wide
strands of ecological, resilience, landscape, and planning literatures,
and since the late 1990s increasingly also in urban research (Bolund
and Hunhammar, 1999) (Fig. 1).2
Early attempts to operationalize the ESS concept were carried out by
prominent ecological economists, aided by ecologists, and were focused
on estimating through a kind of thought experiments or simulations
what the economic value of a given ecosystem service might be, with
the manifest aim to solidify otherwise elusive or contested values. The
ambition was normative; through the language of economics, nature's
values should become less contested, better cared for and the lifesustaining properties of Earth maintained. These thought experiments
were, needless to say, both vague and conditioned on a number of unknown factors such as future supply and demand, regional scales, available technologies, etcetera. They were also provided on any given scale,
from the local, which were the most common, to the global, where
nothing less than the ‘economic value’ of the entire bio-productive capacity of the world was heroically (and controversially; see e.g. Sagoff,
1997; Nature, 1998; Bockstael et al., 2000; WSTB, 2004) calculated (to
be a minimum of 33 and up to 65 trillion US dollars; Costanza et al.,
1997). The normative motivations were explicitly stated already in
the introductory chapter of Gretchen Daily's pioneering collection
Nature's Services (Daily, 1997) and has become a core message in the
now formalized attempts to mainstream ESS as a principal means to
safeguard preservation of nature and human well-being through highpowered initiatives like The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, sponsored by United Nations (MA, 2005), The Natural Capital Project, sponsored by Stanford University, The Nature Conservancy and the World
Wildlife Fund (Daily et al., 2009), and The Economics of Ecosystems
and Biodiversity initiative (TEEB), hosted by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP; Ring et al., 2010)3. This has included
2
For search string (a) on ‘ecosystem services’ the number of articles found was 3
820 of which top scoring institutions were the Chinese Academy of Science (with
102 articles), Stanford University (100), Wageningen University (99), and Stockholm
University (90). Most articles were published in Ecological Economics (231), followed
by Shengtai Xuebao Acta Ecologica (112). For search string (b) on ‘urban ecosystem
services’, 449 articles were found with top scoring institutions being Chinese Academy
of Science (42; including Research Centre for Eco-Environmental Science), Beijing
Normal University (18), and Stockholm University (17), with most articles published
in Shengtai Xuebao Acta Ecologica (37) and Landscape and Urban Planning (22). Of
all records found, only those recognized as peer-reviewed articles and reviews were
used, leaving out for instance conference proceedings.
3
The aim to mainstream the ESS approach is stated in many documents. For instance,
as stated boldly in the multi-authored article in Frontiers in Ecology, lead by ecologist
Gretchen Daily and ecological economist Stephen Polasky: “The goal of the Natural Capital
Project—a partnership between Stanford University, The Nature Conservancy, and World
Wildlife Fund (www.naturalcapitalproject.org)—is to help integrate ecosystem services
into everyday decision making around the world. This requires turning the valuation of
ecosystem services into effective policy and finance mechanisms—a problem that, as
yet, no one has solved on a large scale.” (Daily et al., 2009: 21). The project is “developing
a software system for quantifying ecosystem services across land- and seascapes, called
inVEST” that “uses a flexible, modular, and ‘tiered’ modeling approach to ensure that the
models are useful world wide” (p. 22).
276
H. Ernstson, S. Sörlin / Ecological Economics 86 (2013) 274–284
Number of peer-reviewed artcles
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
20
11
20
12
19
89
19
90
19
91
19
92
19
93
19
94
19
95
19
96
19
97
19
98
19
99
20
00
20
01
20
02
20
03
20
04
20
05
20
06
20
07
20
08
20
09
20
10
0
Number of peer-reviewed artcles
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
12
20
11
10
20
09
20
08
20
07
20
05
06
20
20
04
20
03
20
02
20
01
20
00
20
99
20
98
19
97
19
95
96
19
19
94
19
93
19
92
19
91
19
90
19
19
19
89
0
Fig. 1. The rapid growth of ecosystem services in academic literature. These figures indicate an increasing trend to use the concepts ‘ecosystem services’ and ‘urban ecosystem services’. Articles were found by searching all published peer-reviewed publications in the SCOPUS SciVerse database up to 2011. The following search strings were used to find
matches in all titles, abstracts and keywords: (a) “ecosystem services”; and (b) “ecosystem services” and (“urban” or “city”), including singular and plural of these words. More
descriptive data in footnote 2.
urban areas with the publication of a TEEB Manual for Cities—instigated
by ICLEI being a world-spanning organization gathering 1220 member
cities—that declares that the use of ESS will help cities “to make some
very positive changes, saving on municipal costs, boosting local economies, enhancing quality of life and securing livelihoods” (TEEB, 2011: 1).
3. Emerging Critique of ESS
The substantial institutional backing has not prevented critique of
ESS, which can be grouped into a few major categories. One is conceptual and has to do with the skewed and biased view of the concept
‘service’. The ESS framework is selective; it does not acknowledge
‘disservices’ from nature. Wetlands do not only mitigate flooding, they
also attract mosquitoes giving rise to illness and nuisance. A second category of critique is about the lack of concern with equity, social diversity, and distribution. The ESS approach speaks of services as if they can
be valued uniformly, from an imaginative non-place devoid of history
and politics, whereas in reality the relative value of ESS are clearly different depending on location, income, livelihood, gender, culture, and
many other social and cultural factors. A third category of critique concerns the difficulties of measurability and comparability of ‘services’.
This is particularly apparent in what has been termed ‘cultural ecosystem services’, including aesthetic, spiritual, educational, and recreational values (MA, 2005: vi). It becomes a real problem of commensurability
to compare for instance the quantity of gaseous air pollution that urban
trees can remove to improve air quality and the symbolic dimensions of
(the same) trees to certain cultural or religious groups. A fourth type of
critique is to do with the presentist definition of services. The value in
economic terms of a range of ESS must vary over time. If value of
green space is calculated with the help of the tourist and film industry's
income (as in (TEEB, 2011)), and these industries have a downturn, by
implication the value of the ecosystem services will drop as well. In a
growing economy the value of most things, including ESS, will increase
with time but the rates of change in value of the different services cannot be predicted. Then, how should they rightly be valued today?
These are only a few out of a larger number of critical points that
have been raised against ESS over recent years. It has, for example
been noted that if there are few ESS, or if they are lowly valued, this
could function as a disincentive for nature protection. It has also been argued that an ESS framework risks “blindfolding” society of the complexity that make up the intricate relations between animals, plants,
chemical compounds and humans, as other (scientific) ways of knowing
complexity—for instance evolutionary theory or population theory—
cannot be coded into a “stock-flow” model of nature (Norgaard,
2010). Similarly, if the complex relations providing for benefits are hidden away for citizens, consumers and society, some worry that an ESS
approach, especially if monetized, will lead to “commodity fetishism”
(Kosoy and Corbera, 2010), which could additionally privilege single
or a few ESS while other dimensions of nature will be unduly disregarded. A more comprehensive critique argues that instead of enhancing nature's values, the ESS approach will degrade nature to the
mundane and crass reality of demand and supply consumerism
(Robertson, 2000, 2004, 2006), effectively becoming a vehicle to expand
capitalism into ecosystems (Castree, 2008a,b). An underlying theme of
H. Ernstson, S. Sörlin / Ecological Economics 86 (2013) 274–284
many, if not all, of these strands of critique is the concern with the
universalizing pretentions of the ESS approach, the assumed non-place
position from which a set of standardized methodologies can be
constructed and used for deducing ‘true’ values of ecosystems for any
place, or any city, anywhere, at any time.
Against the background of the profound critique, it seems necessary
to ask sincerely how we should understand ESS as a contemporary phenomenon, expanding rapidly in the scientific literature and, increasingly, making its way into science advice and real world policy for urban
regions around the world. Our way of doing this is to regard the ESS
approach as one of many processes through which value in nature has
been established. These can be thought of as processes of social
articulation of value (Ernstson and Sörlin, 2009; Sörlin, 1998, 1999),
emphasizing that values emerge and vary over time. In this perspective
values of nature, or ecosystems, are not, indeed cannot be, absolute or
given; rather, values are attributed to natural phenomena over time
and through historically traceable processes (Barthes, 1957 [1972];
Cronon, 1995; Sörlin and Warde, 2009). Articulation is an empirical
body of practices that is played out in e.g. science, media, policy, and
through the action of identifiable social actors that make use of technologies and artifacts to establish, or articulate values. This process is indeed social insofar as all processes through which value is established
are social which also means that they are empirically observable
through the study of society. Research on social processes of value articulation emerged in the 1990s as a way to deepen the understanding of
the formation of national parks, reserves and other forms of designated
areal nature protection (Pyne, 1998). It was founded on a long standing
geographical and historical literature (Fèbvre, 1922; Schama, 1995) and
the literature on the role of place and space in social memory
(Connerton, 1989; Halbwachs, 1992 [1952]; Nora, 1989), and important
contributions came from practical and theoretical work on landscape
restoration and constructed landscapes (Baldwin et al., 1993) and
from insights on the pluralism of resource management practices
worldwide (Ostrom, 1990). The research, carried out across the humanities, social sciences, and the environmental field sciences, resulted in
growing insights of the historically negotiated, constructed and contingent value of nature and its properties, which is necessary for understanding the highly varying attitudes to natural and environmental
phenomena in different societies in different time periods.
Essentially, we regard the ESS approach both in general and as it
has been presented for cities as one out of many practices of social articulation of value in nature and we attempt to understand it as such.
This is important to emphasize since it is assumed by its practitioners
and proponents, that values as determined through the ESS approach
are particularly important and useful since they are derived through
a putatively scientific method and will therefore be particularly useful in the governance of cities. To pursue our analysis we will understand the ESS approach itself as an empirical social phenomenon
with actors, interests, ambitions, tools and technologies that has
an emergence in time and with a historical trajectory and a possible
future.
4. Understanding Value Through Practices of Articulation: Urban
Cases of Nature Protection
A defining character of cities lies in the contested character of how
to use limited space. The allocation and use of space—for anything
from transport and sewage systems to housing, offices, and urban
parks—turn space itself into a commodity, which different actors
compete to use (Harvey, 1996; Lefebvre, 1991 [1974]). The social articulation of nature's values has been an emerging and integrated part
of this ongoing competition for space and also for the properties and
qualities of the urban. There is now a growing literature that can
demonstrate that natural—or to use anachronistic concepts, green,
or ecosystemic—properties of the urban fabric were significant in
the formation of cities for a very long time, possibly since cities
277
started to occur (Sinclair et al., 2010), and are now a rapidly
expanding feature of urban planning (e.g. Beatley, 2011; Mostafavi
and Dohert, 2010; Newman et al., 2009). In his historical analysis of
the San Francisco Bay Area from 1890 to the present, Walker (2007)
accounts for how the Bay Area's high ratio of urban green space for
farming, recreation, and nature preservation resulted from an active
civil society that contested short-sighted economic land-use. Ever
changing constellations of social groups and interests, including Sierra Club naturalists, suburban housewives, Berkeley architecture students, grassroots' movements, and the sprout of urban NGOs and
think tanks in the late 20th century, all contributed to enhancing
the perception of the Bay Area's nature as valuable.
What this growing literature on urban regions across the world
demonstrates very clearly is that the values of urban nature have
not just been out there, waiting to be discovered, or disappeared
with urban growth, but that they have been relationally constructed
through practices of value articulation (Ernstson and Sörlin, 2009;
Sörlin, 1998). The materiality of the city, including the ecological
functions constituted through it, can thus be viewed as historically
constituted by a series of place-based social negotiations and contestations. To get a closer view of how such relationally constructed
values emerge and stabilize, we present two case studies from Stockholm and Cape Town before we bring the same tools of analysis to
bear on the EES approach itself.
4.1. The National Urban Park in Stockholm
The protection of the Stockholm National Urban Park provides a
thoroughly researched empirical case (Barthel et al., 2005; Borgström
et al., 2006; Ernstson et al., 2010; Löfvenhaft et al., 2002; Lundberg et
al., 2008). A series of infrastructure and housing projects were proposed
in Stockholm in the late 1980s, prompting a set of activists to mobilize
civic organizations to resist these projects. By 1995 a 27 km 2 park
landscape had been protected as a National Urban Park. A key factor behind this success, apart from an efficient collaborative organizational
network structure (Ernstson, 2011; Ernstson et al., 2008), was the
construction of a protective narrative that helped to explain and legitimize the need for protection, and to build wider support within state institutions. In Ernstson and Sörlin (2009), we viewed this narrative as
not only textual, verbal, and visual, but also as material and spatial.
Our analysis demonstrated that as activists gathered, selected and organized certain artifacts that spoke about the values of the park landscape,
they came to stabilize (Latour, 1988) a new frame of thinking by which
the park landscape could be viewed, explained and valued.
The value articulation unfolded in an innovative and unpredictable
way and involved key elements of collaboration and collective learning.
While a civic ornithological association made a bird survey, university
scholars and civil servants were mobilized to perform complementary
habitat assessments, which in turn produced maps and scientific reports that activists could circulate to strengthen the notion that various
park areas were ecologically connected. This in turn demonstrated that
motorways, and a hotel conference center would disturb or destroy
local habitats for animals and hinder the movement of species across
the landscape. Both ecological and cultural properties of the park
could be combined to underpin the argument. History was essential.
Maps of an English park from the 18th century were found in the National Archives showing how marked ‘sight lines’ connected green
areas on both sides of a lake, and consequently that new buildings
would disturb intentions of the original landscape design. The old oak
tree stands, for instance, came to play a part in both these realms of
knowing; while contemporary biologists had produced reports that
showed that they were home to many endangered species, the oak
trees had also been preserved by the state-centered historical management of forests and parks since at least 200 years, with full royal ownership since 1540.
278
H. Ernstson, S. Sörlin / Ecological Economics 86 (2013) 274–284
Although early activists did not have any clear plan to start with, the
two broad scientific dimensions of conservation discourse, biology and
cultural history, were increasingly brought into coherence under what
became referred to as “The Ecopark” (Sw.: Ekoparken). A narrative,
emerging verbally and materially out of a relational practice of linking
different artifacts, spaces and organizations, was taken into social
arenas created by the activists—exhibitions, debate forums, op-ed articles, and Internet pages—or retold by journalists in newspapers, and
forming part of parliamentary bills and debates. This Ecopark Narrative
became a standardized part of speeches and small-talk, reaching new
audiences and mobilizing and uniting the more than 60 clubs and associations—from NGOs to outdoors-, riding, and boating clubs—that used
the park on a daily basis. Together, this integrated multi-layered practice of value articulation created a solid identity for what had previously
been viewed as separate and not terribly important park areas. In fact,
The Ecopark came out as a single park, with its distinct holistic values,
and in less than ten years the park went from insignificance to a parliamentary decision on the highest level of protection in the country.
4.2. The Princess Vlei in Cape town 4
A civic-led ecological rehabilitation at the Princess Vlei in Cape Town
provides another case of value articulation in an urban wetland and
green open space area (vlei means wetland). In August 2008 the project
called “The Dressing of the Princess” started as an extension of a civic-led
ecological rehabilitation project among residents at close by Bottom
Road (Ernstson, 2012). Soon after, an old plan to build a shopping center
at the Vlei resurfaced. While Stockholm National Urban Park bordered
highly affluent areas and could draw upon a royal past and scientific
reports to articulate values, Princess Vlei was considered as having the
lowest class of “wetland ecological importance” in the Cape Town Biodiversity Map (Laros, 2007, see Appendix C), and also “unsafe” with stories
of murders and criminal activities in the local press. However, in similarity to Stockholm, it was the coming together of various actor groups and
the interweaving of different stories—about biological rehabilitation,
slave legends, and memories of Apartheid-era oppression—that proved
instrumental for the relational construction of value at Princess Vlei.
First and foremost, and following lessons learnt at Bottom Road, the
project grew around the planting of fynbos species, an endemic plant
community to the Western Cape region. While Cape Town is heavily
marked by Apartheid-era segregation, the city is also a world-acclaimed
location for extreme plant diversity. This has gathered enormous
resources in state organizations like the Working for Water/Wetland
(Turpie et al., 2008). In collaboration with local and national authorities,
the project Dressing of the Princess managed to access machines and
low-paid workers for landscaping, removing of “alien” species, and
planting indigenous fynbos species, and also involve school classes to
"adopt-a-plot". The practice aimed to articulate the Princess Vlei as a suitable space for biological rehabilitation; that fynbos could grow and be
protected also at so called non-protected and degraded sites in historically marginalized areas of Cape Town (Ernstson, 2012).
Just as in the Stockholm case, culture, history and narrative proved
to be of crucial importance. An old myth about the aboriginal Khoi
people started to circulate, arguably told by slaves since the arrival
of the Dutch to the Cape in 1652. Among those most active in the project, and who referred to themselves as being Cape Coloureds (some
claiming Khoi descent), held that the story had always been around.
The legend tells of how European sailors had raped and killed a
“Khoi Princess” over 500 years ago up in the Elephant's Eye Cave,
and that her tears had flowed down the mountain to fill up the
4
The methodology for this case study is described in Ernstson (2012) and is based on
extensive participatory observations in Cape Town between 2008 and 2011, following
the logic of ethnographic and historical work as described in actor-network theory, ANT
(see Latour, 2005: 133–135).
Princess Vlei. 5 Through circulating this legend—soon to be taken up
in both local and national press (Groenewald, 2009; Kotze, 2011;
Pitt and Boull, 2009)—the growing fynbos, and the project's name,
the Dressing of the Princess, received a layered meaning with emotive
powers to mobilize people and organizations far beyond Grassy Park.
Indeed, protest lists in 2009 gathered 2200 signatures, and an objection letter day in 2010 had up to 24 different postal addresses, most
from areas that during Apartheid was classified for “Coloureds”, but
also from previously “White” classified areas.
The practice of arranging objection letter days at the Vlei worked
furthermore as a vehicle for articulating the significance of Princess
Vlei. Visitors expressed in writing how Princess Vlei was a cherished
recreational place during Apartheid for especially Cape Coloureds;
one reason for this being that most coastal beaches had been classified for “Whites only”, turning the shore of the Vlei into a venue for
barbeques and celebrations among primarily the Cape Coloured community. With the objection letters and intensifying resistance, a wider
scale of the articulation process was in the making, and after two years,
a partnership of civic organizations had been consolidated. The result
was evident in November 2011 when a City committee on spatial planning, which three years earlier had arrived at supporting the building
of the shopping center, now made a U-turn, urging the City not to support the development. In their public report (Spelum, 2011a: 37–39,b),
which was referenced in the press and on civic associations' websites,
many of the arguments were those that had been relationally stabilized
over time, in and through Princess Vlei, its plants, and its supporters.
Khoi heritage had entered their reasoning, alongside the possibility to
ecologically rehabilitate fynbos and wetland ecological functions.6
5. The ESS Approach — The Globalization of Urban Ecosystems
What the cases above demonstrate, with admittedly almost stylized clarity, is that ‘nature's values’ is a socially defined category. 7
We can see, almost step by step, how they emerge and become
realized in relational processes and require social articulation to become perceived and stabilized, which in turn impacts on how they
are treated and acknowledged in procedural decision-making, or indeed moves them from having, as it were, no value at all to become
part thereof. The role of knowledge is crucial in both cases, both local
knowledge and expert knowledge from scholars, scientists, architects,
planners, although the articulation also involves artists, designers, policy makers, and the media. The formation of the San Francisco Bay Area's
rich tapestry of green urban space with its acclaimed values testifies to
similar processes (Walker, 2007). These are recent case studies from
only three, albeit major urban regions, but the urban studies literature
5
In the fieldwork for this case study, the first author recorded variations of this legend.
A written account holds for instance that the Princess was never killed, but “abducted”
and taken on a ship and that a rain, which fell shortly after at the nearby Little Princess
Vlei, was interpreted as being the tears of the abducted Princess (Burman, 1962). Others
have claimed that the Khoi never had princesses at all. What remains though, is a strong
and emotive legend, which has existed for a long time and that now has worked to mobilize civic associations and media.
6
In April 2012 the Western Cape Province decided to override the decision taken by
the City of Cape Town and allow the building of the shopping center. This intensified resistance into the formation of the Princess Vlei Forum, gathering also faith based organizations, small business holders, hip hop artists and designers. Civic associations have
responded by developing a ‘Peoples Plan for Princess Vlei’, and a court case is being prepared in wait of a final decision.
7
As shown by our analysis of social articulation in these cases, we refer to the social in the
Latourian or ANT sense, as also consisting of things, artifacts, and nonhumans that participate with humans in producing, or making possible ‘social’ processes (e.g. Latour, 2005).
This re-assembling of the social is also referred to as sociomateriality, socionature, hybrids,
or cyborgs (Castree and Braun, 2001; Swyngedouw, 1996). Indeed, Ernstson (2013) refers
to ecosystem services as contested hybrids to emphasize that for ecosystem services to exist
in decision-making, or in the public arena, it is required a great deal of work to negotiate or
stabilize relations between humans, things and biophysical processes. Certain values will be
articulated through these performative hybrids, other values will not. All forms of value articulation can be analyzed as hybrids, using ANT.
H. Ernstson, S. Sörlin / Ecological Economics 86 (2013) 274–284
contains similar examples that can be analyzed with the same conceptual and analytical instruments that we have used here (other examples, see e.g. Diani, 1995; Mitchell, 1995).
At first glance the ESS approach, with its standardized methods and
science-imbued language, will seem totally different from these complex, on the ground, social processes of articulation that are socially pluralistic but also interest driven and purpose oriented. To begin with,
social processes and collective action do not figure in the selfunderstanding of the ESS approach. A review of the urban ESS literature
demonstrates, on the contrary, that these other, clearly important forms
of value articulation and defense of urban nature play little if any role in
ESS thinking. There is hardly any mention of alternative ways of
protecting or regarding nature, neither in TEEB's manifesto-like article
from 2010 (Ring et al., 2010), nor in the TEEB Manual for Cities (TEEB,
2011). The Natural Capital Project (Daily et al., 2009: 21–22) states
firmly “ecosystem services must be explicitly and systematically integrated into decision making… Without these advances, the value of
nature will remain little more than an interesting idea, represented in
scattered, local, and idiosyncratic efforts.” Ring et al. (2010: 1) write:
“A major reason for the decline of ecosystem services is that their true
values are not taken into consideration in economic decision making”
(our italics). This is reiterated in the TEEB Manual for Cities, which
talks of ‘stakeholders’ and ‘decision-makers’ and how these should all
be made more aware of the true values of ecosystems, using quantification and ultimately money as the fundamental unit of translation of
complex values into a single currency, in terms of: ‘cost benefit analysis’
and ‘monetized benefits’, all translated into a ‘single matrix’ (TEEB,
2011: 26). What these ‘stakeholders’ already do and did in the past to
defend and articulate the value of urban nature is, in reality, nullified.
The relative value or merit of proceeding along other lines than those
prescribed in the TEEB Manual for Cities is not considered, which casts
doubt on its usefulness; how could it be proven best practice, which is
the claim it makes, if alternative value articulation is not evaluated?
The self-privileging of the ESS approach warrants scrutiny. When
examined in sharp detail, it too comes across as no less interest driven
and purpose oriented than actors in other social processes. In the following, we shall attempt to show that the ESS approach in its universalizing language and methodology belongs in a wider family of
phenomena that have emerged over the last few decades and that are
characterized by concepts such as globalization, mainstreaming and
‘New Public Management’. This should come as no surprise since a
unifying language, using economics and monetization, are key features
of these and it would seem odd if one did not find similar globalizing
tendencies in nature preservation as one has seen in other policy
areas. Yet, so far, very little research has been done on understanding
the economic valuation of ecosystems as part of globalization.
5.1. The Ecosystem Services Approach in Practice
The growing literature on ESS (Fig. 1) can be used to characterize
how the ESS approach is also a social practice of value articulation.
Here we pick three studies, chosen as stylized but representative versions of the whole genre, and because they aim to establish values in
Stockholm and Cape Town. These practices in many ways resemble
scientific practices, although they depart from conventional science
in the essential sense that they are used to establish value.
Working at Stockholm University, systems ecologists Jansson and
Nohrstedt (2001) quantified the value of how trees in Stockholm
County—mainly Norway spruce and Scots pine—accumulate carbon
emissions from traffic and other activities by “the county population”.
They first extracted data from the Swedish Statistical Yearbook of
Forestry 1999, which had recorded forest growth within Stockholm
County from 1993 to 1997. By referencing forest scientists, they used a
factor to multiply the Yearbook-number to attain “carbon accumulation”.
Similar arithmetic was repeated for the county's wetlands, lakes and forest soil. They then used statistics from the Stockholm municipality to
279
estimate total “anthropogenic CO2 emissions” in the county, including
emissions from traffic. Thus, in pulling together Yearbook data, previous
forest science studies, and basic arithmetic, they concluded—or articulated—that the “Stockholm County ecosystems can potentially accumulate
about 41% of the CO2 generated by traffic [within the county]”, of which
trees accumulate 31% (Jansson and Nohrstedt, 2001: 361).
Similarly, Hougner et al. (2006), located at the Beijer Institute of Ecological Economics in Stockholm, assembled bird count data, Swedish
labor salaries, and expert-opinions to calculate the monetary value of
how Eurasian jaybirds support the regrowth of oak trees in the Stockholm
National Urban Park. Citing scientific papers, they make the case that jays,
in hiding their food for later, dig down between 4500 and 11,000 acorns
per year. However, some 63% are never consumed, standing a fifty–fifty
chance, according to a local forester, to sprout and grow. Using a “replacement cost” method, and based on one biologist's count that there are 84
jays in the park, they make a thought experiment—to substitute the
“seed dispersal service” of the jays, with salaried humans digging down
acorns. They estimate that the human labor costs would be 1.5 million
SEK (USD 210,000) over 14 years, or that the replacement cost “per pair
of jays in the park is SEK 35,000 (USD 4900) [over 14 years]” (p. 364).
The oak seeding value of a jay is estimated to 175 US dollars per year.
The figure is, however, far from exact (even if you accept the method).
Assumptions abound, especially when calculating the likely number of
adult oak trees that have been dispersed by jays (and not through other
means), i.e. to gauge the effectiveness of the jays' planting method.
There is frequent referencing to “personal communication”, from foresters and managers that provided ballpark figures for some variables in
the authors' equations. Thus, the purportedly universal non-place from
which the ESS approach aims to speak, is—just like other value articulating practices—highly embedded in social and place-specific relations.
One of the most comprehensive attempts to showcase monetary
values of ecosystem services for an entire urban region, is the policyoriented "TEEB Manual for Cities: Ecosystem Services in Urban Management" (TEEB, 2011), which deploys a case study of Cape Town to describe
general principles—or step-by-step methods—on how to quantify and
evaluate biological diversity and ecosystems for any city.8 The Manual
builds on a report by consultants commissioned by the City of Cape
Town's Department of Environmental Management to build a "business
case" for investment in Cape Town's “natural assets" including "land,
coast, biota, atmosphere and water bodies” (de Wit et al., 2009: 1; see
also de Wit et al., in press). Pressed to claim sufficient funds in the City
budget, the report targeted the city's departments and leading politicians,
in particular the department of budget and finance. The Manual is a prime
example of the ESS approach, which is why we use it here, along with the
fact that it is sponsored by the international TEEB initiative—especially
their report for local and regional decision-makers (TEEB, 2010)—with institutional backing from UNEP. The Manual is furthermore aimed to be
read by many civil servants and decision-makers, presented as such at
Rio+20 in 2012, which further prompts an examination of how it is written, and why.
Firstly, the reader of both the Report and the Manual cannot but be
perplexed by the odd history of Cape Town that is presented here. The
city's unequal geography—one of the most extreme in the world
(OECD, 2008)—and its Apartheid history and legacy, is more or less
completely lacking from the accounts. The evaluation is also not situated in relation to the massive population growth of the city, the increase
in economic turnover, the growth of tourism and business, or its increasing ecological footprint, during the last 50–100 years (OECD,
2008). While the city and its nature come out as dehistoricized and
decontextualized—perhaps as a way to better serve as an example for
8
Three interviews with involved persons were made in Cape Town in January 2012
to support our interpretation of these documents; with a civil servant at the Department of Environmental Management, a consultant involved in writing the Report,
and a representative of ICLEI involved in writing the Manual.
280
H. Ernstson, S. Sörlin / Ecological Economics 86 (2013) 274–284
other cities—it is precisely urban growth that will come to enhance the
economic value of nature through the methods of evaluation used.
The argument in the Report, and repeated in the Manual, is straightforward: given the high plant diversity of the Western Cape, there has
been massive loss of biodiversity and other environmental values in
Cape Town's past. Better methods are needed since those that have
been used seem to have failed. The environment has been taken for
“free”, leading logically to the development of a “business case” for the
environment to protect it better (de Wit et al., 2009: iv). The first and fundamental step is therefore to translate nature's values into a strictly economic language that can fit budget discussions. This reasoning portrayed
the ESS approach as crucial—in fact the only method available—for turning the tide of environmental destruction in Cape Town.
The Report outlines the advantages of the ESS approach carefully
and proceeds in a comprehensive way to quantify ESS in Cape Town.
This was based on a process of workshops with various city departments aimed to reach consensus on which ESS to focus on, and which
methods of economic evaluation to use, a process that spanned over a
year and a half. The Manual, paying scant attention to the long process
of workshops, uses the Cape Town case study to present “The TEEB
Stepwise Approach”, a step-by-step method developed previously by
TEEB (TEEB, 2010; Appendix A). In spite referring to “local context”
and that “the reader can formulate an idea of how to approach the relevant step in each specific context” (p. 11), the Manual brings out the
ESS approach as a panacea for stopping continued destruction of ecosystems. Its ability to serve as such rests on its purported capacity to
on one hand simplify society into stakeholders, and on the other, to
translate complex natural and cultural phenomena into separated ecosystem services, quantified and prized, regardless of context.
In the Manual, this objectification and commodification of nature is
most striking when it is applied to what is called “cultural ecosystem
services”. The Manual's authors cite a number of sources in support of
their claims. One is a review article on studies of monetary value of
green space in cities in China and the USA (cited as Elmqvist et al.
2011, still unpublished), where the combined recreation and health
effects were calculated at an average of 30,000 USD per hectare of
green space per year (p. 4). Preserved coral reefs used by tourism
in Hawaii, it is claimed, are worth 97 million USD per year (citing
Beukering and Caesar 2010) (p. 4). Where there is a chance, aesthetic
and other properties of urban landscapes (although never the built environment) are transformed into economic opportunities. Water and
other “natural features” are mentioned in relation to income from tourism and leisure (p. 10). Where landscapes are built, they could be turned
back to some original state, again with a profit. Ecological restoration may
result it is claimed, in an “increase in adjacent property prices” (p. 15). The
Manual goes on to mention a wide range of human activities where nature plays a role—art, religious practice, recreation, sports—and where
its role in the activities can be given economic value, “despite difficulties
of measurement” (p. 4). That these dimensions are at all included
among ecosystem services may seem odd — if the entire planet is
painted by an artist it will somehow become a service — but the entire
ESS approach should by no means be regarded as haphazard, it is claimed:
the “comprehensive list of ecosystem services … is based on science”
(p. 19).
Although various methods for economic evaluation are briefly
described—from “simple” to “very complex” (p. 22)—one stylized method used in Cape Town was to let recognized economic activities rub some
of its economic value onto the ‘natural assets’ be that scenic, coastal, recreational or biodiverse areas. The economic activity purportedly rubbing
off most of its value was tourism, but also the film and advertising industry, alongside rich people buying expensive property on the coast and
mountainsides (and then paying municipal levies). Another method
was to calculate the replacement cost of the infrastructure function that
a certain piece of ecosystem provides, be that wetlands, sand dunes or
coastal features. Both techniques is a way of solving the problem—
inherent to the method—that there are no actual markets of ESS, so
these are constructed by the authors in a thought experiment to deduce
value.
In summary, by digging out city statistics, cleaning the data, and
asking for expert advice (for instance, asking "film and advertising industry role players" how much of the total industrial film expenditures is due to Cape Town's natural beauty and scenery (de Wit et
al., 2009: 130)), the Report and Manual conclude for Cape Town:
that tourists travel here “as a result of the attraction of natural features”
to the value of 137–418 million USD per year; “local recreational
values” amasses 58–70 million USD per year; film industry expenditure
“ascribable to natural asset locations” reaches 18.8–56.4 million USD
per year; natural hazard regulation is worth 0.65–8.6 USD million per
year etc. etc. In triumphantly bringing these figures together, the ‘business case’ is made that to bring 1 South African Rand (ZAR) of benefit to
the City, only 16 cents are needed to be spent on “Cape Town's natural
capital assets”, “compared to between ZAR2 and ZAR5 for investments
in water supply infrastructure” (TEEB, 2011: 26).
5.2. Technologies of Globalization
The practices of the ESS approach are universalizing and totalizing.
The studies cited, often with reference to articles in science journals
or consultancy reports from around the world, are presented as providing evidence of a quantifiable value, often a monetary value, and when
no such value is identifiable, it is suggested that with more developed
methodology, it will be some day (Ring et al., 2010). These practices
avoid locality, process, social anchoring, and history in order to suggest
universality and comparability of value, gestured to better assist in taking the ‘right’ choices in decision-making. We interpret this as a distancing from the social, although of course the ESS approach is itself social.
The ESS approach, taken as an integrated whole, can be seen as a
technology whereby the articulation of values in urban nature is
conducted in a way that is seemingly not reducible to the views or actions of local people or individual events, nor to the personal views of
ecologists or economists, but possible to identify scientifically. Thus,
the overall ambition seems to be to disconnect the value of urban ecosystems from the realm of social affairs, human shortcomings, and social conflict, in one word: the polity. As such, the ESS approach shares
many features with other phenomena that since the 1980s have
marked the era called globalization (Beck, 1997; Castells, 1996; Falk,
1999; Held and McGrew, 2007; Sassen, 1998). Similar approaches to
societal steering—or governance—have been used in economic recovery programs in the former Communist states and in IMF and World
Bank Programs for development of the global South. They have also
been applied in reform programs to turn around economies and governmental management systems in Europe and other parts of the industrialized world. More commonly these have been summarized
under concepts such as ‘managerialism’ or New Public Management,
introduced originally as an attempt to increase efficiency in public
administration, but which has also been given at least partly ideologically (neo-conservative or neo-liberal) interpretations (Pollitt and
Bourckaert, 2011, Kjaer, 2004: Ch. 2).
Among the commonly accepted components of globalization, we
will here emphasize two. One is the intensification of contacts and communication between all parts of the world, i.e. making the world smaller
and increasing the sense of simultaneity. The second is to make the different parts of the world more like each other, reducing or leveling local
ecological, cultural and social diversity. A globalized similarity needs a
common language that has often been economics, which is why globalization is also conspicuously a spread of markets and a market logic into
regions and social spheres where this logic was not (so) present in the
past. Most reforms in public management since the early 1980s, for example, tend to reduce complexity and seek readily quantifiable and accountable outcomes; they are focused on performance and try to relate
budgeting (public funds) to accountability, incentivizing ‘good’ behavior and punishing ‘bad’; they tend to disaggregate management and
H. Ernstson, S. Sörlin / Ecological Economics 86 (2013) 274–284
seek to establish agencies or institutions in government that focus on
one or a small number of outcomes or processes and thus move away
from complex responsibility-taking departments; they wish to increase
distance to policy and politics, giving wide leeway to managers to handle their responsibilities towards clear and explicit success criteria.
Clearly, these criteria are inherently political but once established they
tend to take on a life of their own and are hard to change (Pollitt and
Bourckaert, 2011: Ch. 1–2). Applying stylized, and almost always quantitative, criteria of success therefore means in practice a de-politicization
of complex social issues and a shift from democratic and collective
decision-making to the use of standardized criteria typically set by experts. The postpolitical (Swyngedouw, 2009, 2011) is a concept that
has been used to denote this phenomenon that has spread to several
branches of government and administration, including the environmental realm.
Just as historians of technology and communications have identified
the material means through which universalizing control and development schemes were conducted under previous technological regimes,
so called ‘tools of empire’ (Adas, 1989; Headrick, 1981; Latour, 1987;
Law, 2003), we regard the standardizing economic methods of the last
thirty years as ‘technologies of globalization’, creating uniformity of action, and of values, into parts of the world and domains of societies
where previously diversity and local particularism were in command.
These are technologies precisely because they offer certain prescribed
routines, techniques, and practices whereby the standardization and
the ensuing comparability is achieved, which in turn opens up the possibility to move issues and dilemmas, for example of controversial
urban planning, from the mess of local claims and into the clarity of
numbers, that is from the sphere of politics to that of science (or quasi
science).
Given their universalizing and totalizing character, technologies of
globalization have developed a set of characteristics that follow from
the above. They tend to be abstract, objective, transportable and not
attributable to individual or social interests but rather standing, as it
were, ‘above’ such interests speaking about values from a point of nowhere, i.e. what we have above termed a non-place. These characteristics fit squarely with the ESS approach.
Consequently, the Manual, analyzed above, represents not only a
significant point of maturation of the ESS approach, especially for its
urban direction, but also for how the ESS approach—in practice—can
be spread to be used elsewhere, to be a material part of a technology
of globalization. The Manual was authored by representatives of ICLEI—
Local Governments for Sustainability—an organization gathering
“over 1220 local governments from 70 countries” to support local
governments “in the implementation of sustainable development”
(http://www.iclei.org/ on 2012-01-15, 23:00 CET). The Manual was
also peer-reviewed by Swedish and German “TEEB scholars” and
openly acknowledged by TEEB Coordination Group: “This is an excellent publication that builds upon the TEEB reports and tailors the information specifically for an urban context. […] [W]e hope this
handbook will take its place alongside the TEEB reports as an essential tool for local and regional policy makers everywhere.” (TEEB,
2011: i). The Manual can therefore be viewed as an explicit attempt
to codify the ESS approach into a script, make it transportable
to be applied everywhere (cf. Latour, 1987; Law, 2003). With its
step-by-step methods to measure economic values of ecosystems in
cities, it aims to prescribe action elsewhere. Although the growing
number of scholars (Fig. 1) are part in spreading the ESS approach
through their forums of peer-reviewed journals and conferences,
and in developing ever more sophisticated techniques for quantification and economic evaluation (involving Geographical Information
Systems (GIS), forecasting, and ‘econometric land-use modeling’
(Daily and Matson, 2008; Nelson et al., 2008)), the Manual represents
one step further towards spreading and enfolding this rule-based
method of evaluating nature's complexity into practice and policy in
urban decision-making.
281
On a more general level, the ESS approach is a technology of globalization in that it talks to all places and citis in the world in the same language. It is therefore by necessity abstract - although fully material and
performed in-place, as we have seen - while proclaiming that its ability
to translate particularities into generalities is a hallmark of good governance. It is objective; or else ecosystem services could not be applicable
in other places—after all, the ESS scheme, as codified already in the
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, claims to be valid everywhere
(MA, 2005). ESS are transportable; they are scripted and can be summarized, turned into bullet points, or even encoded into software (Daily et
al., 2009) so that practitioners ideally can be able to just follow instructions, rather than understanding in depth—or needing to know—how
nature and ecological complexity is embedded in and through cities
and society. Practitioners in turn can effectively be made into traveling
and circulating “emissaries” (Law, 2003) who have learned the ESS
Method and in principle can apply it anywhere, almost like global consultancies, which do precisely this: apply standardized text book
methods to streamline and improve performance in line with globalized success criteria. For this there is, typically, a globally acknowledged
Manual, which is now also the case in the ESS approach.9 Hence, the ESS
approach performs a remarkable gesture, as coming from no-where, a
non-place, but arranging itself so as to be able to talk to all places,
claiming to have the tools to correctly measure the values of nature
for any part of the world.10
In summing up, while the ESS approach represents just another practice of value articulation, we can now also conclude how it stands in sharp
contrast to those practices that worked in-place at Stockholm National
Urban Park and the Princess Vlei in Cape Town. Through our analysis of
the Manual and other documents of the ESS approach, we can identify
in some detail the rhetorical, strategic and very practical microtechnologies that are put into action to achieve the overall result of
moving contested nature out of the political, and into the managerial—
the quantified and (quasi)scientific. This mode of de-politicization is construed through a number of universalizing elements:
• De-historicization—the decoupling of objects of analysis (ecosystems,
parks, cities, neighborhoods, etc.) from real world actors, events, and
processes.
• De-contextualization—disregarding social realities, conflicts, interest
driven contestations and actual use of ecosystems on the ground.
• De-ecologization—focusing on the measurable services of individual
species or single systemic effects, paradoxically disregarding traditional holistic and interactive dimensions of ecology (Norgaard,
2010).
• Silencing—privileging particular strands of expertise (Bocking, 2004;
Sörlin, in press), marginalizing voices that are local, including those
that represent traditional ecological knowledge (Howitt and SuchetPearson, 2003; von Heland and Sörlin, 2012).
6. Conclusion
This paper has critically reflected on the ‘ecosystem services
approach’, which was viewed as including both a scientific framework—
purportedly erected from a non-place, but valid everywhere—and the
9
There is also a move to develop globally recognized indexes. The City Biodiversity
Index (CBI; also referred to as the Singapore Index) is promoted by ICLEI and “consists
of 23 Indicators grouped under three sub-headings: Native Biodiversity, Ecosystem
Services, and Governance and Management, which result in an overall score for the city
which can be monitored over time.” (ICLEI website http://www.iclei.org/index.php?
id=12482, retrieved 2012-01-02 at 17:30 CET). Another is the Green City Index sponsored by the German company Siemens and measured by the Economist Intelligence
Unit (http://www.eiu.com/Default.aspx).
10
The parallel to John Law's (2003) analysis of the 15th century Portuguese empire, is instructive. He suggests that the empire's long-distance control depended upon the creation
of networks, through which “emissaries”—documents, devices and drilled people—can “circulate from the center to the periphery in a way that maintains their durability, forcefulness
and fidelity”.
282
H. Ernstson, S. Sörlin / Ecological Economics 86 (2013) 274–284
scholars, organizations, consultants and their techniques and networks
that are increasingly enacting a prescribed way of attributing value to
nature. The paper demonstrated how the ESS approach has traveled
rapidly from metaphor to an increasingly stable framework, and now
into urban policy. Our analysis adds new dimensions to the growing critique of the ESS approach and raises concern on how the ESS approach
works within democratic procedures towards more just, sustainable
and resilient cities and societies. In this broader sense, we have contributed towards an unpacking of one of the most popular concepts within
Environmental Economics and Ecological Economics, which contributes
to calls for wider critical reflections (Spash, 2012) on how (e)valuation,
knowledge and politics are intertwined, especially at the intersection of
ecological complexity and urbanization.
In particular, we have argued that the ESS approach, just as any
other practice of value articulation, is embedded in social, cultural
and historical processes, and should be studied as such. In that
sense, the ESS approach is equivalent to such mundane value articulation practices that are engendered by, for example, the struggle to
stop a shopping center at a wetland area in Cape Town, or the formation of a protective narrative for a vast urban park area in Stockholm.
Just like these are about particular actors using what they have at
their disposal—the planting of indigenous species, a slave legend, historical maps, massive popular use of green space—so is the economic evaluation of Jay birds in Stockholm, or coastal protection in Cape Town
about particular actors—called experts, consultants, economists, or ecologists—relationally constructing particular values for particular purposes. However, we have also argued that the ESS approach is different
since in contrast to other value articulation practices, it claims to be
universal and possible to use everywhere, and therefore gestures to
stand above the other practices of value articulation that we have
described. Building on this, we propose that the ESS approach comes
with a set of effects, which we suggest can organize further debates
and critical research.
A first effect is how the ESS approach seems to silence localized ways
of knowing places, ecosystems, and nature(s). The multi-faceted cultural embedding of a wetland in post-Apartheid Cape Town has scant possibilities of being scripted into the technologies of articulation used by
the ESS approach. From within the ESS approach, among the tools at
hand, the computers and algorithms to produce quantified values, the
value of the cultural embedding of a wetland cannot by default exist.
It is silenced since it is non-codifiable. Consequently, the ESS approach
can be viewed as creating a particular way of knowing and organizing
‘the world’, a certain cosmology or belief-system. Just like anthropologists and ethnographers have studied the cosmologies of ‘local’ practices of knowing, the same set of repertoire for research can be used
to study those working with the ESS approach (see e.g. Monfreda,
2010). Following our approach, what seems necessary for Ecological
Economics and associated fields, is to provide space for critical ethnographies that traces how the ESS approach is enacted in-place, in various
cities and locales, rather than yet another article that re-packages the
gesture of objectivity and universality in trying to come up with the ultimate ecosystem services framework (e.g. Nahlik et al. 2012). Here we
drew upon actor-network theory (Latour, 1987; Latour, 2005; Law,
2003, 2009) that can effectively be used to understand how the ESS approach, and other technologies of globalization in the environmental
realm, are integrated into a “new global knowledge” (Monfreda,
2010) that manufactures global expertise.
With the silencing of the local follows a second effect. Often in the
ESS literature, claims are made that the ESS approach can be used as a
complement to other practices of value articulation. Through ethnographically studying ESS as an in-place social practice, such statements
can be questioned. Can the ESS approach live respectfully side-by-side
with other ways of knowing and valuing ecological complexity? If not,
what type of politics does the ESS approach engender? Here politics
should be understood as going beyond the analysis of ‘choice’ as it has
been put forward by the ESS approach—a Habermasian ideal where
stakeholders (chosen by experts) can negotiate trade-offs among ecosystem services (as defined and calculated by experts). Rather this research needs to take an interest in the ontological politics that
follows from a plurality of practices of knowing and valuing (Mol,
1999). Drawing on actor-network theory (Mol, 1999), but also on literature on indigenous knowledge (Nadasdy, 2003; von Heland and
Sörlin, 2012) and ontological pluralism (Howitt and Suchet-Pearson,
2003), we can analyze how reality is shaped within practice, to
make certain ways of knowing and valuing legitimate, while others
are erased.
In relation, Norgaard (2010) adds a third effect; that the ESS approach silences other scientific practices of knowing ecological complexity, like evolutionary or population biology that do not fit
within a stock-flow model of nature. This would not only blindfold
society and prevent radical institutional changes, Norgaard argues,
but could change the structure of knowledge production (cf. Levins
and Lewontin 1985) since stock-flow model fares better in attracting
research funding, something possible to study through data on research funding in e.g. USA, Europe and China.
A fourth effect is how the ESS approach can be viewed as a necessary step towards a marketization of ecological complexity (Castree,
2008a, 2008b), with pricing, markets, and schemes for payment of
ecosystem service (Kosoy and Corbera, 2010). However, for this to
occur, there needs to be a development of organizations, indexes,
manuals—a refinement of the technologies of globalization—but also
political struggles, no doubt, when markets are created, which can
be traced and researched through various social scientific approaches,
not least that of (urban) political ecology (Castree, 2008a, b; Heynen
et al., 2006).
Finally, there is a profoundly political effect in that the ESS approach gestures to be built on scientific grounds and originates
from a non-place—a place where petty or mundane politics do not
exist and consequently that the ESS approach is not tainted by social
interests that might influence its localized practitioners. From this
non-place, it purports to have discovered objective technologies for
measuring nature's value that can be transported around the globe
and inserted into decision-making processes to bring order and
truth, preparing the stage for stakeholders to rationally deliberate
on how to make trade offs between the different ecosystem services
presented by the ESS approach. What once was political is through
the ESS approach translated into a scripted set of non-political acts
of management, just as the literature on New Public Management
has demonstrated. Drawing on political ecologist Erik Swyngedouw
and his long research of technology, cities and water politics, ecosystem
services comes into view as yet another element of a conspicuous
managerialism that since the 1980s increasingly has constituted a
postpolitical condition whereby the politics of equality tends to be evacuated through technomanagerial practices (Swyngedouw, 2009, 2011).
In playing part in broader shifts of knowing and governing, ecosystem
services should receive increasing critical attention.
These effects come into view when ecosystem services are inscribed
as social practice, as part of historical process, and as inherently political. Through such a lens we hope to spur broader interdisciplinary debates and research within and beyond Ecological Economics to better
understand the political implications of how values are formed in the
midst of our socioecological crises.
Acknowledgments
We thank the two reviewers for their feedback on the manuscript.
We also thank Paul Warde and Cathy Wilkinson for constructive comments on earlier drafts. The Swedish Research Council Formas is
acknowledged for providing funding for this research through the
research grant Ways of Knowing Urban Ecologies (WOK-UE, Reg. no:
250-2010-1372).
H. Ernstson, S. Sörlin / Ecological Economics 86 (2013) 274–284
Appendix A
The TEEB Stepwise Approach as quoted in the TEEB Manual for
Cities (TEEB, 2010, p. 11):
Step 1 Specify and agree on the problem or policy issue with stakeholders.
Step 2 Identify which ecosystem services are most relevant.
Step 3 Determine what information is needed and select assessment
methods.
Step 4 Assess (future changes in) ecosystem services.
Step 5 Identify and assess management/policy options.
Step 6 Assess the impact of the policy options on the range of
stakeholders.
References
Adas, M., 1989. Machines as the Measure of Men: Science, Technology, and Ideologies
of Western Dominance. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, New York & London.
Alfsen-Norodom, C., 2004. Urban biosphere and society: partnerships of cities. Annals
of the New York Academy of Sciences 1023, 1–9.
Baldwin, A.D.J., De Luce, J., Pletsch, C. (Eds.), 1993. Beyond Preservation: Restoring and
Inventing Landscapes. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis.
Barrow, J., Mark, V., 2009. Nature's Ghosts: Confronting Extinction from the Age of
Jefferson to the Age of Ecology. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Barthel, S., Colding, J., Elmqvist, T., Folke, C., 2005. History and local management of a
biodiversity-rich, urban, cultural landscape. Ecology and Society 10, 10.
Barthel, S., Sörlin, S., Ljungqvist, J., 2010. Innovative memory and resilient cities: echoes
from ancient Constantinople. In: Sinclair, P., Herschend, F., Isendahl, C., Nordquist,
G. (Eds.), The Urban Mind. Uppsala University Press, Uppsala.
Barthes, R., 1957. Mythologies. Jonathan Cape, London.
Beatley, T., 2011. Biophilic Cities: Integrating Nature into Urban Design and Planning.
Island Press, Washington, DC.
Beck, U., 1997. Was ist Globalisierung? Suhrkamp, Stuttgart.
Beukering, P., Cesar, H., 2010. Recreational value of coral reefs. Hawaii. Internal TEEB
case working paper. The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity. Available at:
http://www.teebweb.org.
Bocking, S., 2004. Nature's Experts: Science, Politics, and the Environment. Rutgers
University Press, New Brunswick, NJ & London.
Bockstael, N.E., Freeman III, A.M., Kopp, R.J., Portney, P.R., Smith, V.K., 2000. On measuring economic values for nature. Environmental Science & Technology 34 (8),
1384–1389.
Bolund, P., Hunhammar, S., 1999. Ecosystem services in urban areas. Ecological Economics 29, 293–301.
Borgström, S.T., 2009. Patterns and challenges of urban nature conservation — a study
of southern Sweden. Environment and Planning A 41, 2671–2685.
Borgström, S., Elmqvist, T., Angelstam, P., Alfsen-Norodom, C., 2006. Scale mismatches
in management of urban landscapes. Ecology and Society 11, 16.
Burman, J., 1962. Safe to Sea. Human & Rousseau, Cape Town.
Castells, M., 1996. The information age, 2nd edition. The Rise of the Network Society,
Vol. I. Blackwell, Oxford.
Castree, N., 2008a. Neoliberalising nature: processes, effects, and evaluations. Environment and Planning A 40, 153–173.
Castree, N., 2008b. Neoliberalising nature: the logics of deregulation and reregulation.
Environment and Planning A 40, 131–152.
Castree, N., Braun, B. (Eds.), 2001. Social Nature: Theory, Practice, and Politics. Blackwell,
Oxford.
Connerton, P., 1989. How Societies Remember. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Costanza, R., d'Arge, R., de Groot, R., Farberk, S., Grasso, M., Hannon, B., Limburg, K.,
Naeem, S., O'Neill, R.V., Paruelo, J., Raskin, R.G., Sutton, P., van den Belt, M., 1997.
The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387, 253–260.
Cronon, W. (Ed.), 1995. Uncommon Ground: Rethinking the Human Place in Nature.
W.W. Norton, New York.
Daily, G.C. (Ed.), 1997. Nature's Services: Societal Dependence on Natural Ecosystems.
Island Press, Washington D.C.
Daily, G.C., Matson, P.A., 2008. Ecosystem services: from theory to implementation.
PNAS 105, 9455–9456.
Daily, G.C., Polasky, S., Goldstein, J., Kareiva, P.M., Mooney, H., Pejchar, L., Ricketts, T.H.,
Salzman, J., Shallenberger, R., 2009. Ecosystem services in decision making: time to
deliver. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 7, 21–28.
de Wit, M., van Zyl, H., Crookes, D., Blignaut, J., Jayiya, T., Goiset, V., Mahumani, B., 2009.
Investing in Natural Assets: A Business Case for the Environment in the City of Cape
Town. City of Cape Town, Cape Town.
de Wit, M., van Zyl, H., Crookes, D., Blignaut, J.N., Jayiya, T., Goiset, V., Mahumani, B., in
press. Including the economic value of well-functioning urban ecosystems in financial decisions: Evidence from a process in Cape Town. Ecosystem Services:
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2012.08.002 In press.
Diani, M., 1995. Green Networks. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh.
Elmqvist, T., Maltby, E., 2010. Biodiversity, ecosystems and ecosystem services Page ZZ
In: Kumar, P. (Ed.), The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB).
Earthscan, UK.
283
Elmqvist, T., Setälä, H., Handel, S., van der Ploeg, S., de Groot, R., 2011. Benefits of ecosystem services in cities. Cited as “Article to be submitted formally” in the TEEB Manual
for Cities: Ecosystem Services in Urban Management http://www.teebbweb.org
(Accessed January 15, 2012).
Ernstson, H., 2011. Transformative collective action: a network approach to transformative change in ecosystem-based management. In: Bodin, Ö., Prell, C. (Eds.),
Social Networks and Natural Resource Management: Uncovering the Social Fabric of
Environmental Governance. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 255–287.
Ernstson, H., 2012. Re-translating nature in post-Apartheid Cape Town: the material
semiotics of people and plants at Bottom Road. In: Heeks, R. (Ed.), ActorNetwork Theory for Development: Working Paper Series. Institute for Development Policy and Management, SED. University of Manchester, Manchester.
URL: http://bit.ly/Re-translating_nature_ANT4D.
Ernstson, H., Sörlin, S., 2009. Weaving protective stories: connective practices to articulate holistic values in Stockholm National Urban Park. Environment and Planning
A 41, 1460–1479.
Ernstson, H., Sörlin, S., Elmqvist, T., 2008. Social movements and ecosystem services —
the role of social network structure in protecting and managing urban green areas
in Stockholm. Ecology and Society 13, 39.
Ernstson, H., Barthel, S., Andersson, E., Borgström, S.T., 2010. Scale-crossing brokers and
network governance of urban ecosystem services: the case of Stockholm. Ecology
and Society 15, 28.
Ernstson, H., 2013. The social production of ecosystem services: a framework for studying
environmental justice and ecological complexity in urbanized landscapes. Landscape
and Urban Planning 109 (1) http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2012.10.005.
Falk, R.A., 1999. Predatory Globalization: A Critique. Polity, Cambridge.
Fèbvre, L., 1922. La Terre et l'évolution humaine. Albin Michel, Paris.
Groenewald, Y., 2009. Paving Paradise. Pages Retrieved online at [2009-2009-2010
2007:2051] Mail & Guardian. Mail & Guardian, Johannesburg, South Africa.
Halbwachs, M., 1952. On Collective Memory. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Harvey, D., 1996. Justice, Nature and the Geography of Difference. Blackwell, Oxford.
Headrick, D.R., 1981. The Tools of Empire: Technology and European Imperialism in the
Nineteenth Century. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Held, D., McGrew, A., 2007. Globalization/Anti-Globalization: Beyond the Great Divide.
Polity, Cambridge & Malden.
Heynen, N.C., Kaika, M., Swyngedouw, E. (Eds.), 2006. In the Nature of Cities: Urban
Political Ecology and the Politics of Urban Metabolism. Routledge, Oxford.
Hougner, C., Colding, J., Söderqvist, T., 2006. Economic valuation of a seed dispersal
service Stockholm National Urban Park, Sweden. Ecological Economics 59,
364–374.
Howitt, R., Suchet-Pearson, S., 2003. Ontological pluralism in contested cultural landscapes.
In: Anderson, K. (Ed.), Handbook of Cultural Geography. SAGE, pp. 557–569.
Jansson, Å., Nohrstedt, P., 2001. Carbon sinks and human freshwater dependence in
Stockholm County. Ecological Economics 39, 361–370.
Kjaer, A.M., 2004. Governance. Polity, Cambridge & Malden.
Kosoy, N., Corbera, E., 2010. Payments for ecosystem services as commodity fetishism.
Ecological Economics 69, 1228–1236.
Kotze, P., 2011. Princess Vlei — Tug of War over Cape Flats Wetland Continues. The
Water Wheel, South Africa.
Laros, M., 2007. The Identification and Prioritisation of a Biodiversity Network for the
City of Cape Town. City of Cape Town and Sustainability Matters Concultancy,
Cape Town.
Latour, B., 1987. Science In Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers Through
Society. Harvard University Press, Cambridge.
Latour, B., 1988. The Pasteurization of France. Harvard University, Cambridge Mass.
Latour, B., 2005. Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network Theory.
Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Law, J., 2003. On the methods of long distance control: vessels, navigation, and the
Portuguese route to India. In: Law, J. (Ed.), Power, Action and Belief: A New Sociology
of Knowledge? Routledge, Henley, pp. 234–263.
Law, J., 2009. Actor network theory and material semiotics. In: Turner, B.S. (Ed.), The
New Blackwell Companion to Social Theory. Blackwell Publishing.
Lefebvre, H., 1974. The Production of Space. Wiley-Blackwell.
Levins, R., Lewontin, R., 1985. The Dialectical Biologist. Harvard University Press, Cambridge & London.
Löfvenhaft, K., Björn, C., Ihse, M., 2002. Biotope patterns in urban areas: a conceptual
model integrating biodiversity issues in spatial planning. Landscape and Urban
Planning 58, 223–240.
Lundberg, J., Andersson, E., Cleary, G., Elmqvist, T., 2008. Linkages beyond borders:
targeting spatial processes in fragmented urban landscapes. Landscape Ecology
23, 717–726.
MA, 2005. Millenium Ecosystem Assessment: Ecosystems and Human Well-being:
Synthesis. Island Press, Washington, DC.
Mitchell, D., 1995. The End of Public Space? People's Park, Definitions of the Public, and
Democracy. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 85, 108–133.
Mol, A., 1999. Ontological politics. A word and some questions. In: Law, J., Hassard, J.
(Eds.), Actor Network Theory and After. Blackwell Publishing, Oxford, pp. 74–89.
Monfreda, C., 2010. Setting the stage for new global knowledge: science, economics,
and indigenous knowledge in ‘The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity’ at
the Fourth World Conservation Congress. Conservation and Society 8, 288–297.
Mostafavi, M., Dohert, G. (Eds.), 2010. Ecological Urbanism. Lars Müller Publishers.
Nadasdy, P., 2003. Reevaluating the comangement success story. Arctic 56, 367–380.
Nature, 1998. Audacious bid to value the planet whips up a storm. Nature 395 (OCT), 430.
Nahlik, A.M., Kentula, M.E., Fennessy, M.S., Landers, D.H., 2012. Where is the consensus? A proposed foundation for moving ecosystem service concepts into practice?
Ecological Economics 1, 27–35.
284
H. Ernstson, S. Sörlin / Ecological Economics 86 (2013) 274–284
Nelson, E., Polasky, S., Lewis, D.J., Plantinga, A.J., Lonsdorf, E., White, D., Bael, D., Lawler, J.J.,
2008. Efficiency of incentives to jointly increase carbon sequestration and species
conservation on a landscape. PNAS 105, 9471–9476.
Newman, P., Beatley, T., Boyer, H., 2009. Resilient Cities: Responding to Peak Oil and
Climate Change. Island Press, Washington, DC.
Nora, P., 1989. Between memory and history: Les lieux de mémoire. Representations
26, 7–24.
Norgaard, R.B., 2010. Ecosystem services: from eye-opening metaphor to complexity
blinder. Ecological Economics 69, 1219–1227.
Norgaard, R.B. in press. Ecosystem services: commentary on Gretchen Daily, ‘Introduction:
What is ecosystem services?’.in L. Robin, S. Sörlin, and P. Warde, editors. The Future of
Nature: Documents of Global Change. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT.
OECD, 2008. OECD Territorial Reviews: Cape Town. OECD Publishing, Paris, South Africa.
Ostrom, E., 1990. Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective
Action. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Pitt, B., Boull, T., 2009. Save Princess Vlei, Heartbeat of the Cape Flats. Cape Times, Cape
Town, South Africa.
Pollitt, C., Bourckaert, G., 2011. Public Management Reform: A Comparative Analysis —
New Public Management, Governance, and the Neo-Weberian State. Oxford University
Press, Oxford.
Pyne, S., 1998. How the Canyon Became Grand: A Short History. Viking Penguin, New York.
Ring, I., Hansjurgens, B., Elmqvist, T., Wittmer, H., Sukhdev, P., 2010. Challenges in
framing the economics of ecosystems and biodiversity: the TEEB initiative. Current
Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 1–12.
Robertson, M., 2000. “No Net Loss”: wetland restoration and the incomplete capitalization of nature. Antipode 32 (4), 463–493.
Robertson, M., 2004. The neoliberalization of ecosystem services: wetland mitigation
banking and problems in environmental governance. Geoforum 35 (3), 361–373.
Robertson, M., 2006. The nature that capital can see: science, state and market in the
commodification of ecosystem services. Environment and Planning D: Society
and Space 24 (3), 367–387.
Sagoff, M., 1997. Can We Put a Price on Nature's Services? The Institute for Philosophy
and Public Policy. Available online at: http://www.puaf.umd.edu/ippp/nature.htm
(viewed, November 28, 1997).
Sassen, S., 1998. Globalization and its discontents. Essays on the New Mobility of People
and Money. New Press, New York.
Schama, S., 1995. Landscape and Memory. Knopf, New York.
Sinclair, P.J.J., Nordquist, G., Herschend, F., Isendahl, C. (Eds.), 2010. The Urban
Mind: Cultural and Environmental Dynamics. Uppsala University, Department of
Archaeology and Ancient History, Uppsala.
Sismondo, S., 2004. An Introduction into Science and Technology Studies. Blackwell,
Malden.
Sörlin, S., 1998. Monument and memory: landscape imagery and the articulation of
territory. Worldviews: Environment, Culture, Religion 2, 269–279.
Sörlin, S., 1999. The articulation of territory: landscape and the constitution of regional
and national identity. Norsk Geografisk Tidsskrift 53, 103–112.
Sörlin, S. in press. Rethinking environmental expertise. Environment and Research
Policy.
Sörlin, S., Warde, P. (Eds.), 2009. Nature's End: History and the Environment. Palgrave
MacMillan, London.
Spash, C.L., 2012. New foundations for ecological economics. Ecological Economics 1, 36–47.
SPELUM, 2011a. Minutes of the meeting of the Spatial Planning, Environment and Land
use Management Committe—12 October 2011 at 10.00. Pages: 4-106. Issued by:
The Spatial Planning, Environment and Land Use Management Committee
(SPELUM), City of Cape Town: Cape Town (pp. 103).
SPELUM, 2011b. Report to Spatial Planning, Environment and Land use Management
Committee. File reference LUM/00/82176 (1-10). Date 2011-07-29. Pages 24223242. Main author: D. Suttle. Issued by: Cape Town - Spatial Planning, Environment
and Land use Management Committee (SPELUM), City of Cape Town. (pp. 821).
Swyngedouw, E., 1996. The city as a hybrid — on nature society and cyborg urbanization.
Capitalism, Nature, Socialism 7, 65–80.
Swyngedouw, E., 2009. The antinomies of the postpolitical city: in search of a democratic politics of environmental production. International Journal of Urban and
Regional Research 33, 601–620.
Swyngedouw, E., 2011. Depoliticized environments: the end of nature, climate change
and the post-political condition. Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplement 69.
Tannier, C., Foltête, J.-C., Girardet, X., 2012. Assessing the capacity of different urban
forms to preserve the connectivity of ecological habitats. Landscape and Urban
Planning. 105, 128–139.
TEEB, 2010. The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity for Local and Regional
Policy Makers.
TEEB, 2011. TEEB Manual for Cities: Ecosystem Services in Urban Management. The
Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB). http://www.teebbweb.org
(Accessed January 15, 2012).
Turpie, J.K., Marais, C., Blignaut, J.N., 2008. The Working for Water programme: evolution
of a payments for ecosystem services mechanism that addresses both poverty and
ecosystem service delivery in South Africa. Ecological Economics 788–798.
von Heland, J., Sörlin, S., 2012. Works of doubt and leaps of faith: an Augustinian challenge to planetary boundaries. Journal for the Study of Nature, Religion, and Culture
6, 151–175.
Walker, R., 2007. The Country in the City. University of Washington Press, Seattle and
London.
Westman, W.E., 1977. How much are nature's services worth? Science 197, 960–964.
WSTB, 2004. Valuing Ecosystem Services: Toward Better Environmental Decision-Making.