Working with various types of knowledge

It is clear from the preceding sections that land degradation impacts quality of life in significant ways. These impacts are generated both through the direct effects of natural systems on human lives as well as through the complex interactions of natural systems with anthropogenic assets, governance, institutions, and varied worldviews. For many of the measures of human quality of life – for example poverty, food security, health, energy and water security – there is conceptual and practical agreement in viewing nature’s services in a similar way to economic commodities that may be managed to optimize quality, quantity, and distribution in such a way as to achieve the welfare goals of individuals and societies. However, this economic conceptualization of nature’s contributions to people does have shortcomings; in particular, in its limited ability to address different worldviews and conceptions of the value of nature, as well as in its implicitly anthropocentric and utilitarian framing of the value of nature.  It may require moving beyond the instrumental as well as existence value of nature to humans to a conception of intrinsic value. This ethical perspective – that nature may have a value apart from any utilitarian value people may place on it – is seldom recognized in the ecosystem services literature, even when that literature does include discussion of existence values and of non-material services. Recognizing the intrinsic value of nature entails a reframing of nature and its components to see them as ends in themselves and not simply as means to the satisfaction of human ends (Batavia & Nelson, 2017). Barend Erasmus