CLIC multidimensional evaluation framework€¦ · • Closed water systems: recovering historic...

CLIC multidimensionalevaluation framework

Evaluation of cultural heritage adaptive reuse practices in the perspective of the circular economy

Prepared by: Antonia Gravagnuolo, Luigi Fusco Girardand IRISS CNR team

Horizon 2020 CLIC | WP2

GOAL

Criteria Criteria Criteria Criteria

Attributes Attributes Attributes Attributes

Objective Objective Objective

Indicators Indicators Indicators Indicators

General evaluation framework structure

CIRCULARIZATION OF SOCIAL-ECONOMIC-CULTURAL-ECOLOGICAL SYSTEMS:

enhance multidimensional productivity through reduction of all types of wastes and re-generation of all types of capital (environmental capital: water, materials, energy and

biodiversity; economic and financial capital; cultural capital and also human capital: “no human wastes”;), towards a new humanism that puts in symbiosis the human being, the

community and the ecosystems

OVERALL GOAL

IMPACTS - es: • N. of visitors / year (tickets sold, etc..)

• Other activities that have an economic return• Impacts on real estate market prices

• Impacts in terms of jobs created (direct, indirect, induced)• Quality of the physical scenario / landscape

• External effects on health / wellbeing (e.g. considering the problem of ageing population)• Other external effects in terms of intangible and symbolic values regeneration…

• ………

Cultural Heritage Investment

External effects

«Complex» Return on Investment:• Direct – Revenues• Indirect – Avoided costs• Other types of «return»

on capitals regeneration: social, environmental, cultural…

CIRCULARIZATION OF SOCIAL-ECONOMIC-CULTURAL-ECOLOGICAL SYSTEMS: enhance multidimensional productivity through reduction of all types of wastes and re-generation of all types of capital (environmental capital: water, materials, energy and biodiversity; cultural capital; human capital: “no human wastes”; economic and financial capital), towards a new humanism that puts in symbiosis the man, the community and the ecosystems

Circular economy: enlarging the lifetime of goods (in terms of use values in an indefinite horizon)

Cultural economy: conserving and regenerating cultural capital (particularly cultural heritage tangible and intangible)

Ecological economy: promoting ecosystems and human health / wellbeing (human flourishing “for all”: no human wastes)

Relational economy: densification of relationships (cooperative economy, sharing economy, social and solidarity economy, civil economy…)

1

2

3

4

The role of culture influencing the «health» of biophisical systems and the functioning«rules» of complex interdependent socioeconomic systems enabling human

flourishing

CLIC conceptualization of a «full circular» economy culture-centred

CIRCULARIZATION OF SOCIAL-ECONOMIC-CULTURAL-ECOLOGICAL SYSTEMS: enhance multidimensional productivity through reduction of all types of wastes and re-generation of all types of capital

(environmental capital: water, materials, energy and biodiversity; economic and financial capital; cultural capital and also human capital: “no human wastes”;), towards a new humanism that puts in symbiosis the human being, the community and the ecosystems



Ecological economy: promoting ecosystems and human health / wellbeing (human flourishing “for all”: no human wastes)

Relational economy: densification of relationships (cooperative economy, sharingeconomy, social and solidarity economy, civil economy…)

Focus on the main interrelations between the dimensions : overcoming the “pillar” approach

ENVIRONMENTAL-ECONOMIC

CULTURAL-ECONOMIC

SOCIAL-ECONOMIC-ENVIRONMENTAL

SOCIAL-CULTURAL-ECONOMIC

TOWARDS A “FULL CIRCULAR” ECONOMY AND CITY: which goals/objectives/criteria?

CLIC contribution: towards afull circular economy «culture-centred»

Circular economy for the built environment ?

Circular economy for the built environment ?

possible criticism…which value/values are reflected in this approach and which value/values are generated?



Ecological economy: promoting ecosystems and human health / wellbeing

Relational economy: densification of relationships (cooperative economy, sharing economy, social and solidarity economy, civil economy…) (human flourishing “for all”: no human wastes)

1

2

3

4 17 Implement sharing economy, cooperative economy, social and solidarity economy models

18 Regenerate micro-communities

OBJECTIVES => CRITERIA (*)PRINCIPLES of a full circular economy and city “culture-centred”

11 Enhance the urban bio-economy12 Regenerate natural capital13 Reduce soil consumption14 Regenerate human capital15 Enhance ecosystems and human health / wellbeing16 Reduce unemployment

CLIC research question

How adaptive reuse of cultural heritage contributes to the realization of a full circular economy culture-centred – and how the circular economy supports the conservation of cultural heritage?

7 Ensure cultural heritage integrated conservation and regeneration7.1 Conservation and transmission of cultural significance, authenticity and

integrity7.2 Creative compatible hybridization of historic and contemporary values

8 Conserve values and the performance in the long horizon9 Ensure accessibility of cultural resources to all10 Change mindset: enhance civic responsibility and capabilities

1 Reduce waste/underuse of resources (materials, energy…)2 Close-the-loop / close metabolisms (enhancing systemic resilience)3 Ensure flexibility and re-adaptation over time (re-adaptation of functions)4 Decouple growth from resource consumption (9Rs’ in adaptive reuse)5 Enhance productivity (technologies for less inputs, more outputs; Factor 10, Factor 5…)6 Optimize the use of existing resources (economic/financial)

operationalization

(*) From literature and CLIC partners’ keywords definitions

Circular economy: enlarging the lifetime of goods (in terms of use values in an indefinite horizon)1

OBJECTIVES => CRITERIA ACTIONS

1 Reduce waste/underuse of resources (materials, energy…)

• Reuse: here linked to the reuse of materials and embodied energyof heritage buildings, landscapes and sites

• Reduce: adaptive reuse of existing heritage reduces the need of new buildings, materials and energy

• Recover: adaptive reuse is a process of recovering heritage• Waste minimization: adaptive reuse helps avoiding demolition

wastes• Ecodesign: adaptive reuse can stimulate the use of traditional

environmental friendly techniques in heritage buildingsconstruction and landscape design

Adaptive reuse enables the reduction of wastes through selective demolition, reuse of materials and embodied energy

Proposed CLIC Evaluation Framework structure

1


Close the loops at local level in a systemic perspective and at different scales: building, neighbourhood, city, city-countryside, city-region – improvingthe systemic resilience

2 Close-the-loop / close metabolisms • Closed materials loops: use of local traditional, sustainable materials where possible

• Closed urban-rural loops: enhancement of urban - rural interlinkages and functional synergies, also promoting symbioses, cooperation and partnerships between territories

• Systemic approach: considering adaptive reuse of single buildings/areas in relation to the historic urban landscape

• Systemic finance: integrated portfolio of urban investments to share and decrease financial risks

• Closed urban-regional development: optimization of the urban-territorial system as a whole

• Systemic relationships between historic and new urban areas: promoting a systemic urban development perspective

• Closed energy systems: resilient, renewable, localised, distributed

• Closed water systems: recovering historic water storage, recycle, reuse systems

• Closed local food systems: promote self-sufficient local food systems enhancing cultural landscapes

• Circular financing / value capture: economic value capturemainly from real estate market values increase



1


Cultural heritage has been often re-adapted over time through additions, demolitions, and adaptive reuse interventions

3 Ensure flexibility and re-adaptation over time

• Refurbish and repurpose over time: adaptive reuse enables that the same spaces can be object of multiple re-adaptations over time

• Mix of functions: different functions in synergy can reduce the risk of functional obsolescence over time


4 Decouple growth from resource consumption

• Reuse: reusing historic buildings, landscapes and sites• Recycle: recycling materials from selective demolitions• Repair: adaptive reuse includes a process of repairing / recovering

historic buildings/landscapes/sites• Refurbish: process of «upgrading» of heritage• Remanufacture: some parts of historic buildings can be recovered

and employed in other sites• Repurpose: adaptive reuse is exactly the process of «repurposing»

buildings, landscapes and sites• Design for longevity: historic buildings were designed to last over

centuries, ideally over an indefinite time, which becomes a lesson of sustainability for today’s architecture and planning

Decoupling through enlargement of the lifetime of the heritage building, group of buildings, landscape or site throughadaptive reuse


1


Make optimal use of existing resources, particularly economic and financialresources, leveraging private investments through smart public finance

6 Optimize the use of existing resources • Value creation: create new values from existing used resources, leveraging the different returns of urban investments

• Economic and financial feasibility: stimulate businesses able to produce adequate revenues/cash flows and a Return on Investment(measured as n. of years to return on the initial investment, considering economic annual costs and revenues)

• Economic and financial attractiveness: spur private investments by creating constant stimuli and incentives to diminish the market failures

• Public sector investments as catalyst for private investments: public sector acting as catalyst for private investments through innovative financing tools

• Circular governance models: free use concessions for a number of years, at specified conditions, for public owned heritage properties


Innovative and heritage-compatibletechnologies can be identified to reduce the costs of energy, water and materials, and in the same time to enhance the performances of the heritage in terms of comfort and safety

5 Enhance productivity (less inputs, more outputs; Factor 10, Factor 5…)

• Use of heritage-compatible and innovative technologies: technologies able to reduce costs and enhance performances (reusing, recycling, refurbishing….)



Cultural economy: conserving and regenerating cultural capital (particularly cultural heritage tangible and intangible)2

7.1 Conservation and transmission of cultural significance, authenticity and integrity

7.2 Creative hybridization of historic and contemporary values: integrate memory and modernization to create new sense and meaning from historic-cultural assets –stimulating circularization between past, present and future generations

7 Ensure cultural heritage integrated conservation and regeneration

• Compatibility of new uses: in relation to both performances and “meaning” of the new functions; typological specifications and adequate level of preservations of the heritage

• Creative hybridization: adaptive reuse can include meaningful additions of contemporary architecture and arts expressions to cultural heritage, enabling the hybridization of historic and contemporary values

• Intangible capital regeneration: recovery of local traditional skills, crafts and knowledge as resource for the contemporary society

• Intangible values conservation: conserve both tangible and intangible values through “heritage-sensitive” planning, especially in relation to the possible negative cultural impacts of tourism activities on local lifestyles, beliefs and behaviours

• Measures to reduce touristic over-exploitation: avoid over-consumption of cultural resources (e.g. avoid touristic over-exploitation)

• Control of gentrification processes: measures to avoid gentrificationprocesses, also related to renting and real estate prices

• Innovative heritage services: transition to a service-oriented economy (use-not-own)

8 Conserve values and the performance in the long horizon

Conservation of values, particularly cultural values, in the longer term, avoidingtouristic over-exploitation and over-consumption of heritage and thus the reduction of the cultural capital over time




9 Ensure accessibility of cultural resources to all

Management of cultural heritage as «common good», ensuring accessibility, education and enjoyment of cultural heritage for all

• Presence of “collaboration pacts” between institutions and the community: management of heritage as "common good”, enhancing community values, common “care” and identity

• Public accessibility: private-led adaptive reuses should ensure a minimum agreed level of accessibility of heritage as a public space

• Place-making processes: regeneration of heritage as “place” through community-led actions




The adaptive reuse of cultural heritage can stimulate sense of civic responsibility; adaptive reuse process can be opportunities for testing and developing new technical and managerial capabilities of public, private and third sector stakeholders

10 Change mindset: enhance civic responsibility and capabilities

• Enhancement of civic responsibility: the adaptive reuse project/process stimulates civic responsibility (art. 126-136 of the NUA) and care (FARO Convention, 2005)

• Education: the adaptive reuse project creates opportunities for learning and education – the role of conservation of heritage for the enlargement of the horizon in a society that is focused only on the short term / short horizon

• Social Corporate Responsibility: the functions/businesses involved in the adaptive reuse should have a clear SCR statement

• Social entrepreneurship: the involvement of third sector to run adaptive reuse projects can avoid the economic over-exploitation from private investors/managers

• Partnerships and cooperations: heritage conservation involves a large number of stakeholders, due to its “common good” value, thus it is able to stimulate partnerships based on common sense, meaning and values

• Awareness and capabilities: adaptive reuse is a challenge for local communities and stakeholders to learn how to lead self-managed heritage regeneration processes; through adaptive reuse, a shared management of heritage properties can be promoted

• Innovative “rehabber” and maker approaches: local communities, especially owners and tenants, can be engaged and trained in the enhancement of knowledge and capabilities regarding correctmaintenance and recovery of heritage elements


Ecological economy: promoting ecosystem and human health / wellbeing (human flourishing “for all”: no human wastes)3


Cultural heritage and cultural landscapes can be reused adopting bio-materialsand implementing technologies able to enhance biological life cycles, ecosystems and human health

11 Enhance the urban bio-economy

12 Regenerate natural capital

Reusing cultural heritage and landscapescan enhance ecosystems (urban and non-urban) also through investments in natural capital regeneration

• Use of innovative bio-materials: use of innovative bio-materials, not harming human health, in heritage recovery works

• Generative heritage buildings: adaptive reuses able to turn heritage buildings, landscapes and sites into generators, rather than consumers, of energy and food (urban agriculture, vertical farming, etc…)

• Soil nutrients regeneration: adaptive reuses of buildings, landscapes and sites that focus on returning nutrients to over-exploited soils

• Therapeutical gardens: uses/functions focused on the enhancement of human health, for example through therapeutical gardens

• Investments in ecosystems preservation: adaptive reuse and other integrated conservation interventions able to enhance ecosystems and preserve the natural capital also through dedicated investments

• Nature-based solutions: nature-based interventions in historic cities, buildings and landscapes

13 Reduce soil consumption

Adaptive reuse of abandoned cultural heritage contributes to reduction of urbansprawl and the need of new soils, also contributing to positive densification of urban areas, reusing «cultural» brownfields

• Cultural brownfield reuse/regeneration: reuse of abandoned and under-exploited cultural heritage areas

• Reduction of soil consumption: adaptive reuse is able to reduce urban sprawl and the need of new soils


Ecological economy: promoting ecosystem and human health / wellbeing (human flourishing “for all”: no human wastes)

3 OBJECTIVES => CRITERIA ACTIONS

The reuse and regeneration of heritage places is able to stimulate human capital regeneration, influencing creativity, innovation, participation in cultural activities, social cohesion and integration; socially innovative uses can be introduced in heritage places to revitalize them and produce social benefit

14 Regenerate human capital

15 Ensure ecosystems and human health / wellbeing

The reuse and regeneration of heritage places is able to enhance specific components of wellbeing and well-living, enhancing ecosystems and human health, livability of urban areas, income, local identity, pride and attachment to places; this should be achieved ensuring decent working conditions for all

• Education and training: introduction of functions related to research, innovation, training, etc.

• Integration of migrants, new residents and existing ones: adaptive reuse can stimulate positive integration of social groups by providing a meaningful scenario for building common sense, and by providing new opportunities to share values and “have fun” together

• Citizens participation in cultural activities: adaptive reuse creates new stimulus and opportunities for cultural participation

• Cultural and creative activities: heritage areas and landscapes as incubators of creativity, cultural capital, intangible heritage regeneration

• Human health: measures that directly or indirectly enhance human health (considering use of materials, technologies, and activities)

• Ecosystems health: urban and rural heritage / landscape integrated conservation can enhance ecosystems health by recovering ancient “circularities” within and between territories

• Livability of urban areas: adaptive reuse of abandoned and underused heritage enhances livability of the specific context

• Enhancement of social and economic conditions “for all”: adaptive reuse should trigger an enhancement in local livelihoods income

• Pride in and attachment to place: adaptive reuse of previously abandoned and underused heritage sites enhances local identity

• Decent working conditions for all: attention should be given to decent working conditions in adaptive reuse processes to ensure sustainability of the heritage investment and management


Ecological economy: promoting ecosystem and human health / wellbeing (human flourishing “for all”: no human wastes)3


The adaptive reuse of cultural heritage can be a driver of new jobs creation; new long-term jobs can be created especially in the industries of buildings construction, creative and cultural industries, tourism and real estate; the jobs created should be spread for all degrees of education. Particularly interesting can be the exploration of whether and how culture and cultural heritage can create new creative jobs tackling the challenges posed by automatization and robotizationprocesses, reinforcing the creative sectors and helping to tackle the loss of many jobs in next years.

16 Reduce unemployment • “Circular” business model innovation: creativity of adaptive reuses in responding to the evolving needs of societies; viable business model linked to the sales and commercial operation of the redevelopment property

• Valorization of local skills: adaptive reuse projects can employ and valorize local traditional skills

• Entrepreneurship and self-entrepreneurship: heritage places as “hubs” of creativity, entrepreneurship and innovation

• Smart specialization strategy: adaptive reuse projects can be linked to smart specialization strategies to produce higher impact

• Viable cash flow project for long-term self-sustainability: adaptive reuses that ensure economic viability for owners and users, providing a minimum viable cash flow project for the private sector;

• Sustainable cultural tourism attractiveness: adaptive reuse of abandoned and underused heritage provides new opportunities for cultural tourism

• Cultural and creative industries: adaptive reuse of cultural heritage creates an attractive context for creative industries

• Longer-term building construction jobs: create longer-term jobs in the sector through specialization programs for building construction companies and employees

• Economic spillovers: commercial activities directly related to the reused heritage / landscape

• Jobs for all degrees of education: adaptive reuse of cultural heritage can create jobs (for all degrees of education)


Relational economy: densification of relationships (cooperative economy, sharing economy, social and solidarity economy, civil economy…)4


Circularization is triggered by the new models of alternative economies, by the development of shared spaces and innovative functions/uses in heritage places and by processes of risk and value sharing

17 Implement cooperative economy, sharing economy, social and solidarity economy models

• Functions / businesses in the cooperative economy, sharing economy, SSE (social and solidarity economy): adaptive reuse projects can implement functions and businesses in the emerging alternative economies

• Shared use of spaces: a mix of different uses and users enhance the impact on local contexts and engage more sectors of the society

• Spaces of shared products, tools, resources: adaptive reuse projects can foresee functions that trigger the shared use of products, tools and resources (for example Repair cafes, Fab Labs, Co-housing and Co-working facilities, etc.)

• Sharing of economic value created: from the financial perspective, adaptive reuse can stimulate the sharing of the economic value created through innovative financing mechanisms

• Sharing of risks: multiple promoters, financing bodies and actors can reduce the risks of investment of adaptive reuse projects

• Fair economic value creation: adaptive reuse projects should avoid private over-exploitation of the resource (see also n.10 of the list)


Relational economy: densification of relationships (cooperative economy, sharing economy, social and solidarity economy, civil economy…)4


18 Regenerate micro-communities

Cultural heritage adaptive reuse is able to stimulate new relationships, through a the development of a sense of belongingand co-ownership, and a Heritage Community (as promoted by the FARO Convention on the value of cultural heritage for society), that will take care of the heritage and of the transmission of itsvalues to future generations

• “Heritage Community” approach: adaptive reuses and valorization of heritage resources implementing the FARO Convention

• Regeneration of cooperative relationships: social networks of cooperation created around the reused cultural heritage

• Sense of common belonging and co-ownership: associations and community-led activities directly related to the reused heritage / landscape


the CLIC conceptualization of a «full circular» economy culture-centred

Next steps: identify indicators / data to be collectedto make operational the CLIC evaluation framework

first conclusions:

• seeks to enrich the common understanding of the circular economy as a «decoupling» economic model, integrating within this model the human-centred models of the cultural

economy, ecological economy, relational economy

• and demonstrates how cultural heritage / landscape systemic adaptive reuse can contribute to the implementation of this «full circular» economic and city-territory model,

through the flow of externalities that arise in multiple dimensions

• by providing a common understanding and a structured framework to re-interpretinnovative adaptive reuse practices in the perspective of the circularization of social-

economic-ecological-cultural urban and territorial systems

Placing Culture in an Ecological Economics Ontology Beyond a Pillar Approach

CLIC Conceptual Framework

Gillian Foster and Sigrid Stagl, Institute for Ecological Economics

MAY 24, 2018

Paper in Progress

This presentation covers the key points of the forthcoming paper—

“Placing Culture in an Ecological Economics Ontology Beyond a Pillar Approach” authored by Gillian Foster and Sigrid Stagl

This new conceptual framework and graphic could be used for the CLIC Conceptual Framework too-

If agreed, but not modified

Cultureis the common thread

that defines a community’s

Beliefs

Customs

PreferencesSocial Behaviors

Values

Attitudes

Biophysical Systems

Support All Life

Providing Materials

Humans Use

While Absorbing/Recycling Waste and Pollution

The Planet Earth’s

• The Earth’s biophysical systems support all life, providing and recycling the materials humans use and discard.

• Human economic and social systems depend on earth’s biophysical systems.

• By generating pollution and overusing materials, humans risk irreparably damaging important biophysical systems that support human life on earth.

• Culture is the beliefs, customs and social behaviors of human groups.

• Culture is the frame by which humans interpret the world, including their preferences and needs and social interactions.

• All complex interdependent human socioeconomic systems that enable human flourishing (happiness and well-being) are carried out in the context of culture and the environment.

• Therefore culture has a direct impact on design of socioeconomic systems AND the amount of materials humans use and discard and the pollution we produce.

Complex Interdependent Socioeconomic

Systems Enabling Human

Flourishing

Gillian Foster & Sigrid Stagl April 6, 2018

CLIC Conceptual FrameworkPlacing Culture in an Ecological Economics Ontology

Beyond a “Pillar” Approach

Ecological Economics strives for

Pluralism in Economics Transdisciplinary Interdisciplinary The lens or entry point of inquiry can be specific to a given common

problem – such as culture

Ontology and Core Understandings of EE are Essential

Ecological Economics

“EE integrates elements of economics, ecology, thermodynamics, ethics, and a range of other natural and social sciences to provide an integrated and biophysical perspective on environment - economy interactions, aimed at contributing to structural solutions to environmental problems. The core of EE can be associated with the goal of sustainable development, interpreted as both intra-and intergenerational equity; the view that the economy is a subsystem of a larger local and global ecosystem which sets limits to the physical growth of the economy; and, a methodological approach based on the use of physical material, energy, chemical, biological) indicators and comprehensive systems analysis.”

van den Bergh, Jeroen C. "Ecological economics: themes, approaches, and differences with environmental economics." Regional Environmental Change 2.1 (2001): 13-23.

Ecological Economics Core Understandings

Embeddedness of the Economy and all complex human systems within bio geophysical limits

“human behavior in the context of natural ecosystems” (Constanza & Daily 1987) emphasis added

Life is dependent on the planet – not the other way around

Economic and ecological systems are open and complex flows of energy and matter

Nature has intrinsic value – (not asset value)

All values (particularly nature) are not interchangeable or incommensurable.

Embeddedness

Raworth, Kate. 2012. "A safe and just space for humanity: can we live within the doughnut." Oxfam Policy and Practice: Climate Change and Resilience 8 (1):1-26.

Biosphere

Humanity

Economy

The Doughnut of social and planetary boundaries

Stockholm Resilience Centre, Stockholm University

Ontological Differences?

The relationship of humankind to nature

EE - Nature is not defined or confined by human discovery of itCritical Realism - Objective reality exists, with or without human interpretation. “The truth is out there. We see it depending on who we are in time and space.”

CE – Human culture determines what nature isSocial Constructivism - Objective reality does not exist, only human social construction of it. “Today’s reality is waiting to be measured and told that it exists”

Cultural Heritage Counts for Europe 2015

• Starts with pillar approach

• Does not match current ecological economics thinking about complex systems and embeddedness

• Fails to theoretically link the elements that CLIC and circularity link

CHCfE Consortium. "Cultural Heritage Counts for Europe." CHCfE Consortium: Krakow, Poland (2015).

Considering Different Ontologies for Culture in Relation to Sustainability with Pillars

10

Dessein, J., Soini, K., Fairclough, G., & Horlings, L. (2015). Culture in, for and as Sustainable Development. Conclusions from the Cost Action IS1007 Investigating Cultural Sustainability. Jyväskylä: Jyväskylä University Press & European Cooperation in Science and Technology.

If human culture defines the environment, then

All societal choices are optimal. The utility axiom is always reached

Ecosystem services approach with some moderation for intangibles is ‘enough’ –only measures the delivery of services for humanuse

No intrinsic value of nature

Incommensurability of values is a footnote rather than core principal

Consider the value of a tiger

PAGE 11

Why Ontology Matters

What is origin of Cultural Capital?

As David Throsby pointed out in 1992, the term “cultural capital” has different meanings for the ecological economics community and for sociologists.

What we want to point out here is that the different meanings imply a different ontological basis.

These ontological differences can lead to epistemological and methodological differences, and outcomes which we will highlight.

Therefore CLIC requires a new interdisciplinary conceptual framework that integrates the theoretical frameworks of EE and CE.

Pierre Bourdieu

“Cultural capital can exist in three forms: in the embodied state, i.e., in the form of long-lasting dispositions of the mind and body; in the objectified state, in the form of cultural goods (pictures, books,

dictionaries, instruments, machines, etc.), which are the trace or realization of theories or critiques of these theories, problematics, etc.; and in the institutionalized state, a form of objectification which must be

set apart because, as will be seen in the case of educational qualifications, it confers entirely original properties on the cultural capital which it is presumed to guarantee.”

Throsby links this definition to human capital

13

Berkes & Folke

“We use the term cultural capital to refer to factors that provide human societies with the means and adaptations to deal with the natural environment.

Cultural capital, as used here, includes factors such as social/political institutions, environmental ethics (world view) and traditional ecological knowledge in a society.

The three types of capital are closely interrelated. Natural capital is the basis for cultural capital. (emphasis added)

Human-made capital is generated by an interaction between natural and cultural capital. Cultural capital will determine how a society uses natural capital to create human-made capital.”

Throsby comments that this is the context of EE linking this definition to human capital

14

Natural Capital

Human Made

CapitalCultural Capital

Ecosystem Services Approach

Land

CapitalLabor

Traditional Capital Theory (factors of production = land, labor, capital)

David Throsby

“[W]e can define an item of cultural capital as an asset that contributes to cultural value. More precisely, cultural capital is the stock of cultural value embodied in an asset. This stock may in turn give rise to a flow of goods and services over time, i.e., to commodities that themselves may have both cultural and economic value. The asset may exist in tangible or intangible form.” (Throsby, 1999)

Traditional Capital Theory (factors of production = land, labor, capital)

15

Land

CapitalLabor

Cultural Capital

Cultural Ecosystem Services Approach

Cultural Ecosystems Services Approach

In response to U.N. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA), which shaped ecosystem services

“The MA (1) defines cultural services interms of the“nonmaterial benefits people obtain from ecosystems,” and specifically lists “cultural diversity, spiritual and religious values, knowledge systems, educational values, inspiration, aesthetic values, social relations, sense of place, cultural heritage values, recreation and ecotourism”.” (Daniel, et. al quoting MA)

This article explores the “tradeoffs and synergies across multiple value systems” referencing “Direct Monetary, Indirect Monetary, Non-monetary, and Qualitative” methods

16

Source - Daniel, Terry C., et al. "Contributions of cultural services to the ecosystem services agenda." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 109.23 (2012): 8812-8819.

Critique of Exclusively Ecosystems Services /Cultural Ecosystems Services Approach

Ecosystems services is a capital theory / finance solution / environmental accounting method

Does not include incommensurable values Does not include value differences (pluralism) Not possible to aggregate ecosystem services values Non-monetary biophysical indicators are possible (i.e., Norwegian Nature

Index) Impossible to properly value biodiversity Does not include Precautionary Principle (environment) Scientific judgement is usurped by political judgements

17

Source - Spash, C. L., & Aslaksen, I. (2015). Re-establishing an ecological discourse in the policy debate over how to value ecosystems and biodiversity. Journal of environmental management, 159, 245-253.

Cultureis the common thread

that defines a community’s

Beliefs

Customs

PreferencesSocial Behaviors

Values

Attitudes

Biophysical Systems

Support All Life

Providing Materials

Humans Use

While Absorbing/Recycling Waste and Pollution

The Planet Earth’s

• The Earth’s biophysical systems support all life, providing and recycling the materials humans use and discard.

• Human economic and social systems depend on earth’s biophysical systems.

• By generating pollution and overusing materials, humans risk irreparably damaging important biophysical systems that support human life on earth.

• Culture is the beliefs, customs and social behaviors of human groups.

• Culture is the frame by which humans interpret the world, including their preferences and needs and social interactions.

• All complex interdependent human socioeconomic systems that enable human flourishing (happiness and well-being) are carried out in the context of culture and the environment.

• Therefore culture has a direct impact on design of socioeconomic systems AND the amount of materials humans use and discard and the pollution we produce.

Complex Interdependent Socioeconomic

Systems Enabling Human

Flourishing

Gillian Foster & Sigrid Stagl April 6, 2018

CLIC Conceptual FrameworkPlacing Culture in an Ecological Economics Ontology

Beyond a “Pillar” Approach

INSTITUTE FOR ECOLOGICAL ECONOMICS Welthandelsplatz 1, 1020 Vienna, Austria

Mag. Gillian Foster and Dr. Sigrid Stagl

[email protected]@wu.ac.at

www.wu.ac.at

PAGE 19

Thank you!

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

“Transdisciplinary Research is defined as research efforts conducted by investigators from different disciplines working jointly to create new conceptual, theoretical, methodological, and translational innovations that integrate and move beyond discipline-specific approaches to address a common problem.

Interdisciplinary Research is any study or group of studies undertaken by scholars from two or more distinct sciemodel that links or integrates theoretical frameworks from those disciplines, uses study design and methodology that is not limited to any one field, and requires the use of perspectives ntific disciplines. The research is based upon a conceptual and skills of the involved disciplines throughout multiple phases of the research process.1”

1. Aboelela, S. W., Larson, E., Bakken, S., Carrasquillo, O., Formicola, A., Glied, S. A., Haas, J. and Gebbie, K. M. (2007), Defining Interdisciplinary Research: Conclusions from a Critical Review of the Literature. Health Services Research, 42: 329–346. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-6773.2006.00621.x

Source - https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/trec/about-us/definitions/

PAGE 20

CLIC multidimensional evaluation framework€¦ · • Closed water systems: recovering historic...

Documents

Transcript of CLIC multidimensional evaluation framework€¦ · • Closed water systems: recovering historic...