Exploring alternative systems for comprehensive natural capital valuation

There has been growing concern over the mismatch between anthropocentric nature valuation systems, non-economic values important to certain stakeholder groups—especially First Nations People (FNP)—and the intrinsic value of ecosystems outside human uses. Positivist methods are proposing increasingly advanced systems to identify, measure and estimate the many benefits and values obtained from natural ecosystems. From the early days of environmental economics to its most recent advance, concepts like environmental functions and ecosystem services have been refined, harmonised, integrated into accounting systems and expended to embrace non-economic value dimensions and the diverse perspectives of multiple types of stakeholders. These different systems and concepts have been essential in expanding our understanding of human-ecosystem interactions and their many socio-economic implications. However, it is becoming apparent that these systems show important limitations the moment one ventures into the realm of non-use, intangible values like the ones related to social, cultural or spiritual importance. Key challenges include: 1. Limits of nature commodification: Reducing nature’s many contributions to society to economic values is likely a gross simplification. Not all of nature's contributions can be easily transactional. The economy is only a fraction of human society, itself bounded by the limits of the natural ecosystem we live in (i.e., Earth). 2. Holistic vs Atomistic views: Current systems typically break nature into discrete components for valuation (TEV) but tend to miss holistic perspectives. FNPs, for example, view nature as interconnected and emphasise relational values that cannot be captured by atomistic measures. Synergies in their value system suggest that ecosystem value is greater than the sum of its parts. 3. Western vs Alternative views: Positivist, objective measurement systems often don't align with alternative cultural perspectives, like FNP knowledge, which leans towards idealist and interpretivist views that clash with Western worldviews. These views highlight the importance of context, individual interpretation, and cultural heritage, which can't always be objectively measured. This is a longstanding issue, illustrating the divide between physical and metaphysical worldviews and how they shape reality. The reliance on monetary metrics appears central to the problem. While non-monetary alternatives exist, they typically lack the simplicity and universality of money, making them harder to apply in decision-making. To address these challenges, we propose three main ideas to reconcile differing perspectives. First, we suggest using time as an alternative to money in nature valuation. As time is finite, it becomes humanity’s ultimate currency, shaping both individual and ecosystem value over thousands of years, giving ecosystems a time-based value far exceeding purely monetary assessments. Second, we argue for valuing community benefits over private ones. Community-based valuation reflects relational values, equity, cultural heritage, and accessibility rights, making it a more just and inclusive approach. Finally, we propose that valuation systems focus on ecosystem resilience. By prioritising adaptive capacity, we can enhance stewardship and ensure ecosystems continue to support human well-being long into the future. The rest of the paper explores the practical implications of this shift to time-based valuation, community benefits, and resilience, and how these new approaches could aid in decision-making.