Natural capital as a perspective at Higher Level: The same statement as SL, with different real cases: Costanza's 2014 valuation, the Whanganui River as a legal person and New York's Catskill forests. At HL, weigh the economic lens against the ethical one: what does a price on nature protect, and what does it miss?
Practise this as you read
- Explain what the terms imply about nature.
- Judge the idea: contentious perspective v effective model.
Free preview
This is the free notes preview
You're reading the free notes. Aimnova Pro unlocks the full study experience — and you can try it with your first topic free to keep:
- FlashcardsLock in vocabulary and key terms with spaced repetition.
- Practice questionsAnswer exam-style questions and get instant AI marking.
- Mock exams & past-paper vaultSit full mocks and see exactly how examiners award marks.
- Personalised study planA daily plan built around your exam date and weak areas.
Words carry a view: The terms 'natural capital' and 'natural income' imply a particular perspective on nature: nature as something that produces value for people.
The points to remember
- 'Capital', 'income', 'services' and 'resources' are words from economics.
- They describe nature as assets that produce a flow of value for people.
- So nature is valued for what it does for humans: its instrumental value.
- This is an anthropocentric perspective: humans at the centre.
Remember it as: Call a forest 'capital' and you have already asked: what is it worth to us?
Real example: in 2014 Costanza's team updated their estimate: ecosystem services were worth about US$125 trillion a year, and changes in land use since 1997 had cost up to about US$20 trillion a year. The loss of nature was counted like a loss of wealth.
Feeling unprepared for exams?
Get a clear study plan, practice with real questions, and know exactly where you stand before exam day. No more guessing.
The guide calls this perspective contentious: many people object to seeing nature as a store of value for humans.
The criticism
- It can suggest nature is there for human exploitation: an extreme anthropocentric view.
- It ignores intrinsic value: the worth of a species or a river in itself.
- Some things cannot be priced or replaced: an extinct species, a sacred mountain.
- A price can justify destruction when clearing earns more than keeping.
- Values are hard to measure, so numbers can be guesses.
Real example: in 2017 New Zealand made the Whanganui River a legal person. The Maori iwi of the river say 'I am the river, and the river is me': a view of nature as kin, not as an asset.
Not every anthropocentric view: Seeing nature as capital is anthropocentric, but not always extreme. It becomes extreme when nature is seen as existing only for human use.
The guide also says the idea serves very effectively as a model for sustainable use.
The strength
- It is a model for sustainable use: keep the capital, live on the income.
- It links to sustainable yield: harvest no more than the natural increase.
- It makes nature's value visible to governments and businesses, in terms they already use.
- It supports tools such as payments for ecosystem services and natural capital accounting.
- It shows the cost of losing capital: future income is lost too.
Real example: in 1997 New York City chose to spend about US$1.5 billion protecting the forests of its Catskill watershed, which filter its drinking water, instead of building a filtration plant estimated at US$8-10 billion. Treating the forest as capital saved money and kept the forest.
A useful model
- Keep the capital, live on the income
- Shows the cost of losing nature
- Speaks the language of decision-makers
A risky perspective
- Nature for exploitation
- Ignores intrinsic value
- Hard to put numbers on
For a 9-mark essay: Use the terms (capital, income, sustainable yield, quotas), give named examples on both sides, and end with a clear judgement.
Memorize terms 3x faster
Smart flashcards show you cards right before you forget them. Perfect for definitions and key concepts.
How this comes up: Paper 2, Section B (c): a 9-mark essay marked on the whole answer: terms, breadth, named examples, balance and a supported conclusion.
Some governments now publish natural capital accounts alongside their national income, while some Indigenous peoples argue that rivers and forests are relatives, not resources.
To what extent is regarding nature as natural capital the best way to ensure resources are used sustainably?
Model answer plan
See the mark-by-mark plan — for / against / judgement, with marking guidance — in study mode.