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 1997 the economist Robert Costanza and his team put a price on the world's ecosystem services: about US$33 trillion a year, more than the whole world's economic output then, about US$18 trillion. Nature was described in money, like a business.
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.
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 2008 Ecuador wrote the rights of nature into its constitution. Nature, called Pachamama, is treated as something with rights, not only as capital to be used.
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.
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 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: since 1997 Costa Rica has paid landowners for the ecosystem services their forests give: carbon storage, clean water, biodiversity and scenery. Forest cover, about a fifth of the country in the late 1980s, has grown back to over half.
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.
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.
A government report values a country's forests, rivers and fish stocks as natural capital, and plans to manage them so they keep giving income.
To what extent are the concepts of natural capital and natural income helpful in managing the sustainable use of natural resources?
Model answer plan
See the mark-by-mark plan — for / against / judgement, with marking guidance — in study mode.