The concept of ecosystem services has gained significant traction in environmental policy over the past two decades. These services, which include provisioning resources like food and water, regulating processes such as climate and flood control, and cultural benefits like recreation, are essential for human well-being. However, their economic valuation remains contentious. Critics argue that assigning monetary values to nature can lead to its commodification, potentially undermining intrinsic conservation ethics. Proponents counter that valuation is a pragmatic tool, enabling policymakers to compare environmental costs and benefits with other economic priorities. A recent study in the Journal of Environmental Management suggests that while monetary valuation can highlight the hidden costs of habitat destruction, it often fails to capture non-material values, such as spiritual or aesthetic significance. Consequently, the authors advocate for a hybrid approach that integrates quantitative valuation with qualitative assessments, ensuring that decisions respect both ecological integrity and socio-cultural contexts.
❓ What is the main argument of the study mentioned in the passage?
A. Monetary valuation of ecosystem services should be abandoned entirely.
B. A combined approach using both monetary and qualitative methods is necessary.
C. Economic valuation is the most effective way to protect ecosystems.
D. Cultural benefits of nature are more important than provisioning services.
✅ 正确答案
A combined approach using both monetary and qualitative methods is necessary.
IELTS Reading Tips
Skim the questions first, underline keywords, then locate in the passage
Watch for paraphrasing; correct answers are often reworded
Be wary of absolute statements (all, always, never) — usually wrong
Pay attention to content after transition words (however, but, yet)
Manage time: about 20 minutes per passage; skip difficult questions first