Costanza, et al (1997). Nature 387(6630): 253-260.
Costanza’s	
  
inten,on	
  was	
  to	
  
‘give	
  the	
  natural	
  
capital	
  stock	
  that	
  
produces	
  these	
  
services	
  adequate	
  
weight’	
  in	
  
decision-­‐making	
  
(Costanza,	
  1997)
¡  Most	
  environmental	
  valua,on	
  takes	
  people’s	
  actual,	
  or	
  
hypothe,cal,	
  ‘willingness	
  to	
  pay’	
  for	
  an	
  ecosystem	
  service,	
  
as	
  a	
  proxy	
  for	
  its	
  overall	
  value.	
  	
  
¡  Revealed	
  preference	
  methods:	
  
§  HEDONIC	
  PRICING	
  method	
  analyses	
  varia,ons	
  in	
  market	
  prices,	
  
par,cularly	
  house	
  prices	
  	
  
§  TRAVEL	
  COST	
  method	
  analyses	
  the	
  amount	
  people	
  spend	
  travelling	
  
to	
  ‘use’	
  an	
  ecosystem	
  service	
  
¡  Stated	
  preference	
  methods	
  (aka	
  Con,ngent	
  Valua,on):	
  
§  WILLINGNESS	
  TO	
  PAY	
  SURVEYS	
  ask	
  people	
  to	
  state,	
  ideally	
  off	
  the	
  
top	
  of	
  their	
  head,	
  how	
  much	
  they	
  would	
  be	
  willing	
  to	
  pay	
  to	
  
conserve	
  a	
  hectare	
  of	
  forest,	
  a	
  coral	
  reef,	
  or	
  a	
  flock	
  of	
  birds.	
  	
  
Some	
  criticisms:	
  
¡  Greater	
  weight	
  to	
  the	
  preferences	
  of	
  the	
  rich	
  
(Clive	
  Spash,	
  2008)	
  
¡  Until	
  ecosystems	
  cease	
  to	
  function,	
  we	
  may	
  
have	
  no	
  idea	
  of	
  their	
  real	
  value	
  (William	
  Rees,	
  1998)	
  	
  
§  Nobody	
  wants	
  to	
  pay	
  to	
  conserve	
  the	
  ugly	
  worm…	
  
¡  A	
  metaphor	
  that	
  blinds	
  us	
  to	
  complexity?	
  (See	
  
Richard	
  Norgaard,	
  2010)	
  
¡  Different	
  dimensions	
  of	
  value	
  –	
  ecological,	
  
aesthetic,	
  spiritual,	
  cultural	
  –	
  which	
  cannot	
  be	
  
compressed	
  into	
  a	
  single	
  metric	
  (Martinez-­‐Alier,	
  J.,	
  Munda,	
  
G.	
  &	
  O’Neill,	
  1998)	
  
Valuation	
  studies	
  involving	
  non-­‐monetary	
  
valuation	
  techniques	
  give	
  different	
  results:	
  
¡  group	
  deliberation	
  
§  See	
  the	
  pioneering	
  study	
  in	
  the	
  Solomon	
  Islands	
  led	
  by	
  Jasper	
  Kenter.	
  When	
  asked	
  separately	
  
for	
  their	
  instantaneous	
  ‘willingness	
  to	
  pay’	
  to	
  preserve	
  an	
  area	
  of	
  their	
  local	
  tropical	
  forest,	
  
community	
  members	
  valued	
  its	
  services	
  at	
  30%	
  of	
  their	
  annual	
  income.	
  But	
  after	
  an	
  hour	
  of	
  
simple	
  participatory	
  and	
  deliberative	
  exercises,	
  the	
  forest	
  became	
  effectively	
  priceless.	
  Given	
  
time	
  to	
  discuss,	
  community	
  members	
  raised	
  concerns	
  about	
  ‘decrease	
  of	
  food	
  security;	
  
violation	
  of	
  cultural	
  principles;	
  privatisation	
  of	
  land;	
  loss	
  of	
  community	
  and	
  social	
  
cohesion;	
  and	
  more	
  inequality,	
  jealousy	
  and	
  division’	
  and	
  became	
  unwilling	
  to	
  trade	
  off	
  the	
  
forest	
  for	
  any	
  price.	
  (Kenter,	
  J.O.,	
  Hyde,	
  T.,	
  Christie,	
  M.	
  &	
  Fazey,	
  I.	
  2011)	
  
¡  subjective	
  wellbeing	
  data	
  	
  
§  an	
  innovative	
  subjective	
  well-­‐being	
  (SWB)	
  valuation	
  technique,	
  based	
  on	
  individuals’	
  ratings	
  
of	
  their	
  life	
  satisfaction	
  rather	
  than	
  on	
  their	
  actual	
  or	
  hypothetical	
  economic	
  preferences.	
  In	
  
the	
  context	
  of	
  a	
  quasi-­‐	
  experiment	
  in	
  urban	
  regeneration,	
  Dolan	
  &	
  Metcalfe	
  found	
  that	
  
monetary	
  estimates	
  elicited	
  from	
  subjective	
  wellbeing	
  data	
  were	
  significantly	
  higher	
  than	
  
from	
  Willingness	
  to	
  Pay	
  data.	
  (Dolan,	
  P.	
  &	
  Metcalfe,	
  2008)	
  
¡  Some	
  argue	
  that	
  ‘failure	
  to	
  include	
  some	
  
measure	
  of	
  the	
  value	
  of	
  ecosystem	
  services	
  in	
  
cost-­‐benefit	
  calculations	
  will	
  implicitly	
  assign	
  
them	
  a	
  value	
  of	
  zero’	
  (Heal	
  et	
  al	
  2005)	
  
¡  Opponents	
  warn	
  that	
  pricing	
  nature	
  could:	
  	
  
§  reinforce	
  the	
  idea	
  that	
  cost-­‐benefit	
  calculations	
  can	
  
replace	
  the	
  need	
  for	
  political/ethical	
  deliberation	
  
§  pave	
  the	
  way	
  for	
  the	
  commodification	
  of	
  ecosystems	
  
§  Undermine	
  our	
  intrinsic	
  motivation	
  for	
  protecting	
  
ecosystems	
  
¡  UNEP’s	
  2010	
  Economics	
  of	
  Ecosystems	
  and	
  Biodiversity	
  (TEEB)	
  called	
  on	
  
governments	
  to	
  develop	
  ‘new	
  ecosystem	
  property	
  rights	
  and	
  trading	
  
schemes’	
  and	
  businesses	
  to	
  ‘grasp	
  new	
  [biodiversity	
  and	
  ecosystem	
  
service]	
  business	
  opportunities’	
  	
  
¡  Britain	
  and	
  38	
  other	
  countries	
  have,	
  or	
  are	
  in	
  the	
  process	
  of	
  setting	
  in	
  
place,	
  policies	
  which	
  will	
  allow	
  “biodiversity	
  offsetting”,	
  a	
  market	
  system	
  
of	
  conservation	
  used	
  in	
  the	
  US	
  and	
  Australia	
  which	
  aims	
  to	
  ensure	
  that	
  
there	
  is	
  no	
  net	
  loss	
  of	
  nature	
  from	
  any	
  development.	
  
¡  "A	
  market-­‐based	
  offsetting	
  mechanism	
  will	
  put	
  a	
  price	
  on	
  nature	
  and	
  turn	
  it	
  
into	
  a	
  commodity	
  to	
  be	
  traded	
  on	
  markets.	
  This	
  ignores	
  the	
  fact	
  that	
  each	
  
part	
  of	
  Europe's	
  biodiversity	
  is	
  unique	
  and	
  –	
  due	
  to	
  its	
  complexity	
  –	
  cannot	
  
be	
  truly	
  replaced.	
  There	
  is	
  certainly	
  no	
  way	
  of	
  offsetting	
  extinction	
  of	
  a	
  
species,	
  which	
  is	
  what	
  we	
  risk	
  with	
  a	
  policy	
  that	
  mistakenly	
  treats	
  nature	
  
like	
  an	
  accountant's	
  ledger.”	
  Friedrich	
  Wulf,	
  biodiversity	
  campaigner	
  at	
  
Friends	
  of	
  the	
  Earth	
  Europe	
  
¡  Research	
  on	
  values	
  from	
  the	
  
field	
  of	
  social	
  psychology	
  
may	
  shed	
  light	
  on	
  this	
  
question	
  	
  
¡  Next	
  few	
  slides	
  draw	
  on	
  a	
  
summary	
  of	
  this	
  research	
  by	
  
the	
  Public	
  Interest	
  Research	
  
Centre,	
  UK	
  
¡  What	
  are	
  the	
  biggest	
  man-­‐made	
  threats	
  to	
  
wellbeing,	
  the	
  biggest	
  causes	
  of	
  suffering?	
  
¡  Imagine	
  a	
  future	
  without	
  these	
  problems.	
  
o If	
  we	
  are	
  to	
  get	
  there	
  what	
  five	
  values	
  must	
  people	
  
hold	
  as	
  important?	
  	
  
X	
  Which	
  five	
  values	
  must	
  people	
  let	
  go	
  of?	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
Opinions are the ripples on the
surface of the public's consciousness,
shallow and easily changed. Attitudes
are the currents below the surface,
deeper and stronger. Values are the
deep tides of the public mood, slow to
change, but powerful.” 
Sir Robert Worcester
Founder of MORI
“
Self-transcendent
values associated with…
.
Greater empathy Sheldon & Kasser (1995); Myyry & Helkama (2001)
Greater civic and democratic engagement Schwartz (2006); Augemberg
(1999)
Greater support and action for human rights Cohrs et al. (2007);
Spini & Doise (1998)
Lower prejudice Duriez et al. (2007); Roets et al. (2006); Feather and McKee
(2008); Sagiv and Schwartz (1995); Sawyerr et al. (2005)
Cooperation vs. competition Schwartz (1996); Sheldon et al. (2000)
Lower anti-social behaviour Schwartz (2010); Cohen & Cohen (1996);
McHoskey (1999); Kasser & Ryan (1993)
Intrinsic
Extrinsic
Power
Universalism
Stimulation
Hedonism
B
enevolence
Achievem
ent
Self-Direction
Securit
y
Conformity&Tradition
Self-transcendent
values associated with….
Concern about effects of environmental damage on other people,
species, and generations (vs. self) Schultz et al. (2005)
More sustainable (and cooperative) behaviour in a resource
management game Sheldon and McGregor (2000)
Higher frequency of donating to or volunteering for environmental
organisations; voting for a ‘green’ political candidate; cycling;
recycling; reusing; conserving energy; taking part in an
environmentally-motivated political action etc. Gatersleben et al
(2008); Kasser (2005); Richins & Dawson (1992); Karp (1996);
Schultz et al (2005); Stern & Dietz (1996)
Intrinsic
Extrinsic
Power
Universalism
Stimulation
Hedonism
B
enevolence
Achievem
ent
Self-Direction
Securit
y
Conformity&Tradition
Self-transcendent
Values associated with
Personal Well-being
Higher life satisfaction Richins & Dawson (1992)
Higher self-actualization & vitality Kasser & Ryan (1993, 1996)
More positive vs. negative emotions Sheldon & Kasser (1995);
Nelissen, Dijker and de Vries (2007)
Lower levels of depression & anxiety Ibid; Schor (2004)
Lower levels of personality disorders Cohen & Cohen (1996)
Intrinsic
Extrinsic
Power
Universalism
Stimulation
Hedonism
B
enevolence
Achievem
ent
Self-Direction
Securit
y
Conformity&Tradition
Power
Universalism
Stimulatio
n
Hedonism
B
enevolence
Achieve
m
ent
Self-Direction
Securi
ty
Conformity&Tradition
Values can be engaged, with affects on other values
Power
Universalism
Stimulatio
n
Hedonism
B
enevolence
Achieve
m
ent
Self-Direction
Securi
ty
Conformity&Tradition
Subjects memorised
adjectives, items of furniture
and either:
- Benevolence-related words
(forgiving, helpful, honest)
- Achievement-related words
(ambitious, capable,
successful)
- Food related words (control)
Benevolence Control Achievement
The see-saw effect
Engaging one set of values suppresses and discourages conflicting
values, and associated attitudes and behaviours.
¡  Early	
  1990s	
  referenda	
  in	
  	
  Switzerland	
  about	
  where	
  to	
  site	
  
its	
  nuclear	
  waste	
  dumps.	
  Two	
  social	
  scientists	
  went	
  door	
  to	
  
door	
  asking	
  whether	
  residents	
  would	
  be	
  willing	
  to	
  have	
  a	
  
waste	
  dump	
  in	
  their	
  community,	
  despite	
  potential	
  
dangers,	
  and	
  negative	
  impact	
  on	
  value	
  of	
  property.	
  	
  
¡  Astonishingly	
  50%	
  said	
  yes!	
  People	
  apparently	
  felt	
  an	
  
obligation	
  as	
  citizens	
  
¡  But	
  when	
  people	
  were	
  offered	
  an	
  annual	
  payment	
  
equivalent	
  to	
  6	
  week’s	
  wages,	
  	
   	
   	
   	
  only	
  
25%	
  agreed.	
  
¡  The	
  prospect	
  of	
  a	
  private	
  payoff 	
  	
   	
  	
  transformed	
  a	
  civic	
  
question	
  into	
  a	
  pecuniary	
  one.	
  
	
  Frey,	
  Oberholzer-­‐Gee	
  and	
  Eichenberger	
  (1996)	
  
¡  Day	
  care	
  centre	
  responded	
  to	
  problem	
  of	
  parents	
  
turning	
  up	
  late	
  to	
  collect	
  their	
  children	
  by	
  introducing	
  
fines.	
  
¡  Late	
  pick-­‐ups	
  increased!	
  
¡  The	
  fear	
  of	
  disapproval	
  and	
  of	
  doing	
  the	
  wrong	
  thing	
  
was	
  based	
  on	
  non-­‐monetary	
  values,	
  and	
  was	
  a	
  
stronger	
  force	
  than	
  a	
  cash	
  disincentive.	
  
¡  The	
  day	
  care	
  centre	
  went	
  back	
  to	
  the	
  old	
  system	
  but	
  
parents	
  kept	
  turning	
  up	
  late.	
  	
  
¡  The	
  introduction	
  of	
  market	
  values	
  had	
  killed	
  the	
  old	
  
ideas	
  of	
  collective	
  responsibility.	
  
	
  Gneezy	
  and	
  Rustichini	
  (2000)	
  
¡  Compared	
  the	
  voluntary	
  British	
  system	
  
favourably	
  with	
  the	
  American	
  one,	
  in	
  which	
  
payments	
  were	
  then	
  widely	
  made.	
  
¡  Titmuss	
  argued	
  that	
  the	
  market	
  for	
  blood	
  was	
  
inefficient	
  and	
  wasteful,	
  and	
  that	
  it	
  led	
  to	
  a	
  
contaminated	
  supply	
  of	
  blood.	
  
Paying	
  for	
  blood	
  donations	
  “erodes	
  
people’s	
  sense	
  of	
  obligation	
  to	
  
donate	
  blood,	
  diminishes	
  the	
  spirit	
  of	
  
altruism,	
  and	
  undermines	
  the	
  ‘gift	
  
relationship’	
  as	
  an	
  active	
  feature	
  of	
  
social	
  life”	
  
	
  Titmuss,	
  1970	
  
	
  
	
  Scare	
  resources	
  that	
  are	
  	
  
“used	
  up”?	
  
	
  
Muscles	
  that	
  grow	
  stronger	
  	
  
with	
  exercise?	
  
Think	
  of	
  a	
  loving	
  couple.	
  If,	
  over	
  a	
  lifetime,	
  
they	
  asked	
  little	
  of	
  one	
  another,	
  in	
  hopes	
  of	
  
hoarding	
  their	
  love,	
  how	
  well	
  would	
  they	
  
fare?	
  Wouldn’t	
  their	
  love	
  deepen,	
  rather	
  
than	
  diminish	
  the	
  more	
  they	
  called	
  upon	
  it?	
  
Would	
  they	
  do	
  better	
  to	
  treat	
  one	
  another	
  in	
  
more	
  calculating	
  fashion,	
  to	
  conserve	
  their	
  
love	
  for	
  the	
  times	
  they	
  really	
  needed	
  it?	
  (p.
128).	
  To	
  renew	
  our	
  public	
  life	
  we	
  need	
  to	
  
exercise	
  [virtues]	
  more	
  strenuously.	
  (p.130)	
  
We	
  all	
  have	
  only	
  so	
  much	
  altruism	
  in	
  us.	
  
Economists	
  like	
  me	
  think	
  of	
  altruism	
  as	
  a	
  
valuable	
  and	
  rare	
  good	
  that	
  needs	
  
conserving.	
  Far	
  better	
  to	
  conserve	
  it	
  by	
  
designing	
  a	
  system	
  in	
  which	
  people’s	
  wants	
  
will	
  be	
  satisfied	
  by	
  individuals	
  being	
  selfish,	
  
and	
  saving	
  that	
  altruism	
  for	
  our	
  families,	
  our	
  
friends,	
  and	
  the	
  many	
  social	
  problems	
  in	
  this	
  
world	
  that	
  markets	
  cannot	
  solve.	
  
OR	
  
Larry Summers Michael Sandel
Some	
  ideas	
  from	
  Clive	
  Spash	
  (taken	
  from	
  a	
  talk	
  he	
  gave	
  in	
  2010)	
  	
  
§  Recognise	
  values	
  cannot	
  be	
  reduced	
  to	
  single	
  figure;	
  refusing	
  to	
  trade	
  is	
  ‘rational’	
  
§  Recognise	
  that	
  community	
  interests	
  are	
  different	
  from	
  individual	
  interests	
  
§  Acknowledge	
  the	
  need	
  for	
  judgment	
  (often	
  judgments	
  are	
  merely	
  hidden;	
  make	
  judgment	
  
explicit,	
  informed;	
  accountable)	
  
§  Build	
  institutions	
  for	
  deliberation	
  (e.g.	
  citizen's	
  juries)	
  
§  Apply	
  political	
  representation	
  instead	
  of	
  statistical	
  representation	
  
§  Appeal	
  to	
  process	
  of	
  value	
  formation	
  rather	
  than	
  assume	
  pre-­‐formed	
  preferences	
  
§  Empower	
  silent	
  voices	
  (e.g.	
  politically	
  weak,	
  poor,	
  non-­‐humans,	
  future	
  generations)	
  
§  Employ	
  scientists/experts	
  with	
  accountability	
  and	
  transparency	
  
	
  
See	
  Spash,	
  Stagl	
  and	
  Getzner	
  “Exploring	
  alternatives	
  for	
  environmental	
  
valuation”	
  Chapter	
  1	
  
From	
  Alternatives	
  for	
  Environmental	
  Valuation	
  Getzner,	
  Spash	
  &	
  Stagl	
  (eds.)	
  
London:	
  Routledge,	
  2005