Ecology and valuation: Big changes needed

Abstract

Ecological Economics has developed as a "transdisciplinary science," but it has not taken significant steps toward a truly integrated process of evaluating anthropogenic ecological change. The emerging dominance within ecological economics of the movement to monetize "ecological services," when combined with the already wellentrenched dominance of contingent pricing as a means to evaluate impacts on amenities, has created a "monistic" approach to valuation studies. It is argued that this monistic approach to evaluating anthropogenic impacts is inconsistent with a sophisticated conception of ecology as a complex science that rests on shifting metaphors. An alternative, pluralistic and iterative approach to valuation of anthropogenic ecological change is proposed.What do you get if you cross an economist and an ecologist? While genetic technology has (thankfully) not yet allowed for this experiment to be attempted at the level of the individual, over the last 20 years the field of ecological economics has emerged and grown as a result of just this type of cross-fertilization at the disciplinary level. As nurtured through ISEE conferences, other national ISEE meetings, in colleges and agencies, and in the writings in the journal, Ecological Economics, the field is the result of a sustained experiment in integrated ecological and economic understanding of environmental problems and the challenge of sustainable living. Is the post-disciplinary, trans-disciplinary chimera that stands before us a fulfillment of the vision that gave it birth? Or are we feeding a beast that does not serve the purpose for which it was 1

New foundations for ecological economics

“…For example, value pluralism in ecological economics contrasts with value monism in mainstream economics, and the two are incompatible (Norton and Noonan, 2007). Third, economic imperialism means ecological economics is treated as a subfield of orthodox environmental and resource economics e.g.…”

“…economists associate with the old conventional framework without realising this is actually detrimental to their desire for the development of a compelling alternative (e.g. Norton and Noonan, 2007). In ecological economics, association with mainstream economic ideas and incorporation of economic formalism have several impacts (Spash, 2009a).…”

Re-establishing an ecological discourse in the policy debate over how to value ecosystems and biodiversity

“…In addition, the approach contradicts the thrust of valuation theory in social ecological economics and replaces recognition of incommensurability and value pluralism calling for multiple criteria assessment (MartinezAlier et al, 1998), with a universal monistic money measure (e.g., see criticism by Norton and Noonan, 2007). However, even within ecological economics new environmental pragmatism appeared forcefully with the Costanza et al (1997) study.…”

Cross-Scale Value Trade-Offs in Managing Social-Ecological Systems: The Politics of Scale in Ruaha National Park, Tanzania

“…In recent literature on environmental policy and socialecological systems (Vatn and Bromley 1994, Bromley 1998, Norton and Steinemann 2001, Vatn 2002, Norton and Noonan 2007, Norgaard 2010), there appears to be an emerging consensus to use "development paths" as a unit of analysis for evaluating alternate management options. For example, outlining the elements of a deliberative pluralistic, multiscalar (DPM) theory of ecological valuation, Norton and Noonan (2007:672) …”