Value lost in translation: Integrating ecological principles into environmental valuations

Tania BricenoPhD Thesis, HEC MONTREAL

Supervisors:

Bernard Sinclair Desgagne

Jean Pierre Reveret

Environmental ValuationsIncreased popularity: eg. Stern

report (2006), MEA (2005), TEEB Report (2010)

Need for greater interdisciplinarity (Vedeld 1994, Norton and Noonan 2007, Sagoff, 2010, Norgaard 2010)◦Complex systems oversimplified

The ecological economics proposes alternative frameworks

Research QuestionAre key ecological principles,

necessary for ensuring ecological resilience, being overlooked in valuation practices?

And if so, what are the factors, underlying mechanisms and circumstances contributing to their oversight?

Ecology and Economics: Theoretical underpinnings

Definition of environmental value Goals of each discipline (Polasky

and Segerson (2009)◦Economics: Human welfare◦Ecology: Resilience

Frameworks of study◦Ecology: Descriptive, non-linear,

functional◦Economics: Normative, linear,

output-oriented

Ecological PrinciplesEcosystems are context dependent

and place-specificEcosystems’ interconnected

components and hierarchical levelsEcological functions and processes

describe dynamics of ecosystems(Functional) biodiversity is

necessary for ecosystem resilienceMultiple equilibria and ecosystem

thresholds determine functionality

The valuation process

The empirical analysisRandomly selected 200 valuation

studies from the EVRI database Principles and methodological

parameters turned into variables Meta-analyses through a

correspondence analysis Frequency and extent of

association is tested

RESULTS

Proportion of valuation methods

Direct market

price18%

Revealed prefer-ences24%

Stated Pref-er-

ences58%

Type of ecosystem service

Provisioning

Cultural

Supporting

Regulating

10 30 50 70 90 110 130 150 170Provisioning Cultural Supporting Regulating

Series1 160 106 76 71

Frequency of Ecological Principle Consideration

Summary table for general correspondence analysis

Summary

Dimension

Singular

Value Inertia Chi Square Sig.

Proportion of Inertia

Confidence Singular

Value

Accounted

for Cumulative

Standard

Deviation

Correlation

2

1 .130 .017 .699 .699 .013 .013

2 .073 .005 .220 .919 .013

3 .037 .001 .058 .977

4 .021 .000 .019 .996

5 .009 .000 .004 1.000

Total .024 146.382 .000a 1.000 1.000

Row profile table for Ecological Principles

Methodological

choice

Ecological

biodiversity interconnectivity

eco-

function endproduct threshold

place-

specific

Active

Margin

production .136 .184 .156 .188 .136 .200 1.000

demand .144 .145 .095 .263 .088 .265 1.000

stated .158 .143 .098 .260 .085 .256 1.000

revealed .112 .134 .067 .313 .073 .302 1.000

output-spend .123 .168 .151 .201 .162 .196 1.000

directuse .139 .140 .099 .263 .115 .245 1.000

indirectuse .172 .178 .151 .201 .093 .205 1.000

provisioning .133 .152 .103 .260 .111 .240 1.000

regulating .145 .175 .201 .186 .104 .189 1.000

supporting .196 .176 .137 .190 .092 .208 1.000

cultural .188 .140 .104 .254 .071 .242 1.000

expert-input .135 .160 .127 .224 .141 .213 1.000

temporal-scale .154 .184 .147 .176 .143 .195 1.000

spatial .163 .170 .120 .216 .101 .230 1.000

unit-valuation .165 .173 .126 .220 .102 .213 1.000

background .167 .179 .127 .209 .100 .219 1.000

Mass .153 .160 .121 .232 .105 .230

Variance explained by methodological parameters

Supporting services* Revealed preferencesCultural servicesindirect useUnit of valuationSupporting services Revealed preferences*Temporal scalesProduction methods Revealed preferences*Temporal scalesProduction methods* Stated preferencesTemporal scalesRegulating services* Revealed preferencesProduction methodsTemporal scalesOutput spending* Cultural servicesTemporal scalesExpert Input

Output spending* Cultural servicesUnit of valuationRevealed Preferences* Regulating servicesStated preference methodsRevealed Preferences* Regulating servicesExpert InputSpatial scales

Biodiversity

Functional Biodiversity

Interconnectivity

High interconnectivity

Eco-functions

Thresholds

Specific thresholds

Place-specific

High place specificity

Conclusions and contributions

Ecological characteristics like the existence of thresholds and emergent properties not actively included in valuation studies.

Common focus on direct-use value, demand-based approaches, consumer preferences, and an almost exclusive use of monetary indicators.

Improvements in the sophistication of demand models not matched with developments of the ecological production model.

Potential for concepts like Fromm’s contributory value to include resilience.

Future researchExplore more deterministic

cause-and-effect relationships between the variables with more explanatory models.

Case studies to look at processes and decision making frameworks.

Weighting of the relative importance of the principles for resilience.

Testing with relationship with other welfare considerations (social).