Ecosystem Values

Social Goals and the Valuation of Ecosystem Services. Costanza 2000

A good read, although I disagreed with most things. There are a few interesting statements which I think are worth considering.

First, the paper makes the arguement that valuation of ecosystem services is inevitable, and all choices can be evaluated via projection of relative value (i.e. we choose x over y, therefore x is more valuable than y). I disagree. That is the dominant economic paradigm of our society (both now and historical). But it's not impossible to think of other thought paradigms where this inevitable tradeoff doesn't occur. It's not that choices are not made, but they are not seen in the same light. Therefore, the thought of "inevitable valuation" doesn't even occur. For example, if you don't care between two outcomes, than there's no assumption of value necessary. Or, if you are at state A and are choosing to either transform A to B or leave A alone, you could just consider it a transformation, not a tradeoff.

Building Lego's (should I build an airplane or a boat?) doesn't require a choice between the two based on value, because the inherent thing isn't changed, just altered. The assignment of value is a Western paradigm, and sure, it can be applied to every situation. But so could a paradigm based on choosing whatever option was mentioned first, or options whose title comes first in the alphabet. Those are silly, but they are still options.

I am annoyed with this "let's take this paradigm for granted," because once you start down the valuation path, ecosystems lose. Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but soon... they lose. Today, wetlands purify our water cheaper then we can. But tomorrow, we invent a new technology which purifies water cheaper. All of a sudden, those wetlands have lost value. And putting astetic value (in terms of money) on ecosystems, or even moral value, will only fail in the long run- conservation is a luxury of the rich, as many have said, and people will always choose food over furry friends (and let's be honest, bringing the whole world to our level of luxury won't happen. even if it does, we'll want more, and the problem will begin all over again).

Later, the author says "valuation ultimately refers to the contribution of the item to meeting a specific goal or objective," and "one cannot state a value without stating the goal being served." So without a goal, something has no value? This is a very user-centered view of the world, which is what got us into this mess in the first place.

He argues "the decisions we make, as a society, about ecosystems imply valuations." Sure, according to the paradigm of "everything is a tradeoff between two values." But I think that thought process is what gets us into trouble in the first place. The philosophy of assigning values moves easily into saying "well, this place is nice, but I can make money building condos. I'll just donate to the Sierra club and conserve through them." Thinking in terms of valuation leads to only thinking in the present tense (and one time step ahead). It's all now- you choose between two options now.

Perhaps thinking in terms of place would work better. Thinking in terms of place doesn't assign value (although the valuation paradigm can be imposed on it, of course). Thinking in terms of place assigns consequences. It's not inherently a tradeoff between a human affected environment and a "pristine natural environment," it's just the environment and how it's changed. This leads to longer term thinking- if I do x, and want to do y later, is that possible? How should I structure x so that y is possible in 10 years?

I (being a good Western thinker in the tradition of the liberal arts) assign value unconsciously, as do most people around me. But our society has REALLY screwed up the planet we're supposed to steward- so perhaps that paradigm needs rethinking. I assign great moral value to "unspoiled lands," although even that term implies valuation. But somebody else sees unlimited development, or great beauty in a golf course. The vaguries of human perceptions of beauty are such that eventually, all land will be in control of somebody that thinks it will look better as a community rec center, and our development is far easier carried out then undone. If we rely on valuation to save landscapes, we're going to lose.