Upload
barrie-collins
View
224
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
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).