ABSTRACT
A competitive equilibrium does not necessarily represent a social optimum. Rational behaviour as assumed by neoclassical welfare models, although theoretically interesting, should not guide policy recommendations (Gowdy and Seidl, 2004). Research on economic behaviour supports the importance of cultural context and group norms as better predictors of behaviour than those depicted in Homo economicus (Gowdy et al., 2003). While Coase (1960) reasoned that the complementary goals of economic efficiency and distributive justice could be effectively decoupled, ecological economists have focused on the need to define and protect the rights of both disempowered groups and future generations (Howarth and Norgaard, 1990). This sets the grounds for rejecting cost-benefit analysis as a hegemonic environmental decision-making tool (O’Connor and Spash, 1999). Moreover, the preference aggregation procedures shown above, which lie at the heart of environmental valuation, should be questioned as legitimate means of establishing the importance of environmental values for society and sustainability policy (ibid.). These two premises have led to the development of multi-criteria analysis either as an alternative decision-making tool to cost-benefit analysis (Munda, 1997) or as an alternative preference aggregation tool (Martínez-Alier et al., 1998). Furthermore, multiple preference orderings would imply that choices made in one context may not be replicated in another. Environmental value is a group value and should not be sought as an aggregate of individual values (Vatn, 2004). Multi-functionality is a key component of natural systems; externalities in this context also have multiple origins and effects. Therefore, acknowledging the many dimensions of these externalities that are not included in the economically productive system accountings requires defining new tools for moving from individualism to collective solutions. A recent study conducted by Sugimura and Howarth (2008) includes social factors in the assessment of quality for four forest ecosystem services in Japan and proves that social evaluation for valuing forest ecosystem services yields significant differences in forest zoning outcomes. For instance, allocation of areas for wood production is significantly lower (one-third lower) when using social evaluation compared to the usual method. Another example links Patagonian
ecosystem processes, goods and services with a qualitative approach to valuation so as to guide decision-making processes regarding conservation and protection initiatives (Martinez-Harms and Gajardo, 2008). The authors estimate the threat level of different pressures and human disturbances in the Patagonian territory and show the unbalanced coverage of the protected area network at the regional scale. The results of this chapter indicate the urgency for re-planning the present distribution of the protected areas if ecosystem services with high conservation value are to be maintained. Scholars in ecological economics have argued in favour of value-articulating institutions that are capable of integrating multiple values (Vatn, 2005). A case study linking nature conservation and forestry ecosystem services in Finland showed that cultural and local ecological conditions should be included when formulating environmental policy recommendations so as to enable the creation of new rules for financial, voluntary and temporal conservation practices (Paloniemi and Vilja, 2009).
