Comparing instrumental and deliberative paradigms underpinning the assessment of social values for cultural ecosystem services

• Published in: Ecological economics Vol. 107; pp. 145 - 156
• Main Authors: Raymond, Christopher M., Kenter, Jasper O., Plieninger, Tobias, Turner, Nancy J., Alexander, Karen A.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Elsevier B.V 01-11-2014
• Subjects: Boundaries; Decision making; Deliberative valuation; Ecosystem services; Ecosystems; Environmental economics; Instrumental valuation; Non-economic valuation; Non-monetary valuation; Paradigms; Participatory mapping; Social values; Non-economic valuation; Deliberative valuation; Instrumental valuation; Non-monetary valuation; Social values; Ecosystem services; Participatory mapping
• ISSN: 0921-8009; 1873-6106
• DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.07.033

Despite rapid advancements in the development of non-monetary techniques for the assessment of social values for ecosystem services, little research attention has been devoted to the evaluation of their underpinning paradigms. This study evaluates two contrasting paradigms for the assessment of social values in non-monetary terms: an instrumental paradigm involving an objective assessment of the distribution, type and/or intensity of values that individuals assign to the current state of ecosystems and a deliberative paradigm involving the exploration of desired end states through group discussion. We present and then justify through case examples two approaches for assessing social values for ecosystem services using the instrumental paradigm and two approaches using the deliberative paradigm. Each approach makes different assumptions about: the underlying rationale for values assessment; the process through which values are elicited; the type of representativeness sought, and; the degree of involvement of decision-makers. However, case examples demonstrate that the boundaries between instrumental and deliberative paradigms are often not concrete. To accommodate this fluidity, we offer a third, pragmatic paradigm that integrates some of the qualities of both. This paradigm has implications for engaging multiple community groups and decision-makers in the articulation and mapping of social values for cultural ecosystem services.