Costanza 2001 BioScience

June 2001 Vol 51 No 6 BioScience 459

Articles

Practical problem solving in complex human-dominated ecosystems requires the integration of three

elements (1) active and ongoing envisioning of both how theworld works and how we would like the world to be (2) sys-tematic analysis appropriate to and consistent with the visionand (3) implementation appropriate to the vision Scientistsgenerally focus on only the second of these steps but inte-grating all three is essential to both good science and effectivemanagement Subjective values enter in the vision elementboth in terms of the formation of broad social goals and inthe creation of a preanalytic vision which necessarily precedesany form of scientific analysis

Because of this need for vision completely objective sci-entific analysis is impossible Joseph Schumpeter (1954) putit this way

In practice we all start our own research from the workof our predecessors that is we hardly ever start fromscratch But suppose we did start from scratch what arethe steps we should have to take Obviously in order tobe able to posit to ourselves any problems at all weshould first have to visualize a distinct set of coherentphenomena as a worthwhile object of our analyticeffort In other words analytic effort is of necessity pre-ceded by a preanalytic cognitive act that supplies theraw material for the analytic effort In this book thispreanalytic cognitive act will be called Vision It is inter-esting to note that vision of this kind not only mustprecede historically the emergence of analytic effort inany field but also may reenter the history of everyestablished science each time somebody teaches us tosee things in a light of which the source is not to befound in the facts methods and results of the preexist-ing state of the science (p 41)

Nevertheless it is possible to separate the process into themore subjective or normative envisioning component andthe more systematic less subjective analysis component(which is based on the vision) ldquoGoodrdquo science is that whichmakes clear its underlying preanalytic vision and whoseanalysis is consistent with that vision

A changing vision of scienceThe task would be simpler if the vision of science were staticand unchanging But as the quote from Schumpeter makesclear this vision is itself evolving as we learn more This doesnot invalidate science as some deconstructionists would haveit Quite the contrary By being explicit about their underly-ing preanalytic vision scientists can enhance their honesty andthereby their credibility Scientific credibility proceeds fromhonest discussion of this underlying vision and its inher-ently subjective elements as well as from constant pragmatictesting of conclusions against real-world problems ratherthan by appealing to a nonexistent objectivity

The preanalytic vision of science is changing from theldquological positivistrdquo view which holds that science can discoverultimate truth by falsification of hypotheses to the morepragmatic view that we do not have access to any ultimate uni-versal truths but only to useful abstract representations(models) of small parts of the world Science in both the log-ical positivist and this new ldquopragmatic modelingrdquo visionworks by building models and testing them But the new

Robert Costanza (e-mail costzacblumcesedu) is a professor at

the Center for Environmental Science and the Department of Biol-

ogy and director of the Institute for Ecological Economics at the Uni-

versity of Maryland Solomons MD 20688-0038 copy 2001 American

Institute of Biological Sciences

Visions Values Valuationand the Need for anEcological EconomicsROBERT COSTANZA

ALL SCIENTIFIC ANALYSIS IS BASED ON A

ldquoPREANALYTIC VISIONrdquo AND THE MAJOR

SOURCE OF UNCERTAINTY ABOUT

CURRENT ENVIRONMENTAL POLICIES

RESULTS FROM DIFFERENCES IN VISIONS

AND WORLD VIEWS

460 BioScience June 2001 Vol 51 No 6

Articles

vision recognizes that the tests are rarely if ever conclusive(especially in the life sciences and the social sciences) the mod-els can only apply to a limited part of the real world and theultimate goal is therefore not truth but quality and utility Inthe words of William Deming ldquoAll models are wrong butsome models are usefulrdquo (McCoy 1994)

The primary goal of science then is the creation of use-ful models whose utility and quality can be tested against real-world applications The criteria by which one judges the util-ity and quality of models are themselves social constructs thatevolve over time There is however fairly broad and consis-tent consensus in the scientific community about what thesecriteria are They include (1) testability (2) repeatability (3)predictability and (4) elegance (ie Occamrsquos razor Themodel should be as simple as possible but no simpler) Butbecause of the nature of real-world problems there are manyapplications for which some of these criteria are difficult orimpossible to apply These applications may nevertheless stillbe judged as ldquogoodrdquo science For example some purely the-oretical models are not directly testable but they may providefertile ground for thought and debate and lead to more ex-plicit models that are testable Likewise field studies of wa-tersheds are not repeatable strictly speaking because no twowatersheds are identical But there is much we can learn fromfield studies that can be applied to other watersheds andtested against the other criteria of predictability and ele-gance How simple a model can be depends on the questionsbeing asked If we ask a more complex or more detailed ques-tion the model will probably have to be more complex anddetailed As science progresses and the range of applicationsexpands the criteria by which utility and quality are judgedmust also adapt to the changing applications This inher-ently subjective process goes on constantly within the scien-tific community

Vision and changeResearch concerning the way change proceeds in various or-ganizations and communities suggests that the most effectiveingredient to move change in a particular direction is a clearshared vision of the desired goal (Senge 1990 Wiesbord1992 Wiesbord and Janoff 1995) Or as Yogi Berra oncesaid ldquoIf you donrsquot know where yoursquore going you end upsomewhere elserdquo

Yankelovich (1991) has described the crisis in governancefacing modern societies as one of moving from public opin-ion to public judgment Public opinion is notoriously fickleand inconsistent on those issues for which the public hasnot confronted the system-level implications of its opinionsComing to judgment requires three steps (1) consciousnessraising (2) working through and (3) resolutionA prerequisitefor all three of these steps is breaking down the gap betweenexpert knowledge and the public that is a breaking down ofwhat Yankelovich (1991 citing Habermas 1991) calls theldquoculture of technical controlrdquo Information in the modernworld is compartmentalized and controlled by various tech-nical elites who do not communicate with each other This al-

lows experts from various fields to hold contradictory opin-ions and it allows the public to hold inconsistent and volatileopinions Coming to judgment is the process of confrontingand resolving these inconsistencies by breaking down thebarriers between the mutually exclusive compartments intowhich knowledge and information have been put For ex-ample opinion polls show many people are highly in favorof more effort to protect the environment but at the same timethey are opposed to any diversion of tax revenues for that pur-pose Coming to judgment is the process of resolving theseconflictsThis can be done most effectively by formulating thechoices as complete visions of the alternative states of theworld and incorporating all the divergent elements

Visions of the economy and itsrelationship to the ecological lifesupport systemBoth our preanalytic vision of how the human economy re-lates to the rest of nature and the economy itself are alsochanging The human economy has passed from an ldquoempty-worldrdquoera in which human-made capital was the limiting fac-tor in economic development to the current ldquofull-worldrdquoera in which remaining natural capital has become the lim-iting factor (Costanza et al 1997) Basic economic logic tellsus that we should maximize the productivity of the scarcest(limiting) factor as well as try to increase its supply This meansthat economic policy should be designed to increase the pro-ductivity of natural capital and its total amount rather thanto increase the productivity of human-made capital and itsaccumulation as was appropriate when it was limiting Thisimplies a very different vision of the economy and its placein the overall system

Figure 1a shows the conventional economic preanalytic vi-sion (Costanza et al 1997) The primary factors of produc-tion (land labor and capital) combine in the economicprocess to produce goods and services usually measured asgross national product (GNP) GNP is divided into con-sumption which is the sole contributor to individual utilityand welfareand investment which goes into maintaining andincreasing the capital stocks Preferences are fixed In thismodel the primary factors are perfect substitutes for eachother so ldquolandrdquo (including ecosystem services) can be al-most ignored and the lines between all the forms of capitalare fuzzy Property rights are usually simplified to either pri-vate or public and their distribution is usually taken as fixedand given

Figure 1b shows an alternative ldquoecological economicsrdquoview of the process (Ekins 1992 Costanza et al 1997) Noticethat the key elements of the conventional view are still pre-sent but more has been added and some priorities havechanged There is limited substitutability between the basicforms of capital in this model and their number has ex-panded to four Their names have also changed to better re-flect their roles (1) natural capital (formerly land) includesecological systems mineral deposits and other aspects ofthe natural world (2) human capital (formerly labor) includes

both the physical labor of humans and the know-how storedin their brains (3) manufactured capital still includes all themachines and other infrastructure of the human economyand (4) social (or cultural) capital Social capital is a recentconcept that includes the web of interpersonal connectionsinstitutional arrangements rules and norms that allows in-dividual human interactions to occur (Berkes and Folke1994) Property rights regimes in this model are complexand flexible spanning the range from individual to com-mon to public property Natural capital captures solar energy

and behaves as an autonomous complex system and themodel conforms to the basic laws of thermodynamics Nat-ural capital contributes to the production of marketed eco-nomic goods and services which affect human welfare It alsoproduces ecological services and amenities that directly con-tribute to human welfare without ever passing through mar-kets The model also accounts for waste production by the eco-nomic process which contributes negatively to human welfareand has a negative impact on capital and ecological servicesPersonal preferences are adapting and changing but basic hu-


Articles

Figure 1 Different visions of the economy based on disparate world views Conventional economics model (a) and expandedecological economics model (b)

Improvement Land

man needs are constant Human welfare is a function ofmuch more than the consumption of economic goods and ser-vices

These visions of the world are significantly different AsEkins (1992) points out ldquoIt must be stressed that the com-plexities and feedbacks of model 2 are not simply glosses onmodel 1rsquos simpler portrayal of reality They fundamentally al-ter the perceived nature of that reality and in ignoring themconventional analysis produces serious errorsrdquo (p 151)

Valuation and social goalsValuation ultimately refers to the contribution of an itemto meeting a specific goal or objective A baseball player isvaluable to the extent he contributes to the goal of theteamrsquos winning In ecology a gene is valuable to the extentit contributes to the survival of the individuals possessingit and their progeny In conventional economics a com-modity is valuable to the extent it contributes to the goalof individual welfare as assessed by individualsrsquo willingnessto pay The point is that one cannot state a value withoutstating the goal being served Conventional economic valueis based on the goal of individual utility maximization Butother goals and thus other values are possible For exampleif the goal is sustainability one should assess value basedon the contribution to achieving that goal in addition tovalue based on the goals of individual utility maximizationsocial equity or other goals that may be deemed importantThis broadening is particularly important if the goals arepotentially in conflict

There are at least three broad goals that have been identi-fied as important to managing economic systems within thecontext of the planetrsquos ecological life support system (Daly1992)

1 assessing and ensuring that the scale or magnitude ofhuman activities within the biosphere is ecologically sustainable

2 distributing resources and property rights fairly bothwithin the current generation of humans and betweenthis and future generations and also between humansand other species

3 efficiently allocating resources as constrained anddefined by the two goals above including both market-ed and nonmarketed resources especially ecosystemservices

Several authors have discussed valuation of ecosystem ser-vices with respect to the third goal allocative efficiency basedon individual utility maximization (eg Farber and Costanza1987 Costanza et al 1989 Mitchell and Carson 1989 Dixonand Hufschmidt 1990 Pearce 1993 Goulder and Kennedy1997) We need to explore more fully the implications of ex-tending these concepts to include valuation with respect to theother two goals ecological sustainability and distributionalfairness (Costanza and Folke 1997) Basing valuation on cur-rent individual preferences and utility maximization alone as

is done in conventional analysis does not necessarily lead toecological sustainability or social fairness (Bishop 1993)

A Kantian or intrinsic rights approach to valuation (seeGoulder and Kennedy 1997)mdashwhich holds that things havevalue without any reference to their usesmdashis one approach todistributional fairness but it is important to recognize that thethree goals are not eitherndashor alternatives Although they arein some senses independent criteria (Arrow and Raynaud1986) they must all be satisfied in an integrated fashion to al-low human life to continue in a desirable way Similarly thevaluations that flow from these goals are not eitherndashor alter-natives Rather than resort to a utilitarian or intrinsic rightsdichotomy we must integrate the three goals listed aboveand their consequent valuations

A two-tiered approach that combines (1) public discussionand consensus building on sustainability and fairness goals atthe community level with (2) methods for modifying bothprices and preferences at the individual level to better reflectthese community goals may be necessary (Rawls 1971 Nor-ton 1995 Norton et al 1998) Another consequence of valu-ing ecosystems based on sustainability and fairness goals is thatpersonal preferences must be treated as endogenous and co-evolving with other ecological economic and social vari-ables

Valuation with sustainability fairnessand efficiency as goalsWith these goals in mind we can distinguish at least three typesof value that when taken into account should advance ourvaluation of ecosystem services These are laid out in Table 1according to their corresponding goal or value basis Thefirst efficiency-based value (E-value) is based on a model ofhuman behavior sometimes referred to as ldquoHomo economiusrdquoin which humans act independently rationally and in theirown self-interest Value in this context (E-value) is based oncurrent individual preferences which are assumed to be fixedor given (Norton et al 1998) No additional discussion or sci-entific input is required to form these preferences becausethey are assumed to already exist and value is revealed sim-ply by peoplersquos willingness to pay for the good or service inquestion The best estimate of what people are willing to payis thought to be what they would actually pay in a well-func-tioning market For resources or services for which there is nomarket like many ecosystem services a pseudo-market cansometimes be simulated with questionnaires that elicit indi-vidualsrsquo contingent valuation

Fairness-based value (F-value) requires that individualsvote their preferences as members of the community not asindividuals This different species ldquoHomo communicusrdquo en-gages in much discussion with other members of the com-munity so the community can come to consensus on thevalues that would be fair to all members including those inthe future community as well as nonhuman species Discus-sions incorporate scientific information about possible futureconsequences as necessary One method to implement thismight be Rawlsrsquos (1971) ldquoveil of ignorancerdquo according to


Articles

which individuals vote as if they were operating with noknowledge of their own individual status in current or futuresociety

Sustainability-based value (S-value) requires an assess-ment of the contribution to ecological sustainability of the itemin question The S-value of ecosystem services is connectedto their physical chemical and biological role in the long-termfunctioning of the global system Scientific information aboutthe functioning of the global system is thus critical in assess-ing S-value and some discussion and consensus building isalso necessary If it is accepted that all species no matter howseemingly unimportant have a role to play in natural ecosys-tems (Naeem et al 1994 Tilman and Downing 1994 Hollinget al 1995) then estimates of ecosystem services can be de-rived from scientific studies of the role of ecosystems and theirbiota in the overall system without direct reference to currenthuman preferences Humans operate as ldquoHomo naturalisrdquo inthis context expressing preferences as if they were represen-tatives of the whole system Instead of being merely an ex-pression of current individual preferences S-value becomesa system characteristic related to the itemrsquos evolutionary con-tribution to the survival of the whole ecological economic sys-tem By adopting this perspective we may be able to better es-timate the values contributed by say maintenance of waterand atmospheric quality to long-term human well-being andultimately protect the opportunities of choice for future gen-erations (Golley 1994 Perrings 1994) One way to get at thesevalues would be to simulate systems using models that in-corporate the major linkages in the system at the appropri-ate time and space scales (Costanza et al 1993 Bockstael etal 1995 Voinov et al 1999) To account for the large uncer-tainties involved these models would have to be used in a pre-cautionary way looking for the range of possible values anderring on the side of caution (Costanza and Perrings 1990)

To fully integrate the three goals of ecological sustainabil-ity social fairness and economic efficiency we also need a fur-ther step value formation through public discussion (Sen1995) This is the essence of real democracy As Buchanan

(1954) put it ldquoThe definition of democracy as lsquogovernmentby discussionrsquo implies that individual values can and dochange in the process of decision-makingrdquo (p 120) By lim-iting our valuations and social decisionmaking to the goal ofeconomic efficiency based on fixed preferenceswe prevent theneeded democratic discussion of values and options and areleft with only the ldquoillusion of choicerdquo (Schmookler 1993)Rather than trying to avoid the difficult questions raised bythe valuation of ecological systems and services we need toacknowledge the broad range of goals being served by sucha discussion as well as the technical difficulties involved Wemust get on with the process of value formation and analy-sis in as participatory and democratic a way as possible butin a way that also takes advantage of the full range and depthof scientific information we have accumulated on ecosystemfunctioning This is not simply the application of the con-ventional preanalytic vision and analysis to a new problem butsomething that requires a new more comprehensive and integrated preanalytic vision and new yet-to-be-developedanalyses that will flow from it This enormously importantchallenge awaits the next generation of ecosystem scientists

Four alternative visions of the futureNot only do our visions of the way the world works changebut our vision of the way we would like the world to be is alsoevolving Elsewhere I have laid out four broad visions of thefuture (Costanza 1999 Costanza 2000) Although the num-ber of possible visions of the future is infinite I believe thesefour visions embody the basic patterns within which muchof this variation occurs Each of the visions is based on somecritical assumptions about the way the world works whichmay or may not turn out to be true This format allows oneto clearly identify these assumptions assess how critical theyare to the relevant vision and recognize the consequences oftheir being wrong

The four visions derive from two basic world views whosecharacteristics are laid out in Table 2 These world views havebeen described in many ways (Bossel 1996) but one funda-


Articles

Table 1 Valuation of ecosystem services based on the three primary goals of efficiency fairness and sustainability

Level of Level ofGoal or Who Preference discussion scientific input Specificvalue basis votes basis required required methods

Efficiency Homo Current Low Low Willingness(E-value) economius individual to pay

preferences

Fairness Homo Community High Medium Veil of (F-value) communicus preferences ignorance

Sustainability Homo Whole system Medium High Modeling(S-value) naturalis preferences with

precaution

Source Costanza and Folke 1997

mental distinction has to do with onersquos degree of faith intechnological progress (Costanza 1989) The ldquotechnologicaloptimistrdquo worldview assumes that technical progress cansolve all future problems It is a vision of continued expan-sion of humans and their dominion over nature This is thedefault vision in current Western society and one that rep-resents continuation of current trends into the indefinite fu-ture It is the ldquotakerrdquo culture as described so eloquently byDaniel Quinn in Ishmael (1992)

There are two versions of this vision however One corre-sponds to the underlying assumptions on which it is based ac-tually being true in the real world (the positive version) andthe other corresponds to those assumptions being false (thenegative version) as shown in Figure 2 The positive versionof the technological optimist vision Irsquoll call Star Trek after thepopular TV series that is its most articulate and vividlyfleshed-out manifestation The negative version of the tech-nological optimist vision Irsquoll call Mad Max after the popularmovie of several years ago that embodies many aspects of thisvision gone bad

The ldquotechnological skepticrdquo vision is one that dependsmuch less on technological change and more on social andcommunity development It is not in any sense antitechnol-ogy but it does not put blind faith in technology either Thetechnological skeptic views technology as the servant of largergoals and seeks to encourage technologies that have the bestchance of promoting development without irreversibly dam-aging our natural capital base The version of this vision thatcorresponds to the skeptics being right about the nature of theworld Irsquoll call ldquoEcotopiardquo after the semipopular book of thelate 1970s (Callenbach 1975) If the optimists turn out to beright about the real state of the world what Irsquoll call the ldquoBigGovernmentrdquo vision comes to passmdashRonald Reaganrsquos worstnightmare of overly protective government policies getting inthe way of the free market and slowing down economicgrowth

Each of these future visions is best described as a narrativefrom the perspective of say the year 2100 This allows one tomake them more real and vivid The narratives are of course

only caricatures but they capture the essence of the visionsthey represent I have described these four futures as narra-tives in detail elsewhere (Costanza 1999 2000) and here giveonly a summary of their main features in Figure 2

Dealing with uncertainty at the level of future visionsHow should society decide among these four visions Doesit even need to decide Why not just let what happens hap-pen letting people have their own independent vision of thefuture as it suits them Isnrsquot this the essence of freedom anddemocracymdashIndividuals can pursue their own visions asthey please If we lived in our own completely isolated worldswhere our actions and decisions had no effect on anyoneelse this might be appropriate A basic tenet of democracy isthat individual rights are not to be limited unless they impactthe rights of others But we live in an interconnected worldwhich is becoming more interconnected every day as the hu-man population grows All of our futures are intertwined andthe actions and decisions of each of us affect everyone elseboth those alive today and those yet to be born The essenceof democracy in this full-world context is government bydiscussion and mutual value formation The key asYankelovich (1991) suggests is coming to public judgmentabout the major value issues facing society its goals and vi-sions and this process can be accelerated by first laying outthe options in the form of relatively well-articulated visionsas I have attempted above

We can go further in elaborating the consequences of thefour visions outlined above in an effort to come more quicklyto public judgment Three of the four visions are ldquosustainablerdquoin the sense that they represent continuation of the currentsociety (only Mad Max is not) but we need a closer look attheir underlying world views their critical assumptions andthe potential costs of those assumptions being wrong

The world view (and attendant policies) of the Star Trek vision is unbridled faith in technology and free competitionand its essential underlying assumption is that resources areunlimited particularly cheap energy The cost of pursuing this

world view and its policies if the assump-tion of unlimited resources is wrong isthe Mad Max vision Likewise the world-view (and attendant policies) of the Eco-topia vision is technological skepticismand communitarianism (the communitycomes first) and its essential underlying as-sumptions are that resources are limitedand cooperation pays The cost of pursu-ing this worldview and its policies if the as-sumption of limited resources is wrong isthe Big Government vision in which acommunity-first policy slows downgrowth relative to the free-market StarTrek vision Figure 2 can be viewed as apayoff matrix with each of the four cellsin the matrix indicating the ldquopayoffrdquo of


Articles

Table 2 Some characteristics of two basic worldviews

Technological Technological optimist skeptic

Technical progress can deal with any Technical progress is limited and ecologicalfuture challenge carrying capacity must be preserved

Competition is guiding principle Cooperation is guiding principle

Systems are linear without Systems are complex nonlinear withdiscontinuties or irreversibilities discontinuties and irreversibilities

Humans dominate nature Humans are in partnership with nature

People are out for themselves Community comes first

Market is guiding principle Market serves larger goals

pursuing the policies of the worldview (on the left) in com-bination with each real state of the world (on the top)

To rank the elements of the payoff matrix one would needto discuss the four visions outlined above with a broad rangeof participants and then have them evaluate each vision interms of its overall desirability So far Irsquove conducted a pre-liminary (nonscientific) survey with 418 participants TheAmerican participants consisted of 17 students in an ecolog-ical economics class at the University of Maryland 260 at-tendees at a convocation speech at Wartburg College in Wa-verly (Iowa) and 39 via the InternetThe Swedish participantsconsisted of 71 attendees at a Keynotes in Natural ResourcesLecture at the Swedish University of Agricultural Science Up-psala and 31 attendees at a presentation at Stockholm Uni-versity The respondents were read the narrative version of eachof the four visions in turn and were then asked the followingldquoFor each vision Irsquod like you to first state on a scale of ndash10 to+10 using the scale provided how comfortable you would beliving in the world described How desirable do you find sucha world Irsquom not asking you to vote for one vision over the oth-ers Consider each vision independently and just state how de-sirable (or undesirable) you would find it if you happened tofind yourself thererdquoThey were also asked to give their age gen-der and household income range on the survey form The re-sults (mean plusmn standard deviation) are shown in Table 3grouped by country and pooled

Frequency distributions of the results are plotted in Figure3 The majority of those surveyed found the Star Trek visionpositive (mean of +248 plusmn 513) Given that it represents thelogical extension of the currently dominant worldview and

culture it is interesting that this vision was rated so low I hadexpected this vision to be rated much higher and this resultmay indicate either the deep ambivalence many people haveabout the direction society seems to be headed or the self-selection of respondents or both The frequency plot and thehigh standard deviation also show this ambivalence towardStar Trek The responses span the range from +10 to ndash10 withonly a weak preponderance toward the positive side of thescale This result applied for both the American and Swedishsubgroups

Those surveyed found the Mad Max vision very negativeat ndash812 (plusmn 323) only about 3 of participants rated this vi-sion positive This was as expected The Americans seemed abit less averse to Mad Max (ndash778 plusmn 341) than the Swedes(ndash912 plusmn 230) and showed a larger standard deviation

The Big Government vision was rated on average just pos-itive at 097 (plusmn 429) Many found it appealing but somefound it abhorrent probably because of the limits on indi-vidual freedom Here there were significant differences betweenthe Americans and Swedes with the Swedes (+232 plusmn 348)being much more favorably disposed to Big Governmentand having a smaller standard deviation than the Americans(+054 plusmn 444) This also was as expected given the culturaldifferences in attitudes toward government in America andSweden Swedes rated Big Government almost as highly as StarTrek

Finally most of those surveyed found the Ecotopia visionvery positive at 581 (plusmn 397) Some respondents were very pos-itive some only mildly so but very few only about 7 of thosesurveyed expressed a negative reaction to such a world


Articles

Figure 2 Four visions of the future based on two basic worldviews and two alternative states ofthe real world

environmental problemsLeisure time increases be-cause robots do mostworkHumans colonize the solarsystem where populationcontinues to expand

develop because of strictsafety standards

Wor

ldvi

ew a

nd

Pol

icie

s

Swedes rated Ecotopia significantly higher than Americans didalso as might be expected given cultural differences

Some other interesting patterns emerge from the surveyAllof the visions had large standard deviations but the fre-quency distributions in particular show the Mad Max visionwas consistently very negative and the Ecotopia vision was con-sistently very positive Age and gender seem to play a minorbut interesting role in how individuals rated the visionsMales rated Star Trek higher than females (means of 366 and190 respectively p = 00039) Males also rated Mad Max

higher than females (means of ndash711 and ndash820 respectivelyp = 00112) The means were not significantly different by gen-der for either of the other two visions Age was not significantlycorrelated with ranking for any of the visions but the vari-ance in ranking seemed to decrease somewhat with age withyounger participants showing a higher range of ratings thanolder participants

Work is in progress to expand this survey and conduct arandom sample of the population but the general conclusionsare fairly insensitive to the exact results


Articles

Figure 3 Results of vision desirability survey Responses about the degree of desirability of each of the four future visions areplotted as frequency distributions Total number of respondents in each case was 418

Table 3 Results of a survey of desirability of each of the four visions Desirability was ranked on a scale of ndash10 (leastdesirable) to +10 (most desirable) by self-selected groups of Americans and Swedes Standard deviations are given inparentheses after the means

Americans (n = 316) Swedes (n = 102) Pooled (n = 418)

Star Trek +238 (plusmn 503) +248 (plusmn 545) +248 (plusmn 513)Mad Max ndash778 (plusmn 341) ndash912 (plusmn 230) ndash812 (plusmn 323)Big Government +054 (plusmn 444) +232 (plusmn 348) +097 (plusmn 429)Ecotopia +532 (plusmn 410) +733 (plusmn 311) +581 (plusmn 397)

Notes The Americans consisted of 17 participants in an ecological economics class at the University of Maryland 260 attendees at a con-vocation speech at Wartburg College in Waverly Iowa 27 January 1998 and 39 via the Internet The Swedes consisted of 71 attendees ata Keynotes in Natural Resources Lecture at the Swedish University of Agricultural Science Uppsala 20 April 1999 and 31 attendees at apresentation at Stockholm University 22 April 1999

The pooled rankings are used in the discussion but the conclusions would be the same if using just the American rankings or just theSwedish rankings In fact the conclusions are fairly insensitive to the exact values of the rankings as long as Big Government is ratedhigher than Mad Max and Star Trek and Ecotopia are rated higher than Big Government

Worst-case analysisSo we find ourselves as a species facing the payoff matrix out-lined in Figure 2 What do we do We can choose between thetwo worldviews and their attendant policiesYet we face pureand irreducible uncertainty concerning the real state of theworld Who knows whether fusion-based energy or somethingequivalent will be invented Should we choose the Star Trekvision (and the optimist policies) merely because it is the mostpopular or because it is the direction things seem to be head-ing already

From the perspective of game theory this problem has afairly definitive answer This is a game against nature that canbe played only once and the relative probabilities of each out-come are completely unknown In addition we can assumethat society as a whole should be risk averse in this situationThe numerical rankings on each outcome (from our pre-liminary survey) make it a bit easier to talk about Star Trekis +25 Mad Max is ndash81 Big Government is +10 and Eco-topia is +58 One would look at each row in the matrix(corresponding to a policy set) and see what the worst out-come is for that policy set For the optimist policy set MadMax (ndash81) is the worst case For the skeptical policy set BigGovernment (+10) is the worst case We would then com-pare the worst cases and choose the policy set with the largest(most positive) ranking +10 is much larger than ndash81 so wewould choose the skepticrsquos policy This is a standard ldquomini-max regretsrdquo decision rule (Milnor 1964 Rawls 1971 Bishop1978) Although there has been some controversy in the lit-erature about using this decision rule for situations charac-terized by extreme uncertainty (Ready and Bishop 1991) arecent review (Palmini 1999) shows that this rule is unam-biguously preferred because it ldquoemphasizes risk-aversionwhile explicitly incorporating the opportunity cost of mak-ing a lsquowrongrsquo choicerdquo (p 463)

If we choose the skepticrsquos policy set the worst thing that canhappen is Big Government which is much better than theworst thing that can happen under the optimistrsquos policy setwhich is Mad Max The conclusion that we should choose theskepticrsquos policy set is fairly insensitive to the specific values ofthe rankings The rankings would have to change so that ei-ther Big Government or Ecotopia was rated worse than MadMax to reverse this outcome In fact the way the payoff ma-trix is set up Mad Max is the one really negative outcome andthe only unsustainable outcome If one of our major goals asa society is sustainability then we should develop policies thatassure us of not ending up in Mad Max no matter whathappens

There are also some other considerations in favor of choos-ing the skepticrsquos policies The skeptical policies are less likelyto close out any options One could still switch to the optimistrsquospolicies if the real state of the world were shown to conformto the optimistrsquos view For example if fusion-based energy orits equivalent were ever mastered one could switch to theStar Trek vision from the Big Government vision The re-verse switch from Mad Max to Ecotopia could not be made as

easily because the infrastructure would not be present Theskepticrsquos policies are much better at preserving options

One can also argue that the probabilities of each state of theworld being correct are not completely unknown If one ar-gued that the prospects for cheap unlimited nonpolluting en-ergy were in fact very good then the decision matrix wouldhave to be weighted with those probabilities But the completedependence of the Star Trek vision on discovering a cheap un-limited energy source weighs heavily against the probabilityof its occurrenceItrsquos like leaping off the top of the World TradeCenter building and hoping that you can invent a parachutebefore you hit the ground Itrsquos better to wait until you have theparachute (and have tested it extensively) before you jumpBy adopting the skepticrsquos policies the possibility of this in-vention is preserved but without utter dependence on it

Scientific objectivity values and policyI hope the foregoing discussion has put the theme of this spe-cial issue in a new and broader context To summarize

middot There is no such thing as scientific objectivity be-cause all science must be (1) based on a preanalyticvision that is inherently subjective and (2) judged forutility and quality against criteria that are inherentlysubjective We can however be very clear about thedistinction between the vision and values componentof the process and the analysis component built onthat vision

middot The quality of scientific work can thus be judgedbased on its adherence to the preanalytic vision andits pragmatic utility in modeling the real world astested against the general criteria developed by thescientific community We can judge between ldquogoodrdquoscience and ldquobadrdquo science according to these subjec-tively determined criteria of quality but it is not real-ly honest or useful to use objectivity as a yardstick

middot Subjective values also enter the discussion when wetalk about how we would like the world to be Thisaspect of future visions strongly determines whichset of current policies are most appropriate givenour huge level of uncertainty about the real state ofthe world

middot The major source of uncertainty about our currentenvironmental policies is at this level of visions andworldviews not in the details of analysis or imple-mentation within a particular vision By laying outfour alternative future histories of the Earth the crit-ical assumptions and uncertainties underlying eachvision can be more easily seen and a rational policycan be set to assure sustainability

middot A cooperative precautionary policy set that assumeslimited resources is the most rational and resilientcourse in the face of fundamental uncertainty aboutthe limits of technology


Articles

AcknowledgmentsThis paper was originally delivered at a symposium at the Eco-logical Society of Americarsquos 84th annual meeting in SpokaneWashington (8ndash12 August 1999) titled ldquoScientific Objectiv-ity Values and Policiesrdquo Thanks go to three anonymous re-viewers for helpful comments on an earlier draft

References citedArrow KJ Raynaud H 1986 Social Choice and Multicriterion Decision-

making Cambridge (MA) MIT PressBerkes F Folke C 1994 Investing in cultural capital for a sustainable use of

natural capital Pages 128ndash149 in Jansson AM Hammer M Folke CCostanza R eds Investing in Natural Capital The Ecological Econom-ics Approach to Sustainability Washington (DC) Island Press

Bishop RC 1978 Endangered species irreversibility and uncertainty Theeconomics of a safe minimum standard American Journal of Agricul-tural Economics 60 10ndash18

mdashmdashmdash 1993 Economic efficiency sustainability and biodiversity Ambio22 69ndash73

Bockstael NCostanza R Strand I Boynton W Bell K Wainger L 1995 Eco-logical economic modeling and valuation of ecosystems Ecological Eco-nomics 14 143ndash159

Bossel H1996 2020 Vision Explorations of Sustainable Futures Kassel (Ger-many) Center for Environmental Systems Research University ofKassel

Buchanan JM 1954 Social choice democracy and free markets Journal ofPolitical Economy 62 114ndash23

Callenbach E 1975 Ecotopia The Notebooks and Reports of William Weston New York Bantam

Costanza R 1989What is ecological economics Ecological Economics 1 1ndash7mdashmdashmdash 1999 Four visions of the century ahead Will it be Star Trek

Ecotopia Big Government or Mad Max The Futurist 33 23ndash28mdashmdashmdash 2000Visions of alternative (unpredictable) futures and their use in

policy analysis Conservation Ecology 4 5 (12 June 2001 wwwconsecolorgvol4iss1art5)

Costanza R Folke C 1997 Valuing ecosystem services with efficiency fair-ness and sustainability as goals Pages 49ndash70 in Daily G ed Naturersquos Ser-vices Societal Dependence on Natural Ecosystems Washington (DC)Island Press

Costanza R Perrings C 1990 A flexible assurance bonding system for im-proved environmental management Ecological Economics 2 57ndash76

Costanza R Farber SC Maxwell J 1989 The valuation and management ofwetland ecosystems Ecological Economics 1 335ndash362

Costanza R Wainger L Folke C Maumller K-G 1993 Modeling complex eco-logical economic systems Toward an evolutionary dynamic under-standing of people and nature BioScience 43 545ndash555

Costanza R Cumberland JC Daly HE Goodland R Norgaard R 1997 AnIntroduction to Ecological Economics Boca Raton (FL) St Lucie Press

Daly HE1992 Allocationdistribution and scale Towards an economics thatis efficient just and sustainable Ecological Economics 6 185ndash193

Dixon JA Hufschmidt MM 1990 Economic Valuation Techniques for theEnvironmentA Case Study Workbook Baltimore Johns Hopkins Uni-versity Press

Ekins P 1992 A four-capital model of wealth creation Pages 147ndash155 in EkinsP Max-Neef M eds Real-Life Economics Understanding Wealth Cre-ation London Routledge

Farber S Costanza R 1987 The economic value of wetlands systems Jour-nal of Environmental Management 24 41ndash51

Golley FB1994 Rebuilding a humane and ethical decision system for investingin natural capital Pages 169ndash178 in Jansson AM Hammer M Folke CCostanza R eds Investing in Natural Capital The Ecological Econom-ics Approach to Sustainability Washington (DC) Island Press

Goulder LH Kennedy D 1997 Valuing ecosystem services Pages 23ndash48 inDaily G ed Ecosystem Services Their Nature and Value Washington(DC) Island Press

Habermas J 1991 Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere An In-quiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society Cambridge (MA) MITPress

Holling CS Schindler DW Walker BW Roughgarden J 1995 Biodiversity inthe functioning of ecosystems An ecological synthesis Pages 44ndash83 inPerrings C Maumller K-G Folke C Holling CS Jansson B-O eds BiodiversityLoss Economic and Ecological Issues Cambridge (UK) CambridgeUniversity Press

McCoy R 1994 The Best of Deming Knoxville (TN) Statistical Process Con-trol Press

Milnor J 1964 Games against nature Pages 20ndash31 in Shubik M ed GameTheory and Related Approaches to Social Behavior New York Wiley

Mitchell RC Carson RT 1989 Using surveys to value public goods The con-tingent valuation methodWashington (DC) Resources for the Future

Naeem S Thompson LJ Lawler SP Lawton JH Woodfin RM 1994 Declin-ing biodiversity can alter the performance of ecosystems Nature 368734ndash737

Norton BG 1995 Ecological integrity and social values At what scaleEcosystem Health 1 228ndash241

Norton B Costanza R Bishop R 1998 The evolution of preferences Whyldquosovereignrdquo preferences may not lead to sustainable policies and what todo about it Ecological Economics 24 193ndash211

Palmini D 1999 Uncertainty risk aversion and the game theoretic foun-dations of the safe minimum standardA reassessment Ecological Eco-nomics 29 463ndash472

Pearce D 1993 Economic Values and the Natural World London EarthscanPerrings CA 1994 Biotic diversity sustainable developmentand natural cap-

ital Pages 92ndash112 in Jansson AM Hammer MFolke C Costanza R edsInvesting in Natural Capital The Ecological Economics Approach to Sus-tainability Washington (DC) Island Press

Quinn D 1992 Ishmael New York BantamTurnerRawls J 1971 A Theory of Justice Oxford (UK) Oxford University PressReady RC Bishop R 1991 Endangered species and the safe minimum stan-

dardAmerican Journal of Agricultural Economics 73 309ndash312Schmookler AB 1993 The Illusion of Choice How the Market Economy

Shapes Our Destiny Albany State University of New York PressSchumpeter J 1954 History of Economic Analysis London Allen amp UnwinSen A 1995 Rationality and social choice American Economic Review

85 1ndash24Senge PM 1990 The Fifth Discipline The Art and Practice of the Learning

Organization New York Currency-DoubledayTilman D Downing JA 1994 Biodiversity and stability in grasslands Nature

367 363ndash365Voinov A Costanza R Wainger L Boumans RVilla F Maxwell TVoinov H

1999 The Patuxent landscape model Integrated ecological economicmodeling of a watershed Environmental Modelling and Software 14473ndash491

Weisbord Med1992 Discovering Common GroundSan Francisco Berrett-Koehler

Weisbord MJanoff S 1995 Future Search An Action Guide to Finding Com-mon Ground in Organizations and Communities San Francisco Berrett-Koehler

Yankelovich D 1991 Coming to Public Judgement Making DemocracyWork in a Complex World Syracuse (NY) Syracuse University Press


Articles


Articles

vision recognizes that the tests are rarely if ever conclusive(especially in the life sciences and the social sciences) the mod-els can only apply to a limited part of the real world and theultimate goal is therefore not truth but quality and utility Inthe words of William Deming ldquoAll models are wrong butsome models are usefulrdquo (McCoy 1994)

The primary goal of science then is the creation of use-ful models whose utility and quality can be tested against real-world applications The criteria by which one judges the util-ity and quality of models are themselves social constructs thatevolve over time There is however fairly broad and consis-tent consensus in the scientific community about what thesecriteria are They include (1) testability (2) repeatability (3)predictability and (4) elegance (ie Occamrsquos razor Themodel should be as simple as possible but no simpler) Butbecause of the nature of real-world problems there are manyapplications for which some of these criteria are difficult orimpossible to apply These applications may nevertheless stillbe judged as ldquogoodrdquo science For example some purely the-oretical models are not directly testable but they may providefertile ground for thought and debate and lead to more ex-plicit models that are testable Likewise field studies of wa-tersheds are not repeatable strictly speaking because no twowatersheds are identical But there is much we can learn fromfield studies that can be applied to other watersheds andtested against the other criteria of predictability and ele-gance How simple a model can be depends on the questionsbeing asked If we ask a more complex or more detailed ques-tion the model will probably have to be more complex anddetailed As science progresses and the range of applicationsexpands the criteria by which utility and quality are judgedmust also adapt to the changing applications This inher-ently subjective process goes on constantly within the scien-tific community

Vision and changeResearch concerning the way change proceeds in various or-ganizations and communities suggests that the most effectiveingredient to move change in a particular direction is a clearshared vision of the desired goal (Senge 1990 Wiesbord1992 Wiesbord and Janoff 1995) Or as Yogi Berra oncesaid ldquoIf you donrsquot know where yoursquore going you end upsomewhere elserdquo

Yankelovich (1991) has described the crisis in governancefacing modern societies as one of moving from public opin-ion to public judgment Public opinion is notoriously fickleand inconsistent on those issues for which the public hasnot confronted the system-level implications of its opinionsComing to judgment requires three steps (1) consciousnessraising (2) working through and (3) resolutionA prerequisitefor all three of these steps is breaking down the gap betweenexpert knowledge and the public that is a breaking down ofwhat Yankelovich (1991 citing Habermas 1991) calls theldquoculture of technical controlrdquo Information in the modernworld is compartmentalized and controlled by various tech-nical elites who do not communicate with each other This al-

lows experts from various fields to hold contradictory opin-ions and it allows the public to hold inconsistent and volatileopinions Coming to judgment is the process of confrontingand resolving these inconsistencies by breaking down thebarriers between the mutually exclusive compartments intowhich knowledge and information have been put For ex-ample opinion polls show many people are highly in favorof more effort to protect the environment but at the same timethey are opposed to any diversion of tax revenues for that pur-pose Coming to judgment is the process of resolving theseconflictsThis can be done most effectively by formulating thechoices as complete visions of the alternative states of theworld and incorporating all the divergent elements

Visions of the economy and itsrelationship to the ecological lifesupport systemBoth our preanalytic vision of how the human economy re-lates to the rest of nature and the economy itself are alsochanging The human economy has passed from an ldquoempty-worldrdquoera in which human-made capital was the limiting fac-tor in economic development to the current ldquofull-worldrdquoera in which remaining natural capital has become the lim-iting factor (Costanza et al 1997) Basic economic logic tellsus that we should maximize the productivity of the scarcest(limiting) factor as well as try to increase its supply This meansthat economic policy should be designed to increase the pro-ductivity of natural capital and its total amount rather thanto increase the productivity of human-made capital and itsaccumulation as was appropriate when it was limiting Thisimplies a very different vision of the economy and its placein the overall system

Figure 1a shows the conventional economic preanalytic vi-sion (Costanza et al 1997) The primary factors of produc-tion (land labor and capital) combine in the economicprocess to produce goods and services usually measured asgross national product (GNP) GNP is divided into con-sumption which is the sole contributor to individual utilityand welfareand investment which goes into maintaining andincreasing the capital stocks Preferences are fixed In thismodel the primary factors are perfect substitutes for eachother so ldquolandrdquo (including ecosystem services) can be al-most ignored and the lines between all the forms of capitalare fuzzy Property rights are usually simplified to either pri-vate or public and their distribution is usually taken as fixedand given

Figure 1b shows an alternative ldquoecological economicsrdquoview of the process (Ekins 1992 Costanza et al 1997) Noticethat the key elements of the conventional view are still pre-sent but more has been added and some priorities havechanged There is limited substitutability between the basicforms of capital in this model and their number has ex-panded to four Their names have also changed to better re-flect their roles (1) natural capital (formerly land) includesecological systems mineral deposits and other aspects ofthe natural world (2) human capital (formerly labor) includes




Articles


Improvement Land















Articles








Articles




preferences



precaution












Articles

















Articles




Wor

ldvi

ew a

nd

Pol

icie

s






Articles




















Articles















































Articles




Articles


Improvement Land















Articles








Articles




preferences



precaution












Articles

















Articles




Wor

ldvi

ew a

nd

Pol

icie

s






Articles




















Articles















































Articles















Articles








Articles




preferences



precaution












Articles

















Articles




Wor

ldvi

ew a

nd

Pol

icie

s






Articles




















Articles















































Articles








Articles




preferences



precaution












Articles

















Articles




Wor

ldvi

ew a

nd

Pol

icie

s






Articles




















Articles















































Articles











Articles

















Articles




Wor

ldvi

ew a

nd

Pol

icie

s






Articles




















Articles















































Articles









Articles




Wor

ldvi

ew a

nd

Pol

icie

s






Articles




















Articles















































Articles






Articles




















Articles















































Articles














Articles















































Articles















































Articles

Costanza 2001 BioScience

Documents

Transcript of Costanza 2001 BioScience