Debating Nature’s Value: The Role of Monetary Valuation

  • Rob TinchEmail author


Environmental valuation is grounded in expected utility theory. Coupled with the ecosystem services framework, it provides a quantitative model of how aspects of the natural world influence human well-being. Like any model, the important issue is not whether it is ‘right’ or ‘true’, but rather whether it is ‘useful’. There are diverse possible uses, such as project appraisal, awareness raising, and supporting policy instruments. There are well-recognised problems, many applying also to market institutions and other forms of collective choice. The extent to which valuation is useful and acceptable will depend on environmental, economic, and social/political contexts. The key issue to debate is not whether monetary valuation is ‘accurate’, ‘complete’, or ‘true’, but rather ‘under what conditions is monetary valuation useful?’



This research has been supported by funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 678760 (ATLAS).


  1. 1.
    Baumol, W.J., and W.E. Oates. 1971. The use of standards and prices for protection of the environment. In The economics of environment, 53–65. London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Costanza, R., R. d’Arge, R. De Groot, S. Farber, M. Grasso, B. Hannon, et al. 1997. The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387 (6630): 253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Costanza, R., R. de Groot, P. Sutton, S. van der Ploeg, S.J. Anderson, I. Kubiszewski, S. Farber, and R.K. Turner. 2014. Changes in the global value of ecosystem services. Global Environmental Change 26 (2014): 152–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Daily, G.C. 1997. Nature’s services: Societal dependence on natural ecosystems, 392pp. Washington: Island Press.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Farley, J. 2008. The role of prices in conserving critical natural capital. Conservation Biology 22 (6): 1399–1408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Mathieu, L., R. Tinch, and A. Provins. 2016. Catchment management in England and Wales: The role of arguments for ecosystems and their services. Biodiversity and Conservation 27: 1–20.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Pascual, U., M. Termansen, K. Hedlund, L. Brussaard, J.H. Faber, S. Foudi, P. Lemanceau, and S.L. Jørgensen. 2015. On the value of soil biodiversity and ecosystem services. Ecosystem Services 15: 11–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Rode, J., E. Gomez-Baggethun, and T. Krause. 2015. Motivation crowding by economic incentives in conservation policy: A review of the empirical evidence. Ecological Economics 117: 270–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    SNA. 2008. System of national accounts 2008, European Commission, International Monetary Fund, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, United Nations, World Bank.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    von Neumann, J., and O. Morgenstern. 1944. Theory of games and economic behavior. Princeton: Priceton University Press.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wegner, G., and U. Pascual. 2011. Cost-benefit analysis in the context of ecosystem services for human well-being: A multidisciplinary critique. Global Environmental Change 21 (2): 492–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Iodine sprlBrusselsBelgium

Personalised recommendations