Abstract
The need to link different valuation methods, especially beyond disciplinary realms, has been discussed at least since the 1990s, and recently it has gained special attention. In the present contribution to this debate, we analyse the prospects for integrating different valuation methods representing three areas of disciplinary knowledge or value dimensions: social, monetary and ecological. We present a framework building on two key factors deciding the integration potential: logical commensurability of values, and technical compatibility of valuation methods. Using this framework, we analyse the integration potential in the case of social and monetary, and social and ecological valuation methods, along with the relevant empirical examples. Our conceptualization of social values refers principally to contextual values and value indicators. Our analysis shows that there is untapped potential for co-developing methods specifically to obtain more specific, integrated results. If full integration is not meaningful, the combination of different valuation methods can still support the analysis and interpretation of those methods’ results. At the very least, parallel use of the different valuation methods produces a more comprehensive picture than using any of those methods alone. In conclusion, integrated valuation gives a nuanced picture of what is valued, but even parallel use of valuation methods is useful in highlighting the different perspectives on what is valuable and why.
Highlights
“In order for something to be seen as having a value, there need to be actors who can describe that something and explain its value” (Ernstson 2013, p. 12)
These reasons may be expressed in different terms, sometimes very difficult to compare, and yet acknowledging value pluralism is a key to integrated valuation
To exemplify the application of the framework we take social values—arguably to many the most intuitive, and typically the basis people use for valuing things (Heberlein 2012)—as our starting point and explore how they may be integrated with the two other value dimensions: monetary and ecological
Summary
“In order for something to be seen as having a value, there need to be actors who can describe that something and explain its value” (Ernstson 2013, p. 12). Integrated valuation has primarily taken the form of multi-criteria analyses (Zoppi 2007; Munda 2008; Frame and O’Connor 2011), and more specific integration experiments (Jacobs et al 2018) These attempts were meant to: (i) defeat the shortcomings of specific methods, in particular with regard to the monetary; and (ii) capture a broader representation of value, including its different aspects. In the case of ecological valuation, we provided examples of different spheres of elicitation rather than just the methods for collecting data (surveys, biophysical measurements and experiments), but this positions the three dimensions (monetary, social and ecological, respectively) along a gradient from very specific methods and values to the more open-ended. Specific methods include citizen juries, focus groups, Delphi surveys, participatory mapping, participatory rural appraisal (PRA), participatory action research (PAR)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary 
Published Version (
Free)
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
