Sector Externo

In order to consider different types of shared values - for the purpose of identification, elicitation and measurement - we identify five dimensions of differentiation: (i) the value concept; (ii) the value provider; (iii) the process used to elicit values; (iv) the scale of value; and (v) its intention (Figure 2 in Section 1.1). This allows us to understand how the different terms that have been used in the literature are connected and to relate issues to clearly identified types of shared values. Table 14

provides an overview of the different terms that have been used in the literature to refer to a range of value concepts associated with shared values, along these five dimensions, and terms that could be used to disambiguate between these different concepts.

Value-concept: In terms of the concept of value, we make a distinction between values in the sense of “criteria that people use to select and justify actions and to evaluate people (including the self) and events” (Schwartz, 1992, p1), values in the sense of opinions about worth or importance, and the worth of something itself, often expressed in monetary terms. Another way of looking at this is that values can be differentiated between guiding principles that transcend specific situations, which we will call transcendental values, values that are dependent on an object of value and hence contextual and attitudinal, which we will call contextual values, and measures of the worth of something, which we will call value indicators. Although some of these distinctions are occasionally made (e.g. Dietz et al. 2005), they are not usually clearly termed.

Because transcendental values are often associated with ethics and normative beliefs, which are shared culturally, it is these values that are sometimes characterised as shared, social or cultural values, in contrast to contextual values that are more allied with attitudes and preferences (Table

17

91

16). In sociology, these values are considered as learned, epistemologically grounded, relatively enduring, emotionally charged and representing moral conceptualizations that assist us in making judgements and in preparing us to act (Frey, 1994). Following Schwartz’ conception of this type of values (Schwartz, 1992; Schwartz & Bilsky, 1987), transcendental values include more than just ethical principles and also include things that can be characterised as desirable end states, such as ‘a varied life’, ‘family security’, or ‘mature love’ (Table 15). Transcendental values in the sense of principles/virtues and in the sense of end-states have been distinguished as instrumental vs terminal values (Rokeach, 1973). However, we find this problematic, because if principles are seen as virtues, by definition they are in themselves also terminal. Finally, transcendental values are not necessarily explicit (Frey, 1994) and in relation to the environment are often latent (Niemeyer, 2004).

Contextual values are closely associated with, but different from, preferences and attitudes (definitions of these concepts can be found in

Table 16). While preferences are a stated or revealed ranking or rating of outcomes, contextual values can be conceived as an opinion of worth. For example, one might consider A to be of greater value than B, but prefer B because it is cheaper. The difference between a contextual value and an attitude is that a contextual value expresses an opinion of worth, while an attitude is an opinion of favour. Contextual values may be influenced by information and beliefs, but also by norms, needs, traits and roles (Table 16).

Beyond these two concepts of values, there are also value indicators. The most obvious of these are amounts of money. Ultimately, monetary values are not values themselves, but expressions of values in commonly understood units, which indicate the trade-offs that people are prepared to make. Although ontologically they are not, we classify these indicators as a value-concept, because our typology mainly serves to reduce ambiguity of terms. Of course, value indicators need not be monetary or even quantitative (e.g. ratings, rankings, indices, qualitative expressions), though non- monetary indicators are not as often referred to as values but as indicators, criteria or outcomes. A further confusion about the term values, particularly in relation to the valuation of the environment, is the conflation between (contextual) values, value indicators and the benefits produced by

ecosystem services (Chan et al. 2012).

To provide more clarity on this plethora of relations between all these concepts, consider, for example, a proposal to restore wetlands to improve water quality. We can identify water

purification as a service, improved health as a benefit and one’s perception of importance about this as the contextual value. Contextual values will depend on beliefs, such as about the state of current water quality, but also beliefs about other’s beliefs and norms about this. If one then considers something ought to happen (a norm), one might then have a favourable attitude towards restoration of wetlands. If one is then asked for one’s view on a proposal to raise taxes by a certain amount so that the wetland can be restored, one might then have a preference for this to happen over a status quo scenario. The monetary value attached to this might then be a WTP of £5 per annum. Overall, contextual values, attitudes and preferences could be positively influenced by health as a broader,

transcendental value, but also other values such as family security and harmony with nature, which are all closely related to one’s overarching worldview (Table 16).

Differentiation of values on this axis bears some resemblance to the differentiation of values into ‘held’ and ‘assigned’ by Rokeach (1973). Here, held values are the things that we hold as important while assigned values are the values that we assign to things. However, that distinction is

problematic, because it is unclear into what category opinions about the worth of something fall.

Provider of values: A second dimension is the provider of values. We distinguish four providers of value: individuals, groups (in a valuation setting), communities, and societies as a whole. Societies as

92

a whole share cultural and societal values, which may be considered shared principles and virtues as well as a shared sense of what is worthwhile and meaningful. Societal values are the cultural values of a society; societies may be more or less homogenous, so there may be multiple sets of cultural values in one society that overlap to a greater or lesser degree with each other. However, this is largely beyond the scope of our discussion, and we use the terms cultural and societal values more or less interchangeably.

Cultural values are grounded in the cultural heritage of a society and pervasively reside within societal institutions (Frey, 1994). These include both transcendental and contextual values. For example, British culture values politeness (transcendental) and it is a culture of tea-drinkers

(contextual). Cultural values are expressed through media (see Section 4.5), political processes, and institutions, and are also reflected in the values of individuals, as will be discussed in more detail in Section 3.2.

Of course, within societies and cultures there is a wide range of social groups that express distinct

communal values, including local communities, faith groups, groups of people that share an activity such as recreational users of the environment, communities of practice, etc. In addition, there are the ad-hoc groups associated with research, such as a discussion group of stakeholders or a focus group with members of the public, which can come to collective value outcomes that we term group values, for example in techniques such as citizens’ juries, multi-criteria analysis (e.g. Section 4.4.3.2) or mediated modelling (e.g. Section 4.2.3.1). The difference between on-going communal groups and ad-hoc process groups, is relevant, because for communal values the focus of valuation will likely be on shared experiences, practice and institutions, while for group values the focus is on process (e.g. coming to consensus). Communal and group values can overlap, for example when communal values arise in a deliberative valuation workshop.

We refer here to value providers rather than value holders, as the aim of our discussion is to develop a useful typology in relation to valuation of nature (as opposed to the broader and more informal valuing of nature). By focusing on provision of values, we also avoid the need to come to a final conclusion on whether, ultimately, anything other than individuals can hold values. We can then conceive of shared values as values that are expressed collectively, regardless of whether they are

held individually or collectively. In terms of non-market valuation of the environment, the usual providers are individuals, but with increasing interest in deliberative approaches to valuation, group value expressions (through consensus or majority vote) are becoming more common (Fish et al. 2011a; Kenter et al. 2011; Spash, 2008; Zografos & Howarth, 2010).

Elicitation process: While the distinction between group and individual ‘settings’ is generally made in the deliberative valuation literature (Lo & Spash, 2012; Spash, 2007), we introduce a third

dimension, the elicitation process, to distinguish between non-deliberated and deliberated values, as valuation may take place in group settings where the group or workshop setting does not include significant deliberation. For example, Christie et al. (2010), in a large-scale study on the value of the UK Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP), used group settings as a means to inform participants and to ensure they were familiar with complex concepts related to biodiversity before conducting choice experiments. The elicited values from individuals in these types of group settings may be

characterised as informed individual values (or informed individual WTP in monetary valuation), which are different from deliberated individual values and deliberated group values, because it is not just the group setting but also the process that determines whether a value can really be considered ‘shared’.

Scale of values: This dimension relates to the scale of valuation. We can distinguish the individual scale and the ‘social’ scale, which has bearing on values to society, or in relation to society. An

93

example is that one might highly value enjoyment and a varied life for oneself (e.g. reflected in consumer behaviour), but in relation to society other values such as fairness or responsibility might be more important (e.g. reflected in voting behaviour). In terms of monetary valuation, the social scale refers to either aggregate WTP or social WTP. For example, if a population of 100,000 people has a mean individual WTP of £10 to restore a wetland, one possible aggregate WTP would be £1 million. However, one might also ask how much the government should spend on this wetland instead of on other social priorities; if respondents would state an amount of £1 million, this would constitute a social WTP. To distinguish here from previous dimensions: if this £1 million were to be determined as a group decision, this could be termed group social WTP, and if this were also through a deliberative process and if we wanted to completely avoid all ambiguity, we would call this deliberated group social WTP.

Intention of values: The dimension of intention relates to whether values are self-regarding or are other-regarding, altruistic values. For example, I may value my own life enjoyment (self-regarding), but also that of my neighbour or that of future generations. Intention differs from the scale

dimension, as values for others are not necessarily values in relation to society.

Neoclassical economics explicitly does not concern itself with other-regarding values, on the argument that this would constitute double counting. Although valuation may consider such things as altruistic, existence and bequest values within a framework of TEV (Pearce & Moran, 1994), ultimately it is conceived to be the personal satisfaction that one gains by being altruistic that is considered the source of value. The relation between shared values and TEV will be discussed in more detail in Section 3.3.

Relevant to the dimensions of both intention and scale, it has been posited that people have multiple sets of values and preferences: a self-regarding set at the individual scale, where people maximise their personal utility according to their consumer preferences (‘I want’) and another set of other-regarding ‘citizen’ values (‘society should’) that are underpinned by a broader set of

transcendental values and motivations, including deontological and virtuous motives, and which may need to be brought out through a deliberative process (Lo & Spash, 2012; Niemeyer, 2004; Sagoff, 1998). We discussed this idea of value plurality previously in Section 2.4.2. Now, we will consider the dynamic relation between the values of individuals and shared and cultural values.

94

Table 14. Terms that can be used to refer to concepts associated with shared and social values. Different dimensions of value are given in bold in both rows and columns. Underlines indicate the term that we propose can be used to reduce ambiguity; where these have not commonly been used in the literature they are also italicised.

Value-concept Transcendental – transcending specific situations Contextual – sense of importance, worth Monetary value indicators

Value provider Individuals Groups or communities*

Societies Individuals Groups or communities*

Societies Individuals Groups Societies

Intention of value

Self-regarding (Individual) values

Self-regarding transcendental values Shared values Group self-regarding values Consumer values Communal self- regarding values Self-regarding cultural/societal values Shared values Common values Values Consumer values Self-regarding contextual values Shared values Self-regarding group contextual values

n/a WTP Group WTP n/a

Other-regarding Altruistic values

Other-regarding transcendental values

Social values

Shared values (Shared) social values Citizen values Group other-regarding values Other-regarding cultural/societal values Shared values Common values Citizen values Other-regarding contextual values Shared values Citizen values Other-regarding group contextual values n/a Charitable contribution††† Group WTP/charitable contribution (individual scale) ¶ Group social WTP(social scale) n/a Scale of value

Individual Personal values Ethical values

Personal

transcendental values

Shared values (Shared) social values

Group transcendental values Communal transcendental values Cultural/societal transcendental values Shared values Common values Public values Personal values Consumer values Personal contextual values Shared values Contextual group values Shared values Cultural values Public values Contextual societal/cultural values Value WTP Disaggregated value Fair price WTP Disaggregated value n/a

Social Social values Societal values Public values Citizen values Transcendental values in relation to society Shared values (Shared) social values Societal values Group/communal values in relation to society Cultural/societal transcendental values Shared values Common values Public values Social values Societal values Socio-cultural values Citizen values Contextual values in relation to society Social values Societal values Citizen values Contextual group values in relation to society

Shared (social) values Cultural values Public values Contextual societal/cultural values Social value Speculative value Social WTP Aggregated value Social value Societal value Arbitrated Social WTP (Deliberated)Group social WTP Aggregated value Social value Value to society Aggregated value Elicitation process

Non-deliberated† (Individual) values

Individual

transcendental values

(Shared) social values Common values Transcendental group values Transcendental communal values Shared values Common values Cultural/societal values ‡ (Individual) contextual values Contextual group values Contextual communal values

Shared (social) values Cultural values Public values Contextual societal/cultural values (Individual) value WTP Group value Group WTP Group values (monetary) Social value/WTP Social value Value to society

Deliberated† (Individual) values Deeper held values

Deliberated individual transcendental values

Group values Shared values (Shared) social values Deeper held values

Deliberated transcendental group values

n/a (Individual) values Deliberated (individual) contextual values Group values Deliberated group values Shared values Shared social values

n/a WTP Informed exchange price Arbitrated WTP Deliberated WTP/Charitable contribution ¶ Group value/WTP Social value/WTP Fair price (individual scale)

Arbitrated social WTP Deliberated social WTP (social scale)

n/a

WTP: Willingness to pay. Where reference is made to WTP, equal reference could be made to willingness-to-accept.

* ‘Groups’ refer to a group-based valuation setting; ‘communities’ refer to communities of people who may express values that are associated with their community (=communal values), e.g. geographic communities, faith communities, communities of people involved in similar activities, etc.

† Deliberation is used in the context of a deliberative valuation process, i.e. a targeted process above and beyond on-going or day-to-day ‘deliberations’.

‡A further use of the term ‘cultural values’ is to refer to the importance of ecosystems for culture; confusion can be avoided here by either referring to ‘cultural ecosystem values’ or the ‘benefits of cultural (ecosystem) services’. ¶ It has been suggested that WTP for individuals in deliberative settings is more akin to charitable contributions than to an exchange price (Sagoff, 1998; Spash 2007, 2008, 2012).

95

Table 15. Schwartz values. An overview of key transcendental values identified by Schwartz (Schwartz & Jerusalem, 1994; Schwartz, 1992; Schwartz & Bilsky, 1987). Schwartz argues for a ‘universal’ structure in values across cultures, which consists of a range of dimensions (italics) across four main axes (headings).

Self-transcendence Self-enhancement Openness Tradition

Universalism Protecting the environment A world of beauty Unity with nature Broad-minded Social justice Wisdom Equality A world at peace Inner harmony Benevolence Helpful Honest Forgiving Loyal Responsible True-friendship A spiritual life Mature love Meaning in life Healthy Power Social power Authority Wealth Preserving my public image Social recognition Achievement Successful Capable Ambitious Influential Intelligent Self-respect Self-direction Creativity Curious Freedom

Choosing own goals Independent Stimulation Daring A varied life An exciting life Hedonism Pleasure Enjoying life Tradition Devout

Respect for tradition Humble

Moderate

Accepting portion in life Detachment

Conformity Politeness

Honouring parents and elders Obedient Self-discipline Security Clean National security Social order Family security Sense of belonging Reciprocation of favours

96

Table 16. Glossary of terms relating to values. Termsreferring to categories of shared and social values are given in Table 17.

Term Definition

Values 1. Transcendental values: Conceptions about desirable end states or behaviours that transcend specific situations and guide selection or evaluation of behaviour and events (Schwartz & Bilsky, 1987).

2. Contextual values: Opinions about the worth of something (Dietz et al. 2005). 3. Value indicators (e.g. monetary values): The worth of something expressed in units of another or as a rank. E.g. WTP expresses how much an individual values something in terms of the money they would give up to get it.

Concerns Concerns include values, but also accounts for the perceived risk to what is valued. Consequently, one may value an element of the environment but not be concerned with it if one does not perceive it to be at risk (Schultz, 2001).

Attitudes Favourable or unfavourable evaluations of an object, person or issue (Eagly & Chaiken, 1993). One may value wilderness and be opposed to constructing a dam in a natural area; the latter is an attitude. The difference between a contextual value and an attitude is that a contextual value expresses an opinion of worth, while an attitude is an opinion of favour.

Traits An enduring disposition of personality (Hitlin & Pitliavin, 2004).

Norms ‘Ought to’ statements regarding specific situations (Hitlin & Pitliavin, 2004).

Needs Biological demands on an individual (food, shelter, reproduction, etc.) (Hitlin & Pitliavin, 2004).

Preferences Rankings or ratings of possible outcomes (Dietz, 2005).

Beliefs Any proposition that is accepted as true (Colman, 2001). Whereas an attitude must be evaluative, a belief does not imply value judgement.

Worldviews Generalised beliefs about the state of the world (Dietz, 2005).

Roles Differing ways of behaviour and decision-making depending on the social situation. Weight of values may differ across roles (Dietz, 2005).

97

Table 17. Main types of shared values with definitions and dimensions along which they can be