Existence value, biodiversity, and the utilitarian dilemma

Existence value has been argued to be a significant part of the total economic value of some ecosystems. However, its compatibility with the welfare economic foundations of economic valuation is very limited – it is difficult to logically conceive of changes in existence. Moreover, when applied to biodiversity, the concept of existence value gives rise to an instance of a more fundamental problem of economic valuation, termed here the utilitarian dilemma: it can be argued conceptually that biodiversity cannot have existence value; yet the results of empirical studies suggest that people in stated preference studies can be expected to assign existence value to it. The utilitarian dilemma arises as the analysing economist must deal somehow with ‘erroneous’ preferences. There seems to be no simple solution to the dilemma, but deliberative monetary valuation has the potential to alleviate it

Degrowth, modernity, and the open society

Critiques of modernity often align with critiques of the existing institutions of liberal democracy. We argue that the degrowth movement can learn from the experience of past critiques of modernity by avoiding their major mistake - that is, (inadvertently) conflating a critique of modernity with a rejection of liberal democratic institutions. Hence, we suggest to frame degrowth as the promotion of new vocabularies within a deliberative account of democracy. Specifically, we proceed in three steps: first, we briefly review some essential critiques of modernity and their stance towards liberal democracy. Second, we illustrate how some of the argumentative patterns within the degrowth literature may inadvertently endanger core values of the open society. Third, we introduce our perspective on a liberal degrowth that aims to fulfil the "unfinished project of modernity"

Are diverse ecosystems more valuable? A conceptual framework for economic valuation of biodiversity

Biodiversity is an important environmental public good. However, the literature suggests that it is not clear how its economic value should be estimated; there is no established framework for doing this. This paper summarises concepts of biodiversity value from the ecological and economic literatures and combines them to a comprehensive and consistent framework. It is argued that biodiversity is the main carrier of insurance value, option value and spill-over value, and also influences the aesthetic appreciation of ecosystems. On that basis, an extension of the TEV framework is proposed to incorporate biodiversity values better. Furthermore, a number of specific challenges of biodiversity as an economic good are identified and used as criteria to inform the choice of suitable valuation methods

Hot topics in agricultural and environmental economics – a large-scale bibliometric analysis

Land use is at the core of today’s complex sustainability challenges. Agricultural and environmental economics share a focus land and resource use but evolved in their own domains. Their specialized competencies can be complementary and thus strengthen policy analysis. We use structural topic modelling on more than 24,000 articles in the top agricultural economics and environmental economics journals to derive trending topics in both fields. We thereby identify areas where the two fields converge on hot topics. We review content and contributions from each field. Our results show that policy-oriented research on land use and agent behaviour regarding multifunctional landscapes, climate change mitigation, and biodiversity conservation are hot research avenues and thus candidates for further intensified collaboration

Is there a monetary growth imperative?

We do not know; but simplistic answers to the title's question should be mistrusted. In this paper, we first provide a literature overview, laying out the vast diversity of theories on the role of monetary aspects for economic growth both within mainstream growth theory and within heterodox perspectives. In fact, completely contradicting results have been derived from a variety of reasonable theories. Based on this literature survey, we explore the narrative background of the most prominent theories as each of them is related to and justified by a distinct narrative. For instance, mainstream growth textbooks are based on the assumption that "money is a neutral medium of exchange" while other approaches hold that "zero interest rates are a precondition for a stationary economy". We show how these narratives - though they may well contain some truth - lend themselves to serve as myths, which rather inhibit than facilitate our understanding of the complex relationship between monetary variables and economic growth. Finally, we discuss consequences for the degrowth debate in terms of practical proposals for overcoming assumed growth imperatives as well as theoretical consequences

Reviewing the interface of bioeconomy and ecosystem service research

The bioeconomy is currently being globally promoted as a sustainability avenue involving several societal actors. While the bioeconomy is broadly about the substitution of fossil resources with bio-based ones, three main (competing or complementary) bioeconomy visions are emerging in scientific literature: resource, biotechnology, and agroecology. The implementation of one or more of these visions into strategies implies changes to land use and thus ecosystem services delivery, with notable trade-offs. This review aims to explore the interdisciplinary space at the interface of these two concepts. We reviewed scientific publications explicitly referring to bioeconomy and ecosystem services in their title, abstract, or keywords, with 45 documents identified as relevant. The literature appeared to be emerging and fragmented but eight themes were discernible (in order of decreasing occurrence frequency in the literature): a. technical and economic feasibility of biomass extraction and use; b. potential and challenges of the bioeconomy; c. frameworks and tools; d. sustainability of bio-based processes, products, and services; e. environmental sustainability of the bioeconomy; f. governance of the bioeconomy; g. biosecurity; h. bioremediation. Approximately half of the documents aligned to a resource vision of the bioeconomy, with emphasis on biomass production. Agroecology and biotechnology visions were less frequently found, but multiple visions generally tended to occur in each document. The discussion highlights gaps in the current research on the topic and argues for communication between the ecosystem services and bioeconomy communities to forward both research areas in the context of sustainability science.Peer reviewe

Dealing With Rejection: An Application of the Exit–Voice Framework to Genome-Edited Food

Genome editing has been hailed as both a revolutionary technology and potential solution to many agriculture-related and sustainability problems. However, owing to the past challenges and controversy generated by widespread rejection of genetic engineering, especially once applied to agriculture and food production, such innovations have also prompted their fair share of concern. Generally speaking, much of the discussion centers on the inadequacy or uncertainty of current regulatory regimes, partly owing to the vastly different approaches in the European Union and United States. Insofar as this focus on regulatory regimes is stimulated by the desire to bridge the divide between proponents and critics of genome editing, it risks losing sight of an essential aim of regulatory action: effectively responding to and fostering trust in consumers and the public. In this article, we thus assign priority to understanding the contours of individual dissatisfaction and its related responses. Toward this end, we apply and extend Hirschman's exit–voice framework to bring together, synthesize, and give much-needed substance to the diverse expressions of dissatisfaction and discontent with novel genome-editing technologies. Through the resulting synthetic framework, we then identify and evaluate which governance approaches can prevent actions seen to be problematic and, moreover, open up the space for a more active public. In this context, we devote specific attention to (i) use of labeling as a means to enable “exit” of consumers from markets and (ii) public deliberation as a possible expression of “voice.” Indeed, both options are proposed and utilized in the context of genome editing, e.g., as a way for skeptical consumers to express their viewpoints, seek change in prevailing food systems, and navigate the conflicts and tensions from applying unique sets of values to assess the balance of risks and benefits. So far missing, though, is an evaluation of how well such efforts offer effective means for public expression, which is why we also link this framework to the wider issue of consumer sovereignty. Having done so, we conclude with a brief commentary on the potential and limitations of both options in the existing institutional framework of the EU

Mythos monetärer Wachstumszwang: Am Gelde hängt doch alles?

Im Postwachstumsdiskurs erfreuen sich Theorien eines monetären Wachstumszwangsgroßer Popularität. Jedoch stellt die Vielschichtigkeit des sozialen Phänomens Geld einseitige Kausalitäten infrage. Welche Bedeutung kommt dem Geld system wirklich zu

Implementing result-based agri-environmental payments by means of modelling

From a theoretical point of view, result-based agri-environmental payments are clearly preferable to action-based payments. However, they suffer from two major practical disadvantages: costs of measuring the results and payment uncertainty for the participating farmers. In this paper, we propose an alternative design to overcome these two disadvantages by means of modelling (instead of measuring) the results. We describe the concept of model-informed result-based agri-environmental payments (MIRBAP), including a hypothetical example of payments for the protection and enhancement of soil functions. We offer a comprehensive discussion of the relative advantages and disadvantages of MIRBAP, showing that it not only unites most of the advantages of result-based and action-based schemes, but also adds two new advantages: the potential to address trade-offs among multiple policy objectives and management for long-term environmental effects. We argue that MIRBAP would be a valuable addition to the agri-environmental policy toolbox and a reflection of recent advancements in agri-environmental modelling