Representing future generations in the deliberative valuation of ecosystem services

Even though decisions taken today about managing ecosystem services are likely to have an effect on future generations’ well-being, decision making is based largely on current generations’ values, including altruistic concern for posterity. Deliberative forms of citizen engagement can provide a methodological framework for incorporating sustainability considerations in the valuation task and for understanding the reasoning behind peoples’ choices. This paper uses a deliberative form of citizen engagement to better understand the temporal dimensions of social values by incorporating into the valuation task two plausible future scenarios and assigning to the participants the role of trustees for future generations. In particular, we employed the deliberative multicriteria evaluation (DMCE) method with eleven groups in which a total of 67 participants assessed the relative importance of ten ecosystem services in the Upper Merrimack River watershed in New Hampshire. Our results suggest that a deliberative form of citizen engagement provides the appropriate space for incorporating intergenerational concerns into decision making. Participants set environmental targets by prioritizing the satisfaction of basic human needs, securing human and environmental health, and avoiding the loss of ecosystem services that cannot be substituted and may lead to irreversible future losses. This finding suggests that when preferences are socially constructed, then ethical values underpin valuations, making it possible to integrate ecosystem service tradeoffs into environmental decisions in a manner that respects the environmental rights of future generations.

Evaluating the Effects of a Minimalist Deliberative Framework on the Willingness to Participate in a Payment for Ecosystem Services Program

When compared with other stated preference valuation methodologies, deliberative valuation gives participants more time and information, potentially resulting in more valid and reliable estimations and higher participant confidence. However, it also has weaknesses, such as small sample sizes, lower participant diversity, and high costs. This paper proses a minimalist framework for deliberation that increases sample size and lowers the cost per participant through short, structured deliberative sessions and the use of deliberative sub-groups. A case study was conducted with 192 landholders in south-eastern Mexico, examining how participants’ perceptions of benefits from communal forest lands would impact their willingness to accept (WTA) comparatively lower payments to participate in a Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES) program. The results suggest that a majority of landholders would accept a lower payment level to participate in a PES program over a degradative alternative, with 45.5% of participants surveyed willing to accept a 45% reduction in payments to participate in the PES program. The minimalist framework had an impact on participants’ rate of acceptance, with a 13.8% increase in the percentage of participants willing to accept the PES offer post-deliberation. The impact on participant confidence was stronger, with a 31.2% increase in the percentage of participants expressing confidence in their choice after deliberations.