the valse project — an introduction

Ecological Economics 34 (2000) 165–174

SPECIAL ISSUE

SOCIAL PROCESSES OF ENVIRONMENTAL VALUATION

The VALSE project—an introduction

Martin O’ConnorC3ED Uni6ersite de Versailles Saint-Quentin-en-Y6elines, 47 boule6ard Vauban, 78047 Guyancourt, cedex, France

www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolecon

1. The VALSE project

This Special Issue of Ecological Economics pre-sents results from The VALSE Project (VALua-tion for Sustainable Environments), aco-operative international programme of researchundertaken during 1996–1998 with the financialsupport of the European Commission. The re-search team set out with the goal to demonstrateeffective social processes for valuation of environ-mental amenities and natural capital for conserva-tion and sustainability policy purposes.

The project was financed under the EuropeanCommission’s Environment and Climate Re-search Programme (1994–1998): Research Area 4Human Dimension of Environmental Change(Contract no. ENV4–CT96–0226). The full de-scriptive title was: ‘Social Processes for Environ-mental Valuation: Procedures and Institutions forSocial Valuations of Natural Capitals in Environ-mental Conservation and Sustainability Policy’.In the project, valuation and choice have beenapproached ‘from the point of view of complex-ity’. By this term, we mean that the question of

the value or significance of environmental assets,services and features is considered in a multi-di-mensional perspective, reflecting the variety ofscales over which a problem may be consideredand the range of individual and collective interestsand preoccupations that may be involved.� Individuals have specific interests in the envi-

ronment as habitat, recreational space, cher-ished heritage, and space of economicopportunities;

� There are social and collective dimensions ofchoice reflecting both scientific and social prop-erties of the choice situations;

� Scientific features of significance may includethe indivisibility — that is, the collective char-acter — of many environmental goods, servicesand hazards, the irreversibilities of environmen-tal change, and the uncertainties of complexsystems;

� People can express views, individually and asparticipants in community, on dimensions ofvalue relating to collective identity;

� Issues of fairness, justice and responsibility in-clude considerations relating to the geographi-cal and inter-temporal distributions of costs,risks and benefits, and extend to conflicts andcompromises over what is just, right, andproper.

E-mail address: [email protected] (M. O’Con-nor).

0921-8009/00/$ - see front matter © 2000 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.

PII: S 0921 -8009 (00 )00156 -7

M. O ’Connor / Ecological Economics 34 (2000) 165–174166

In our view, valuation is not primarily a technicalmatter of quantifying substitution ratios (which,depending on circumstance, might be supply-sideopportunity costs or demand-side subjectivetrade-off preferences). Rather, we consider thatvalue statements about the environment typicallyemerge out of social processes of controversy andconflict. All choices, individual and collective, canbe seen as value statements (implicit and explicit),but there is not a simple aggregation of prefer-ences. Different social processes for environmen-tal valuation and management will tend to elicitdifferent evaluative responses. Valuation practiceshave a greater chance of social legitimacy andpolicy usefulness when they are implemented withawareness of the deep social and institutionaldimensions of value formation.

The VALSE project set out to demonstratethese contentions through the design and imple-mentation of effective procedures for eliciting en-vironmental valuation statements and foraddressing the conflicts that arise in four realsituations of natural resource and environmentaldecision-making. The work programme had fourmain aspects:� Phase I was the translation of general princi-

ples for effective environmental valuation pro-cedures that had been established from previousempirical and theoretical research and discus-sion, into a range of working hypotheses aboutkey physical, institutional, and ethical factors inthe social construction of environmental values.

� Phase II made the passage from these method-ological considerations to detailed research de-sign and valuation practices appropriate for thespecific features of four case studies — carriedout in Spain, Italy, France and the UnitedKingdom.

� Phase III saw the reverse movement, from thecase studies back to wider methodologicalreflection, so as to formulate recommendationsabout valuation practices as components in en-vironmental policy design and public expendi-ture evaluation programmes.

� Phase IV is the communication of the projectresults to policymakers, researchers, and theinterested public. This is accomplished formallythrough workshops and symposia and a set of

supporting written documents — including thispaper — and also informally through the waysthat knowledge of the VALSE research is ab-sorbed into these communities.

2. The case studies

Each of the VALSE case studies addressedsituations of natural resource and systems man-agement, notably water resources, forest and agri-cultural lands.� UK: economic and environmental values of

proposed reconversion of agricultural land intowetland fen.

� France: social, ecological and economic valua-tion of forest pockets within farmland;

� Spain: institutional and ecological factors de-termining changes in water quality and quantitymanagement in the Canary Islands;

� Italy: multiple criteria decision support analysisfor identifying water resource use options forregional development in Troina, Sicily.

The research process, in each case, aimed simulta-neously at (1) assessing (in monetary and non-monetary terms) the importance of theenvironmental ‘values’ in question — that is, thenature of their actual or potential commitmentsfor maintaining these values; and (2) integratingthese valuation statements within a real decision-making process. This is what we mean by estab-lishing social processes for environmentalvaluation.

More particularly, the case studies each centredaround the implementation of a procedure thatsought to bring actors’ views and preferences intoa process of environmental policy option evalua-tion or decisionmaking. Each study had the com-ponents: (i) preliminary scoping study; (ii)detailed field research methodology and design;(iii) interviews with key social actors and peoplein the interested communities; (iv) implementationof a procedure which brought the social actors’views and preferences into an environmental deci-sionmaking or consultation process on the issue(s)in question. The valuation tools applied in eachcase were:

M. O ’Connor / Ecological Economics 34 (2000) 165–174 167

� UK wet fens: contingent valuation (willingnessto pay) survey, citizens’ jury;

� Canary Islands water: diagnostic systems anal-ysis, institutional analysis;

� France rural woodland: diagnostic systemsanalysis, discourse analysis, in-depth inter-views, willingness-to-accept survey;

� Sicily water and development: institutionalanalysis, multi-criteria analysis, in-depth inter-views, attitudes and perceptions survey.We now introduce the case study findings in a

synthetic way.

2.1. The UK agriculture 6ersus Wet Fens6aluation

The valuation problem being considered wasthe justification (or not) for the re-construction ofa now-rare ecosystem, that of wet fens. If ap-proached in the perspective of a conventionalenvironmental cost benefit analysis, the aim willbe to identify ‘highest value’ (viz., Pareto-optimal)levels of agricultural production, wetlands andany other resource use. This would mean compar-ing the costs of obtaining further wet fens, forexample, the loss of agricultural production, withthe benefits of the enhanced environmentalamenity obtained. Monetary valuation is soughtso that the loss in relation to one objective can bequantified against the gain in relation to another.

The framing hypothesis of the UK study wasthat different value-articulating processes tend toelicit different values. These differences are notjust quantitative (for example, higher or lowermoney estimates), but also qualitative. In order toprobe the character of contingent valuation andcitizen’s jury methods, respectively, as inputs topolicy and decision-making, the research teamimplemented two parallel processes, a contingentvaluation survey (CVM) and a citizen’s jury (CJ)in which the merits of a ‘live’ project — a reallyexisting proposal to restore wet fen habitat inEast Anglia — were evaluated.

The wet fens CVM study was designed so as toobtain quantitative information and also to high-light questions of motivations lying behind peo-ple’s responses to questions aboutwillingness-to-pay (Spash et al., 1998). The essen-

tial idea is that a CVM survey investigates ‘statedbehaviour’, but behind these statements there area range of perceptions, social norms, beliefs andhabits which will determine what is stated andwhat degree of acceptance a person will have ofdiffering policy options.

For the survey, the format of a trust fund waschosen to reflect the likely type of institutionalarrangement that would arise from the really ex-isting lobby group, Wet Fens for the Future. Thisgroup is looking to create projects to achievewetland restoration in The Fens, and is concernedto attract government and EC funding as well asprivate donations. The project being considered isan environmental improvement, and a willingnessto pay question format was employed because anymove towards an increase in wetlands in The Fenswould require the purchase of farmland. The cen-tral question was left open-ended:

How much would you be willing to pay as aone-off contribution to the trust fund to helpcreate wetland?

The amount an individual is willing to pay tocreate an area of wetland will vary with socio-eco-nomic characteristics. The study hypothesised thatenvironmental attitudes and beliefs may also helpexplain the environmental values being expressedvia contingent valuation surveys. Of the 713 indi-viduals interviewed, 36 (about 5%) refused toanswer the willingness to pay question and 182(about 26%) were unable to answer, responding‘‘don’t know’’. Spash (2000) gives a detailed ex-amination of the attitudes and personal motiva-tions that, on the basis of statistical analysis ofthe survey responses, may plausibly lie behind theprotest votes, the ‘‘zeroes’’ and the propositionsof ‘‘don’t know’’.

On a methodological parallel with the CVMstudy, in July 1997 a Citizens’ Jury (CJ) wasorganised in Ely, near the East Anglia fens dis-trict. The Jury was supported by an AdvisoryGroup made up of representatives of Cam-bridgeshire and Norfolk County Councils, theCountryside Commission, the Royal Society forthe Protection of Birds, the National Farmers’Union, Silsoe College (part of Cranfield Univer-


sity), and local residents. The organisations repre-sented on the Advisory Group, along with someothers, all have an interest in proposals made inrecent years to create more wetland areas in theFens. Some of them have been involved in theumbrella ‘Wet Fens for the Future’ project; otherswould be affected by the proposals being made.The Jury was asked to discuss the followingquestion:

What priority, if any, should be given to thecreation of wetlands in the Fens?

Sixteen jurors representing a cross-section of thepopulation in the Fens and adjacent areas wererecruited by a market research company, usinghouse-to-house visits. The jurors were lay peoplewith no particular prior expertise. They sat forfour days, hearing evidence from a variety ofexpert and other witnesses, and discussing theissues surrounding wetland creation in smallgroups and in plenary session. The discussion wasstructured around options setting out differentways of creating wetland for different purposes(see Aldred and Jacobs, 1997, 2000). These op-tions were:� Establish a nature reserve (as put forward by

the Bedfordshire, Cambridgeshire and North-amptonshire Wildlife Trust)

� Incremental development of wetlands(throughout the Fens through small-scale,farmer-led schemes)

� Multi-use recreational Fen centre (as set out byNorfolk College of Arts and Technology andothers)

� No deliberate actionInterestingly, after consideration of these four op-tions, the Jury constructed for themselves a fifthoption — to establish a Fens ‘Covent Garden’ —centred on a local wholesale centre to distributefruit and vegetables produced in the Fens. Theirjustification was that, in this way more of theadded value in sales and distribution of Fensproduction could be retained in the Fens area.Local produce should be branded and marketedas such (for example as ‘Fen Food’). The jobcreation and economic development potential ofsuch a centre may be significant.

The Citizens’ Jury proved to be highly effectivefor investigating value issues that divided andunited different interest groups in the Fens com-munities. The options ‘No deliberate action’ and‘Multi-use Fen centre’ were rejected. For theother three options — all considered to be realis-tic and desirable (the Nature Reserve, IncrementalDevelopment and Fens Covent Garden) — de-tailed recommendations on co-ordination andfinancial incentives were made. Not only were theJury participants themselves convinced of thevalue of their debates and recommendations, butalso local politicians became convinced of thevalue of the exercise.

2.2. The Canary Islands institutional analysis

Access to water resources in the Canary Islandshas been a matter of conflict for centuries. In thecontext of the VALSE project, an institutionalanalysis was carried out in order to account forrecent changes in the notion of water (conflictbetween commodity and public good perspectives)and corresponding changes in the institutionalframework (see Aguilera Klink et al., 1997, 1998,2000a,b). Inspired broadly by Norgaard’s perspec-tive on coevolutionary change, several distinctdimensions of the social process were identifiedand studied: water as a commodity; water interms of environmental functions; social values;stakeholders’ interests; technology and science(linking to uncertainty and ignorance); and theinstitutional framework of water distribution anduse.

The water valuation problem centres on confl-icts between short-term economic interests andlonger-term sustainability and social equity val-ues. Key decisions representing de facto valuationdecisions have been made some years ago. In 1987the Canarian government set up a new water lawin an attempt to avoid the aquifer depletion bylimiting to 15 years the rights for water with-drawal (with prospects of extension only if theaquifer is not damaged). Large water owners ini-tiated a strong campaign against the government,pushing the idea that the government intentionwas to confiscate the rights without compensa-tion. The campaign persuaded a large number of


small water owners, and curtailed public debate.The new law was abolished and a new governmentwas elected by promising a new law that ‘willrespect the rights’ for the next 75 years.

In the wake of this, the valuation problem canbe presented as a contest between two perspectiveson the water issues, as in Table 1 below. At present,the Individual Interests perspective prevails. Whileformally the water is defined as a public good, inreality it is largely exploited as a private commod-ity. The aquifer is on a path of irreversible deteri-oration due to overexploitation and resultingmarine intrusion. In the short run the existinginstitutional arrangement respects the dominantwater owners’ economic interests. But because ofthe worsening degradation, many water ‘owners’are losing their not-very-well defined access rights.This aggravation of water scarcity results in pres-sure for new solutions. In the measures so faradopted, water management is posed as a technicalquestion, such supply-side measures as construc-tion of new water distribution networks (pipelinesand pumps, small dams, etc.), residual water treat-ment and re-use in agriculture, implementation ofimproved processes of brackish water and sea-wa-ter desalination. These supply measures involveimportant public investments, though the benefitsare very unevenly dispersed. (Moreover, aquifer

deterioration is hastened by the brackish waterdesalination plants because they promote increasedextraction).

Reform options can be appraised against threekey norms — economic efficiency, sustainable useand democratic process. In brief:

2.2.1. Allocati6e efficiency of resource usePareto-efficiency in water resource use implies

that water be allocated to its ‘highest value uses’ asdefined by marginal costs and benefits. Becausewater resources allocation is determined by a com-plicated power-brokering system, some users haveaccess at monetary costs per unit far lower thanothers. This is prima facie inefficient. It is alsoinequitable. A search for improved efficiency mustconfront obstacles related to property rights. First,vested interests having de facto ‘rights’ under thestatus quo will oppose changes reducing theiropportunities. Second, efficient resource use is, inpart, a function of the property rights that apply.

2.2.2. Sustainable water resource useThe Canaries aquifer water is a naturally renew-

able resource vulnerable to degradation. The dropin water table and marine intrusion are irreversiblein that it may take longer to obtain ‘recovery’ thanit takes to degrade. Restrictions to water use so asto assure ‘sustainable use’ are proposed by somesectors of the Canaries society, and are also re-quired (legally) under norms set by the EC. Imple-mentation of such norms would confront the(re)distributional problems of, first, achieving re-duction to total water use relative to the status quoand, second, deciding which social and economicinterests shall be provided for within constraintsfor sustainable use.

2.2.3. DemocracyThe present situation is one where a democratic

process has been usurped by powerful economicinterests. Reclaiming democratic values thus en-tails a contesting of the status quo. Democracy asthe social and daily process of practicing anddefending values such as freedom, justice, equityand rights of coexistence not dictated by willing-ness-to-pay under status quo income distribution,involves a normative commitment. In this per-

Table 1Two perspectives on the Canary Islands water issue

‘Social’ values‘Individual’ interests

Water is a private good Water is a public goodThe water rights are The rights are limited and

derivativesunlimited and absolutesThe owners have the The regulation should be

capacity for self-regulating exerted by theGovernment

There is not speculation Speculation should beavoided

The water markets work Water transactions arecharacterised by itsproperlyopacity

Existence of fraud in theExistence of transparency inwater distributionthe water distribution

The aquifer overexploitation Overexploitation is evidenthas not been demonstrated in some islands and

aquifersfrom a scientific point ofview


spective the water valuation problem in the Ca-nary Islands is largely a problem of politicalvalues and rights.

All three could be pursued simultaneously as a‘first best’ policy in a multi-criteria managementof water use. But the present situation is very faraway from this possible first-best. The analysishighlights key scientific, economic and politicalprocess issues that must be faced for durablesolutions to be found. A more democratic socialvaluation process would probably be accompa-nied by a stronger visibility of ‘sustainability’ and‘social equity’ values in the debates.

2.3. Woodland in rural France: from transactionprice to transmitted social 6alue

The Bois de Bouchereau is a small forest islet ofabout 50 Ha situated in an agricultural region, anopen field country called the ‘Gatinais Nord-Occi-dental’, about 100 km to the south-west of Paris.This forest is composed of ‘parcels’ held as privateproperty. The woodland has been, through differ-ent generations, progressively divided into (about)284 woodlots, or parcels, actually owned by(about) 155 persons. It is an example of French‘Ordinary Nature’, a natural space modified byhuman intervention over many centuries. No ma-jor conflict about the uses of the wood has ap-peared until now; the different uses as woodcutting, walking, hunting, daffodils gathering, andso on, coexist. The valuation question is one ofunderstanding whether enough social significanceis attached to the forest to ensure that it willsustained, and in what form.

In the first phase of the study, analyses wereconducted that brought out the qualities of theforest socio-eco-system as an indivisible ‘unite devaleur’. Based on both institutional and ecosys-tems analysis, a dynamic simulation model wasdeveloped that represents the evolving forest sys-tem through the interaction of human and ecolog-ical forces (Heron 1997; O’Connor and Heron,1999). The model expresses, as a sort ofmetaphor, the way that the forest is a sort of‘social infrastructure’, described in terms of thevariety of stakeholders (woodlot owners, adjacentfarmers, hunters, visitors, and communal adminis-

trators) who contribute, and the variety of valuesattributed to the forest system.

The woodlots are transacted individually —mostly in the context of a hereditary transmission.The changes of ownership involve monetarytransactions, administered through notary officesin the district. So there is a ‘price’ for a woodlotwhen it changes hands. But this is not really a‘market for woodlots’. The variety of users anduses point to a high local significance of thewoodland, associated mostly with the rural (vil-lage and agricultural) community life in the region(Noel and Tsang King Sang, 1997). This highvaluation is now ‘at risk’ due to demographic andlifestyle change tendencies. The locally residentpopulation is growing older, and the process ofrural depopulation means a growing proportionof distant owners.

A survey was devised for an enquiry into actualand hypothetical market-like transactions (definedby a quantity and a price), and also an enquiryinto the motivations for the actions — that is, thesocial norms, customs, and individual beliefs —of the persons involved. The survey format com-bined specific data and quantitative informationtogether with open-ended questions that wouldpermit an ‘in-depth interview’. Deliberately, thequestionnaire was simple, and focussed on theprice and other conditions under which existingproprietors might be willing-to-accept sale of theirparcel (see Noel et al., 2000; and for the originalsurvey in French see Boisvert et al., 1998).

The results reveal how the ‘price’ of a woodlotis associated with a transaction whose significanceis far more than a ‘simple market value’. Thepieces of forest are strongly perceived as elementsof familial heritage, inherited from previous gen-erations and passed on future generations. Thespecific circumstances of each woodlot transaction(family transmission, consolidation of holding bylocal proprietors, departure of a family from thedistrict) highlight the social relationships thiscommunity keeps up with and through this forest,reaffirming the social norms, individual and col-lective attitudes that sustain and constitute thevalue. The woodlots are carriers of meaning —proudly inherited from the previous generationsand, as such, destined to be passed on futuregenerations.


2.4. The Troina (Sicily) water 6aluation study

The water valuation problem for the Communeof Troina in Sicily began with the notion of alocal water shortage in Troina, which could per-haps be remedied by more effective use of existingresources or by changing use priorities. It turnedout that, although real water shortage is commonin Sicily, Troina is an exception. The more signifi-cant factor was a complex and heterogeneouscollection of interests in the Troina water issue,who up until now have had no effective dialogue.

The primary research task was to achieve aneffective structuring of the water problem so thatnegotiations among stakeholders could have somechance of a positive outcome. A set of optionswas identified having a short/medium temporalscale, relatively low costs and a good prospect ofbeing absorbed by the Triona community. Thesewere:� ‘Mineral water ’ — to use some spring water

sources located in the forest to produce bottledmineral water. At the moment, this water flowsfree in the forest, so bottling it creates no newwater use conflict.

� ‘Mineral water plus recreation ’ — to combinemineral water with some recreational activities(restaurant, hotel, etc.) in the forest connectedwith restoration of existing country houseswhich are property of the ‘Comune’.

� ‘Information campaign ’ — to develop an exten-sive information campaign about local waterresources (water cycle, water process, techno-logical uses of water, water management, waterdistribution, …).

� ‘Galli law ’ — the Galli framework law con-cerns the basin authority, to be implemented bythe central government. In Sicily water is ‘areserved topic’ of the regional government,which means difficulties in implementation.

� ‘Self-sufficiency ’ — self-sufficiency of Troinadrinking water needs is a major short-term goalof the town administration in its water policy.

� ‘Compensation ’ — compensation to Troina(for the fact that water is appropriated outsidethe community).

� ‘Changes to irrigation ’ — investments in thewater irrigation structure in Catania (pipelines,

etc.) could improve the efficiency of the wateruse by Catania farmers, thus saving more waterfor Troina.

For the evaluation of these options, several ana-lytical methods were employed in a complemen-tary way (see Funtowicz et al., 1998, 2000; DeMarchi et al., 2000).On the basis of an initialinstitutional analysis, it was chosen to construct amulti-criteria analysis framework centred on theidentification of the key interest groups. By con-sidering appropriate criteria and alternatives, itwas then possible to take into account the confl-icting preferences of these groups. An impactscore system was devised, and an evaluation (orimpact) matrix constructed. The scores were thenanalysed by applying discrete multi-criteria tech-niques (the NAIADE method) so that a partialranking of policy options was obtained.

It was made clear from the outset of the studythat the multi-criteria evaluation techniques werenot expected to solve the conflicts or uncertaintiesabout Troina water use options. Rather, they canhelp to provide insight into the nature of conflictsand into ways of exploring policy compromises(or policy solutions that could have a higherdegree of equity on different income groups).Given the contrasting interests, this is a situationwhere the decision maker (the ‘Troina Com-mune’) has to decide whose interests have prior-ity; no escape from value judgements is possible.What is interesting is that the Troina communityhas quickly ‘internalised’ the notion of evaluationtools as vehicles for developing public discussionand policy debate. They have spontaneously gonebeyond the idea of multi-criteria evaluation as amechanical process of ranking, and have inte-grated the study perspectives and results withintheir own political process.

3. A methodological reflection

The papers in this issue of Ecological Econom-ics report on the whole VALSE project in asynthetic way. The first paper, by Martin O’Con-nor, outlines some of the main methodologicalfeatures of the work, and discusses some generallessons for environmental valuation practice and


policy. Each of the subsequent papers, by mem-bers of the respective case study team, provides adiscussion based around an individual case study.All the empirical work has been comprehensivelyreported elsewhere (the various papers provide afull documentation), so the paper authors buildon the acquired base in order to offer insights intovaluation research methodology.

It can be wondered what type of comparativeor general conclusions can emerge from so varieda smorgasbord of empirical and analytical startingpoints. This brings us to try to define the specific-ity of the VALSE project. One important themein policy analysis and in the academic valuationliterature is the ‘transferability’ — or not — ofvaluation results and of experience with methods,from one situation to another. The VALSE stand-point is that analytical tools are best to be consid-ered as ‘aids’ in a social process of definingproblems and considering possible solutions, butthat neither quantitative results nor implementa-tions of analytical methods should be regarded aseasily transferable.

Relevant to any social process of environmentalvaluation, there are ‘internal’ scientific criteria ofvalidation appropriate for each tool and concep-tual framework of enquiry, and there are also the‘external’ social context considerations such as thepolitical and cultural circumstances of the en-quiry. These internal and external dimensionscannot be held completely apart from each otherbecause ethical, cultural and political convictions,along with economic interests, can actually bearon conceptions of science itself — and at any ratewill have some bearing on perceptions of theadequacy of a particular scientific or social scien-tific method for addressing the various ecological,social and economic dimensions of a problem.

But — and this is what may differentiate usfrom some more traditional neo-classical col-leagues — the ‘external’ considerations shouldnot be reduced to a mere coloration of the ‘inter-nal’ methodological considerations defined by ana priori axiomatic choice. (Put simply, no, we donot go along with the postulate, neither methodo-logically nor ontologically, that ‘everything hap-pens as if’ all human beings are, were, or wouldhave liked to have been, rational maximisingfools).

In each of the four VALSE case studies, theresearch design and implementation has hingedon hypotheses about and discovery of the mean-ings attached to the enquiry by the various sectorsof the society concerned. This reflects the underly-ing VALSE research objectives and methodologi-cal choices:� First, the desire was to understand the ways

that the concerned populations (or stakehold-ers) themselves express the ‘values’ of environ-ment. So the research was conceived as aprocess of discovery, not to be limited by ax-iomatic constrictions of a particular method’sown terms of reference.

� Second, the intention was to present results ina way that maximised their pertinence to thecommunities and policymakers involved. Thismeans that concern for scientific rigour andclarity in communication was not enough, butalso attention had to be paid to the significanceof the results and arguments for the actorsconcerned, as seen in their terms.

The VALSE case studies all offered opportunitiesto evaluate the hopes that might be placed inparticular methods or tools as a means of obtain-ing information on the values that concernedindividuals and populations attach to features oftheir environments. In this way, the ambitions,limitations, justifications and weaknesses of differ-ing perspectives and practices of evaluation havethemselves been reflexively presented and ap-praised. More particularly, the political as well asscientific significance of methodological choiceshas been brought into focus, showing howmethod choice, implementation and communica-tion of results can — and should — all be madeelements of deliberation within wider socialprocesses.

Acknowledgements

The VALSE project has been a successful co-operation between research teams of several Eu-ropean countries. With the help of the EuropeanCommission funding, researchers who, for themost part, hardly knew each other, have evolveda permanent process of research co-operation go-


ing far beyond the VALSE project itself. Theresearchers of the project teams would like toexpress their appreciation and thanks to all per-sons, of whatever academic, bureaucratic, public-spirited, self-interested or other persuasions, fortheir contributions to the research process. Wealso express thanks to the referees of the variouspapers who, individually and collectively, havecontributed significantly to the clarity of the anal-ysis and arguments presented here.

Appendix A. Documentation of the VALSEProject

A full presentation of The VALSE Project re-sults and documentation (published papers, un-published research reports, etc.) can be obtainedin the following two forms:

The VALSE Project Website (edited by SerafinCorral Quintana) http://alba.jrc.it/valse.html.This web-site contains the complete Full FinalReport of The VALSE Project, Social Processesfor Environmental Valuation, as prepared for theDG-XII, European Commission, under contractENV4-CT96-0226 (Report EUR 18677 EN, ed-ited by Martin O’Connor, published by the Eu-ropean Commission Joint Research Centre, Ispra,Italy, September 1998). The site also includesselected other project products and documenta-tion, together with links to related sites.

Walking in the Garden(s) of Babylon: anoverview of the VALSE Project, C3ED ResearchReport composed by Martin O’Connor, publishedby the C3ED, Universite de Versailles-SaintQuentin en Yvelines, Guyancourt, France, Sep-tember 1998. This 40 A4-page three colour profes-sionally published document is designed as aresearch and teaching resource. For further infor-mation and prices for individual or bulk pur-chases, see the VALSE web-site or contact theC3ED (E-mail: [email protected]).

Appendix B. The VALSE Project partnerinstitutions

Centre d’Economie et d’Ethique pour l’Envi-

ronnement et le Developpement (C3ED), Univer-site de Versailles-Saint Quentin en Yvelines,France. Team Leader (and Project Coordinator):Martin O’Connor. Other C3ED Team Members:Jean-Francois Noel, Jessy Tsang King Sang. Withcontributions also from: Valerie Boisvert,Christophe Heron, Jean-Marc Douguet. Sub-con-tractors: Yann Laurans (AscA) and Olivier Go-dard (CIRED), France.

Departemento de Economia Aplicada, Univer-sidad de La Laguna (ULL), Tenerife, CanaryIslands Spain. Team Leader: Federico AguileraKlink. Other Team Members: Juan Sanchez Gar-cia, Eduardo Perez Moriana.

Institute for Systems, Informatics and Safety(ISIS), EC Joint Research Centre, Ispra (JRC)Italy. Team Leader: Silvio Funtowicz. OtherTeam Members: Bruna de Marchi (Institute ofInternational Sociology of Gorizia), Silvestro LoCascio (Comune di Troina), Giuseppe Munda(Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona). Plus con-tributions by: Rosa Rossi, Maura Del Zotto, Gio-vanni Delli Zotti, Gabriele Caputo, AntonellaCasella, Salvatore Costantino, Giuseppe Pap-palardo, Irene Trovato Menza and Silvestro Vi-tale, Serafin Corral Quintana, A. ngela GuimaraesPereira, Francesca Di Pietro, Jerry Ravetz,Giuseppe Rossi.

Lancaster University Centre for the Study ofEnvironmental Change (CSEC). Team Leader:Allan Holland (Department of Philosophy, Lan-caster University). Other Lancaster Team Mem-bers: John O’Neill, Robin Grove-White, JonathanAldred, Michael Jacobs, with contributions fromJohn Foster and Brian Wynne. Major subcontrac-tor: Clive SPASH, Cambridge Research forthe Environment , University of Cambridge, Eng-land.

References

Aguilera Klink, F., Perez Moriana, E., Sanchez Garcıa, J.,1997. Procesos sociales para la valoracion ambiental. Elcaso del agua en Tenerife (Islas Canarias), Working Paper,University of La Laguna.

Aguilera Klink, F., Perez Moriana, E., Sanchez Garcıa, J.,1998. Valoracion ambiental del agua subterranea en uncontexto insular: el caso de Tenerife (Islas Canarias), Doc-


umento de trabajo 97/98-16, Departamento de EconomıaAplicada, Universidad de La Laguna, Canary Islands.

Aguilera Klink, F., Perez Moriana, E., Sanchez Garcıa, J.,2000a. Social processes for environmental valuation. Thecase of water in Tenerife (Canary Islands), EcologicalEconomics, 34(2) 233–245.

Aguilera Klink, F., Perez Moriana, E., Sanchez Garcıa, J.,forthcoming 2000b. Social processes, values and interests:environmental valuation of groundwater in Tenerife (Ca-nary Islands), International Journal of Environment andPollution, 13(4).

Aldred, J., Jacobs M., 1997. Citizens and Wetlands: Whatpriority, if any, should be given to the creation of wetlandsin the fens?, Report of the Ely Citizen’s Jury, Centre forthe Study of Environmental Change (CSEC), LancasterUniversity, Lancaster, September 1997, 40 pp.

Aldred, J., Jacobs, M., 2000. Citizens and wetlands: evaluatingthe Ely citizens’ jury, Ecological Economics, 34(2) 217–232.

Boisvert, V., Noel, J-F., Tsang King Sang J., 1998. Le Bois deBouchereau: resultats d’une enquete aupres des propri-etaires, Rapport de Recherche, C3ED, Universite de Ver-sailles-Saint Quentin en Yvelines, Guyancourt, Mai 1998,40 pp.

De Marchi, B., Funtowicz, S.O., Lo Cascio, S., Munda, G.,2000. Combining participative and institutional approacheswith multicriteria evaluation. An empirical study for waterissues in Troina, Sicily, Ecological Economics, 34(2) 267–282.

Funtowicz, S.O., De Marchi, B., Lo Cascio, S., Munda G.,1998. The Troina water valuation case study, unpublishedResearch Report prepared by ISIS, European CommissionJoint Research Centre, Ispra, Italy.

Funtowicz, S.O., Lo Cascio, S., Munda, G., 2000. The Troinaperceived water issue: a multicriteria evaluation process.In: O’Connor, M. (Ed.), Environmental Evaluation, vol. 1in the ILEE series (International Library of EcologicalEconomics). Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, UK/Northampton, MA, USA.

Heron, C., 1997. La representation systemique de l’ilot boise:vers une mise en evidence de la valeur sociale. RevueInternationale de Systemique 11 (2), 147–175.

Noel, J.-F., Tsang King Sang, J., 1997. Le Bois deBouchereau: des perceptions sociales a la mise enperspective de la valeur, Cahiers du C3ED no 97-01,Universite de Versailles-Saint Quentin en Yvelines, Octo-ber 1997.

Noel, J-F., O’Connor, M., Tsang King Sang J., 2000. TheBouchereau Woodland and the transmission of socio-eco-logical economic value, Ecological Economics, 34(2) 247-266.

O’Connor M., Heron C., 1999. Forest value and the distribu-tion of sustainability: valuation concepts and methodologyin application to forest islands in agricultural zones inFrance, Proceedings of the International Symposium on‘Non-Market Benefits of Forestry’ sponsored by theForestry Commission of the UK, Edinburgh, Scotland,24–28 June 1996.

Spash, C., 2000. Ecosystems, contingent valuation and ethics:the case of wetland recreation, Ecological Economics, 34(2)195–215.

Spash, C., Holland, A., O’Neill, J., 1998. Environmental Val-ues and Wetland Ecosystems, CVM, Ethics and Attitudes,Research Report by Cambridge Research for the Environ-ment, Cambridge University.

.

the valse project — an introduction

Documents