eLearning

reductive view of nature implicit in most valuation
exercises, have proved to be not just idealistic
theorizing but real forms of social organization. The
tragedy of the commons, and the difficulties of
managing complex systems, are found sometimes to
be overcome through community social organiza-
tion (at least on local scales).
Perhaps it is time to rethink the paradigms or
foundations of resource management institutions
and placemore emphasis on development of sustain-
ing foundations for dealing with complex resource
issues. Learning is a long-term proposition that
requires balance against short-term objectives. An-
other necessary shift is from management by objec-
tives and determination of optimum policies, to-
wards new ways to understand and manage
ecological systems in an ever-changing world. The
revised focus should not be solely on variables of the
moment (water levels, population numbers) and
their correlative rates, but rather on more enduring
systemproperties, such as resilience, adaptive capac-
ity, and renewal capability. This framework involves
both the human and biophysical components of the
landscape and its ecosystems.
CONCLUSION
Existing methods of valuation accept and validate
the current alienation of people from ecosystems
and from each other. Accepting economic prefer-
ences ‘‘as is’’ does not include the opportunity for
individuals to learn about their environment and to
pool their information for beneficial collective deci-
sions, nor does it provide a framework for active
social deliberation over desired states of nature.
Environmental valuation in its usual form bor-
rows more from the metaphors of engineering and
accountancy than of science. The economist/ecolo-
gist is a disinterested technician, adding energy
flows or money flows to assess values that are ‘‘out
there;’’ the analyst is neutral, the parameters are
static, and the bottomline is the truth. The danger of
applying environmental valuation based on the
cost–benefit ideology comes from decision makers
who mistakenly think that the result that a cost–
benefit analysis generates is objective. This sidesteps
processes of dialogue and deliberation, creating a
spurious sense of objectivity about that which is
certainly contested and politically messy but which
also can create the opportunity to transcend indi-
vidual valuation in the pursuit of the public good.
Both economic- and energy-based valuation ap-
proaches have their role as an input to this process
but not as ultimate decision-making tools.