A systemic bias in ecosystem valuation

After readings a few articles written by Dr Spash (who interviewed me last week) and some others, I get a couple of new thoughts on environmental valuation.

There is a systemic bias in traditional environmental valuation techniques, to whcih Dr Spash named as 'deontological bias'. When applying valuation techniques like Contingent Valuation Method (CVM), economists would usually classify zero bids or 'unrealistic' bids as protest bids and eliminate these from the average and aggreate WTP figures. But some protest-bidders might hold strong rights-based beliefs. They thought that any components of the nature have an inviolable right to exist and need to be protected whatever the costs. They were not irrational but simply did not believe that the monetary estimates could represent their unlimited 'values' attached to particular environmental products or goods. Under the current mechanisms this kind of responses is not counted. Consequently the WTP figures are biased to utilitarians who do have a 'value' in their minds.

The importance of such an utilitarian-deontological distinction lies on the ways 'values' are defined in current value system. Common economics beleifs suggest market prices represent the utility levels obtained by buying that good or service. By utility it does not actually imply whether that good or service exhibit certain actual 'functions' or not; it may refer to non-use preferences. Most economists do not reject this view. While prices represent an array of preferences of an individual, does it include deontological beliefs? Is it really presenting the whole picture?

Can prices, or valuation techniques like CVM, measure a 'price' I may impose on something to which I reject such a measuring practice? Put simply, I think my daughter or son is priceless, does it make sense if you ask me for a price? It is, however, still a problem if you deny the existence of an implicit value for that environmetnal good or services, given that, in philosophical sense, 'value' per se means the whole array of preferences, be it utilitarian or deonological. Exclusion of which is an ignorance of reality.

This draws many problems about how to incorporate these implicit beliefs into policy-making. The first one is, do we still need a value? I think the answer is 'yes', but we need to think seriously whether valuation should be treated as an end itself, or alternatively, a means to an end. Second, how can we precisely measure rights-based beliefs? Maybe by Deliberative Monetary Valuation (DMV) that Dr Spash is working on, probably including me as well if I am luckily accepted for the PhD studentship.

P.S. Now I understand why someone said every academic discipline, at the end, is a branch of philosophy. And that's why research doctoral degree is called 'Doctor of Philosophy' (PhD). It seems to me that sustainability is more like a philosophical quest.

I am coming to Australia!

A month ago I submitted a PhD studentship application to CSIRO, an Australian-based research organization. They had a phone interview with me this morning. It took 25 minutes, asking me why I want to do PhD in Australia, what I think about valuation and attitudes, and what I am going to do for my current MPhil project. They did not ask any tricky questions, except one that I was not well prepared to answer. It's more like they want to know a bit more about my present works and future plan. There were some questions about academic understandg. I think I won't be able to answer if I did not do any preparation. And it's great that I felt little difficulty in listening to native speakers on phone - I am very weak in English listening tests.

Twenty minutes after it was finished, the project leader called me back and talked about two things. The first is my availability - as I will not finish my MPhil until early 2009. The second is that he wanted me to pay a visit to Canberra to have a talks (I forgot to ask if there will be any formal interviews or presentations). That's great! Because they pay me the air tickets. I have been longing to go to Australia and now I get the chance for free! No matter I will finally be accepted or not, it is a valuable chance for me to meet a pretiguous scholar in this field and enjoy a nice journey with minimal costs.

香港環境問題的死結

今早跟我的指導教授談了半個多小時，談到為什麼香港的綠化政策會如此不濟，當中的原因或多或少也可以延伸至整體環境政策上

過去數十年，香港政府財政開支很倚賴賣地收入，亦因為這樣才承受得起低稅率，從而助推動經濟發展，我們的六十至九十年代的風光日子就在這樣局面下渡過。但這樣的其中一個惡果是城市規劃及發展偏袒地產商 – 若果他們沒法賺多點錢，就不能保持政府財政穩健，低稅率亦不能維持(另一個惡果是樓價偏高)，為了補償買地的大筆開支，地產商用盡地面面積起樓，只預留很少空間給行人路或作公共空間，造成城市過份擠迫，亦造成市區內缺乏可種樹的地方，想綠化也變得無地可『綠』，再不是就動輒斬樹。當年政府批出對電力公司相當吸引的利潤管制協議亦出於同樣思維 – 讓電力公司多賺一點，確保供電穩定性，結果犧牲的是空氣質素。

要扳到地產商，政府以及市民都要承擔得起後果，其中之一可能是加稅。在各方都要求政府多撥資源的同時，又要減低對賣地收入的倚賴，無疑是自斷雙臂，不，可能連雙腳也兼顧不了 – 有幾多市民甘願接受透過加稅來改善整體生活質素? 政府深明此道，即使對這個局面非常了解，但個個高官不敢輕舉妄動 – 誰個敢拿自己的前程來開玩笑? 『有!』 我老師說：『董建華敢』，當年他提出八萬五就是減低對市民對私人屋宇的倚賴，但結果如何?

現在看看曾蔭權，他實在不得不官商勾結。在漸趨民主的社會裡，哪個高官膽敢與民心背道而馳都會人頭落地，但環保開支不會從天而降 (社會福利、教育開支也如是)，那麼，只好再向地產商叩頭了。所以，我們現在看到的問題不單單政府肯不肯做，而是經濟發展歷史留下來大包伏，政府如何有決心也沒用，除非市民用實際行動支持，這裡包括 - 但不只於 - 多付一些稅。但現今民粹/民生主義抬頭，似乎事情將變得更複雜。

市民每天罵這罵那，有沒有好好想想自己的公民責任呢? 不單是改變個人習慣，而是改變思維模式。歸根究底，市民現在享有的經濟成果都是建立在環境成本之上，別老是說商人短視，也別老是說政府無心環保，這叫賊喊捉賊。羊毛出在羊身上，好好想清楚環保到底是誰的責任吧。


PS. 少少補充：這只是死結之一，另一個或許是香港的地理面積限制，另外其政治身份也可能有關 - 香港從來都不是一個國家，只是一個不起眼的小城市，沒有任何國際壓力

Frustration

Feeling a bit frustrated about my project.

I approached quite a number of estate management offices to request for doing doorstep interviews in their housing estates. Most of them simply said "No". They don't want to cause any disturbance to the residents. The residents are well 'protected'.

People in HK is generally unwilling to take part in public affairs, probably including participating in questionnaire survey as well. They always walk very fast on the street and few will stay for more than ten minutes to complete a questionnaire even for non-profit making purposes. There is notoriously very weak sense of civil society in HK and they are not active to express their views. I guess people in the Western societies are cautiously open to doorstep interviews. But it seems in HK people are skeptical and feel negative to this, fearing that someone will use the information to do something illegal. A mail survey in NZ similar to mine received 60% response rate, which is impossible in HK. In a local telephone survey with the same topic as mine there is only 17% response rate which is terribly lower than acceptable standards. HK people have strong resistance towards telephone survey because of the overwhelming telemarketing messages (it's terrible, an hour ago the same person called me twice within 30 minutes to promote their products - the fourth time in past three months).

While HK people now ask for more welfares from the government, what do they contribute? Civil society is a slogan when people ask for democracy. The idea rapidly diminishes when they are asked to commit without direct benefits.

"Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country" John F. Kennedy

HK people are not that level yet.

Anyway, I am now trying to figure out an alternative approach, or alternative means to approach potential interviewers. Telephone survey is no good given the above reasons. Maybe go to the public areas near the estates to find someone wandering around to interview~ The worst case would be simplifying my reserach question, that is, being less ambitious

Is greenwash an evil?

This is my reply to an article. Before I talk I quote two paragraphs from it first:

"Supermarkets can provide the “greenwash” by producing buildings which, in isolation, might approach carbon neutrality, and by addressing easily identifiable issues like food sourcing, healthy eating, organic foods, the elimination of packaging or the use of recyclable packaging, but these are the tip of the melting ecological iceberg — products on the shelves still have the greatest ecological footprint.
Because of their size, retail chains can fundamentally change consumer patterns, which could lead to sustainable organic food production and supply. But this will not happen without a paradigm change in the food economy. Either the consumer makes the ethical choice or the politicians enforce genuine corporate responsibility. "
http://www11.discuss.com.hk/viewthread.php?tid=5905356&page=1&extra=page%3D1#pid120836973

Actualy it is ideality vs reality.
Clearly the 'Yes' camp is not showing any " genuine corporate responsibility". What they did is just a new marketing or operation strategy, it is still a business by nature. Another Bob from the 'No' camp is right in the sense that the increased consumption as a result may boost ecological footprint. So, is 'greenwash' an evil? It's more like there is an assumption that in the absence of greenwash, everything would get improved: carbon emission will drop and resource consumption will diminish. Put it simpler, is greenwash worse than business-as-usual?

As I said elsewhere, sustainable development is an extremely complex idea. There does not have a single solution that can make an enterprise immune from being unsustainable. Not to mention the most complex one - social aspects, it is quite unrealistic to think that you could have zero environmental cost for any good practices. HK people now 'love' recycle bags very much; however, its production takes a lot of energy and fibre materials, overuse of which may probably be more destructive than a wise use of plastic bags. Does it mean that we should keep the status quo?

If we know the net benefits of such 'greenwash' we can make a conclusive statement to the debate. But does it really matter if we can conclude that it does consume more than save? Is it meaningful only because of the measured contributions to ecological footprint? 'Greenwash', or I prefer using green marketing, embodies a paradigm shift. Firstly, the success of its green marketing strategies reminds its competitors and even other sectors the values of green products and services. No one can guarantee these products and services MUST be better than the 'brown' ones, but it is clear that the dominace of 'brown' will never be a sustainable option. We can expect that the true 'greenness' will rise as long as consumers are able and willing to choose according to environmental principles - this is related to the quality of people, information completeness, etc. Anyway, it should be seen as a good start, though imperfect.

Secondly, on the consumer side, it creates opportunities for them to go green. Not everyone is motivated enough to buy a farm to produce organic foods by themselves; nor are they capable of installing a renewable power system at their backyards (particularly in HK). They need a channel to elicit their environmental wishes. And the effects do not end here. First, their environmental behaviours may extend to other aspects of daily life once they adapt to such a good practice. When I become addicted to organic foods I may probably be more willing to support NGOs' anti-GM foods campaigns. Also, people are socially connected, my colleagues and relatives may be influenced by my good practices and become interested in organic foods too. Bear in mind that social pressure is a key to a big change in society at large.

So, green marketing is not an one-off process. One has to look beyond immediate negative impacts, if any, and assess by its long-term, aggregate effects. Perhaps, Bob Hayes has overlooked the fact that 'greenwash' is itself an early form of a paradigm change. To create a sustainable society we don't have to wait until a thorough paradigm shift. Green business is demand-driven. While our environmental 'minds' are still primitive (again, particularly in HK), we see imperfect solutions. We change slowly, but it is a good start anyway.

(Look at the recent no-plastic-bags movement in HK where some people collect too many recycle bags simply for fashion or for fun)

PS: I am curious what Bob Hayes means by "politicians enforce genuine corporate responsibility"? Can it really be 'enforced'? Corporate responsibility should be voluntary by nature.

Trees as a social construct

Doing research is not easy. I realized this during the past three months. Some people simply take as a 'project' that they 'have to' do, but to me it is 'career', something that I 'want to' do.
Back to my theoretical world. As I look around the literature, I do think that the environment-society-economy circle is extremely complex. There are too many views, problems and solutions that no one can give one single answer. The question I need to solve for my project is how people think about trees. Trees are clearly a multi-dimensional construct that gives me a chance to observe how ecological and social / economic needs blend. To quote my early draft:


People’s attitude towards urban trees is dynamic. From an ecological point of view, the single-tree approach suggests more or less generic benefits regardless of cultural and demographic differences. Social complexities, however, make it never a fixed concept but a to-be-defined public good to which different levels of the society may have their own interpretations.
................
Age is commonly considered as the key factor affecting the views towards urban green spaces (e.g. Tarrant and Cordell, 2002; Sanesi and Chiarello, 2006; Balram and Dragicevic, 2005; Lohr et al, 2004; Zhang et al, 2007). Although green spaces as a place for socialising and leisure were well received by the young Italians in Sanesi and Chiarello (2006)’s study, Wong (2007) held a different view that youths in Hong Kong who have more alternatives available to them (e.g. shopping, computer games) may not. Perhaps, this may be related to childhood community as suggested by Lohr et al (2004) who thought that people who grew up in cities might have relatively little nature experience so that they have weaker affinity for trees. Likewise, income is predictive (Lozenro et al, 2000; Balram and Dragicevic, 2005; Jim and Chen, 2006a), but Kuo and others (Kuo, 2003; Sullivan et al, 2004) noticed that from a social perspective, it is inconclusive to suggest that people from poor communities place little value on green spaces. Given the social functions of trees, urban green spaces may benefit these people more than their wealthier counterparts. A similar observation is drawn from Taylor et al (1998) who confirmed that green spaces are valuable places for children healthy development, particularly those from poor communities. This leads to stronger demand from mid-aged families with children (e.g. Wong, 2007). On the other hand, Grove et al (2006) argued that households who strive for membership in a given lifestyle are motivated to have more vegetation in their homes. It is not only a matter of income, but a synergistic effect between the social position of individuals and neighbourhood dynamic. It is the neighbourhood atmosphere that also influences individuals’ decision.