food processing. Grounding option values presents specific dispositions of how the
non-human world might become significant for human intentions.
Another axiologically interesting category within the TEV is existence value. A
beloved person is a paradigm case for existence value. The existence value applies to
natural entities when an agent evaluates the mere existence of a natural being N
without further interest to utilize N. It is perfectly reasonable to say, “It is good to
know that there are snow lizards in remote parts of Central Asia.” The existence of X
is preferred over the non-existence of X. This preference may clash with the opposite
evaluation of another person. To some people it would be better, if there were no
wolves around, while some other people prefer the existence of wolves in a given
area. Conflicts over existence of natural beings will prolong in conflicting prescriptions (regulations), such as licences for hunting wolves. It might be an instance of
inconsistency if a person P gives positive existence value to an old tree, but gives
negative existence value to its leaves in fall. Can P wish to have the tree without its
leaves?
Existence values point to the diversity of landscape formations, such as coasts,
mountains, lakes and units of cultural significance, etc. For many people, a garden
with birds, butterflies, bees, spiders, dragonflies and bats is better than a garden with
only a few abundant lawn species.
Existence values can be grounded in many reasonable ways. If a person would
mourn over the loss of X and might miss X deeply in her life, she implicitly has
given existence value to X. These ways of groundings indicate that Willingness to
Accept (WTA) is a better measure for existence value than WTP. Grounding
existence value touches the problem of missing something or missing somebody
(dearly). The scheme “P missing X” gives grounding for existence. Who, however,
misses species that have gone extinct? Does anybody miss virtual species which
might have existed but have gone extinct before they have been identified by
taxonomists? Probably, existence value is more about what environmentally wellinformed persons should miss and what should count as loss. As many contingent
value studies strongly indicate, the existence value is, to many persons, at odds with
the ongoing extinction of many species. It does not even seem inappropriate to place
an existence value even onto biodiversity as such. If the WTA or WTP for the
protection of an endangered species were $1 per month, however, the existence
value of biodiversity could devour all income and wealth (“embedding effect”).
Despite this strange effect, it is perfectly reasonable to greatly appreciate a diverse
natural world.
Nature’s existence values cannot be neglected in monetary terms either. Since
affluent people in the North are putting high WTA values to the existence of tropical
nature, including crocodiles, tigers, rhinos, etc., the progressive destruction looks
repulsive from an economic point of view. WTA, however, remains virtual payment
and does not mobilize real financial assets for protecting nature. There are many
ideas how to make real incentives to protect nature out of virtual WTA.
Values of existence are often associated with the slogan “Use it or loose it”. The
organization of high-end tourism to present the “Big 5” is much more rational than
the deforestation of forests to produce charcoal. Tourism is an industry that has
Environmental Evaluation between Economics and Ethics: An Argument for. . .
139
non-human world might become significant for human intentions.
Another axiologically interesting category within the TEV is existence value. A
beloved person is a paradigm case for existence value. The existence value applies to
natural entities when an agent evaluates the mere existence of a natural being N
without further interest to utilize N. It is perfectly reasonable to say, “It is good to
know that there are snow lizards in remote parts of Central Asia.” The existence of X
is preferred over the non-existence of X. This preference may clash with the opposite
evaluation of another person. To some people it would be better, if there were no
wolves around, while some other people prefer the existence of wolves in a given
area. Conflicts over existence of natural beings will prolong in conflicting prescriptions (regulations), such as licences for hunting wolves. It might be an instance of
inconsistency if a person P gives positive existence value to an old tree, but gives
negative existence value to its leaves in fall. Can P wish to have the tree without its
leaves?
Existence values point to the diversity of landscape formations, such as coasts,
mountains, lakes and units of cultural significance, etc. For many people, a garden
with birds, butterflies, bees, spiders, dragonflies and bats is better than a garden with
only a few abundant lawn species.
Existence values can be grounded in many reasonable ways. If a person would
mourn over the loss of X and might miss X deeply in her life, she implicitly has
given existence value to X. These ways of groundings indicate that Willingness to
Accept (WTA) is a better measure for existence value than WTP. Grounding
existence value touches the problem of missing something or missing somebody
(dearly). The scheme “P missing X” gives grounding for existence. Who, however,
misses species that have gone extinct? Does anybody miss virtual species which
might have existed but have gone extinct before they have been identified by
taxonomists? Probably, existence value is more about what environmentally wellinformed persons should miss and what should count as loss. As many contingent
value studies strongly indicate, the existence value is, to many persons, at odds with
the ongoing extinction of many species. It does not even seem inappropriate to place
an existence value even onto biodiversity as such. If the WTA or WTP for the
protection of an endangered species were $1 per month, however, the existence
value of biodiversity could devour all income and wealth (“embedding effect”).
Despite this strange effect, it is perfectly reasonable to greatly appreciate a diverse
natural world.
Nature’s existence values cannot be neglected in monetary terms either. Since
affluent people in the North are putting high WTA values to the existence of tropical
nature, including crocodiles, tigers, rhinos, etc., the progressive destruction looks
repulsive from an economic point of view. WTA, however, remains virtual payment
and does not mobilize real financial assets for protecting nature. There are many
ideas how to make real incentives to protect nature out of virtual WTA.
Values of existence are often associated with the slogan “Use it or loose it”. The
organization of high-end tourism to present the “Big 5” is much more rational than
the deforestation of forests to produce charcoal. Tourism is an industry that has
Environmental Evaluation between Economics and Ethics: An Argument for. . .
139