Valuing Antarctic: Why, How and With What Result?

Abstract

In society today, economic valuation is often assumed to be the only possible way of assigning value to things as it is the principal method used by most government and corporate policy makers. It is because Of this that natural resources are Often undervalued (Primack, 1998). However, other valuing systems exist for different environments and environmental attributes, so there is no reason why valuing Antarctica should be limited in this way. The aim of this report is to suggest that there are more ways to assign value to things than economic, and that recognising this may lead to very different decisions concerning the future of Antarctica. Any valuing approaches used must be comparable to each other, or relative to a recognised standard. Antarctica offers this opportunity as it has not only economic value but also recreational, scientific, aesthetic, intrinsic, historical, educational, strategic and many more. This report focuses on the first five valuing perspectives listed above as they reflect the spectrum of values currently existing in the different societies and belief systems of the world and are most relevant to Antarctica. Each of these perspectives requires consideration of the stakeholders involved, be it governments investing money into treaty-state programmes, scientists, environmental groups or inhabitants Of the continent itself such as plants and animals. These stakeholders demonstrate the variety of interest in the valuing of Antarctica. This report discusses the valuing Of Antarctica from each perspective, how and why the valuing may occur, applicable metrics and possible outcomes, both present and In society today, economic valuation is often assumed to be the only possible way of assigning value to things as it is the principal method used by most government and corporate policy makers. It is because Of this that natural resources are Often undervalued (Primack, 1998). However, other valuing systems exist for different environments and environmental attributes, so there is no reason why valuing Antarctica should be limited in this way. The aim of this report is to suggest that there are more ways to assign value to things than economic, and that recognising this may lead to very different decisions concerning the future of Antarctica. Any valuing approaches used must be comparable to each other, or relative to a recognised standard. Antarctica offers this opportunity as it has not only economic value but also recreational, scientific, aesthetic, intrinsic, historical, educational, strategic and many more. This report focuses on the first five valuing perspectives listed above as they reflect the spectrum of values currently existing in the different societies and belief systems of the world and are most relevant to Antarctica. Each of these perspectives requires consideration of the stakeholders involved, be it governments investing money into treaty-state programmes, scientists, environmental groups or inhabitants Of the continent itself such as plants and animals. These stakeholders demonstrate the variety of interest in the valuing of Antarctica. This report discusses the valuing Of Antarctica from each perspective, how and why the valuing may occur, applicable metrics and possible outcomes, both present and