Is It Possible to Determine the Value of
Environmental Information and Services?

By William H. Hooke and Pamela L. Stephens

The International Council for Science (ICSU) has stated that “the greatest challenge facing science in the 21st century is the widening gap between the advance of science and technology, and society’s ability to benefit from it.” It seems we lack the means to reconcile the supply and demand for science, to produce the science and technology decision makers need, and to put it to use. What does this mean for the environmental sciences and, specifically, for weather and climate information and services?

In order to address this question, the AMS Policy Program organized a forum titled “In Our Best Interest: Unlocking the Potential Value of Environmental Information and Services,” which was held 1–2 May 2007 in Washington, D.C. Thirty-five representatives from the private sector, federal agencies, nongovernmental organizations, and academia participated. The forum sought to initiate a discussion of “valuation” as it applies to environmental data and services and to consider the question, “What needs to be done in order to improve the national investment strategies for environmental science?” The meeting was not intended to produce a formal set of recommendations; rather, it was designed to stimulate discussion and surface issues about the role of environmental information and services in environmental policy decision making, and to identify gaps in our knowledge and methodologies—all of which could serve as the basis for further discussion at a subsequent workshop.

MEETING ORGANIZATION. In advance of the meeting, the Policy Program organizers shared some of their own initial thoughts on the subject to motivate participants in the workshop. They asserted that humankind has reached a critical juncture with respect to the future of the planet and that, in the absence of an appreciation of the value of environmental information and appropriate environmental investments, the potential for making policy decisions with negative consequences for environmental quality as well as economic and social stability is high. They also suggested that national interests would be better served if federal investments were based on an expected rate of return as estimated by sound economic and social analysis, although it is unclear that the requisite body of work exists. In addition, they suggested that the extent to which the extant policy framework affects the federal budget allocation process is not well known or appreciated.

Forum participants also were invited to share initial thoughts or questions prior to the meeting, and a number did so. All comments were provided to the participants ahead of time.

The meeting was held in plenary and consisted of five sessions. In the first, “The Environmental Scan,” participants considered the environmental, political, and economic landscape and how it frames the discussion and decisions about the future. The second session, “Articulating An Ultimate Goal,” was aimed at reaching consensus about what the group was trying to achieve with this forum. The session on “Defining ‘Value’” explored the meaning of “valuation,” with some discussion of current valuation methodologies. “Nearand Long-Term Options and Priorities” and “Next Steps” are self-explanatory. In actuality, all of these topics were interleaved throughout the dialogue.

MEETING DISCUSSIONS AND INITIAL CONCLUSIONS. The conversation was wideranging. Among others, topics included the widening gap between science and technology advances and society’s ability to benefit from them, the applicability of “valuation” to public goods, the effectiveness of economic arguments versus public emotions when dealing with policy and decision makers, the future and the choices we might face (mitigation or adaptation) in the event of significant climate change, the role of/need for public support in making a case for a particular policy option, the “cost” of doing economic analyses, what constitutes the “science of science policy,” the lack of sufficient documentation of the ways environmental data are employed (especially by the private sector), whose values need to be/are considered as decisions are made, GEOSS and related U.S. organizational structures, the realities of “trade space” (i.e., the possible trade-offs that could be made within a particular appropriation bill) and their implications for the federal budget process, and more.

As originally envisioned, the meeting sought to combine discussion of very long-term, broad-based policy—and even philosophical and theoretical— considerations with more practical issues related to valuation methodologies. Given time constraints, the group found itself focusing on the more practical considerations of how valuation should be done and the relationship between economic valuation and other political and societal considerations.

Initial “conclusions/realizations” that emerged include the following:

• While there was no consensus regarding the relative urgency of the various (global and regional) environmental problems that we face or how they will evolve over the next several decades, it is clear that sustained environmental observations and associated infrastructure will be required to deal with any future scenario.

• Without adequate environmental information, we lack a rational basis for making environmental policy.

• It is not clear whether existing valuation methodologies are adequate for dealing with complex environmental issues or, at a minimum, that a sufficient number of analyses have been completed to provide a basis for making comparisons among various options.

• There is a lack of vision and leadership in the environmental policy arena, which should be of concern to the nation.

• A set of principles for prioritizing among disparate, competing elements in the federal budget allocation process is urgently needed; the path to identifying and establishing those principles is not obvious.

NEXT STEPS. Participants agreed that the initial forum had, indeed, been stimulating, but there was a strong desire to explore in greater depth the issues raised in this initial meeting with a larger group and with additional expertise. A suggestion to develop a “primer” on environmental observations and services that could be used to educate Congress and the general public about their importance and impact on our lives was enthusiastically endorsed. In addition, the participants discussed the importance of providing information to the policy makers about these issues related to environmental science. It was agreed that developing a transition document for the next administration would be one good means of highlighting the issues.

The AMS Policy Program hopes to follow through on these recommendations over the next several months. —WILLIAM H. HOOKE, AMS POLICY PROGRAM DIRECTOR AND SENIOR POLICY FELLOW, AND PAMELA L. STEPHENS, VISITING SENIOR POLICY FELLOW

The AMS Policy Program gratefully acknowledges the support for this forum from the Policy Program’s underwriters (ITT, Lockheed Martin, and Raytheon) and from NASA.

back to top

Updated:
 Headquarters: 45 Beacon Street Boston, MA 02108-3693
  DC Office: 1120 G Street, NW, Suite 800 Washington DC, 20005-3826
 amsinfo@ametsoc.org Phone: 617-227-2425 Fax: 617-742-8718
© 2006 American Meteorological Society Privacy Policy and Disclaimer