Ecological Economics 146 (2018) 425–434

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Ecological Economics
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolecon

Analysis

Teaching and Learning Ecosystem Assessment and Valuation T

1
David Löw Beer
University of Koblenz-Landau, Institute for Social Sciences, Department of Economics, August-Croissant-Str. 5, 76829 Landau, Germany

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: There has been very little research on teaching, learning and communicating core concepts from Ecological and
Economics education Environmental Economics. Yet, shedding light on these issues is important for more effective teaching, and to
Ecosystem Assessment and Valuation support the public debate on ideas, which aim to shape a sustainable future. This paper investigates teaching and
Phenomenography learning about one of the most researched, applied and contested concepts in Environmental and Ecological
Curriculum research
Economics: Ecosystem Assessment and Valuation (ESAV). It presents students' conceptions on ESAV gained
University
through group discussions. The transcripts were analyzed with the phenomenographic and documentary
method. The analysis focuses both on the way students describe ecological, social and economic aspects, and on
the criteria they use to make political and management decisions. The main results are that students tend to see
nature as a place for recreation and wildlife, do not see knowledge as uncertain and hardly bring up the idea of
an economic valuation. Based on students' conceptions, as well as research from Ecological and Environmental
Economics and Economics Education, I suggest a curriculum for ESAV.

1. Introduction
In the field of Economics Education, three different research ap-
proaches on teaching sustainability have evolved (Seeber and Birke,
2011): (1) Categorical analysis orients toward central elements of the
discipline. The only categorical research specifically dedicated toward
sustainability is Seeber (2001), who derives contents for learning pro-
cesses from core texts of ecological economics; (2) Paradigmatic ap-
proaches are also closely connected to economics; however, they focus
more on deriving an economic way of thinking, and less on typical
contents of the discipline. Krol (2001) and Schug (1997) emphasize the
need to see ecological problems as undesired by-products of economic
activities.2 They aim to complement ecological education with concepts
from social science as ecological education often heavily emphasizes
individual responsibility (Karpe, 1998; Krol, 2001); (3) Economic Ethic
approaches focus on a discussion about “correct” values. Here, in a
radical version, Evans (2011) calls for the “absolute negation of the
capitalist world order” as a goal of sustainability education; Gibson
(2008) proposes a critical reevaluation of the belief in “technical-in-
strumental solutions.” Weinbrenner (1997) finally calls for a new
paradigm in economic education oriented toward ecological limits and
a rejection of homo economicus.
Empirically, only very few studies in economics education have
covered sustainability-related topics. Davies et al. (2002) find a lack of
knowledge of British students regarding economic environmental
policy. Davies and Lundholm (2012) discover different students' con-
ceptions concerning the question whether goods should be provided for
free. They range from a mere recognition that some goods are provided
for free toward a desire to set incentives to internalize externalities.
Harring et al. (2017) find that after one semester of studying eco-
nomics, Swedish students become slightly more likely to evaluate
economic policy instruments for the environment (taxes and subsidies)
as good and efficient, and less likely to consider regulatory and in-
formational instruments as good and efficient. Interestingly, this result
is independent of whether students improved their economic knowl-
edge. Ignell et al. (2017), as well as Löw Beer (2016a) focus on students'
conceptions regarding externalities, and find that most of the students
want environment-friendly products to be cheaper than other products.
Ignell et al. (2017) additionally point out that students focus more on
the supply than on the demand side when arguing why ecological goods
are more expensive. Löw Beer (2016a) finds that the vast majority of
the students interviewed does not specifically connect the price ad-
justments to the ecological harms or benefits of products. Finally,
Lundholm (2007) reports that ten of the eleven students entering a
masters course in Sustainable Enterprising in Sweden describe the idea
of pricing nature as difficult, insufficient or even dangerous.
To the best of my knowledge, there is no thorough conceptual and
empirical research on how to teach, and learn, about Ecosystem
Assessment and Valuation (ESAV). This is surprising as ESAV has been
one of the most researched topics in Ecological and Environmental

E-mail address: David.LoewBeer@iass-potsdam.de.

1
Present Address: IASS Potsdam, Institute for Advanced Sustainability Studies e.V., Berliner Strasse 130, 14467 Potsdam, Germany.
2
This is very similar to the externality concept (Bator, 1958).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.12.014
Received 11 February 2017; Received in revised form 11 August 2017; Accepted 4 December 2017
Available online 08 December 2017
0921-8009/ © 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
D. Löw Beer
Economics in the last years (Castro e Silva and Teixeira, 2011; Hoepner
et al., 2012; Ma and Stern, 2006). At the same time, ESAV remains
controversial within economic disciplines. This is reflected in the
foremost textbooks published in the last years. While Environmental
Economics textbooks mainly focus on technical aspects of different
valuation methods (e.g., Perman et al., 2011; Tietenberg and Lewis,
2016), Ecological Economics textbooks tend to put more emphasis on
the ethical evaluation of ESAV (Costanza et al., 2015; Daly and Farley,
2010).3 The combination of being highly present, and at the same time
contested, provides a strong rationale for dealing with ESAV in any
sustainability-related Economics courses.
Based on the categorical and paradigmatic approaches described
above, the first aim of this paper is to structure the broad literature on
ESAV in Ecological and Environmental Economics from a didactical
perspective. Thereby, I suggest core contents of ESAV which need to be
learned in order to understand the concept and important literature.
Secondly, I present results from an empirical study conducted in two
German universities on students' preconceptions4 on ecosystem-use
conflicts (Löw Beer, 2016b). Here, I show how students who have not
been formally trained to use ESAV approach problems that could be
tackled using the ESAV approach. I demonstrate where students differ
from in disciplinary knowledge, and I suggest how teaching can be
designed to help students gain a better understanding of the ESAV
concept, and to approach it critically.
The remainder of this paper is structured as follows: In the following
second part, core teaching and learning elements of ESAV are devel-
oped based on a literature review from Ecological and Environmental
Economics and pedagogic guiding principles. Thirdly, the research
methodology of phenomenography and the research design are de-
scribed and justified. Fourthly, results from an empirical study with 69
teacher trainees in economics are presented. Fifthly, contents and
preconceptions are brought together to outline a teaching sequence.
Finally, conclusions are presented and future research areas are pro-
posed.
2. Core Elements of ESAV for Teaching and Learning
A core research area of subject didactics is concerned with de-
termining what contents from a subject are relevant, and how they
should be framed for educational purposes. Such a selection always
involves some subjective elements. Therefore, the points raised in this
section are primarily meant as a starting point to foster further dis-
cussion.
To identify relevant contents, I performed a structuring content
analysis (Mayring, 2014). This process involved the Millennium Eco-
system Assessment (United Nations, 2005), the TEEB reports (TEEB,
2010a, 2010b, 2010c), articles referred to in the reports, textbooks from
Ecological and Environmental Economics and the 100 most relevant, or
most cited articles in the ISI Web of Science and Google Scholar using
the search terms “ecosystem services,” “valuation,” “ecosystem ser-
vices” and “assessment.” Content selection is further guided by (a) an
acknowledged principle from civic education and (b) an established
pedagogic methodology.
(A): Controversy is seen “as a key aspect in democratic education”
(Hess, 2009) in civic education.5 In Germany, this is formalized by an
agreed consensus, according to which (1) overwhelming students is
prohibited, i.e., even for “good purposes” one may not “impart desir-
able opinions,” and hinder students from “forming an independent
judgment,” and (2) “matters which are controversial in intellectual and
3
Only Edward-Jones et al. (2004) look in detail both at philosophical and technical
questions.
4
A preconception here is understood as an idea or opinion that someone has before
learning about something directly.
5
See also Schulz et al. (2010); Ten Dam and Volman (2004); Torney-Purta et al.
(2001); Zohar and Nemet (2002).
426
Ecological Economics 146 (2018) 425–434
political affairs must also be taught as controversial in educational in-
structions”.6 This is in line with a basic objective of Education for
Sustainable Development, which is not to force students to act sus-
tainably, but to enable them to shape sustainable societies if they wish
to do so (De Haan, 2006).
(B): The big comparative international educational studies, such as
the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) and Trends
in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMMS), use a lit-
eracy7 approach with dimensional analysis to determine contents from
a scientific discipline for teaching and learning (Bybee, 1997; Mullis
and Martin, 2013; OECD, 2016). At its heart lies the educational aim of
enabling individual and social participation through a critical analysis
and reflection of scientific concepts (Prenzel et al., 2001). The present
study used the methodology related to this literacy approach to find
relevant elements of ESAV for education. This involved terms, models,
ways of questioning and thinking and methods, as well as the role of
science in society (ibid.). In the following, I define these elements and
relate them to aspects of ESAV.
Firstly, necessary and helpful terms should be made accessible,
particularly those that point to differences between routine and scien-
tific understanding. Basic terms of the ESAV model are natural capital
as a metaphorical expression covering the whole limited stock of phy-
sical and biological resources (Costanza and Daly, 1992). ES as the flow
of value to human societies (TEEB, 2010a), and also differentiating
between provisioning, supporting, (socio-)cultural and regulating ES
(United Nations, 2005), along with noting the differences between
substitutable and complementary goods, the distinctions between use-
and non-use values and between risk, uncertainty and radical un-
certainty or ignorance (Knight, 1921; Perman et al., 2011).
Secondly, a systematic connection between the terms needs to be
established. In economics, this is mainly linked to basic concepts. From
an Ecological Economics perspective the concept of joint production is
particularly important for ESAV (Baumgärtner et al., 2001), in En-
vironmental Economics it is the similar concept of market failure
(Bator, 1958). They are important because ESAV is supposed to help to
cope with the inability of markets to understand that certain ecological
benefits and costs need to be considered. Further important concepts
are:
• social welfare functions, because they make it possible to compare
values of different sources against each other
• discounting, as ESAV is almost always concerned with costs and
benefits occurring at different times
• knowledge uncertainty, which concerns both human limits to per-
ceiving nature, as well as the quality of ESAV
• the relationship between ES and human welfare (United Nations,
2005)
In the third stage, typical ways of questioning and thinking, as well
as special methods of the ESAV approach are considered. This relates,
on the one hand, to valuation methods. From the variety of different
approaches, it seems important to focus teaching on at least one method
with revealed, one with stated preferences, and also one with biophy-
sical valuations to compare different methodologies. On the other hand,
typical applications of ESAV need to be covered. To focus on this part,
one can restrict the content to the applications, which differ most from
6
The consensus was agreed on in 1976 in the German town of Beutelsbach, and is
therefore called the “Beutelsbacher consensus.” At the following website, you can find a
translation of the text: www.lpb-bw.de/beutelsbacher-konsens.html < rev. 12/4/
2017 > .
7
In pedagogy, the term literacy was originally linked to the ability to read and write.
Over the years its semantic content has been shifted toward skills which enable people to
“contribute to socio-economic development, to developing the capacity for social
awareness and [for] critical reflection as a basis for personal and social change”
(UNESCO, 2005)
D. Löw Beer
one another, are widely used in economic policy and can also be used in
other areas of economics. This could involve cost benefit analysis (CBA)
as the typical decision-making process in Environmental Economics and
multi-criteria analysis (MCA) as the typical decision-making process in
Ecological Economics, as well as payments for ecosystem services
(PES). If time permits, one could also look at natural resource damage
assessments and cost effectiveness analysis (CEA).
The final level involves the role of Economics in society, or more
specifically: What are the potential benefits and limitations of ESAV?
What distinguishes ESAV from similar approaches in other fields, such
as political sciences? Is ESAV compatible with certain societal goals?
Here, one could at first look at basic assumptions of valuation studies:
e.g., ecological changes must have consequences for human well-being
to have a monetary value, human-made and natural goods must be
substitutable between one another, as well as between themselves
(Edward-Jones et al., 2004). Secondly, contradictions between Ecolo-
gical and Environmental Economics are manifest. While there is a broad
consensus in both disciplines that markets, per se, usually do not re-
present values correctly, monetary valuation is almost a default strategy
in Environmental Economics, while it is criticized widely in Ecological
Economics. The critique involves framing biophysical entities that
overlap in nature in aritmomporphic (discrete) terms (Georgescu-
Roegen, 1971), the incommensurability and limited substitutability of
different values (Farrell, 2007; Martinez-Alier et al., 1998; Vatn and
Bromley, 1994), the impossibility of setting the scale of the economy
based on price adjustments — because of circular reasoning as “prices
depend on the scale or distribution” (Daly and Farley, 2010) — and
because preference-based valuation methods are biased toward weal-
thier people (Spash, 2008; Wegner and Pascual, 2011). Major argu-
ments in support of a monetary valuation are that it can improve
welfare and increase conservation as people recognize that environ-
mental protection, etc., are in their best interests, that there is always
an implicit valuation which monetary valuation can make explicit and
more appropriate (Liu et al., 2010), and that it can structure informa-
tion and support decision-making processes (Arrow et al., 1996).8 Fi-
nally, within the researchers who do not fully reject ESAV, there are
major differences between Ecological and Environmental Economics
regarding the purposes for which ESAV might be used (cf. for example
Kallis et al., 2013; vs. Wunder, 2005), e.g., while many Ecological
Economists are skeptical of CBA, fewer have problems using ESAV to
assess the compensation for ecological damage.
2.1. Methodology: Preconceptions and Phenomenography
Research in psychology, as well as in social and natural science
education, has shown that successful learning processes, which help
students acquire new concepts, explicitly incorporate learners' pre-
conceptions.
One methodology to study learners' preconceptions is phenomeno-
graphy (Marton, 1981, 2015; Marton and Booth, 1997; Marton and
Tsui, 2004). Compared with other qualitative research approaches to
preconceptions, it has the advantages of avoiding speculations about
the quality of mental representations (Marton and Pang, 2008) and its
focus on the subject-specific in contrast with general preconceptions.
The object of research in phenomenography is “the qualitatively dif-
ferent ways in which people experience, understand, see or con-
ceptualize a particular phenomenon or an aspect of the world around
them” (Marton and Pong, 2005). Phenomenography aims to create
outcome spaces with categories of description. These categories or
conceptions are supposed to represent different ways of experiencing a
phenomenon within a group. They are logically interrelated and in all
phenomenographic studies conducted so far there have been a small
8 10
For an overview of the debate, please refer to Schröter et al. (2014) or TEEB (2010a,
Ch. 4)
427
Ecological Economics 146 (2018) 425–434
and limited number of different ways of experiencing them (Marton and
Pang, 2008). Phenomenography takes a second order perspective, fo-
cusing not on how phenomena really are, but on how they are experi-
enced by certain people. An important term in phenomenography is
critical aspects. An aspect or a feature is critical if it must be understood
to unlock the meaning of a concept, but has not yet been understood by
the learner (Marton, 2015). Critical aspects can only be found by
studying the discipline and the learners together.
Phenomenographic research in economics education has so far fo-
cused on (a) the neoclassical concepts of price (Dahlgren and Marton,
1978; Marton and Pong, 2005; Pang et al., 2006; Pong, 1999), trade
(Marton and Pong, 2005; Pong, 1999), wages (Birke and Seeber, 2012)
and externalities (Ignell et al., 2017; Löw Beer, 2016a) (b) an economic
competency such as financial literacy (Pang, 2010; Speer and Seeber,
2013) or (c) on describing normatively different conceptions of how an
economic problem should be solved, such as which goods should be
provided for free (Davies and Lundholm, 2012) or when governments
should intervene (Kaiser et al., 2015). The present study is similar to (a)
as it also focuses on conceptions related to a technical concept.
To give an example of a typical result from a phenomenographic
inquiry and to illustrate the hierarchical structure of students' pre-
conceptions, which will be important in the outcome spaces presented
in section four, I report one of the results from Ignell et al. (2017). They
interviewed 15 Swedish students who were between 17 and 18 years of
age and who had participated in the national business and economic
educational programs. These students were asked if, and why, more
environmentally friendly burgers had different prices, and how they
should be priced. Regarding productivity, Ignell et al. found three levels
of thinking of why “eco goods” are more expensive:
(1) basic: because they are costlier to produce
(2) partial: because they require more resources to produce
(3) complex: because they use more resources that have to be paid for,
but they conserve the natural environment
Because of the hierarchical structure, the third conception includes
the concept on the second level and is therefore considered more
complex.
Knowledge about different conceptions can be used to design ef-
fective lessons. These usually start with learners' preconceptions and
aim to help them to advance toward a scientifically appropriate way of
understanding.9,10
2.2. Sample and Stimuli
Concerning data collection, I opted for group discussions as they
have long proven to be useful for studying normative questions
(Mangold, 1960), and as learners are confronted with complex ques-
tions they are often only capable of developing their own ideas while
discussing them with others (Pollock, 1955). Based on group discus-
sions, one can survey ideologies, opinions and attitudes, which are ty-
pical for certain types of groups, and which therefore can be reproduced
(Bohnsack, 2004; Lamnek, 2005). A common critique to group discus-
sions is the mutual interference of participants. For two reasons, this
was not considered problematic in the present paper: (1) Many learning
processes occur in groups. Therefore, it makes sense to research groups
to come up with suggestions, which aim to improve teaching and
learning. (2) This research does not aim to reach any conclusions re-
garding individual conceptions, but instead focuses on the “collective
9
I thank Tom Green for highlighting to me, that of course, what is considered to be
scientifically appropriate depends on the teacher/researcher. This section aims to present
the method of phenomenography and not to discuss the quality of the economic concepts
that have been researched in phenomenography so far.
Studies on how to design effective lessons according to the phenomenographic ap-
proach can be found in Lo et al. (2004); Marton (2015); and Marton and Pang (2013)
D. Löw Beer
mind” (Marton, 1981). Also, the smallest unit of people analyzed is one
focus group.
In total, sixteen group discussions were led including a total of 69
teacher trainees in economics in November and December 2013.
Economics teacher trainees were chosen as a research group because
designing good learning environments for teachers is crucial as they are
important, prospective multipliers. Furthermore, all of the selected
teacher trainees in economics had, or will receive, a thorough uni-
versity education in economics. Therefore, the results also have im-
plications for teaching regular students of economics.
The research objective was to discover the greatest possible range of
conceptions within the research group of teacher trainees in Germany.
Therefore, I selected a diverse sample. With Oldenburg and Landau, I
chose two different German universities: In Oldenburg, there is an in-
tegrated course of economic education. In contrast, in Landau, students
of economic education participate in the regular economics courses for
their disciplinary training. Furthermore, students differed regarding the
time they studied economics education: Ten groups comprised teacher
trainees beginning their bachelor studies, five groups at the end of their
bachelor studies or at the beginning of their master studies and one
group was mixed. The group discussions lasted roughly one to 2 h.
For data collection, stimuli were developed that were nontechnical
and vague so that students could apply the greatest possible variety of
conceptions, both with respect to describing different ecosystem ser-
vices, as well as to propose decision-making processes. Therefore, it was
left to the students to specify the economic, ecological, social and po-
litical circumstances of the scenarios. Furthermore, in the stimuli, any
hint toward a decision-making procedure, such as a CBA, was avoided
so that different approaches could be selected. In all stimuli, students
were asked to counsel a local population that was granted the authority
to decide upon the future of an ecosystem with alternative uses. To
increase the variety of conceptions and to understand whether con-
ceptions depend on the topic of a scenario, a forest and maritime and a
urban ecosystems were selected.
An example for a stimulus is:
Think of a densely wooded island. In the last years, many trees have
been cut on the island. Some of the inhabitants of the island think
one should continue with that, others believe the trees should be
protected, and many are still undecided. Imagine if the inhabitants
of the island asked you: “How should we decide?” What would you
advise them to do and why?
The other stimuli are presented in the appendix. There was a script
with follow-up questions that were always asked. In particular, I always
summed up the arguments presented and asked the students, “Based on
the arguments, what advice would you give to the inhabitants on how
they should reach a decision?”
All data were recorded and fully transcribed. Data were analyzed
using a combination of phenomenography (Marton, 2015) and the
documentary method (Bohnsack, 2010). The analysis was based on an
iterative process of working through the transcripts. In the beginning,
six transcripts were randomly selected. Each sequence was analyzed by
a formulating (very close to the statements, focusing on the immanent
meaning) and a reflecting (more interpretative, connections to the
ESAV are drawn) interpretation (Bohnsack, 2010). In the second step,
differences between the units of analysis, i.e. statements by partici-
pants, were scrutinized. Thirdly, the material was analyzed for simila-
rities with the goal of finding a generalization. Finally, logical re-
lationships between units were defined (Marton, 2015). In the
advanced stages of the data analysis, student statements were cate-
gorized in two dimensions that were particularly relevant for learning
about ESAV. Both are presented and discussed in the next section. Data
analysis was further supported by the qualitative data software
MAXQDA 11.
It is important to note that one may not trace comments made in a
group discussion to an individual participant because it is impossible to
428
Ecological Economics 146 (2018) 425–434
know whether the participant would have made the same comment in
an individual interview (Bohnsack, 2010). Therefore, the following
analysis always refers to groups or to comments made within a group.
Because of the qualitative nature of the research, I did not perform
inferential statistics. Therefore, I only pointed to apparent peculiarities
concerning the frequencies of statements.
3. Results and Discussion
In this section, results and discussions for two dimensions are pre-
sented subsequently. The first involves students' conceptions of ecolo-
gical, economic and social aspects — the second criteria for decision-
making processes.
3.1. First Results: Ecological, Economic and Social Aspects
The participants depicted aspects related to all three dimensions of
sustainability. I used the categories developed in the Millennium
Ecosystem Assessment (United Nations, 2005) to define the categories
wherever suitable. Exemplary statements in the economic dimension
are described in more detail.
Statements dealing with the exploitation of natural resources for
human ends were categorized as provisioning services. In the forest
scenario, this mainly involved selling and using wood for heating or to
produce paper and furniture. Some groups also pointed to the capacity
of untouched forests as food sources. In the sea scenario, possible
changes concerning fishing capacities were discussed. Agricultural
yields were the main concern in the city scenario. The following quote
is an example where different qualities of provisioning services were
addressed. I11: “There are different qualities of forests. There is teak or
something like that. Or there is a simple coniferous forest. Maybe this
involves big differences concerning profits and regrowth” (O B 1, forest,
61).11,12
If a statement dealt with economic aspects of the scenario, but did
not show immediate relations to ES, it was classified as economic as-
pects outside the ES framework. The main concern across all scenarios
here were jobs. Sometimes changes in profits and taxes were named. An
exemplary quote for this category is: I46: “However, constructing wind
turbines would create maintenance jobs” (L B 2, sea, 262).
Categorization in the other dimensions is straightforward and
shortly illustrated in Table 1. The table also shows the categories and
relative frequencies of the denomination in the three dimensions.
Frequencies are based on counting in how many discussions a re-
spective category was used at least once. Because of the qualitative
nature of the study and the data collection through group discussions,
there was no differentiation whether a category had been assigned
several times or only once during a single group discussion. In total, 10
groups discussed the forest and the sea and 12 groups discussed the city
scenario.
3.2. First Discussion
The quality of students' statements in each dimension can be dif-
ferentiated into two levels. In the economic and social dimension, more
complex statements directly link to the ecosystem instead of only
naming factors that refer to the scenario, but not to the ecosystem. In
11
Letter I in front of the quotes stands for interviewee; all interviewees were num-
bered. At the end of the quote, L stands for Landau and O for Oldenburg as the locations of
the group discussion, thereafter B stands for beginners, A for advanced students. This is
followed by the number of the group discussion in the respective category. Then the topic
of the group discussion is named (forest, sea or city). Finally, the page of the transcript is
given. For example, the above quote comes from interviewee 11. He or she was part of the
first beginner group in Oldenburg. The discussion quoted covers the forest scenario and
the original quote can be found on page 63 of the (German) transcript.
12
Please contact the author for a full package of the transcripts (in German) and ad-
ditional data.
D. Löw Beer Ecological Economics 146 (2018) 425–434

Table 1 Table 2
Relative frequencies of the denomination of different ecosystem and other services. Relative frequency of the denomination of boundaries.

Dimension Category Forest Sea City Category Forest Sea City

Ecologic Regulating services, e.g., “effects on micro- 30% 0% 58% Ecological boundary 20% 60% 42%
climate.” Social boundary 90% 0% 0%
Supporting services, e.g., “animals will not 60% 60% 42% Economic-technological boundary 10% 80% 17%
be able to find food anymore.” Uncertain knowledge 0% 10% 0%
Intrinsic values of nature. 30% 30% 8% Individual (property) rights 0% 10% 25%
Economic Provisioning services, e.g., “wood for 100% 20% 17% Demand 20% 40% 58%
heating.”
Economic aspects outside the ES 40% 80% 83%
framework, e.g., “jobs related to when it is argued that people should be allowed to use wood for heating
construction work.”
or cooking, if their life is endangered. An economic-technological
Social Socio-cultural services e.g., “a clear view of 90% 100% 100%
the sea.” boundary is characterized by an exclusion of either a measure, which is
Social aspects outside the ES framework, 60% 20% 83% unprofitable, or an “immature” technology. An exemplary quote is, I1:
e.g., “new migrants coming into the city.” “The wind farm should, of course only be constructed, if it is profitable”
(O A 1, sea, 12).
Uncertain knowledge can be a further boundary, which can be a
the ecologic dimension, the more complex statements do not only in-
justification for abstaining from certain actions. However, there is only
volve ecological factors, but also link them to human well-being or
one quote dealing with uncertain knowledge and that one is not even
clarify that it is a human decision to value nature for its own sake. The
fully developed, I18: “Can one really weigh this with the ecological
reason for considering them to be more complex is that they include the
damages of offshore wind turbines, which do not have long-term studies
less complex conception and add an additional aspect which is im-
yet, because offshore wind turbines have not been around for a long
portant for the ES concept.
time” (O A 3, sea, 122)?
The frequencies in which the participants speak about the variety of
Some groups argue that a decision should not be taken, if it violates
services, differ both with respect to the services themselves, as well as
individual (property) rights, e.g. I55: “It is ok, if the land is sold vo-
to the scenarios presented. When all scenarios are taken together, the
luntary and no one is damaged. But if it touches the rights of the owner,
participants discussed socio-cultural and supporting services more fre-
then, I believe, it would be going too far” (L B 5, city, 13).
quently than regulating and provisioning services. The particularly few
Finally some groups point to an effective demand as a prerequisite to
comments on regulating services might be due to the fact that, in the
avoid that new housing is created without people buying it.
current real world, they are predominantly provided free of economic
Table 2 sums up the boundaries and the relative frequencies of their
charge. Put differently, the participants see nature mainly as a recrea-
occurrence.
tional area or as the habitat of animals and plants. Only some groups
point to the complex and, at the same time, fundamental dependency of
(b) Subjective factors
human livelihood on ES.
Comparing the scenarios, groups debating the forest scenario use a
Some students support decisions, that are not based on objective
greater variety of ecosystem services. Participants seem to have less
factors, but on individual emotions, experiences or attitudes. I label
difficulty recognizing wood as an exploitable resource than detecting
them subjective factors. An exemplary quote is: I55: “It depends,
comparable resources in a maritime or urban ecosystem.
whether the people are future-oriented or whether they think: devil-
may-care” (L B 4, sea, 291).
3.3. Second Results: Decision-making Criteria
(c) Decisions based only either on an economic, ecological or social
The participants name various criteria they consider relevant for a criterion
decision. They can be summarized under four parent categories:
During most of the group discussions, some students propose solu-
(a) statements defining a boundary tions based on a criterion that only involves one dimension of sus-
(b) statements solely focused on subjective factors tainability. Statements are categorized as cost-effectiveness if decisions
(c) considerations which only refer to one sustainability dimension are based on comparing economic costs and benefits, e.g. income
(d) considerations which include two or three sustainability dimensions generated by selling wood compared with the costs of cutting and
transportation. Comments labeled as environmental compatibility want
In the following, I describe categories in the four areas; to base decisions solely on one or more ecological factors. Finally,
statements categorized as purpose or motif aim for decisions based on
(a) Boundaries the reasons or justifications for taking an action, e.g. the intended use of
timber or – as in the following quote – of an area.
Based on the data, I define boundaries as follows: If a boundary is I47: “It depends, what is built. For example if city a13 constructs
crossed, students argue that a certain action has to be either taken or student homes, then this is reasonable.
refrained from. The students use six different types of boundary con- I48: But so that grocery store a builds something new …
ditions. I47: … That would be unnecessary.”
Ecological boundaries imply that one should refrain from an action, (L B 2, city, 257)
if the environment or animals are endangered to a specified degree. An
exemplary quote is, I48: “If an endangered dolphin or whale species In only four of the 32 group discussions money is considered as a
lives there, we should do without the money [from wind power, DLB]” measure to facilitate the decision-making process. It is always linked to
(L B 2, sea, 263).
Similarly, participants describe social boundaries as basic human 13
For purposes of data protection, personal data such as names of people, companies
needs that need to be fulfilled, almost regardless of the consequences to and places have been anonymised in the transcripts. Anonymised data has been put in
other areas. Social boundaries are mainly used in the forest example italics.

429
D. Löw Beer
the idea of a financial compensation as illustrated in the following
quote. I36: “That one, for example, pays a compensation to the tourism
industry, which will be paid by wind power stations” (L F 2, sea, 54).
(d) Decisions based on a mixture of economic, social and ecological
aspects
Both the following categories describe balancing between at least
two of the three dimensions of sustainability.
The criterion location-independent choice between economy and
ecology is defined as decisions based on general economic and ecolo-
gical factors, i.e., unrelated to a specific context. The participants de-
scribe economic and ecologic factors as contradictory to each other.
Most of the time, the students only point out the contradictions without
explaining which side should be preferred or how both aspects should
be weighed against each other. An exemplary quote is, I54: “My opi-
nion, contra: the environmental impact. Animals which fly into such a
wind turbine. You can watch videos on YouTube about this. (…) Pro:
Our thirst for energy constantly grows and wind turbines are clean
energy” (L B 4, sea, 290f.).
In statements categorized as dependent on the ecological as well as
economic and/or social context, students argue that local conditions
such as the job market situation or the level of environmental de-
gradation should determine a decision, e.g., I5: “So, if we had a city
where a lot of young people are unemployed, then I would advise the
inhabitants to use the areas in a smart way, i.e., to let companies de-
velop in order to lower unemployment. (….) If we had an area where
many people already have a job, I might not favor that because every
city needs its recreational areas” (O A 2, city, 4).
Table 3 depicts relative frequencies of the use of the different cri-
teria across the groups.
3.4. Second Discussion
Boundaries — as defined in 4.3 (a) — are discussed in all scenarios,
however there are important differences regarding the frequencies in
the different categories. Social boundaries can only be found in the
forest scenario. This is linked to the tendency of the students to locate
the scenario in a poor surrounding while they typically discuss rich
societies when dealing with the sea and urban scenarios. The more
frequent references to an economic-technological boundary are prob-
ably due to the fact that in the scenario itself, a technology, namely
offshore wind turbines, has been presented while no technology has
been mentioned in the other scenarios.
Students name demand as a boundary condition more often in the
urban scenario as they fear bad planning.
The identification of boundaries is also a typical procedure in
Environmental and particularly in Ecological Economics. In the dis-
ciplines, it is argued that an optimization should be avoided firstly for
ethical reasons, if a boundary might be crossed, e.g. if natural capital
(Farley, 2010) is reduced below a certain threshold. Furthermore, the
existence of boundaries is part of the general critique against monetary
Table 3
Relative frequency of decision making criteria dependent on scenarios.
Category Forest Sea
Subjective factors 90% 70%
Cost-effectiveness 30% 90%
Environmental compatibility 30% 50%
Purpose or motif 70% 0%
Financial compensation 10% 30%
Location-independent choice between economy and 40% 60%
ecology
Dependent on the ecological as well as economic and/or 90% 50%
social context
Ecological Economics 146 (2018) 425–434
valuation in Ecological Economics (cf. Section 2). Specifically, crossing
a boundary usually involves a non-marginal change while prices are
usually considered to be set according to marginal changes. Therefore,
some ecological economists generally reject monetary valuation (e.g.,
Georgescu-Roegen, 1971), and others consider it inappropriate in the
cases, when a boundary is crossed. However, particularly the second
argument is not brought up by the students. For them, naming
boundaries often had a function fairly different from the one in eco-
nomics, namely emphasizing uncontroversial answers. For example: It
was very difficult to contradict somebody saying that new construction
areas should not be developed if no one wants to buy the new houses.
For the participants, the argument about the functions of boundaries is
supported by the fact that many groups emphasize the necessity of the
existence of boundaries, but avoid explaining how decision-making
might look like, if no boundary is crossed. An important reason for the
focus on boundaries might not be explained by the content of their
statements, but by the desire of the participants to be respected by other
group members. Therefore, they prefer statements everybody can agree
vs. controversial ones.
Uncertainty of knowledge is crucial in Ecological Economics, and
linked to the precautionary principle (Epstein, 1980; Gollier et al.,
2000) and the safe minimum standard (Bishop, 1978). In contrast, the
students interviewed seem to largely ignore this challenge and its
consequences for the assessment of ecosystems, as well as policy re-
commendations.
I compared how closely conceptions resemble the technical concept
by looking at the way, nature was treated, i.e. conceptions are con-
sidered more complex, if (1) natural aspects are described as services
and if (2) several services are included. Statements found in the parent
categories of decisions based on an individual (b) or an economic,
ecological or social criterion (c) at most include one ES. The criteria
decisions based on a mixture of social, ecological or social criteria (d)
are more complex as they can include several ES.
Even though all the scenarios refer to the same phenomenon,
namely ecosystems with alternative uses, the frequency of the use of the
criteria differs depending on the scenario used. Whereas the groups
argue that the yields from forests, as well as a construction area in a
city, can be used in multiple ways, the criterion of purpose or motif is
not used in the discussions concerning the maritime ecosystem. In
contrast, the criteria of cost-effectiveness and environmental compat-
ibility are used more in the maritime scenario. All in all, relatively few
students discussing the forest scenario advise decisions based solely on
economic criteria and many describe a trade-off between higher eco-
nomic yields and environmental degradation, which lowers quality of
life.
While all groups consider various dimensions of sustainability in
their analysis, the idea to compare different forms of use through a
(monetary) valuation does not occur to the students. This is surprising,
given the great importance of a monetary valuation in Environmental
Economics. However, based on the data, I cannot interpret whether the
students would reject a monetarization of nature. Rather, the idea of
valuation seems not to occur to them.
Finally, I found only minor differences between student groups at
the beginning and the end of their university studies. There is almost no
difference in the frequencies of the use of the multidimensional criteria.
However, in the groups with more advanced students, arguments re-
City ferring to only one dimension of sustainability are more common. There
is some progression in the sense that more advanced groups tend to
50% delineate criteria more clearly, i.e., they will state consequences for the
75%
17%
provision of ES in different circumstances and directly connect them to
83% a criteria, while beginners more often just describe aspects of the
25% phenomenon without clarifying what they imply for decision making.
58% Comparing an Environmental and an Ecological Economics ap-
proach, one can infer that students' preconceptions rather mirror initial
83%
stages of a MCA typical for Ecological Economics: They point to various
aspects relevant for a decision and often describe the positive and
430
D. Löw Beer Ecological Economics 146 (2018) 425–434

negative consequences of different management options. However, they
do not address the necessity to weigh the various aspects.
Finally, it is worthwhile to note that all group discussions have been
conducted in German universities. Other conceptions, or another dis-
tribution of the conceptions, might be found if people with different
attitudes toward markets or environmental awareness were inter-
viewed.
Thereupon students are asked to come up with suggestions on how
single ES can be assessed and valued to motivate them for a detailed
examination of ESAV. A good strategy here might be to compare similar
ecosystems where one ES differs, e.g., two forests with different carbon
uptake capacities, trees with different market-values or with wealthier
or poorer inhabitants and neighbors. Afterwards, small groups of stu-
dents are asked to prepare presentations on:

(1) selected valuation methods, including an assessment of their ad-

4. Suggestions for a Curriculum
vantages and disadvantages, and the values that can be captured by
it, and examples of their use
The following short curriculum is based on the core contents de-
(2) uncertain knowledge and discounting, including different risk
veloped, and preconceptions described in the previous sections. It is
terms, the precautionary principle and safe minimum standard, as
designed for university education with teacher trainees in Economics. If
well consequences of varying social discount rates for long-term
applied to undergraduate, and particularly graduate education in
investments
Economics in general, it might be worthwhile to consider spending
(3) selected ESAV applications, including a comparative assessment
more time on actually assessing and valuing ecosystem systems. As with
based on typical policy goals from Environmental vs. Ecological
any curriculum, depending especially on the specific learner group,
Economics
other methods are conceivable. Furthermore, the research has shown
some major misconceptions of students regarding basic ecology (e.g., an
After the presentations, the whole class draws conclusions on how
almost complete lack of the idea of irreversibility). It might therefore be
the gained knowledge can be used to assess and manage ES in an urban
worthwhile to first teach basic biological concepts. However, this is not
ecosystem.
the focus of this paper.
Then students apply and deepen their knowledge using the case
Phenomenographers argue that teaching a complex concept should
method (Carlson and Velenchik, 2006). The basic structure of the cases
start by looking at it as a whole, and then looking at its parts (Marton,
can be similar to the scenarios developed for the group discussions
2015). As students name a greater number, and more diverse ES in the
described above. However, students should be provided with more data
forest scenario, it makes sense to start with a forest. First, the lecturer
concerning the ecological, social and economic conditions, and these
briefly characterizes the ecosystem and its possible conflicts between
should be varied, e.g., by including a more or less valued/appreciated
land uses (e.g., size, location, main ecologic traits, property rights). The
species. If the course objective is an introduction, or if it is part of
learners are then asked to brainstorm about the functions of forests for
teacher training, then students are asked to structure the information,
humans.
to suggest how relevant data can be collected and which policy mea-
Only few participants suggested comparing ES based on a monetary
sures (e.g., PES schemes) could be appropriate. If the objective is
valuation, but it is widely used in Environmental and Ecological
teaching students to actually execute valuation studies, real data can be
Economics research, as well as Economic policy, a practical trial and
provided for students to conduct analysis on their own.15
reflection of the use of monetarized data are at the heart of the sug-
Finally, the class conducts the role-play again, but this time, groups
gested learning sequence. Therefore, I propose an issue-based repeated
are provided with data from valuation studies. As is common in re-
role-play (Errington, 1997) where specific content knowledge is trans-
search, values should be presented with a range to demonstrate un-
mitted between the iterations.
certainties and to provide groups with a negotiation space. To avoid
In the role-play, a group of students is asked to represent the role of
overwhelming students (see Section 2), groups are free to use or reject
a local committee oriented toward the common good, which decides
the results of the valuation studies, as there is also fundamental oppo-
about the future use of a forest. It hosts a public hearing where different
sition to monetizing nature in today's civil society groups. After the
groups (e.g., timber industry, water suppliers, tourist agency, in-
committee has declared its decision, the course of the discussions and
habitants) present their views. Additionally, one person with some
results in both rounds of the role-play are compared to uncover po-
background in ecology (this can also be the lecturer) should correct
tentials and limitations of monetary valuation. Here, one should also
basic ecological misconceptions, such as the widely held opinion in the
reflect how discussions and attitudes change when money and mone-
group discussions that there is no differences in the carbon uptake
tary values are included (Caruso et al., 2013; Frey and Oberholzer-Gee,
between new and older forests. After the committee has made and
1997; Vohs et al., 2008) In the process, one might check the results of
communicated its decision, a reflection of the discussion focuses on the
the panel against those that would have been reached based on a CBA
challenges the different groups, particularly the committee, faced in
and discuss which methodology is able to better represent peoples'
considering various interests. This is meant to mirror students' pre-
choices.
conceptions: They often name many relevant aspects for a decision, but
Finally, there should be a general debate about the pros and cons of
lack a strategy to adequately take all of them into account in the de-
ESAV, which is not based on the usability of data, but on the general
cision-making process. Pedagogically, this should create a “state of
question of whether ESAV is an appropriate procedure to decide about
suspense” (Marton and Booth, 1997) that motivates learners to expand
the use of ecosystems (cf. Section 2).
their mental model because they realize that their conceptions do not
Table 4 summarizes the suggested learning objectives and teaching
suffice to solve the problem.
methods.
At this point, the teaching of the technical concept begins. First,
basic terms relevant for ESAV (see Section 2) should be introduced
using standard instruction methods such as text-based discussions and
teacher presentations. In the same manner, the concepts of joint pro-
duction or market failure, as well as the significance of prices as signals
(footnote continued)
of relative scarcities, should be revised as these are basic justifications from Deelmster & Brauer can be found here: http://w3.marietta.edu/~delemeeg/
for ESAV.14 games < rev. 12/4/2017 > .
15
An excellent resource here is Kareiva et al. (2011), which provides a great number of
examples and is linked to the Natural capital project (cf. http://www.
14
If students have not been exposed to these concepts, it might be good to start with an naturalcapitalproject.org < rev. 12/4/2017 >) providing a free and open source soft-
economic game. An extensive database of economic classroom experiments and games ware solutions that can be learned fairly quickly.

431
D. Löw Beer Ecological Economics 146 (2018) 425–434

Table 4
Learning objectives and teaching methods.

Area Learning objectives – Students are able to … Teaching methods

Ecosystems and their services
Basic economic models
Valuation methods and their
application
Evaluating ESAV
… explain basic ecological terms relevant for ESAV Teacher presentations
… identify differences between provisioning, regulating, socio-cultural and supporting ES Structured reading
… relate ES to human welfare
… analyze types and reasons of market failure Socratic method
… explain und evaluate economic welfare criteria Student presentations
… explain and make use of the concepts of risk, uncertainty, and discounting
… compare economic valuation methods based on revealed and stated preferences and on Role-play to decide upon the management
biophysical factors strategy of an ecosystem
… develop a policy recommendation for an ecosystem with conflicting interests taking into Student presentations about applications of
account the ES applicable and possibilities (e.g. data requirements, uncertainties, etc.) to value ESAV
them Case method to apply knowledge gained
… distinguish and characterize typical applications of ESAV (e.g. CBA, MCA, PES)
… judge possibilities of potentials and limits and applications of ESAV based on the criteria of Role-play to decide upon the management
ecological scale, just distribution, and efficiency as well as criteria developed by students' strategy of an ecosystem
themselves Debate

Action verbs are based on the revised Bloom's taxonomy by Anderson and Krathwohl (2001).

5. Conclusions usual steps in a valuation study. Besides introducing students to ESAV,

From an educational perspective, ESAV is an outstanding topic. By
looking deeply into the concept itself, one can understand the multiple
dimensions in which humans depend on an ecosystem and also a core
strategy of how Economics approaches sustainability problems.
Studying the debates around ESAV can enable students to detect dif-
ferences between Ecological and Environmental Economics, and to
participate in an important political and scientific debate. On this basis,
the paper develops ambitious teaching contents that are based on the
idea that it is preferable to teach some concepts in depth and from
different angles, over the idea to superficially touch on many topics.
Empirically, I have analyzed how teacher trainees in economics,
who have not been exposed to ESAV in their studies, handle problems
that might be dealt with using the ESAV concept. The main results were
that most of them see nature as a place for recreation and wildlife, but
only few recognize regulatory and provisioning services. Furthermore,
they bring up a great variety of different boundaries and decision-
making criteria. However, they lack ideas of how to decide in situations
where no boundary is crossed and to weigh the different management
options or criteria against each other. Furthermore, they do not see
knowledge as uncertain and hardly bring up the idea of an economic
valuation. These last two results show a great contradiction between
disciplinary and students' approaches. They hint at the need to both
carefully consider basic scientific results from ecology, as well as to be
aware that ESAV might not be an intuitive approach, even for eco-
nomics students.
Based on students' preconceptions and core contents from the dis-
cipline, I suggested a short ESAV curriculum, which goes beyond the
it allows them to understand differences between Environmental and
Ecological Economics and discussions within both schools of thought,
as well as reflecting on the appropriateness, applicability and limita-
tions of the ESAV approach. It is therefore meant not as a suggestion
solely for Economics students, but as a contribution to citizens' educa-
tion in general.
As none of the groups raised the idea of using a monetary valuation
to compare different management options for an ecosystem, the scope
of recommendations for teaching are limited. In future research, it will
therefore be interesting to focus on students' understanding of different
valuation methods or to critically discuss ESAV in general.
Furthermore, the suggested curriculum should be evaluated.
Acknowledgements
I am very grateful to Günther Seeber, Franziska Birke and Sören
Asmussen for their support. I thank an anonymous reviewer, whose
critical remarks have helped to improve the article substantially.
Furthermore, I thank Sandra Bauske, Thomas Dörfler, Moritz Drupp,
Malin Elsen, Alejandro Esguerra, Joshua Farley, Heiko Gerlach, Tom
Green, Stefan Meissner, Susanne Offen, Ming-Fai Pang, Taylor Ricketts,
Astrid Sauermann, Mandy Schulze, Anne Winkler and the participants
of the 2015 Degöb conference for helpful comments.
Funding
This work was supported by the German Federal Ministry of
Education through a PhD scholarship of the Hans-Böckler foundation.

Appendix A. Scenarios on Ecosystem Service Valuation and Assessment

Topic Stimuli (German) Stimuli (English Translation)

Forest Stellt Euch eine recht waldreiche Insel vor. In den letzten Jahren
sind auf der Insel viele Bäume gefällt worden. Einige Bewohner der
Insel finden man sollte so weiter machen, andere finden die Bäume
sollten geschützt werden und viele sind noch unentschlossen. Stellt
Euch nun vor, die Inselbewohner würden Euch fragen: “Wie sollen
wir uns entscheiden?” Was würdet Ihr ihnen raten und warum?
Sea Wie Ihr vielleicht wisst, gibt es gerade an vielen Orten eine
Diskussion darüber, ob Windkraftanlagen vor den Küsten gebaut
werden sollten. Stellt Euch nun vor, ein Ort an der Nordsee darf
selbst entscheiden, ob so ein Windpark vor “seiner” Küste
eingerichtet wird. Einige Bewohner des Ortes finden das gut, andere
sind dagegen und viele sind noch unentschlossen. Wenn Euch nun
Think of a densely wooded island. In the last years, many trees
have been cut on the island. Some of the inhabitants of the island
think one should continue with that, others believe the trees
should be protected and many are still undecided. Imagine the
inhabitants of the island asked you: “How should we decide?”
What would you advise them to do and why?
As you might know, in many places, there is a discussion, whether
wind turbines should be built off the coast. Imagine, a town by the
North Sea may decide itself, whether a wind farm is constructed off
“its” coast. Some of the inhabitants of the town think this is a good
idea, others are against it and many are still undecided. If the

432
D. Löw Beer
die Bewohner fragen würden: “Wie sollen wir uns entscheiden?”
Was würdet Ihr ihnen raten und warum?
City Eine Stadt überlegt, neue Bauflächen auszuweisen. Einige finden das
gut, andere sind dagegen, und viele sind noch unentschlossen. Wenn
nun von den Gesetzen her beides möglich wäre und Euch die
Bewohner der Stadt fragen würden: “Wie sollen wir uns
entscheiden?” Was würdet Ihr ihnen raten und warum?
References
Anderson, L.W., Krathwohl, D.R., 2001. A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and
Assessing: A Revision of Bloom's Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. Longman,
New York.
Arrow, K.J., Cropper, M.L., Eads, G.C., Hahn, R.W., Lave, L.B., Noll, R.G., Portney, P.R.,
Russell, M., Schmalensee, R., Smith, V.K., Stavins, R.N., 1996. Is There a Role for
Benefit-Cost Analysis in Environmental, Health, and Safety Regulation? Science-
AAAS-Weekly Paper Edition 272. pp. 221–222.
Bator, F.M., 1958. The anatomy of market failure. Q. J. Econ. 72, 351–379.
Baumgärtner, S., Dyckhoff, H., Faber, M., Proops, J., Schiller, J., 2001. The concept of
joint production and ecological economics. Ecol. Econ. 36, 365–372.
Birke, F., Seeber, G., 2012. Lohnunterschiede im Schülerverständnis: eine
phänomenographische Untersuchung [Student understandings of wage differences: a
phenomenographic inquiry]. In: Retzmann, T. (Ed.), Entrepreneurship und
Arbeitnehmerorientierung. Leitbilder und Konzepte für die ökonomische Bildung in
der Schule [Entrepreneurship and Employee Orientation. General Orientation and
Concepts for Economic Education in School]. Wochenschau Verlag, Schwalbach/Ts,
pp. 223–237.
Bishop, R.C., 1978. Endangered species and uncertainty: the economics of a safe
minimum standard. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 60, 10–18.
Bohnsack, R., 2004. Group discussion and focus groups. In: Flick, U., von Kardoff, E.,
Steinke, I. (Eds.), A Companion to Qualitative Research. Sage, London, pp. 210–221.
Bohnsack, R., 2010. Documentary Method and Group Discussions. In: Bohnsack, R., Pfaff,
N., Weller, W. (Eds.), Qualitative Analysis and Documentary Method in International
Educational Research. Babara Budrich, Opladen, pp. 99–124.
Bybee, R.W., 1997. Achieving Scientific Literacy: From Purposes to Practices. Heinemann
Education Books, Portsmouth, NH.
Carlson, J.A., Velenchik, A.D., 2006. Using the Case Method in the Economics Classroom.
In: Becker, W., Becker, S., Watts, M. (Eds.), Teaching Economics: More Alternatives to
Chalk and Talk. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK, pp. 59–74.
Caruso, E.M., Vohs, K.D., Baxter, B., Waytz, A., 2013. Mere exposure to money increases
endorsement of free-market systems and social inequality. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 142,
301.
Castro e Silva, M., Teixeira, A.A.C., 2011. A bibliometric account of the evolution of EE in
the last two decades: is ecological economics (becoming) a post-normal science? Ecol.
Econ. 70, 849–862.
Costanza, R., Daly, H., 1992. Natural capital and sustainable development. Conserv. Biol.
6, 37–46.
Costanza, R., Cumberland, J.H., Daly, H., Goodland, R., Norgaard, R.B., Kubiszewski, I.,
Franco, C., 2015. An Introduction to Ecological Economics. CRC Press, Boca Raton,
London, New York.
Dahlgren, L.O., Marton, F., 1978. Students' conceptions of subject matter: an aspect of
learning and teaching in higher education. Stud. High. Educ. 3, 25–35.
Daly, H., Farley, J., 2010. Ecological Economics: Principles and Applications, 2nd ed.
Island Press, Washington.
Davies, P., Lundholm, C., 2012. Students' understanding of socio-economic phenomena:
conceptions about the free provision of goods and services. J. Econ. Psychol. 33,
79–89.
Davies, P., Howie, H., Mangan, J., Telhaj, S., 2002. Economic aspects of citizenship
education: an investigation of students' understanding. Curric. J. 13, 201–223.
De Haan, G., 2006. The BLK ‘21’programme in Germany: a ‘Gestaltungskompetenz’-based
model for education for sustainable development. Environ. Educ. Res. 12, 19–32.
Edward-Jones, G., Davies, B., Hussain, S., 2004. Ecological Economics. An Introduction.
Blackwell Science Ltd., Malden [u. a.].
Epstein, L.G., 1980. Decision making and the temporal resolution of uncertainty. Int.
Econ. Rev. 21, 269–283.
Errington, E., 1997. Role-play. Higher Education Research and Development Society of
Australasia Inc, Canberra.
Evans, T.L., 2011. Living and Learning Sustainability: Pedagogy and Praxis in
Sustainability Education. Prescott College.
Farley, J., 2010. The role of prices in conserving critical natural capital. Conserv. Biol. 22,
1399–1408.
Farrell, K.N., 2007. Living with living systems: the co-evolution of values and valuation.
Int J Sust Dev World 14, 14–26.
Frey, B.S., Oberholzer-Gee, F., 1997. The cost of price incentives: an empirical analysis of
motivation crowding-out. Am. Econ. Rev. 87, 746–755.
Georgescu-Roegen, N., 1971. The Law of Entropy and the Economic Process. Harvard
University Press, Cambridge.
Gibson, H., 2008. Ideology, instrumentality and economics education: on the secretion of
values within philanthropy, financial capability and enterprise education in English
schools. Int. Rev. Econ. Educ. 7, 57–78.
433
Ecological Economics 146 (2018) 425–434
inhabitants asked you: “How should we decide?” What would you
advise them to do and why?
A town considers approving new construction areas. Some think,
this is a good idea, others are against it, and many are still
undecided. If the laws allowed following both options and the
inhabitants of the city asked you: “How should we decide?” What
would you advise them to do and why?
Gollier, C., Jullien, B., Treich, N., 2000. Scientific progress and irreversibility: an eco-
nomic interpretation of the ‘precautionary principle. J. Public Econ. 75, 229–253.
Harring, N., Davies, P., Lundholm, C., 2017. Learning economics and attitudes to market
solutions to environmental problems. Educ. Sci. 7, 1–15.
Hess, D.E., 2009. Controversy in the Classroom: The Democratic Power of Discussion.
Routledge, New York.
Hoepner, A.G., Kant, B., Scholtens, B., Yu, P.-S., 2012. Environmental and ecological
economics in the 21st century: an age adjusted citation analysis of the influential
articles, journals, authors and institutions. Ecol. Econ. 77, 193–206.
Ignell, C., Davies, P., Lundholm, C., 2017. Understanding ‘price’ and the environment:
exploring upper secondary students' conceptual development. J. Soc. Sci. Educ. 16,
68–80.
Kaiser, T., Birke, F., Lutter, A., 2015. Schülerkonzepte zu ordnungspolitischen Fragen.
Eine phänomenographische Untersuchung [Students' conceptions on regulatory
policy. A phenomenographic inquiry]. Zeitschrift für Didaktik der
Gesellschaftswissenschaften, Schwerpunktheft ‘Ordnung’ 6, 92–110.
Kallis, G., Gómez-Baggethun, E., Zografos, C., 2013. To value or not to value? That is not
the question. Ecol. Econ. 94, 97–105.
Kareiva, P., Tallis, H., Ricketts, T.H., Daily, G.C., Polasky, S., 2011. Natural Capital:
Theory and Practice of Mapping Ecosystem Services. Oxford University Press, Oxford,
New York.
Karpe, J., 1998. Zur Integration ökonomischen Wissens in eine europäische
Umweltbildung [On the integration of economic knowledge in a European environ-
mental education]. In: Kruber, K.P. (Ed.), Europa – Herausforderung für die
ökonomische Bildung [Europe – Challenges for Economic Education]. Thomas
Holbein, Bergisch-Gladbach, pp. 107–136.
Knight, F.H., 1921. Risk, Uncertainty and Profit. Univ. of Chicago Press, Chicago [u. a.].
Krol, G.-J., 2001. Environmental problems, morals and incentives in modern societies. In:
Tolba, M.K. (Ed.), Our Fragile World: Challenges and Opportunities for Sustainable
Development. Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems, Oxford, pp. 973–982.
Lamnek, S., 2005. Gruppendiskussion: Theorie und Praxis [Group Discussions: Theory
and Practice], 2nd ed. Beltz, Weinheim [u. a.].
Liu, S., Costanza, R., Farber, S., Troy, A., 2010. Valuing ecosystem services. Ann. N. Y.
Acad. Sci. 1185, 54–78.
Lo, M.L., Marton, F., Pang, M.-F., Pong, W.Y., 2004. Toward a Pedagogy of Learning. In:
Marton, F., Tsui, A.B.M. (Eds.), Classroom Discourse and the Space of Learning, New
Jersey, pp. 189–225.
Löw Beer, D., 2016a. (How) should prices be adjusted to reflect the environmental harm
of products? – teacher trainees' understanding of an eco-economic phenomenon.
Zeitschrift für ökonomische Bildung 5, 50–71.
Löw Beer, D., 2016b. Ökonomische Bildung für eine nachhaltige Entwicklung. Eine
phänomenographische Untersuchung in der Lehrerinnenbildung [economic educa-
tion for a sustainable development. A Phenomenographic Inquiry in Teacher
Training]. Barbara Budrich, Leverkusen.
Lundholm, C., 2007. ‘Pricing nature at what price?’ A study of undergraduate students'
conceptions of economics. South. Afr. J. Environ. Educ. 24, 126–140.
Ma, C., Stern, D.I., 2006. Environmental and ecological economics: a citation analysis.
Ecol. Econ. 58, 491–506.
Mangold, W., 1960. Gegenstand und Methode des Gruppendiskussionsverfahrens [Subject
and Method of the Group Discussion Procedure]. Europäische Verlagsanstalt,
Frankfurt am Main.
Martinez-Alier, J., Munda, G., O'Neill, J., 1998. Weak comparability of values as a
foundation for ecological economics. Ecol. Econ. 26, 277–286.
Marton, F., 1981. Phenomenography - describing conceptions of the world around us.
Instr. Sci. 10, 177–200.
Marton, F., 2015. Necessary Conditions of Learning. Routledge, New York, London.
Marton, F., Booth, S., 1997. Learning and Awareness. L. Erlbaum Associates,
Mahwah, N.J.
Marton, F., Pang, M.F., 2008. The idea of phenomenography and the pedagogy of con-
ceptual change. In: Vosniadou, S. (Ed.), International Handbook of Research on
Conceptual Change. Routledge, New York, pp. 533–559.
Marton, F., Pang, M.F., 2013. Meanings are acquired from experiencing differences
against a background of sameness, rather than from experiencing sameness against a
background of difference: putting a conjecture to the test by embedding it in a
pedagogical tool. Front. Learn. Res. 1, 24–41.
Marton, F., Pong, W.Y., 2005. On the unit of description in phenomenography. High.
Educ. Res. Dev. 24, 335–348.
Marton, F., Tsui, A.B.M., 2004. Classroom Discourse and the Space of Learning. Lawrence
Erlbaum, New Jersey, pp. 256.
Mayring, P., 2014. Qualitative Content Analysis: Theoretical Foundation, Basic
Procedures and Software Solution, Klagenfurt.
Mullis, I.V.S., Martin, M.O., 2013. Timms 2015 assessment frameworks. In: International
Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement, I. TIMSS & PIRLS
D. Löw Beer
International Study Center, Lynch School of Education, Boston College.
OECD, 2016. PISA 2015 assessment and analytical framework. In: Science, Reading,
Mathematic and Financial Literacy. OECD Publishing, Paris.
Pang, M.-F., 2010. Boosting financial literacy: benefits from learning study. Instr. Sci. 38,
659–677.
Pang, M.-F., Linder, C., Fraser, D., 2006. Beyond lesson studies and design experi-
ments–using theoretical tools in practice and finding out how they work. Int. Rev.
Econ. Educ. 5, 28–45.
Perman, R., Ma, Y., Common, M.S., Maddison, D., McGilvray, J., 2011. Natural Resource
and Environmental Economics, 4th ed. Pearson Education Limited, Harlow, New
York.
Pollock, F., 1955. Gruppenexperiment [Group Experiment]. Europäische Verlags-Anstalt,
Frankfurt.
Pong, W.-Y., 1999. In: The Dynamics of Awareness. 8th European Conference for Learning
and Instruction. EARLI, pp. 1–12.
Prenzel, M., Rost, J., Senkbeil, M., Häußler, P., Klopp, A., 2001. Naturwissenschaftliche
Grundbildung: Testkonzeption und Ergebnisse [Basic Science Education. Test
Conception an Results]. In: PISA-Konsortium, D., Baumert, J., Klieme, E., Neubrand,
M., Prenzel, M., Schiefele, U., Schneider, W., Stanat, P., Tillmann, K.-J., Weiß, M.
(Eds.), PISA 2000: Basiskompetenzen von Schülerinnen und Schülern im inter-
nationalen Vergleich [PISA 2000: Basic Competencies of Students in Intenational
Comparison]. VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, Wiesbaden, pp. 191–248.
Schröter, M., Zanden, E.H., Oudenhoven, A.P., Remme, R.P., Serna-Chavez, H.M., Groot,
R.S., Opdam, P., 2014. Ecosystem services as a contested concept: a synthesis of
critique and counter-arguments. Conserv. Lett. 7, 514–523.
Schug, M.C., 1997. Teaching the economics of the environment. Citiz. Soc. Econ. Educ. 2,
47–55.
Schulz, W., Ainley, J., Fraillon, J., Kerr, D., Losito, B., 2010. ICCS 2009 International
Report: Civic Knowledge, Attitudes, and Engagement among Lower-Secondary School
Students in 38 Countries. IEA, Amsterdam.
Seeber, G., 2001. Ökologische Ökonomie: Eine kategorialanalytische Einführung
[Ecological Economics: An Introductory Categorial Analysis]. Dt. Univ.-Verl,
Wiesbaden.
Seeber, G., Birke, F., 2011. Using a fox to guard the geese? A German debate on the
purposes of economic education in relation to sustainability and the role of values.
Citiz. Soc. Econ. Educ. 10, 170–181.
Spash, C.L., 2008. How much is that ecosystem in the window? The one with the bio-
434
Ecological Economics 146 (2018) 425–434
diverse trail. Environ. Values 17, 259–284.
Speer, S., Seeber, G., 2013. Financial understanding: a Phenomenographic access to
students' concepts of credits. J. Soc. Sci. Educ. 12, 41–51.
TEEB, 2010a. In: Sukhdev, P. (Ed.), The Economics of Ecosystem & Biodiversity.
Earthscan, London, New York.
TEEB, 2010b. The Economics of Ecosystem & Biodiversity. TEEB for Business. Earthscan,
London, New York.
TEEB, 2010c. In: Berghöfer, A. (Ed.), The Economics of Ecosystem & Biodiversity. TEEB
Manual for Cities: Ecosystem Services in Urban Management. Earthscan, London,
New York.
Ten Dam, G., Volman, M., 2004. Critical thinking as a citizenship competence: teaching
strategies. Learn. Instr. 14, 359–379.
Tietenberg, T.H., Lewis, L., 2016. Environmental and Natural Resource Economics, 10th
ed. Routledge, London; New York.
Torney-Purta, J., Lehmann, R., Oswald, H., Schulz, W., 2001. Citizenship and Education
in twenty-eight Countries: Civic Knowledge and Engagement at Age Fourteen. IEA,
Amsterdam.
UNESCO, 2005. Literacy for Life. Education for All. Global Monitoring Report 2006.
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, Paris.
United Nations, U., 2005. Milennium Ecosystem Assesment: Global Assessment Report.
Island Press, Washington, DC.
Vatn, A., Bromley, D.W., 1994. Choices without prices without apologies. J. Environ.
Econ. Manag. 26, 129–148.
Vohs, K.D., Mead, N.L., Goode, M.R., 2008. Merely activating the concept of money
changes personal and interpersonal behavior. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 17, 208–212.
Wegner, G., Pascual, U., 2011. Cost-benefit analysis in the context of ecosystem services
for human well-being: a multidisciplinary critique. Glob. Environ. Chang. 21,
492–504.
Weinbrenner, P., 1997. Plädoyer für eine “zukunftsfähige” ökonomische Bildung
[Pleading for a ‘sustainable’ economic education]. In: Kruber, K.-P., Breier, K.-H.
(Eds.), Konzeptionelle Ansätze ökonomischer Bildung [Conceptional Approaches for
Economic Education]. Thomas Hobein, Bergisch Gladbach, pp. 225–262.
Wunder, S., 2005. Payments for Environmental Services: Some Nuts and Bolts. CIFOR
Jakarta, Indonesia.
Zohar, A., Nemet, F., 2002. Fostering students' knowledge and argumentation skills
through dilemmas in human genetics. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 39, 35–62.