How about priceless? The moment you ascertain a value you introduce the concept of trading off one part for another. Wouldn't that cause speculators to salivate?

Here's an example. What value would you assign to a sporting competion involving an invitation to all nations to compete freely? We could call it Olympics or something, just to celebrate its origins.

It depends what "currency " you are using. By using Sterling, Dollars, Euros etc, you are introducing commercialism as marktime says, and the answer will be biased toward development, exploitation, etc.. Turn the issue in it's head instead and find a a way of quantifying, "feel good" then use that as the basis of the valuation; remove the "filthy lucra" from the equation altogether, and you'll get a different answer.

Posted By: SteamyTea..............., say a massage, in a warm controlled environment or a cold damp forest.

Oooo!- Steamy, shades of naughty Nordic nights.

One could argue that the more bio diverse an area is especially one with protected status (SSSI, Heritage site etc) the lower the monetary value because of the inherent cost of maintenance without the benefit of income. Someone else might like to pay money to look after a swamp full of newts and such. The value of anything is only realised at the point of sale.
I wouldn't pay £££millions for "The Scream" but someone did. Someone else bought Rangers FC. We are all different!
Anyway, haven't the UK Gov. just valued our natural environment?

Posted By: marktimeHow about priceless? The moment you ascertain a value you introduce the concept of trading off one part for another. Wouldn't that cause speculators to salivate?

but that's exactly what happens with wind farms. six turbine site near me they will need 5km of new road across good agricultural land described as an "area of best landscape". Fair trade?

Given the nature of Nature, how can you possibly assign a capital value to "it"?

You have first to define it definitively.

Given the subjective nature of the entity, that amorphous quality that defeats any attempt to define it quantitatively, how can any monetary 'value' you give it have any meaning?

Ah. You're confusing Nature with 'natural resources'.

So if you put a capital value on your particular spot of beach, would you derive as much pleasure from staying at home because I've given you the cash value of that spot of beach in order to 'deprive' you of it?

The operative word there is "pleasure", isn't it? No two people are going to be able to put a cash value on something that subjective so how can you substitute a cash value for the actual thing?

(It's why I suggested you change the title of the thread in the whisper above! )

Not a reliable way of arriving at the "real" value, which is not dependent on either intrinsic or extrinsic value, both of which require input from notoriously fickle "perception", itself determined by whatever future use someone perceives to be the "value" of whatever it is being considered.

You're not valuing Nature, you're valuing whatever is perceived to add value to it.

Example. Whilst out photographing local landmarks for the campaign against the proposed local wind farm, the woman driving me around is married to a guy who's a good mate of a local "businessman". In the course of general conversation, I happened to mention the sale of a local stone quarry and she said that the local parish council had asked if the owners would gift it to the parish council so that they could landscape it for use as a local leisure amenity (the reclamation apparently a condition of the original planning permission, all pretty standard stuff). They wouldn't gift it. A figure of £100,000 was asked. Too much for the parish council, despite it being pointed out that £100K was way below the "real" market value.

Someone eventually offered £200,000, without revealing what their plans were, and that was considered until someone else came along and the figure reached £250,000.

Blah, blah, blah. It was eventually recently sold for £300,000 to a completely new bidder, that local "businessman".

My lady driver knew who that person was because of the link with her husband. He's intending to turn it into a traveller's site.

There is no median value to something which doesn't have any intrinsic value, itself a chimera but less so than the extrinsic value that bit of Nature assumes when someone assigns it a value that relates to their assessment of its "worth". By definition it has ceased to be Nature and becomes a natural resource to be converted into cash.

It is very subjective, but if we do have to value it, and it seems we do now, the price that suits most people must surely be the price it is.
Some things can easily have a cash price put on them. The cost of building on a flood plain below a deforested hillside is lower than the cost of building on a flood plain next to a forested hillside.
The costs are reasonable well understood in this situation (hence Theresa May having a word with the insurance companies day before yesterday).
Question is then, would it be cheaper for the insurance companies to buy and reforest the hillside than occasionally pay out for flood damage. And if they did would there be secondary benefits that could pay back the cost of reforestation (chargeable leisure market, managed timber production).

They did some surveys down here a few years back about charging to go to the beach. Tourists did not have a problem with a charge but locals did (let's face it they like their dogs pooing on it). Other surveys have shown that people in the SW dislike the high water rates, partly high because of keeping the beaches clean.

So my question is, how much would you be willing to pay for access to your favourite places? and if they are charging already how much do you pay?

NT charge £4 a day for parking wherever it is, even if you're only walking the dog for an hour.

But the real issue is what is meant by "priceless"? Again by definition, it is something to which a price cannot be attached, not something on which no one can agree a monetary value, even a notional one.

As owlman says, it is subjective/emotional. Now that might be irrational in a world that recognises value only in terms of monetary "worth", but that probably explains why that world is having so many problems!

Why stop at Nature? Introduce a compulsory annual air-flow test on everyone and work out how much air they breathe and apply a tax on it?

Asthmatics would get a discount.

Those on ventilators would get a rebate.

A multi-pack of Mars bars and I'm anybody's.

Bilmey, me is too fick 2 b on eeer.......

Hey, have you guys got TV yet

Posted By: fostertomAvoiding the question by derrogation

Touchy

My value in the marketplaces varies, sometimes positive. Not all of it involved cash transactions (here for instance, even though there is a cash price to me for offering free opinion).
So if you want one hard and fast price for my services, you can't have one.
If you want am estimate you can. It will vary from >£Zero <£infinity.