Researchers Martha Jordan and Daniel Black examined how valuation is used or perceived in UK urban development, defining socio-environmental valuation, or SEV, as an economic approach for measuring social or environmental outcomes. Their study combined a secondary dataset drawn from 123 interviews with 132 participants in a wider investigation of UK property and transport systems with nine targeted follow-up interviews conducted in 2024. The follow-up participants included senior decision-makers from private development, public agencies, professional membership bodies and third-sector organisations. All interview material was gathered between 2020 and 2024, and the researchers used thematic analysis to identify recurring themes.

Power formed the study’s central analytical framework. Resource power operates through access to money, land, information, relationships and status. Normative power arises from shared values, accepted truths and the behaviour they encourage. Structural power works through institutional arrangements that direct what organisations and societies are expected to do. Rather than treating power as a possession of particular individuals, the analysis considers how these dimensions can either enable action or restrict it. The overarching question was how much influence socio-environmental economic valuation has when urban development is expected to produce human and planetary-health benefits.

Support for stronger valuation was substantial, but it was not shared with equal confidence. Some interviewees argued that monetising health would make it “weighed into the calculations more firmly.” A broader measurement system could capture benefits that a conventional benefit-cost ratio might overlook, potentially increasing the likelihood that projects with meaningful health effects would receive public funding. Private-sector participants saw related advantages: quantified evidence could demonstrate the value of public space, distinguish one development proposal from another, attract investment or, if supplied to the market, encourage prices to incorporate social benefits.

Other participants were deeply sceptical of converting qualitative evidence into numerical indicators. One described the process as a “black box” that could translate qualitative measures into numbers, while another said they did not use tools in this area because they did not meet the evidential standard required for the Treasury to take them seriously. There were also practical concerns that a separate valuation process could require the same information to be collected and analysed twice. Very few participants, even after direct questioning in the follow-up interviews, were aware of the government’s current approach to SEV, indicating that advances remained marginal and concentrated in particular parts of central government rather than routinely used across the development system.

The interviews exposed a deeper tension between the language of growth and the pursuit of health. Participants described decision-making as consistently tilted towards economic growth, measurable outputs and financial viability, including the number of homes delivered rather than the wider quality of life created. One public-policy specialist said the Treasury’s Green Book had increasingly allowed economic considerations to predominate without weighting housing’s social effects comparably. The relationship is not a simple opposition, however: economic growth can also generate health benefits through healthcare, education and cheaper energy. The study therefore documents a difficult balance among competing priorities, including development viability and affordable housing, rather than evidence that growth itself is invariably harmful to health.

Health-focused valuation can consequently have little practical power when institutional norms reward growth, quantification and profit maximisation. Participants repeatedly described finance as the force driving delivery, even when the stated objective was housing or place-making. Values also mattered. Some interviewees acted on health because they considered it the right thing to do, whereas others said organisational culture determined whether such evidence influenced choices. If leaders define success mainly through profit, one participant warned, teams may manipulate scores to protect their bonuses. Formal requirements, training and leadership therefore shape whether a valuation method is merely available or becomes a meaningful part of decision-making. The analysis suggests that a tool capable of quantifying health could be powerful only if it acquired sufficient legitimacy within these norms.

Institutional control of critical resources was a major and continuing barrier. Interviewees repeatedly identified access to funding, control of land and the ability to set rules as decisive. Central government and the Treasury could direct finance towards chosen priorities, while landowners could exert substantial influence over development. At local level, participants described a lack of fiscal incentives for granting planning permission as a constraint on pursuing health improvements. Financial markets appeared as both obstacle and enabler: they generally rewarded development, but regulatory expectations concerning carbon, biodiversity and environmental, social and governance performance were beginning to influence investor behaviour. This combination of concentrated resources and a growth-oriented structure weakened the ability of valuation to redirect decisions toward social and environmental benefits.

Existing appraisal arrangements also appeared to enter the decision process too late to question whether a project should proceed. The Treasury’s Green Book guides assessment of the costs, benefits and risks associated with different ways of achieving objectives that have already been set; it does not set those objectives itself. The authors distinguish between asking what is the best way to undertake a project and asking what is the right project. Their analysis points to a need for earlier assessment at central-policy level, where broader social and environmental outcomes can inform strategic choices before physical infrastructure, housing or other urban development is specified. This is a conclusion about the timing and institutional level of appraisal, not evidence that monetisation by itself would improve health outcomes.

The study does not demonstrate that SEV improves health, and its authors acknowledge several limits on generalisation. It is restricted to the UK, so the findings cannot automatically be applied to countries with different political leadership, wealth or cultural values. Selection bias is possible because valuation was only one topic within the broad secondary interviews, while qualitative interpretation remains influenced by researchers’ positions. Although combining the two datasets produced material from 128 participants across 119 transcripts, the study used one conceptual framework among many available approaches to power. Its conclusion is therefore not that better numerical tools will solve the problem. The central finding is that socio-environmental valuation remains weak in practice because conflicting values, limited legitimacy and institutional incentives shape whether quantified health and environmental evidence can alter decisions at all.

Subject of Research: How power shapes socio-environmental economic valuation in UK urban development

Article Title: Understanding socio-economic valuation in UK urban development through the lens of power

Article References: Jordan, M., & Black, D. (2026). Understanding socio-economic valuation in UK urban development through the lens of power. Discover Cities, 3(1), 206. https://doi.org/10.1007/s44327-026-00385-y

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.1007/s44327-026-00385-y

Keywords: urban development, economic valuation, public health, urban planning, interview study, economic growth, institutional power, finance, land ownership, environmental appraisal, Understanding, socio-economic