Kathryn Samuels once suggested that “value can be located within at least three interconnected
practices of the discipline of archaeology: (1) as a technique for assessing
the value (‘significance’) of our object of study, material heritage; (2) as an
analytic for making interpretations of the past (e.g. for reconstructing past
societies); and finally (3) as a way to question our archaeological modes of
inquiry, to ask how the first two practices produce particular effects and shape specific histories as (un)authorized. In this last instance value is therefore also a way to question why we study material heritage in the first place. “

Others would have no problem adding to them .

“ Anything that has value can be quantified using the definitions and methods described in documents such as Stern. (Stern is very good at doing this and explaining how it is done).”

I don't see where Nicholas Stern can possibly contribute to quantifying any of the above and there was nothing in the linked document that explains how he could .