Ecosystem valuation

Last updated

Ecosystem valuation is an economic process which assigns a value (either monetary, biophysical, or other) to an ecosystem and/or its ecosystem services. By quantifying, for example, the human welfare benefits of a forest to reduce flooding and erosion while sequestering carbon, providing habitat for endangered species, and absorbing harmful chemicals, such monetization ideally provides a tool for policy-makers and conservationists to evaluate management impacts and compare a cost-benefit analysis of potential policies. However, such valuations are estimates, and involve the inherent quantitative uncertainty and philosophical debate of evaluating a range non-market costs and benefits.

Contents

History and Economic Model

History

Cost-benefit analyses and the generation of market value have existed within the economic literature for centuries. However, in 1997, Robert Costanza, Distinguished University Professor of sustainability at Portland State University, Oregon, was the first to estimate the worldwide worth of ecosystem services—bringing new attention to the field of ecosystem valuation. He and his colleagues calculated that such services were worth $33 trillion annually ($44 trillion present dollars). [1]

Despite Costanza's fanfare, the World Bank, three decades later, that "the benefits provided by natural ecosystems are both widely recognized and poorly understood.” [2]

Citing the importance of such knowledge to informed policy-making, in 2007, Environmental Ministers from the G8 + 5 nations agreed to both publicly call for and begin to undertake the calculation of global ecosystem benefits, conservation costs, and the opportunity costs of developing such ecosystems. The resulting watershed initiative and ongoing project is The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB).

In the United States, the President's Council on Science and Technology suggested in 2011 that the “U.S. government should institute and fund a Quadrennial Ecosystems Services Trends (QuEST) Assessment” that studying trends in ecosystem performance, quality, and value. [3]

Economic Models: Values, Costs, and Value Methodology

Ecosystem valuation attempts to capture the range of benefits and costs contained within a complicated natural web with a range of economic methodologies.

Ecological systems provide four general categories of services: provisioning (e.g. fish to eat, timber to sell), regulatory, supporting, and cultural (e.g. ecosystems supporting indigenous gathering techniques, or supplies for traditional clothing). [4] See Figure 1. for a mangrove-specific example of this complex subject.

Figure 1. Example of ecosystem services range for mangrove habitat EnvironmentalServicesPie.jpg
Figure 1. Example of ecosystem services range for mangrove habitat

These four types of services can then provide two basic categories of value: the use and non-use categories. Environmental economists have further separated categorizes for which individuals are willing to pay:

Given these types of potential ecological values, economists utilize a variety of methods to calculate those market values and measure non-market values. Standard environmental economic methods are used to place a monetary value on ecosystem services where there are no market prices. These include "stated preference" methods and "revealed preference" methods. Stated preference methods, such as the contingent valuation method ask people for their willingness to pay for a certain ecosystem (service). Revealed preference methods, such as hedonic pricing and the travel cost method, use a relation with a market good or service to estimate the willingness-to-pay for the service. Applying such preference based approaches has been criticized as a means of deriving the value of ecosystems and biodiversity and for avoiding deliberation, justification and judgment in making choices. [5] The monetary value society attaches to ecosystem services depends on the income distribution. [6] [7] [8] It is argued that ecosystem valuations must steadily increase over time, in line with rising global income as well as increasing scarcity of functioning ecosystems. [9]

Valuation Results

While the literature is still emerging, many important studies have resulting in striking valuations.

One academic paper by de Groot et al., which synthesized more than 300 scholarly works collectively evaluating the 10 main biomes, "shows that the total value of ecosystem services is considerable and ranges between 490 int$/year for the total bundle of ecosystem services that can potentially be provided by an ‘average’ hectare of open oceans to almost 350,000 int$/year for the potential services of an ‘average’ hectare of coral reefs." [10] This potential benefit can take many forms depending on the degree of exploitation and such exploitation's sustainability, but can result, for example, in large ecotourist revenues for local communities, protection from storm destruction, or profit for an international lumber company.

Furthermore, de Groot et al. find that most of their paper's calculated value is "outside the market and best considered as non-tradable public benefits. The continued over-exploitation of ecosystems thus comes at the expense of the livelihood of the poor and future generations." [10]

The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB), in one of its first large, cumulative reports, also found that ecosystem services start at roughly $100/hectare/year for open ocean, and top off to more than $1,000,000/hectare/year for the most lucrative coral reefs. [11]

Beyond biome "price tags," these environmental valuations can explore quite complex policy questions. For example, the Copenhagen Consensus think tank calculated that stemming the loss of coral reefs by 50 percent by 2030 would return more than $24 for every dollar spent. The Consensus' founder, Bjorn Lomborg, explains that "coral reefs, which both act as fishery hatcheries and fishing resources while storing abundant numbers of species. At the same time, coral reefs possess an amazing beauty, which both shows up in large tourism revenues but also in most individuals saying they are willing to pay a certain amount to make sure they continue to exist for our grand children. … [Programs to preserve 50% more coral reef by 2030] cost about $3 billion per year but the total benefits likely run to at least $72, or about $24 dollars back for every dollar invested." [12]

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) manages the Integrated Valuation Environmental Services and Tradeoffs (InVEST) Natural Capital Project. This open-source tool—although geared towards policy-makers, advocates, and scientists—allows anyone to interact with a map quantifying "trade-offs between alternative management choices" and identifying "areas where investment in natural capital can enhance human development and conservation.” [13]

As another example, the Basque Centre for Climate Change (BC3) hosts the Artificial Intelligence for Environment & Sustainability (ARIES) Project. This open-source software was designed to integrate scientific models for environmental sustainability assessment and policy-making, [14] with an initial focus on ecosystem services [15]

Payment for Environmental Services (PES)

After (and, sometimes, before) evaluating the ecosystem costs and benefits, some programs have attempted to internalize those values with specific programs providing payments for environmental services. Costa Rica paid about $42/hectare for landowners to preserve forests; [16] in 2010 Norway began paying Indonesia a total of $1 billion to mitigate deforestation; [17] China responded to 1998 floods with payments targeting deforestation and soil erosion; [4] and many other programs large and small.

Controversies with and Limits to Ecosystem Valuations

From an academic perspective, although scholarly research is quite rapidly adding to this field of understanding, many knowledge gaps still remain. For example, there is an inherent uncertainty in attempting to quantify non-market goods. As pointed to by de Groot et al., many environmental goods (such as clean air and biodiversity) are simply not traded in established markets. In addition, many environmental goods may be non-rival, non-excludable, and even inseparable goods with multiple value options further complicating any valuation.

From an ethical and philosophical perspective, too, ecosystem valuation is far from uncontroversial. Arguments about the non-market valuation of ecosystem can be found by referring to environmental ethics and deep ecology.

Since animals do not put explicit prices on ecosystems they use, but do behave as if they are valuable, e.g. by selecting one territory vs. another, defending their territories, etc., it is mostly a matter of definition whether ecology should include valuation as an issue. It may be anthropocentric to do so, since "valuation" more clearly refers to a human perception rather than being an "objective" attribute of the system perceived. Ecology itself is also human perception, and such related concepts as a food chain are constructed by humans to help them understand ecosystems. In many cases by those who hold that markets and pricing exist independently of any individual human observers and "users", and especially those who deem markets to be "out of control", ecosystem valuation is considered a (marginal, ignored) part of economics. Others argue that natural capital is an economic concept that is at least as viable as financial capital, which itself is determined on subjective valuation. Some even suggest that valuation of ecosystem services is more cogent than financial valuation, as the ecosystem would continue after the collapse of the economy, while the inverse is not valid.

In addition, many fascinating questions about where ecosystem benefits go, and who should pay for those benefits, is an ongoing political debate. In one Washington city, residents now pay a water bill in order for the town to buy and restore land adjacent to the municipal water source; and international examples of evaluating and paying for services is no less a fascinating field of ongoing development. [18]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Natural capital</span> Worlds stock of natural resources

Natural capital is the world's stock of natural resources, which includes geology, soils, air, water and all living organisms. Some natural capital assets provide people with free goods and services, often called ecosystem services. All of these underpin our economy and society, and thus make human life possible.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Environmental economics</span> Sub-field of economics

Environmental economics is a sub-field of economics concerned with environmental issues. It has become a widely studied subject due to growing environmental concerns in the twenty-first century. Environmental economics "undertakes theoretical or empirical studies of the economic effects of national or local environmental policies around the world. ... Particular issues include the costs and benefits of alternative environmental policies to deal with air pollution, water quality, toxic substances, solid waste, and global warming."

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Ecological economics</span> Interdependence of human economies and natural ecosystems

Ecological economics, bioeconomics, ecolonomy, eco-economics, or ecol-econ is both a transdisciplinary and an interdisciplinary field of academic research addressing the interdependence and coevolution of human economies and natural ecosystems, both intertemporally and spatially. By treating the economy as a subsystem of Earth's larger ecosystem, and by emphasizing the preservation of natural capital, the field of ecological economics is differentiated from environmental economics, which is the mainstream economic analysis of the environment. One survey of German economists found that ecological and environmental economics are different schools of economic thought, with ecological economists emphasizing strong sustainability and rejecting the proposition that physical (human-made) capital can substitute for natural capital.

Contingent valuation is a survey-based economic technique for the valuation of non-market resources, such as environmental preservation or the impact of externalities like pollution. While these resources do give people utility, certain aspects of them do not have a market price as they are not directly sold – for example, people receive benefit from a beautiful view of a mountain, but it would be tough to value using price-based models. Contingent valuation surveys are one technique which is used to measure these aspects. Contingent valuation is often referred to as a stated preference model, in contrast to a price-based revealed preference model. Both models are utility-based. Typically the survey asks how much money people would be willing to pay to maintain the existence of an environmental feature, such as biodiversity.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Ecosystem service</span> Benefits provided by intact ecosystems

Ecosystem services are the various benefits that humans derive from healthy ecosystems. These ecosystems, when functioning well, offer such things as provision of food, natural pollination of crops, clean air and water, decomposition of wastes, or flood control. Ecosystem services are grouped into four broad categories of services. There are provisioning services, such as the production of food and water. Regulating services, such as the control of climate and disease. Supporting services, such as nutrient cycles and oxygen production. And finally there are cultural services, such as spiritual and recreational benefits. Evaluations of ecosystem services may include assigning an economic value to them.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Shadow price</span> Term in economics

A shadow price is the monetary value assigned to an abstract or intangible commodity which is not traded in the marketplace. This often takes the form of an externality. Shadow prices are also known as the recalculation of known market prices in order to account for the presence of distortionary market instruments. Shadow prices are the real economic prices given to goods and services after they have been appropriately adjusted by removing distortionary market instruments and incorporating the societal impact of the respective good or service. A shadow price is often calculated based on a group of assumptions and estimates because it lacks reliable data, so it is subjective and somewhat inaccurate.

The embedding effect is an issue in environmental economics and other branches of economics where researchers wish to identify the value of a specific public good using a contingent valuation or willingness-to-pay (WTP) approach. The problem arises because public goods belong to society as a whole, and are generally not traded in the market. Because market prices cannot be used to value them, researchers ask a sample of people how much they are willing to pay for the public good, wildlife preservation for example. The results can be misleading because of the difficulty, for individual society members, of identifying the particular value that they attach to one particular thing which is embedded in a collection of similar things. A similar problem occurs with a wider selection of public goods. The embedding effect suggests the contingent valuation method is not an unbiased approach to measuring policy impacts for cost-benefit analysis of environmental, and other government policies.

Ecological goods and services (EG&S) are the economical benefits arising from the ecological functions of ecosystems. Such benefits accrue to all living organisms, including animals and plants, rather than to humans alone. However, there is a growing recognition of the importance to society that ecological goods and services provide for health, social, cultural, and economic needs.

Non-use value is the value that people assign to economic goods even if they never have and never will use it. It is distinguished from use value, which people derive from direct use of the good. The concept is most commonly applied to the value of natural and built resources.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Payment for ecosystem services</span>

Payments for ecosystem services (PES), also known as payments for environmental services, are incentives offered to farmers or landowners in exchange for managing their land to provide some sort of ecological service. They have been defined as "a transparent system for the additional provision of environmental services through conditional payments to voluntary providers". These programmes promote the conservation of natural resources in the marketplace.

<i>The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity</i> Study

The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) was a study led by Pavan Sukhdev from 2007 to 2011. It is an international initiative to draw attention to the global economic benefits of biodiversity. Its objective is to highlight the growing cost of biodiversity loss and ecosystem degradation and to draw together expertise from the fields of science, economics and policy to enable practical actions. TEEB aims to assess, communicate and mainstream the urgency of actions through its five deliverables—D0: science and economic foundations, policy costs and costs of inaction, D1: policy opportunities for national and international policy-makers, D2: decision support for local administrators, D3: business risks, opportunities and metrics and D4: citizen and consumer ownership.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Ecological values of mangroves</span>

Mangrove ecosystems represent natural capital capable of producing a wide range of goods and services for coastal environments and communities and society as a whole. Some of these outputs, such as timber, are freely exchanged in formal markets. Value is determined in these markets through exchange and quantified in terms of price. Mangroves are important for aquatic life and home for many species of fish.

Earth Economics is a 501(c)(3) non-profit formally established in 2004 and headquartered in Tacoma, Washington, United States. The organisation uses natural capital valuation to help decision makers and local stakeholders to understand the value of natural capital assets. By identifying, monetising, and valuing natural capital and ecosystem services.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Pavan Sukhdev</span> Indian environmental economist (born 1960)

Pavan Sukhdev is an Indian environmental economist whose field of studies include green economy and international finance. He was the Special Adviser and Head of UNEP's Green Economy Initiative, a major UN project suite to demonstrate that greening of economies is not a burden on growth but rather a new engine for growing wealth, increasing decent employment, and reducing persistent poverty. Pavan was also the Study Leader for the ground breaking TEEB study commissioned by G8+5 and hosted by UNEP. Under his leadership, TEEB sized the global problem of biodiversity loss and ecosystem degradation in economic and human welfare terms, and proposed solutions targeted at policy-makers, administrators, businesses and citizens. TEEB presented its widely acclaimed Final Report suite at the UN meeting by Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) in Nagoya, Japan.

Natural capital accounting is the process of calculating the total stocks and flows of natural resources and services in a given ecosystem or region. Accounting for such goods may occur in physical or monetary terms. This process can subsequently inform government, corporate and consumer decision making as each relates to the use or consumption of natural resources and land, and sustainable behaviour.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Ian Bateman</span> British economist

Ian Bateman OBE US-NAS FBA FEAERE FRSA FRSB is a professor of environmental economics at the Land, Environment, Economics and Policy (LEEP) Institute at the University of Exeter. He is chief editor of the journal "Environmental and Resource Economics". He was formerly a member of the Natural Capital Committee, a member of the Defra Science Advisory Council, and director of the Centre for Social and Economic Research on the Global Environment (CSERGE).

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Value of Earth</span> An economical concept of estimating the net worth of the planet

The value of Earth, i.e. the net worth of our planet, is a debated concept both in terms of the definition of value, as well as the scope of "Earth". Since most of the planet's substance is not available as a resource, "earth" has been equated with the sum of all ecosystem services as evaluated in ecosystem valuation or full-cost accounting.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Clive Spash</span> Ecological economist

Clive L. Spash is an ecological economist. He currently holds the Chair of Public Policy and Governance at Vienna University of Economics and Business, appointed in 2010. He is also Editor-in-Chief of the academic journal Environmental Values.

Susana Mourato is a professor of environmental economics at the London School of Economics and Political Science. She holds a leader position at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Natural resource valuation</span> Concept of natural resource economics

Natural resource valuation is a process of providing of benefits, costs, damage of or to natural and environmental resources. It has a fundamental role in the practice of cost-benefit analysis of health, safety, and environmental issues.

References

  1. ↑ Constanza, Robert (15 May 1997). "The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital". Nature. 387 (6630): 253–260. Bibcode:1997Natur.387..253C. doi:10.1038/387253a0. S2CID   672256.
  2. 1 2 "How Much is an Ecosystem Worth? Assessing the Economic Value of Conservation" (PDF). The World Bank. October 2004.
  3. ↑ "Report to the President. Sustaining Environmental Capital: Protecting Society and the Economy" (PDF). July 2011.
  4. 1 2 Holzman, David C. (April 2012). "Accounting for Nature's Benefits: The Dollar Value of Ecosystem Services". Environmental Health Perspectives. 120 (4): a152–a157. doi:10.1289/ehp.120-a152. PMC   3339477 . PMID   22469778.
  5. ↑ Spash, C.L. 2008. How much is that ecosystem in the window? The one with the bio-diverse trail. Environmental Values, vol. 17, no. 2, 259-284
  6. ↑ Drupp, Moritz A.; Meya, Jasper N.; Baumgärtner, Stefan; Quaas, Martin F. (August 2018). "Economic Inequality and the Value of Nature" (PDF). Ecological Economics. 150: 340–345. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2018.03.029. hdl: 10419/171723 . ISSN   0921-8009.
  7. ↑ Baumgärtner, Stefan; Drupp, Moritz A.; Meya, Jasper N.; Munz, Jan M.; Quaas, Martin F. (September 2017). "Income inequality and willingness to pay for environmental public goods". Journal of Environmental Economics and Management. 85: 35–61. doi:10.1016/j.jeem.2017.04.005. ISSN   0095-0696.
  8. ↑ Jacobsen, Jette Bredahl; Hanley, Nick (2008-08-08). "Are There Income Effects on Global Willingness to Pay for Biodiversity Conservation?" (PDF). Environmental and Resource Economics. 43 (2): 137–160. doi:10.1007/s10640-008-9226-8. hdl: 1893/503 . ISSN   0924-6460. S2CID   18531768.
  9. ↑ Drupp, M. A.; Hänsel, M. C.; Fenichel, E. P.; Freeman, M.; Gollier, C.; Groom, B.; Heal, G. M.; Howard, P. H.; Millner, A.; Moore, F. C.; Nesje, F.; Quaas, M. F.; Smulders, S.; Sterner, T.; Traeger, C. (2024-03-08). "Accounting for the increasing benefits from scarce ecosystems". Science. 383 (6687): 1062–1064. doi:10.1126/science.adk2086. ISSN   0036-8075.
  10. 1 2 De Groot, Rudolf; Brander, Luke; Van Der Ploeg, Sander; Costanza, Robert; Bernard, Florence; Braat, Leon; Christie, Mike; Crossman, Neville; Ghermandi, Andrea; Hein, Lars; Hussain, Salman; Kumar, Pushpam; McVittie, Alistair; Portela, Rosimeiry; Rodriguez, Luis C; Ten Brink, Patrick; Van Beukering, Pieter (2012-07-01). "Global estimates of the value of ecosystems and their services in monetary units". Ecosystem Services. 1 (1): 50–61. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2012.07.005 . ISSN   2212-0416.
  11. ↑ "The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) For Water and Wetlands". February 2013.
  12. ↑ Lomborg, Bjørn (2014-10-31). "Biodiversity: What's Worth Saving?". Huffington Post. Retrieved 2018-03-05.
  13. ↑ "Integrated Valuation of Environmental Services and Tradeoffs (InVEST)". coast.noaa.gov. Retrieved 2018-03-05.
  14. ↑ ARIES: Policy support tool, ipbes.net
  15. ↑ A guide to models and data, unstats.un.org
  16. ↑ Sánchez-Azofeifa, G. Arturo; Pfaff, Alexander; Robalino, Juan Andres; Boomhower, Judson P. (October 2007). "Costa Rica's payment for environmental services program: intention, implementation, and impact" (PDF). Conservation Biology. 21 (5): 1165–1173. doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2007.00751.x. hdl: 10161/6955 . ISSN   1523-1739. PMID   17883482. S2CID   17567114.
  17. ↑ "After seven years, Norway's US$1 billion REDD deal in Indonesia is still not stopping deforestation | REDD-Monitor". www.redd-monitor.org. Retrieved 2018-03-05.
  18. ↑ "How much money is a healthy ecosystem worth?" . Retrieved 2018-03-05.
General
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.