Environmental and Resource Economics

, Volume 42, Issue 1, pp 39–51 | Cite as

Accounting for Ecosystems

  • Karl-Göran Mäler
  • Sara Aniyar
  • Åsa Jansson


Millennium Ecosystem Assessment documented the importance of ecosystem services. It is therefore important to include these services in the national system of economic accounts. This requires estimation of “accounting prices” for ecosystems, that is, the marginal value of a change in the size of the system. This raises a number of questions: What do we mean by the “size” of the system? What is the dynamics of the system? How do we quantify the impacts on services from a change in the size of the system and finally how do we value these impacts? We discuss these questions in a few examples of ecosystems, and valuation as such is not the major problem. The major problem is the lack of information of the appropriate dynamic model for most systems. We therefore suggest that economists and ecologists should set priorities on which ecosystems should be the first objects for study for these; we should test the possibilities of estimating the accounting prices.


Dynamics of ecosystems Ecosystem habitat service for fisheries Ecosystem pollination service Ecosystem services Natural stocks accounting price Resilience Sustainable development 



System of national accounts


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Allen-Wardell GP et al (1998) The potential consequences of pollinator declines on the conservation of biodiversity and stability of food crop yields. Conserv Biol 12: 8–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aniyar S (2002) The impacts of changes in the size of the mangrove forest and property right system in the fishermen’s rent: a simulation model. Cited 1 July 2008
  3. Arrow KJ, Dasgupta P, Mäler K-G (2003) Evaluating projects and assessing sustainable development. Environ Resour Econ 26: 149–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barbier E, Strand I (1998) Valuing mangrove-fishery linkages. Environ Resour Econ 12: 151–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bockstael N, Myrick Freeman A (2005) In: Mäler KG, Vincent JR (eds) Welfare theory and valuation, vol 2, Chap 12. North-HollandGoogle Scholar
  6. Carpenter SR, Ludwig D, Brock WA (1999) Management of eutrophication for lakes subject to potentially irreversible change. Ecol Appl 9(3): 751–771CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Carson R, Hanemann M (2005) In: Mäler KG, Vincent JR (eds) Contingent valuation, vol 2, Chap 17. North-HollandGoogle Scholar
  8. Christiansen V, Walters C (2004) Ecopath with ecosim: methods, capabilities and limitations. Ecol Model 172: 109–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dasgupta P, Mäler K-G (2000) Net national product, wealth, and social-well-being. J Environ Dev Econ 5: 69–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Freeman AM (2003) The measurement of environmental and resource values. RFF, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  11. Hein L, van Koppel K, de Groot RS, van Ierland E (2006) Spatial scales, stakeholders and the valuation of ecosystem services. Ecol Econ 57: 209–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Holling CS (1973) Resilience and stability of ecosystems. Ann Rev Ecol Syst 4: 1–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Koopmans TC (1960) Stationary ordinal utility and impatience. Econometrica 28(2): 287–309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Koopmans TC (1965) On the concept of optimal economic growth. Pontif Acad Sc Scripta Varia 28: 225–300Google Scholar
  15. Koopmans TC, Diamond PA, Williamson RE (1964) Stationary utility and time perspective. Econometrica 32: 82–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kremen C et al (2007) Pollination and other ecosystem services produced by mobile-organisms: a conceptual framework for the effects of land-use change. Ecol Lett 10: 299–314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ludwig D, Jones DD, Holling CS (1978) Qualitative analysis of insect outbreak systems: the spruce budworm and forest. J Anim Ecol 47: 315–332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Mäler KG, Vincent JR (eds) (2005) Handbook of environmental economics. Elsevier, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  19. Maler KG, Aniyar S, Casler CL, Weir E, Fuenmayor J, Rojas J, Reyes J (1996) An economic modelling of the Los Olivitos Mangrove Ecosystem in Beijer Reprint Series no. 79. Reprinted from Boletin del Centro de Investigaciones Biologicas 30(2) Diciembre 1996:99–220Google Scholar
  20. Mäler KG, Li C-Z, Destouni G (2007) Pricing resilience in a dynamic economy-environment system: a capital theorethical approach. Beijer Discussion Paper Series # 208Google Scholar
  21. Mcconnell K, Bockstael N (2005) In: Mäler KG, Vincent JR (eds) Valuing the environment as a factor of production, vol 2, Chap 14. North-HollandGoogle Scholar
  22. McIntyre NE, Knowles-Yanez K, Hope D (2000) Urban ecology as an interdisciplinary field: differences in the use of ‘urban’ between the social and natural sciences. Urban Ecosyst 4: 5–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. North D, Thomas RP (1973) The rise of the Western World: a new economic history. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  24. Öberg S, Ekbom B, Bommarco R (2006) Influence of habitat type and surrounding landscape on spider diversity in Swedish agroecosystems. Agricult Ecosyst Environ 122: 211–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Pearce D, Atkinson G (1993) Capital theory and the measurement of sustainable development: progress on indicators. J Ecol Econ 8: 103–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Pearce D et al (1989) Blueprint for a green economy. Earthscan Ltd, UKGoogle Scholar
  27. Ramsey FP (1928) A mathematical theory of saving. Econ J 38: 543–549CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ricketts T, Daily G, Ehrlich P, Michener C (2004) Economic value of tropical forest to coffee production. PNAS 101(34): 12579–12582CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Sala OE et al (2000) Global biodiversity scenarios for the year 2100. Science 287: 1770–1774CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Samuelson PA (1961) The evaluation of “social income”: capital formation and wealth. In: Lutz FA, Hague DC (eds) The theory of capital. Macmillan, LondonsGoogle Scholar
  31. Schaefer MB (1957) A study of the dynamics of the fishery for yellow in tuna in the Eastern Tropical Pacific Ocean. Inter-Am Trop Tuna Commun Bull 2: 246–268Google Scholar
  32. Scheffer M (1998) The ecology of Shallow Lakes, vol. 22 of population and community biology series. Chapman Hall, LondonGoogle Scholar
  33. Steffan-Dewenter I (2003) Seed set of male-sterile and male-fertile oilseed rape (Brassica napus) in relation to pollinator density. Apidologie 34: 227–235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Steffan-Dewenter I, Münzenberg U, Bürger C, Thies C, Tscharntke T (2002) Scale-dependent effects of landscape context on three pollinator guilds. Ecology 83(5): 1421–1432CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Stern N (2007) The economics of Climate change, The Stern Review. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  36. Stockholm Office of Regional Planning and Urban Transportation (2001) Regional development plan for Stockholm County
  37. UN (1993) Integrated environmental and economic accounting. ST/ESA/STAT/SER.F/61Google Scholar
  38. UN (2003) Integrated environmental and economic accounting. ST/ESA/STAT/SER.F/61/Rev.1Google Scholar
  39. Walker B, Pearson L, Harris M, Mäler KG, Li CZ, Biggs R (2007) Incorporating resilience in the assessment of inclusive wealth: an example from South East Australia. Beijer discussion paper 209Google Scholar
  40. Walther-Hellwig K, Frankl R (2000) Foraging habitats and foraging distances of bumblebees, Bombus spp. (Hym,Apidae), in an agricultural landscape. J Appl Ent 124: 299–306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Westphal C, Steffan-Dewenter I, Tscharntke T (2003) Mass flowering crops enhance pollinator densities at a landscape scale. Ecol Lett 6: 961–965CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Xepapadeas A (2005) Economic growth and the environment. In: Mäler K-G, Vincent JR (eds) Handbook of environmental economics. Elsevier, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Karl-Göran Mäler
    • 1
    • 2
  • Sara Aniyar
    • 2
  • Åsa Jansson
    • 2
  1. 1.Stockholm Resilience CenterStockholm UniversityStockholmSweden
  2. 2.Beijer Institute of Ecological EconomicsRoyal Swedish Academy of SciencesStockholmSweden

Personalised recommendations