Advertisement

Evaluation of Ecosystem Services Through Revealed Policy Preferences: Exchange Rates Between Scientific Currencies

  • Tomaz Ponce DentinhoEmail author
Chapter
Part of the New Frontiers in Regional Science: Asian Perspectives book series (NFRSASIPER, volume 24)

Abstract

Rational public choices imply that total marginal values of alternative decisions should be the same along all those decisions. Concerning the environment, those values are related to production services, regulating services, cultural services and supporting services. The total value of the environment must take into account all these services. Nevertheless, the various scientific disciplines that influence decision-making are not equally specialised in the evaluation of the various services. Ecologists evaluate the ecosystems’ sustainability and analyse the environment capacity to recycle emissions and have a better understanding of the regulation services. Economists evaluate and valuate costs and benefits looking for alternative policies but are more sensible to environmental production services. In the end each discipline tends to evaluate the environment based on its own frame of reference. Decision support systems combine all these evaluations in order to recommend the best solutions taking into account all the interests involved. But only when the decisions are taken and implemented it is possible to say that all these different evaluations of facts are transformed into values associated with acts, impacts and effects.

The objective of this essay is not to propose an alternative decision support system able to recommend best solutions for policymakers. The purpose is to introduce a methodology able to estimate the decision rules revealed by public choices. It is assumed that different disciplinary evaluations can be designed to complement each other rather than to compete with each other. It is also presupposed that each one of these evaluations could be allocated to the same spatial and temporal referential of decision-making. Finally, it is alleged that rational public choices should be consistent so that the trade-off between disciplinary evaluations of alternative decisions should be similar along all the decisional boundaries, where one decision must have the same marginal value as the alternative solution.

The methodology is exemplified for three types of decisions: the design of a protected area, the design of a land use plan for the protection of water springs and the management plan of a marine ecosystem. The results include not only the estimates of the decision rules revealed by former public choices but also the design of consistent plans implicit in the revealed decision rules and an assessment of the total value of each plan that combines the ecological, environmental, social and economic valuations through the revealed decision rules.

Keywords

Ecosystem services Valuation Land use Land use planning Marine spatial planning Coastal management Cost benefit analysis 

References

  1. Balkan E, Khan JR (1988) The value of changes in deer hunting quality. Appl Econ 20:533–539CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beaumont NJ, Austen MC, Atkins JP, Burdon D, Degraer S, Dentinho TP, Derous S, Holm P, Horton T, van Ierland E, Marboe AH, Starkey DJ, Townsend M, Zarzycki T (2007) Identification, definition and quantification of goods and services provided by marine biodiversity: implications for the ecosystem approach. Mar Pollut Bull 54(3):253–265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bockstael NE, Hanemann WM, Kling CL (1987) Estimating the value of water quality improvements in a recreational demand framework. Water Resour Res 23(5):951–960CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brouwer R (2000) Environmental value transfer: state of the art and future prospects. Ecol Econ 32:137–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cardoso P (2015) The use of arachnids (Class Arachnida) in biodiversity evaluation and monitoring of natural areas. Universidade de Lisboa (Faculdade de Ciências de Lisboa)Google Scholar
  6. Costanza R, D’Arge R, de Groot R, Farber S, Grasso M, Hannon B, Naeem S, Limburg K, Paruelo J, O’Neill RV, Raskin R, Sutton P, van den Belt M (1997) The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387:253–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. De Groot R, Wilson M, Boumans RMJ (2002) A typology for the classification, description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services. Ecol Econ 41:393–408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. De Marchi B, Funtiwicz SO, Lo Cascio S, Munda G (2000) Combining participative and institutional approaches with multicriteria evaluation. An empirical study for water issues in Troina, Sicily. Ecol Econ 34(2000):267–282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dentinho T (2002) Modelo Agro-Ambiental para a Bacia das Sete Cidades. Plano de Ordenamento da Bacia das Sete Cidades. Direcção Regional dos Recursos Hídricos e Ordenamento, AçoresGoogle Scholar
  10. Dias E (2004) Plano da Rede Natura 2000 nos Açores. Direcção Regional do Ambiente, AçoresGoogle Scholar
  11. EEA (2002) Integrating marine science in Europe. Marine BoardGoogle Scholar
  12. Englin J, Mendelson R (1991) A hedonic travel cost analysis for valuation of multiple components of site quality: the recreation value of forest management. J Environ Econ Manag 21:275–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. European Commission (2002) Guide to cost-benefit analysis of investment projects. Evaluation unit of DR regional policy, European CommissionGoogle Scholar
  14. Fabbri KP (1998) A methodology for supporting decision making in integrated coastal zone management. Ocean Coast Manag 39:51–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Farber S, Costanza R, Wilson M (2002) Economic and ecological concepts of valuing ecosystem services. Ecol Econ 41:375–392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gowdy JM, Carbonell AF (1999) Toward consilience between biology and economics: the contribution of ecological economics. Ecol Econ 29(1999):337–348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hanley N, Shogren JF (2002) Awkward choices: economics and nature conservation. In: Bromley DW, Paavola J (eds) Economics, ethics and environmental policy: contested choices. Blackwell Publishing, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  18. Houghton K, Mendelson R (1997) A economic analysis of multiple-use forestry in Nepal. Ambio 25(3):156–159Google Scholar
  19. Howard P (1995) The economics of protected areas in Uganda: costs, benefits and policy issues. A Dissertation for the University of EdinburghGoogle Scholar
  20. Kontogianni A, Skourtos MS, Langford IH, Bateman IJ, Georgiou S (2001) Integrating stakeholder analysis in non-market valuation of environmental assets. Ecol Econ 37(1):123–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Langford IH, Georgiou S, Day RJ, Bateman IJ (1999) Comparing perceptions of risk and quality with willingness to pay: a mixed methodological study of public preferences for reducing health risks from polluted coastal bathing waters. Risk Decis Policy 4(3):201–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Limburg KE, O’Neil RV, Costanza R, Farber S (2002) Complex systems and valuation. Ecol Econ 41:409–420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Montegonery CA, Brown GM, Adams DM (1984) The marginal cost of species preservation. J Environ Econ Manag 26:111–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Munda G, Nijkamp P, Rietvield P (1995) Monetary and non-monetary evaluation methods in sustainable development planning. Econ Appl XLVII(2):143–160Google Scholar
  25. Norton Griffths M (1994) Biodiversity conservation in Kenya. Dissertation submitted to University College London, UKGoogle Scholar
  26. Nunes P, Van Den Bergh JCJM (2001) Economic valuation of biodiversity: sense or nonsense? Ecol Econ 39(2):203–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Pagiola S (1996) Republic of Croatia coastal forest reconstruction and protection project. Annex 1 economic analysis. The World Bank, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  28. Pearce D, Atkinson G, Mourato S (2006) Cost-benefit analysis and the environment. OECD Publishing, ParisGoogle Scholar
  29. Pendleton L (1993) Adding it all up: the economic valuation of a tropical marine park. Presented at the Environmental Economics and Policy Analysis Workshop. HIID, USAGoogle Scholar
  30. Qureshi ME, Harrison SR, Wegener MK (1999) Validation of multicriteria analysis models. Agric Syst 62:105–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Randall A (1987) Economic theory, total economic value as a basis for policy. Trans Am Fish Soc 116:325–335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Randall A (2002) Benefit cost considerations should be decisive when there is nothing more important at stake. In: Bromley DW, Paavola J (eds) Economics, ethics and environmental policy: contested choices. Blackwell Publishing, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  33. Read Sturgess and Associates (1994) The economic significance of Grampians National Park: for Department of Conservation and Natural Resources. Read Sturgess and associates, Kew, VicGoogle Scholar
  34. Runner N, Starkl M (2004) Decision aid systems for evaluating sustainability: a critical survey. Environ Impact Assess Rev 24(2004):441–449CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Tempera F, Afonse P, Morato T, Gubbay S, Dentinho T, Silva M, Prieto R, Cardigos F, Pitta MJ, Serrão Santos R (2001) Proposta Técnico- Científica de Gestão dos Sítios de Interesse Comunitário do Canal Faial-Pico. Departamento de Oceanografia e Pescas da Universidade dos Açores. Arquivos do DOP. Série Relatórios Internos, n° 8/2001, viii+76 ppGoogle Scholar
  36. Turner RK (1997) Georgescu-Roegen versus Solow/Stiglitz: a pluralistic and interdisciplinary perspective. Ecol Econ 22:299–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Turner RK, Bateman IJ, Adger WN (2001) Ecological economics and coastal zone ecosystems’ values: an overview. In: Turner RK, Bateman IJ, Adger WN (eds) Economics of coastal and water resources: valuing environmental functions. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht/Boston/LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Turner RK, Paavola J, Cooper P, Farber S, Jessamy V, Georgiou S (2003) Valuing nature: lessons learned and future research directions. Ecol Econ 46:493–510CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Willis KG, Benson JF, Saunders C (1988) The impact of agricultural policy on the cost of nature conservation. Land Econ 64(2):147–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Wilson EO (1998) Consilience. Alfred Knopf, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  41. Wilson MA, Carpenter SR (1999) Economic valuation of freshwater ecosystem services in the United States 1971–1997. Ecol Appl 9(3):772–783Google Scholar
  42. Zhu X, Aspinall RJ, Healey R (1996) ILUDSS: a knowledge-based spatial decision support system for strategic land-use planning. Comput Electron Agric 15:279–301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Zhu X, Healey RG, Aspinall RJ (1998) A knowledge-based systems approach to design of spatial decision support systems for environmental management. Environ Manag 22:35–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Singapore 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of AzoresPonta DelgadaPortugal

Personalised recommendations