M<strong>of</strong>fat, I. and M.D. Wilson (1994). “Index <strong>of</strong> Sustainable Economic Welfare for Scotland”, 1980-91,International Journal <strong>of</strong> Sustainable Development and World Ecology, 1:264-291.Neill, Helen R., Ronald Cummings, Phillip Ganderton, Glenn Harrison, and Thomas McGuckin(1994). “Hypothetical surveys and real economic commitments”, Land Economics, 70:145-54.Peskin, Henry M. (1976). A national accounting framework for environmental assets, Journal <strong>of</strong>Environmental Economics and Management, 2: 255-262.Portney, P.R. (1994). “The contingent valuation debate: why should economists care?”, Journal <strong>of</strong>Economic Perspectives, 8:1-18.Prince, Raymond and Pratice L. Gordon (1994). Greening the national accounts, CBO Papers,Congressional Budget Office, Washington, DC.O’Neill R.V. , et al (1996). “Economic Growth and Sustainability: A New Challenge”, EcologicalApplications, (vol 26, pp 23-24).Repetto, Robert et al. (1989). Wasting Assets: Natural Resources in the National Income and ProductAccounts, World Resources Institute, Washington D.C.Roe, Brian, Kevin J. Boyle and Mario F. Teisl (1996). “Using Conjoint Analysis to Derive Estimates<strong>of</strong> Compensating Variation.” Journal <strong>of</strong> Environmental Economics and Management31(2):145-159.Rubin, Jonathon, Gloria Helfand and John Loomis (1991). A Benefit-Cost Analysis <strong>of</strong> the NorthernSpotted Owl, Journal <strong>of</strong> Forestry Bjornstad, David and James R. Kahn (eds.) (1996). TheContingent <strong>Valuation</strong> <strong>of</strong> Environmental Resources: Methodological Issues and Research Needs,London, Edward Elgar Publishing.Schimmel, Steven C. et al. (1994). Statistical Summary: EMAP - Estuaries, Virginia Province-1991,USEPA, EPA/620/R-94/005, March.Stevens, Thomas H., Christopher Barret, and Cleve Willis. (1997). “Conjoint Analysis <strong>of</strong> GroundwaterProtection Programs.” Agriculture and Resource Economics Review October 229-236.119
CHAPTER 7:by Dennis M. KING and Lisa A. WAINGER 29ASSESSING THE ECONOMIC VALUE OF BIODIVERSITY USING INDICATORS OF SITECONDITIONS AND LANDSCAPE CONTEXTIntroduction<strong>Biodiversity</strong> and Ecosystem ServicesOf the millions <strong>of</strong> bacteria, insect, plant, and animal species, a few individual speciescontribute in direct and measurable ways to economic welfare (e.g., timber, crops, and edible fish); afew more contribute to the quality <strong>of</strong> life in less measurable but noticeable ways (e.g., dolphins,songbirds, and wildflowers). 30 However, most <strong>of</strong> the millions <strong>of</strong> species that exist in nature contributein obscure and roundabout ways to human welfare (e.g., pollinators and decomposers on land; benthicorganisms, plankton, coral, and forage fish at sea). Their lives and functions are so intertwined witheach other and with surrounding ecological landscapes that their individual contributions to humanwelfare, as a practical matter, cannot be isolated.The term “biodiversity” refers generally to the number and variety <strong>of</strong> life forms that inhabitan area and was popularised in a 1988 book <strong>Biodiversity</strong>, by the well-known Harvard ecologistE.O. Wilson. It is a vague term that is useful for some purposes, but not useful as a focus for valuationexercises or as a goal <strong>of</strong> environmental policy. What aspects <strong>of</strong> “biodiversity” are important? Howmuch can we afford? How much do we need and where? Answering these questions requires researchthat goes beyond measuring biodiversity or changes in biodiversity. We may never have a clearunderstanding <strong>of</strong> our dependence on biodiversity, but there are advantages to knowing which aspects<strong>of</strong> biodiversity contribute to specific measures <strong>of</strong> human welfare.In the introduction <strong>of</strong> the book, <strong>Biodiversity</strong>, Wilson states that the book “<strong>of</strong>fers an overallview <strong>of</strong> biological diversity and carries the urgent warning that we are rapidly altering and destroyingthe environments that have fostered the diversity <strong>of</strong> life forms for more than a billion years.” This2930Sponsored by the <strong>OECD</strong>. Prepared under Cooperative Agreement: 65-7482-8-335 between the USEnvironmental Protection Agency, Office <strong>of</strong> Policy Analysis, US Department <strong>of</strong> Agriculture, NaturalResource and Conservation Service and University <strong>of</strong> Maryland Center for Environmental Science,Chesapeake Biological Laboratory.Estimates <strong>of</strong> the number <strong>of</strong> species are less precise than estimates <strong>of</strong> the number <strong>of</strong> species that havebecome extinct. Wilson (1988) estimates that there are 1.3 million species <strong>of</strong> plants and animals,excluding insects, and that if insects are included the number <strong>of</strong> species ranges from 5 million to30 million.121
- Page 1 and 2:
«ENVIRONMENTValuation ofBiodiversi
- Page 3 and 4:
ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERAT
- Page 5 and 6:
TABLE OF CONTENTSPART 1 ...........
- Page 7 and 8:
PART 4 ............................
- Page 10 and 11:
Why value biodiversity?There are th
- Page 12 and 13:
Figure 1.1 Total economic value: us
- Page 14 and 15:
from biodiversity at the local leve
- Page 16 and 17:
in the database and also for undert
- Page 18 and 19:
in the policy context. This is high
- Page 20:
Table 1.3 Policy Options for the Cl
- Page 23 and 24:
Box 1.2 Value of Turkey’s Forests
- Page 25 and 26:
of the most important implications
- Page 27 and 28:
Additionally, valuation does not ju
- Page 29 and 30:
value is the habitat, many differen
- Page 31 and 32:
are very modest. More recently, new
- Page 33 and 34:
Table 2.2 Estimates of the Medicina
- Page 35 and 36:
The importance of indirect use valu
- Page 37 and 38:
pharmaceutical use, although the li
- Page 39 and 40:
McAllister, D., (1991). Estimating
- Page 41 and 42:
Simpson, D and Craft, A.. (1996).
- Page 43 and 44:
practice, the overlap between these
- Page 45 and 46:
aimed at giving more precise quanti
- Page 47 and 48:
structural values. There are a numb
- Page 49 and 50:
Reid (forthcoming) discusses the po
- Page 51 and 52:
Ecotourism as a Way to Generate Loc
- Page 53 and 54:
endangered Indian rhino and other t
- Page 55 and 56:
ReferencesBann, C., and M. Clemens
- Page 57 and 58:
PART 261
- Page 59 and 60:
many European countries, CBA has a
- Page 61 and 62: (1) Cost and time constraintsThe co
- Page 63 and 64: activity day, there is greater vari
- Page 65 and 66: added independent variable C s= cha
- Page 67 and 68: error in valuing respiratory sympto
- Page 69 and 70: ReferencesArrow, K.J., R. Solow, E.
- Page 71 and 72: OECD (1995). The Economic Appraisal
- Page 73 and 74: CHAPTER 5:by José Manuel LIMA E SA
- Page 75 and 76: linkages usually lead to diverse co
- Page 77 and 78: A discrete choice approach to quest
- Page 79 and 80: Table 5.2 Model-based point estimat
- Page 81 and 82: is potentially very large for multi
- Page 83 and 84: P3 is already in the mix is 2.51, s
- Page 85 and 86: PART 391
- Page 87 and 88: measures of value. An appendix to t
- Page 89 and 90: features (such as parks, beaches or
- Page 91 and 92: included in cost-benefit analysis o
- Page 93 and 94: A Discussion of Past Efforts to Dev
- Page 95 and 96: Satellite AccountsIn addition to th
- Page 97 and 98: which many people argue are associa
- Page 99 and 100: approach to competing uses of water
- Page 101 and 102: Figure 6.2 Trade-Off AnalysisEnviro
- Page 103 and 104: However, the farmers need not bear
- Page 105 and 106: Appendix 1: Theory and Application
- Page 107 and 108: iwhere C is the income adjustment n
- Page 109 and 110: complete. If there are more than on
- Page 111: Horowitz, Joel. L. and Jordan. J. L
- Page 115 and 116: Box 7.1 Definition of terms related
- Page 117 and 118: Box 7.2 Categories of Ecosystem Ser
- Page 119 and 120: Box 7.4 Dollar-based ecosystem valu
- Page 121 and 122: Non-monetary indicators of ecosyste
- Page 123 and 124: Figure 7.1 Effects of Wetland Locat
- Page 125 and 126: description, and that the usefulnes
- Page 127 and 128: 2) Service capacity sub-indexIndica
- Page 129 and 130: wetlands, for example, results in F
- Page 131 and 132: (1) Functional CapacityIndexFigure
- Page 133 and 134: constituents of runoff can be predi
- Page 135 and 136: Service(on or off site)Recreational
- Page 137 and 138: Table 7.3 Service Risk Sub-index De
- Page 139 and 140: Measuring Service Preference Weight
- Page 141 and 142: Table 7.4 Illustration of Paired Co
- Page 143 and 144: PART 4151
- Page 145 and 146: Ecological foundations for biodiver
- Page 147 and 148: Phenotic diversity is a measure bas
- Page 149 and 150: Operationalisation of the biotic-ri
- Page 151 and 152: ten attributes that could score a m
- Page 153 and 154: The choice of the scale relates to
- Page 155 and 156: Nature measurement methodIn 1995, t
- Page 157 and 158: Table 8.4 Value orientations and en
- Page 159 and 160: Table 8.5 Identification of monetar
- Page 161 and 162: Table 8.6 Valuation studiesSingle s
- Page 163 and 164:
in waterway systems for nine impact
- Page 165 and 166:
to other contexts, conditions, loca
- Page 167 and 168:
ReferencesAkcakaya, H.R. (1994).
- Page 169 and 170:
de Groot, R.S. (1994). “Environme
- Page 171 and 172:
Mace, G. M. & S. N. Stuart. (1994).
- Page 173 and 174:
Turner, R.K., Perrings, C. and Folk
- Page 175 and 176:
John A. DixonJohn A. Dixon is Lead
- Page 177 and 178:
Robert O’NeillDr. O’Neill recei
- Page 179 and 180:
Steven StewartSteven Stewart is Ass
- Page 181:
OECD PUBLICATIONS, 2, rue André-Pa