Valuation of Biodiversity Benefits (OECD)

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Empirical valuation studiesThis section reviews some biodiversity valuation studies, presenting a valuation range foreach biodiversity value component. 64 The discussion is organised according to Figure 8.3. First, wefocus on studies that carry out a value assessment of biodiversity in terms of the benefits associatedwith the protection of species diversity (see link 2®5). Second, we focus on valuation studies thatpursue the assessment of biodiversity benefits in terms of protection of natural habitat or ecosystemspace (see link 1®4®5). Third, we discuss valuation studies that focus on biodiversity’s benefits onsociety in terms of ecosystem functions and services, (see link 1®6). Finally, whenever the CVmethod is applied, one is able to assess the non-use value component of biodiversity, and thus assessthe monetary value of link 3. 65Single, multiple species valuation surveysBoyle and Bishop (1987) conducted one of the first CV studies to estimate the existencevalues for wildlife species. The estimated values suggest that substantial existence values areassociated with the Bighorn Sheep in Wyoming (see results in Table 8.6). More recently, Van Kooten(1993) studied the economic value of waterfowl in Canada. According to the results, the shadowvalues of marginal land converted to waterfowl habitat were estimated to be $50 to $60 per acre.Loomis and Larson (1994) valued an “emblematic” endangered species, namely the Gray Whale. Thewillingness to pay (WTP) was estimated between sixteen and eighteen dollars per household per year.Boman and Bosdedt (1995) carried out the economic valuation of the conservation of the Wolf inSweden. The estimation results show that the mean WTP is about $126 per year.Table 8.6 also shows multiple species valuation studies. Johnansson (1989) conducted a CVstudy that focuses on the preservation of 300 endangered species in Sweden., The final estimate, $ 194per year, is higher than the economic valuation of the conservation of the Wolf in Sweden, about $126per year, though not so high as one would expect. This is partly because the single species valuationstudy refers to popular, socially attractive, charming and beautiful species. Therefore, when preservingthe Wolf in situ, as one of Sweden’s fauna emblems, the final value estimate may also include othercharacteristics not directly related to the species to be valued. In other words, the valuation results mayalso reflect individual social esteem motives or warm glow (Nunes 2000a). Furthermore, the estimatevaluation for single species can be affected by the availability of related species, i.e. single speciesvalues can be affected by the respondent’s perception of substitutes and complementary species(Samples and Hollyer 1989).6465Nunes and van den Bergh (2000) list a more extensive bibliography of work related to valuation ofbiodiversity.Since non-use values have no behavioural market trace, economists cannot retrieve information aboutthese values by relying on market-based valuation approaches.169
Table 8.6 Valuation studiesSingle speciesMinimum range: $5Maximum range: $126Multiple speciesMinimum range: $18Maximum range: $194Habitat: Terrestrial (non-use)Minimum range: $27Maximum range: $101Habitat: Coastal (non-use)Minimum range: $10Maximum range: $51Habitat: Wetland (non-use)Minimum range: $8Maximum range: $96Habitat: Ecosystem space (recreation)Minimum range: $23/tripMaximum range: $23 million/yearEcosystems functionsMinimum range: $1.2 millionMaximum range: $4.4 billionValuation studyBig Horn, endangered species in Wyoming, USBoyle and Bishop (1987)Wolf, endangered species in SwedenBoman and Bosdedt (1995)Preservation of threatened and endangered speciespopulations in the US, Hageman (1985)Preservation of 300 endangered species in Sweden,Johnansson (1989)Protection of the Nadgee Nature Reserve, Australia,Bennett (1984)Desert Protection in California, USRicher (1995)Protection of New Jersey beaches, USSilberman et al. (1992)Protection of a wilderness coastal area, PortugalNunes (2000)Protection of the Norfolk Broads, UKBatemann et al. (1992)Enhancing wetland habitat in California, USHoehn and Loomis (1993)Forest recreation activities in Flanders, BelgiumMoons (1999)Tourism in EcuadorWTO (1997)Life-support value of a wetland ecosystem in the aSwedish island, Baltic Sea, Turner et al. (1995)Water ecosystem benefits in ten regions in USRibaudo (1989)MethodContingentvaluationContingentvaluationContingentvaluationContingentvaluationContingentvaluationContingentvaluationContingentvaluationContingentvaluationContingentvaluationContingentvaluationTravelcostTourismrevenueProductionfunctionAvertingbehaviour170
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 and 112: Horowitz, Joel. L. and Jordan. J. L
Page 113 and 114: CHAPTER 7:by Dennis M. KING and Lis
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: Table 8.5 Identification of monetar
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
show all

Valuation of Biodiversity Benefits (OECD)

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?