captured in this database is steadily increasing (see also Navrud 1999 for a favourable evaluation <strong>of</strong>the suitability <strong>of</strong> EVRI for capturing European valuation studies). Thus, there is a need to increase thenumber <strong>of</strong> existing valuation studies captured in this database, but there is also a need for new,original valuation studies, which have been designed with benefit transfer in mind.73
ReferencesArrow, K.J., R. Solow, E. Leamer, P. Portney, R. Radner and H. Schuman (1993). “Report <strong>of</strong> theNOAA Panel on Contingent <strong>Valuation</strong>”. Federal Register, 58, 4601-4614 (January 15, 1993).Asian Development Bank (1996): Economic Evaluation <strong>of</strong> Environmental Impacts. A Workbook.Parts I and II. Environment Division, Manilla, Philippines. March 1996.Bergland, O., K. Magnussen and S. Navrud (1995). “Benefit transfer: Testing for Accuracy andReliability”. Discussion Paper D-03/95, Department <strong>of</strong> Economics, Agricultural University <strong>of</strong>Norway. Paper presented at the sixth annual conference <strong>of</strong> The European Association <strong>of</strong>Environmental and Resource Economists (EAERE), Umeaa, Sweden, June 17-20, 1995. InFlorax, R.J.G.M., P. Nijkamp and K. Willis (eds.) 1999: Comparative Environmental EconomicAssessment: Meta Analysis and Benefit Transfer. Kluwer Academic Publishers.Boyle, K.J., G.L. Poe and J.C. Bergstrom (1994). “What do we know about groundwater values?preliminary Implications from a meta analysis <strong>of</strong> contingent valuation studies”. AmericanJournal <strong>of</strong> Agricultural Economics 76 (December 1994); 1055-1061.Brouwer, R. and F.A. Spaninks (1999). “The validity <strong>of</strong> environmental benefit transfer: furtherempirical testing”. Environmental and Resource Economics, 14 (1); 95-117.Brouwer, R., I.H. Langford, I.J. Bateman, T.C. Crowards and R.K. Turner (1997). “A Meta-analysis<strong>of</strong> Wetland Contingent <strong>Valuation</strong> Studies”. CSERGE Working Paper GEC 97-20. Centre forSocial and Economic Research on the Global Environment (CSERGE), University <strong>of</strong> EastAnglia and Unviersity College London; 76 pp.Carson, R.C., N.E. Flores, K.M. Martin and J.L. Wright (1996). “Contingent <strong>Valuation</strong> and RevealedPreference Methodologies: Comparing the Estimates for Quasi-Public Goods”. LandEconomics, 72, 80-99.Desvousges, W.H, F. R. Johnson and H.S. Banzhaf (1998). Environmental Policy Analysis withLimited Information.Principles and Applications <strong>of</strong> the Transfer Method. New Horizons inEnvironmental Economics. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, USA.Downing, M. and T. Ozuno (1996). “Testing the reliability <strong>of</strong> the benefit function transfer approach”.Journal <strong>of</strong> Environmental and Resource Economics and Management, 30, 3; 316-322.European Community (1993). “Towards sustainability: A European Community programme <strong>of</strong> policyand action in relation to the environment and sustainable development”. Office for OfficialPublications <strong>of</strong> the European Communities, Brussels.European Commission – DG XII (1995). ExternE. Externalities <strong>of</strong> Energy. Vol. 2. Methodology.European Commission Directorate General-XII Science Research and Development, ReportEUR 16521 EN, Brussels.European Commission - DG XII (1999). ExternE - Externalities <strong>of</strong> Energy. Vol. 7: Methodology 1998Update. European Commission (EC) - Directorate General (DG) XII. Report EUR 19083,Brussels.74
- 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: error in valuing respiratory sympto
- 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 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