Valuation of Biodiversity Benefits (OECD)

More documents

Recommendations

Info

GARP II (1999). Final report of the Green Accounting Research Project II to the EuropeanCommission – DG XII, RTD Programme “Environment and Climate”, ContractENV4-CT96-0285, November 1999.Johnson, F.R., E.E. Fries and H.S. Banzhaf (1996). Valuing Morbidity: An Integration of theWillingness-to-Pay and Health Status Index Literatures. December 1996. Triangle EconomicResearch and Duke University.Loomis, J.B. (1992). “The evolution of a more rigorous approach to benefit transfer: Benefit functiontransfer”. Water Resources Research, 28 (3), 701-706.Loomis, J.B. and D.S. White (1996). “Economic benefits of rare and endangered species: summaryand meta-analysis”. Ecological Economics 18; 197-206.Magnussen, K. (1993). “Mini meta analysis of Norwegian water quality improvements valuationstudies. Norwegian Institute for Water Research, Oslo. Unpublished paper, 29 p.Navrud, S. (1993). “Economic value of biological diversity in Norway”. Scandinavian ForestEconomics, no. 34 (1993); 74-97.Navrud, S. and K. Veisten (1997). “Using contingent valuation and actual donations to bound the truewillingness-to-pay”. Presented at the seventh annual conference of the European Association ofEnvironmental and Resource Economists, Lisbon, June 27-29 1996. Revised version May 1997.Navrud, S. and G.J. Pruckner (1997). “Environmental Valuation - To Use or Not to Use?” AComparative Study of the United States and Europe. Environmental and Resource Economics,10; 1-26.Navrud, S. (1992). Pricing the European Environment. Scandinavian University Press / OxfordUniversity Press, Oslo, Oxford, New York.Navrud, S. (1999). Pilot Project to assess Environmental Valuation Reference Inventory (EVRI) and toExpands Its Coverage to the EU. Report to the European Commission, DG XI – Environment.Report July 1, 1999.NOU (1997). “27: Cost.-Benefit Analysis- Principles for evaluation of public projects and policies”(In Norwegian). Norwegian Ministry of Finance, Oslo.NOU (1998). “16 Cost-Benefit Analysis – Guidelines for economic evaluation of public projects andpolicies” (in Norwegian). Norwegian Ministry of Finance, Oslo.OECD (1989). Environmental Policy Benefits: Monetary Valuation. Organisation for EconomicCo-operation and Development (OECD), Paris, ISBN 92-64-13182-5.OECD (1994). Project and Policy Appraisal: Integrating Economics and Environment. Organisationfor Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), Paris, ISBN 92-64-14107-3.75
OECD (1995). The Economic Appraisal of Environmental Projects and Policies. A Practical Guide.Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD), Paris, ISBN92-64-14583-4.Pollack, R. and T. Wales (1987). “Pooling International Consumption Data”, Review of Economicsand Statistics, 69, 90-99.Ready, R., S. Navrud, B.Day, R. Doubourg, F. Machado, S. Mourato, F. Spanninks and M. X. V.Rodriquez ( ). “Benefit Transfer in Europe: Are Values Consistent Across Countries?” Paperpresented at the EVE Workshop on Benefit Transfer, Lillehammer, Norway, October 14-16,1999. EU Concerted Action “Environmental Valuation in Europe” (EVE).Rowe, R.D., C.M. Lang, L.G. Chestnut, D.A. Latimer, D.A. Rae, S.M. Bernow and D.E. White(1995). The New York Electricity Externality Study. Volumes I and II. Hagler BailleyConsulting, Inc., Oceana Publications Inc.Selvanathan, S. and E. Selvanathan (1993). “A Cross Country Analysis of Consumption Patterns”,Applied Economics 25, 1245-1259.Schipper, Y., P. Nijkamp and P. Rietveld (1998). “Why do aircraft noise value estimates differ?” Ameta-analysis. Journal of Air Transport Management 4; 117-124.Smith, V.K. (1992). “On separating defensible benefit transfers from smoke and mirrors.” WaterResources Research 28, (3) 685-694.Smith, V.K. and J.C. Huang (1993). “Hedonic models and air pollution. Twenty-five years andcounting”. Environmental and Resource Economics 3, 381-394.Smith, V.K. and Y. Karou (1990). “Signals or noise? Explaining the variation in recreation benefitestimates”. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 72 (2). 419-433.Smith, V.K. and L. Osborne (1996). “Do Contingent Valuation Estimates Pass a “scope” Test? A MetaAnalysis”. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 31 (3), 287-301.Stigler, G. and G. Becker (1977). De Gustibus Non Est Disputandum, American Economic Review, 67(2), 76-90.Sturtevant, L.A., Johnson, F.R. and W.H. Desvousges (1995). “A meta-analysis of recreationalfishing”. Triangle Economic Research, Durham, North Carolina, USA.Tamborra, M. (1999). “Towards a Green Accounting System for the European Union: theContribution of GARP II”. FEEM newsletter no. 2 1999 (November 1999); 16-18. FondazioneEni Enrico Mattei (FEEM), Milano, Italy.UNEP (1995). “Global Biodiversity Assessment”. (Chapter 12: Economic values of Biodiversity).United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), Cambridge University Press. ISBN0-521-56481-6.76
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: ReferencesArrow, K.J., R. Solow, E.
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
show all

Valuation of Biodiversity Benefits (OECD)

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?