POLLINATORS POLLINATION AND FOOD PRODUCTION

Recommendations

Info

THE ASSESSMENT REPORT ON POLLINATORS, POLLINATION AND FOOD PRODUCTION 224 4. ECONOMIC VALUATION OF POLLINATOR GAINS AND LOSSES for use in valuing pollination services (de Groot et al., 2002). Stated preference techniques however are potentially useful for valuing the existence of pollinators themselves and the non-market benefits that they have marginal influence on. Unlike previous methods however, this does not capture the effect of pollinators on production. What it Measures: The marginal existence value(s) of pollinator populations and/or non-market benefits of pollination services (e.g., the diversity of pollinatordependent wildflowers). Methodology: Stated preference methods are particular survey or experimental based methods that typically use questionnaires to create a hypothetical market for bundles of ecosystem goods or services, which are not traded on existing markets. Respondent preferences for different bundles within these hypothetical markets can then be estimated using discrete choice models (Bateman et al., 2011). Prices are attached to each variable to enable researchers to estimate the economic value of each bundle to different respondents. These prices framed to capture either respondent willingness to pay (WTP) to either gain an increase or avoid a loss in the goods or services or respondent willingness to accept (WTA) payments to allow that a degradation or forego a gain in the good or services. There are several forms of stated preference methods with the two most widely used being: contingent valuation and choice experiments. Contingent valuation methods offer respondents a complete bundle of goods with an attached price and a zero cost alternative representing a degraded or current state. Choice Experiments follow similar principles, except respondents are given multiple alternatives to the zero cost option. Each alternative has different amounts of the various goods within the bundle. Through repeated observations of such choices, typically across many respondents and using different attached prices, discreet choice modelling methods can estimate the probability of respondents within the sample selecting a given bundle, depending on its price, and a typical respondent WTP or WTA value. benefits arising from pollination services, regardless of the existence of markets for these services. Stated preference surveys can also estimate the WTP/WTA of different groups of respondents based on their demographics (e.g., age, income, proximity to the site of proposed change etc.), allowing a more accurate extrapolation of the values estimated beyond the survey area. Weaknesses: Like many questionnaire-based methods, stated preference surveys are often particularly costly to undertake due to the substantial pretesting required to present the scenario in an easily understood manner and the large, representative samples required for statistically robust analysis. Responses to stated preference questionnaires can also be affected by number of factors, which may cause respondents to, deliberately or unintentionally, misreport their preferences, biasing estimations of their WTP/WTA. For instance, respondents may ignore the cost of options because the payment is a hypothetical situation, expressing a greater WTP than they actually hold (e.g., Henscher et al., 2010). Respondents may also have difficulty forming preferences for unfamiliar goods such as ecosystem services, resulting in them expressing inconsistent, often extreme preferences (Christie and Gibbons, 2011). Statistical analyses (e.g., Henscher et al., 2010; Christie and Gibbons, 2011) can reduce the impacts of these and numerous other biases but extremely careful question and scenario formulation is required to identify the occurrence of these biases. Data required: Estimates of respondent willingness to pay for preventing a loss/maintaining existing levels of pollinators/pollination services or estimates of willingness to accept a loss in pollinators/pollination service benefits, ecological estimates of the impact of pollination services on these benefits. Empirical information on the impacts of proposed scenario on pollinator populations or other nonmarket benefits affected by pollinators is necessary to allow respondents to make informed choices. Examples: Mwebaze et al. (2010), Diffendorfer et al. (2014), Breeze et al. (2015). Stated preference techniques can be applied to estimate the existence value of pollinators by eliciting respondent WTP for the maintenance of pollinator populations (e.g., Mwebaze et al., 2010) or marginal changes in wider pollinator abundance or species diversity. Estimates of the impacts of marginal changes in of pollination services to various nonmarket benefits (e.g., the diversity of aesthetic wildflowers) require a further analytical step, such as dependence ratios (Breeze et al., 2015) or production functions, to estimate the contribution of pollination to these benefits. Suitable to use: This method is suitable for assessing the marginal values of either changing pollinator populations or other, non-market ecosystem service benefits. However due to the numerous biases and uncertainties that can occur in respondent preference expression, they should only be undertaken following rigorous testing to ensure that the questionnaire can be answered accurately by respondents and require a large, representative sample of the population affected by proposed changes. Strengths: Stated preference methods can be used to assess the economic value of potentially any non-market
THE ASSESSMENT REPORT ON POLLINATORS, POLLINATION AND FOOD PRODUCTION 2.6 Measuring Pollinator Natural Capital 2.6.1 Overview Although monetary valuation methods can provide a useful tool in facilitating decision-making (see Section 6), they are primarily focused on capturing the impacts of change on ecosystem service flows. Another key factor of economic systems are the capital assets that underpin economic activity which are generally considered separately from the flows they generate. There are five widely recognised forms of capital: human capital (the skills and labour within the market), social capital (institutions such as businesses or schools), manufactured capital (physical items such as tools, buildings etc.), financial capital (credit, equity, etc.) and natural capital (natural resources and ecosystem TABLE 4.2 Summary of Methods to assess the economic consequences of pollinator gains and losses Crop price Managed pollinator prices Yield analysis Dependence ratios Production functions Replacement costs Partial equilibrium models Generalized equilibrium models Stated preferences Method Strengths Weaknesses Sum market price of insect pollinated crops Sum market price of managed pollinators hired or purchased for pollination services Market price of output of pollinated crops vs. crop without access to pollination services based on field studies Total market price of crop output multiplied by a cropspecific dependence ratio (metric of the proportion of yield lost without pollination) Models of the effects of pollinators and pollination services on total crop output The cost of replacing pollination services technologically or with managed pollinators Estimates the welfare value of price change on available income to producers and consumers of a single crop market Estimates the welfare value of price changes on producers and consumer both within the crop market and across other, linked markets Economic survey instruments designed to estimate respondent’s welfare from the maintenance or improvement of non-market benefits such as the existence of pollinators. - Minimal data requirements - Does not reflect the benefits of pollination services. - Reflects the benefits of pollination in a manner comparable to other inputs - Differences in prices can reflect varying benefits - Directly captures benefits of pollination services - Captures more precise variations in benefit between cultivars - Can capture marginal benefits - Captures the varied benefits of pollination across crops - Equally applicable at all scales - Minimal data requirements - Highly accurate estimates of benefits - Can be used to model the effects of pressures on services - Captures the benefits of pollination relative to other inputs and ecosystem services - Can be accurately extrapolated to other locations and scales - Not linked to crop prices - Applies at all scales - Does not over-attribute benefits to pollination services - Can assess consumer and producer benefits - Captures marginal benefits - Can be used to assess impacts of service loss beyond the focal region - Values benefits to producers and consumers - Captures effects across and within markets - Can be applied at any scale - Values non-market benefits - Not tied to market prices or factors - Can be used to analyze public opinion - Ignores wild pollination services - Many countries have small or no pollination markets - Prices are influenced by market forces more than benefits - Only appropriate for very local scales - Requires extensive planning to capture all benefits and any pollination deficit. - Does not account for the relative effects of other inputs or ecosystem services - Only estimates producer benefits - Only estimates producer benefits - Dependence ratios may over generalize between cultivars - Does not account for the relative effects of other inputs or ecosystem services - Assumes services are currently at maximum levels - Requires extensive ecological data - Models can be complex - Only estimates producer benefits - Replacements may not be effective - Assumes producer willingness and ability to pay - Not linked to benefits - Tied to input and labor prices - Very complex to estimate, especially across regions - Does not account for substitution between crops or crop inputs - Subject to the quality of data on pollination benefits - Does not account for the relative effects of other inputs - Assumes services are currently at maximum levels - Extremely complex - Many substitution effects are not yet defined - Subject to the quality of data on pollination benefits - Assumes services are currently at maximum levels - Difficult to develop in a manner easily understood by respondents, especially if they are unfamiliar with the ecosystem service being valued. - Need to ensure a representative sample and accurate responses - Requires complex modeling to analyze - Expensive to test and implement - Monetary valuation is not always applicable 225 4. ECONOMIC VALUATION OF POLLINATOR GAINS AND LOSSES
Page 1 and 2:
The assessment report on POLLINATOR
Page 3:
The assessment report on POLLINATOR
Page 6 and 7:
FOREWORD The objective of the Inter
Page 8 and 9:
THE ASSESSMENT REPORT ON POLLINATOR
Page 10 and 11:
Page 12 and 13:
Page 14 and 15:
Page 16 and 17:
Page 18 and 19:
Page 20 and 21:
Page 22 and 23:
Page 24 and 25:
Page 26 and 27:
Page 28 and 29:
Page 30 and 31:
Page 32 and 33:
Page 34 and 35:
Page 36 and 37:
Page 38 and 39:
Page 40 and 41:
Page 42 and 43:
Page 44 and 45:
Page 46 and 47:
Page 48 and 49:
Page 50 and 51:
Page 52 and 53:
L THE ASSESSMENT REPORT ON POLLINAT
Page 54 and 55:
Page 56 and 57:
Page 58 and 59:
Page 60 and 61:
Page 62 and 63:
Page 64 and 65:
Page 66 and 67:
Page 68 and 69:
Page 70 and 71:
Page 72 and 73:
Page 74 and 75:
Page 76 and 77:
Page 78 and 79:
Page 80 and 81:
Page 82 and 83:
Page 84 and 85:
Page 86 and 87:
Page 88 and 89:
Page 90 and 91:
Page 92 and 93:
Page 94 and 95:
Page 96 and 97:
Page 98 and 99:
Page 100 and 101:
Page 102 and 103:
Page 104 and 105:
Page 106 and 107:
Page 108 and 109:
Page 110 and 111:
Page 112 and 113:
Page 114 and 115:
Page 116 and 117:
Page 118 and 119:
Page 120 and 121:
Page 122 and 123:
Page 124 and 125:
Page 126 and 127:
Page 128 and 129:
Page 130 and 131:
Page 132 and 133:
Page 134 and 135:
Page 136 and 137:
Page 138 and 139:
Page 140 and 141:
Page 142 and 143:
Page 144 and 145:
Page 146 and 147:
Page 148 and 149:
Page 150 and 151:
Page 152 and 153:
Page 154 and 155:
Page 156 and 157:
Page 158 and 159:
Page 160 and 161:
Page 162 and 163:
Page 164 and 165:
Page 166 and 167:
Page 168 and 169:
Page 170 and 171:
Page 172 and 173:
Page 174 and 175:
Page 176 and 177:
Page 178 and 179:
Page 180 and 181:
Page 182 and 183:
Page 184 and 185:
Page 186 and 187:
Page 188 and 189:
Page 190 and 191:
Page 192 and 193:
Page 194 and 195:
Page 196 and 197:
Page 198 and 199:
Page 200 and 201:
Page 202 and 203:
150 THE ASSESSMENT REPORT ON POLLIN
Page 204 and 205:
Page 206 and 207:
Page 208 and 209:
Page 210 and 211:
Page 212 and 213:
Page 214 and 215:
Page 216 and 217:
Page 218 and 219:
Page 220 and 221:
Page 222 and 223:
Page 224 and 225:
Page 226 and 227: THE ASSESSMENT REPORT ON POLLINATOR
Page 256 and 257: 204 THE ASSESSMENT REPORT ON POLLIN
Page 326 and 327:
Page 328 and 329:
Page 330 and 331:
Page 332 and 333:
Page 334 and 335:
Page 336 and 337:
Page 338 and 339:
Page 340 and 341:
Page 342 and 343:
Page 344 and 345:
Page 346 and 347:
Page 348 and 349:
Page 350 and 351:
Page 352 and 353:
Page 354 and 355:
Page 356 and 357:
Page 358 and 359:
Page 360 and 361:
Page 362 and 363:
Page 364 and 365:
Page 366 and 367:
Page 368 and 369:
Page 370 and 371:
Page 372 and 373:
Page 374 and 375:
Page 376 and 377:
Page 378 and 379:
Page 380 and 381:
Page 382 and 383:
Page 384 and 385:
Page 386 and 387:
Page 388 and 389:
Page 390 and 391:
Page 392 and 393:
Page 394 and 395:
THE METHODOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT OF SC
Page 396 and 397:
THE METHODOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT OF SC
Page 398 and 399:
Page 400 and 401:
Page 402 and 403:
Page 404 and 405:
Page 406 and 407:
Page 408 and 409:
Page 410 and 411:
Page 412 and 413:
Page 414 and 415:
Page 416 and 417:
Page 418 and 419:
Page 420 and 421:
Page 422 and 423:
Page 424 and 425:
Page 426 and 427:
Page 428 and 429:
Page 430 and 431:
Page 432 and 433:
Page 434 and 435:
Page 436 and 437:
Page 438 and 439:
Page 440 and 441:
Page 442 and 443:
Page 444 and 445:
Page 446 and 447:
Page 448 and 449:
Page 450 and 451:
Page 452 and 453:
Page 454 and 455:
Page 456 and 457:
Page 458 and 459:
Page 460 and 461:
Page 462 and 463:
Page 464 and 465:
Page 466 and 467:
Page 468 and 469:
Page 470 and 471:
Page 472 and 473:
Page 474 and 475:
Page 476 and 477:
Page 478 and 479:
Page 480 and 481:
Page 482 and 483:
Page 484 and 485:
Page 486 and 487:
Page 488 and 489:
Page 490 and 491:
Page 492 and 493:
Page 494 and 495:
Page 496 and 497:
Page 498 and 499:
Page 500 and 501:
Page 502 and 503:
Page 504 and 505:
Page 506 and 507:
Page 508 and 509:
Page 510 and 511:
Page 512 and 513:
Page 514 and 515:
Page 516 and 517:
Page 518 and 519:
Page 520 and 521:
Page 522 and 523:
Page 524 and 525:
Page 526 and 527:
Page 528 and 529:
Page 530 and 531:
478 ANNEXES
Page 532 and 533:
Page 534 and 535:
Page 536 and 537:
Page 538 and 539:
Page 540 and 541:
Page 542 and 543:
Page 544 and 545:
Page 546 and 547:
Page 548 and 549:
Page 550 and 551:
Page 552 and 553:
Page 554:
show all

POLLINATORS POLLINATION AND FOOD PRODUCTION

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?