DOCSLIB.ORG

Environmental Policy Analysis: a Guide to Non-Market Valuation, Productivity Commission Staff Working Paper, Canberra

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Environmental Policy Analysis: a Guide to Non-Market Valuation, Productivity Commission Staff Working Paper, Canberra Environmental Policy Analysis: A Guide to Non‑Market Productivity Commission Valuation Staff Working Paper January 2014 Rick Baker Brad Ruting The views expressed in this paper are those of the staff involved and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Productivity Commission. Commonwealth of Australia 2014 ISBN 978-1-74037-468-2 This work is copyright. Apart from any use as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968, the work may be reproduced in whole or in part for study or training purposes, subject to the inclusion of an acknowledgment of the source. Reproduction for commercial use or sale requires prior written permission from the Productivity Commission. Requests and inquiries concerning reproduction and rights should be addressed to Media and Publications (see below). This publication is available from the Productivity Commission website at www.pc.gov.au. If you require part or all of this publication in a different format, please contact Media and Publications. Publications Inquiries: Media and Publications Productivity Commission Locked Bag 2 Collins Street East Melbourne VIC 8003 Tel: (03) 9653 2244 Fax: (03) 9653 2303 Email: [email protected] General Inquiries: Tel: (03) 9653 2100 or (02) 6240 3200 An appropriate citation for this paper is: Baker, R. and Ruting, B. 2014, Environmental Policy Analysis: A Guide to Non-Market Valuation, Productivity Commission Staff Working Paper, Canberra. JEL codes: D61, H41, Q26, Q51, Q58. The Productivity Commission The Productivity Commission is the Australian Government’s independent research and advisory body on a range of economic, social and environmental issues affecting the welfare of Australians. Its role, expressed most simply, is to help governments make better policies, in the long term interest of the Australian community. The Commission’s independence is underpinned by an Act of Parliament. Its processes and outputs are open to public scrutiny and are driven by concern for the wellbeing of the community as a whole. Further information on the Productivity Commission can be obtained from the Commission’s website (www.pc.gov.au) or by contacting Media and Publications on (03) 9653 2244 or email: [email protected] Contents Acknowledgments v Key points 2 Overview 3 1 Introduction 11 1.1 Understanding environmental values 11 1.2 Why do non-market values matter for policy? 15 1.3 About this paper 21 2 When can non-market valuation provide good estimates? 23 2.1 Methods for valuing non-market outcomes 24 2.2 Can estimates be valid and reliable? 30 2.3 What makes a good study? 44 3 Use in environmental policy analysis 53 3.1 Comparison with alternatives 54 3.2 Non-market valuation: when and how? 65 3.3 Building confidence in non-market valuation 70 A Workshop participants 77 B Australian studies 79 B.1 River red gum forests 79 B.2 The Murray–Darling Basin 84 B.3 Television and computer recycling 89 B.4 Bulli Seam coal mining 93 B.5 Underground power supply 99 C Validity and reliability of stated preference methods 105 C.1 Criterion validity 105 C.2 Convergent validity 109 C.3 Construct validity 113 CONTENTS iii C.4 Reliability 124 C.5 Benefit transfer 124 References 129 iv CONTENTS Acknowledgments The idea for this paper was initially suggested to the Productivity Commission by David Pearce (Centre for International Economics) and Jeff Bennett (ANU). A workshop attended by non-market value practitioners, economists with an interest in environmental policy and policymakers was held in the early stages of the project (participants are listed in appendix A). The authors would like to thank those who participated for their insightful and helpful contributions. We would also like to thank the following people for their help and advice on the drafting of this paper: Drew Collins (BDA Group), Jeff Bennett, Richard Carson (University of California San Diego and University of Technology Sydney), Jenny Gordon, Ana Markulev, Paul Loke, Anthea Long, Rosalyn Bell, Lisa Gropp, Larry Cook, Noel Gaston and Alan Johnston. The views in this paper remain those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Productivity Commission or of the external organisations and people who provided assistance. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS v OVERVIEW Key points • Government policies aimed at generating environmental benefits almost always impose costs on the community. Weighing up these trade-offs is challenging, in part because environmental benefits are difficult to value, particularly those that are not reflected in market prices (so called ‘non-market’ values). • There are several non-market valuation methods that can be used to evaluate such trade-offs, but they are not widely used for environmental policy analysis in Australia. • There are two main types of non-market valuation methods: revealed preference and stated preference. – The validity of revealed preference methods is widely accepted, but there are many circumstances where they cannot provide the estimates needed for environmental policy analysis. – Stated preference methods can be used to estimate virtually all types of environmental values, but their validity is more contentious. • The evidence suggests that stated preference methods are able to provide valid estimates for use in environmental policy analysis. However: – there are many elements that practitioners need to get right to produce meaningful results – value estimates are likely to be less reliable when respondents are asked about environmental assets that are especially complex or relatively unfamiliar to them. • Benefit transfer involves applying available value estimates to new contexts. Its accuracy is likely to be low unless the primary studies are of high quality and relate to similar environmental and policy contexts. These seemingly obvious cautions are often not observed. • Because non-market valuation methods can generally provide objective estimate of the value that the community places on environmental outcomes, they offer advantages over other approaches to factoring these outcomes into policy analysis. • The case for using non-market valuation varies according to circumstances. It is likely to be strongest where the financial or environmental stakes are high and there is potential for environmental outcomes to influence policy decisions. • Where non-market valuation estimates are made they should generally be included in a cost–benefit analysis. Sensitivity analysis should be provided, as well as descriptive information about the environmental outcomes of the proposed policy. • There is a range of steps that could be taken to realise more fully the potential of non-market valuation, including developing greater knowledge about it within relevant government agencies. 2 A GUIDE TO NON-MARKET VALUATION Overview Governments are often faced with decisions about whether to impose costs on the community to improve the condition of the environment (or prevent its deterioration). How such policy trade-offs should be made is a matter of considerable debate. Some stakeholders favour prioritising environmental outcomes above other considerations, while others argue that jobs and economic development should come first. The former approach effectively assigns an infinite value to environmental outcomes, while the latter assigns a value of zero. The Australian, State and Territory Governments generally favour analysing policy decisions using a cost–benefit framework. In many inquiries, the Productivity Commission has supported this approach because it allows decisions to be informed by the trade-offs that the individuals who make up the community would be prepared to make. By applying a cost–benefit framework (ideally through cost– benefit analysis), governments can endeavour to make decisions that make the community better off overall. However, applying a cost–benefit framework to environmental policy is not easy. Some of the costs, such as the budgetary cost of investing in environmental programs, are straightforward to determine. Others, like the costs to business of restricting development or applying environmental regulations, can be somewhat more challenging to assess. But estimating the benefits can be harder still. There are two parts to estimating benefits. First, information is needed on how the condition of the environment will be changed by the policy. Such information can be hard to obtain because of incomplete understanding of ecological processes and behavioural responses to policy. Second, a value needs to be placed on the change in condition. This can be particularly difficult where values are not reflected in market prices (so called ‘non-market’ values). For example, while it is clear that many people value the experience of bushwalking in a national park or knowing that particular ecosystems are being maintained in a healthy condition, there are no market prices that directly reflect these values. Over the last few decades several non-market valuation methods have been developed to estimate such values, but to date they have not been widely used in policy analysis in Australia. These methods appear to have considerable potential for improving environmental policy and so their limited use is a puzzle. Either the OVERVIEW 3 potential is illusory because the methods cannot reliably do what is claimed, or the reluctance to use them is a lost opportunity that should be rethought. This paper examines these issues by: • assessing the validity and reliability of various non-market valuation methods • reviewing the case for using non-market valuation in environmental
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Opportunities and Limitations of Contingent Valuation Surveys to Determine National Park Entrance Fees: Evidence from Costa Rica
    Environment and Development Economics 3 (1998): 131–149 Copyright © 1998 Cambridge University Press Opportunities and limitations of contingent valuation surveys to determine national park entrance fees: evidence from Costa Rica STEVEN SHULTZ North Dakota State University, P.O. Box 5636, Fargo, North Dakota, 58105, USA* JORGE PINAZZO Natural Resources Secretariat, Paraguay MIGUEL CIFUENTES Director WWF-Central America ABSTRACT. A contingent valuation method (CVM) survey to determine foreign and res- ident willingness to pay (WTP) for return visits to two different Costa Rican national parks was administered in 1995. WTP values were estimated for future entrance fees as- sociated with proposed improvements to infrastructure and services in the Poas Volcano and the Manuel Antonio parks. Resulting logistic CVM models were statistically robust and mean WTP for entrance fees differed among the parks and were considerably higher than current fees. Results indicate that even in a developing country setting, the CVM is a useful tool to help determine park entrance fees in spite of the following methodologi- cal limitations which are recommended for further study: the need to include potential park visitors in survey samples; the lack of detailed information framing and contingent scenarios for park related WTP questions; and the threat of cultural-strategic biases when surveying residents of a developing country. 1. Introduction In Costa Rica, and many other developing countries, national parks are important sources of direct and indirect revenues and necessary to protect biodiversity and national heritage (Morales and Cifuentes, 1989; Dixon and Sherman, 1990). The use of entrance frees for national parks and pro- tected areas is justified in order to: • generate revenues to recover costs and to ensure quality goods and services; * This research was conducted when all of the authors worked at the Tropical Agriculture Research and Higher Education Center (CATIE) in Turrialba, Costa Rica.
    [Show full text]
  • Contingent Valuation and Actual Behavior: Predicting Connections to New Water Systems in the State of Kerala, India Author(S): Charles C
    Contingent Valuation and Actual Behavior: Predicting Connections to New Water Systems in the State of Kerala, India Author(s): Charles C. Griffin, John Briscoe, Bhanwar Singh, Radhika Ramasubban, Ramesh Bhatia Source: The World Bank Economic Review, Vol. 9, No. 3 (Sep., 1995), pp. 373-395 Published by: Oxford University Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3989847 Accessed: 31/05/2009 20:59 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=oup. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. Oxford University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The World Bank Economic Review.
    [Show full text]
  • The Contingent Valuation Method: Retrospect and Prospect
    THE CONTINGENT VALUATION METHOD: RETROSPECT AND PROSPECT Clive L. Spash 2008-04 Socio-Economics and the Environment in Discussion CSIRO Working Paper Series April 2008 ISSN: 1834-5638 Further information: Clive Spash - www.clivespash.org Bev Rose - [email protected] CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems GPO Box 284, Canberra ACT 2601 Australia www.csiro.au © CSIRO 2007. All rights reserved. This work is copyright. Apart from any use as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968 (Cwlth), no part may be reproduced by any process without prior written permission from the Commonwealth. The Contingent Valuation Method: Retrospect and Prospect Clive L. Spash1 ABSTRACT This paper explores the contingent valuation method for environmental valuation. Issues are raised over the validity of the approach as a method of assessing the underlying preferences of individuals. An alternative interpretation is given to the method as a means of exploring underlying motivation in a rich vein of social psychological research. 1 CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems, GPO Box 284, Canberra ACT 2601, Australia. C.L. Spash INTRODUCTION The contingent valuation method (CVM) is a controversial approach by which economists have attempted to place a value upon environmental changes. The basic method involves a questionnaire which asks a respondent their willingness to pay (WTP) for an environmental improvement or their willingness to accept (WTA) compensation for a loss or degradation of environmental assets or quality. The resulting stated preference is most commonly used as a mean value of the change and then aggregated across the relevant population and discounted for time. The original justification was the need to include the resulting monetary value as part of a cost-benefit analysis (CBA) to aid project appraisal.
    [Show full text]
  • World Bank Document
    THE WORLD BANK POLICY PLANNING AND RESEARCH STAFF Public Disclosure Authorized Environment Department Economic Analysis of Sustainable· Growth and Sustainable Development Public Disclosure Authorized JohnPezzey Public Disclosure Authorized March 1989 1ment Department Working Paper No. 15 ) n3 .15 Public Disclosure Authorized --,-·., use. The views and interpretations herein are those of I to the World Bank, to its affiliated organizations or to SLC004236 This paper has been prepared by John Pezzey, a consultant to the Environment Department of the World Bank. He is an economist specializing on the roles of environmental resources and discount rates in growth theory, and is a visiting research fellow in the Environment and Behavior Program of the Institute of Behavioral Science at the University of Colorado at Boulder. The author is grateful to Robert Ayres, Edward Barbier, Herman Daly, Salah El Serafy, John English, Jonathan Fisher, Philip Graves, Stein Hansen, David Heigham, Jeffrey Krautkraemer, Nancy Olewiler, David Pearce, Henry Peskin, Barry Poulson, Ray Prince, David Ulph, Jeremy Warford and Tomasz Zylicz for helpful comments and discussions on earlier drafts of this paper. Departmental Working Papers are not formal publications of the World Bank. They present preliminary and unpolished results of country analysis or research that is circulated to encourage discussion and comment; citation and the use of such a paper should take account of its provisional content. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this paper are entirely those of the author, and should not be attributed in any manner to the World Bank, to its affiliated organizations, or to members of its Board of Executive Directors or the countries they represent.
    [Show full text]
  • Defining, Valuing, and Providing Ecosystem Goods and Services*
    THOMAS C. BROWN,- JOHN C. BERGSTROM" & JOHN B. LOOMIS*** Defining, Valuing, and Providing Ecosystem Goods and Services* ABSTRACT Ecosystem services are the specific results of ecosystem processes that either directly sustain or enhance human life (as does natural protectionfrom the sun's harmful ultraviolet rays) or maintain the quality of ecosystem goods (as water purification maintains the quality of streamflow). "Ecosystem service" has come to represent several related topics ranging from the measurement to the marketing of ecosystem service flows. In this article we examine several of these topics by first clarifying the meaning of "ecosystem service" and then (1) placing ecosystem goods and services within an economic framework, emphasizing the role and limitations of substitutes;(2) summarizing the methodsfor valuationof ecosystem goods and services; and (3) reviewing the various approachesfor their provision and financing. Many ecosystem services and some ecosystem goods are received without monetary payment. The "marketing" of ecosystem goods and services is basically an effort to turn such recipients - those who benefit without ownership- into buyers, thereby providing market signals that serve to help protect valuable goods and services. We review various formal arrangementsfor making this happen. I. INTRODUCTION "Ecosystem service" is the latest environmental buzzword.1 It appeals to ecologists, who have long recognized the many benefits derived from well-functioning ecosystems. It appeals to resource economists, who . Economist and Project Leader, Rocky Mountain Research Station, U.S. Forest Service, Fort Collins, Colorado. Address for correspondence: [email protected], T.C. Brown, RMRS, 2150-A Center Avenue, Fort Collins, CO 80526. - Richard B. Russell, Jr., Professor of Public Policy, Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics, University of Georgia.
    [Show full text]
  • The Measurement of Environmental and Resource Values: Theory and Methods
    The Measurement of Environmental and Resource Values The first edition of this important work was the winner of the 2002 Publication of Enduring Quality award by the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists. The continuing premise for the book is that estimates of the economic values of environmental and natural resource services are essential for effective policy-making. Like previous editions, the third edition, which includes two additional co-authors, presents a comprehensive treatment of the theory and methods involved in estimating environmental benefits. Researchers, policy-makers, and practitioners will welcome the work as an up- to-date reference on recent developments. Students will gain a better understanding of the contribution that economics as a discipline can make to decisions concerning pollution control and human health, recreation, environmental amenities, and other critical issues concerning the way we use and interact with environmental and natural resource systems. To reflect recent progress in both the theory and practice of non-market valuation, this third edition includes more details on empirical approaches to measurement, expanded discussion of the reasons for divergence between “willingness to pay” and “willingness to accept compensation,” and increased coverage of econometric issues encountered in estimation. In keeping with its cutting-edge orientation, it also includes more discussion of survey design, equilibrium sorting models, and the implications of behavioral economics for welfare measurements and benefit cost analysis. A. Myrick Freeman III is William D. Shipman Professor of Economics Emeritus at Bowdoin College in Maine, USA, and a former Senior Fellow at Resources for the Future (RFF), Washington DC, USA. Joseph A.
    [Show full text]
  • Bureau of Land Management Socioeconomics Program Guidance Economic Methods for Estimating Nonmarket Environmental Values
    Bureau of Land Management Socioeconomics Program Guidance Economic Methods for Estimating Nonmarket Environmental Values Purpose. This guidance describes when and how to use economic methods to estimate nonmarket environmental values when preparing National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analyses for the Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) resource management planning and other decision-making. These methods estimate the benefits individuals attribute to experiences of the environment, uses of natural resources, or the existence of particular ecological conditions that do not involve market transactions and therefore lack prices. At least a qualitative description of the most relevant nonmarket values should be included for the affected environment and the impacts of alternatives in NEPA analyses involving environmental impact statements (EIS), for both resource management plans (RMP) and project- level decisions. Such description may also be appropriate for inclusion in environmental assessments (EA). The use of quantitative valuation methods should contribute to the analysis of one or more issues to be addressed in the environmental analysis supporting planning or other decision-making. A quantitative analysis of nonmarket values in EIS-level NEPA analyses is strongly encouraged where one or more of the criteria provided below apply (see Criteria for Nonmarket Valuation). This guidance is directed to several audiences. For non-specialists, it explains the basic concepts of nonmarket valuation and provides direction on when and how such methods can best be used (see General Guidance). For economists and other socioeconomic specialists, it provides additional notes on the use of these methods (see Technical Guidance). The socioeconomics program is currently funding a series of field-based case studies on nonmarket economic valuation for resource management decisions.
    [Show full text]
  • Defining Environmental Goods and Services: a Case Study of Mexico
    couv 8-06-05 rouge 2ok 28/11/05 14:16 Page 4 October 2005 Trade and Environment ICTSD Project on Environmental Goods and Services Defining Environmental Goods and Services: A Case Study of Mexico The ICTSD project on Bridging Trade and Sustainable Development in Environmental Goods and Services aims at enhancing developing countries’ capacity to understand trade and sustainable development issue By Enrique Lendo linkages with respect to environmental goods and services and reflect regional perspectives and priori- Consultants in Environmental Strategy and Negotiations (COESNA) ties in regional and multilateral trade negotiations. The current phase of the project got underway in January 2005 and will continue until June 2006. Other project activities and resources include: ● Options for Liberalisation of Trade in Environmental Goods in the Doha Round. By Robert Howse and Petrus B. van Bork, November 2005. ● The Economics Of Trade In Environmental Services: The Implications For Developing Countries In The GATS. By Colin Kirkpatrick, forthcoming. ● Technology transfer Issues in environmental goods: Will the Doha Round of negotiations facilitate access? By Lynn Matelka, forthcoming. ● Latin American Consultation on Environmental Goods and Services, Diálogo regional sudamericano sobre bienes y servicios ambientales, Cartagena de Indias, Colombia, 1-2 June 2005. For further information, visit http://www.trade-environment.org/page/ictsd/projects/egs_desc.htm. One of the mandates of the CEC is to conduct an ongoing assessment of the environmental impacts of A study commissioned by the Commission for Environmental Cooperation trade liberalisation in North America. This assessment work shows that liberalised trading rules under NAFTA do not in and of themselves lead to the increased use of environmentally preferable products.
    [Show full text]
  • Forest Policy and Economics in Support of Good Governance
    Forest T. Tuomasjukka (ed.) Forest Policy and Economics Policy in Support of Good Governance and Economics Forest-related policy issues have become ever more complex, multifaceted and are both an outcome of several underlying causes and driving forces and subject to influences of several policy sectors. These proceedings in comply the presentations of the international workshop Support Forest Policy and Economics in Support of Good Governance, organized in April 2009 in Dubrovnik, Croatia. The presentations and discussions of the of Good workshop on capacity building and governance made it very clear that there is a need for studies related to good Governance governance throughout Europe. Governance is a cross- cutting issue which is applicable to a multitude of sectors and businesses, and those professionals with an in-depth knowledge on good governance are likely to be increasingly attractive employees in the future. ISSN 1237-8801 ISBN 978-952-5453-35-5 EFI Proceedings No. 58, 2010 Forest Policy and Economics in Support of Good Governance Tuomasjukka, Tomi (ed.) EFI Proceedings No. 58, 2010 European Forest Institute Croatian Forest Research Institute EFI Proceedings No. 58, 2010 Forest Policy and Economics in Support of Good Governance Tuomasjukka, Tomi (ed.) Publisher: European Forest Institute Series Editors: Gert-Jan Nabuurs, Editor-in-Chief Minna Korhonen, Managing Editor Editorial Office: European Forest Institute Phone: +358 10 773 4300 Torikatu 34 Fax. +358 10 773 4377 FIN-80100 Joensuu, Finland Email: [email protected] http://www.efi.int/ Cover photo: Tomi Tuomasjukka Layout: Kopijyvä Oy Printing: WS Bookwell Oy Disclaimer: The papers in this book comprise the proceedings of the event mentioned on the back cover.
    [Show full text]
  • Economic Valuation and the Commodification of Ecosystem
    Article Progress in Physical Geography 1–16 ª The Author(s) 2011 Economic valuation and the Reprints and permission: sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav commodification of ecosystem DOI: 10.1177/0309133311421708 services ppg.sagepub.com Erik Go´mez-Baggethun Universitat Auto`noma de Barcelona, Spain; Universidad Auto´noma de Madrid, Spain Manuel Ruiz Pe´rez Universidad Auto´noma de Madrid, Spain Abstract In the last decade a growing number of environmental scientists have advocated economic valuation of ecosystem services as a pragmatic short-term strategy to communicate the value of biodiversity in a language that reflects dominant political and economic views. This paper revisits the controversy on economic valua- tion of ecosystem services in the light of two aspects that are often neglected in ongoing debates. First, the particular institutional setup in which environmental policy and governance is currently embedded. Second, the broader economic and sociopolitical processes that have governed the expansion of pricing into previ- ously non-marketed areas of the environment. Our analysis suggests that within the institutional setup and broader sociopolitical processes that have become prominent since the late 1980s economic valuation is likely to pave the way for the commodification of ecosystem services with potentially counterproductive effects for biodiversity conservation and equity of access to ecosystem services benefits. Keywords commodification, ecosystem services, market instruments, valuation I Introduction environmental scientists (e.g. Child, 2009; Costanza, 2006; Fisher et al., 2009; McCauley, The ecosystem services concept was originally 2006; Redford and Adams, 2009; Skroch and conceived as a metaphor to reflect societal Lo´pez-Hoffman, 2010). Contending views in dependence on ecosystems (Norgaard, 2010).
    [Show full text]
  • Evaluation of Environmental Functions As a Tool in Planning, Management and Decision-Making
    Evaluation of environmental functions as a tool in planning, management and decision-making 'fifcJ-xA- '•'J>".ro-f McJi-C,el' Rudolf S. de Groot Rudolf Steven de Groot EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL FUNCTIONS AS A TOOL IN PLANNING, MANAGEMENT AND DECISION-MAKING Proefschrift ter verkrijging van degraa d vandocto r in delandbouw - en milieuwetenschappen op gezag vand erecto r magnificus, dr. C.M.Karssen , in hetopenbaa r te verdedigen op vrijdag 30 september 1994 des namiddags te vier uuri nd e Aula van de Landbouwuniversiteit te Wageningen. Stellingen Stellingen behorende bij het proefschrift van Rudolf S. de Groot: "Evaluation of Environmental Functions as a Tool in Planning, Management and Decision making" Wageningen, .30 september 1994 1. Bij de afweging van de vele belangen die een rol spelen bij de besluitvorming rond economische ontwikkeling en ruimtelijke ordening wordt het (economisch) belang van natuurlijke ecosystemen nog steeds onderschat. 2. Verandering in een bepaalde milieu-eigenschap (bijv. luchtkwaliteit) heeft vaak ingrijpende, en deels nog onbegrepen, consequenties voor het functioneren van hele ecosystemen. Voor het inzichtelijk maken van de vele terugkoppelingsmechanismen in de natuur is functie-analyse een nuttig hulpmiddel en onderstreept het belang van systeem-ecologisch onderzoek. 3. De jaarlijkse baten (monetair en anderszins) van de functies van een ecosysteem of natuurgebied zouden gezien moeten worden als de "rente" op dit "natuurlijk kapitaal"; kennis over de ecologische én economisch waarde van het natuurlijk kapitaal kan derhalve een nieuwe invulling geven aan het begrip "goed rentmeesterschap". 4. 'Natuurbehoud is zelfbehoud' is geen originele, maar wel een juiste stelling. 5. De "externe" kosten van bijv.
    [Show full text]
  • Estimating the Value of Statistical Life in China: a Contingent Valuation Study in Six Representative Cities
    Estimating the Value of Statistical Life in China: A Contingent Valuation Study in Six Representative Cities Chaoji Cao Tsinghua University Xinke Song Tsinghua University Wenjia Cai ( [email protected] ) Tsinghua University Yichao Li Tsinghua University Jianhui Cong Shanxi University Xueying Yu Beihang University Xiaoyue Niu Pennsylvania State University Mengzhao Gao Tsinghua University Can Wang Tsinghua University Research Article Keywords: health impacts, value of statistical life, contingent valuation method, willingness to pay Posted Date: February 5th, 2021 DOI: https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-199197/v1 License: This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. Read Full License Estimating the Value of Statistical Life in China: A Contingent Valuation Study in Six Representative Cities Chaoji Cao1,2,3#, Xinke Song4#, Wenjia Cai1,2,3*, Yichao Li5,6, Jianhui Cong7, Xueying Yu8,9,10, Xiaoyue Niu11, Mengzhao Gao5,6, Can Wang4 1 Ministry of Education Key Laboratory for Earth System Modeling, Department of Earth System Science, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, China 2 Center for Healthy Cities, Institute for China Sustainable Urbanization, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, China 3 Tsinghua Urban Institute, Tsinghua University, Beijing, 100084, China 4 State Key Joint Laboratory of Environment Simulation and Pollution Control, School of Environment, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, China 5 Center for Statistical Science, Tsinghua University, Beijing, 100084, China 6 Department of Industrial
    [Show full text]