The Economic Value of Ecosystem Services from and for Wilderness BY TRlSTA PATTERSON Introduction sibility that the value of the commons is In the Sierra Club classic On the Loose (19671, Terry and Renny Russell reject attempts greater than the sum total of all the to place econon~icvalues on wilderness, emphasizing that the true rewards of the things we own as individuals. In addi- wilderness experience are spiritual: the freedom of self-reliance and the uplifting t~on-to neoclassical economic tools, beauty of wild nature. At the same time, citing Winston Cllurchill, they issue a key social science deliberative and consen- challenge: to learn the game one has to play for more than one can afford to lose. sus methods, multicriteria and conjoint Some wilderness scholars are taking up this challenge by reexamining and reem- analysis, and ecological pricing (e.g., ploying economic tools they had long since dismissed. emergy and exergy) can elucidate and Economic valuations of v\lilderness have concentrated on direct benefits [e.g., convey values from multiple perspec- commodity goods, recreation! and nonuse benefits (e.g., existence, bequest! [Haynes tives [Patterson 20051. These are and Horne 1997; Schuster et al. 2006; Cordell et al. 1998; Loomis 2000; Loomis and necessary to relating willingness-to-pay Walsh 1992; Loomis and Richardson 2001; Richardson 2002; Walsh et al. 1984; Walsh to the market, the market to the econ- and Loomis 1989). Increasing public importance has been noted for indirect values omy, and the economy to wilderness. from x~ilderness,such as ecosystem services (see figure 1) (Morton 1999. 2000; Cordell et al. 2003l. Ecosystem services are the naturally occurring contributions to Distinguishing Growth from life support and quality of life that people normally do not have to pay for (Daily Development 1997; Costanza et a1 1997; de Groot et al. 2002). Actual typologies vary, however (see The term econotnic growth is often used Boyd and Banzhaf 2005; Costanza et al. 1997; de Groot et al. 2002; Alcamo et at. 2003; interchangeably with economic develop- Heal et al. 2005; Brown et al. 2006). They can be experienced directly [provisioning ment [Daly 19771, but with different food, freshwater, and cultural and recreational opportunities!, or indirectly [regulating implications for \vilderness (Czech 2000). floods or climate or supporting the other services through soil formation or nutrients] GI-owth ia quantitative attribute] involves (Millennium Ecosystem Association 2005; Chapin this issue]. increasing economic activity, commonly Creative experiments are bringing values of ecosystem services into the market- a result of increasing population andlor place, including carbon markets, wetland and habitat banking, water temperature per capita energlmaterial consumption. ~redits~certifications,and tax i~centives(Wunder 2005). Market values have helped raise Technolo$- often does not fully mitigate awareness for ecosystem sen-ice contributions to quality of life, and help harness funds the impacts of growth, and sometimes we for their protection. Achieving these outcomes for wilderness involves particular chal- allow the negatix-e impacts to be borne lenges. This article discusses four of these challenges. out in future generations. The increasing land areas and use intensity needed to Broadening the Methods support economic growth can uitimately One challenge is that reducing a multifaceted issue such as wilderness to the market compete tvith, or adversely impact is by nature a subjective and exclusionary process iFuntox\ricz and Ra\-etz 1994: \\rilderness. This occurs not only at geo- Funtowicz et al. 1999!. one that will reflect only a subset of the many values associ- graphic boundaries iLVhite et al. 2000!. ated .\-ith wilderness around the world. When Costa~lzaet a1 119991 estimated the but also with systemic changes in cli- value of the x:.orld's ecosystem services as US533 tl-illion, 1.8 times the ~vorld'sGDP. mate, species dynamics, and soil and some logically ~vonderedhoxv people's willingness to pay could exceed what they had water transport. In contrast, develop- IBockstael at a!. 20001. The overreliance on certain methodologies can obscure the pos- rnerzt ja qualitatil-e attribute] can be 24 1 The Wild Planet Project I !\,iay 2007 acl~ieved by econoinic rearrangement, TOT.~LEC OYOIIIC I:$LLT OF;\ ~TLDL.YXDSETITOW ,in theory improving the ability of ~vildernessand the human-made econ- omy to coincide This must be the center :12y.r7; 5 i:9c.-iST EX13:~; BLIL=ES33.5~ FDYSZP'.'<IO:;B:OE~-~~IT ::C~,K-C~::r.~::> ~:~:n.yITS7r5csz of our focus if economic tools are to be harnessed efiectix-el? from and lor I 1 %arrtx A-Z,lh~n! rmn.wre \\-ildelness .3iccounting ecosysten~serv- :*ax: 2iewweIr+mpb,a ,>iT'. =-7rt*: 1 '.'M<mr;- ices from \-,.ilderness call help to ~.~~.~~~~xI , 1, FcZ dLrn~*Li <"<. ,* ?=.a: ~i OF+.V -YA~: distinguish these qualitative improve- i~-~~::~ D~.z.~~xz T . -ewe Sr~rr?-r4CI U3anc.r rm~.m: Ioz*r.x,'.-& h. t==-**.Sc+'m: 5~ ot -..il~sLa;rsSae .:+,.,-.. K~TX* rneiits &*CC 2, :.:.,r:s Ymm! ~:h: ,,i:rc&-h 'O?-aT1 Sx-:xan;oa +ti CL*: ,rn?jl +--A:le3-=Tm (T:?l.Tt ?.t>?ez.: c<s%e PhZ r-ai sw-!&bor:K2T.? %:'Z,DC s<:za7s2 flem~WL5-mi Developing Creative Markets, B,e.su.i :,oor<d ,?.YtL :!>b:m, cm-,zm o>s-i:<=3= I Flexible Institutions M-~:m.-m 05 :,- :"-% ~..!,L:.,L ;pr 1 .'Tl J5 A-rnzx .. Rf ab--,e B,*'m,? The characteristics of various goods and wtc cc s(~ra m.0.t :+3"w. ci <'G I, z:Olo~.~:'; *A>'+, services affect the ease with which mar- plalcr oi%'.ki 4~LwIe7tlrpb7zcm ket-based tools can elicit their value. AIarketed goods are most often cxcl~idable (a legal concept that allows an owner to pl-event another person from using the asset!, and rival (where consumption or Figure 1-Morton's 12000)total economic valuation framework for estimating wilderness benefits based on seven categories, arranged from left to right in order use reduces the amount available for of decreasing tangibility to humans other people], whereas most ecosystem ser1,ices are nonexcludable, and nonrival that are rarely congruent with market nomic value through broad-scale ecosys- (see Daly and Fat-ley 2004 for applica- and property boundaries. Time lags and tem services, buffering severity and tions] To some extent, social agreements feedback loops can also muddle the directionality of environmental change, can engineer excludability or rivalness, or cause-effect relations needed to reflect and helping us understand the way create a proxy (consider carbon "credits"] marginal gains. Wilderness affects nature works. One barrier to stemming to make ecosystem services marketable. ecosystem services and vice versa: forest the losses of ecosystem services and VL'ilderness (often on public land] requires loss in Amazonia reduces rainfall in Texas wilderness alike is an inability to additional creativity because most mar- (Avissar and Werth 20051, and carbon account for their nonmonetary contribu- ket-based mechanisms are salient to emissions from cities affect Arctic wilder- tions to quality of life, or the damage private lands That said, offsets elsewhere ness (Bachelet et al. 2005). costs to be incurred when they are lost. can benefit the wildland network as a Conditions that satisfy market effi- Broadening assessment of value to whole, and ecosystem services that are ciency don't include environmental include the indirect (public] goods and not marketable (e.g., biodiversity) can be sustainability or socially just distribu- services can prevent assets of "the com- bundled to one that is [e g., water tem- tion (Daly and Farley 20041. For the mons" from taking a bacliseat to private perature credits). world's poorest, ecosystem services pro- profit, sensu Hardin (1968). This article Regulations (la\vs and standards), vide "natural insurance" for people has mentioned four challenges particular market incenti\.es, information (e.g.,cer- living in or near wilderness as has been to wilderness: ensuring that the market tification), and inslitutional flexibility all documented in Peru, the Amazon and willingness-to-pay is not the only way influence the longer standing success of (Takasaki et al. 2004), Knuckles we elucidate economic value, distinguish- attempts to bring I\-ilderness attributes Wilderness in Sri Lanka (Gunatilake et ing economic growth (a quantitative goal) to market. Simply because the lnarket is al. 19931, and others (Pattanayak and from economic developlnellt (a qualitative trading cat-bon credits in quantity does Sills 2001!. Despite this, wilderness con- goal), eniploying creativity and skill with not mean abatement is occurring. servation has at times been cast as econon~icinstruments and flexibility with Alai-ket price iol- carbon vcas more than elitist, because demographic disparities social institutions and looking beyond halved in .April 2006 ~vhenEuropean exist in those who access it [Johnson et market efficiency to social and environ- countries set first-round emission tar- al. 20041. Exclusive focus on direct mental justice issues. gets too his11 [rather than indirect or nonuse) benefits The economic approach is not for can obscure important distributive jus- everyone. If the Russell brothers had been Cultivating Socially and tice benefits of ~vilderness. asked to put a dollar value on wilderness, Environmentafly Just Markets the>- probably would have responded Links between x~ildei-nessand ecosystem Conclusion with a public mooning. Yet the market is sel-\-icesoften in\-olre broad spatiai scales 1,Yilderness contributes to indirect eco- already valuing wilderness by way of a May 2007 1 The Wild Planet Project 1 25 nat.lre's Resolii-ces 158: 16-19. classification, description and vaIuation Brovcn. T j Loomis and 1. Bergstrom. 2006. for ecosystem functions, goods and Ecos!-stem goods aiid serl-ices. services. Ecological Econo~nics41: Definition \:aluation and provision. 393-LC8 L7ST),\ Foi-es! er\ice RA.IRS-R\\,T~-4851 Funtowicz S.