Pricing Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services: The Never-Ending Story. Gatto, M. & De Leo, G. A. 50(4):347–355.
Pricing Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services: The Never-Ending Story [link]Paper  doi  abstract   bibtex   
[Excerpt from the Conclusions] An impressive literature is available on environmental impact assessment and multiattribute analysis that documents the experience gained through 30 years of study and application. Nevertheless, these studies seem to be confined to the area of urban planning and are almost completely ignored by present-day economists as well as by many ecologists. Somewhere between the assignment of a zero value to biodiversity (the old-fashioned but still used practice, in which environmental impacts are viewed as externalities to be discarded from the balance sheet) and the assignment of an infinite value (as advocated by some radical environmentalists), lie more sensible methods to assign value to biodiversity than the price tag techniques suggested by the new wave of environmental economists. Rather than collapsing every measure of social and environmental value onto a monetary axis, environmental impact assessment and multiattribute analysis allow for explicit consideration of intangible nonmonctary values along with classical economic assessment, which, of course, remains important. It is, in fact, possible to assess ecosystem values and the ecological impact of human activity without using prices. Concepts such as Odum's eMergy (1996) and Rees' ecological footprint (Wackernagel and Rees 1996), although perceived by some as naive, may aid both ecologists and economists in addressing this important need. To summarize our viewpoint, economists should recognize that cost – benefit analysis is only part of the decision-making process and that it lies at the same level as other considerations. Ecologists should accept that monetary valuation of biodiversity and ecosystem services is possible (and even helpful) for part of its value, typically its use value. We contend that the realistic substitute for markets, when they fail, is a transparent decision-making process, not old-style cost – benefit analysis. The idea that, if one could get the price right, the best and most effective decisions at both the individual and public levels would automatically follow is, for many scientists, a sort of Panglossian obsession. In reality, there is no simple solution to complex problems. We fear that putting an a priori monetary value on biodiversity and ecosystem services will prevent humans from valuing the environment other than as a commodity to be exploited, thus reinvigorating the old economic paradigm that assumes a perfect substitution between natural and human-made capital (Ehrenfeld 1988). As Rees (1998) wrote, "for all its theoretical attractiveness, ascribing money values to nature's services is only a partial solution to the present dilemma and, if relied on exclusively, may actually be counterproductive" (p. 52).
@article{gattoPricingBiodiversityEcosystem2000,
  title = {Pricing Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services: The Never-Ending Story},
  author = {Gatto, Marino and De Leo, Giulio A.},
  date = {2000},
  journaltitle = {BioScience},
  volume = {50},
  pages = {347--355},
  issn = {0006-3568},
  doi = {10.1641/0006-3568(2000)050[0347:PBAEST]2.3.CO;2},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568(2000)050[0347:PBAEST]2.3.CO;2},
  abstract = {[Excerpt from the Conclusions] An impressive literature is available on environmental impact assessment and multiattribute analysis that documents the experience gained through 30 years of study and application. Nevertheless, these studies seem to be confined to the area of urban planning and are almost completely ignored by present-day economists as well as by many ecologists. Somewhere between the assignment of a zero value to biodiversity (the old-fashioned but still used practice, in which environmental impacts are viewed as externalities to be discarded from the balance sheet) and the assignment of an infinite value (as advocated by some radical environmentalists), lie more sensible methods to assign value to biodiversity than the price tag techniques suggested by the new wave of environmental economists. Rather than collapsing every measure of social and environmental value onto a monetary axis, environmental impact assessment and multiattribute analysis allow for explicit consideration of intangible nonmonctary values along with classical economic assessment, which, of course, remains important. It is, in fact, possible to assess ecosystem values and the ecological impact of human activity without using prices. Concepts such as Odum's eMergy (1996) and Rees' ecological footprint (Wackernagel and Rees 1996), although perceived by some as naive, may aid both ecologists and economists in addressing this important need. To summarize our viewpoint, economists should recognize that cost -- benefit analysis is only part of the decision-making process and that it lies at the same level as other considerations. Ecologists should accept that monetary valuation of biodiversity and ecosystem services is possible (and even helpful) for part of its value, typically its use value. We contend that the realistic substitute for markets, when they fail, is a transparent decision-making process, not old-style cost -- benefit analysis. The idea that, if one could get the price right, the best and most effective decisions at both the individual and public levels would automatically follow is, for many scientists, a sort of Panglossian obsession. In reality, there is no simple solution to complex problems. We fear that putting an a priori monetary value on biodiversity and ecosystem services will prevent humans from valuing the environment other than as a commodity to be exploited, thus reinvigorating the old economic paradigm that assumes a perfect substitution between natural and human-made capital (Ehrenfeld 1988). As Rees (1998) wrote, "for all its theoretical attractiveness, ascribing money values to nature's services is only a partial solution to the present dilemma and, if relied on exclusively, may actually be counterproductive" (p. 52).},
  keywords = {*imported-from-citeulike-INRMM,~INRMM-MiD:c-12608523,~to-add-doi-URL,bias-toward-primacy-of-theory-over-reality,biodiversity,complexity,cost-benefit-analysis,costs,ecosystem-services,multi-criteria-decision-analysis,multi-objective-planning,nonmarket-impacts,pricing,risk-assessment,trade-offs},
  number = {4}
}
Downloads: 0
About
Documentation
Keywords
Search
Users
Terms and Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Sitemap
© BibBase.org 2021