IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eme/sampjp/sampj-07-2017-0073.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Standards-compliant accounting valuations of ecosystems

Author

Listed:
  • Sue Ogilvy
  • Michael Vail

Abstract

Purpose - There is a great deal of interest in ecosystem or natural capital accounting and in methods to estimate monetary valuations of ecosystems. This paper aims to explore methods that may assist agricultural (livestock grazing) enterprises to estimate the monetary value of the productive capacity of the ecosystems they use. Such estimations are expected to provide a more complete set of information about the performance of pastoral operations and may assist them to assure ecological and economic sustainability. Design/methodology/approach - This paper applies five different methods for valuation of the productive ecosystems used in extensive agricultural (grazing) systems. The methods apply different approaches to valuation described in the United Nations System of Environmental-Economic Accounting (SEEA) and Australian Accounting Standards (AASs). To do this, the paper uses financial information drawn from the long-term performance of an economically and environmentally sustainable pastoral enterprise. Findings - SEEA- and AAS-compliant methods to measure the value in use of provisioning ecosystems are practical and useful. The estimations contribute to a reasonable range of fair values required by AASs and improve the availability of information that would be useful in improving the performance of the operation and compare it to reasonable alternate management strategies. Research limitations/implications - The SEEA is an international standard and AASs are closely aligned to the International Accounting Standards, so the methods described in this paper are likely to be generalisable to enterprises grazing low-rainfall rangelands in other countries. However, their ability to appropriately accommodate the extensive modifications to ecosystems caused by cultivation and fertilisation needs to be tested before they are applied to grazing operations in high-rainfall areas or other forms of agriculture such as cropping or horticulture. Practical implications - The availability of standards-compliant methods for ecosystem valuation means that companies who wish to include ecosystems on a voluntary and informal basis as sub-classes of land in their general purpose financial reports may be able to do so. If these methods are SEEA-compliant, they could be combined with information about the ecosystem type, extent and condition to produce a set of national ecosystem accounts so that the contribution of ecosystems to the economy can be estimated. Social implications - Many of the enterprises that rely on extensive agricultural ecosystems are unable to generate sufficient financial returns to cover their obligations to owners and creditors. The ability to determine the monetary value of the annual inputs provided by the ecosystems may assist landowners and citizens to detect and avoid depletion of their economic and ecological resources. Originality/value - This paper applies an explicit interpretation of AAS and draws from valuation methods recommended in the SEEA to demonstrate that current accounting standards (national and corporate) provide a strong foundation for the valuation of the ecosystems used as economically significant factors of production.

Suggested Citation

  • Sue Ogilvy & Michael Vail, 2018. "Standards-compliant accounting valuations of ecosystems," Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 9(2), pages 98-117, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:eme:sampjp:sampj-07-2017-0073
    DOI: 10.1108/SAMPJ-07-2017-0073
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/SAMPJ-07-2017-0073/full/html?utm_source=repec&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=repec
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers

    File URL: https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/SAMPJ-07-2017-0073/full/pdf?utm_source=repec&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=repec
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1108/SAMPJ-07-2017-0073?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eme:sampjp:sampj-07-2017-0073. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Emerald Support (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.