IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this article

Evaluation of Nature Conservation

Listed author(s):
  • D. Strijker
  • F. Sijtsma
  • D. Wiersma
Registered author(s):

    Recent literature shows a lively debate on how tocapture ecological and environmental aspects indifferent evaluation methods and the closely relatedissue of the (im)possibilities of monetization ofthese aspects. Although economists in general tend tofavour Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA) aboveMulti-Criteria Analysis (MCA), part of the literaturesuggests that CBA falls short of being the onlydecision-making device for environmental problems,both for theoretical and practical reasons. This paperdiscusses both evaluation methods and the main resultsof a major, publicly-financed nature conservationproject in The Netherlands. The evaluation method combines the straightforwardnessof CBA with the flexibility of MCA. Conceptually, itconsists of a MCA, the net result of a CBA beingintegrated as one of the criteria. The differentaspects of the nature conservation project that can bemonetized are incorporated into the CBA. Otheraspects such as changes in biodiversity or scenicbeauty are analysed in their own dimension,provided (cardinal) quantification is possible. Infact, the analysis consists of a very simple MCA, withtwo criteria: social costs and a quantitative measureof nature. Quantifying the amount of nature in its own,non-monetary dimension is a key element of theempirical analysis. A detailed quantitative estimateis made of the improvement of nature, based upon 564species and 131 different ecosystems. The result ofthe evaluation is a trade-off at the national levelbetween ecological improvements (plus 18 percent) andsocial costs (DFl. 3.4 billion net present value). Dueto the detailed quantification of the effect on naturethe evaluation also yields results about thecost-effectiveness of four different instruments tocreate and to preserve nature. That part of theanalysis shows that complete withdrawal ofagricultural land for nature purposes in the projectin general is more cost-effective than subsidizingnature-friendly farming, although the former is moreexpensive. Copyright Kluwer Academic Publishers 2000

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

    Article provided by Springer & European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists in its journal Environmental and Resource Economics.

    Volume (Year): 16 (2000)
    Issue (Month): 4 (August)
    Pages: 363-378

    in new window

    Handle: RePEc:kap:enreec:v:16:y:2000:i:4:p:363-378
    DOI: 10.1023/A:1008344604392
    Contact details of provider: Web page:


    c/o EAERE Secretariat - Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei - Isola di San Giorgio Maggiore 8, I-30124 Venice, Italy

    Phone: +39.041.2700438
    Fax: +39.041.2700412
    Web page:

    More information through EDIRC

    Order Information: Web:

    References listed on IDEAS
    Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

    in new window

    1. Nick Hanley & Clive Spash & Lorna Walker, 1995. "Problems in valuing the benefits of biodiversity protection," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 5(3), pages 249-272, April.
    2. Nick Hanley, 1992. "Are there environmental limits to cost benefit analysis?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 2(1), pages 33-59, January.
    3. Van Pelt, M. & Kuyvenhoven, A. & Nijkamp, P., 1990. "Project Appraisal And Substainability: The Applicability Of Cost-Benefit And Multi-Criteria Analysis," Mansholt Working Papers 1990-5, Wageningen University, Mansholt Graduate School of Social Sciences.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:kap:enreec:v:16:y:2000:i:4:p:363-378. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Sonal Shukla)

    or (Rebekah McClure)

    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.

    If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

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

    This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.