IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ksa/szemle/372.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A természeti erőforrások pénzbeli értékelése
[Monetary valuation of natural resources]

Author

Listed:
  • Marjainé, Szerényi Zsuzsanna

Abstract

A tanulmány a természeti erőforrások és környezeti javak változásainak pénzbeli értékelésére lehetőséget adó módszereket, illetve azok elméleti hátterét kívánja áttekinteni. Ahhoz, hogy a nehezen számszerűsíthető, de annál jelentősebb hatások ne maradjanak ki az elemzési és döntési folyamatokból, meg kell becsülni a környezeti javakban lezajlott elsősorban az állami szabályozás, illetve a makrogazdasági és az állami beruházások nyomán kialakuló változások pénzbeli értékét is. A szerző bemutatja a pénzbeli értékelési módszerek elméleti hátterét jelentő teljes gazdasági érték fogalmát, illetve a pénzbeli értékelés során alkalmazható eljárásokat. Külön kiemeli az úgynevezett feltárt preferencia módszereket (feltételes értékelés, feltételes választás és rangsorolás), amelyek szinte bármilyen környezeti változás értékelésére alkalmasak. A tanulmány végén rövid betekintést adunk a magyarországi környezetértékelési esetekbe.

Suggested Citation

  • Marjainé, Szerényi Zsuzsanna, 2001. "A természeti erőforrások pénzbeli értékelése [Monetary valuation of natural resources]," Közgazdasági Szemle (Economic Review - monthly of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences), Közgazdasági Szemle Alapítvány (Economic Review Foundation), vol. 0(2), pages 114-129.
    • Handle: RePEc:ksa:szemle:372
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.kszemle.hu/tartalom/letoltes.php?id=372
    Download Restriction: Registration and subscription. 3-month embargo period to non-subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    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. Adamowicz W. & Louviere J. & Williams M., 1994. "Combining Revealed and Stated Preference Methods for Valuing Environmental Amenities," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 271-292, May.
    3. Garrod, G. D. & Willis, K. G., 1997. "The non-use benefits of enhancing forest biodiversity: A contingent ranking study," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(1), pages 45-61, April.
    4. Spash, Clive L. & Hanley, Nick, 1995. "Preferences, information and biodiversity preservation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 12(3), pages 191-208, March.
    5. Frykblom, Peter, 1997. "Hypothetical Question Modes and Real Willingness to Pay," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 34(3), pages 275-287, November.
    6. Ruud Hoevenagel, 1996. "The validity of the contingent valuation method: Perfect and regular embedding," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 7(1), pages 57-78, January.
    7. Bishop, Richard C. & Heberlein, Thomas A., 1979. "Measuring Values Of Extramarket Goods: Are Indirect Measures Biased?," 1979 Annual Meeting, July 29-August 1, Pullman, Washington 277818, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    8. Brown, Thomas C. & Gregory, Robin, 1999. "Why the WTA-WTP disparity matters," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 28(3), pages 323-335, March.
    9. Carson, Richard T., 1998. "Valuation of tropical rainforests: philosophical and practical issues in the use of contingent valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 24(1), pages 15-29, January.
    10. Hoevenagel, R. & van der Linden, J. W., 1993. "Effects of different descriptions of the ecological good on willingness to pay values," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 7(3), pages 223-238, June.
    11. Kalle Seip & Jon Strand, 1992. "Willingness to pay for environmental goods in Norway: A contingent valuation study with real payment," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 2(1), pages 91-106, January.
    12. Nick Hanley & Clive L. Spash, 1993. "Cost–Benefit Analysis and the Environment," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 205.
    13. Boxall, Peter C. & Adamowicz, Wiktor L. & Swait, Joffre & Williams, Michael & Louviere, Jordan, 1996. "A comparison of stated preference methods for environmental valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(3), pages 243-253, September.
    14. Guy Garrod & Kenneth G. Willis, 1999. "Economic Valuation of the Environment," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 1368.
    15. Kristin M. Jakobsson & Andrew K. Dragun, 1996. "Contingent Valuation and Endangered Species," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 1120.
    16. Kahneman, Daniel & Knetsch, Jack L., 1992. "Valuing public goods: The purchase of moral satisfaction," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 22(1), pages 57-70, January.
    17. Munasinghe, M., 1993. "Environmental Economics and Sustainable Development," Papers 3, World Bank - The World Bank Environment Paper.
    18. Ronald Cummings & Glenn Harrison, 1995. "The measurement and decomposition of nonuse values: A critical review," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 5(3), pages 225-247, April.
    19. Thomas C. Brown & Patricia A. Champ & Richard C. Bishop & Daniel W. McCollum, 1996. "Which Response Format Reveals the Truth about Donations to a Public Good?," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 72(2), pages 152-166.
    20. STÅLE Navrud & GERALD Pruckner, 1997. "Environmental Valuation – To Use or Not to Use? A Comparative Study of the United States and Europe," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 10(1), pages 1-26, July.
    21. Richard C. Bishop & Thomas A. Heberlein, 1979. "Measuring Values of Extramarket Goods: Are Indirect Measures Biased?," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 61(5), pages 926-930.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Marjainé, Szerényi Zsuzsanna & Harangozó, Gábor, 2014. "Mennyit ér a zajterhelés csökkenése?. Zajvédelmi intézkedések értékelése a haszonértékelések átvitelével [The value of silence. An application of benefit-transfer methodology for evaluating noise-c," Közgazdasági Szemle (Economic Review - monthly of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences), Közgazdasági Szemle Alapítvány (Economic Review Foundation), vol. 0(1), pages 68-91.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Veisten, Knut, 2007. "Contingent valuation controversies: Philosophic debates about economic theory," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 204-232, April.
    2. Oliver Froer, 2003. "Using Stated Preference Methods for Biodiversity Valuation. A critical analysis," Diskussionspapiere aus dem Institut für Volkswirtschaftslehre der Universität Hohenheim 217/2003, Department of Economics, University of Hohenheim, Germany.
    3. Carlsson, Fredrik & Martinsson, Peter, 2001. "Do Hypothetical and Actual Marginal Willingness to Pay Differ in Choice Experiments?: Application to the Valuation of the Environment," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 41(2), pages 179-192, March.
    4. Vivien Foster & Ian J. Bateman & David Harley, 1998. "Real and hypothetical willingness to pay for environmental preservation: a non-experimental comparison," Chapters, in: Melinda Acutt & Pamela Mason (ed.), Environmental Valuation, Economic Policy and Sustainability, chapter 3, pages 35-50, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    5. Shogren, Jason F., 2006. "Experimental Methods and Valuation," Handbook of Environmental Economics, in: K. G. Mäler & J. R. Vincent (ed.), Handbook of Environmental Economics, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 19, pages 969-1027, Elsevier.
    6. List, John A. & Shogren, Jason F., 2002. "Calibration of Willingness-to-Accept," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 43(2), pages 219-233, March.
    7. Kanya, Lucy & Saghera, Sabina & Lewin, Alex & Fox-Rushby, Julia, 2019. "The criterion validity of willingness to pay methods: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the evidence," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 100741, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    8. John List & Craig Gallet, 2001. "What Experimental Protocol Influence Disparities Between Actual and Hypothetical Stated Values?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 20(3), pages 241-254, November.
    9. W. Michael Hanemann, 1994. "Valuing the Environment through Contingent Valuation," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 8(4), pages 19-43, Fall.
    10. Kanya, Lucy & Sanghera, Sabina & Lewin, Alex & Fox-Rushby, Julia, 2019. "The criterion validity of willingness to pay methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis of the evidence," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 232(C), pages 238-261.
    11. Gregory Poe & Jeremy Clark & Daniel Rondeau & William Schulze, 2002. "Provision Point Mechanisms and Field Validity Tests of Contingent Valuation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 23(1), pages 105-131, September.
    12. Nick Hanley & Mandy Ryan & Robert Wright, 2003. "Estimating the monetary value of health care: lessons from environmental economics," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(1), pages 3-16, January.
    13. Munro, Alistair, 2007. "When is some number really better than no number? On the optimal choice between non-market valuation methods," MPRA Paper 8978, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    14. Robert J. Johnston & Kevin J. Boyle & Wiktor (Vic) Adamowicz & Jeff Bennett & Roy Brouwer & Trudy Ann Cameron & W. Michael Hanemann & Nick Hanley & Mandy Ryan & Riccardo Scarpa & Roger Tourangeau & Ch, 2017. "Contemporary Guidance for Stated Preference Studies," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 4(2), pages 319-405.
    15. Richard Carson & Nicholas Flores & Norman Meade, 2001. "Contingent Valuation: Controversies and Evidence," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 19(2), pages 173-210, June.
    16. Richard T. Carson, 2011. "Contingent Valuation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2489, December.
    17. Luís Cruz & Paula Simões & Eduardo Barata, 2014. "Combining Observed and Contingent Travel Behaviour: The Best of Both Worlds?," Notas Económicas, Faculty of Economics, University of Coimbra, issue 40, pages 7-25, December.
    18. Anthony Amoah & Peter G. Moffatt, 2017. "Estimating demand for reliable piped-water services in urban Ghana: An application of competing valuation approaches," University of East Anglia School of Economics Working Paper Series 2017-01, School of Economics, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK..
    19. Lopez-Becerra, E.I. & Alcon, F., 2021. "Social desirability bias in the environmental economic valuation: An inferred valuation approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 184(C).
    20. Ngouhouo Poufoun, Jonas & Abildtrup, Jens & Sonwa, Dénis Jean & Delacote, Philippe, 2016. "The value of endangered forest elephants to local communities in a transboundary conservation landscape," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 70-86.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • Q20 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation - - - General
    • Q02 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - General - - - Commodity Market
    • C13 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric and Statistical Methods and Methodology: General - - - Estimation: General
    • C49 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric and Statistical Methods: Special Topics - - - Other

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:ksa:szemle:372. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc 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 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: Odon Sok The email address of this maintainer does not seem to be valid anymore. Please ask Odon Sok to update the entry or send us the correct address (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.kszemle.hu .

    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.