IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/oxford/v35y2019i1p54-67..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The ecology of natural capital accounting

Author

Listed:
  • Georgina M Mace

Abstract

Natural capital is increasingly widely discussed and included in corporate and governmental accounts, using a variety of different approaches and metrics. Here I argue that natural capital is fundamentally an emergent feature of structures and functions of the natural environment. Therefore its valuation and metrics for reporting on its condition and the way that it is represented in accounts need to reflect these defining features and not rest solely on measurable flows of goods and services. Natural capital is an asset, and its many contributions to the economy and society, often called ecosystem services, are both malleable and adaptable. Their value changes with time and context as they become more or less important and relevant for particular purposes. Unlike most produced assets, natural assets are multifunctional, adaptable, and resilient, and within limits they have the capacity to regrow or reorganize themselves. Maintaining this capacity is therefore the key priority for a responsible owner or manager of natural assets. Currently most metrics for natural capital are based on the quality or quantity of flows of goods and services, on the geographical distribution of particular ecosystems or land/sea uses, and by reference to ecosystem services delivered by particular ecosystems. The advantages and disadvantages of these different approaches are discussed, but I propose instead using the quality of fundamental ecological processes and functions which properly represent the functioning and capabilities of the natural capital system upon which society and the economy depend.

Suggested Citation

  • Georgina M Mace, 2019. "The ecology of natural capital accounting," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press and Oxford Review of Economic Policy Limited, vol. 35(1), pages 54-67.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:oxford:v:35:y:2019:i:1:p:54-67.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/oxrep/gry023
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

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

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. De Groot, Rudolf & Van der Perk, Johan & Chiesura, Anna & van Vliet, Arnold, 2003. "Importance and threat as determining factors for criticality of natural capital," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 44(2-3), pages 187-204, March.
    2. Richard Barker, 2019. "Corporate natural capital accounting," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press and Oxford Review of Economic Policy Limited, vol. 35(1), pages 68-87.
    3. Colin Mayer, 2019. "Valuing the invaluable: how much is the planet worth?," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press and Oxford Review of Economic Policy Limited, vol. 35(1), pages 109-119.
    4. Ian Bateman & Georgina Mace & Carlo Fezzi & Giles Atkinson & Kerry Turner, 2011. "Economic Analysis for Ecosystem Service Assessments," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 48(2), pages 177-218, February.
    5. Alastair Fitter, 2013. "Are Ecosystem Services Replaceable by Technology?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 55(4), pages 513-524, August.
    6. Dieter Helm, 2019. "Natural capital: assets, systems, and policies," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press and Oxford Review of Economic Policy Limited, vol. 35(1), pages 1-13.
    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. Warnell, Katherine J.D. & Russell, Marc & Rhodes, Charles & Bagstad, Kenneth J. & Olander, Lydia P. & Nowak, David J. & Poudel, Rajendra & Glynn, Pierre D. & Hass, Julie L. & Hirabayashi, Satoshi & In, 2020. "Testing ecosystem accounting in the United States: A case study for the Southeast," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 43(C).
    2. Dieter Helm, 2019. "Natural capital: assets, systems, and policies," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press and Oxford Review of Economic Policy Limited, vol. 35(1), pages 1-13.
    3. Alexandre RAMBAUD, 2023. "How can accounting reformulate the debate on natural capital and help implement its ecological approach?," Working Paper 8567406c-bed0-4401-9792-a, Agence française de développement.
    4. Child, Matthew F., 2021. "Wildness, infinity and freedom," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 186(C).
    5. Zaheer Allam & David S. Jones & Can Biyik, 2021. "Introducing a global planetary ecosystem accounting in the wake of the Amazon Forest fires," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 8(1), pages 1-8, December.
    6. Stebbings, Emily & Hooper, Tara & Austen, Melanie C. & Papathanasopoulou, Eleni & Yan, Xiaoyu, 2021. "Accounting for benefits from natural capital: Applying a novel composite indicator framework to the marine environment," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 50(C).
    7. Andrew M. Neill & Cathal O’Donoghue & Jane C. Stout, 2020. "A Natural Capital Lens for a Sustainable Bioeconomy: Determining the Unrealised and Unrecognised Services from Nature," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(19), pages 1-24, September.
    8. Nicholas M. Holden & Andrew M. Neill & Jane C. Stout & Derek O’Brien & Michael A. Morris, 2023. "Biocircularity: a Framework to Define Sustainable, Circular Bioeconomy," Circular Economy and Sustainability,, Springer.
    9. Benedetto Rugani & Philippe Osset & Olivier Blanc & Enrico Benetto, 2023. "Environmental Footprint Neutrality Using Methods and Tools for Natural Capital Accounting in Life Cycle Assessment," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(6), pages 1-30, June.
    10. Vallecillo, Sara & La Notte, Alessandra & Ferrini, Silvia & Maes, Joachim, 2019. "How ecosystem services are changing: an accounting application at the EU level," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 40(C).
    11. Giles Atkinson & Paola Ovando, 2022. "Distributional Issues in Natural Capital Accounting: An Application to Land Ownership and Ecosystem Services in Scotland," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 81(2), pages 215-241, February.
    12. Neill, Andrew M. & O'Donoghue, Cathal & Stout, Jane C., 2022. "Conceptual integration of ecosystem services and natural capital within Irish national policy: An analysis over time and between policy sectors," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 57(C).

    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. Kostas Bithas, 2020. "A bioeconomic approach to sustainable development: Incorporating ecological thresholds within intergenerational efficiency," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 28(4), pages 772-780, July.
    2. Drupp, Moritz A. & Baumgärtner, Stefan & Meyer, Moritz & Quaas, Martin F. & von Wehrden, Henrik, 2020. "Between Ostrom and Nordhaus: The research landscape of sustainability economics," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 172(C).
    3. Han-Shen Chen & Chu-Wei Chen, 2019. "Economic Valuation of Green Island, Taiwan: A Choice Experiment Method," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-17, January.
    4. P. Hlaváčková & D. Šafařík, 2016. "Quantification of the utility value of the recreational function of forests from the aspect of valuation practice," Journal of Forest Science, Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 62(8), pages 345-356.
    5. Bordt, Michael, 2018. "Discourses in Ecosystem Accounting: A Survey of the Expert Community," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 144(C), pages 82-99.
    6. Saner, Marc A. & Bordt, Michael, 2016. "Building the consensus: The moral space of earth measurement," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 74-81.
    7. Brendan Fisher & Stephen Polasky & Thomas Sterner, 2011. "Conservation and Human Welfare: Economic Analysis of Ecosystem Services," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 48(2), pages 151-159, February.
    8. Torben Klarl, 2013. "Market dynamics, dynamic resource management and environmental policy in the context of (strong) sustainability," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 23(4), pages 861-888, September.
    9. Sylvie Ferrari & Sébastien Lavaud & Jean-Christophe Pereau, 2012. "Critical natural capital, ecological resilience and sustainable wetland management: a french case study," Post-Print hal-00799051, HAL.
    10. Admiraal, Jeroen F. & Wossink, Ada & de Groot, Wouter T. & de Snoo, Geert R., 2013. "More than total economic value: How to combine economic valuation of biodiversity with ecological resilience," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 115-122.
    11. Thomas G Poder & Jérôme Dupras & Franck Fetue Ndefo & Jie He, 2016. "The Economic Value of the Greater Montreal Blue Network (Quebec, Canada): A Contingent Choice Study Using Real Projects to Estimate Non-Market Aquatic Ecosystem Services Benefits," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(8), pages 1-16, August.
    12. Dietz, Simon & Neumayer, Eric, 2007. "Weak and strong sustainability in the SEEA: Concepts and measurement," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(4), pages 617-626, March.
    13. Egor Selivanov & Petra Hlaváčková, 2021. "Methods for monetary valuation of ecosystem services: A scoping review," Journal of Forest Science, Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 67(11), pages 499-511.
    14. McVittie, Alistair & Norton, Lisa & Martin-Ortega, Julia & Siameti, Ioanna & Glenk, Klaus & Aalders, Inge, 2015. "Operationalizing an ecosystem services-based approach using Bayesian Belief Networks: An application to riparian buffer strips," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 15-27.
    15. Glenk, Klaus & Schaafsma, Marije & Moxey, Andrew & Martin-Ortega, Julia & Hanley, Nick, 2014. "A framework for valuing spatially targeted peatland restoration," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 9(C), pages 20-33.
    16. Frélichová, Jana & VaÄ kář, David & Pártl, Adam & LouÄ ková, Blanka & HarmÃ¡Ä ková, Zuzana V. & Lorencová, EliÅ¡ka, 2014. "Integrated assessment of ecosystem services in the Czech Republic," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 8(C), pages 110-117.
    17. Zhicheng Lai & Lei Li & Zhuomin Tao & Tao Li & Xiaoting Shi & Jialing Li & Xin Li, 2023. "Spatio-Temporal Evolution and Influencing Factors of Ecological Well-Being Performance from the Perspective of Strong Sustainability: A Case Study of the Three Gorges Reservoir Area, China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(3), pages 1-25, January.
    18. Bark, Rosalind H. & Colloff, Matthew J. & Hatton MacDonald, Darla & Pollino, Carmel A. & Jackson, Sue & Crossman, Neville D., 2016. "Integrated valuation of ecosystem services obtained from restoring water to the environment in a major regulated river basin," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 22(PB), pages 381-391.
    19. Bouhou, Nour-El Imane & Blackhurst, Michael F. & Torres, Pamela, 2015. "An empirical analysis of joint residential electricity efficiency gains within and across end uses: implications for demand-side management," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 61-70.
    20. Nicola Acocella & Giovanni Di Bartolomeo, "undated". "Sviluppo e ambiente: di alcuni possibili conflitti," Working Papers 116/13, Sapienza University of Rome, Metodi e Modelli per l'Economia, il Territorio e la Finanza MEMOTEF.

    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:oup:oxford:v:35:y:2019:i:1:p:54-67.. 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: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/oxrep .

    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.