IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/wpaper/hal-04068881.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Report on valuation methods

Author

Listed:
  • Jens Abildtrup

    (BETA - Bureau d'Économie Théorique et Appliquée - AgroParisTech - UNISTRA - Université de Strasbourg - Université de Haute-Alsace (UHA) - Université de Haute-Alsace (UHA) Mulhouse - Colmar - UL - Université de Lorraine - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique - INRAE - Institut National de Recherche pour l’Agriculture, l’Alimentation et l’Environnement)

  • Anne Stenger

    (BETA - Bureau d'Économie Théorique et Appliquée - AgroParisTech - UNISTRA - Université de Strasbourg - Université de Haute-Alsace (UHA) - Université de Haute-Alsace (UHA) Mulhouse - Colmar - UL - Université de Lorraine - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique - INRAE - Institut National de Recherche pour l’Agriculture, l’Alimentation et l’Environnement)

Abstract

The demand for non-marketed forest ecosystem services, like for example, carbon sequestration has been increasing the last decades and this has been accompanied by attempts to establish new market for such services. This development is an opportunity for forest owners to increase their rentability of their forest management. It will also provide the beneficiaries of the services an instrument to influence the forest owners to increase their supply of services which, without new markets, would be considered as externalities and therefore often ignored in their management. This concerns both governmental funded payment schemes, crowd-funding projects, or companies use of forest project in their corporative social responsibility activities. To increase the transparency of transactions between forest owners and buyers of services and to better assess the potential of such new markets, it is important to estimate the demand for services. Likewise, it is also important to assess the cost of increasing the supply of services to increase the transparency and also to assess additionality of projects. In this report we present and discuss different methods which have typically been used in assessing the preferences for forest ecosystem services or to estimate the costs of provision. Besides a brief introduction to the methods the report also makes references to more detailed technical guidelines and key scientific references. Finally, the report also gives an example of how a change in forest management may influence the values of carbon sequestration and recreational use of a forest project in the French NOBEL pilot demonstrator.

Suggested Citation

  • Jens Abildtrup & Anne Stenger, 2022. "Report on valuation methods," Working Papers hal-04068881, HAL.
  • Handle: RePEc:hal:wpaper:hal-04068881
    Note: View the original document on HAL open archive server: https://hal.science/hal-04068881
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://hal.science/hal-04068881/document
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Swallow, Stephen K. & Anderson, Christopher M. & Uchida, Emi, 2018. "The Bobolink Project: Selling Public Goods From Ecosystem Services Using Provision Point Mechanisms," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 143(C), pages 236-252.
    2. McCann, Laura & Colby, Bonnie & Easter, K. William & Kasterine, Alexander & Kuperan, K.V., 2005. "Transaction cost measurement for evaluating environmental policies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 52(4), pages 527-542, March.
    3. Schägner, Jan Philipp & Brander, Luke & Maes, Joachim & Hartje, Volkmar, 2013. "Mapping ecosystem services' values: Current practice and future prospects," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 4(C), pages 33-46.
    4. R. H. Coase, 2013. "The Problem of Social Cost," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 56(4), pages 837-877.
    5. Johnston, Robert J. & Bauer, Dana Marie, 2020. "Using Meta-Analysis for Large-Scale Ecosystem Service Valuation: Progress, Prospects, and Challenges," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 49(1), pages 23-63, April.
    6. Gadaud, Juliette & Rambonilaza, Mbolatiana, 2010. "Amenity values and payment schemes for free recreation services from non-industrial private forest properties: A French case study," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 16(4), pages 297-311, December.
    7. Abildtrup, Jens & Garcia, Serge & Stenger, Anne, 2013. "The effect of forest land use on the cost of drinking water supply: A spatial econometric analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 126-136.
    8. Howarth, Richard B. & Farber, Stephen, 2002. "Accounting for the value of ecosystem services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(3), pages 421-429, June.
    9. Phan, Thu-Ha Dang & Brouwer, Roy & Davidson, Marc David, 2017. "A Global Survey and Review of the Determinants of Transaction Costs of Forestry Carbon Projects," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 133(C), pages 1-10.
    10. Termansen, Mette & McClean, Colin J. & Jensen, Frank Søndergaard, 2013. "Modelling and mapping spatial heterogeneity in forest recreation services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 48-57.
    11. D Maddison, 2000. "A hedonic analysis of agricultural land prices in England and Wales," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 27(4), pages 519-532, December.
    12. Engel, Stefanie & Pagiola, Stefano & Wunder, Sven, 2008. "Designing payments for environmental services in theory and practice: An overview of the issues," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(4), pages 663-674, May.
    13. Hof, John G. & Lee, Robert D. & Dyer, A. Allen & Kent, Brian M., 1985. "An analysis of joint costs in a managed forest ecosystem," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 12(4), pages 338-352, December.
    14. Pengfei Liu & Stephen K. Swallow, 2019. "Providing Multiple Units of a Public Good Using Individualized Price Auctions: Experimental Evidence," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 6(1), pages 1-42.
    15. Mostegl, Nina M. & Pröbstl-Haider, Ulrike & Jandl, Robert & Haider, Wolfgang, 2019. "Targeting climate change adaptation strategies to small-scale private forest owners," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 83-99.
    16. Chakrabarti, Anwesha & Chase, Lisa & Strong, Allan M. & Swallow, Stephen K., 2019. "Making markets for private provision of ecosystem services: The Bobolink Project," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 1-1.
    17. Lambini, Cosmas Kombat & Nguyen, Trung Thanh & Abildtrup, Jens & Pham, Van Dien & Tenhunen, John & Garcia, Serge, 2018. "Are Ecosystem Services Complementary or Competitive? An Econometric Analysis of Cost Functions of Private Forests in Vietnam," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 147(C), pages 343-352.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Alain‐Désiré Nimubona & Jean‐Christophe Pereau, 2022. "Negotiating over payments for wetland ecosystem services," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 55(3), pages 1507-1538, August.
    2. Nantongo, Mary & Vatn, Arild, 2019. "Estimating Transaction Costs of REDD+," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 156(C), pages 1-11.
    3. Frans P. Vries & Nick Hanley, 2016. "Incentive-Based Policy Design for Pollution Control and Biodiversity Conservation: A Review," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 63(4), pages 687-702, April.
    4. Frings, Oliver & Abildtrup, Jens & Montagné-Huck, Claire & Gorel, Salomé & Stenger, Anne, 2023. "Do individual PES buyers care about additionality and free-riding? A choice experiment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 213(C).
    5. Marshall, Elizabeth P. & Weinberg, Marca, 2012. "Baselines in Environmental Markets: Tradeoffs Between Cost and Additionality," Economic Brief 138922, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    6. Morgan, Edward A. & Buckwell, Andrew & Guidi, Caterina & Garcia, Beatriz & Rimmer, Lawrence & Cadman, Tim & Mackey, Brendan, 2022. "Capturing multiple forest ecosystem services for just benefit sharing: The Basket of Benefits Approach," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 55(C).
    7. Dario Belluomini, 2016. "Environmental safeguard and Sustainable Development: An Insight into Payments for Ecosystema Services," CEsA Working Papers 140, CEsA - Centre for African and Development Studies.
    8. Kisaka, Lily & Obi, Ajuruchukwu, 2015. "Farmers’ Preferences for Management Options as Payment for Environmental Services Scheme," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 18(3), pages 1-22, September.
    9. Josset, Clement & Shanafelt, David W. & Abildtrup, Jens & Stenger, Anne, 2023. "Probabilistic typology of private forest owners: A tool to target the development of new market for ecosystem services," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 134(C).
    10. Kathleen McAfee, 2012. "The Contradictory Logic of Global Ecosystem Services Markets," Development and Change, International Institute of Social Studies, vol. 43(1), pages 105-131, January.
    11. Houdet, Joël & Trommetter, Michel & Weber, Jacques, 2012. "Understanding changes in business strategies regarding biodiversity and ecosystem services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 37-46.
    12. Lin, Yongsheng & Dong, Zhanfeng & Zhang, Wei & Zhang, Hongyu, 2020. "Estimating inter-regional payments for ecosystem services: Taking China’s Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei region as an example," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 168(C).
    13. Häyhä, Tiina & Franzese, Pier Paolo & Paletto, Alessandro & Fath, Brian D., 2015. "Assessing, valuing, and mapping ecosystem services in Alpine forests," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 14(C), pages 12-23.
    14. Foundjem-Tita, Divine & Speelman, Stijn & D'Haese, Marijke & Degrande, Ann & Van Huylenbroeck, Guido & Van Damme, Patrick & Tchoundjeu, Zac, 2014. "A tale of transaction costs and forest law compliance: Trade permits for Non Timber Forests Products in Cameroon," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 132-142.
    15. Banerjee, Simanti & Cason, Timothy N. & de Vries, Frans P. & Hanley, Nick, 2017. "Transaction costs, communication and spatial coordination in Payment for Ecosystem Services Schemes," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 68-89.
    16. Vogt, Nora & Bizer, Kilian, 2013. "Lock-in effects in competitive bidding schemes for payments for ecosystem services: Revisiting the fundamental transformation," University of Göttingen Working Papers in Economics 158, University of Goettingen, Department of Economics.
    17. Bellanger, Manuel & Fonner, Robert & Holland, Daniel S. & Libecap, Gary D. & Lipton, Douglas W. & Scemama, Pierre & Speir, Cameron & Thébaud, Olivier, 2021. "Cross-sectoral externalities related to natural resources and ecosystem services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 184(C).
    18. Hong-Zhen Zhang & Ling-Yun He & ZhongXiang Zhang, 2023. "Can Transverse Eco-compensation Mechanism Correct Resource Misallocation in Watershed Environmental Governance? A Cost-benefit Analysis of the Pilot Project of Xin’an River in China," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 84(4), pages 947-973, April.
    19. Van Hecken, Gert & Bastiaensen, Johan & Vásquez, William F., 2012. "The viability of local payments for watershed services: Empirical evidence from Matiguás, Nicaragua," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 169-176.
    20. Coggan, Anthea & Buitelaar, Edwin & Whitten, Stuart & Bennett, Jeff, 2013. "Factors that influence transaction costs in development offsets: Who bears what and why?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 222-231.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Economic valuation; Forest ecosystem services; Valuation methods;
    All these keywords.

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:hal:wpaper:hal-04068881. 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: CCSD (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ .

    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.