IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ise/isegwp/wp112004.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Valuing Ecosystems - A Methodological Applying Approach

Author

Listed:
  • Isabel Mendes

Abstract

In this paper the ecosystem’s valuation framework is described and discussed at a conceptual and formal level. Following utilitarianism and the capital asset analogy, one defines the concept of ecosystem value and how to quantify it by using individual preference based techniques rooted in welfare economics, namely stated individual preference techniques like Contingent Valuation. Several controversial questions arise when one tries to compute ecosystem’s value by using utilitarianism and the capital asset analogy due to the particular ecosystem’s natural specifics and the limitations of the economic theoretical framework. These controversial questions are enumerated, analysed, and the most commonly practitioner practices used to overcome the theoretical and technical difficulties of the appliance are assessed.

Suggested Citation

  • Isabel Mendes, 2004. "Valuing Ecosystems - A Methodological Applying Approach," Working Papers Department of Economics 2004/11, ISEG - Lisbon School of Economics and Management, Department of Economics, Universidade de Lisboa.
  • Handle: RePEc:ise:isegwp:wp112004
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://pascal.iseg.utl.pt/~depeco/wp/wp112004.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Rosenberger, Randall S. & Peterson, George L. & Clarke, Andrea & Brown, Thomas C., 2003. "Measuring dispositions for lexicographic preferences of environmental goods: integrating economics, psychology and ethics," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 44(1), pages 63-76, February.
    2. Nunes, Paulo A. L. D. & van den Bergh, Jeroen C. J. M., 2001. "Economic valuation of biodiversity: sense or nonsense?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 39(2), pages 203-222, November.
    3. Andrew Metrick & Martin L. Weitzman, 1998. "Conflicts and Choices in Biodiversity Preservation," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 12(3), pages 21-34, Summer.
    4. Kahneman, Daniel & Tversky, Amos, 1979. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 47(2), pages 263-291, March.
    5. Randall, Alan & Stoll, John R, 1980. "Consumer's Surplus in Commodity Space," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 70(3), pages 449-455, June.
    6. Heal, G., 1998. "Valuing the Future: Economic Theory and Sustainability," Papers 98-10, Columbia - Graduate School of Business.
    7. 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.
    8. Richard Carson & Robert Mitchell & Michael Hanemann & Raymond Kopp & Stanley Presser & Paul Ruud, 2003. "Contingent Valuation and Lost Passive Use: Damages from the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 25(3), pages 257-286, July.
    9. Weitzman, Martin L., 1998. "Why the Far-Distant Future Should Be Discounted at Its Lowest Possible Rate," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 36(3), pages 201-208, November.
    10. George Loewenstein & Drazen Prelec, 1992. "Anomalies in Intertemporal Choice: Evidence and an Interpretation," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 107(2), pages 573-597.
    11. Willig, Robert D, 1976. "Consumer's Surplus without Apology," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 66(4), pages 589-597, September.
    12. Thaler, Richard, 1981. "Some empirical evidence on dynamic inconsistency," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 8(3), pages 201-207.
    13. Lankford, R. Hamilton, 1988. "Measuring welfare changes in settings with imposed quantities," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 15(1), pages 45-63, March.
    14. Paul R. Portney, 1994. "The Contingent Valuation Debate: Why Economists Should Care," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 8(4), pages 3-17, Fall.
    15. Harvey, Charles M., 1994. "The reasonableness of non-constant discounting," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 53(1), pages 31-51, January.
    16. Hanemann, W Michael, 1991. "Willingness to Pay and Willingness to Accept: How Much Can They Differ?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 81(3), pages 635-647, June.
    17. Loewenstein, George & Thaler, Richard H, 1989. "Intertemporal Choice," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 3(4), pages 181-193, Fall.
    18. Spash, Clive L., 2000. "Ecosystems, contingent valuation and ethics: the case of wetland re-creation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(2), pages 195-215, August.
    19. Isabel Mendes, 2003. "Pricing Recreation use of National Parks for an efficient Nature Conservation and Application to the Portuguese case," Working Papers Department of Economics 2003/08, ISEG - Lisbon School of Economics and Management, Department of Economics, Universidade de Lisboa.
    20. Johansson,Per-Olov, 1987. "The Economic Theory and Measurement of Environmental Benefits," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521348102, March.
    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. Isabel Mendes, 2016. "Assessing the Values of Archaeological Heritage," Working Papers Department of Economics 2016/02, ISEG - Lisbon School of Economics and Management, Department of Economics, Universidade de Lisboa.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Ecosystem; Valuation; Total Economic Value; Utilitarian Discounting; Contingent Valuation Method.;

    JEL classification:

    • Q2 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation
    • Q3 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Nonrenewable Resources and Conservation
    • M4 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics - - Accounting

    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:ise:isegwp:wp112004. 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: (Vitor Escaria). General contact details of provider: https://aquila1.iseg.ulisboa.pt/aquila/departamentos/EC .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.