IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/wiw/wiwrsa/ersa05p254.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Exchange rate between scientific currencies - An application to the landuse plan of natura 2000

Author

Listed:
  • Vanda Serpa
  • Vasco Silva
  • Tomaz Dentinho

Abstract

Science is driven by research funds, research funds are associated with decision making, and decision making is attached to valuation. Therefore every scientific paradigm tend to devise its own valuation system. Ecconomists prefer cost benefit analysis where everything can be translated into money. Planners assume values to infinity which lines in a map difining restrictions and enforceable land uses. Ecologists design maps with values for biodiversity. Historians value things according to their age. And engineers enjoy the mathematical control over multicriteria analysis. Anyway, concerning spatial planinng, most of the time there is a line on a map, assumed by polititions and experts and more or less respected by stakeholders. Along this line the total value of alternative uses must be the same. And the total value assumes all the infomation values provided by economists, ecologists, planners, engineers and historians. Because a line has many points it is possible to estimate the exchange rate function between all these different scientific currencies and derive the total economic value of different land uses.

Suggested Citation

  • Vanda Serpa & Vasco Silva & Tomaz Dentinho, 2005. "Exchange rate between scientific currencies - An application to the landuse plan of natura 2000," ERSA conference papers ersa05p254, European Regional Science Association.
    • Handle: RePEc:wiw:wiwrsa:ersa05p254
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www-sre.wu.ac.at/ersa/ersaconfs/ersa05/papers/254.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Farber, Stephen C. & Costanza, Robert & Wilson, Matthew A., 2002. "Economic and ecological concepts for valuing ecosystem services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(3), pages 375-392, June.
    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. Limburg, Karin E. & O'Neill, Robert V. & Costanza, Robert & Farber, Stephen, 2002. "Complex systems and valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(3), pages 409-420, June.
    4. José Sanz & Luis Herrero & Ana Bedate, 2003. "Contingent Valuation and Semiparametric Methods: A Case Study of the National Museum of Sculpture in Valladolid, Spain," Journal of Cultural Economics, Springer;The Association for Cultural Economics International, vol. 27(3), pages 241-257, November.
    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. Nikodinoska, Natasha & Paletto, Alessandro & Pastorella, Fabio & Granvik, Madeleine & Franzese, Pier Paolo, 2018. "Assessing, valuing and mapping ecosystem services at city level: The case of Uppsala (Sweden)," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 368(C), pages 411-424.
    2. 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.
    3. Halkos, George, 2012. "The use of contingent valuation in assessing marine and coastal ecosystems’ water quality: A review," MPRA Paper 42183, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    4. Christie, Mike & Fazey, Ioan & Cooper, Rob & Hyde, Tony & Kenter, Jasper O., 2012. "An evaluation of monetary and non-monetary techniques for assessing the importance of biodiversity and ecosystem services to people in countries with developing economies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 67-78.
    5. Häyhä, Tiina & Franzese, Pier Paolo, 2014. "Ecosystem services assessment: A review under an ecological-economic and systems perspective," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 289(C), pages 124-132.
    6. 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.
    7. Azqueta, Diego & Sotelsek, Daniel, 2007. "Valuing nature: From environmental impacts to natural capital," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(1), pages 22-30, June.
    8. de Groot, Rudolf S. & Wilson, Matthew A. & Boumans, Roelof M. J., 2002. "A typology for the classification, description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(3), pages 393-408, June.
    9. Gasparatos, Alexandros & El-Haram, Mohamed & Horner, Malcolm, 2009. "The argument against a reductionist approach for measuring sustainable development performance and the need for methodological pluralism," Accounting forum, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 245-256.
    10. Useche, Pilar & Blare, Trent, 2014. "The Sustainable Choice: How Gendered Difference in the Importance of Ecological Benefits Affect Production Decisions of Smallholder Cacao Producing Households in Ecuador," 2014 Annual Meeting, July 27-29, 2014, Minneapolis, Minnesota 174285, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    11. Wang, Xuan & Chen, Weiqi & Zhang, Luoping & Jin, Di & Lu, Changyi, 2010. "Estimating the ecosystem service losses from proposed land reclamation projects: A case study in Xiamen," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(12), pages 2549-2556, October.
    12. Hein, Lars & van Koppen, Kris & de Groot, Rudolf S. & van Ierland, Ekko C., 2006. "Spatial scales, stakeholders and the valuation of ecosystem services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(2), pages 209-228, May.
    13. Garcia, X. & Pargament, D., 2015. "Reusing wastewater to cope with water scarcity: Economic, social and environmental considerations for decision-making," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 101(C), pages 154-166.
    14. Kontogianni, Areti & Luck, Gary W. & Skourtos, Michalis, 2010. "Valuing ecosystem services on the basis of service-providing units: A potential approach to address the 'endpoint problem' and improve stated preference methods," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(7), pages 1479-1487, May.
    15. Suneetha, M.S. & Rahajoe, Joeni S. & Shoyama, Kikuko & Lu, Xing & Thapa, Shubhechchha & Braimoh, Ademola K., 2011. "An indicator-based integrated assessment of ecosystem change and human-well-being: Selected case studies from Indonesia, China and Japan," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(11), pages 2124-2136, September.
    16. Scholte, Samantha S.K. & van Teeffelen, Astrid J.A. & Verburg, Peter H., 2015. "Integrating socio-cultural perspectives into ecosystem service valuation: A review of concepts and methods," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 67-78.
    17. Gaaff, Aris & Reinhard, Stijn, 2012. "Incorporating the value of ecological networks into cost–benefit analysis to improve spatially explicit land-use planning," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 66-74.
    18. Barkmann, J. & Glenk, K. & Keil, A. & Leemhuis, C. & Dietrich, N. & Gerold, G. & Marggraf, R., 2008. "Confronting unfamiliarity with ecosystem functions: The case for an ecosystem service approach to environmental valuation with stated preference methods," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(1), pages 48-62, March.
    19. Swinton, Scott M. & Zhang, Wei, 2005. "Rethinking Ecosystem Services from an Intermediate Product Perspective," 2005 Annual meeting, July 24-27, Providence, RI 19536, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    20. Fabio Pranovi & Gianluca Sarà & Piero Franzoi, 2013. "Valuing the Unmarketable: An Ecological Approach to the Externalities Estimate in Fishing Activities," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 5(2), pages 1-11, February.

    More about this item

    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:wiw:wiwrsa:ersa05p254. 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: Gunther Maier (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.ersa.org .

    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.