Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

Reviewing the dynamics of economic values and preferences for ecosystem goods and services

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Biodiversity and Conservation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The present paper addresses the issue of a dynamic approach to biodiversity conservation by focusing on published evidence on the dynamics of economic values and preferences for ecosystem goods and services. Empirical evidence referring to the dynamics of ecosystem values was identified as both demand-driven and supply-driven value dynamics. A survey of temporal reliability tests revealed considerable differences in the time span examined (2 weeks to 20 years). The evidence shows that ecosystem value estimates, as expressed through mean Willingness To Pay remain significantly stable in the time span of 2 weeks to 5 years, but this is not the case for time periods of 20 years. For longer periods, both a weak and strong version of preference evolution were examined; here the elements of cultural transmission and evolutionary approaches make the task of modelling the dynamics of preferences rather complex. Integrated models and dynamic bioeconomic models were examined as representative approaches to supply-driven dynamics. These approaches share a role in pushing our understanding of complex systems and alerting both researchers and policy makers to the dangers of oversimplification. The reviewed models are nevertheless normative in nature in the sense that they describe how the complex socio-ecological systems should evolve over time in order to fulfil the requirements of efficiency and sustainability. Mixing of methods and pooling of data seems the only way forward. In this respect, the potential of systematic and formalised interdisciplinary research lies in the integration of insights, methods and data drawn from natural and social sciences.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. We refer to the debate of whether ‘planting’ plastic trees is a suitable substitute for natural trees removed for the need of public works in San Francisco. The still timely debate is contained in Stone (1974).

  2. Corrigan et al. (2003, p. 2). The idea was first analyzed in the context of dynamic valuation inconsistencies by Crocker and Shogren (1993).

  3. See also List (2003), Shogren (2002) and Plott (1996).

  4. ‘Indeed, this is a normative approach in the sense that society has to agree on how it wants to assign weights to different activities, and which restrictions it wants to impose on its future behaviour’ (Winkler 2006a, p. 85).

References

  • Arrow K, Solow R, Portney PR, Leamer EE, Radner R, Schuman H (1993) Report of the NOAA panel on contingent valuation. Fed Regist 58(10):4601–4614

    Google Scholar 

  • Aversi R, Dosi G, Fagiolo G, Meacci M, Olivetti C (1999) Demand dynamics with socially evolving preferences. Ind Corp Change 8:353–408

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Balmford A, Rodrigues A (2008) Review on the economics of biodiversity loss: scoping the science. Final report to the European Commission

  • Barbier EB (1994) Valuing environmental functions: tropical wetlands. Land Econ 70(2):155–173

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barbier EB (2000) Valuing the environment as input: applications to mangrove-fishery linkages. Ecol Econ 35:47–61

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barbier EB (2003) Habitat-fishery linkages and mangrove loss in Thailand. Contemp Econ Policy 21(1):59–77

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barbier EB (2007) Valuing ecosystem services as productive inputs. Econ Policy 22:177–229

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barbier EB, Strand I (1998) Valuing mangrove-fishery linkages: a case study of Campeche, Mexico. Environ Resource Econ 12:151–166

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barbier EB, Strand I, Sathirathai S (2002) Do open access conditions affect the valuation of an externality? Estimating the welfare effects of mangrove-fishery linkages. Environ Resource Econ 21(4):343–367

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bateman IJ, Burgess D, Hutchinson WG, Matthews DI (2008) Learning design contingent valuation (LDCV): NOAA guidelines, preference learning and coherent arbitrariness. J Environ Econ Manag 55:127–141

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berrens RP, Bohara AK, Silva CL, Brookshire D, McKee M (2000) Contingent values for New Mexico instream flows: with tests of scope, group-size reminder and temporal reliability. J Environ Manag 58:73–90

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bisin A, Verdier T (2001) The economics of cultural transmission and the dynamics of preferences. J Econ Theory 97:298–319

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bowles S (1998) Endogenous preferences: the cultural consequence of markets and other economic institutions. J Econ Lit 36:75–111

    Google Scholar 

  • Braga J, Starmer C (2005) Preference anomalies, preference elicitation and the discovered preference hypothesis. Environ Resource Econ 32(1):55–89

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brouwer R (2006) Do stated preference methods stand the test of time? A test of the stability of contingent values and models for health risks when facing an extreme event. Ecol Econ 60:399–406

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brouwer R, Bateman IJ (2005) Temporal stability and transferability of models of willingness to pay for flood control and wetland conservation. Water Resour Res 41(3):W03017

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carson R, Hanemann WM, Kopp R, Krosnick J, Mitchell R, Presser S, Rudd P, Smith VK (1997) Temporal reliability of estimates from contingent valuation. Land Econ 73:151–163

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chavas J-P (2000) Ecosystem valuation under uncertainty and irreversibility. Ecosystems 3:11–15

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chopra K, Adhikari SK (2004) Environment development linkages: modeling a wetland system for ecological and economic value. Environ Dev Econ 9:19–45

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Conrad JM (1995) Bioeconomic models of the fishery. In: Bromley DW (ed) The handbook of environmental economics. Blackwell, Oxford, pp 405–432

    Google Scholar 

  • Corrigan JR, Kling CL, Zhao J (2003) The dynamic formation of willingness to pay: an empirical specification and test. Center for Agricultural and Rural Development, Iowa State University. Working paper 03-WP 327

  • Crocker TD, Shogren JF (1993) Dynamic inconsistency in valuing environmental goods. Ecol Econ 7:239–254

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crook S (2003) Sustaining Europe’s dynamic coasts. Natl Wetl Newslett 25(1):7–17

    Google Scholar 

  • Cumberland JH (1991) Intergenerational transfers and ecological sustainability. In: Costanza R (ed) Ecological economics: the science and management of sustainability. Columbia University Press, New York, pp 355–366

    Google Scholar 

  • D’Alessandro S (2007) Non-linear dynamics of population and natural resources: the emergence of different patterns of development. Ecol Econ 62:473–481

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dasgupta P (2008) Discounting climate change. J Risk Uncertain 37:141–169

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Downing M, Ozuna T (1996) Testing the reliability of the benefit function transfer approach. J Environ Econ Manag 30:316–322

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • EFTEC (2005) The economic, social and ecological value of ecosystem services. Final report to DEFRA. EFTEC, London

  • Eggert H (1998) Bioeconomic analysis and management. Environ Resource Econ 11:399–411

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Epp DJ, Gripp SI (1994) Reliability of contingent valuation estimates for an unfamiliar good: tropical rain forest preservation. Unpublished mimeo

  • Finnoff D, Tschirhart J (2008) Linking dynamic economic and ecological general equilibrium models. Resour Energy Econ 30:91–114

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fisher B, Turner K, Zylstra M, Brouwer R, de Groot R, Farber S, Ferraro P, Green R, Hadley D, Harlow J, Jefferiss P, Kirkby C, Morling P, Mowatt S, Naidoo R, Paavola J, Strassburg B, Yu D, Balmford A (2008) Ecosystem services and economic theory: integration for policy-relevant research. Ecol Appl 18(8):2050–2067

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Freeman AM (1991) Valuing environmental resources under alternative management regimes. Ecol Econ 3:247–256

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freeman AM III (2003) The measurement of environmental and resource values: theory and methods. Resources for the Future, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Green HAJ (1971) Consumer theory. Penguin, Harmondsworth

    Google Scholar 

  • Groom B, Hepburn C, Kountouri Ph, Pearce D (2005) Declining discount rates: the long and the short of it. Environ Resource Econ 32:445–493

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heal G (1986) The intertemporal problem. In: Bromley DW (ed) Natural resource economics. Kluwer Nijhof, Boston, pp 1–20

    Google Scholar 

  • Heifetz A, Shannon C, Spiegel Y (2007) The dynamic evolution of preferences. Econ Theory 32:251–286

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Higgins SI, Turpie JK, Costanza R, Cowling RM, Le Maine DC, Marais C, Midgley GF (1997) An ecological economic simulation model of mountain fynbos ecosystems. Dynamics, valuation and management. Ecol Econ 22:155–168

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Horowitz JK (2002) Preferences in the future. Environ Resour Econ 21:241–259

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jakus PM, Stephens B, Fly JM (2006) Temporal reliability in contingent valuation (with a restrictive research budget). In: Alberini A, Kahn JR (eds) Handbook on contingent valuation. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 249–262

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones-Lee M, Hammerton M, Phillips PR (1985) The value of safety: results of a national survey. Econ J 95:49–72

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaval P (2007) Recreation benefits of U.S. parks. University of Waikato—Department of Economics. Working paper in economics 12/07

  • Kealy MJ, Dovidio JF, Rockel ML (1988) Accuracy in valuation is a matter of degree. Land Econ 64:158–171

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kealy MJ, Montgomery M, Dovidio JF (1990) Reliability and predictive validity of contingent values: does the nature of the good matter? J Environ Econ Manag 19:244–263

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kettunen M, ten Brink P (2006) Value of biodiversity—documenting EU examples where biodiversity loss has led to the loss of ecosystem services. Final report for the European Commission. Institute for European Environmental Policy (IEEP), Brussels, Belgium, 131 pp

  • Knowler D (2002) A review of selected bioeconomic models with environmental influences in fisheries. J Bioecon 4:163–181

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ledoux L, Turner RK (2002) Valuing ocean and coastal resources: a review of practical examples and issues for further action. Ocean Coast Manag 45:583–616

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li CZ, Löfgren KG (1998) A dynamic model of biodiversity preservation. Environ Dev Econ 3:157–172

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Limburg KE, O’Neill RV, Costanza R, Farber S (2002) Complex systems and valuation. Ecol Econ 41:409–420

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • List JA (2003) Does market experience eliminate market anomalies? Q J Econ 118:41–72

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu J, Dietz T, Carpenter SR, Alberti M, Folke C, Moran E, Pell AN, Deadman P, Kratz T, Lubchenco J, Ostrom E, Ouyang Z, Provencher W, Redman CL, Schneider SH, Taylor WW (2007) Complexity of coupled human and natural systems. Science 14:1513–1516

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loehman E, De VH (1982) Application of stochastic modeling to the study of public goods. Rev Econ Stat 64:474–480

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loewenstein G, Thaler RH (1989) Intertemporal choice. J Econ Perspect 3:181–193

    Google Scholar 

  • Loomis JB (1989) Test–retest reliability of the contingent valuation method: a comparison of general population and visitor responses. Am J Agric Econ 71:76–84

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Madureira L, Rambonilaza T, Karpinski I (2007) Review of methods and evidence for economic valuation of agricultural non-commodity outputs and suggestions to facilitate its application to broader decisional contexts. Agric Ecosyst Environ 120:5–20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McConnell KE (1990) Models for referendum data: the structure of discrete choice models for contingent valuation. J Environ Econ Manag 18:19–35

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McConnell KE, Strand IE, Valdeãs S (1998) Testing temporal reliability and carryover effect: the role of correlated responses in test–retest reliability studies. Environ Resource Econ 12:357–374

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McPeak JG, Lee DR, Barrett CB (2006) Introduction: the dynamics of coupled human and natural systems. Environ Dev Econ 11:9–13

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moran D, Hussain S, Fofana A, Frid C, Paramour O, Robinson L, Winrow-Giffin A (2007) The marine bill—marine nature conservation proposals—valuing the benefits. Final report to DEFRA, London

  • Norton B, Costanza R, Bishop RC (1998) The evolution of preferences. Why ‘sovereign’ preferences may not lead to sustainable policies and what to do about it. Ecol Econ 24:193–211

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pethig R (1994) Ecological dynamics and the valuation of environmental change. In: Pethig R (ed) Valuing the environment: methodological and measurement issues. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 3–22

    Google Scholar 

  • Plott CR (1996) Rational individual behaviour in markets and social choice processes: the discovered preference hypothesis. In: Arrow K, Colombatto E, Perleman M, Schmidt C (eds) Rational foundations of economic behaviour. Macmillan, London, pp 225–250

    Google Scholar 

  • Portney PR, Weyant JP (eds) (1999) Discounting and intergenerational equity. Resources for the Future, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Reiling SD, Boyle KJ, Cheng H, Philips ML (1989) Contingent valuation of a public program to control black flies. North J Agric Resour Econ 18:126–134

    Google Scholar 

  • Reiling SD, Boyle KJ, Phillips ML, Anderson MW (1990) Temporal reliability of contingent values. Land Econ 66(2):129–134

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scoones I, Leach M, Smith A, Stagl S, Stirling A, Thompson J (2007) Dynamic systems and the challenge of sustainability. STEPS working paper 1. STEPS Centre, Brighton

  • Shogren JF (2002) A behavioral mindset on environment policy. J Socio Econ 31:355–369

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Skourtos M, Kontogianni A, Georgiou S, Turner RK (2005) Valuing coastal systems. In: Turner RK, Salomons W, Vermaat J (eds) Managing European coasts: past, present and future. Springer, New York, pp 119–136

    Google Scholar 

  • Stern N (2007) The economics of climate change. The Stern review. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Stone CD (1974) Should trees have standing? Toward legal rights for natural objects. William Kaufmann, Los Altos

    Google Scholar 

  • Swallow SK (1994) Renewable and nonrenewable resource theory applied to coastal agriculture, forest, wetland and fishery linkages. Mar Resour Econ 9:291–310

    Google Scholar 

  • Teisl MF, McCollum DW, Boyle KJ, Reiling SD (1994) Test–retest reliability with independent sample pre-test and post-test control groups. Am J Agric Econ 77:613–619

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turner RK, Paavola J, Cooper P, Farber S, Jessamy V, Georgiou S (2003) Valuing nature: lessons learned and future research directions. Ecol Econ 46:493–510

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vanderwalle M, Sykes MT, Harrison PA, Luck GW, Berry P, Bugter R, Dawson TP, Feld CK, Harrington R, Haslet JR, Hering D, Jones KB, Jongman R, Savorel L, Martins de Silva P, Moora M, Paterson J, Rounsevell MDA, Sandin L, Settele J, Sousa JP, Zobel M (2008) Review paper on concepts of dynamic ecosystems and their services. RUBICODE project. www.rubicode.net

  • Viscusi WK (2007) Rational discounting for regulatory analysis. Univ Chic Law Rev 74(1):209–246

    Google Scholar 

  • Walker B, Holling CS, Carpenter SR, Kinzig A (2004) Resilience, adaptability and transformability in social–ecological systems. Ecol Soc 9(2):5. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss2/art5

    Google Scholar 

  • Whitehead JC, Aiken R (2007) Temporal reliability of willingness to pay from the National Survey of Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife-Associated Recreation. Appl Econ 39:777–786

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whitehead JC, Hoban TJ (1999) Testing for temporal reliability in contingent valuation with time for changes in factors affecting demand. Land Econ 75(3):453–465

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Willen JE (1985) Bioeconomic of renewable resource use. In: Kneese AV, Sweeny JB (eds) Handbook of natural resource and energy economics, vol 1. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 61–124

    Google Scholar 

  • Winkler R (2006a) Valuation of ecosystem goods and services. Part 1: An integrated dynamic approach. Ecol Econ 59:82–93

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winkler R (2006b) Valuation of ecosystem goods and services. Part 2: Implications of unpredictable novel change. Ecol Econ 59:94–105

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zandersen M (n.d.) Valuing forest recreation in Europe: time and spatial considerations. PhD thesis, International Max Planck Research School on Earth System Modelling, Hamburg

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the RUBICODE Coordination Action Project (Rationalising Biodiversity Conservation in Dynamic Ecosystems) funded under the Sixth Framework Programme of the European Commission (Contract No. 036890). RUBICODE is an endorsed project of the Global Land Project of the IGBP. The authors would like to thank all RUBICODE partners for creating and sustaining a most productive and enjoyable research milieu for the present paper. Valuable comments from Rob Tinch in an earlier draft are also acknowledged.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Environment, University of Aegean, University Hill, 81100, Mytilene, Greece

    M. Skourtos

  2. Department of Marine Science, University of Aegean, University Hill, 81100, Mytilene, Greece

    A. Kontogianni

  3. Environmental Change Institute, Oxford University Centre for the Environment, South Park Road, Oxford, OX1 3QY, UK

    P. A. Harrison

Authors
  1. M. Skourtos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. A. Kontogianni
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. P. A. Harrison
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to M. Skourtos.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Skourtos, M., Kontogianni, A. & Harrison, P.A. Reviewing the dynamics of economic values and preferences for ecosystem goods and services. Biodivers Conserv 19, 2855–2872 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-009-9722-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-009-9722-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation