Search

Understanding what influences the value of nature is crucial for informing environmental policy. From a sustainability perspective, economic valuation should not only seek to determine a society's willingness to pay for environmental goods to devise an efficient allocation of scarce resources, but should also account for distributional effects to ensure justice. Yet, how economic inequality affects the value of non-market environmental goods remains understudied. Combining recently developed theoretical results with empirical evidence, this Commentary shows that more equal societies have a higher valuation for environmental public goods and that non-market benefits of environmental policy accrue over-proportionally to poorer households. On this ground, we discuss implications for environmental valuation, management and policy-making and identify a number of fruitful areas for future research. We conclude that environmental valuation should explicitly account for economic inequality, and that encompassing assessments of the distributional effects of environmental policies must consider the distribution of non-market environmental benefits. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper shows how anticipated impacts of environmental projects and policies can be valued in terms of money as a common denominator, and costs and benefits assigned in an acceptable distribution. To that effect, a new mechanism design of situational contracting is introduced that generates information on willingness and ability to pay or to cooperate, in a realization-focused capability approach to fairness. The situational contract reveals preferences and merit considerations of the relevant stakeholders and deals with market failure in a structured combination of political guidance, expert opinions and co-production. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

The situation regarding the loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services is now critical. Consequently, environmental targets have been determined and environmental legislations at every level tend to be more demanding. The result at local scale is that land planners have to take more rigorous account of the environmental damage stemming from their infrastructure development plans. Several economic valuation methods can be used to perform a monetary valuation of losses of natural areas. However, existing valuation methods have reached their limits when dealing with land planning in complex natural areas (i.e. unfamiliar goods). We propose to use a method based on the American Habitat Evaluation Procedure (HEP) to assess the environmental cost of infrastructure development plans. The “adapted” HEP is an equivalence-based valuation method that bases the valuation of environmental cost on the environmental damage itself rather than willingness to pay. We find that compared to more conventional methods, the “adapted” HEP gives a higher value to lost environmental assets, which is rather promising. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

The prerequisite for a sustainable and equitable use of common resources (the so-called Commons) must be the proper evaluation of their role within the complex network of relationships that ensure ecosystems functioning, resilience, and evolutionary dynamics. It is crucial to ascertain to what extent the common wealth is used for the common benefit. Money-based schemes for valuing the Commons, such as the so-called “willingness-to-pay”, provide a user-side evaluation perspective based on the idea that value only stems from utilization by humans. As a complement to such a point of view, we present and discuss in this paper a donor-side evaluation method (Emergy Synthesis) based on the idea that a proper measure of value can be achieved by also accounting for the work done by the biosphere in generating services and resources. It should not be disregarded that such resources and services also provide support to other species in the web of life. Emergy, a scientific measure of such environmental support, is suggested as a tool capable to assess quantity and quality of shared resources, thus providing a basis for their environmentally sound management. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Most ecosystem services (ES) are neither priced nor marketed. Resource managers may fail to take into account degradation of unpriced services in their resource management decisions. Being able to estimate values for ES is fundamental to designing policies to induce resource users to provide (or improve) ES at levels that are acceptable to society. Conducting ecosystem valuation via non-market methods is costly and time consuming. Benefit transfer (BT) using choice experiment (CE) is a potentially cost-effective method for valuing ES by transferring information from existing valuation studies (and study sites) to a target area of interest (policy sites). The prime objective of this paper is to examine the validity of BT and hence whether it is feasible to conduct the transfer process and assist policy making. The paper focuses on the environmental impact of winegrowing practices in two New Zealand winegrowing regions. The two sites, Hawke''s Bay and Marlborough, have similar environmental issues and attributes but are geographically separated. The study estimates Willingness to Pay (WTP) and Compensating Surplus (CS) for ES applying CE and, subsequently, given the preferences of respondents across sites and populations, tests the transferability of unadjusted value transfer (WTP) and benefits function (CS) assessing four different types of BT. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

A survey was designed to elicit donations for delaying inevitable aquatic invasions of inland water bodies within a respondent's region. Surveys were distributed throughout the United States. Assuming all aquatic species groups invade simultaneously, our results suggest that the average person was willing to make a one-time payment of $48 to delay low to high impacts one year (aggregates to nearly $4billion for all U.S. households). By comparison, the federal government currently (2006) invests $394million annually for all invasive species (aquatic and terrestrial) prevention and early detection/rapid response. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: Participants in contingent valuation studies may be uncertain about a number of aspects of the policy and survey context. The uncertainty management model of fairness judgments states that individuals will evaluate a policy in terms of its fairness when they do not know whether they can trust the relevant managing authority or experience uncertainty due to insufficient knowledge of the general issues surrounding the environmental policy. Similarly, some researchers have suggested that, not knowing how to answer WTP questions, participants convey their general attitudes toward the public good rather than report well-defined economic preferences. These contentions were investigated in a sample of 840 residents in four urban catchments across Australia who were interviewed about their WTP for stormwater pollution abatement. Four sources of uncertainty were measured: amount of prior issue-related thought, trustworthiness of the water authority, insufficient scenario information, and WTP response uncertainty. A logistic regression model was estimated in each subsample to test the main effects of the uncertainty sources on WTP as well as their interaction with fairness and proenvironmental attitudes. Results indicated support for the uncertainty management model in only one of the four samples. Similarly, proenvironmental attitudes interacted rarely with uncertainty to a significant level, and in ways that were more complex than hypothesised. It was concluded that uncertain individuals were generally not more likely than other participants to draw on either fairness evaluations or proenvironmental attitudes when making decisions about paying for stormwater pollution abatement. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]