Natural Capital and Ecological Ecosystem Services: Methods of Measuring Socio-economic Value of Nature

2020 ◽  
pp. 511-523
Author(s):  
Aleksandra Machnik
Keyword(s):  
Ecosystem Services ◽  
Natural Capital ◽  
Economic Value ◽  
Value Of Nature

scholarly journals Total Economic Value of Natural Capital - A Case Study of Piatra Craiului National Park

2013 ◽  
Vol 41 (2) ◽  
pp. 608 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bogdan POPA ◽  
Claudiu COMAN ◽  
Stelian A. BORZ ◽  
Dan M. NITA ◽  
Codrin CODREANU ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Ecosystem Services ◽  
Protected Areas ◽  
National Park ◽  
Natural Capital ◽  
Economic Value ◽  
Relevant Information ◽  
Distribution Analysis ◽  
Economic Sectors ◽  
Economic Implications ◽  
Total Economic Value

In the last two decades different methodologies for assessing the economic implications of protected areas have been developed within the framework of "Total Economic Value", taking into account not only goods and services that have a price and a market but also those not priced or marketed. The present paper, by using a number of recognized methodologies applied by environmental economists around the world, estimates the economic value of ecosystem services of Piatra Craiului National Park, in one of the first attempts to frame ecosystem services valuation in Romania. The approach and results include a benefit distribution analysis, for both the economic sectors and the groups of beneficiaries. Even if the data are not comprehensive and depend on several assumptions, the paper provides very important practical and policy-relevant information on the economic value of Piatra Craiului National Park, in an attempt to stimulate increasing of the budgetary allocation and economic policy priority for protected areas in Romania.

scholarly journals Science for the sustainable use of ecosystem services

F1000Research ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 5 ◽  
pp. 2622 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elena M. Bennett ◽  
Rebecca Chaplin-Kramer
Keyword(s):  
Ecosystem Services ◽  
Ecosystem Service ◽  
Scientific Literature ◽  
Natural Capital ◽  
Sustainable Use ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
Service Science ◽  
Human Wellbeing ◽  
History Of ◽  
Value Of Nature

Sustainability is a key challenge for humanity in the 21st century. Ecosystem services—the benefits that people derive from nature and natural capital—is a concept often used to help explain human reliance on nature and frame the decisions we make in terms of the ongoing value of nature to human wellbeing. Yet ecosystem service science has not always lived up to the promise of its potential. Despite advances in the scientific literature, ecosystem service science has not yet answered some of the most critical questions posed by decision-makers in the realm of sustainability. Here, we explore the history of ecosystem service science, discuss advances in conceptualization and measurement, and point toward further work needed to improve the use of ecosystem service in decisions about sustainable development.

The valuation of ecosystem services of the Khangain nuruu national park

2018 ◽  
Vol 22 (03) ◽  
pp. 123-131
Author(s):  
Ganzorig G ◽  
Enkh-Amgalan G ◽  
Аmartuvshin O ◽  
Densmaa Sh ◽  
Gantulga Ts
Keyword(s):  
Ecosystem Services ◽  
National Park ◽  
Natural Capital ◽  
Economic Value ◽  
Economic Loss ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
Economic Sectors ◽  
Long Run ◽  
Business As Usual ◽  
Livestock Husbandry

The state protected areas (PAs) lack with financial resource, which weakens the PA management including lack of human resource and their skill development, transparent cooperations, and of equipments and vehicles for ecosystem conservation and rehabilitation activities of the PAs. Thus, research on analysing the economic value of the PAs is vital important for the decision makers and policy planners, because they have lack of understanding of benefits of investing to the PAs. In 2013, United Nations Development Programme published a book that reflects the approach of “Targeted Scenario Analysis”, which is used in our study. The Khangain Nuruu National Park (KNPA) locates in 11 soums of three provinces, namely Arkhangai, Bayankhongor and Uvurkhangai, and we analyzed economic value of the KNPA for six economic sectors (livestock husbandry, crop farming, forestry, tourism, mining and industry), and two non-economic but consumption based sectors (carbon sequestration from larch trees, and drinkable water). The economic value or the contribution to the economy of Mongolia from KNPA was about MNT 165.4 billion in 2014, and it summed up to MNT 1 trillion between 2002 and 2014. Livestock husbandry, mining and tourism sectors benefitted about two third of this value. In case of “Business As Usual-BAU” scenario takes, continuesly, in place the total economic loss would reach to MNT 1.4 trillion between 2015 and 2040, compared to “Investing in Natural Capital-INC” scenario. Hence, implementing INC in the KNPA management would save this loss. We recommend to increase the financial resources for the KNPA management, therefore the economic sectors will not diminish due to lack of ecosystem services of the PA, which would then develop the sectors in the long run sustainably.

scholarly journals From studying the properties and functions of land and soil to assessing their ecosystem services: a review

2019 ◽  
pp. 3-14
Author(s):  
Valentin M. Yatsukhno ◽  
Evgeny V. Tsvetnov
Keyword(s):  
Ecosystem Services ◽  
Life Support ◽  
Natural Capital ◽  
Management Practice ◽  
Economic Value ◽  
Terrestrial Ecosystems ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Soil Ecosystem Services ◽  
Analytical Review

The content of the article is based on the results of an analytical review of foreign and domestic scientific and applied research, as well as the author’s own developments on the specific features and the role of land and soil in the provision of ecosystem services. The latter are the benefits and goods that people receive as a result of the functioning and economic use of soil and land resources, contributing to the improvement of their well-being, as well as the sustainable existence of terrestrial ecosystems. The dualist role of land and soil performing, on the one hand, economic, environmental, sanitary and hygienic, territorial-organizational and other functions, on the other hand, being a recognized form of natural capital with an accumulated stock of value, is considered. It is proposed despite the physical unity of land and soil, when valuing them, be considered separately, determining the value of soil from the standpoint of their ecological functions, and the land – the spatial basis, life support and habitat, and also as an integral part of utility and profitability of land use. The possibilities of assessing land and soil ecosystem services are analysed on the basis of the concept of their common economic value and the prospects for applying its results in environmental management practice and statistical accounting of the natural capital.

Bringing in the Work of Nature

2016 ◽  
Vol 45 (1) ◽  
pp. 5-31 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alyssa Battistoni
Keyword(s):  
Political Economy ◽  
Natural Capital ◽  
Intrinsic Value ◽  
Economic Value ◽  
Ecological Functions ◽  
Value Of Nature ◽  
Ecological Concern ◽  
Common World

Ecological concern has recently prompted efforts to assess the economic value of ecological functions: the “work of nature” must no longer be taken for granted as a free amenity, but priced and accounted for as “natural capital.” Critiques of this approach tend to defend nature’s intrinsic value against intrusions of economic logic, but fail to articulate a compelling politics in response. I here argue that nature ought indeed to be brought in to the realm of political economy, but question the category of natural capital: instead, extending the insights of feminist theorists regarding undervalued forms of production, I articulate an expanded idea of hybrid labor that understands the “work of nature” as a collective, distributed undertaking of humans and nonhumans acting to reproduce, regenerate, and renew a common world. This approach poses the value of nature as inherently political and suggests the potential for new forms of more-than-human politics.

The Gingko and the Stump

2002 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Ehrenfeld
Keyword(s):  
New York ◽  
Ecosystem Services ◽  
Title I ◽  
Gross National Product ◽  
Natural Capital ◽  
New York Times ◽  
National Product ◽  
The New York Times ◽  
Goods And Services ◽  
Value Of Nature

I had a call from Bill Stevens at the science desk of the New York Times. “I’m doing a story about an article that is about to appear in Nature,” he said, “and I’d like to fax you a copy for your comments. The article is by Robert Costanza and twelve other economists, geographers, and ecologists. It’s called ‘The Value of the World’s Ecosystem Services and Natural Capital.’” As soon as I heard the title, I knew that I was not likely to see eye to eye with the authors. With some reluctance, partly because Costanza is a committed and accomplished environmentalist whom I didn’t like to criticize, I agreed to read and comment on the article. Soon I had it in hand. I started out to read the article thoroughly, word by word, examining the methods, the assumptions, and the numbers in the tables with care. But it was hard to do; I kept wanting to skim. Not that it was badly written; it was clear and lucid. Not that it was aggressive or arrogant in tone; indeed it was mildly apologetic. Not that it was ill-intentioned; its goal was to demonstrate that nature in the form of intact ecosystems is worth far more to us than we currently imagine. Nor were the estimates exaggerated; as the authors claimed, they were obviously understated, giving a minimal figure of $33 trillion for the annual value of nature. This is approximately twice the value of the global gross national product, they pointed out. In other words, nature is very valuable to us, even more valuable than the goods and services that people produce. One problem was immediately obvious. The authors did not seem to realize the dangers of what they were doing. Never mind the larger dangers to our essential humanity, but even the practical, economic dangers.

FORMALIZATION OF VALUE MEASUREMENT OF ECOSYSTEM ASSETS OF SOCIAL-TERRITORIAL COMMUNITIES

2020 ◽  
pp. 48-55
Author(s):  
Oksana Veklych
Keyword(s):  
Ecosystem Services ◽  
Natural Capital ◽  
Economic Value ◽  
Republic Of China ◽  
Monetary Valuation ◽  
Goods And Services ◽  
Foreign Countries ◽  
The Uk ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Value Measurement

The essence of the formalization process is revealed. Its projection on the task of formalizing the value measurement of ecosystem assets of social-territorial communities disclosed three iterative steps of the algorithm for its solution. The last step is to represent ecosystem assets in monetary terms by appropriate calculation formulas (a system of indicators to determine their numerical values), which is achieved by establishing a monetary valuation of their ecosystem goods and services as an indicator of the natural capacity of these ecosystem assets. It is shown that the basic methodological basis for the numerical formalization of monetary calculation of ecosystem assets of socio-territorial communities are the provisions on determining the economic value of ecosystem services and their contribution to welfare, which are enshrined in the four most important constitutive official documents developed by United Nations Statistical Commission, FAO, IMF and World Bank in 2012-2017. It is established that in foreign countries (Great Britain, the Netherlands, the People's Republic of China) these documents are used as a source in the implementation of appropriate valuations of ecosystem services provided by ecosystem assets of certain areas. And the UK in general has introduced such estimates in 2018 in the practice of its state statistical accounting of natural capital on a regular basis. The generalization of the existing as of 2020 foreign developments on monetary valuation of ecosystem services provided by ecosystem assets is carried out. The list of ecosystem services, the cost of which can now be calculated using the appropriate sequences of formulas for their calculation for the final total monetary assessment of ecosystem assets, is presented in tabular format (with address sources). These sources, which contain sequences of the necessary formulas for calculating the monetary contribution of ecosystem services, will be useful to domestic appraisers of ecosystem assets of local communities. It is recommended to creatively and thoughtfully use the already developed positions and sequences of calculation formulas on the outlined topics, which are published in the relevant foreign official procedural methods and in the performed project studies as auxiliary guides, when conducting estimation of specific ecosystem assets of territorial communities of Ukraine.

Climate change assessment impacts on the coastal area of Maliakos Gulf, Greece

2019 ◽  
Vol 11 (4) ◽  
pp. 1235-1249 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. Mentzafou ◽  
A. Conides ◽  
E. Dimitriou
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Economic Development ◽  
Ecosystem Services ◽  
Coastal Area ◽  
Economic Value ◽  
Wetland Loss ◽  
Mitigation Planning ◽  
Socio Economic Development ◽  
Climate Change Assessment ◽  
Adaptation And Mitigation

Abstract Coastal ecosystems are linked to socio-economic development, but simultaneously, are particularly vulnerable to anthropogenic climate change and sea level rise (SLR). Within this scope, detailed topographic data resources of Spercheios River and Maliakos Gulf coastal area in Greece, combined with information concerning the economic value of the most important sectors of the area (wetland services, land property, infrastructure, income) were employed, so as to examine the impacts of three SLR scenarios, compiled based on the most recent regional projections reviewed. Based on the results, in the case of 0.3 m, 0.6 m and 1.0 m SLR, the terrestrial zone to be lost was estimated to be 6.2 km2, 18.9 km2 and 31.1 km2, respectively. For each scenario examined, wetlands comprise 68%, 41% and 39% of the total area lost, respectively, reflecting their sensitivity to even small SLR. The total economic impact of SLR was estimated to be 75.4 × 106 €, 161.7 × 106 € and 510.7 × 106 € for each scenario, respectively (3.5%, 7.5% and 23.7% of the gross domestic product of the area), 19%, 17% and 8% of which can be attributed to wetland loss. The consequences of SLR to the ecosystem services provided are indisputable, while adaptation and mitigation planning is required.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document