ECONOMIC VALUATION OF ECOSYSTEM SERVICES: DISCUSSION AND APPLICATION

REFERENCES

• Schmidt J. Up Ahead the Channel Divides. The Journal of Grand Canyon River Guides, Inc. 1993; 6(3), http://www.gcrg.org/bqr/6-3/channel.htm (accessed May 17, 2001)
   Google Scholar
• Toman M.A. Ecosystem Valuation: An Overview of Issues and Uncertainties. Ecosystem Function and Human Activities: Reconciling Economics and Ecology, R.D. Simpson, N.L Christensen. Chapman Publications, New York 1997
   Google Scholar
• Christensen N.L., Bartuska A.M., Brown J.H., Carpenter S., D'Antonio C., Francis R., Franklin J.F., MacMahon J.A., Noss R.F., Parsons D.J., Peterson C.H., Turner M.G., Woodmansee R.G. The Report of the Ecological Society of America Committee on the Scientific Basis for Ecosystem Management. Originally published in Ecological Applications 1996; 6(3)665–691, http://esa.sdsc.edu/ecmtext.htm (accessed May 16, 2001)
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Christensen N.L., Franklin J.F. Ecosystem Function and Ecosystem Management. Chapter 1. Ecosystem Function and Human Activities: Reconciling Economics and Ecology. Chapman Publications, New York 1997
   Google Scholar
• Whigham D.F. Ecosystem Functions and Ecosystem Values. Ecosystem Function and Human Activities, R.D. Simpson, J. Norman, L. Christensen. Chapman and Hall, New York 1997; 225–239
   Google Scholar
• Daily G.C. Introduction: What are Ecosystem Services?. Nature's Services: Societal Dependence on Natural Ecosystems. Island Press, Washington, DC 1997; 1–10
   Google Scholar
• U.S. EPA. The Benefits and Costs of the Clean Air Act, 1970 to 1990. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, October 1997
   Google Scholar
• Tobias A.H., Wood S.E. Valuing Ecotourism in a Tropical Rainforest. Ambio. 1991; 20(2)91–93
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kramer R.A., Healy R., Mendelsohn R. Forest Valuation. Managing the World's Forests: Looking for Balance between Conservation and Development, N.P. Sharma. Kendall/Hunt Publishing Co., Iowa 1992; 237–267
   Google Scholar
• Bradley D.P., Xu Z. Forests as Natural Capital: Parallels, Problems, and Implications, Working Paper; Social and Economic Dimensions of Ecosystem Management. North Central Forest Experiment Station, Forest Service, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, 1994
   Google Scholar
• Brown K., Pearce D.W. The Economic Value of Non-marketed Benefits of Tropical Forests: Carbon Storage. The Economics of Project Appraisal and the Environment, J. Weiss. Edward Elgar, London 1994; 102–123
   Google Scholar
• Hanley N.D. Valuing Forest Characteristics: A Comparison of Methods. Landscape Research 1994; 19(1)28–30
   Google Scholar
• Echeverria J., Hanrahan M., Solórzano R. Valuation of Non-priced Amenities Provided by the Biological Resource within the Monteverde Cloud Forest Preserve, Costa Rica. Ecological Economics 1995; 13: 43–52
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Myers N. The World's Forests and their Ecosystem Services. Nature's Services: Societal Dependence on Natural Ecosystems. Island Press, Washington, DC 1997; 215–236
   Google Scholar
• Farber S., Costanza R. The Economic Value of Wetland Systems. J. Environ. Manage. 1987; 24: 41–51
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Costanza R., Farber S.C., Maxwell J. Valuation and Management of Wetlands Ecosystems. Ecological Economics 1989; 1: 335–361
   Google Scholar
• Whitehead J.C. Measuring Willingness-to-Pay for Wetlands Preservation with the Contingent Valuation Method. Wetlands 1990; 10(2)187–201
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bergstrom J., Stoll J. Value Estimator Models for Wetlands-Based Recreational Use Values. Land Economics 1993; 69(2)132–137
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gren I.M., Soderqvist T. Economic Valuation of Wetlands: A Survey. Beijer International Institute of Ecological Economics, StockholmSweden 1994
   Google Scholar
• Gill R.A. The Value of Honeybee Pollination to Society. Acta Horticulutrae 1991; 288: 62–68
   Google Scholar
• Spurgeon J.P.G. The Economic Valuation of Coral Reefs. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 1992; 24(11)529–536
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Loomis J.B., White D.S. Economic Benefits of Rare and Endangered Species: Summary and Meta-Analysis. Ecological Economics 1996; 18(18)197–206
   Google Scholar
• Nabhan G., Buchmann S. Services Provided by Pollinators. Nature's Services: Societal Dependence on Natural Ecosystems. Island Press, Washington, DC 1997; 133–150
   Google Scholar
• Naylor R., Ehrlich P. Natural Pest Control Services and Agriculture. Nature's Services: Societal Dependence on Natural Ecosystems. Island Press, Washington, DC 1997; 151–176
   Google Scholar
• Valuing Natural Assets: The Economics of Natural Resource Damage Assessment, R.J. Kopp, V.K. Smith. Resources for the Future, Washington, DC 1993
   Google Scholar
• Renner R. Calculating the Cost of Natural Resource Damage. Environmental Science and Toxicology. 1998; 86–90, February 1
   Google Scholar
• Costanza R., d'Arge R., de Groot R., Farber S., Grasso M., Hannon B., Limburg K., Naeem S., O'Neill R.V., Paruelo J., Raskin R.G., Sutton P., van den Belt M. The Value of the World's Ecosystem Services and Natural Capital. Nature 1997; 387(6230)253–260
   Google Scholar
• Burtraw D., Krupnick A. Measuring the Value of Health: Improvements from Great Lakes Cleanup. Resources for the Future Discussion Paper 99–34 1999
   Google Scholar
• CV is used as an abbreviation for compensating variation. Some authors also use CV as an abbreviation for the “contingent valuation” method, which is a survey-based approach for measuring the value of nonmarket goods and services (discussed in detail later in this paper). Given the potential confusion, I advocate the use of the abbreviation CVM to indicate the contingent valuation method
   Google Scholar
• Freeman A.M. The Measurement of Environmental and Resource Values: Theory and Methods. Resources for the Future, Washington, DC 1993
   Google Scholar
• A direct utility function is written in terms of the goods and services that the individual consumes in order to obtain utility—these goods and services are what directly provide utility. An indirect utility function is written in terms of prices and incomes because these only indirectly generate some level of utility in that they are the means by which an individual obtains goods and services
   Google Scholar
• I simplify a little and assume that there is only one citizen of Little City and thus her utility function is representative of all of the individuals in Little City. Thus the people of Little City is an individual, which is consistent with the earlier discussion of economics being based on the individual as the “unit” of choice
   Google Scholar
• NOAA. Natural Resource Damage Assessments; Proposed Rules. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Federal Register 1994; 59(5)1062–1191
   Google Scholar
• Kopp R.J. Why Existence Value Should be Used in Cost–Benefit Analysis. J. Policy Anal. Manage. 1992; 11(1)123–130
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Buying a commodity for a certain price in a market is also a form of revealed preference
   Google Scholar
• In many cases, SP methods may be preferred to RP methods even if RP methods are feasible. In general, SP methods can much more directly elicit the specific information the researcher is interested in obtaining
   Google Scholar
• This section draws heavily from Bishop et al.38 This document and a series of reports on other related studies on the Green Bay NRDA can be found at http://midwest.fws.gov/nrda/
   Google Scholar
• Bishop R.C., Breffle W.S., Lazo J.K., Rowe R.D., Wytinck S.M. Restoration Scaling Based on Total Value Equivalency: Green Bay Natural Resource Damage Assessment, Final Report. October 25, 2000. Presented as Appendix A of Stratus Consulting Inc. Restoration and Compensation Determination Plan (RCDP) Lower Fox River/Green Bay Natural Resource Damage Assessment. Report Prepared for the Trustees
   Google Scholar
• The dollar values presented also differ across, and often within, each choice pair and survey version. This allows for the calculation of the monetary value of PCB-caused losses and for the natural resource enhancements considered as a secondary objective of the study
   Google Scholar
• Krutilla J.V. Conservation Reconsidered. Am. Econ. Rev. 1967; 777–786
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lind R.C., Stockfisch J.A., Corey G.R., Arrow K.J., Wilson R., Dasgupta P., Stiglitz J.E., Sen A.K., Stauffer T.R. Discounting for Time and Risk in Energy Policy. Resources for the Future, Washington, DC 1982
   Google Scholar