Previous Book Toolbar Judith Ortiz Cofer Lessons Of The Past

Previous1book Toolbarjudith Ortiz Cofer Lessons Of The Pastchristophe

Previous1book Toolbarjudith Ortiz Cofer Lessons Of The Pastchristophe

Previous 1 Book Toolbar Judith Ortiz Cofer, Lessons of the Past Christopher Marlowe, The Passionate Shepherd to His Love Table of Contents the pas Book Controls ENV 509 Assignment 1 What are the main benefits of assigning a value to ecosystem services? Ans: Ecosystem and human activity are mutually related to each other from the early human race and Ecosystem services (ES) is acting as a link between these two. Nowadays, it used as a common language for better understanding, planning and providing regulations for both natural scientist and social science specially economist (Chaikaew et al., 2017; Ehrlich & Ehrlich, 1981). Ecosystem Service Value (ESV) is a transdisciplinary approach to reduce gaps between scholars from different discipline as well as general people.

In addition, better understanding of climate regulations including carbon management, role of biodiversity, controlling nutrient, increasing agro based productivity and other non-tradable goods (Chaikaew et al., 2017; Wei et al., 2018). Ecosystem is a non-tradable goods (de Groot et al., 2012) but its value only understands when it expressed in monetary unit. Monetary value ensures both policy makers and beneficiary from ecosystem services to raise awareness on degradation of ecosystem and provide effective measures to protect our ecosystem. Science-stakeholder partnership helps to reduce short term economic benefits for long term sustainability (Daily, 1997; Reyers et al., 2009). What are the main disadvantages of assigning a value to ecosystem services?

Ans. : Although giving a ‘price tag’ helps to understand ecosystem services value for policy maker but sometimes it diverts the original intension of valuing ecosystem services. This trade off value minimise its true intension which is sustainability of our ecosystem (Hanley & Shogren, 2002; Randall, 2002). As a result, policy makers focus on its practical approach rather than its accuracy (Bao et al., 2007). Which means it transform from qualitative approach to quantitative (Martànez-Harms et al., 2012). Monetary value sometimes reflects human preferences rather than ecosystem itself (Brown, 1984), leading to poor decision making.

Components in ecosystem acts independently, so valuation might be incomplete or overestimated for a single ecosystem. It is very hard to estimate all the values of ecosystem services. What are the practical difficulties in establishing values of ecosystem services? Ans .: Transformation of natural capital into monetary term is a complex process. Sometimes it is very hard to assign accurate value of ecosystem services due to lack of academic limitations.

Traditional value is not comparable to those services. For instance, air quality or role of mangrove forest cannot transform into economic term (Costanza et al., 1997). In some cases, cultural value and/or aesthetic value of ES is yet to standardize and challenging to measure (Hernà¡ndez-Morcill et al., 2013). That’s why ES sometimes limited to tourism. In addition, by creating ‘market’ for ES sometimes leading to degradation of environment of that ecosystem (Vatn, 2010).

For example, reserve forest or sanctuary are ‘crowded’ by people rather than preservation. Moreover, current financing method is dubious. There are uncertainties how to link valuation with outcome, at what condition financing should be applied and for how long it should continue (De Groot et al., 2010). Economic driver needs to be synchronized into institutional scale. So that, ecological and economic drivers can integrate.

Finally, transdisciplinary knowledge gap often creates difficulties to share knowledge. Especially some technical term defines each discipline separately, which create a communication gap among experts. References Bao, Y., Wu, W., Wang, M., & Liu, W. (2007). Disadvantages and future research directions in valuation of ecosystem services in China. The International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology , 14 (4), . Braat, L. C., & De Groot, R. (2012). The ecosystem services agenda: bridging the worlds of natural science and economics, conservation and development, and public and private policy. Ecosystem Services , 1 (1), 4-15. Brown, T. C. 1984. The concept of value in resource allocation. Land Economics, 60 (3), . Chaikaew, P., Hodges, A. W., & Grunwald, S. (2017). Estimating the value of ecosystem services in a mixed-use watershed: A choice experiment approach. Ecosystem services , 23 , . Costanza, R., d'Arge, R., De Groot, R., Farber, S., Grasso, M., Hannon, B., ... & Raskin, R. G. (1997). The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature , ), 253. Daily, G. C. (1997). Introduction: what are ecosystem services. Nature’s services: Societal dependence on natural ecosystems , 1 (1). De Groot, R. S., Alkemade, R., Braat, L., Hein, L., & Willemen, L. (2010). Challenges in integrating the concept of ecosystem services and values in landscape planning, management and decision making. Ecological complexity , 7 (3), . De Groot, R., Brander, L., Van Der Ploeg, S., Costanza, R., Bernard, F., Braat, L., ... & Hussain, S. (2012). Global estimates of the value of ecosystems and their services in monetary units. Ecosystem Services , 1 (1), 50-61. Ehrlich, P., & Ehrlich, A. (1981). Extinction: the causes and consequences of the disappearance of species. Hanley, N., & Shogren, J. F. (2002). Awkward choices: Economics and nature conservation . Blackwell Publishing, Oxford. Hernà¡ndez-Morcillo, M., Plieninger, T., & Bieling, C. (2013). An empirical review of cultural ecosystem service indicators. Ecological indicators , 29 , . Liu, S., Costanza, R., Farber, S., & Troy, A. (2010). Valuing ecosystem services. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences , ), 54-78. Martànez-Harms, Maràa José, and Patricia Balvanera. "Methods for mapping ecosystem service supply: a review." International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management 8.): 17-25. Randall, A. (2002). Valuing the outputs of multifunctional agriculture. European Review of Agricultural Economics, 29(3), . Reyers, B., O’Farrell, P. J., Cowling, R. M., Egoh, B. N., Le Maitre, D. C., & Vlok, J. H. J. (2009). Ecosystem Services, Land-Cover Change, and Stakeholders: Finding a Sustainable Foothold for a Semiarid Biodiversity Hotspot. Ecology and Society, 14(1). doi:10.5751/es- Vatn, A. (2010). An institutional analysis of payments for environmental services. Ecological economics, 69(6), . Wei, F., Costanza, R., Dai, Q., Stoeckl, N., Gu, X., Farber, S., ... & Yang, X. (2018). The value of ecosystem services from giant panda reserves. Current biology, 28(13), .

Paper For Above instruction

Introduction

In recent decades, the recognition of ecosystem services (ES) has gained prominence within environmental economics and ecological management. Assigning a monetary or tangible value to ecosystem services aims to enhance understanding, promote sustainable management, and influence policy-making. The main benefits of this approach include improved awareness among policymakers and stakeholders, facilitation of resource allocation, and integration of ecological values into economic decision-making processes.

Benefits of Assigning a Value to Ecosystem Services

One of the primary advantages of quantifying ecosystem services is fostering better understanding of their importance in supporting human well-being. When ecosystem services are assigned a monetary value, it enables policymakers and the public to recognize their significance and the risks associated with their degradation (de Groot et al., 2012). This approach serves as a universal language that transcends disciplines, bridging ecological science, economics, and social sciences (Chaikaew et al., 2017). By translating ecological benefits into monetary terms, it also helps in cost-benefit analyses that guide sustainable development projects (Costanza et al., 1997).

Furthermore, quantification can promote ecosystem conservation by providing economic incentives. For instance, assigning a monetary value to services like carbon sequestration and biodiversity supports policies such as carbon trading and payment for ecosystem services schemes (Reyers et al., 2009). These instruments incentivize landowners and communities to conserve ecosystems rather than exploit them for immediate short-term gains, ultimately supporting long-term sustainability (Daily, 1997).

Another benefit pertains to climate regulation and biodiversity management. Ecosystem valuation enhances understanding of how natural systems mitigate climate change through carbon storage and regulate local climates, fostering informed policy decisions (Wei et al., 2018). It also aids in recognizing the contributions of biodiversity to ecosystem resilience, essential for maintaining ecological stability.

Disadvantages of Assigning a Value to Ecosystem Services

Despite its benefits, assigning a monetary value to ecosystem services can also distort conservation priorities by commodifying natural assets. This may divert focus from the intrinsic and cultural values of ecosystems, reducing complex ecological functions to simplistic economic terms (Hanley & Shogren, 2002). Such trade-offs can undermine the original goal of sustainability by emphasizing utilitarian perspectives over intrinsic ecological worth.

Additionally, economic valuation often reflects human preferences, which can skew results and lead to poor decision-making. For example, cultural and aesthetic values, such as spiritual significance or scenic beauty, are challenging to quantify accurately, often resulting in their undervaluation or omission (Hernández-Morcillo et al., 2013). Moreover, components of ecosystems act independently, meaning valuation for one service may overlook or overstate other interconnected services, leading to incomplete assessments (Martínez-Harms & Balvanera, 2012).

Practical Difficulties in Establishing Values

Establishing accurate values for ecosystem services presents numerous practical challenges. The transformation of natural capital into monetary terms involves complex, interdisciplinary processes that often encounter data limitations (de Groot et al., 2010). For instance, services like air purification or cultural heritage are difficult to quantify economically, especially when cultural and aesthetic aspects cannot be standardized or measured reliably (Hernández-Morcillo et al., 2013).

Creating markets for ecosystem services, such as eco-tourism or carbon credits, may sometimes lead to environmental degradation rather than conservation, due to increased human activity in sensitive areas (Vatn, 2010). Furthermore, linking valuation outcomes to actual policy and financial investments introduces uncertainties—determining at what conditions and for how long funds should be allocated remains a challenge (De Groot et al., 2010). Environmental valuation thus requires robust institutional frameworks that integrate ecological, social, and economic drivers cohesively (Braat & de Groot, 2012).

Finally, a significant obstacle lies in the transdisciplinary nature of ecosystem valuation, which necessitates collaboration across scientific, economic, and social disciplines. Differences in terminology and methodology create communication gaps, hampering the development of comprehensive valuation models (Martínez-Harms & Balvanera, 2012).

Conclusion

Assigning a value to ecosystem services offers considerable benefits, including enhanced understanding and conservation incentives, necessary for sustainable development. However, these approaches also involve important drawbacks and practical hurdles, demanding cautious application and continuous refinement. Achieving balanced valuation methods that respect ecological integrity, cultural significance, and economic utility remains an ongoing challenge and an essential goal for sustainable environmental management.

References

  • Braat, L. C., & De Groot, R. (2012). The ecosystem services agenda: bridging the worlds of natural science and economics, conservation and development, and public and private policy. Ecosystem Services, 1(1), 4-15.
  • Costanza, R., d'Arge, R., De Groot, R., Farber, S., Grasso, M., Hannon, B., ... & Raskin, R. G. (1997). The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature, 387(6630), 253-260.
  • de Groot, R. S., Alkemade, R., Braat, L., Hein, L., & Willemen, L. (2010). Challenges in integrating the concept of ecosystem services and values in landscape planning, management and decision making. Ecological Complexity, 7(3), 260-272.
  • Hernández-Morcillo, M., Plieninger, T., & Bieling, C. (2013). An empirical review of cultural ecosystem service indicators. Ecological Indicators, 29, 434-448.
  • Martínez-Harms, M., & Balvanera, P. (2012). Methods for mapping ecosystem service supply: a review. International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management, 8(1), 17-25.
  • Reyers, B., O’Farrell, P. J., Cowling, R. M., Egoh, B. N., Le Maitre, D. C., & Vlok, J. H. J. (2009). Ecosystem services, land-cover change, and stakeholders: finding a sustainable foothold for a semiarid biodiversity hotspot. Ecology and Society, 14(1), 24.
  • Vatn, A. (2010). An institutional analysis of payments for environmental services. Ecological Economics, 69(6), 1245-1252.
  • Wei, F., Costanza, R., Dai, Q., Stoeckl, N., Gu, X., Farber, S., & Yang, X. (2018). The value of ecosystem services from giant panda reserves. Current Biology, 28(13), 2088-2094.
  • Daily, G. C. (1997). Introduction: what are ecosystem services? In G. C. Daily (Ed.), Natures’ services: Societal dependence on natural ecosystems (pp. 1-16). Island Press.
  • Hanley, N., & Shogren, J. F. (2002). Awkward choices: Economics and nature conservation. Blackwell Publishing.

Related Assignments