Pricing the invaluable:

Serafy, Salah El

doi:10.1016/s0921-8009(98)00009-3

Cited by 46 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In the West this has given rise to the field of ecological economics, which seeks to incorporate positive perceptions of biodiversity into cost-benefit analyses (e.g. El Serafy 1998;Figge 2004). Indigenous peoples have long been considered to have positive views of biodiversity, often associated with attributing a spiritual value to intact systems (e.g .…”

Section: Social Perceptions Of Biodiversitymentioning

confidence: 99%

What does biodiversity actually do? A review for managers and policy makers

Thompson

Starzomski

2006

Biodivers Conserv

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Conservation managers and policy makers must often justify the need for protection of biodiversity. However, results of scientific studies testing for a positive value of biodiversity in terms of community stability and ecosystem function have been complex and inconsistent. We review recent information on the consequences of loss of biodiversity for natural systems. The relationships described vary with scale of interest -for instance, biodiversity at local scales typically has strong effects on ecosystem function, although the opposite relationship is often found at regional scales. These inconsistencies lead to some concern as to whether these relationships can be used to justify biodiversity protection. This is particularly relevant to policy, where holistic protection of biodiversity has most often been mooted and justified. For managers, who most often work to protect single species, communities or ecosystem functions, biodiversity research has failed to address questions of critical concern such as consequences of the loss of rare species or the identification of functional keystone species. For the general public, we believe that the confusion and debate surrounding biodiversity and ecosystem function relationships is in danger of eroding the positive value society places on biodiversity. We further warn that using those relationships in policy documents as justifications for biodiversity protection is fraught with difficulties. Finally, we contend that biodiversity research has largely not addressed issues of concern to conservation managers, and list a set of priorities for relevant research on the consequences of biodiversity loss.

show abstract

Section: Social Perceptions Of Biodiversitymentioning

confidence: 99%

What does biodiversity actually do? A review for managers and policy makers

Thompson

Starzomski

2006

Biodivers Conserv

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Most notably, the global biosphere was first classified into 16 sub-ecosystems and 17 ecosystem service functions, and the value of each ES was evaluated by BTM (Costanza et al, 1997). However, some researchers have severely criticized their findings (e.g., Serafy, 1998; Wilson & Howarth, 2002) due to the limitations and uncertainties in their local use (Kindu et al, 2016; Li et al, 2007). Recently, the evaluation has been updated based on more than 300 case studies worldwide (Costanza et al, 2014; DeGroot et al, 2012).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Variations in ecosystem service value in response to land use/land cover changes in Central Asia from 1995–2035

Chen

Zhang

et al. 2019

PeerJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Acute farmland expansion and rapid urbanization in Central Asia have accelerated land use/land cover changes, which have substantial effects on ecosystem services. However, the spatiotemporal variations in ecosystem service values (ESVs) in Central Asia are not well understood. Here, based on land use products with 300-m resolution for the years 1995, 2005 and 2015 and transfer methodology, we predicted land use and land cover (LULC) for 2025 and 2035 using CA-Markov, assessed changes in ESVs in response to LULC dynamics, and explored the elasticity of the response of ESV to LULC changes. We found significant expansions of cropland (+22.10%) and urban areas (+322.40%) and shrinking of water bodies (−38.43%) and bare land (−9.42%) during 1995–2035. The combined value of ecosystem services of water bodies, cropland, and grassland accounted for over 90% of the total ESVs. Our study showed that cropland ecosystem services value increased by 93.45 billion US$ from 1995 to 2035, which was mainly caused by the expansion of cropland area. However, the area of water bodies decreased sharply during 1995–2035, causing a loss of 64.38 billion US$. Biodiversity, food production and water regulation were major ecosystem service functions, accounting for 80.52% of the total ESVs. Our results demonstrated that effective land-use policies should be made to control farmland expansion and protect water bodies, grassland and forestland for more sustainable ecosystem services.

show abstract

“…Water usage may induce the damage of local ecosystems and negative externalities related to hedonic values, such as fisheries, tourism, and recreation. Notably, concerns may be raised regarding valuation techniques, such as double counting benefits [36] that make the evaluation difficult and increase bias. The evaluation for this concern is out of the scope of this study.…”

Section: Assessment Of Policy Performances On Multiple Goalsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Specifically, we derive estimates of the welfare redistribution effected, that is, the CV of different income brackets, based on the change of tariff structures. Notably, concerns may be raised regarding valuation techniques, such as double counting benefits [36] that make the evaluation difficult and increase bias. The evaluation for this concern is out of the scope of this study.…”

Section: Assessment Of Policy Performances On Multiple Goalsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Multiple Goals Dilemma of Residential Water Pricing Policy Reform: Increasing Block Tariffs or a Uniform Tariff with Rebate?

Zhang

2018

Sustainability

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Water is a basic necessity and its allocation and utilization, especially pricing policies, impose various social, economic, and ecological impacts on social groups. Increasing block tariffs (IBTs) has gained popularity because it is expected to incentivize water conservation while protecting poor people benefiting from the redistribution effects because of its nonlinear tariff structure. However, it results in price distortion under certain circumstances. Researchers have also proposed an alternative practical price system and a uniform tariff with rebate (UTR), with the price level set equal to the marginal social cost and a fixed rebate allocated to the poor groups. This study proceeds with a simulation of the two pricing systems, UTR and IBTs, and empirically explores their fundamental merits and limitations. The results confirm the theoretical perspective that a water price system, compared with an optimal tariff system, simultaneously achieves multiple goals to the greatest possible extent.

show abstract

Pricing the invaluable:

Cited by 46 publications

References 1 publication

What does biodiversity actually do? A review for managers and policy makers

What does biodiversity actually do? A review for managers and policy makers

Variations in ecosystem service value in response to land use/land cover changes in Central Asia from 1995–2035

Multiple Goals Dilemma of Residential Water Pricing Policy Reform: Increasing Block Tariffs or a Uniform Tariff with Rebate?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About