Using Ecological Production Theory to Define and Select Environmental Commodities for Nonmarket Valuation

Abstract

Economic analyses of nature must somehow define the “environmental commodities” to which values are attached. We articulate principles to guide the choice and interpretation of nonmarket commodities. We describe how complex natural systems can be decomposed consistent with “ecological production theory,” which, like conventional production theory, distinguishes between biophysical inputs, process, and outputs. We argue that a systems approach to the decomposition and presentation of natural commodities can inform and possibly improve the validity of nonmarket environmental valuation studies. We raise concerns about interpretation, usefulness, and accuracy of benefit estimates derived without reference to ecological production theory.

Aquatic biodiversity in forests: a weak link in ecosystem services resilience

“…For example, some people appreciate invertebrates directly, not just as indicators for healthy fish conditions. Furthermore, note that many services are ''dual'', being both valued in and of themselves, but also intermediates involved in the production of other final services (Boyd and Krupnick 2013). Above, biodiversity of fish is thought to be such a dual commodity, and we place it in both the intermediate and final categories.…”

“…Hence, these two disciplinary approaches produced different frameworks that are now being reconciled (Wallace 2007;Boyd and Banzhaf 2007;Fisher et al 2009). Although there is no single standard definition of ecosystem services, we chose the ''final'' ecosystem services perspective to promote a focus on ecological outcomes with a clear connection to social value (Boyd and Banzhaf 2007;Johnston and Russell 2011;Ringold et al 2013;Landers and Nahlik 2013;Boyd and Krupnick 2013;Weber and Ringold 2015; in press). In forest aquatic systems, fish are an example of a final ecosystem service, providing market benefits such as a food and income source, as well as nonmarket benefits including recreation opportunities and species protection value (Table 1; Fig.…”

So you want your research to be relevant? Building the bridge between ecosystem services research and practice

“…Insufficient linkage between biophysical and socio-economic analysis has led to estimates of ecosystem service value with ambiguous interpretation and validity (Blamey et al, 2002;Boyd and Krupnick, 2013;Boyd et al, 2016;Johnston et al, 2012;Schultz et al, 2012).…”

Benefit Transfer for Ecosystem Service Valuation: An Introduction to Theory and Methods

“…Note that this step is important for any type of ecosystem service valuation, whether using a primary study or benefit transfer. Bateman et al (2011b), Boyd and Krupnick (2013) and Wainger and Mazzotta (2011) discuss the development of conceptual models such as these. Empirical illustrations are provided by many works in the ecosystem services literature (e.g., Zhao et al 2013 for a case study of migratory fish restoration).…”

“…Demonstrating relevance to human welfare requires differentiating intermediate ecosystem functions (e.g., fish habitat) from final ecosystem services (e.g., recreational fish abundance) so that values can be quantified and attributed to the appropriate beneficiaries. This differentiation also ensures that the benefit of 11 This often occurs because these typologies fail to recognize distinctions between intermediate and final services, or inputs and outputs in production (Johnston and Russell 2011). each distinct ecosystem condition or process, to each human beneficiary, is counted once and only once (Boyd and Krupnick 2013;Fisher et al 2008;Johnston and Russell 2011;Johnston et al 2013b).…”