XML FeedsAssessing the role of economic instruments in a policy mix for biodiversity conservation and ecosystem services provision: a review of some methodological challenges
By CostBenefit on Jul 16, 2009 | In Land + Water, Europe, Latin America, Academic Study/Journal Article, Preservation & Open Space, Endangered Species, Ecosystem Valuation, Regulatory Analysis, Environmental Economics / Ecological Economics, Costs and Benefits, Free Report at Time of Entry | Send feedback »
Link: http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/15601/
Abstract: In this paper D.N. Barton, G. Rusch, P. May, I. Ring, H. Unnerstall, R. Santos, P. Antunes, R. Brouwer, M. Grieg-Gran, J. Similä, E. Primmer, A. Romeiro, F. DeClerck and M. Ibrahim review a number of methodological challenges of evaluating and designing economic instruments aimed at biodiversity conservation and ecosystem services provision in the context of an existing policy mix. In the context of the EU 2010 goal of halting biodiversity loss, researchers have been called upon to evaluate the role of economic instruments for cost-effective decision-making, as well as non-market methods to assess their benefits. They argue that cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) and non-market valuation (NMV) methods are necessary, but not sufficient, approaches to assessing the role of economic instruments in a policy mix. The authors review the principles of “social-ecological-systems”(SES) (Ostrom et al. 2007) and discuss how SES can complement economic cost and benefit assessment methods, in particular in policy design research. To illustrate their conceptual comparison of assessment methodologies, we look at two examples of economic instruments at different government levels – payments for ecosystem services (PES) at farm level and ecological fiscal transfers to municipal /county government. What conceptual problems are introduced when evaluating policies in an instrument mix? How can the SES framework complement CEA and NMV in policy assessment and design? The authors draw on experiences from Brazil and Costa Rica to exemplify these questions. They conclude with some research questions.
Keywords: biodiversity, ecosystem services, policy mix, social ecological systems, payments for environmental services, ecological fiscal transfers
by D.N. Barton, G. Rusch, P. May, I. Ring, H. Unnerstall, R. Santos, P. Antunes, R. Brouwer, M. Grieg-Gran, J. Similä, E. Primmer, A. Romeiro, F. DeClerck and M. Ibrahim
Munich Personal REPEC Archive (MPRA) http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de
Unpublished 2009; Deposited On: June 10, 2009
No feedback yet
Leave a comment
| « Co-optimization of Enhanced Oil Recovery and Carbon Sequestration | What Do Emissions Markets Deliver and to Whom? Evidence from Southern California's NOx Trading Program » |
