The architecture and measurement of an ecosystem services index

Sustainability

Volumn 4, Issue 4, 2012, Pages 430-461

  Banzhaf, H Spencer ^a,b,c   Boyd, James ^d  

^a GEORGIA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b NATIONAL BUREAU OF ECONOMIC RESEARCH   (United States)

^c Property and Environment Research Center   (United States)

^d RESOURCES FOR THE FUTURE   (United States)

Author keywords

Ecological economics; Ecosystem services; Green accounting; Green GDP; Index numbers; Sustainability

Indexed keywords

ECONOMICS; SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT;

ECOLOGICAL ECONOMICS; ECOLOGICAL MODELS; ECONOMIC MODELS; ECOSYSTEM SERVICES; GREEN GDP; GROSS DOMESTIC PRODUCTS; INDEX NUMBERS; VALUE INDICES;

ECOSYSTEMS;

EID: 84861375125     PISSN: 20711050     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3390/su4040430     Document Type: Article

References (109)

1. Kneese, A.V.; Bower, B.T. Managing Water Quality; Resources for the Future: Washington, DC, USA, 1968.
2. Boyd, J.; Banzhaf, H.S. What are ecosystem services? The need for standardized environmental accounting units. Ecol. Econ. 2007, 63, 616-626.
3. Boyd, J. Nonmarket benefits of nature: What should be counted in green GDP? Ecol. Econ. 2007, 61, 716-723.
4. Fisher, B.; Turner, R.K.; Morling, P. Defining and classifying ecosystem services for decision making. Ecol. Econ. 2009, 68, 643-653.
5. Fisher, B.; Kerry Turner, R. Ecosystem services: Classification for valuation. Biol. Conserv. 2008, 141, 1167-1169.
6. The U.S. National Academy has repeatedly called for progress in this area [7,8]. Development of official green national accounts is currently moribund in the U.S.[9], though work continues by academics [10]. Internationally, however, a wide range of initiatives and pilot accounts are under development [11-15].
7. Nordhaus, W.D.; Kokkelenberg, E.C. Nature's Numbers: Expanding the National Economic Accounts to Include the Environment; National Academies Press: Washington, DC, USA, 1999.
8. Abraham, K.G., Mackie, C., Eds. Beyond the Market: Designing Nonmarket Accounts in the United States; National Academy Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2005.
9. Boyd, J. Don't Measure, Don't Manage: GDP and the Missing Economy of Nature; Resources for the Future: Washington, DC, USA, 2008.
10. Muller, N.Z.; Mendelsohn, R.; Nordhaus, W. Environmental accounting for pollution in the united states economy. Am. Econ. Rev. 2011, 101, 1649-1675.
11. Lange, G.M., Ed. Special issue on environmental accounting: Introducing the system of integrated environmental and economic accounting. Ecol. Econ. Year, 61, 589-723.
12. Weber, J.-L. Land and Ecosystem Accounts in the SEEA Revision, in Position Paper for the UN London Group Meeting2008: Brussels.
13. Schenau, S.; Delahaye, R.; Graveland, C.; van Rossum, M., The Dutch Environmental Accounts: Present Status and Future Developments; Statistics Netherlands: The Hague, The Netherlands, 2009.
14. The World Bank. The Changing Wealth of Nations: Measuring Sustainable Development in the New Millennium; The World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 2011.
15. Green Accounting Virtual Resource Center. 2011. Available online: http://www.unep.ch/etb/areas/valuationEnvAcc.php (accessed on 20 March 2012).
16. Wallace, K.J. Classification of ecosystem services: Problems and solutions. Biol. Conserv. 2007, 139, 235-246.
17. Johnston, R.J.; Russell, M. An operational structure for clarity in ecosystem service values. Ecol. Econ. 2011, 70, 2243-2249.
18. Peskin, H.M. A Proposed Environmental Accounts Framework. In Environmental Accounting for Sustainable Development; Ahmad, Y.J., Serafy, S.E., Lutz, E., Eds.; The World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 1989; pp. 65-78.
19. Hecht, J.E. National Environmental Accounting: Bridging the Gap between Ecology and Economy; Resources for the Future: Washington, DC, USA, 2005.
20. Smith, M.D.; Crowder, L.B. Valuing ecosystem services with fishery rents: A lumped-parameter approach to hypoxia in the Neuse River Estuary. Sustainability 2011, 3, 2229-2267.
21. Finnoff, D.; Tschirhart, J. Inserting ecological detail into economic analysis: agricultural nutrient loading of an estuary fishery. Sustainability 2011, 3, 1688-1722.
22. Neary, J.P.; Roberts, K.W.S. The theory of household behaviour under rationing. Eur. Econ. Rev. 1980, 13, 25-42.
23. Banzhaf, H.S. Green price indices. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 2005, 49, 262-280.
24. Based on marginal values, the ESI is a first-order approximation for consumer surplus (defined over multiple services). In his seminal text on index construction 80 years ago, Pigou [25] reasoned that the data necessary to compute WTP "are not, and are likely not, within any reasonable period of time, to become available to us...the only data which there is any serious hope of organizing on a scale adequate to yield a measure of dividend changes are the quantities and prices of various sorts of commodities" (p. 57).
25. Pigou, A.C. The Economics of Welfare; Macmillan: New York, NY, USA, 1932.
26. Färe, R.; Grosskopf, S.; Hernandez-Sancho, F. Environmental performance: An index number approach. Resource and Energy Econ. 2004, 26, 343-352.
27. Fisher, I. The Making of Index Numbers: A Study of Their Varieties, Tests, and Reliability; Houghton Mifflin Co.: Boston, MA, USA, 1922.
28. For full consistency, such a value index, paired with its symmetric service index, in general will not consistently factor the revenue index [27]. One of the two must be defined as an implicit index (i.e., as the revenue index divided by the other) or specific indices must be used, such as the Fisher index (the geometric mean of the Laspeyres and Paasche indices).
29. This "fixed basket" interpretation of a price or marginal value index contrasts with the cost-of-living approach for "green price indices" suggested by [23]. That approach finds the cost of obtaining a fixed level of well being, allowing for substitution among ecosystem services, rather than the cost of a fixed basket.
30. Costanza, R., d'Arge, R.; de Groot, R.; Farber, S.; Grasso, M.; Hannon, B.; Limburg, K.; Naeem, S.; O'Neill, R.; Paruelo, J.; et al. The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 1997, 387, 253-260.
31. Bockstael, N.E.; Freeman, A.M.; Kopp, R.; Portney, P.; Smith, V.K. On measuring economic values for nature. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2000, 34, 1384-1389.
32. Weitzman, M.L. On the welfare significance of national product in a dynamic economy. Q. J. Econ. 1976, 90, 156-162.
33. The necessity of being on this path is only one of several limitations to the result. See [7,34,35] for theoretical discussion.
34. Weitzman, M.L. Income, Wealth, and the Maximum Principle; Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2003.
35. Dasgupta, P. The welfare economic theory of green national accounts. Environ. Resource Econ. 2009, 42, 3-38.
36. Ehrlich, P.R.; Goulder, L.H. Is current consumption excessive? A general framework and some indications for the United States. Conserv. Biol. 2007, 21, 1145-1154.
37. Heal, G.; Kriström, B. National Income and the Environment. In Handbook of Environmental Economics; Mäler, K.-G., Vincent, J., Eds.; Elsevier: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2005; pp. 1147-1217.
38. Mäler, K.G. National accounts and environmental resources. Environ. Resource Econ. 1991, 1, 1-15.
39. Mäler, K.G.; Aniyar, S.; Jansson, Å. Accounting for ecosystems. Environ. Resource Econ. 2009, 42, 39-51.
40. Repetto, R.; Rossini, F.; Beer, C.; Wells, M.; Magrath, W. Wasting Assets: Natural Resources in the National Income Accounts; World Resources Institute: Washington, DC, USA, 1992.
41. U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. Integrated economic and environmental satellite accounts. Surv. Curr. Bus. 1994, 74, 33-49.
42. Environment and Natural Resources Accounting Project (ENRAP). Report Prepared for the Philippine Department of Environment and Natural Resources; International Resources Group: Washington, DC, USA, 1996.
43. Brock, W.A.; Xepapadeas, A. Valuing biodiversity from an economic perspective: A unified economic, ecological, and genetic approach. Am. Econ. Rev. 2003, 93, 1597-1614.
44. O'neill, R.V.; Riitters, K.; Wickham, J.D.; Jones, B. Landscape pattern metrics and regional assessment. Ecosyst. Health 1999, 5, 225-233.
45. Boyd, J. Location, Location, Location: The Geography of Ecosystem Services. In Resources; Resources for the Futrue: Washington, DC, USA, 2008; pp. 10-15.
46. Olson, T. Biodiversity and Public Property: Conflict or Opportunity? In Biodiversity and the Law; Snape, W., Ed.; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 1996; pp. 67-79.
47. Boyle, S.; Kanaroglou, P. Developing geographic information systems for land use impact assessment in flooding conditions. J. Water Resour. Plan. Manag. 1998, 124, 89.
48. Kopp, R.J.; Smith, V.K. Valuing Natural Assets: The Economics of Natural Resource Damage Assessment; Resources for the Future: Washington, DC, USA, 1993.
49. Suter, I.; Glenn, W. A critique of ecosystem health concepts and indexes. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 1993, 12, 1533-1539.
50. O'Neill, R.V. Is it time to bury the ecosystem concept? (With full military honors, of course!). Ecology 2001, 82, 3275-3284.
51. National Research Council. Valuing Ecosystem Services: Toward Better Environmental Decision-Making; National Academies Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2004; p. 51.
52. Shields, D.J.; Solar, S.; Martin, W. The role of values and objectives in communicating indicators of sustainability. Ecol. Indic. 2002, 2, 149-160.
53. There are limits to how far we should push an ESI's ability to capture such asset interactions. First, the biophysical sciences themselves have yet to characterize fully these relationships empirically. That is a process likely to take decades, if not longer. Further, many cause and effect relationships may be largely unquantifiable given the complexity of interactions among ecosystem components [30].
54. Andreasen, J.K. Considerations for the development of a terrestrial index of ecological integrity. Ecol. Indic. 2001, 1, 21-35.
55. Boyd, J. The Endpoint Problem. In Resources; Resources for the Future: Washington, DC, USA, 2007; pp. 26-28.
56. Kontogianni, A.; Luck, G.W.; Skourtos, M. Valuing ecosystem services on the basis of service-providing units: A potential approach to address the 'endpoint problem'and improve stated preference methods. Ecol. Econ. 2010, 69, 1479-1487.
57. Hunsaker, C.T.; Carpenter, D.E. Ecological Indicators for the Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program; Office of Research and Development, U.S. EPA: Research Triangle Park, NC, USA, 1990.
58. Hunsaker, C.T. New concepts in environmental monitoring: The question of indicators. Sci. Total Environ. 1993, 134, 77-95.
59. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Research Strategy: Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program; Office of Research and Development, Environmental Protection Agency, National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory: Research Triangle Park, NC, USA, 2002.
60. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Generic Ecological Assessment Endpoints (GEAEs) for Ecological Risk Assessment; Risk Assessment Forum, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Washington, DC, USA, 2003.
61. Boyd, J.; Krupnick, A. The Definition and Choice of Environmental Commodities for Nonmarket Valuation. In Discussion Paper; Resources for the Future: Washington, DC, USA, 2009.
62. Schiller, A.; Hunsaker, C.; Kane, M.; Wolfe, A.; Dale, V.; Suter, G.; Russell, C.; Pion, G.; Jensen, N.; Konar, V., Communicating ecological indicators to decision makers and the public. Conserv. Ecol. 2001, 5, 19.
63. Ringold, P.L.; Boyd, J.; Landers, D.; Weber, M. Report from the Workshop on Indicators of Final Ecosystem Services for Streams; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Corvallis, OR, USA, 2009.
64. Ringold, P.; Nahlik, A.; Boyd, J.; Bernard, D. Report from the Workshop on Indicators of Final Ecosystem Goods and Services for Wetlands and Estuaries; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Corvallis, OR, USA, 2011.
65. Defenders of Wildlife. Oregon's Living Landscape: Strategies and Opportunities to Conserve Biodiversity; Oregon State University Press: Corvallis, OR, USA, 1998.
66. Noss, R.F. Indicators for monitoring biodiversity: A hierarchical approach. Conserv. Biol. 1990, 4, 355-364.
67. Weitzman, M.L. On diversity. Q. J. Econ. 1992, 107, 363.
68. Weitzman, M.L. What to preserve? An application of diversity theory to crane conservation. Q. J. Econ. 1993, 108, 157.
69. Weitzman, M.L. The Noah's ark problem. Econometrica 1998, 1279-1298.
70. Simpson, R.D.; Sedjo, R.A.; Reid, J.W. Valuing biodiversity for use in pharmaceutical research. J. Polit. Econ. 1996, 163-185.
71. Canterbury, G.E.; Martin, T.; Petit, D.; Petit, L.; Bradford, D. Bird communities and habitat as ecological indicators of forest condition in regional monitoring. Conserv. Biol. 2000, 14, 544-558.
72. Karr, J.R. Biological integrity: A long-neglected aspect of water resource management. Ecol. Appl. 1991, 1, 66-84.
73. Brinson, M.M. A Hydrogeomorphic Classification for Wetlands. In Technical Report No. WRP-DE-4; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands Restoration Program: Washington, DC USA, 1993.
74. Brinson, M.M.; Rheinhardt, R. The role of reference wetlands in functional assessment and mitigation. Ecol. Appl. 1996, 69-76.
75. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Environmental Indicators Gateway. Available online: http://www.epa.gov/indicators/about.html (accessed on 21 January 2008).
76. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Manual, 870 FW 1, Habitat Evaluation Procedures; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: Washington, DC, USA, 1996.
77. Ribaudo, M.O.; Hoag, D.; Smith, M.; Heimlich, R. Environmental indices and the politics of the Conservation Reserve Program. Ecol. Indic. 2001, 1, 11-20.
78. Ecological Indicators for the Nation; National Academy Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2000
79. The H. John Heinz III Center for Science Economics and the Environment. The State of the Nation's Ecosystems; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2002.
80. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. National Coastal Condition Report; Office of Research and Development and Office of Water: Washington, DC, USA, 2001.
81. Dale, V.H.; Beyeler, S.C. Challenges in the development and use of ecological indicators. Ecol. Indic. 2001, 1, 3-10.
82. Ricketts, T.H. Tropical forest fragments enhance pollinator activity in nearby coffee crops. Conserv. Biol. 2004, 18, 1262-1271.
83. Kremen, C.; Ostfeld, R.S. A call to ecologists: Measuring, analyzing, and managing ecosystem services. Front. Ecol. Environ. 2005, 3, 540-548.
84. Priess, J.; Mimler, M.; Klein, A.-M.; Schwarze, S.; Tscharntke, T.; Steffan-Dewenter, I. Linking deforestation scenarios to pollination services and economic returns in coffee agroforestry systems. Ecol. Appl. 2007, 17, 407-417.
85. This may be in part because after initially borrowing from nineteenth century mechanical metaphors in a spirit similar to neoclassical economics, some ecology has turned to simulation methods that are not based on maximization or equilibrium concepts [85]
86. Mirowski, P. Machine Dreams: Economics Becomes a Cyborg Science; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2002.
87. Murtaugh, P.A. The statistical evaluation of ecological indicators. Ecol. Appl. 1996, 132-139.
88. See equation 3.1 in [20]. The value of dB is 0.00178; the value of alpha-B is 0.75; the value of Beta-B is 0.25; and the benchmark value of T is 48. The wholesale prices of blue crab and croaker are $0.72 and $0.67, respectively.
89. Finnoff and Tschirhart compute 200 years of model output. We assume the service flow for years 200 to 300 remain constant at year 200 levels.
90. Anand, S.; Sen, A. Human Development Index: Methodology and measurement. In Human Development Report Occasional Papers (1992-2007) United Nations Development Programme, New York, NY, USA; 1994.
91. Freeman, A.M., III. The Measurement of Environmental and Resource Values: Theory and Methods; Resources for the Future: Washington, DC, USA, 2003.
92. Bockstael, N.; Irwin, E. Economics and the Land Use-Environment Link, in The International Yearbook of Environmental and Resource Economics 2000/2001; Tietenberg, T., Folmer, H., Eds.; Elgar: Cheltenham, UK, 2000; pp. 1-54.
93. Gardner, R.H.; O'Neill, R.V.; Turner, M.G. Landscape-Scale Influences on Stream Habitats and Biota. In Humans as Components of Ecosystems: Subtle Human Effects and the Ecology of Populated Areas; Pickett, S.T.A., McDonnell, M.J., Eds.; Springer-Verlag: New York, NY, USA, 1993; pp. 208-226.
94. Gustafson, E.J. Quantifying landscape spatial pattern: What is the state of the art? Ecosystems 1998, 1, 143-156.
95. Richards, C.; Johnson, L.B.; Host, G.E. Landscape-scale influences on stream habitats and biota. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 1996, 53, 295-311.
96. Heal, G.; Daily, G.; Ehrlich, P.; Salzman, J. Protecting natural capital through ecosystem service districts. Stanf. Environ. Law J. 2001, 20, 333-363.
97. Bockstael, N.E. Modeling economics and ecology: The importance of a spatial perspective. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 1996, 78, 1168-1180.
98. About this problem, Pigou [25] remarked that "the utmost we can hope for is a measure which will be independent of what the state of tastes and distribution actually is in either of the periods to be compared" (p. 58). For example, the Consumer Price Index is an adjustment used to value past output at current prices. In effect, GDP, when deflated this way, is recalculated for all past years and then compared to current-year GDP. Alternatively, GDP can value current output at past prices. The two calculations closely track each other but are not equivalent.
99. Desvousges, W.H.; Johnson, F.R.; Banzhaf, H.S. Environmental Policy Analysis with Limited Information: Principles and Applications of the Transfer Method; Edward Elgar Publishing: Cheltenham, UK, 1998.
100. Loomis, J.B.; Rosenberger, R.S. Reducing barriers in future benefit transfers: Needed improvements in primary study design and reporting. Ecol. Econ. 2006, 60, 343-350.
101. Navrud, S., Ready, R., Eds. Environmental Value Transfer: Issues and Methods; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2007.
102. Rosenberger, R.S.; Loomis, J.B. Benefit Transfer. In A Primer on Non-Market Valuation; Champ, P.A., Boyle, K.J., Brown., T.C., Eds.; Kluwer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2003.
103. Loomis, J.B. The evolution of a more rigorous approach to benefit transfer: benefit function transfer. Water Resour. Res. 1992, 28, 701-705.
104. Smith, V.K.; Pattanayak, S.K. Is meta-analysis a Noah's ark for non-market valuation? Environ. Resource Econ. 2002, 22, 271-296.
105. Moeltner, K.; Woodward, R. Meta-functional benefit transfer for wetland valuation: Making the most of small samples. Environ. Resource Econ. 2009, 42, 89-108.
106. Walsh, R.G.; Johnson, D.M.; McKean, J.R. Benefit transfer of outdoor recreation demand studies, 1968-1988. Water Resour. Res. 1992, 28, 707-713.
107. Boyd, J.; Wainger, L. Landscape indicators of ecosystem service benefits. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 2002, 84, 1371-1378.
108. Boyd, J.; Wainger, L. Measuring Ecosystem Service Benefits: The Use of Landscape Analysis to Evaluate Environmental Trades and Compensation. In Discussion Paper; Resources for the Future: Washington, DC, USA, 2003.
109. Van den Belt, M. Mediated Modeling: A Systems Dynamics Approach to Environmental Consensus Building; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2004.