Search arXivSearch

arXiv · 1811.08376

A possible alternative evaluation method for the non-use and nonmarket values of ecosystem services

Abstract

Monetization of the non-use and nonmarket values of ecosystem services is important especially in the areas of environmental cost-benefit analysis, management and environmental impact assessment. However, the reliability of valuation estimations has been criticized due to the biases that associated with methods like the popular contingent valuation method (CVM). In order to provide alternative valuation results for comparison purpose, we proposed the possibility of using a method that incorporates fact-based costs and contingent preferences for evaluating non-use and nonmarket values, which we referred to as value allotment method (VAM). In this paper, we discussed the economic principles of VAM, introduced the performing procedure, analyzed assumptions and potential biases that associated with the method and compared VAM with CVM through a case study in Guangzhou, China. The case study showed that the VAM gave more conservative estimates than the CVM, which could be a merit since CVM often generates overestimated values. We believe that this method can be used at least as a referential alternative to CVM and might be particularly useful in assessing the non-use and nonmarket values of ecosystem services from human-invested ecosystems, such as restored ecosystems, man-made parks and croplands.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Shuyao Wu, Shuangcheng Li. 2018-11-20. A possible alternative evaluation method for the non-use and nonmarket values of ecosystem services. https://arxiv.org/abs/1811.08376

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

Access to Live AI Advice and Behavior Under Risk: An Incentivized Experiment

Generative AI has become an everyday advisor, and the systems people consult are live and interactive, not pre-scripted. We ask whether access to such a system changes behavior under risk. In an incentivized experiment (N = 158), participants made lottery choices with an optional decision aid presented as a conventional pre-written tool, a live one-shot AI, or a live interactive AI they could query, with information format held equivalent across conditions. Risk preferences are elicited via DOSE. We find no evidence that access to a live AI advisor changes risk aversion.

econ.GN

Bricks or Cash? Externalities of Housing Upgrading in High-density Cities

We estimate housing externalities in a high-density city, exploiting the staggered rollout of Singapore's nationwide Main Upgrading Programme for public housing. Controlling for nonrandom neighborhood exposure, we find that upgrading raises treated buildings' prices by 11.5% upon completion and neighboring buildings' resale prices by about 2% within 500 meters, decaying to zero beyond. A model with distance-decaying externalities shows that in dense settings spillovers justify the distortions of in-kind provision; this advantage diminishes and reverses at lower densities. Administrative data on over 2 million residents show that upgrading disproportionately retains older incumbents, suggesting age-specific amenities as an underexplored externality channel.

econ.GN

The Joneses Visit an Economics Lab

Existing literature offers persuasive evidence that individuals care about how their consumption compares to that of peers, and proposes a large variety of explanatory models. The present paper proposes a common framework for many of those models, and compares their ability to predict behavior in a laboratory experiment. We find evidence of Keeping up with the Joneses motivations but also find that conspicuous consumption is enhanced by Veblen motivations arising from peers' ability to observe one's own choice. Among the seven quasi-linear preference models we compare, our data are best explained by a model that contrasts envy and pride (upward vs downward comparisons) using a value function borrowed from Prospect Theory.

econ.GN