Tropical Ecology Support Program (TÖB


The Economic Valuation of Biological Diversity

Tropical Ecology Support Program (TÖB)

The Economic Valuation of Biological Diversity

Dr. Thomas Plän

Eschborn, 1999

TÖB Publication No.: TÖB P-3e

Published by:

Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ) GmbH Postfach 5180 D-65726 Eschborn Tropenökologisches Begleitprogramm (TÖB) Dr. Claus Bätke Dr. Thomas Plän, inf – Informationsmanagement, Biotechnologie / Biodiversitätsnutzung, Lessingstr. 3a, D-93049 Regensburg, Germany Tel.: +49-941-299054, Fax: +49-941-25627, email: Michaela Hammer DM 5,-

Responsible: Author:

Edited by: Nominal fee: ISBN: Produced by:
© 1999 All rights reserved

TZ-Verlagsgesellschaft mbH, D-64380 Roßdorf

the program assists other projects in the implementation of international agreements. conserving and ensuring the sustainable use of tropical ecosystems. By applying scientific results at grass-roots extension level. At the same time. The Flanking Program for Tropical Ecology is a supraregional service project being run by the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ) GmbH on behalf of the Federal German Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ). this research work provides the basis for designing innovative instruments that will facilitate more ecologically-sound development cooperation in future. the progressive destruction and depletion of natural resources in developing countries are jeopardising efforts aimed at achieving sustainable development and effective poverty reduction. A key element of the program concept centres on a joint approach which provides German and local scientists with a forum for discussion. P. This series of publications has been produced in a generally comprehensible form with the specific aim of presenting its results and recommendations to all organisations and institutions active in development cooperation. The Flanking Program for Tropical Ecology is thus making a valuable contribution to the practice-oriented upgrading of counterpart experts and the consolidation of tropical-ecology expertise in partner countries. However. Dr. H. On request. Schipulle Head of the Environmental Policy. Protection of Natural Resources and Forestry Division Federal German Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ) Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ) mbH Dr.Foreword For the majority of the world's population. its mandate being to help collect and process experience in this sector. van Tuyll Head of the Rural Development Division . it is aiming to further develop concepts and approaches geared to protecting. thus improving the information status. and also to all those members of the general public who are interested in environmental and development-policy issues. to which the BMZ attaches great importance. in particular Agenda 21 and the Biodiversity Convention. C. By so doing. the program flanks specific projects with studies focusing on issues relevant to tropical ecology. tropical ecosystems are a vital lifesustaining force.

.................IX 1 INTRODUCTION ............................1 1................................................................ 43 3............. 30 3 RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................I LIST OF FIGURES........................................................................Contents Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS ................ 45 I .......................................1.............................................................................3 Determining indirect use values.......1.......... 38 3....V SUMMARY ........................................................ 2 1....................1 Use value of genes and biochemicals......................35 3...3 Objectives........ 35 3.7 2......................3 Examples of evaluating biological diversity ....................................2 Use value of species.......................... 22 2......................................................................................1 Description of the development cooperation project and purpose of the project ......1 Decrease in biodiversity as a consequence of the lack of markets and of market failure ............2 Classification of the types of values of biological diversity ................ 7 2..............................................2 Analysis of problems ..................................IV LIST OF TABLES ....... 3 2 RESULTS AND ANALYSIS ..................................3..................................................1 Valuation methods and techniques..........................1 Determining direct and passive use values on simulated markets .......... 22 2............ 1 1....................................................................................................................IV GLOSSARY ....................1........3.............................3 Use value of ecosystems and landscapes........... 28 2......3.............. 11 2.................2 Indirectly determining direct use values.......................

..4 Training and capacity-building to conduct costbenefit analyses and valuation techniques........... 55 3.............................. 65 3...3....6 Identification of interventions failures ............................3 Organisation of markets with appropriate prices.....The Economic Valuation of Biological Diversity 3.................2 Dismantling failed interventions .....2 Cost-benefit analysis....3 Creation and/or strengthening of institutional prerequisites for the development and implementation of national biodiversity strategies ............... 67 3.....4... 70 3..... 54 3... lost use values.......................... 66 3...................1 Monetisation and cost-benefit analyses.... 48 3..............3...2 Training and capacity-building to inventor and monitor biodiversity . 71 II ...............5 Supporting research capacities in developing countries at the frontier between ecology and economics 68 3... 67 3................................................................ 53 3..4 Recommendations for development cooperation .............. 48 3....8 Participation of local communities in biodiversity yields ..............................2.......... 61 3..................3.2 The cost aspect of the conservation and destruction of biological diversity and the cost-benefit analysis procedure .4 Creation of market-based regulatory instruments................4.....................1 Project-oriented cost-benefit analyses using the available valuation instruments...... 56 3.................4...4........................................1 Opportunity costs: restoration costs. 52 3..3...... sustainability costs.....7 Creation of incentive instruments ...................4..........5 Creation of global markets...... 66 3................4........2. 71 3...3................4....4.. 58 3..........3 Creation of private property rights and integrated biodiversity management.........................

.....................................................75 4....10 Cooperation in establishing global environmental markets through bilateral and multilateral agreements.......... 72 3...............2 Other references ............Contents 3................4.....4................ 75 4...................................................................................... 83 III .................................1 Cited references........9 Assistance in the creation of property rights ...................................... 73 4 BIBLIOGRAPHY .......

4: Comparison of the resulting costs and use of protected areas 52 13 17 List of tables Table 1: Use values of genes and biochemicals Table 2: Use values of species Table 3: Use values of ecosystems 28 30 33 IV . 1: Total economic value of a biological asset Fig.The Economic Valuation of Biological Diversity List of figures Fig. 2: Classification of resources Fig. 3: Classification of economic values and attributable valuation methods (methods in angled brackets are less suitable ones) 37 Fig.

which V . variety and diversity of living organisms in a certain environment or unit of space.Glossary Glossary Allocation mechanism Assimilation Bequest value Mechanism for the allocation of productive factors or resources to certain goals Admission and processing of a substrate Value of keeping a resource intact for future generations Biodiversity or biological diversity General term for the number. populations or any other biological component of ecosystems of actual or potential use or value for mankind Bioprospecting Exploration of biodiversity in search of commercially exploitable genetic and biochemical resources Biotic Cost-benefit analysis (CBA) Direct use value Of or relating to organisms or life processes Collection and evaluation of relevant actions or measures and their alternatives in monetary terms Value of biological resources or resource systems by consumption or production or by their direct interaction with market subjects Discounting Preference of a currently available private use. organisms or parts of organisms. divisible into the order and integration levels genes. species and ecosystems Biological resource General term for genetic resources.

cybernetics Emission rights Pollution licence entitling the holder to a certain level of emissions Existence value Intrinsic value of a resource Global environmental Global markets which have either been enforced by markets (GEMs) international sets of rules or have resulted from voluntary agreements Gross national product (GNP) Gross primary production Habitat Indirect use value Total value of the goods and services produced by firms owned by a country Entire photosynthesis. development and evolution. which also involves social preservation Ecosystem Fundamental functional ecological unit which includes organisms and environment.The Economic Valuation of Biological Diversity involves social destruction. over a private use in the future. divisible into energy flows. diversity samples. food chains. including organic material used during respiration Place in which an organism lives Value of biological resources or achievement for directly used resources or ecosystems Market analysis Analysis of the procurements and sales prospects of an enterprise or an industry and the market influences affecting it at a certain time VI . biogeochemical food cycles.

VII . our descendants or other species Population Total individuals belonging to a certain species in a certain area Preference Productivity Ranking of demand for certain goods by individuals Accumulation of one organic substance per unit of time Quasi-option value Value of delaying an irreversible decision to wait for additional information to help in the decision-making process Surrogate market concept Screening Evaluation of markets for private goods and services related to the relevant resources and products Purposeful search for certain substances or effects Travel cost approach Market approach based on the expenditure required for a particular journey corresponding to or characteristic of products or resources.Glossary Natural capital Net primary production Opportunity costs Option value Passive use value The natural wealth of biological resources Quantity of organic material stored in green plants minus that used in respiration Costs of alternatives that are not used Use reserved for a later time Measurement of the significance of resources or similar factors for us. etc.

(TEV) option/quasi-option value and passive use value of a resource or a resource system Transferable development rights (TDRs) Willingness to pay International trade development rights to enable adequate protection of global biodiversity values.g. in particular in tropical countries Survey to obtain a value. for biological diversity VIII .The Economic Valuation of Biological Diversity Total economic value Sum or aggregation of direct value. e. indirect value.

if this TEV fails to be IX . However. Types of values of biological diversity are therefore subdivided into different use-dependent and use-independent categories. there is a certain amount of overlap between these types of values. However. which means that there is a danger of values attributes being counted more than once in different value categories. It is postulated that a market-oriented strategy to valuate the components of biological diversity would help to stop this decline. the closer the TEV will come to the "real" value of a biological asset. the allocation of the appropriate economic values to these components should be able to halt this trend and to reverse it. option/quasi-option use value and passive use value. These are added together to give the so-called total economic value (TEV). The more aspects of use value that can be determined and compiled to form the TEV. Conversely. The market prices of biological resources do not reflect their true values because of a lack of internalisation of external costs and benefits. The social/ecological value of biological resources or services is made up of four categories of use values: the direct use value. on the lack of markets and on failed interventions.Summary Summary Biological diversity is decreasing at all levels of integration at an alarming rate. This omission is an indication of market failure. This paper is based on the hypothesis that the failure to allocate economic values to the respective components of biological diversity is one of the causes of this decrease in diversity. After an introductory chapter. based in particular on the difference between private and social/ecological benefits. indirect use value. the chapter on "Results and Analysis" highlights the loss of biodiversity under the aspect of the lack of markets and of market failure.

ecological regulatory functions) of nature as a production factor. Alternative indirect techniques by which to determine direct use values are also presented. Because of the benefits of biological diversity and the lack of information available about these benefits as a result of market failure. In order to determine indirect use values. because they allow combined valuations of the direct use value. where this is not possible. the restoration cost approach and the production-function approach are currently being applied.The Economic Valuation of Biological Diversity reflected by market prices. these methods are the only useful ones to determine passive or non-use values. there is an urgent need for economic valuation studies to be carried out. X . methods such as productivity change. The contingent valuation method (CVM) and related methods of analysis are of particular importance in this context. provide decision-making aids indicating the political measures that need to be taken to correct market signals. Methods to determine preferences such as the CVM are not suitable to determine the indirect use values (e. The results of several studies carried out to assess genes and biochemicals. These methods primarily suggest how markets would need to be reformed in order to correct the present imbalance between prices and values and/or. Moreover.g. The third chapter discusses application relevance and recommendations for action and presents the relevant assessment methods. the option/quasi-option use value and the passive use value of the components of biological diversity. since these values support economic activities or even enable such activities to be carried out regardless of preferences. it remains a theoretical concept. species. ecosystems and landscapes in terms of the use values of the respective components of biological diversity are highlighted. maintenance or optimisation work effort.

In order to allow effective conservation of biodiversity. Finally. i. On the basis of the results of this analysis. By applying valuation methods. are somewhat higher at a regional and national level and become substantial at a global level. four measures are discussed which should lead to an effective translation of the evaluation approaches into the creation of markets. In this context. The creation of markets by privatisation and integrated biodiversity management based on the efficiency criterion. cost-benefit analyses (CBAs) allow relevant activities and their alternatives to be identified and valuated in monetary terms. the alternative that is not chosen generates opportunity costs. In contrast. the costs associated with the conservation.Summary The latter approach is designed to determine the physical effects that changes of ecological functions have on economic activities.e. The relevant cost and benefit variables have to established to allow an accurate direct comparison of the possible alternatives to be made. the imbalance on each of these levels needs to be corrected. the costs frequently show the opposite trend: They are significant at a local level and low at a regional and national level. those who control assets XI . They concern the following: The removal of damaging distortions of market mechanisms (deregulation) by dismantling failed interventions. In order to establish prices that reflect social costs. it is important to abolish all supportive measures that artificially reduce the private costs of activities detrimental to biodiversity. it was able to be shown that the economic benefits of conserving biological diversity are limited at a local level. sustainable use and restoration of biological diversity need to be determined. In order to be able to be compared with use values and benefits.

The creation of global environmental markets (GEMs). market economy-based intervention instruments (MEIs) create economic incentives. pledge systems. in particular market-induced instruments.g. MEIs include all political measures explicitly related to private benefits and costs by which the comparative social benefits and costs can be incorporated into market prices. tradable rights and compensatory incentives. it is not sufficient to provide donor countries with financial compensation. In this respect. Strictly speaking. subsidies. A common feature of both approaches are bilateral or multilateral transfer payments. sustainable use and restoration costs for transfer payments (e. While the latter imply direct control (reduction/limitation) of unwanted actions in conjunction with legislative or politically agreed standards. TDRs) lies in the fact that these payments can be related to the amount of money required in national and international budgets to be spent inter alia on conservation.The Economic Valuation of Biological Diversity should also be those who profit from the benefits of these assets. These instruments can be subdivided into five categories: duties/taxes/fees. The introduction of control instruments. The transfer payments must also reach those individuals and communities immediately involved in using and preserving the components of biological diversity in question. This could be attained by establishing property rights to those biological resources to which vested titles do not yet exist and/or by transferring vested titles from the State to landowners (including those not yet entitled to land tenure due to pending reforms). in addition to regulatory ones. XII . transferable development rights. The particular practical relevance of approaches used to valuate conservation. These markets can be enforced by international law or can be created on the basis of voluntary agreements.

• the support of research capacities in developing countries at the frontier between ecology and economics. • consultation on the establishment of economic incentives. ten specific recommendations are made for development cooperation (DC): • the establishment of project-oriented cost-benefit analyses applying the available valuation methodology for the DC projects themselves.Summary After describing application-relevant methods and mechanisms. • the creation and enforcement of institutional frameworks for the development and implementation of national biodiversity strategies. • the development of strategies for the participation of local communities in biodiversity yields. • training and capacity-building to inventory and monitor biodiversity in the partner countries. XIII . • the identification of failed interventions and consultation concerning their dismantling. especially market-based ones. • assistance in the creation of vested titles/property rights and • cooperation in creating GEMs on the basis of bilateral and multilateral agreements. • training and capacity-building within the partner countries to carry out cost-benefit analyses and valuation techniques.

Finally. the German version of the study was therefore revised to meet comprehensibility criteria. the revised text was translated into English. the present author submitted a carefully considered preliminary study on "Economic concepts in the valuation of biological diversity". Above all. recommendations regarding the organisation of markets with appropriate prices and supplementary recommendations for development cooperation (DC). In order to enable it to be put to practical use. it was to be revised to enable it to be used for practical purposes: How are valuation studies on biological diversity carried out and what methods are available to obtain adequate payment for the determined values? First of all. After discussions had been held with those involved in the Deutsche Gesellschaft für technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ) GmbH's Tropical Ecology Support Programme (TÖB).1 Introduction Description of the development cooperation project and purpose of the project In December 1994.Introduction 1 1. procedures used for cost-benefit analyses (CBAs). it was also supplemented by a description of the methods used to valuate biological diversity. 1 . This study contained a short presentation and evaluation of economic valuation concepts of biological diversity. this preliminary study was developed into a final study to be translated into English and laid out in accordance with the guidelines for TÖB research projects. with the financial support of the German Forum on Environment and Development.

On all three of these levels of integration and on a global scale.The Economic Valuation of Biological Diversity 1.g.2 Analysis of problems Biological diversity or biodiversity is the umbrella term for the number. Even if complete monetisation of the components of biological diversity cannot be achieved (e. variety and diversity of living organisms in a certain environment and unit of space. biological diversity is decreasing at an alarming rate. i.e. because access to certain goods and resources is impossible 2 . the socio-economic benefits of biological resources need to be determined as comprehensively as possible and translated into marks or dollars. • species and • ecosystems. this notion should support conservation and the sustainable use of biological diversity. This paper is based on the hypothesis that the failure to allocate economic values to the respective components of biological diversity is one of the causes of this decrease in diversity. If market prices reflected the actual value of biological resources (including resource systems) and of their services (especially ecological ones). Conversely. In addition. if external costs were internalised and the costs of the respective resources thus corresponded to all the values attributable to them. and if not only their private value but also their social (and ecological) value became apparent on the market to a sufficient degree. It is subdivided into the following order and integration levels: • genes (and their derivatives). the allocation of the appropriate economic values to the components in question should be able to halt and even reverse this trend.

i. the various methods of direct and indirect valuation that are used to try to capture the "real" value of biological resources over and above their actual market prices are listed and classified. either as raw materials or as refined products. Another procedure is based on the market prices of biological resources using the theoretical concept of maximum sustainable harvests. those to which market prices have been assigned. Which methods are available to determine the direct and indirect use values of biological resources? To what extent do biological resources contribute directly or indirectly to the economic prosperity and the socio-economic development of political economies? Or. 3 .3 Objectives This study is concerned with existing valuations of the components of biological diversity. climate stabilisation and soil protection? Many different approaches exist. In addition. photosynthesis. without overlooking the pitfalls of an exclusively economically oriented valuation approach. put differently.e. In this study. what is the "real" value that authors attach to commercially used and usable biological resources? And how do they estimate the indirect value of biological resources. it might nevertheless be possible to arrive at an approximate value for these components. most obvious in functions such as flood protection.Introduction to monitor and control). an attempt is made to categorise the various approaches and to evaluate their respective deficits. 1. One common procedure is the calculation of those costs that are incurred by restoration ecology. A further approach addresses ecological and economic productivity.

Scientific. The following three steps are presented: • the consequences of these competitive scenarios are identified. by using regulatory interventions to impose balancing effects that even a functioning market could not achieve.The Economic Valuation of Biological Diversity On the basis of the deficits that are identified. political and economic aspects are considered in order to establish which economic and/or monetary preconditions need to be fulfilled in order to enable biodiversity to be conserved and restored. This can only happen if the actual use value and its cost advantages become visible on the market in market prices. sustainable use or restoration of 4 . This can be accomplished as follows: • by creating markets for the components of biological diversity. However. hypotheses of quality goals. even if this comparison favours the conservation alternative. • these scenarios are quantified in terms of their respective economic benefits and costs and • cost-benefit analyses are summarised and compared. the social conservation. Using cost-benefit analyses. • by using free market instruments to correct the existing price imbalances. this does not yet result in a conservation effect. sustainable use and restoration of biological diversity in monetary terms and their related costs and benefits can be compared with the private and social values of competitive benefits and costs. This also raises the question of financing instruments that could generate the crucial incentive for the conservation. values and costs of biological diversity are derived.

These measures are developed into recommendations for DC. It is postulated that a market-oriented valuation of the components of biological diversity would help to counter this loss. This paper is organised as follows: Following this introductory chapter. methods are presented to valuate biological diversity for the different use values. actual and target values of genes. Finally. types of values of the components of biological diversity are then subdivided into different use-dependent and useindependent categories. In the third chapter on "Recommendations". 5 . species and ecosystems are presented and illustrated using examples. To this end. The concluding discussion concerns how financial instruments that already exist or that are in preparation should be considered and how they should be developed or modified. measures are discussed which should lead to an effective translation of the evaluation approaches into the creation of markets. the second chapter on "Results and Analysis" highlights the loss of biodiversity under the aspect of the lack of markets and of market failure.Introduction biological diversity at a national and international level. In the third section. The second section of this chapter deals with the cost aspect of conservation and presents the instrument of cost-benefit analysis.

2 of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD).Results and Analysis 2 2. marine and other aquatic ecosystems and the ecological complexes of which they are part". the increasing rate of loss of biological resources has led to a fundamental reappraisal of the role of the living environment in the economy in recent years. terrestrial. biological resources are characterised as including "genetic resources. In the same passage. 1986). In order for biological diversity and resources to be able to contribute to general prosperity. Biodiversity is now increasingly regarded as a form of natural capital that supports economic activities. inter alia. Hartwick 1977. Solow 1974. organisms or parts thereof. It has been suggested that reinvestment of the profits derived from the intertemporal efficient use of exhaustible natural resources in reproducible and hence non-exhaustible capital will ensure a constant stream of consumption over time (e.g. populations or any other biotic component of ecosystems with actual or potential use or value for humanity".1 Results and Analysis Decrease in biodiversity as a consequence of the lack of markets and of market failure The notion that economic well-being may not be impaired and that it may even be enhanced if the profits obtained by depleting natural capital are reinvested in reproducible capital is not particularly new in the literature on theoretical economics. their economic yields have to become comparable to 7 . In Art. however. In the context of ecological crisis. between species and of ecosystems". This definition "includes variety within species. biological diversity is therefore defined as "variability among living organisms from all sources including.

which involves social destruction. preference of a currently available private use. there are no mechanisms that permit the integration of such valuation results into market prices. makes it more difficult to find a solution to this problem. however. is currently disappearing.e. Market prices of biological resources do not reflect the true value of these resources because they do not include external costs and benefits. The failure to include such external effects in the price is an indication of market failure. The assignment of market prices to marketed components of biological diversity thus does not mean that these prices reflect their actual economic values. This market failure can have different causes: • Difference between private and social benefits: Where components of biological diversity are traded on markets. 53f. Partially reliable methods to establish the social value of the components of biological diversity are lacking. 8 . 1994. • Lack of property rights to components of biological diversity or the discounting problem. Above all. the consumption of natural capital is economically justified (Barbier et al. which also involves social preservation. This economic justification. In other words. pp.). if the yields from investments that reduce the natural capital are higher than those that sustain it. over a private use in the future.The Economic Valuation of Biological Diversity and higher than competitive sources. their market prices usually reflect only the private benefits and not the social (and ecological) benefits that are attributable to them in different degrees from the local to the global level. i.

while there are markets for alternative uses. which are ultimately not attainable by any allocation mechanism (the so-called Nirvana approach). The market does not take into account anthropogenic influences on biological diversity or the effects of biological diversity on humans. the ability of the market to bring private and social benefits closer together and to contribute to a reduction of the threat to biological diversity should not be underestimated. (. the quality of an allocation mechanism (= mechanism for the allocation of productive factors or resources to certain goals) may not exclusively be judged on the basis of a comparison of its results with ideal results.. "Finally. 139). • Interventions failures: Additional market failures as a consequence of politic failure. subsidies. Local and/or global markets for the relevant components of biological diversity in which the market subjects could convert their value conceptions of biological/ecological goods and services into purchases and sales by aid of the price mechanism are lacking. By setting prices that reflect the real economic 9 . p. tax exemptions). nutrient supplies detrimental to the ecosystem).Results and Analysis • Lack of markets: The problem is not only that only certain attributes of the biological components that are traded on markets are included in market prices. direct income transfers.. Despite these limitations. cultivation of certain species. it is worth asking what the market may contribute in pragmatic terms to taking care of natural resources" (Endres and Querner 1993. making existing markets inefficient and favouring the depreciation or destruction of biological resources (clearcutting.g. but that most biological resources and ecological services are not traded on markets at all.) Since in reality only incompletely functioning allocation mechanisms are available. by disincentives (e.g. e.

g. The criticism not infrequently expressed by the public that this kind of monetisation can only be based on misunderstandings could be avoided if people listened more carefully to what most economists really said. This benefit corresponds to the value that a potential consumer attaches to the respective component. • the creation of markets for the value-oriented mobilisation of demand for and supply of biological resources and • the abolition of price-distorting political and economic interventions. resource that can be exploited in tourism) and thus also the price. Overcoming this market failure therefore implies the following: • the inclusion of the social values and costs of biological diversity in market prices. The question is actually how much it would cost to stop destruction of these resources and/or to re-establish their maximum possible functional capacity. According to Hampicke (1991." "If a 10 . 104f. regarding biological diversity in economic and monetary terms obviously does not mean dealing with the monetary value of a species or nature on its own ("this kind of monetisation approach would not be allowed"). The benefit that a certain component of biological diversity gives its consumers governs the purchase decision (e. pp. One of the most important tasks of the monetisation of biological diversity is therefore to reflect this benefit and/or value in the market price. "It cannot be agreed that this goes beyond the borders of what is admissible in monetary analyses. the social interest in the conservation of biological resources becomes translatable into an individual interest.The Economic Valuation of Biological Diversity value. The appropriate methodology will be dealt with in a later section.). pharmacologically exploitable resource.

in purely mathematical terms. 3. the alternatives can then be weighed up against each other. wildlife watching) are included in their market prices. Then a decision must be made between two nonmonetisable alternatives. Some biological resources are traded on markets. The direct value of biological resources or resource systems is derived from their direct use (by consumption or production) or from their direct interaction with market subjects. the costs of alternatives that are not used). if human lives have to be sacrificed. agriculturally useful plants and animals.2. and their direct use values (e. which might be interpreted as meaning that they are so high they cannot be expressed in monetary terms – e. It would only be at our disposal if the costs of nature conservation were unreasonably high." 2. The social value of biological resources or services is thus composed of four categories of use value: Use-dependent values 1. then in economic terms this means that it is not possible to fall below this minimum level of species conservation even against paying demand . Use values are relative and linked to market subjects and their preferences. all decisions on political allocation result in opportunity costs (i.2 Classification of the types of values of biological diversity The demand for biological goods results from the different value preferences of market subjects. In costbenefit analyses (see Sect.g. a decision nobody would be envied for having to make. medicinal plants. Expenditure on the use of ecosystems for tourism.e.2).Results and Analysis level of nature conservation is postulated that makes nature almost inviolable. wood. hunting 11 . i. the price of this is infinitely high.e.g.

The passive use value of biological diversity results from the importance attributed to it for us. water retention. this resource remains untouched for the time being. these market prices are incomplete.The Economic Valuation of Biological Diversity or fishing also reflects their direct market values. The quasi-option value refers to the delay of an irreversible decision to wait for additional information to help in the decisionmaking process. because they do not take account of certain social value attributes. e. together with the partially irreversible consequences of the alternative use of the components of biological diversity. Because future information connected with the resource in question may be valuable. this means that the concept of the quasi-option value is becoming increasingly important. Indirect values result from (a) their benefit for other directly used species and/or their genes (indirect biocoenotic value). assimilation of biological waste materials. The indirect value of biological resources or services results from the value that these have for directly used resources or ecosystems. carbon storage (indirect ecosystem value). It can be 12 . Many biological resources derive their value from their indirect economic importance for directly used resources. microclimatic stabilisation. and (c) their importance for future evolution (indirect evolutionary value). (b) their importance for ecological services. Use-independent values 4. it can be difficult to assess risks and uncertainties when carrying out an evaluation. The option to use biological resources at a later date is kept open by value assignment. As already mentioned. our descendants or other species.g. The option use value describes a use reserved for a later time. Due to gaps in our knowledge. protection from erosion. 3. 2.

Randall 1991). 1). The non-use or passive use value of biological resources is nearly completely determined by ethical considerations and is of importance where individuals who do not intend to use components of biological diversity would nevertheless feel a loss if these disappeared (Brown 1990. indirect value. Fig. BV. TEV = F (DUV. OV.Results and Analysis subdivided into its bequest value (the value of keeping a resource intact for future generations) and its existence value (the value conferred by ensuring the survival of a resource). 1: Total economic value of a biological asset There is some overlap between the different types of values. option/quasi-option value and passive use value of resources or resource systems add up to give their total economic value (TEV. which means that there is a risk of the same value attributes being counted more than 13 . EV) TEV = UV + NUV = (DUV + IUV + OV + QOV) + (BV + EV) TEV: Total economic value UV: Use value NUV: Non-use value DUV: Direct use value IUV: Indirect use value OP: Option value QOV: Quasi-option value BV: Bequest value EV: Existence value Fig. IUV. QOV. The direct value.

The user value.g. but also that many natural ecosystems and habitats may also be converted to other monetisable direct uses (Perrings 1995. by observing or photographing nature or being stimulated to carry out artistic activities. bequest and existence values. forestry and agricultural operations. the result may be a bias towards the development of the commercial use and an exploitation of biological resources. p. by charging fees for wildlife watching).Many biological resources are traded directly on local or international markets. This suggests that some direct use values of biological resources will be reflected in the prices of marketed goods and services.g. 866). is a typical non-monetised direct use value. it becomes a serious alternative to other price-related direct uses (e. hunting). may be preferred to subsistence operations or to a philosophy of nature conservation involving doing nothing. However. corresponding to the individual personal benefit of biological diversity. ad 1.The Economic Valuation of Biological Diversity once in different value categories. However. public and private institutions. for example. there are different concepts in economics of how the valuations of environmental changes should be aggregated in order to arrive at an overall economic evaluation. companies) can more readily perceive the economic value of marketed products and services of biological resources than the value of non-commercial and direct subsistence uses. for instance. Where this direct use value is commercialised (e. because subjects (individuals. the explicit view of the direct use value shows that a valuerelated consideration of non-monetised direct alternative uses is 14 . However. This is particularly true of option.g. This may mean not only that commercial fishery. e.

).The indirect use value of a particular component of biological diversity is not usually taken into account by market prices. 3. moreover. Leguminosae are associated with nitrogenfixing bacteria) for the direct use of legumes is relatively easy to derive. do not readily lend themselves to direct economic assessment. While the basic idea of the option value is to maintain access options on components of biological diversity that are not used at present.g. The difficult methodical question here is how much society 15 . While an indirect biocoenotic use of soil micro-organisms (e.Results and Analysis necessary in order to give them a fair chance on the market. Its expression in monetary terms becomes more realistic the more indirect the particular use is. the reversible one should be chosen. the spreading of seeds. the expansion of grassland and the reduction in numbers of the tsetse fly is considerably more difficult to quantify. the prevention of scrubland. and indirect ecological use values. pp. the idea of the quasi-option value is to use expenditure on biodiversity conservation to diminish uncertainty and/or to avoid irreversible decisions (Hampicke 1991. ad 2.Difficult theoretical calculations in decision-making suggest that decisions with irreversible results should be examined particularly carefully in terms of possible consequences. 87f. in situations in which there is both an irreversible and a reversible alternative. see Sect.3). Determining these use values by value preferences becomes increasingly difficult and ultimately impossible due to the complexity of the object and of system properties that are emerging in the light of present ecological knowledge. (On the creation of markets by monetisation. the central ecological role that elephants play in the diversification of African savannas and forests. ad 3. in particular.

b) the extent to which they are replaceable by other resources (substitutability) and c) whether the use of biological resources by a market subject impairs the use of these or other resources by other market subjects (rival usability. the closer it comes to representing the "real" value of biological goods or services. ad 4. further limitations result from the usability of the respective resources. the TEV is subject to group. Above all. reflecting the personal benefits of biological diversity. 16 . In particular. sustainability criterion). however. the TEV remains a theoretical variable unless it is reflected by market prices. The more aspects of use value that can be determined and integrated into the TEV. these value components should be determined as a holistic non-use or passive use value. due to the aspects of passive use and option value. In addition to the relativity of values and prices on the user level. Since there is some overlap between these value types. The use value includes the following: a) the extent to which biological resources can be used for different purposes (transformability).The Economic Valuation of Biological Diversity should pay for the conservation of components of biological diversity that might one day become useful.and culture-dependent differences.The bequest value is often included in the existence value. and the user value is sometimes added to these two values.

Purely public goods (e. air. the welfare effects of the forest) can in fact be attributed with values. Figure 2 shows the relation between the sustainability criterion (c) and the supply aspect (d). by (actual and intellectual) property rights and their effectiveness. Their results differ particularly due to the conflict between interests of private and social use. It is the dominance of private use interests in the market that frequently 17 . but because they are not scarce. Others cannot be excluded from the use of resources Use of resources by A does not influence others consumption by Purely public goods Resources under (e. market prices are not only based on demand and the value preferences of market subjects it indicates.2). The market prices of biological resources are also determined by d) supply and by exclusivity of their usability. 2: Classification of resources ad a-c)The values of competitively usable resources have to be determined in separate valuation steps and be evaluated comparatively in costbenefit analyses (see Sect. national) sovereignty Jointly usable resource pool Use of resources by A does influence others consumption by Private goods Others can be excluded from the use of resources Fig. they remain outside the market. i.e.g.g.Results and Analysis However.g. water) or a jointly usable resources pool (e.2. 3.

Resources that are still non-exclusively usable include marine biology resources outside national sovereignty zones.The Economic Valuation of Biological Diversity constitutes a threat to biological diversity. exclusive national rights of use and property were created for the large majority of biological resources. 2 are the quasi-exclusive and/or quasi-non-exclusive links between these extremes. Use rights to biological resources that are privately owned are purely exclusive. Now that the CBD has come into force. there is still some controversy over a whole range of biological resources and their services as to whether the use rights should be exclusively private or national. A gradual transition is taking place between exclusively privately usable biological resources and (the few) completely non-exclusively usable resources freely accessible to the public. the production of oxygen by green plants). Vogel (1994) correctly acknowledges that it is only through consistent privatisation of biological resources that an interest in sustainability can become generally accepted against alternative uses. ad d) When the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) came into force. The items "resources under national sovereignty" and "jointly usable resource pool" in Fig. Before the CBD came into effect. However.g. the number of non-exclusive biological resources has decreased considerably. those of the earth's biological resources that are now subject to national sovereignty were treated as the common heritage of mankind and thus as non-exclusively usable. it is important to 18 . Markets and market prices exist for purely privately used goods. freely accessible resources. In determining use values. Ecological services of biological diversity are usually also nonexclusively usable (e. but not for purely public goods.

it is not surprising that particular attention is paid to the application of economic valuation approaches at the level of the ecosystem (Barbier et al.2) of an ecosystem's TEV result in the conservation option. In this respect. The significance of economic valuation depends on the integration level on which it was carried out. To use an analogy. If cost-benefit analyses of an ecosystem result in the options sustainable use. 3. the value of an engine cannot be used to determine the value of an aeroplane and the value of an aeroplane does not indicate the value of an airport.2. this also includes a number of components of biological diversity on the lower integration levels for which individual TEVs do not need to be determined (and which would presumably not be technically feasible). TEVs can be determined on each of these three levels (and on further intermediate levels). normative valuation approaches have to be integrated into the TEV of biological resources in order to take proper account of rights of access and property. 1994). then supplementing the TEV on lower hierarchical levels may become 19 . At the beginning of this paper. unless the goods concerned are public ones. and the TEV of a species (or a biocoenosis) is not sufficient to illustrate the value of the respective ecosystem. However. the hierarchical division of biological resources into the levels of genes.Results and Analysis make value preferences much more visible in markets by means of property interests. If cost-benefit analyses (see Sect. the total value of a screw cannot be used deduce the value of an engine. restoration or alternative use. Regardless of whether a local. the TEV of a gene or a biochemical will obviously not be suitable to show the TEV of its host species. national or global perspective is taken. species and ecosystems was presented.

but that cannot be captured by value preferences. For instance. the secondary value) to give the total environmental value (TV). is undisputed. this is added to the TEV (i. and it is therefore not discussed separately here. while interest in one specific gene will only generate marginal conservation effects. The properties of its system should be integrated in the indirect use value.The Economic Valuation of Biological Diversity necessary in order to arrive at evaluations or specific management recommendations for specific populations or genetic resources. however. pp. 842f. he rightly points out that "any approximation to this admittedly difficult unit is better and more reasonable than an operational term which is certainly wrong" and that "the lack of industrial understanding of the category 'natural capital' is not the consequence of a 20 . Economic valuations of biological resources of the lower levels can of course lead to effects that make a TEV on a higher integration level superfluous. Furthermore. screening all the higher plants of an ecosystem for pharmacological ingredients may have a direct ecosystem-sustaining effect. In addition. Immler (1993) states that "the productive natural capital is the key category in a holistic ecological/economic valuation".e. It represents properties of an ecosystem or biosphere that are highly relevant in economic terms. the notion of a so-called primary value has also been introduced. dealing with objects on a lower level of the hierarchy can lead to synergistic results that are relevant for higher levels as well. In answer to the objection that economics does not offer the tools for operationalising pricing. There is no clear-cut distinction between this and the indirect use value. The central importance of these values for monetisation approaches. Whether it will be possible to express it in economic terms at all is contentious (see Perrings 1995. if any. depending on the economic question concerned.).

g. 1986). it is primarily due to the fact that there are at present still no methods or scientific information to approximate the actual indirect use value. For instance. but attractive might gain a higher monetary value than a highly productive grassland. Ecological productivity (net and gross primary production) has a theoretically assignable (potential) maximum. 20% of cultivable soil has been lost over the past 30 years world-wide). humans consumed 40% of the global terrestrial net primary production (Vitousek et al. their net primary production also diminishes over time. However. for example). Even back in 1986. this would not correspond to ecologically specified rankings (e. even if ecosystems were ranked by determining their TEVs. (Due to the ecological degradation phenomena such as nutrient washing and soil erosion that accompany the creation of cultivated ecological systems. but of an economics that does not want to know anything about it".Results and Analysis nature that cannot be understood. however. This is partially because of the inclusion of nonuse values (whereby a mountainous region that is not particularly productive. on the basis of productivity criteria). However. The transformation of ecological value units into economic ones could be successful on the basis of productivity. we need to understand the role of species in mediating the key structuring processes in 21 . One method of approximation is the production-function approach. Cultivated ecological systems may obviously show the same net productivity (agricultural areas including external fertiliser supply) but a smaller gross productivity than autochthonous ecosystems. which could be defined as the productivity of the primary ecosystems ("world-wide wilderness productivity") and/or by the theoretical productivity of ecosystems after the sudden end of human influences ("potential natural productivity"). both an ecological and an economic concept.

2. implicitly acknowledging its importance (see e. It also requires not just snapshots of the value of ecosystem function. Not only the ecological aspect.g. although awareness of the value of the genetic resources of plants and their relatives in the wild has risen in economic terms as well. 3. the borders between the two types 22 .g. p. 844 ff. This makes the examples discussed in this section different from product examples such as ivory or timber. However.). This requires ecological and economic production functions to be specified (Perrings 1995.1 (see Perrings 1995. pp.1 Use value of genes and biochemicals Whereas the utilisation of genes (animal and plant breeding) or natural products used to be linked to the cultivation of the respective species.3 Examples of evaluating biological diversity This section deals with estimates of the value of genes. e.3. However. but also time series that show how the value of such functions is changing. in cell cultures or transgenic organisms. but also the evolutionary component is not taken into consideration sufficiently in economic valuation approaches of biological diversity. experimentation and storage sites of biodiversity evolution that conservationists' expectations linked to bioprospecting strategies can have a chance of being realised. Mooney and Fowler 1991). 889). 2. new biotechnologies now permit genes and biochemicals to be utilised independently of their parent species. whose use remains bound to the species producing them. species and ecosystems arrived at using the valuation methods described previously and methodologically illustrated in Sect. it is only by regarding natural ecosystems in economic terms as durable in situ production.The Economic Valuation of Biological Diversity ecosystems over a range of environmental conditions.

and corrections therefore have to be made for economic cost calculations (cf. The annual growth rates vary between 8% (biotechnological processes) and 20%-35% (gene technology processes). 23 . agricultural and food production industry. Modern biotechnology and genetic engineering (with the potential for intra. a 35% increase compared to the previous year (Burrill and Lee 1992.e. the obtained or attainable price for the respective biological resources is not determined ecologically. The size of the market for biotechnologically manufactured products world-wide is now more than US $250 billion per year. but solely on the basis of market criteria.Results and Analysis are transient. the United States' proceeds of sale in 1992 amounted to approximately US $5 billion. The direct use value of genetic diversity results from delivering the raw material with desirable properties for the pharmaceutical. these are usually distorted by transfer components.and inter-species gene transfer they offer) allow the use potential of genetic resources to be extended and therefore lead economically to an increase and/or a supplementary effect to the direct use value of genetic resources and their derivatives (natural products). however. i. For example. 180f. and it may be more profitable not to make use of these biotechnological options and to obtain certain natural products from complete (cultivated or wild living) individuals of the species of origin. Hampicke 1991. For the year 2000. and private biotechnological research and development (R&D) investments in the countries of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) amount to approximately US $9 billion per year. Like the existing and potential market prices specified in the following examples. pp. cited in Downes 1993). Above all. a tenfold increase is expected (Industrial Biotechnology Association 1992.). cited in Downes 1993).

and it is not clear whether numbers are drawn for which no tickets have been submitted.The Economic Valuation of Biological Diversity Nevertheless. the exchange of genetic resources and technologies between the North and the South should increase to about 10% of the respective world trade volume. The study by Sedjo and colleagues concludes that. because indirect or passive use values were hardly integrated into these valuations and TEVs are also lacking. Some authors have published papers about the commercial value of genetic resources. whereas enzyme use or the genetic resources of ornamental plants. This comparison highlights the unknown spatial distribution of organisms and the uncertainty about whether the relevant gene or biomolecule might also be found in other organisms. 24 . According to Sánchez and Juma (1994). Neither the prize nor the possible number of main winners among whom the prize is finally divided is known. the market for genetic resources is developing into new segments. some of these data are questionable. conservation effects on biological resources can arise from the presence or development of a market (although the opposite can also occur). A study by Sedjo et al. Due to genetic engineering. (1994) addresses prospecting strategies for genetic resources by comparing them with a lottery. and it is not known how scarce most biological resources actually are. However. for example. pharmacological or agricultural uses of genes and biochemicals have been dealt with more intensely. the willingness of industry to pay high prices for biomolecules is thus relatively small. As far as direct use options are concerned. have been largely neglected. Thus bioprospecting projects are associated with the idea that the identification (via bioassays) and development of useful biochemicals and genes might result in a market that exerts conservation effects on concrete resources in situ with optional conservation effects on other resources in the same habitat that are not yet commercially exploited.

The present share of the genetic material used for pharmaceutical products originating from the South amounts to about US $4. The commercial value of medicines derived from species living in the wild is estimated at more than US $40 billion p. 16 of them of special 25 . the overall world-wide proportion increases to 75%. prospecting companies have so far been willing to pay approximately $50-200 per unprocessed in situ sample (Laird 1993). In the OECD member countries.Results and Analysis under optimal conditions. about 25% of all medicaments in the OECD countries are of plant origin. if we include those countries that are not industrially developed. because it is primarily the labour-intensive collection that is paid for and not the material itself. plant-based medicaments amounting to more than DM 100 billion were sold in 1985.000 per species might result. On the basis of respective contracts.a. However. Pharmacologically useful biomolecules According to a study by the OECD (1987).7 billion. With respect to endangered habitats in which the relevant species exist. Two fifths of all modern U. it would be too simplistic to infer the market value of the genetic material from these amounts. a maximum of $20 per hectare might be paid. pharmaceutical products contain one or more ingredients of natural origin (Oldfield 1984). an estimated 2067 plant species will have become extinct by the year 2000. a maximum economic yield of US $10. world-wide.S. Assuming a rate of extinction of 10%. The present hectare yields of medicinal plants from the tropical rain forest are estimated to range from $262 to $1000 (Pearce and Moran 1994). and the figure for the United States in 1980 was US $8112 billion.

The Economic Valuation of Biological Diversity

pharmaceutical interest; Farnsworth and Soejarto (1985) have estimated this to entail an economic loss of US $3.25 billion ($16×203 million). By means of bioprospecting, i.e. screening biological diversity in search of commercially exploitable genetic and biochemical resources, the value of the germ plasm for medicinal purposes from the South, which currently amounts to approximately US $4.7 billion, might rise over the next 10 years to US $47 billion. For Costa Rica, Aylward (1993) estimated the value of "pharmaceutical prospecting" at $4.81 million per successfully prospected product. However, these figures have to be related to capital outlays of over US $200 million for the development of a single successful pharmaceutical ready for the market (Krattiger and Lesser 1994). Mendelsohn and Balick (1995) are sceptical regarding the future economic importance of bioprospecting. They estimate the entire social value of nondiscovered tropical pharmaceuticals at only approximately US $150 billion or US $48 per hectare, and the market value for private enterprises at US $3 billion or US $1 per hectare. A rough estimation of the pharmaceutical value of extinct plant species on behalf of UNEP came to the conclusion that the average "pharmaceutical" loss for each of these species amounts to approximately $80,000 (UNEP 1993). This figure is problematic, however, because some "best-sellers" that have earned the companies that sell them millions (e.g. aspirin, taxol) are included in this estimate. Genetic resources of plants The complexity of modern and traditional breeding practices means that only a very general approximation of the actual monetary value is possible, and even then only for the most common grain varieties. This uncertainty

Results and Analysis

in putting a number on the existing market value is reflected in estimations concerning the contribution of the genetic resources of the South to the valuation of food production in the North. For wheat and corn, the figures are estimated at US $75 million p.a. for Australia, US $500 million p.a. for the United States and US $2.7 billion p.a. for all the OECD countries together (Mooney and Fowler 1991). According to Woodruff and Gall (1992), about half of the increase in agricultural productivity in this century can be directly attributed to artificial selection, recombination and intraspecies gene transfer. Calculations by the U.S. seed industry show that a genetic trait of a plant in the Third World that can be used for breeding purposes may contribute over $2 billion annually to the yields of U.S. wheat, rice and corn producers. The U.S. Department of Agriculture estimates that genetic plant material has led to an average increase in productivity of about 1% a year, with an initial monetary value far exceeding US $1.billion. Bioprospecting as a source of new cultivated plants and of raw materials to breed improved plant varieties and as a supplier of natural pesticides and renewable resources such as fibres and botanical chemicals has great potential (Plotkin 1992). At the beginning of the next millennium, the world-wide biotechnology food sector will increase to US $20 billion (a sixfold increase).


The Economic Valuation of Biological Diversity

Table 1: Use values of genes and biochemicals
Components used

Evaluation method applied

Estimated value (US $)

Farnsworth and Soejarto 1985 Principe 1989 McAllister 1991 Principe 1989 Ruitenbeek 1989 Harvard Business School Pearce and Puroshothaman 1992 Aylward 1993

Market analysis: estimations of proceeds of sale Plants Market analysis Trees Market analysis Plants Evaluation of the number of lives saved Species from Cameroon Costs of renewing patents Species from Costa Rica Market analysis, estimated licence fees Plants of the rain forest Market analysis and evaluation of human lives saved Pharmaceutical bioprospecting for a Market analysis: net commercially successful plant returns on product bioprospecting Living organisms Market analysis: returns on purchase + licence fees

474,000 7,500 23,700,000 15-150 253 585-1,050,000

4.81 million


Reid et al. 1993

2.3.2 Use value of species In contrast to Sect. 2.3.1., the components of biological diversity dealt with in this section are used as total organisms. Use of plants Of the approximately 250,000 higher plant species that have been described world-wide, about one third probably has edible components, i.e. around 80,000 species. About 15,000 species (including spice plants, herbs, etc.)

i. Use of game animals Prescott-Allen and Prescott-Allen (1986) estimate the monetary contributions of wild and semi-wild animals and plants as accounting for approximately 4% of the gross national product (GNP) in the United States and Canada.e. about 2 million tons of renewable resources are utilised at present (i. 2 billion tons of grain (including the food supply) and 2 billion tons of other products such as sugar-cane. rice. barley and millet) account for 50% of vegetable nutrition in humans. carrots. The global timber trade is worth approximately $80 billion annually. In the German chemical industry. The quantity of renewable resources currently used and processed worldwide amounts to approximately 2 billion tons of timber. According to Peters et al.Results and Analysis are actually used for human nutrition (Heywood 1994. However. corn. the present net value of sustainably used biological raw materials (rubber. only five varieties of grain (wheat. Supraregionally or world-wide. and 20 species supply 90% of the world-wide demand (Myers 1989).e. fruits. 10% of the entire consumption of raw materials). Barnes and Pearce (1991) have shown that the direct use value of certain forms of wildlife management is financially more productive than the transformation of game reserves into pasture areas (cf. oil and leguminous plants. wood) from the rain forest in Peru amounts to $6330 per hectare. more than sixfold the value of utilisable wood ($490/ha). Table 2). about 150 species are cultivated for human nutrition. (1989). 29 . personal communication).

5/ha Child 1990 Export of non-coniferous wood 11 billion/year Barbier et al. education and human living areas. 1989 Peru Fish and firewood from wetlands. contingent ranking method. 1991 Nigeria Improvement of the survival CRM 21/person and Brown et al. among other things. travel cost 25 Brown and Henry 1989 Kenya method million/year Ivory exports before the export ban. indirect use does not require access to forest resources. medicinal plants. recreation and tourism.The Economic Valuation of Biological Diversity Table 2: Use values of species Components of biodiversity used Evaluation Estimated method applied value (US $) Source Wildlife watching value of elephants. In contrast.5-4. Zimbabwe 3. Direct use presupposes access to forest resources. since all these products and services are the result of a direct use of forests. 1994 products. 6330/ha Peters et al. CVM.3. 1994 probability of the Northern spotted year owl CVM. 2. 1990 Africa million/year Use of wild buffaloes. carrier and information functions of ecosystems produce economic yields in the form of direct use values. Direct use values include timber and nonwood products. 35-35 Barbier et al. entire tropics Harvest of wood fruits and latex. 38-59/ha Barbier et al.3 Use value of ecosystems and landscapes Ecological resources and services that can be derived from the production. Each ecosystem is composed of a 30 . contingent valuation method. hunting and fishery. plant genes. The most important indirect use values of biological diversity include the regulatory functions of ecosystems. CRM.

Interaction between these components results in specific types of ecosystem functions or characteristics such as the nutrient cycle.7-$3. according to this study. pp. As far as the role of individual species in the mediation of such regulatory functions is understood. assimilation of biological waste. Castro calculated an average net actual value of $1278-$2871 per hectare for Costa Rica's game wilderness. and direct use values are also frequently only incompletely considered. of which.). biological productivity. carbon storage). Immler (1989) assumes that roughly a third of GNP (based on the German GNP) would be necessary to re-establish the disturbed non-human natural services and processes. These regulatory ecological functions are fundamental to numerous secondary ecological functions and services. 31 . biological and chemical components.7 billion. this gave a present total value of $1. see Perrings 1995. 886f. Multiplied by the total area of 1. Most studies assessing the economic value of forests only take account of partial values and not the TEV (for a relevant review. Indirect and non-use values are usually completely neglected. water regime and sedimentation. erosion protection. 34% benefits Costa Rica and 66% the world community. which again are of fundamental importance in human life and societies (e.3 million hectares. climatic stabilisation. it is principally possible to establish the indirect use value of such species. The first attempt to estimate the TEV of tropical forest habitats was undertaken by Castro (1994).Results and Analysis whole range of physical. water retention. the relationship between individual organisms and ecosystem functioning is of central importance in the concept of indirect use valuation.g. Indeed. detoxification.

32 . but almost the total economic value of the Khao Yai Park in Thailand (not including non-use values for people who do not live in Thailand and estimations of carbon storage). (1994) evaluated not the total.The Economic Valuation of Biological Diversity Kaosard et al. (1991) showed that the direct use of the Hadejia Jama'are floodplain in Nigeria for fishery. the production of firewood and migration agriculture results in economic yields that are higher than alternative irrigation projects upstream. The comparative evaluation with agriculturally managed areas arrived at a figure of $250 per hectare (see Table 3). Barbier et al.

1993 cost method 1300/ha/year Pearce 1990 536 million Ruitenbeek 1992 232-388/acre Productivity method (comparisons of income) TEV 6300/ha for nontimber products vs. 1989 Primeval forest. CVM.7 billion Bowes and Krutilla 1989 Peters et al. 1. 1994 Tobias and Mendelsohn 1991 Ellis and Fisher 1987 Production-function 566. Costa Rica Castro 1994 33 . Costa Rica Importance of wetlands for crab production.000 Munasinghe 1993.160. USA Forest in Peru. travel Kramer et al. Rio Nanay Evaluation method Estimated value applied (US $) Productivity change 19/ha 8/ha and 23/ha Source Ruitenbeek 1989 Ruitenbeek 1989 CVM. 133-278 million/year. Brazil Importance of mangroves for agriculture.73. approach. Thailand Ecotourism. Indonesia Water retention by forests. 1278-2871/ha. 1000 for clearcutting 102-214/ha/year.070-2. Cameroon Khao Yai Park. Madagascar Carbon storage by forests. travel cost method Travel cost method Production-function approach 80 million/year. Arabian Sea Valuation of reserves. 400/ha/year 1250/ha Kaosard et al. Cameroon: Sustaining soil fertility by forests and inundation control. fishery.Results and Analysis Table 3: Use values of ecosystems Components used Nature tourism.

where this is not possible. direct use benefits. Not all of these methods are able to completely determine biodiversityrelated costs and benefits.1 Recommendations Valuation methods and techniques Because of the benefits of biological diversity and the lack of information about these benefits due to market failure. allow the application of various valuation methods. When applying these valuation methods. which together give the TEV. e. it is important to remember what is actually being measured by the valuation technique. "option/quasi-option values" and "non-use values". and the reliability of the different data and methodologies in assessing these different benefits yields (Perrings 1995. As Fig. 878). "indirect use values". • they provide decision-making aids indicating political measures that should be taken to correct market signals. etc. In the following. 3 shows. p. the use value categories "direct use values". Arguments in favour of their application include the following: • they give valuable information on how markets need to be reformed in order to correct the present bias and/or. these methods are presented and the range of effects to be valued is considered. Each of them.g. there is an urgent need for economic valuation studies to be carried out. is useful in the correct 35 .Recommendations 3 3. however. In the following. net benefits including use and non-use benefits. relevant valuation methods are thus presented. however..

the subsequent discussion is limited to valuation approaches for simulated markets (Sect. p. For instance. 3.3). surrogate markets (Sect. we are interested in the external use values of biological diversity that are not reflected by actual market prices.g. These methods presuppose acceptance by those with political responsibility. individual choice model). etc. 3. there is still no consensus on how to determine the existence value (Perrings 1995.g. 3. value of changes of productivity.1). we can differentiate between monetisation methods as follows (see OECD 1996. The presently available set of valuation methods show very large differences not only in valuation methodology. the travel cost approach and hedonic price approach) and • on the basis of the production-function approach (e. • on the basis of simulated market prices (contingent valuation and ranking. taxes.2) and the productionfunction approach (Sect. but also in their conceptional treatment of the problem. p. avoided damage costs).The Economic Valuation of Biological Diversity context. 891). • on the basis of surrogate market prices (e. 74): • on the basis of actual market prices (market analyses). in the context of this study. Since. The common instrument of market analysis is therefore not discussed here. 36 . Roughly speaking. They have to guarantee that the monetisation requirements that are identified become economically effective by income transmissions.

p. This is because passive or non-use values of the components of biological diversity are not related to any activity or even the purchase of market goods and thus cannot be determined using indirect valuation methods (Stephan and Ahlheim 1996.> Figure 3 highlights the particular importance of the contingent valuation method (CVM). 153).Recommendations Fig. 3: Classification of economic values and attributable valuation methods (methods in angled brackets are less suitable ones) Use values Non-use values Direct use values Indirect use values (functional values) Option values Quasi-option values Existence values Bequest values METHODS: METHODS: METHODS: METHODS: Market analysis Avoided damage costs 'Individual choice' model Contingent valuation method Travel cost method Prophylactic expenses Restricted information value Contingent valuation method Value of productivity changes Contingent valuation method Hedonic prices <Transplantation costs> 'Public' prices <Replacement cost approach> <Replacement cost approach etc. it is the only useful method to identify non-use values. this method allows statements to be made about all use value categories with the exception of the indirect use value. Indeed. 37 .

330). CVM) on the basis of analyses of willingness to pay (WTP) and willingness to accept (WTA) or • to rank values (contingent ranking method.The Economic Valuation of Biological Diversity 3. for instance. CVMs and related methods 38 . these methods can be differentiated according to two interview objectives: • to attribute a value to the components of biological diversity concerned (contingent valuation method. In Australia. Moreover. its results may nevertheless be used as a supplementary public opinion poll to establish earmarking priorities concerning the use and conservation of biodiversity. Even if the direct valuation method is not exact enough for carrying out cost-benefit analyses or for legislative purposes. p. CRM). recreation options.g. The main problem of this method is undoubtedly related to the possible disparity between the data obtained from interviewees concerning their WTP and the amounts that they are actually willing to pay if the need arises (Ruck 1990. e. In principle.1. provided that specific questions are asked. we still have some way to go before the psychological and cognitive processes that influence the formulation of answers can be definitively assessed.1 Determining direct and passive use values on simulated markets Sociological interviewing methods are the most practicable approaches to determine the economic value of the components of biological diversity. WTP analyses on the basis of losses of environmental/biological diversity are more problematic. The best way to apply the direct valuation method is to determine the WTP/WTA of one environment-related use for the person being interviewed or the one that corresponds to his or her personal opinion and knowledge. particularly because it is the only method that is able to translate non-use values into market prices (Blamey and Common 1993).

since the values that are determined are seen as improbably high (Blamey 1996). It is applied to determine direct use. verbatim minutes and tape recordings allow the interviewer to analyse the biodiversity-related knowledge and understanding of the interviewee ("think-aloud analysis"). analysis and interpretation of stated preferences have also improved. value preferences are determined on the basis of interviews. In addition to information retrieval and information exchange during the interview process.Recommendations are not generally recognised as accepted methods. Thus CVM (and the analogous CRM) differ from all other important economic valuation methods. not least because of the hypothetical nature of the situation ("simulated market situation"). e.g. the "scientific sampling" and "benefit 39 . This method is referred to as the CVM. Interest in this method has greatly increased over the last 10 years: • because it is the only procedure that can be used to evaluate non-usevalues. Contingent valuation method (CVM) In a direct analysis of WTP or willingness to renounce. largely because it is the only one that directly reflects the non-use-orientated (bequest and existence) values of biodiversity. the CVM is the most important method for the economic valuation of biodiversity. non-use or passive use (existence and bequest values) and option/quasi-option use values. which can only be used to determine one type of use value. • because well-conceived and correctly conducted interviews might be as valid as valuations of direct use values obtained by other methods and • because the conception. According to Pearce and Moran (1994). but not indirect use values.

In order to obtain exact and reliable answers regarding the WTP. 845f. pp. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Committee (NOAA. This involves asking interviewees whether they would be willing to pay into a hypothetical fund or whether they would prefer a tax or a price increase. interviewees have to state the maximum amount that they would be ready to pay or renounce. a payment instrument is selected. quantity and the time-scale of changes. In the third stage. At this stage. In an open-ended approach.The Economic Valuation of Biological Diversity estimation" theories have improved the computerised data administration and analysis of public opinion polls and their validity. In the second stage. 58ff. They are given further information about the quality. The first stage of a CVM involves providing interviewees with background information about the relevant biological resources. Arrow 1993): 40 .S. pp. Hampicke 1991. standardised guidelines can be used. If a "dichotomous choice" approach is used. and answers need to be examined to identify any possible falsifications.. 118ff. it is very important for the interviewer to propose a reliable payment instrument and to be able to depict a plausible and acceptable scenario for the interviewee. Valuation of the direct value assigned to a product or service on the basis of the interview requires verification of the reliability and validity. the interviewee is confronted with a concrete amount that is varied within a group of interviewees to come as close as possible to the "real" value (see Perrings 1995.. such as those developed by the U. pp. a method has to be selected that allows the WTP or willingness to renounce to be determined as accurately as possible.). Pearce and Moran 1994.

probability sampling is essential. the sampling frame used. Conservative design . since preserving the environment is widely viewed as something positive. the overall sample non-response rate and its components (e. Personal interview .. refusals). the sample size.high non-response rates would make CV (contingent valuation) survey results unreliable. Reporting . although telephone interviews have some advantages in terms of costs and centralized supervision.respondents in a CV survey are ordinarily presented with a good deal of new and often technical information.g. 5. Minimize non-responses . In order to test this possibility. The report should also reproduce the exact wording and sequence of the questionnaire and of other communications to respondents (e. plus evidence from the final survey that respondents understood and accepted the description of the good or service offered and the questioning reasonably well. the option that tends to underestimate the willingness-topay is generally preferred. It is possible that interviewers contribute to 'social desirability' bias. This requires very careful pilot work and pre-testing.every report of a CV study should make clear the definition of the population important respect in which CV surveys differ from actual referendum is the presence of an interviewer (except in the case of mail survey). Sample type and size . Careful pretesting of a CV questionnaire . 2. 3. All data from the study should be archived and made available to interested parties.. advance letters). 7. major CV studies should incorporate experiments that assess interviewer effects.when aspects of the survey design and the analysis of the responses are ambiguous. Pretesting for interviewer effects . 6. and item non-responses on all important questions. Face-to-face interviews are usually preferable. 4.g.Recommendations 1. A conservative design increases the reliability of the 41 . The choice of sample specific designs and size is a difficult technical question that requires the guidance of a professional sampling statistician. well beyond what is typical in most is improbable that reliable value estimates can be elicited with mail surveys.

Elicitation format . 12. Temporal averaging .the effects of photographs on subjects must be carefully explored. Pretesting of photographs . Cross-tabulations . attitudes towards biodiversity). 42 .yes and no responses should be followed-up by the open-ended question: 'Why did you vote yes/no?' 16. A clear and substantial time trend in the responses would cast doubt on the reliability of the value information obtained from a CV survey.The Economic Valuation of Biological Diversity estimate by eliminating extreme responses that can enlarge estimated values wildly and implausibly.the survey instrument should not be so complex that it poses tasks that are beyond the ability or interest level of many participants. 10.g. Respondents who choose the 'no-answer' option should be asked to explain their choice. Accurate description of the program or policy . 13.time-dependent measurement noise should be reduced by averaging across independently drawn samples taken at different points in time. Checks on understanding and acceptance . The final report should include summaries of willingness-to-pay broken down by these categories (e. Yes/no follow-ups . 15..adequate information must be provided to respondents about the environmental program that is offered.the survey should include a variety of other questions that help interpret the responses to the primary valuation question. Reminder of substitute commodities .respondents must be reminded of substitute commodities. 11.the valuation question should be posed as a vote on a referendum. 9. 'No-answer' option . 8. education. income. This reminder should be introduced forcefully and directly prior to the main valuation to assure that the respondents have the alternatives clearly in mind. 17.the willingness-to-pay format should be used instead of compensation required because the former is the conservative choice. 14. Referendum format .a 'no-answer' option should be explicitly allowed in the addition to the 'yes' or 'no' options on the main valuation (referendum) question.

1. the interviewer designates a set of characteristics and describes how the options differ. Preferences for a biodiversity commodity can be assumed if an individual buys a product that is somehow related to the biodiversity commodity in question. it becomes more difficult to determine the actual monetary limit. Louviere 1994) promises further improvements in the direct valuation process. Asking questions about relative valuations and specifically costed alternatives facilitates the choice for the interviewee. The resulting costs should be delineated for each option. conversely. 3. Further methodological progress The "stated preference" method (SPM.2 Indirectly determining direct use values The indirect or surrogate market valuation methods are all based on the fact that the commodities "nature" or "biological resources" are consumed together with complementary private goods with well-known or easily determinable prices. For each of the options. These indirect approaches are techniques that derive preferences from actual market-based observations. The different feature in this interview situation is that respondents are confronted with a set of options that they are asked to rank according to their valuation scale.Recommendations Contingent ranking method (CRM) The CRM is the stepsister of the CVM. however. The relevant techniques are as follows: 43 . Application of the SPM (which was originally developed for the marketing and transportation business) allows consumer responses to be made to a larger range of subject characteristics than is normally possible using direct valuation analysis. Adamowicz 1994.

because individuals reveal their preferences for a biodiversity commodity by purchasing a related object or service. • Experiencing nature is often non-specific. If the natural commodity is no longer available. "Strongly simplified: If a bird watcher spends DM 1000 on a telescope. telescopes may also serve other purposes). • The relationship between private expenditure and the conservation goal is frequently weak (e. • The method only measures the intensity of a personal interest ("user value"). then he is obviously willing to pay at least DM 1000 to watch birds" (Hampicke 1991. • the "hedonic price" approach. the potential of surrogate market approaches is limited for several reasons: • No hypothetical conclusions can be drawn. many people experience biological diversity even in an ecologically worthless spruce forest. Surrogate market techniques focus on markets for private commodities and services that are related to biological (or environmental) resources or products.g. • the avertive behaviour approach and • the dose-response method. the telescope) either. However.The Economic Valuation of Biological Diversity • the travel cost method. and not the interest in conserving biological diversity ("existence value"). there will be no expenditure on the surrogate object (in the case described above. p. 44 . The products or services sold on these surrogate markets correspond to the products/resources in question. 115).

there would be less or no effects on the cost-benefit analyses of the tourism industry. in the case of Kenya and Tanzania. 3. which in turn leads to value changes on the market.g. this method can lead to valuable explanations about the WTP for experiencing nature. In economic terms. especially if expensive and very specific destinations (e. for example.2 to determine preferences are not suitable to determine the direct or indirect use values (ecological 45 . is only applicable to environmental changes and is therefore not suitable for the economics of use-independent values. the only possible conclusion is that the area of the reserve should be increased. a national park) have been chosen. Nevertheless. In the latter study.1 and 3. whereas in countries such as Sri Lanka. a certain load level is related to the output change.Recommendations Analogous limitations need to be addressed in the travel cost method. however. it was shown that the WTP of native and foreign visitors (primarily from the United States) corresponding to a hectare of tropical forest exceeds the purchase price by two powers of ten. This approach. India or the Ivory Coast.g. The relationship between travel expenses and the valuation of the components of biodiversity at the journey's destination is questionable if this journey is undertaken for other reasons as well.3 Determining indirect use values The methods presented in Sects.1. p. 3. With respect to the travel cost method. the abolition of national parks as tourist attractions would also lead to substantial losses in seaside tourism. Past applications refer to large game parks in Africa (Brown and Henry 1989) and tropical forest reserves in Costa Rica (Tobias and Mendelsohn 1991).1.1. The dose-response approach is designed to determine relationships between damage and its causes (e. pollution load). where tourism is largely beach or congress tourism and national parks do not play a central role. Ruck (1990. 261) states that.

856). Indirect productivity measurements The productivity change method can be used to determine the direct and indirect use values of ecosystems within market prices. However. A related productivity method measures the expenditure of work by a market subject (individual. the value of the ecological function of a forest in the catchment area of a hydroelectric power plant can be measured by the net value of the difference in water power production because of sedimentation in the presence or absence (clearing) of forest or with a smaller (reduction) forest stand. a farmer building terraces to prevent soil erosion). enterprise) to maintain or optimise ecological effects (e. In order to determine indirect use values. p.g. reforestation) components of biological diversity. The replacement cost approach focuses on the costs of replacing (e. since they support economic activities regardless of preferences. reintroduction) or restoring (e.g. Avoidance and repair costs are difficult to determine. The observed protective or preventive expenditure provides a measure of the subject's valuation of the relevant ecological services (Perrings 1995. For instance. such methods currently still suffer from our lack of knowledge about the functional importance of biological diversity and the ecological services linked to them. since neither sophisticated techniques nor reliable cost levels are available for the avoidance or repair of environmental damage. We cannot use the costs of 46 .The Economic Valuation of Biological Diversity regulatory functions) of nature as production factors.g. other methods therefore have to be applied.

for example.g. Thus a relation between economic and ecological productivity is produced. The final report by the German Ministry of the Environment's research programme on the "Costs of Environmental Pollution/Benefit of Environmental Protection" puts the relevant avoidance costs at DM 130 million p. An estimation of forest degradation by acid rain or the loss of fishery resources by water pollution on the basis of avoidance costs. will be misleading unless those concerned are willing to bear these costs. The consequences of these changes become visible in the change in economic yield of these economic activities. In order to translate ecological into economic productivity. This becomes even more difficult where the causes (e. (Wicke 1986). and this is still the limiting factor. Our lack of understanding of the ecological causes of economic productivity should not prevent production-function valuations from being carried out using existing knowledge. Production-function approach The production-function approach determines the physical effects of changes of ecological functions on economic activities. It is highly desirable both from an economic and an ecological point of view to promote this understanding. Ruitenbeek 47 .a.Recommendations reducing the percentage of sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxide in the air to approximately zero to conclude that the value of clean air corresponds to the level of avoidance costs. it is clearly necessary to understand how regulatory ecological functions support economic activities. the functional role of individual species) of ecological functions have to be understood in greater detail. On the basis of different assumptions about causal links between ecological and economic factors.

If biological resources for conservation. the relevant activities and their alternatives can ultimately be determined and evaluated in monetary terms. This section discusses the costs associated with the conservation. lost use values How much does it cost not to destroy nature? Since the pioneering work by Krutilla and Fisher (1975). On the basis of cost-benefit analyses (see below). 3.1 Opportunity costs: restoration costs.3. The forgone opportunities are referred to as opportunity costs. other studies deal 48 . sustainable use and restoration of biological diversity in order to balance these costs with their social and economic benefits. this question has been addressed by a number of studies. 2. sustainable use or restoration can be treated as scarce resources and valued accordingly.. The marketable yield Q is formally represented as being dependent on a set of factors: Q = F(Xi .2 The cost aspect of the conservation and destruction of biological diversity and the cost-benefit analysis procedure The preceding sections have dealt with the type and range of economic use values of biological resources and the methods used to determine them.The Economic Valuation of Biological Diversity (1992).2. QS is the area of the wetlands in question. has carried out valuations in different scenarios. sustainability costs. S). [In the study by Ellis and Fisher (1987) on the effect of wetlands on the crab harvest.] 3.. The results of these valuation approaches are given in Sect. Approaches such as that used by Bishop (1980) to estimate conservation costs for individual species are still rare. they can be balanced against alternative uses. Xk. for instance.

and market price-based and market price-independent methods should be examined to valuate them. Use-dependent and use-independent values have to be taken into account. Some studies. such as the ones by Turner et al. p. the U. because large investment planning has proved to be unprofitable. (1983) and Krutilla and Fisher (1975). A study by Willis et al. At this point. although a second ruling that environmental damage should be valuated on the basis of the sum of restoration costs and forgone use options has now been put into practice. Ministry of the Interior for the monetary valuation of environmental damage should be revised (Marggraf and Streb 1997.S. who compared two alternative uses of areas in the Midwest of the United States.Recommendations with the opportunity costs of area requirements for nature conservation. this court decision has not yet been implemented. In 1989.S. What are the ecological and biodiversity standards that should be aimed at from a scientific point of view? And how can they 49 . (1988) elucidates the difference between land use costs if distorted prices support a use that destroys nature while lower opportunity costs are arrived at by correct calculations. The TEV approach should be used as the basis on which to calculate opportunity costs. The starting point of this kind of research was the work carried out by Goldstein (1971). 17). have established that maintaining a natural condition does not cause economic costs. However. it would seem appropriate to step aside for a moment and consider the actual and potential market values of the (minimum) goals and costs of biodiversity. Court of Appeals ruled that the procedural guidelines of the U. Retaining the area as an adventure range for WTP bird hunters instead of intensifying its agricultural uses proved to be economically more favourable.

180). DM 1 billion would be sufficient to implement a thorough nature protection programme. work and land use costs. Funds for the conservation of biological diversity should always be spent according to defined priorities and as efficiently as possible: certain goals can either be attained at minimum costs. Ruck (pp. where "national park" is used as a synonym for protected. The practical cost categories for the conservation of biological diversity can be divided into investment. 50 . and each has to be incorporated in the other" (Hampicke 1991. but they are usually distorted by transfer components. A number of studies that have been undertaken world-wide concerning conflicts of various sizes show that opportunity costs for the conservation of biological diversity are often far lower than expected. size and geographical location of national parks that might be regarded as economically optimal within a given time frame for a country or for human civilisation" (Ruck 1990. A distinction should always be made between dynamic and static sets of costs. 365ff. "Market prices for products and factors partly reflect material scarcity and thus opportunity costs. and each poses specific problems. In those federal states that belonged to West Germany before German reunification. for example. p. 365). p. sustainably used or restored ecosystems/biodiversity. or the degree to which a given goal is realised should be maximised at a given cost. and corrections therefore need to be made for calculations of economic costs.) presents ways to arrive at economic responses to this question.The Economic Valuation of Biological Diversity be translated into global and national economic units to make their economic superiority visible? "The progressive destruction of nature in many developing countries calls for an answer to the question of the number.

are somewhat higher at regional and national levels and become substantial at a global level. These concern aspects such as land tenure rights. property rights to biological diversity and the promotion of rural development.g. regional and global level. 4). further socio-economic and legal conditions have to be fulfilled on a national and regional level. Fig. cited in Wells 1992). It was shown that the economic benefits of protected areas are limited at a local level. 51 . Wells (1992) concluded that to ensure that biodiversity is effectively protected. qualitatively estimating the distribution of costs and benefits on these different levels. The related costs follow the opposite trend: They are significant at a local level. cf. In order for local communities to actually profit from sustainable uses.g. by the expansion of sustainable use strategies. however. contributions to multilateral financing mechanisms. this imbalance needs to be corrected by: • North-South money transfers and • an increase in profits at both a local and a regional and national level.Recommendations Wells (1992) compared the costs and benefits of protected areas at the local. e. His estimation of the benefit of protected areas was based on the work of Dixon and Sherman (1990. moderate at a regional and national level and small at a global level (e.

g. the present local. The present private benefits PV[B(DEV)] and costs PV[C(DEV)] associated with the individual action taken should be determined and the difference between them calculated: PV[B(DEV)] . All the consequences of a relevant action should be identified (e. In order to be able to compare the costs and benefits of alternative uses. 2. by restriction of use) Recreation/tourism Water drainage areas Future values Biological diversity Non-consumption use Ecological processes Environmental education and research Future values Direct costs (establishment of protected areas) Opportunity costs GLOBAL LEVEL (Minimum costs) 3.2.The Economic Valuation of Biological Diversity Fig. use. the following procedure should be followed: 1.g.2 Cost-benefit analysis Cost-benefit analyses (CBAs) allow biodiversity-relevant activities and their alternatives to be evaluated and expressed in monetary terms. damage by grazing) Opportunity costs (e.PV[C(DEV)]. 4: Comparison of the resulting costs and use of protected areas Potentially significant benefits Consumption benefit Recreation/tourism Future values REGIONAL/NATIONAL LEVEL Potentially significant costs LOCAL LEVEL Indirect costs (e. 3. change in the status quo of biodiversity).g. global or total (TEVtot = TEVg + TEVn + TEVl) social benefit 52 . Depending on the relevant integration level. national. alternative use.

If the costs and benefits of an action are to be calculated without considering an alternative scenario. 3. national and/or local yields. it also includes individual cost and benefit aspects (e. etc. The critical question is now how these theoretical insights and methods can have a practical impact on markets and prices and how the external costs and benefits of biological resources can become visible on the markets and in market prices. 53 . If the difference PV[TEV(SUB) . even if these are not economically apparent. conservation.g. external effects).C(DEV)]. Since the cost-benefit analysis requires national and international costs and benefits to be identified and quantified as comprehensively as possible. step 2 should be omitted. the causes of market failure were explained in terms of the valuation or rather the lack of valuation of biological diversity.Recommendations PV[TEV(SUB)] of the alternative use (e. national and global level.C(SUB)] is larger than the difference PV[B(DEV) . In addition.g. its social costs PV[C(SUB)] are then subtracted. techniques were described with which the actual value of the components of biological diversity can be determined (TEVs at a local.). The action concerned will then be economically reasonable if the valued benefit exceeds the respective costs.3 Organisation of markets with appropriate prices In the preceding sections. sustainable use) should be calculated. then the social use alternative is the economically relevant one. 4. It will also be politically relevant whether the private user is able to participate in the social global.

2.The Economic Valuation of Biological Diversity 3. it is first necessary to gather all the available information about the value of biodiversity commodities.3. • Thirdly. etc.1 and the cost-benefit analyses presented in Sect. valuation techniques have to be adapted to the local situation. e.. It is important to realise what is actually measured by the particular valuation method used. Barbier et al. in the specific case concerned. direct use effects.1 Monetisation and cost-benefit analyses In order for market prices to approximate the "real" value of the components of biological diversity and/or for efficient market pricerelevant decisions to be made. by carefully selecting and applying valuation techniques in relevant situations. useful indications can be obtained of the values that would be impaired by the selected land use alternative. net proceeds from direct and indirect use effects. • Secondly. and to have a clear idea of the reliability of data and methods for the evaluation of the respective advantages. it also needs to be clarified what was not measured by the study in question. 3. Only with such specifically adapted instruments and the initial knowledge they provide about the "real" economic value of the biological resources and their use can the following central issue be addressed: What are the 54 .g. the currency "rice" was used to value the economic advantages of forests. (1994) draw some important conclusions from the investigation of Mantadia National Park for the practical relevance of costbenefit analyses (Munasinghe 1993): • Firstly. The first step from theory to practice therefore has to be to apply the valuation techniques described in Sect. on which level of the hierarchy the study was conducted and whether the TEV or only elements thereof were determined. 3.

However. the creation of markets by privatisation and integrated biodiversity management (Sect. 70).3. This may be done with the best intentions. Such measures are referred to as perverse incentives.4. market-induced control systems (Sect. incentives that lead to a decrease in biological diversity. 2. 3. which will be 55 . even though some interventions may use price corrections to adjust external effects that are damaging to biodiversity. 3.Recommendations mechanisms that transform the socio-economic values that have been determined into monetary reality on the market? Four such mechanisms will be discussed below: 1. Well-known examples of such intervention prices are deforestation subsidies. The OECD (1998) has very recently undertaken a study of this problem.) and 4.3. i. The most perverse incentives are those that have been created to promote goals that destroy biodiversity (OECD 1996. p. An important step towards achieving prices that reflect social costs is therefore to abolish any supportive measures that artificially reduce the private costs of actions that are detrimental to biodiversity.3. the removal of damaging distortions of market mechanisms (deregulation) by dismantling failed interventions (Sect.2 Dismantling failed interventions Governments generally tend to intervene in markets. 3.3. subsidisation of agriculture. water prices that are too low. 3. 3. etc. and are the result of policy failure.3). even if they serve other important purposes.e.5). the creation of global biodiversity markets (Sect. many interventions run counter to the goals of protection biodiversity.2).3. 3.

as bioprospecting ratios. p. harvest ratios. If a local community cannot draw net use from its investment (the sustainable use of ecosystems/components of biodiversity). in particular if discounting is lower than the future value of the forest.3 Creation of private property rights and integrated biodiversity management In an ideal free market. private users have be able to profit from the national or global yields of the conservation and/or sustainable use of biodiversity. the market develops on its own such that private use interests work to support social interests and correcting measures are kept to a minimum. 220). it will not have an interest in maintaining its investment (Pearce and Moran 1994. These property rights could further be licensed. In order to at least come close to this ideal.The Economic Valuation of Biological Diversity referred to later. p. visitor ratios. development rights. Persson (1994) was able to show that the transferral of vested titles to squatters causes them to stop clearing. 3. e. This could be achieved by creating vested titles to those biological resources to which vested titles do not yet exist and/or by transferring property rights from the State to landowners (including those who should be entitled to such rights due to pending land reforms). One way of correcting the price distortions caused by price controls or national monopolies is to take internationally valid competitive market prices as "shadow" prices (Ruck 1990. etc.g. It would meet the efficiency criterion that those who control net assets should also be those who profit from the utilisable effects of these net assets.3. 144). 56 . This approach would be the logical consequence of the "national sovereignty regime" over genetic resources that was created by the CBD to replace the former "free access regime" to shift it at the local level. emission rights.

a holistic protective effect becomes less likely. A broader screening policy for commercially useful resources means that the quasi-option value of the resources that are not yet being screened for can create preservation effects for the whole ecosystem more effectively. 57 . If prospecting is more specific (species xy. This presupposes that a bioprospecting strategy will be open in terms of the species. The status of the components of biodiversity concerned should therefore be monitored by means of pre. moreover. etc. e. It would be advisable for transferred vested titles not to be restricted to single uses. hunting. tourism. plant-based medicines. effect ab). these countries may be able to offer "genetic technology" in the form of raw materials. etc. renewable resources.Recommendations With respect to genes. For a more lasting success in bioprospecting strategies. but also regionally.and post-prospecting programmes. it would also be helpful to transfer an increasing amount of relevant biotechnological know-how ("capacity-building") to the area from which bioresources originate to enable further processed resources to be marketed not only globally. (Krattiger and Lesser 1994). bioprospecting. but to be open for the whole range of use options. particularly if shortages or losses may result from subsequent exploitation of the resources being sought. it may also generate conservation effects for other resources in the same habitat that are not yet being sought or commercially exploited. genes and biomolecules it is looking for. Instead of having to ask for new technologies and transfer payments from the North. species and ecosystems as levels in the biodiversity hierarchy. property rights will probably refer to the ecosystem level. Bioprospecting opens up new sources of income for developing countries. For a comprehensive bioprospecting strategy could ensure conservation effects for the specific resource in situ.g.

last but not least. multiple attractions can increase the duration of usability. too.The Economic Valuation of Biological Diversity The same is true of ecotourism. but here. Positive incentives: any monetary (direct payment. international organisations. "It is no accident that 'command and control' concepts have dominated environmental policy so far world-wide. While regulatory instruments imply the direct control (reduction/limitation) of unwanted actions in conjunction with legislative or politically agreed standards. the insufficient integration of environmental policy into public discussion in many countries" (Paulus 1995). monitoring programmes should be implemented to register any side-effects. tax advantages) or non-monetary inducement (such as awards in recognition of outstanding performance) that motivates individuals or groups (governments. 3. Economic incentive systems can be subdivided into four categories: 1. The main distinction is between regulatory and market-based instruments. 2. the minor political importance of national environmental institutions and. 58 . Disincentives: any mechanism that internalises the costs of use and/or damage of biological resources in order to discourage activities that deplete biological diversity.3. The reasons for this are the sectoral organisation and splintering of national competences. local communities) to conserve biological diversity. cost-sharing. market-based instruments create economic incentives. and benefits were to be shared with the local communities concerned.4 Creation of market-based regulatory instruments Many regulatory instruments are available to bridge the gap between TEVs and current market prices on the national market.

the capacity of the market to contribute to solving the problem of the destruction of biodiversity should not be underestimated. despite the shortcomings of the market mechanism outlined above in reflecting the TEV of the relevant components of biological diversity. Perverse incentives are the result of failed government intervention. Most perverse incentives are designed to achieve other policy objectives and their "perversity" is thus an external factor or an unanticipated side-effect of the policy (OECD 1996. The notion that the market is basically flexible enough. In order to optimise the quality of an allocation mechanism. Examples of such mechanisms include environment-related fees.Recommendations 3. it is not certain how the market can contribute to the conservation of natural resources in pragmatic terms (Endres and Querner 1993. is only a qualitative one. the economic value of biological resources can only be asserted by intervention. on market failure. "By no means can it be concluded that economic adjustment processes and government incentives are implemented in time and to a sufficient extent to avoid the catastrophic consequences of resource shortages" (Endres and Querner 1993. 70). encouraging the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity. see pp. 139). p. As only incomplete allocation mechanisms currently exist. If the results of economic valuations of biological resources do not lead to reformed or newly created markets. p. Perverse incentives: an incentive that induces behaviour leading to a reduction in biological diversity. 124ff. However. Indirect incentives: any mechanism that creates or improves upon markets and price signals for biological resources. with only occasional State subsidies required. a price strategy with 59 . free market economy intervention instruments (MEIs) should be used.). 4.

It is therefore important to examine carefully.The Economic Valuation of Biological Diversity resources and inputs. compensatory incentives to create markets or financial inducements for certain individuals or groups who bear a disproportionate share of the risks or costs of the conservation of biological resources (Barbier et al. 4. p. duties and taxes. deposit/refund or fee/rebate systems in which a surcharge is levied on the price of products leading to resource depletion which is then refunded if the product is recycled or if the depleted resource is restored. entail a considerable amount of administrative and/or monitoring expenditure. 1994. These MEIs can be subdivided into five categories: 1. as Paulus (1995) does. MEIs include all political measures explicitly related to private costs and benefits by which the comparative social costs and benefits can be incorporated into market prices. The following criteria need to be taken into account when selecting measures: ecological effectiveness. the institutional conditions and to integrate measures into existing structures wherever possible. subsidies. environmental funds. flexible levies. pledge systems. 60 . charges. subsidies to assist individuals in altering activities or conforming to environmental standards. taxes. 2. etc. Strictly speaking. (Paulus 1995). tradable rights and licences. fees or additional prices to be paid for the social costs arising from damage. however. 3. MEIs. 180). tradable permits by which rights to exploit resources can be exchanged and 5.

if the country that owns the resources cannot derive monetary benefit from these global external use values due to a lack of appropriate markets.3. including the costs of control and prevention. The conservation of biological diversity in a tropical rain forest may benefit individuals and groups in other countries. No single MEI instrument will be sufficient to counter specific threats to biological diversity. In principle.5 Creation of global markets As mentioned several times in the preceding sections. the incremental costs connected with the mobilisation of non-marketed uses should be offset by the utilisation of positive incentive systems. the groups that damage biological resources should bear the damage prevention costs and/or the social costs connected with the damage. Otherwise. many conservation and/or sustainable use approaches produce global benefits. administrative management. it will have no or little incentive to conserve the biological resources in question. The latter could be implemented using marketbased control instruments. 3. sustainable use and restoration of biological diversity. and a range of MEIs will be necessary to address the complex problems of the social costs of conservation. because they profit from its renewable resources. However. distribution effects and interspersing ability. those who use biological resources would have to bear the entire costs of using resources. 61 .Recommendations economic efficiency. 253). as clearly shown by Lippke (1996. because its biogeochemical cycles have global benefits or because they want it to exist for its own sake. Conversely.g. e. public costs and yields. p.

g. Indeed. as concluded by Merck & Co. sustainable use and restoration costs of biological diversity lies in the fact that these approaches will form the basis of assessment for the budgets of national and international measures for the protection of biological diversity. however.have a common feature: bilateral or multilateral transfer payments. The concept of "incremental costs" in the realisation of the CBD and the conservation of biological diversity may be helpful in this respect. well-organised and specific financial transfer services will be indispensable. energy companies. 20 of the CBD is still the subject of detailed discussion. the Development Bank of the United Nations and continental development banks. This is especially relevant for the implementation of the CBD with regard to international financing instruments such as the GEF and biodiversity portfolios of the World Bank. These markets can be enforced by international law or may result from voluntary agreements. Shaman Pharmaceuticals. in the foreseeable future. is urgently needed. Regulation-induced markets have gained attention in the context of the Climate Convention. Biotics Ltd. Examples of the latter include debt-for-nature swaps or benefit-sharing agreements. and others with the owners of bioresources. Poland and Mexico concluded via the Global Environmental Facility (GEF) or the afforestation agreements entered into by various U. A definition of the scope of this term.The Economic Valuation of Biological Diversity It is therefore necessary to create global markets (GEMs). the intergovernmental agreement on CO2 reduction between Norway.S. since it determines which elements of biodiversity-relevant projects may be 62 . e. Both approaches .. Exactly what is covered by the term "full incremental costs" in accordance with Art. The particular practical relevance of monetisation approaches for the conservation.regulation-induced and voluntary agreements .

According to Glowka et al. The International Conservation Financing Project of the World Resources Institute has attempted to calculate the annual funds necessary for the conservation of biological resources and estimates a total of $20-50 million per year (Reid and Miller 1989). Nassau 1994): 63 . but yields would have to be divided. the (then still interim) secretariat of the CBD listed several items to justify transfer payments in the light of the CBD. because to achieve the third aim. incremental costs could be defined in a simplified form as those costs that are necessary to conserve.Recommendations covered as "incremental costs" by the financial mechanisms of the CBD/GEF. use sustainably or restore the components of biodiversity defined by quality goals (if necessary. these also suggest that a complicated bureaucracy will need to be established (UNEP/CBD/IC/2/17 of 25 April 1994). The conservation for 20 years of 2000 animal species with 500 individuals each costs approximately $25 billion alone. however. the sharing of benefits and not incremental costs would have to be refunded. as much as the first landing by man on the moon. It might be more appropriate to restrict net incremental costs to the CBD aims of conservation and sustainable use (global externalities of biodiversity loss). For a definition of incremental costs. The traditional conservation of tropical rain forests is estimated to cost $170 million per year for at least 5 years. (1994). whereby the extent of the specific financial expenditure should be based on non-use-related monetary values. minus the immediate yields from the direct sustainable use of biodiversity and benefit-sharing). a cost-efficiency index for biodiversity projects has been developed (see the Second Global Biodiversity Forum. In order to develop a ranking order for transfer payments.

The Economic Valuation of Biological Diversity

• a suitable indicator of the benefits of biodiversity or of biological significance: data at a national level on species diversity and endemism (per km2) may be used to represent the benefits gained by the conservation activity concerned; • cost of intervention: represented by the amount of investment (per km2) in conservation measures at a national level; • probability of success (willingness to conserve): the percentage of land area defined as protected area is used to assess the probability of success; • degree of threat: deforestation rates and population growth are used to approximate the level of threat. It should be remembered that it is not sufficient to guarantee the return of profit shares to the countries owning the resources. Instead, financial compensation for the use or exploitation of biological diversity must benefit those groups (e.g. local communities, conservation organisations, national park administrations) that directly protect and sustainably use biodiversity. However, this presupposes a whole range of institutional, organisational and legal conditions, including procedures to ensure the predictability and reliability of the distribution of transfer funds as equivalents for economic values. A number of financing instruments (e.g. an international rain forest fund, resource franchise agreements) are being discussed to ascertain strategic international payments. Because of their free market nature, transferable development rights (TDRs) appear to be particularly promising to allow adequate conservation of global biodiversity values in tropical countries.



The first step towards establishing TDRs for the conservation of biological diversity would be to differentiate between conservation and development areas. Individuals owning land in the conservation areas would also receive TDRs, but would not be allowed to implement these rights within the conservation areas. Instead, they could sell these vested titles in development areas in which there is assumed to be a high demand for limited development rights. Full compensation should thus result for the owners of the conservation areas by the sales of development rights. Such a market for TDRs could develop internationally. Tropical countries could exclude areas of authentic ecosystems from alternative use and offer TDRs locally and internationally at prices that cover their opportunity costs (current net value of the forgone development alternative; for further discussion, see Panayotou 1994). To a certain extent, a TDR system already exists in the form of the debt-for-nature swaps. The essential element of these agreements is the transfer of development rights for conservation areas to international non-governmental organisations (NGOs) in exchange for assuming part of the national debts of the countries concerned. However, the extent of these rights is usually not correlated with the opportunity costs.


Recommendations for development cooperation

The example of valuation techniques highlights the fundamental dilemma of environmental economics, i.e. the need to proceed from generalisations to formulate operational recommendations for action. The economic analyses in many case studies are fairly convincing, but their scientific theory is often still not translated into practice. Development co-operation is required in order to develop operational concepts and to implement them in pilot projects. The key concepts in this context are the acquisition of

The Economic Valuation of Biological Diversity

knowledge about specific costs and benefits, training and capacitybuilding.

3.4.1 Project-oriented cost-benefit analyses using the available valuation instruments The most obvious measure might be to introduce biodiversity valuation techniques and comprehensive cost-benefit analyses in project planning and to create project-oriented cost-benefit analyses (as a continuation of project environmental-impact assessments, EIAs) as a basis on which to determine project-related TEVs. This would require the development of appropriate training programmes and guidelines for those responsible for the projects in Germany and in the partner country, which should initially be conducted in a pilot phase for selected projects. When developing such programmes and guidelines, care should be taken to ensure that the necessary standardisation still allows sufficient scope for the individual project conditions and the practical adaptation of the relevant procedures (e.g. CVM).

3.4.2 Training and capacity-building to inventor and monitor biodiversity In order to carry out economic valuations of the components of biological diversity under reasonable conditions, the component to be valuated must be adequately characterised, i.e. inventories of the components of biological diversity concerned should be made on the relevant hierarchy and integration levels (e.g. genes, species, ecosystems); in the follow-up, these inventories also need to be reviewed using monitoring and assessment programmes. There is now an extensive body of literature (e.g. Stork and Samways 1995; Guarino et al. 1995) on the implementation of


such programmes, and this issue will not be addressed in detail here. Particular attention should be paid to rapid biodiversity assessment techniques (discussed in the literature) and to close cooperation between experts and parataxonomists, as has been documented particularly clearly for the Instituto de la Biodiversidad (INBio) in Costa Rica. DC is required to support and to participate in biodiversity inventories in the partner countries by means of suitable training courses and infrastructure measures.

3.4.3 Creation and/or strengthening of institutional prerequisites for the development and implementation of national biodiversity strategies In this context, it is necessary to support the national and regional authorities responsible for the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity in diverse areas, to help integrate biodiversity conservation strategies in the planning of land use and to support cooperation among the organisations involved (government authorities, local authorities, environmental and development organisations, social movements, development cooperation institutions). DC can contribute to this process, e.g. by providing consultancy services. A possible form of support is to ensure that yields from the use of genetic resources are proportionately supplied to protected areas. At the same time, legislation must be examined and amended to ensure its compatibility with conservation and development goals.

3.4.4 Training and capacity-building to conduct cost-benefit analyses and valuation techniques Not only should project planning be carried out in donor countries (cf. Sect. 3.4.1), but the know-how for the application of valuation techniques

The Economic Valuation of Biological Diversity

and the implementation of cost-benefit analyses should also be transferred to the recipient countries by means of DC in association with the capacities to be built and developed in order to catalogue biodiversity. DC should organise project-related (advanced) training courses and consult the relevant institutions of the partner country. At the same time, legislation should be examined and amended in the light of the relevant methods and techniques, as done for the relevant American DOI guidelines, for example.

3.4.5 Supporting research capacities in developing countries at the frontier between ecology and economics Due to the rising demand for genetic resources, resulting in increased bioprospecting activity in tropical forests, for example, national inventory programmes on biological diversity and ecosystem research need to be supported in order to set up sustainable utilisation strategies. An international fund should provide support in capacity-building to inventory biological diversity, to document and analyse samples and to exchange information. Free access to information and the participation of local communities need to be ensured. Experience at institutions such as the Costa Rican Instituto de la Biodiversidad (INBio) suggest that we should be thinking about models for other countries above and beyond this Costa Rican approach. The research and technology capacity of developing countries can be supported by private initiatives; however, due to the size of these tasks, this alone will not be sufficient and supplementary efforts will be necessary. In close cooperation with partner institutions in the tropical countries, foreign research institutions should contribute to the complex field of basic research in the rain forests. In this context, it should be ensured that research results are accessible to all those involved, that emphasis is placed

the development of supra-organismal social systems whose abilities to learn and adapt seem to know no limits even in animals.Recommendations on building national research capacities and that research results are put into practice by means of environmental education. the fight against parasites and.. the avoidance of enemies. One extremely important area in which DC is required is undoubtedly the establishment and promotion of modern biodiversity research in partner countries. e. Is it not the sophisticated differentiation of life forms that forms the indispensable prerequisite for our astonishment and enthusiasm for all kinds of organisms more than anything else: their marvellous ability to adapt to their environment. something our future depends on. As Hubert Markl puts it.) As an infrastructure-related task of biodiversity research. finally. in particular the creation of a sound modern taxonomy. as this forms the basis of all other fields of biodiversity research. selfrestraint in relation to natural communities) in such a way that mankind and nature will be able to live together on a long-term basis. this reflects only part of the particular scientific value of biotaxonomic will be impossible to gain the ecological insights that are necessary for the global management of the biosphere (a profitable form of management to our benefit. "Taxonomy is fundamental in providing the units and the pattern to humankind's notion of species diversity" (Bisby 1995). however. "It has to be clearly stated: Without the active contribution of lively and productive biotaxonomic research . their skilful methods of conquering ecological niches.g..above all organism inventories of the tropics and subtropics and the seas of all latitudes . (. their inexhaustible wealth of original solutions for all of life's problems from the procurement of food in competition with their own and other species. let alone in humans? We would not be able to carry out research on any of this without the clear distinctions identified by 69 .

biodiversity conservationists have pinned their hopes on strategies of participative use for biotechnologically exploitable natural substances for the in situ preservation of biological diversity. this subdiscipline of environmental economics has undergone rapid development. In recent years. Where possible.6 Identification of interventions failures In order to come closer to the goal of having prices that reflect social costs. appropriate DC projects should be integrated into international scientific biodiversity initiatives such as DIVERSITAS. Interdisciplinary coordinated research efforts are still largely lacking. 3. including the industrial. and there have been a number of publications focusing on valuation studies of biological resources. it is necessary both to eliminate subsidies that artificially lower private costs and to implement suitable economic instruments or other regulatory measures to ensure that harmful external effects are taken into account in 70 . not least as a result of discussions on the CBD. DC should therefore also take account of research into chemical ecology and natural products.The Economic Valuation of Biological Diversity taxonomic research that provide the basis for our comparative analyses" (Markl 1995). In the context of bioprospecting. sociological and economic aspects of biodiversity. BioNET International or Species 2000. Important tasks for the future include developing a modern taxonomy as an integral science combining both classical and molecular methods (see Bisby 1995) and training methodically (classical/molecular) holistic taxonomists who also have a particular expertise in data processing using information technology.4. It should be added that taxonomy will also become increasingly significant as an infrastructure for biotechnology. A further key area of biodiversity research for DC is the area of biodiversity economics. however.

7 Creation of incentive instruments Consumption and non-consumption values of biological diversity are only partially reflected in market prices.8 Participation of local communities in biodiversity yields Successful work on a project requires the appropriate participation of local communities in decision-making processes and the identification of problems in project planning. Subsidising non-sustainable uses sends the wrong politico-economic signals and frequently causes the exploitation of natural resources.4. Within the framework of project cooperation.Recommendations price setting. national governments and authorities should be encouraged to use and test economic instruments able to generate market prices that approximate previously determined TEVs.4. DC should therefore recommend that more attention be paid to economic incentives for the conservation of biological diversity together with the abolition of subsidies for ecologically harmful land uses. in addition. As part of DC. An overall economic calculation should also consider ecological follow-up costs. Decision-making processes concerning the organisation of the project should be made as transparent as possible and should include objection options for the local communities concerned. By means of consultancy services. consultancy services are required in this context to support the dismantling of misdirected economic instruments on the basis of TEVs and cost-benefit analyses. implementation. approval for biodiversity project funding needs to be linked to the removal of any disincentives counterproductive to the aim of the project. 71 . and monitoring and evaluation. 3. 3.

The Economic Valuation of Biological Diversity The effectiveness of economic incentives for local communities has not been sufficiently considered so far. 3.g. While industrial innovations and newly developed products enjoy the protection of legally enforced intellectual property rights at an international level. patent rights (recently internationally strengthened by the GATT agreement). Action particularly needs to be taken in the following areas: • in the evaluation of land tenure systems to support sustainable management practices and the transfer of vested titles to biological diversity (keyword: privatisation).9 Assistance in the creation of property rights The property rights of local communities need to be strengthened and secured. This includes examining land tenure structures and strengthening the rights of indigenous peoples and traditional communities to their cultural identity and the collective intellectual property of their traditional knowledge. 72 . e. these rights need to be strengthened. Bioprospecting and the gathering of biological resources by national organisations offer the opportunity for fair and equitable participation by local communities. If the wealth of experience and valuable knowledge of this part of humanity is to be used in a fair and equitable way for the management and sustainable use of biological resources.4. and benefit-sharing arrangements should be made at the beginning of a project. Private initiatives that take account of such participation should be supported by government authorities. the collective intellectual property of traditional local communities and indigenous peoples is not internationally recognised.

73 . similar agreements should be made with the specific goal of biodiversity conservation.10 Cooperation in establishing global environmental markets through bilateral and multilateral agreements As in the implementation of the Climate Convention (with the goal of a reduction in the emission of CO2).Recommendations • in the establishment of legal instruments to protect the collective intellectual property of indigenous peoples and traditional local communities and • in the examination of the influence that international rules such as the GATT and TRIPS agreements (strengthening of patent rights) might have on the availability of environmentally acceptable technologies in developing countries and the socio-economic and ecological effects that they may have on the lives of small farmers and indigenous peoples. where both bilateral and multilateral conventions and agreements under public and private law have been made.4. The participation and motivation of the private sector should also be sought in such bilateral or multilateral agreements on biodiversity. 3. As example that might be mentioned here is the U.S. Forest for the Future Initiative.

Wildlife Management Institute. W. PEARCE. 1994 Paradise lost? The ecological economics of biodiversity. 208-218. & PEARCE.J.): Global biodiversity assessment. E. BURGESS. London. Cambridge University Press.B. Centre for Social and Economic Research on the Global Environment. E. London. BISHOP. V. (eds.C. BARBIER. & Watson.Bibliography 4 4. R. J. SWANSON. Earthscan. 1991 The mixed use of habitat. ADAMS. Cambridge. LEEC Discussion Paper 93-05. 1980 Endangered species: an economic perspective. London.1 Bibliography Cited references ADAMOWICZ. In: Heywood. US Federal Register 58(10):4602-4614. 1990 Elephants. 21-106. C. J. Paper 91-02. K.A. International Institute for Environment and Development. 1995 Characterization of biodiversity. economics and ivory.. Paper presented at the Agricultural Economics Society Annual Conference. D. D. AYLWARD. KIMMAGE. T.. BARBIER. Transactions of the 45th North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference.A. BARBIER.W..C. University of Exeter. 1993 The economic value of pharmaceutical prospecting and its role in biodiversity conservation. 75 . Nigeria. B.C. W. London. Washington D.W.C. FOLKE. K. BURGESS. Earthscan..B. 1991 Economic valuation of wetland benefits: The Hadejiia-Jama'are floodplain.. BISBY. ARROW. 1993 Report of the NOAA panel on contingent valuation. BARNES... London Environmental Economics Centre. R.. London. 1994 Stated preference methods for environmental valuation. E. J. F.

Resources for the Future. BOWES. BURRILL. W. White. & HENRY.. CAB International. Canberra. Centre for Resource and Environmental Studies. (eds. G. In: Adamowicz.M. Swierbinski. R. In: Orians. & KRUTILLA. Australian National University. 1990 Economic analysis of buffalo range ranch.E. 1993 Stepping back from contingent valuation. LEEC Discussion Paper 89-12.E. Mass.D. J. R. CASTRO.K.. R. P. Kunin. economics and the environment. J. consumers and contingent valuation: Clarification and the expression of citizen values and issue-opinions. University of Washington Press.C.S.): The preservation and valuation of biological resources. M..E..L. Harvard University.K.. W.. J. A. G. BROWN.. G. G. London Environmental Economics Centre. M. G. 1994 Valuing habitat and endangered species.The Economic Valuation of Biological Diversity BLAMEY. In: Kiss. & COMMON.C. & LEE.. Luckert. 155-176. Guildford.. BROWN. 203-228. Washington. CHILD. M.C. Washington D. B.V.M.A.): Forestry. BLAMEY. 1989 The economic value of elephants.M. D. University of Washington. G. Seattle.H. Phillips. Discussion Paper 94-1 (January). D. (ed. 1990 Valuation of genetic resources. 1994 The economic opportunity cost of wildlands conservation areas (EOCWCAs): the case of Costa Rica. LAYTON. 1996 Citizens. W. W. 76 . Brown. (eds.B. W. Boxall. 1989 Multiple-use management: The economics of public forestlands. 1992 Biotech 93: Accelerating commercialization: An industry annual report 1. World Bank. BROWN..): Living with wildlife resource management with local participation in Africa. LAZO. Institute for Economic Research. K.

C.London. ELLIS.D. SYNGE.. 1990 Economics of protected areas.. BURHENNE-GUILMIN. GLOWKA. L. HARTWICK. L. Journal of Environmental Management 25:149-156.M. F. IUCN. V. & FISHER. 1995 Collecting plant genetic diversity.R. A. CAB International. P. A.. Wallingford and University Press. 1994 A guide to the Convention on Biological Diversity.B. MCNEELY.Bibliography DIXON. 1993 Die Ökonomie natürlicher Ressourcen. J. Darmstadt. RAMATHA RAO. Draft. Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. 1991 Naturschutz-Ökonomie.. & SHERMAN. J. L. GÜNDLING.M. & SOEJARTO. Cambridge HAMPICKE. 30. Ulmer Verlag. 77 . ENDRES. a new look at the benefits and costs.H. J. I. Stuttgart. R.. H. London. Economic Botany 39 (3):231-240. J.R. GUARINO. Earthscan. U. IMMLER.M. biotechnology and intellectual property in the Convention on Biological Diversity. REID. American Economic Review 66:972974. Baltimore . & QUERNER. N. Cambridge. 1993 Welche Wirtschaft braucht die Natur? Frankfurt a.C. Environmental Policy and Law Paper no. 1971 Competition for wetlands in the midwest: An economic analysis.A. DOWNES. 1985 Potential consequences of plant extinction in the United States on the current and future availability of prescription drugs.. 1993 New diplomacy for the biodiversity trade: Biodiversity. G. Johns Hopkins University Press for Resources for the Future. D. 1977 Intergenerational equity and the investing of rents from exhaustible resources. Washington D. H. D. GOLDSTEIN.A. FARNSWORTH. 1987 Valuing the environment as input.

(ed.C. KRAMER.K. & FISHER. 1993 Contracts for biodiversity prospecting. KRATTIGER. S. et al.A.London . Washington D.The Economic Valuation of Biological Diversity IMMLER. 1996 Incentives for managing landscapes to meet non-timber goals: Lessons from the Washington Landscape Management Project.. 1975 The economics of natural environments. 1994 Relating stated preference measures and models to choices in real markets. (eds. A. Teil 3.E. 13-22. W. Phillips. Herndon. Luckert. B. LIPPKE. J. 78 . Thailand Develeopment Research Institute and Harvard Institute for International Development. W.Washington D.): Forestry. M. Zur ökologischen Reform von Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft. H. In: SEI: A clearing-house mechanism to promote and facilitate technical and scientific cooperation.V. M. Baltimore . 1993 Valuing a protected tropical forest: A case study of Madagascar. KRUTILLA. Studies in the valuation of commodity and amenity resources.C. Paper prepared for the IVth World Congress of National Parks and Protected Areas. LAIRD. Westdeutscher Verlag. CAB International. 1994 Green Finance: A case study of Khao Yai. W. KAOSARD. World Resources Institute. Caracas.C. Guildford. et al. W. In: Adamowicz. 1994 The "Facilitator": A new mechanism to strengthen the equitable and sustainable use of biodiversity. 1989 Vom Wert der Natur. economics and the environment. A.. Stockholm. In: Reid. J.): Biodiversity prospecting: Using genetic resources for sustainable development. Natur in der ökonomischen Theorie. R...L.C. VA. P. White. Paper prepared for the US Department of Energy and Environmental Protection Agency workshop "Using contingent valuation to measure non-market values". LOUVIERE. Boxall.J. & LESSER. Opladen. Final report for the Natural Resources and Environment Program. Johns Hopkins University Press for Resources for the Future. W.

W. Paris. C. San Diego.C. Hamburg. (eds.): Food and natural resources. of the Interior. OECD 1998 Improving the environment through reducing subsidies. Spektrum Akademischer Verlag. World Bank Environment Paper 3.8. Environment Directorate ENV/ECO/87. U. C. 79 . National Park Service. Prepared by Principe. OECD 1987 The economic value of biological diversity amaong medicinal plants. & FOWLER. 1994 Conservation of biodiversity and economic development: The concept of transferable development rights. 4968. Dept.S. Paris. 1997 Ökonomische Bewertung der natürlichen Umwelt. et al. MENDELSOHN. R. H. 1989 Loss of biological diversity and its potential impact on agriculture and food production. MARKL. Washington D. Rowohlt. S. & STREB. Academic Press. Economic Botany 49(2):223-228. OECD 1996 Saving biological diversity . OECD. In: Pimentel. & BALICK. OLDFIELD. OECD.Economic incentives. 1995 The value of undiscovered pharmaceuticals in tropical forests. 1995 Wohin geht die Biologie? Biologen in unserer Zeit 3:33-39. R. Paris. Heidelberg. Summary and policy conclusions. 1984 The value of conserving genetic resources. In: Perrings.L. MYERS. 1993 Environmental economics and sustainable development. OECD. D. 1991 Die Saat des Hungers. C. T. P. N. Amsterdam. MOONEY. Washington D. M.): Biodiversity conservation: Policy issues and options. M. P. Kluwer Academic Press. M. Berlin.C. Part I. PANAYOUTOU.Bibliography MARGGRAF. & Hall. MUNASINGHE. (eds.

Washington D.): Biodiversity conservation: Policy issues and options. 1995 The economic valuation of biodiversity. 128138. Dordrecht. A. H. 1989 Valuation of an Amazonian rain forest. D. C. C.H. A. GTZ. W.The Economic Valuation of Biological Diversity PAULUS. & MORAN.-O. GENTRY.. et al. Springer Verlag. London.J. Yale University Press. E. Academic Press. REID.H. (ed. PEARCE. LEEC Paper 90-06. PERSSON.London.S. 1990 An economic approach to saving the tropical forests. PRINCIPE.): Economic and medicinal plant research. In: Wagner.W. PERRINGS. 80 .O. Eschborn. 1991 The value of biodiversity. PETERS.): Biodiversity prospecting. 1993 A new lease of life.-G. London. Holling. In: Heywood. PEARCE. In: Reid. H.. K. R. Earthscan. C. Heidelberg. 1989 The economic significance of plants and their constituents as drugs. Kluwer Academic Press... 1994 The economic value of biodiversity. B.O. N.M. MENDELSOHN. Wild species in the North American economy. R. In: Wilson. & PRESCOTT-ALLEN. Farnsworth. D. 1992 Tropische Länder als Quelle neuer Produkte von Industrie und Landwirtschaft . C. C.. C. W.ein Ausblick.. PRESCOTT-ALLEN.C. 1986 The first resource. 1995 Marktwirtschaftliche Instrumente der Umweltpolitik in Entwicklungsländern. PLOTKIN. New Haven . A.V. World Resources Institute. Ambio 20:64-68. (ed. 3:1-17. M. 823-914. Cambridge University Press. Nature 229 (26 June 1989):655-56...M. UNEP. Mäler. V. P. S. (ed. 1994 Macroeconomic policies behind deforestation in Costa Rica. pp. Folke. (eds. Jansson.) Global Biodiversity Assessment.): Ende der biologischen Vielfalt. Hikino. RANDALL. In: Perrings. (eds. London. D.

A. Augsburg. 305-307. R. & MILLER. Verlag Pinus Druck. (eds. K. R.. REID.Bibliography REID. Washington D. 1986 On the intertemporal allocation of natural resources. Heidelberg. 1996 Ökonomische Ökologie. K. Cameroon. IUCN. Review of Economic Studies. St.M. 1990 Die ökonomischen Effekte von Nationalparks in Entwicklungsländern. The rainforest supply price: A tool for conservation expenditures. 29-46.. 1995 Inventorying and monitoring of biodiversity. 1994 Contracting for Genetic Resources.J. World Resources Institute. WWF report prepared for the World Wide Fund for Nature and the Republic of Cameroon.. 1974 Intergenerational equity and exhaustible resources. Gland and International Academy of the Environment. New York. Scandinavian Journal of Economics 88(1):141-149. M. N. R. Miller. W. & JUMA. In: Krattiger. OECD. RUCK. Geneva.): Widening perspectives on biodiversity. W. Springer Verlag. RUITENBEEK. Symposium on the economics of exhaustible resources. 1989 Social cost benefit analysis of the Korup project. M. Lesser.F. Hill. STORK.J.A. Ecological RUITENBEEK. R. SIMPSON. In: Heywood. Paris. Expert Group on Economic Aspects of Biodiversity.V. W. J. & SAMWAYS. 1994 Challenges and opportunities for southsouth-cooperation in implementing the Convention on Biological Diversity.R.): Global 81 .J. 1989 Keeping options alive: The scientific basis for conserving biodiversity. STEPHAN.H. G. SOLOW.. & AHLHEIM. H. C.. C. SOLOW. SÁNCHEZ. H. R. SEDJO.A. (eds.R.M. McNeely. Berlin. 1992 evaluating rainforest Economics 6(1):57-78. London.E. Y. Group on Economic and Environment Policy Integration. V.C.D. R. Senanayake.. V.. & Watson.

-G. C. 1986 Die ökologischen Milliarden. 1992 Fiduciary funds to preserve biodiversity: Green funds. C.G. 1994 Biodiversity and intellectual property rights. New York. C. Jansson. Nairobi..K.. SWANSON. TOBIAS. K.-O. Holling. R.A. Cambridge University Press. 1991 Valuing ecotourism in a tropical rain-forest reserve. WELLS. & MENDELSOHN.. M. Oxford University Press. Ecologia. D..Privatization as a conservation policy. Folke.E. R. UNEP. Oxford. C. DENT. et al. Agriculture. D.F. K.H. VOGEL.. WILLIS. J. Ecosystems and Environment 42:53-73. 453-544. Cambridge University Press.. Ambio 20:91-93. UNEP 1993 Guidelines for country studies on biodiversity. BENSON.): Biodiversity loss: Ecological and economic issues. 1988 The impact of agricultural policy on the costs of nature conservation. B. 1986 Human appropriation of products of photosynthesis.The Economic Valuation of Biological Diversity biodiversity assessment. WOODRUFF. Kösel. 1992 Genetics and conservation. TURNER. Cambridge. J. Cambridge. 1983 Valuation of the environmental impact of wetland flood protection and drainage schemes. & GALL.M.S. P. 1994 Genes for sale .S. L. HEY. Land Economics 64:147-157. R.. In: Perrings. Mäler.D. BioScience 36(6):368-373. T. VITOUSEK.. Munich. 82 . D. SAUNDERS. (eds. Environment and Planning A 15:871-888. G. WICKE.M.

Cambridge.. S. & Williams. Kunin.D. K..H. (eds. Adger. G. Luckert. Public Policy 20:411-441.): The preservation and valuation of genetic resources. Seattle. Pattison.C. P. W.Bibliography 4.. R.C. M. 1995 Total economic value of forests in Mexico. R. 1991 Investing in biodiversity: US research and conservation efforts in developing countries. D. Ambio 24:286-296. 1986 The distribution of economic benefits from Alberta duck production. 6. W.L. Louviere. 1991 Components of the economic value of wildlife: An Alberta study. Swierzinbisnki. J.A.. J. W..E.C Antonovic. Adamowicz. M. W. Tollison. R. Phillips. v. 1972 The economics of fatal mistakes: Fiscal mechanisms for preserving endangered predators. Wildlife Society Bulletin 14(4). W. W. Washington D. Guildford.. G. Boxall.K.. P. CAB International. D. economics and the environment. Journal of Environmental Management 26.London. Brown. W. W. Washington D. White. The Canadian Field Naturalist. Reis 1973 Drugs and foods from little-known plants. . J. World Resources Institute.. Willett. W. 94-118.) 1996 Forestry.. Phillips.. In: Orians.E. GEF Working Paper no.D. Moran.M. T.. Boxall. (eds.. J. 1990 Genetically based measures of uniqueness. J.H. 1994 The cost effectiveness of GEF projects. 83 . R. 1994 Combining stated and revealed preference methods for valuing environmental amenities. Asafu-Adalaye. Harvard University Press. Adamowicz. Philips. 105(3):423-429.N. Mass.. Adamowicz.C. Altschul. W..E. Brown.. W.. Cervigni. University of Washington Press.2 Other references Abramowitz. Adamowicz... Williams. Anderson. Amacher.C.

Phillips. Balandrin. 1992 Assessing the economic value of traditional medicines from tropical rainforests. Asafu-Adjaye. W. U.. Grenzen und neue Erkenntnisse. Natural Resources Journal 11:674-692. Balick. Quarterly Journal of Economics 88:312-319. Barbier. Case study synopsis.H. K.. Nobel. 1992 Valuing environmental functions in developing countries. Bachmura. Schweizer. Adamowicz. A. E.. Ulmer Verlag. Economic Botany 47. Arrow. 1971 The economics of vanishing species. M. Arndt. J.The Economic Valuation of Biological Diversity Appasamy. Aylward. 1974 Environmental preservation. problems. & Fisher. & Barbier. P.. Oxford.S. Bollinger. 1987 Bioindikatoren.T. E.. 84 .. University of Alberta. Attfield. W. Association of Environmental and Resource Economists Workshop 1992 Benefit transfer: procedures. Edmonton. Klocke. M.F. B. W. B. Conservation Biology 6(1). W. 1989 Towards the measurement of total economic value: The case of wildlife resources in Alberta. Biodiversity and Conservation 1:34-50. and research needs. Möglichkeiten. Environmental and Resource Economics 2:341-358. Department of Rural Economy. 1983 The ethics of environmental concern. uncertainty and irreversibility. 1993 Role of non-timber forest products in a subsistence economy: the case of a joint forestry project in India. Blackwell.. 1992 Rehabilitating gum arabic systems in Sudan: economic and environmental implications.A. E. Alberta. Staff paper no. 1985 Natural plant chemicals: sources of industrial and medicinal materials. R. F. Science 228:1154-1160. 89-16. Stuttgart.C.J. R. J. & Mendelsohn. Wurtele.

G. The economics of Barbier.B. Burgess. Beck. In: OECD (ed.): Environmental policy: How to apply economic instruments. C. J.C. 89-02. 1989 The economic value of ecosystems: 1. Barrett. 1991 Economic instruments for climate change policy. OECD.C.B. Barstow. 1989 Economics. E. E. 53-110. Conventional and alternative views.): Environmental policy: How to apply economic instruments.. R. Paris. Barbier. Ambio 20:55-58. et al.aus ökonomischer Sicht. W. 1990 Naturschutz .Bibliography Barbier. Report to the National Rivers Authority. 1992 A contingent valuation study of the Norfolk Broads. Batie. Bateman. London. S. Benkert. Markandya. Land Economics 70(2):155-173. 1987 Die Bedeutung des Gemeinlastprinzips in der Umweltpolitik. Land Economics 61:1-9.S.B. Earthscan. Barrett. 1986 Non-consumptive utilization of whales. Dissertation at Berlin Technical University. natural resources scarcity and development. Tropical wetlands. E. 85 . 1994 Valuing environmental functions: tropical wetlands. S. Zeitschrift für Umweltpolitik und Umweltrecht 9:213-229.. Gatekeeper series no. A. S. E. In: OECD (ed.. LEEC. Mabbs-Zeno. 1991 Economic analysis of international environmental agreements: Lessons for a global warming treaty. OECD. Barbier. 1985 Opportunity costs of preserving coastal wetlands: a case study of a recreational housing development. I. 1991 tropical deforestation. Paris. 111-149. Ambio 15:155163.

Environment 35:16-20. M.G.L. Stoll. H. K.F. J.): Conservation and agriculture. Bennett. J. Blum. Natur und Landschaft 66:3-9. Environment Department. J. London.C. 1990 Economic value of wetlands-based recreation.. C.. Blab. World Bank. 1993 Incentive policies and forest use in the Phillipines. V. Australian Journal of Agricultural Economics 28(2/3):136-152. E..C. University of Newcastle Upon Tyne. G.. Wright. Washington D.P. 1984 Using direct questioning to value the existence benefits of preserved natural areas. Duckworth. 38-45. 1978 Endangered species and uncertainty: The economics of a safe minimum standard. 1991 Förderprogramme zur Errichtung und Sicherung schutzwürdiger Teile von Natur und Landschaft mit gesamtstaatlich repräsentativer Bedeutung. J. R. 1978 Threats to crop plant genetic resources. Benson. 86 . C. Washington D. & Gillis.. Woithe. Ecological Economics 2:129-147. (ed. Titre. Niclas.C. 1990 The aggregate value of non-priced recreation benefits of the Forestry Commission Estate. 1993 Making biodiversity conservation profitable: a case study of the Merck/INBio agreement. J. R. J. Bishop. 1989 Brazilian policies that encourage deforestation in the Amazon.R.. In: Hawkes. E.The Economic Valuation of Biological Diversity Bennett.C.C. Blum.. Bergstrom. Wey. Working Paper 16. 1993 The value of a mangrove area in Sarawak. & Willis. G.): Public policies and the misuse of forest resources. In: Repetto.. Forst. Binswanger. H. & Reynolds. Biodiversity and Conservation 2:359-375.J. (eds. Land Economics 58:1-15. 113-122. Klär. C. J. R. Report to the Forestry Commission. Bennett. E. World Resources Institute. American Journal of Agrucultural Economics 61:10-18. 1982 Option value: An exposition and extension. Bishop. E.

): Economics. J. M. Washington D. R. Essays in memory of Richard Lecomber. M. 1992 Contingent valuation for household water in rural Ghana. 1989 Incentive policies and forest use in the Philippines. Bonus. 1988 Farm incomes and the benefit of environmental protection. Bonus. Bonus.. Washington D. & Gillis. 161-171. (eds. Wirtschaftsdienst 1986/IX:451-455.C. E.O. H. In: Repetto. Centro Internacional de CIMMYT.. (ed. J. G. & Byerlee. Bohn. 1993 The wheat breeding industry in developing countries: An analysis of investments and impacts. Boadu. Bowles. Journal of Agricultural Economics 43(3). Timmermann. E.K. growth and sustainable environments.): Sustainable environmental management. & Prickett. In: Collard.C.Boulder. 1994 Reframing the green window: An analysis of the GEF pilot phase approach to biodiversity and global warming and recommendations for the operational phase. Zeitschrift für die gesamte Staatswissenschaft 136:50-81.C. 1988 Cost-benefit analysis in theory and practice: Agricultural land drainage projects. World Resources Institute. A. 1981 Instrumente einer ökologieverträglichen Wirtschaftspolitik. Belhaven Press .Bibliography Boado. 87 . Basingstoke .T. D. 265-269.): Wirtschaft und Umwelt. 84-163.A.): Public policies and the misuse of forest resources. Kohlkammer Verlag. I. Conservation International.. Bowers. H. D. In: Binswanger. Macmillan. D.. D. Singapore. (eds. H.London. H. Pearce. Stuttgart. London . 1980 Öffentliche Güter und der Öffentlichkeitsgrad von Gütern. Ulph. In: Turner. Bonus. 1986 Eine Lanze für den "Wasserpfennig". Wider die Vulgärform des Verursacherprinzips. Natural Resources Defense Council. H. Bowers. (eds. F.Westview Press.

D. Randall. M. 1989 The management of common property resources: Some conceptual and operational fallacies... Bradley. J. World Resources Institute. 1976 The valuation of aesthetic preferences.. Brown. 57. Eubanks. (eds. C. 1988 Public policy and deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon. 1992 Benefit transfer studies: myths. Bromley. P. World Bank Technical Paper 210.J.. pragmatism.): Public policies and the misuse of forest resources. D.The Economic Valuation of Biological Diversity Boyd. & Gillis. & Bergstrom. D.N. Water Resources Research 28(3):651-655. and idealism. B.O. Brookshire. H. G. Browder. Brookshire. & Neill. L.C.C. Interciencia 13(2). & Hyde. 1989 Forestry sector intervention: the impacts of public regulation on social welfare.O.S. World Bank Discussion Paper no.C. R. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 3(3):325-346.S. Ives. W. G. J. World Bank Technical Paper 193. S.S. (eds. K. Washington D.. 1988 The social costs of rainforest destruction. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 11:303-309. Schulze. Rees.H.R. W. Washington D. Land Economics 59:1-15. In: Repetto. 88 . Davis. & McNamara. M. David. J. & Goldstein. Brookshire. Boyle. Iowa State University Press. 1983 Estimating option prices and existence values for wildlife resources. 1992 Benefit transfers: Conceptual and empirical issues.S..C. S. A.) 1993 Living with trees: Policies for forest management in Zimbabwe. R.. Browder. Water Resources Research 28(3):657-663. D. Braatz.. & Cernea. J. K. Washington D. 1984 A model for valuing endangered species. 1992 Conserving biological diversity: A strategy for protected areas in the Asia-Pacific region.

1993 Estimating the benefits of plant genetic resources for food and agriculture: Suggested approaches. R. 1986 On the intrinsic value of nonhuman species. Cervigni. K. J. I.. Brisbane. Norwich and London.Bibliography Brown. University College London. Pearce. & Goldin. Carson. Centre for Social and 89 . Centre for Social and Economic Research on the Global Environment. Callicott. University of East Anglia. Report to the Attorney General of the State of Alaska. 1987 Economic and socio-economic impacts of the Thorns Starfish on the Great Barriert Reef. University of East Anglia and University College London. 1993 Economics and the conservation of biological diversity. Development Centre Studies. D. Finance and Development 30(4):11-13.. K. K. In: Norton. University Press. R. Paris.B.G. M. Princeton. Centre for Social and Economic Research on the Global Environment. Swanson. J. Discussion Paper 92. T. R. Washington D. GEC working paper 93-07. 1993 The sociologist's approach to sustainable development. incentives to deforest and tradeable development rights. 138-172. 1994 Estimation using contingent valuation data from a 'dichotomous choice with follow-up' questionnaire. OECD. Brown.W. et al. Institute of Applied Environmental Research. 1993 Biodiversity. Carter. M.C. C. 1992 A contingent valuation study of lost passive values resulting from the Exxon Valdez oil spill. T. Brown.A. Report to the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. & Quiggin. 1992 Carbon sequestration and storage in tropical forests. Griffith University. Cervigni. GEF Working Paper 2. B.): The preservation of species. Cameron.. (ed. Perrings. Cernea. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 27:218-234. 1992 The future of agriculture: Developing country implications.

V. Cesario. University of California. Macmillan. (ed. D. John Wiley. University College. World Bank. C.. Pearce. C. Collard. Washington D. 90 .. V.W. Economic Botany 47(3):251-257.C. K. Washington D.. 1971 Option demand and consumer surplus: Further comment..): Living with wildlife. Econometrica 39:813-827.. F. D. London and University of East Anglia. Wildlife resource management with local participation in Africa. Egli. A.The Economic Valuation of Biological Diversity Economic Research on the Global Environment. Quarterly Journal of Economics 85:528539. B..C. Ciriacy-Wantrup.) 1992 Conservation of West and Central African rainforests. Cleaver. growth and sustainable environments. M. Essays in memory of Richard Lecomber.) 1988 Economics. Berkeley and Los Angeles. Peuker. 1976 Mathematical bioeconomics: The optimal management of renewable resources. C. Dyson. 1993 The value of non-timber forest products: an estimate from India.J.. Cline. & Freeman. N. Division of Agricultural Sciences.K. Ulph.J.. (eds. 1971 An econometric evaluation of a generalized consumer surplus measure: The mineral king controversy. A. Basingstoke .London.. Cicchetti.J. S. A. Annex 3:193204. W. International Institute for International Economics. F. Washington D. World Bank Environment Paper 1. 1990 Assessment of wildlife utilization as a land use option in the semi-arid rangelands of Southern Africa. K.M. New York. D. Fisher. 1992 The economics of global warming. Smith. 1976 Value of time in recreation benefit studies.. Cicchetti.C. M. Wencelius. Clark. Chopra. Child. Land Economics 52:32-41. 1952 Resource conservation economics and politics. A. Munasinghe. In: Kiss. (eds.

Oxford University Press. (eds.E.E.. R. Toward an ecological economics. Geisler. Cambridge. World Bank Discussion Paper 188. R. Brookshire. 1978 Cost-benefit analysis. Danielson... D.K.. G. Macmillan. Intermediate Technology Publications. 1986 Private versus public economics of prairie wetland allocation. C. Ecological Economics 6:7-34.A. GEF Working Paper 1.C. Davis. Sydney.J. Port Chester. (ed.D. F. Leitch.) 1993 The social challenge of biodiversity conservation. Cornes.Bibliography Common. U. 1987 Ecological Modelling 38:1-7. A.C. Totowa. T. & Daly.. N. Schulze. 1986 The theory of externalities. Davis. S. Costanza. (eds.. 91 . Jolly. S.) 1989 Adjustment with a human face.A. Washington D. & Pearce. Dasgupta.. Castilleja. J.G. & Perrings. (eds. theory and practice. Poole. Maxwell. 1986 Valuing public goods. S. Hobbelink... London . Washington S. public goods and club goods. Farber..W. H. C. Costanza.S. P. D. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 13(1).G. R. D. 1989 Valuation and management of wetland ecosystems. Ecological Economics 1(4):335-362. R. R. L. R. Cornia. An assessment of the contingent valuation method.Basingstoke. Melbourne. & Sandler. G.) 1992 Growing diversity: Genetic resources and local food security. H. W. Rowman & Allanheld. Vellvé. J.K. London. Cambridge University Press. 1992 Towards an ecological economics of sustainability.. New York. Cooper. New York.J. Stewart.. M. Cummings.) 1993 Indigenous views of land and the environment.

1993 Contingent valuation: the wrong tool to measure passive-use losses. Washington D. Biol.. W. 1993 Trees. 7(1):53-65. World Bank Environment Paper 4. 1993 Beyond hotspots: how to prioritise investments to conserve biodiversity in the Indo-Pacific region. Choices II:9-11 Dewees. L. Australia..L. & Sherman. ICBP Technical Publication no. T. R. 1992 The structure of an environmental transaction: the debt-for-nature swap. Dixon. van't Hof. Dixon. Paris. R.. A. Gable. A. D.B. S.A. F. Agricultural University. & Goff. E. Diamond. land.. P.. Hudson.) 1987 The value of birds. UNESCO.London. Dogse. & Lockwood.The Economic Valuation of Biological Diversity Deacon. 1991 Economics of protected areas. 19zz Estimating the non-market values of nature conservation resources Australia. Ambio 22(2-3):117125. & Wikramanayake. Desvousges.W.F. Westview Press. Wageningen.R.A. P. Boulder .R. Economic and social perspectives. M.J. Cambridge. Ambio 20:68-74. Charles Sturt University.) 1987 Valuing wildlife. B. R. 1990 Debt for nature exchanges and biosphere reserves.W. J. 6.H. University of California at Santa Barbara. Scura. P.C. E. Dunford. Decker. J. 92 . Climate Change Research Centre. Dinerstein. (eds. and labor. deGroot. 1992 Functions and values of protected areas: A comprehensive framework for assessing the benefits of protected areas to human society. & Murphy. IUCN. G. Conserv. T. 1993 Meeting ecological and economic goals: Marine parks in the Caribbean. P. & von Droste. (eds.A. Department of Economics. & Filion. deLacy. Albury.

Fankhauser. A. World Bank. Special Report no. 1993 Forestry management for sustainable development.K. E. Washington D.. 1992 The value of biodiversity. & Bühler. J. Kenya 1930-1990. R. Ehrlich.): Valuing environmental benefits in developing economies.und Ressourcenökonomie. Ebenroth. World Bank Environment Paper 5. J. Hoehn. Erträge der Forschung 229. & Appanah.C. EDI Policy Seminar Report 32.E. 1991 Genetic resources: assessing economic value. A. (eds.B. Mortimer. In: Vincent. Durning. English. 1993 Land resource management in Machakos district. P. Duke. Endres. C. Livernash. P.R.C. Ambio 21(3). Evenson. 1985 Umwelt. Chichester. C.. John Wiley. Washington D. 1994 Evaluating the carbon sequestration benefits of forestry projects in less developed countries. 1976 Economic appraisal of endangered plant species.A.T. Cort. J. Proceedings of a seminar series held in February-May 1990 at Michigan State University.C. S.. 1990 Verschuldungskrise und Umweltschutz Debt-for-Nature-Swaps. 1984 Wildlife resources and economic development. S. & Ehrlich. eine Lösung für zwei Probleme? Natur und Recht 6:260-266. Washington D. A. Worldwatch Institute. R..H. Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. Phytologica 34:21-27. Darmstadt. 1992 A point estimate of the economic damage from global warming.Bibliography D'Silva.. M. E.C. Worldwatch Paper 92. S. Crawford. Eltringham. World Ressources Institute. 29. J. Washington D. 1989 Poverty and the environment: Reversing the downward spiral. Tiffen. Faeth.. M. S. Centre for Social and Economic Research on the Global 93 .

1990 The rate and extent of deforestation in Brazilian Amazonia.G. In: Wilson. S. University of East Anglia and University College London. 1988 Screening plants for new medicines.M.S. Junk Publications. Fisher. A guide to CITES. Fisher. 83-97. 94 . & Krutilla. Hohenheim.C. Environmental Conservation 17:213-226. Energy Journal 15(2). & Costanza. N.. Dissertation. 1987 The value of coastal wetlands for protection of property against hurricane wind damage. Norwich and London. Washington D. 1989 International trade in endanered species. Farnsworth.C. D.V. S. Journal of Environmental Economies and Management 1:96-108. Dordrecht Fearnside. 1986 World Bank pledges to protect wildlands. 1980 Kosten-Nutzen-Analyse Kultivierung. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management:14:143-151.): Biodiversity.O. In: Hall. N. W. J. S.C. Rainforest Alliance. (ed. Dordrecht. Fitzgerald.O. Favre. R. J. New York. 1974 Valuing long run ecological consequences and irreversibilities. Farber. Festl. 1985 Endangered species: The economies of irreversible damage. Martinus Nijhoff. A.S. A. BioScience 36:712-715. Fankhauser.R. Margaris.The Economic Valuation of Biological Diversity Environment. E. National Academy Press. C. CSERGE Discussion Paper 92. (eds..M. D. 1991 Natural products research and the potential role of the pharmaceutical industry in tropical forest conservation. von Meliorationen und Findeisen. 129-138. 1994 The social costs of greenhouse gas emissions: an expected value approach..): Economies of ecosystem management. & Hanemann. N. P. Myers.

O. World Resources Institute. & Blöchinger. & Gillis. Fischer. (eds. Gillis. World Resources Institute. A. L. 1994 Umgestaltung der Weltbank. R. In: Brown. et al. 95 . Forstarchiv 60:219-222. Baltimore. Rüegger. 1997 Kosten-Nutzen-Analyse und ökonomische Politikbewertung. D. J. Furtado. Betriebswirtschaftliche Investitionskriterien. Springer. 1990 Biological diversity: Global conservation needs and costs.): Public policies and the misuse of forest resources. In: Repetto.R. III 1979 The benefits of environmental improvement: Theory and practice. 1993 Costa Rica's conservation program and National Biodiversity Institute (INBio). resource management and the tropical forest.C. Vol. I: Wohlfahrtsmessung. New York. 1989 Erlauben die defizitären Wirtschaftsergebnisse eine unveränderte Beibehaltung der forstpolitischen Zielsetzung? Ein Diskussionsbeitrag am Beispiel der Hessischen Landesforstverwaltung. 211-244 Frey. A. (ed. R. London. 1991 Schützen oder Nutzen. (eds. Heidelberg. In: Reid. & Margraf. et al.M. Frankfurt. Washington D. 1988 Indonesia: Public policies. Ausgleichszahlungen im Natur.Zürich. Gans. R.Bibliography Freeman. Freeman. Centre for Integrated Development. Johns Hopkins University Press. Environment Programme Report. W. Chur . Gámez. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 11:292-295.M.und Landschaftsschutz. H. Washington D. III 1984 The quasi-option value of irreversible development. M. Germann.L. French. Berlin. M.C. R.): Biodiversity prospecting: Using genetic resources for sustainable development.): Zur Lage der Welt 1994. H.

A. hypotheses. Washington D. & Gillis. M.. 96 .The Economic Valuation of Biological Diversity Gillis. (eds. In: Wilson. In: Repetto. R. London. Godoy. M. R. Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies. Umwelt (VDI) 20:632-634. 1988 West Africa: Resource management policies and the tropical forest. Green. R. 1977 Intergenerational distributive justice and environmental responsibility. R. In: Repetto.M. K.C. World Resources Institute. R. World Bank Technical Paper 62. (ed. 1993 The economic value and sustainable harvest of plants and animals from the tropical rainforest: Assumptions. M.O. & Bawa. BioScience 27:260-265. M. 1993 Valuing the rainforest: The economic value of nontimber forest products in Ecuador. 1988 A major new opportunity to finance the preservation of biodiversity.J. & Gillis. Economic Botany 47(3):215-219. J. M.): Public policies and the misuse of forest resources. Washington D. Gradwohl. R. R. R. et al.J. Goodland. Economic Botany 47(3):220-233..A. M. World Resources Institute. A. Markandya. Lubowski. Godoy. 1990 Unternehmen als Sponsoren. New Haven. National Academy Press. 1993 A method for the economic valuation of non-timber tropical forest products.A. 1987 The management of cultural property in World Bank assisted projects.C. and methods. Gillis. Washington D. (eds. Earthscan. Goodland.): Public policies and the misuse of forest resources. Gödde.C. & Greenberg. E. Washington D. & Webb.): Biodiversity.C. 1988 Saving the tropical forests. Global Environmental Facility 1992 Memorandum of understanding on Norwegian funding of pilot demonstration projects for joint implementation arrangements under the climate convention GEF. R. World Bank. 1988 Malaysia: Public policies and the tropical forest. Grimes.

1989 Volks. K. P. U. 127-149. Kiel.): Ländlicher Raum im Abseits? Vauk. 1990 Naturschutzfinanzierung. 1993 Methods to assess the impact of extraction of non-timber tropical forest products on plant populations. F. Bonn. London and Norwich. B.): Die ökologische Herausforderung für die ökonomische Theorie. Centre for Social and Economic Research on the Global Environment. 1990 Ökologische und ökonomische Probleme der Grünlandextensivierung. 1991 Neoklassik und Zeitpräferenz . Naturschutz in Nordhessen 11:31-46. Hampicke.W. D. Eschborn. Hampicke. & Isermeyer. GEC working paper 92-44. F. Hampicke. U. 42-64. Berlin. U. GTZ.und betriebswirtschaftliche Kosten des Naturschutzes in der Landwirtschaft und Möglichkeiten der Finanzierung. In: Beckenbach. Economic Botany 47(3):234-247. Eschborn. Institut für Ökologische Wirtschaftsforschung. Marburg. In: deHaen. & Pearce. Laufener Seminarbeiträge 87-3:60-84. Hampicke. Hampicke. 19-41. 97 . 1992 Estimating the environmental benefits of the Amazon forest: an intertemporal valuation exercise. Schriftenreihe des IÖW 88-20. U. (eds. GTZ.der Diskontierungsnebel. 1989 Was darf und was kann monetarisiert werden? In: Möglichkeiten und Grenzen der Monetarisierung von Natur und Umwelt. 178-193. Hall. (ed. GTZ 1993 Die Rolle von Abreizen bei der Anwendung von RMSH als Vorgehensweise. 1990 Naturschutz als eine regionalwirtschaftliche Option. Metropolis. Dokumentation einer Anhörung der Grünen im Bundestag. H. U. Hampicke. & Bawa. In: Ganzheitliche Naturschutzpolitik statt Reservatsdenken. University College London and University of East Anglia. U.Bibliography GTZ 1997 Bodenrecht und Bodenordnung. Gutierrez.

U.C. 1991 Willingness to pay and willingness to accept: How much can they differ? American Economic Review 81(3):663-647.. (ed. Ökonomische Begleitstudie zu den "Grundlagen für das Artenschutzprogramm Berlin". Zeitschrift für Umweltpolitik und Umweltrecht 10:157-195.. 98 . Berlin. U.D. 1985 Die voraussichtlichen Kosten naturschutzgerechten Landwirtschaft. 1988 Extensivierung der Landwirtschaft für den Naturschutz . U. Landschaft+Stadt 15:171-183.. Horlitz. H. Hampicke. 1991 Kosten und Wertschätzung des Arten. Hanemann. K.und Biotopschutzes. 1987 Ökologische Vorgaben für die Agrarökonomie.O. Rahmenbedingungen und Maßnahmen. Washington D. 1985 Die volkswirtschaftlichen Kosten des Naturschutzes in Berlin. 1989 Welfare evaluations in contingent valuation: Experiments with discrete responses.T.M. Hanemann. 1987 Naturschutz als ökonomisches Problem. 1990 Valuation of environmental effects: final report . Hampicke. Hampicke. Tampe. Hanemann.. Industry Department of Scotland and the Scottish Development Agency. Walters. W. 193-199.Ziele. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 66(3):32-34.M. Hampicke. N. einer Hampicke.. Technische Universität. U. Umrisse einer Landwirtschaft ohne Ausrottung von Arten. Schriftenreihe Bayer. U. Erich Schmidt Verlag. D. Berlin. Internationales Institut für Umwelt und Gesellschaft. Berlin.The Economic Valuation of Biological Diversity Hampicke. Kiemstedt.. National Academy Press. Landesamt für Umweltschutz 84:9-35. Kali-Briefe17:701-714. W. U. 1983 Die voraussichtlichen Kosten einer umweltgerechten Landwirtschaft.M 1988 Economics and the preservation of biodiversity. U. Hanley. E.): Biodiversity.stage one. Timp. W. M. In: Wilson. Hampicke.

R. Cambridge Economics Inc. Mass.. Leonard. 1992 Assessing use value losses due to natural resource injury.Bibliography Hanley. 1986 Measuring resource values: the reliabilitiy and validity of dichtomous contingent valuation measures. & Spash. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 22:281-291. D. Heath. Possio. New York. R. S.. McFadden.K. C. 1991 Wilderness development decisions and the Krutilla-Fisher model: the case of Scotland's flow country. & King. J.. Discussion papers in Economics 93-12. D. R. information and biodiversity preservation. Hausman.. University of Zimbabwe. 1986 Zur Erhaltung genetischer Ressourcen. 1988 The economics of cattle ranching in Eastern Amazonia. Cambridge. Paper presented at the American Sociological Association Meeting. G. 99 . Heberlein. Interciencia 13(5):233-239. 1992 The growth in wildlife based tourism in Zimbabwe. C. Hartje. 1974 Investment decisions under uncertainty: The "irreversibility effect". Vahlen. Hecht. Hanusch.D. University of Stirling. Heath. Ecological Economics 4(2):145-162.. Department of Economics. T. 1992 Wildlife based tourism in a developing country: The economic implications.A. J. University of Zimbabwe. 1991 Recreational demand by tourists for saltwater beach days: Comment. 1993 Preferences. 1987 Nutzen-Kosten-Analyse. V. Henry. S. Zeitschrift für Wirtschafts. American Economic Review 64:1006-1012. N. G.A. Munich.und Sozialwissenschaften 106:229-252. Hanley. Norgaard. Hof. H. N.D. & Craig.J.

Imber. Hundloe. K. Materialien 55. Wilks. Johansson. IUCN. 1989 Welfare evaluations in contingent valuation: Experiments with discrete response data: Comment.. 1990 Sustainable wildlife utilization in the Zambezi valley of Zimbabwe: Economic. Hundsdorfer. G. H. 1989 Kostendatei für Maßnahmen des Naturschutzes und der Landschaftspflege. Huber. ecological and political tradeoffs. Australian Parks and Recreation 26(3):11-15. WWF Multispecies Project.M. The Nature Conservancy. Cambridge. 1990 Measuring the value of the Great Barrier Reef.The example of safe minimum standards for protection of species. Caracas. U. M. 1989 Von der Sozialkostentheorie zum umweltpolitischen Steuerungsinstrument. T. Berichte über Landwirtschaft 68:196-215. 1990 Ökonomische Betrachtungen zum Bayerischen Kulturlandschaftsprogramm.. Biodiversity and Conservation 2:168-181. Paper presented at the IVth World Congress on National Parks and Protected Areas. Maler. Stevenson. First global forum on Jansen. 1992 Case studies showing cost/benefit of tourism and protected areas development.J. 1991 A contingent valuation survey of the Kakadu conservation zone. D. L. B. Nomos. L. Kristrom. Baden-Baden...K. Harare. Bayerisches Staatsministerium für Landesentwicklung und Umweltfragen. American Journal of Agricultural Economics.-O. Hohl. Project paper no. Munich.The Economic Valuation of Biological Diversity Hoffmann. D. R. Niesslein. Research Paper no. G. P. & Wohlgschaft.J. Canberra. E. Resource Assessment Commission. Obermair. 3. 1993 How useful are environmental safety standards in economics? .. 100 .. & Tisdell. M. C. WWF 1994 environmental funds. 10. A. Jarass.

C. Forschungsvorhaben 101 03 110/06 des Umweltbundesamtes. 1990 Experimental tests of the endowment effect and the coarse theorem. 1993 Issues to be addressed by the GEF program for measuring incremental costs for the environment. Basil Blackwell. Knetsch.. K.L.C. Knetsch. 1990 Tropical forest preservation using economic incentives: A proposal of conservation easements. 101 . H. Washington D. Klockow. 1991 Umweltbedingte Folgekosten im Bereich Freizeit und Erholung. & Klemmer. 1992 Valuing public goods: The purchase of moral satisfaction. Thaler. GEF Working Paper 5.. & Cale. GEF Working Paper 8. S. Zeitschrift für Umweltpolitik und Umweltrecht 11:339-359. Journal of Political Economy 98(6). P. M. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 22(1):57-70.L.L. C.H. Kahnemann. D. P. K.Bibliography Johansson. W. 1985 The economics of forestry and natural resources. D. Karl. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 15(3):331-340. Katzman. BioScience 40(11):827-832. Texte 4/91.. 1988 Comparing welfare estimates of environmental quality changes from recreational demand models. Washington D. Kahneman. Marine Resource Economics 4(2):95-109. Kling. R. King. & Matthes. 1987 A simulation approach to comparing multiple-site recreation-demand models using Chesapeake Bay survey data. J. J. King.-O. Umweltbundesamt Berlin. 1988 Ökonomische und ökologische Agrarmarktreform und Ansatzpunkte für die Vergabe von Bewirtschaftungsbeiträgen.L. U. 1993 The incremental costs of global environmental benefits. Kling.G. K. & Löfgren. Oxford. C.

H. Commonwealth Science Council. Kassel. Knetsch. Lever. H. Kosmo. H. Leslie. V. Ledec. R. & Krause. Middle Essex.): Conservation biology: a training manual for biological diversity and genetic resources. Energy Policy 17:244-253. P. In: Landwirtschaft und Umwelt.J. Quarterly Journal of Economics XCIX(3):507521. E. The world financial crisis. J. B. Köhne. & Goodland. 1987 Debt and danger. Unasylva 39(155):46-58. G.T. 1987 A second look at the economics of natural management systems in tropical mixed forests. 1987 Auflagen zum Natur.und Sozialwissenschaften 23:347-360. 1992 Application of stochastic choice modelling to policy analysis of public goods: A case study of air 102 . M. London. 1983 Führen naturnahe Waldbauverfahren zur betriebswirtschaftlichen Erfolgsverbesserung? Forstarchiv 54:47-51. 1990 Amazon biodiversity.und Wasserschutz: Rechtliche und ökonomische Aspekte der Entschädigung. M. J. 1989 Gesamtwirtschaftliche Analyse der Flurbereinigung. Schriften der Gesellschaft für Wirtschafts.H. & White. 1986 Zur ökonomischen Bewertung von Naturschutzauflagen für den Landwirtschaftsbetrieb. In: Kapoor-Vijay. F. M. Kuliopulos. 1989 Commercial energy subsidies in developing countries. Friedrichsdorf im Taunus. Landwirtschaftsverlag Hessen. Loehmann. Leibundgut. Kuhlmann. H. Dissertation. A. & Müller. & De. Science 248:1305. J. (eds. & Huhne. & Sinden. C.L. Penguin Books. 1984 Willingness to pay and compensation demanded: Experimental evidence of an unexpected disparity in measures of value.The Economic Valuation of Biological Diversity Knebel. 1992 Harmonizing sustainable development with conservation of wildlands.

1990 Comparative reliability of the dichotomous choice and open ended valuation techniques. W. Centro Agronomico Tropical de Investigacion y Ensenanza (CATIE).C. & Arens.D.. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 8:175-186.B. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 18(1):78-85. Mährlein. 1989 Government policies and deforestation in Brazil's Amazon region. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 4(4):355-369. G. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 71:76-84. F. 1993 Valuing ecotourism in Madagascar.G. Serie Tecnica no. P. R. K. Conroy. 1988 Contingent valuation using dichotomous choice models. World Bank. J. 9. 1981 Adaptation de una metodologia de evaluacion economica. Environment Department. 1990 Einzelwirtschaftliche Naturschutzauflagen. 1989 The cost of soil erosion in Java: A natural resource accounting approach. Loomis.J. Journal of Environmental Management 38:213-218.. Washington D. Loomis. P. Review of Economics and Statistics 64:474480. Magrath. D. J. 1989 Test-retest reliability of the contingent valuation method: A comparison of general population and visitor response. Loomis. A. Mahar.B. 1981 Economic valuation of marsh areas for marine production processes. Costa Rica.C. Lynne. Working Paper no. Marcondes. & Mendelsohn. P. Washington D. aplicada al Parque Nacional Cahuita. Prochaska. 18. M. Maille.B. World Bank. Journal of Leisure Research 20(1):46-56. J. Vauk. 1977 A note on the use of property values in estimating marginal willingness to pay for environmental quality. Auswirkungen von Mäler. 103 .Bibliography quality improvements. Kiel.

) 1993 Debt-for-nature swaps to promote natural resource conservation. J. (ed. Hof. I. Ambio 18:303-313.. D. & Pearce. Icarus 21:471-489. Reed. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 63:153-156. & Norgaard. R. J. Rome Mauksch. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 74(4):926-933. McNeely. 1988 Economics and biological diversity. A. & Strand. Martinez-Alier.E. Environmental Department Working Paper no. Mateo. Petersen. G.A.A. McNeely. 3. 1974 Biological modulation of the earth's atmosphere. FAO. R.A. J. J. IUCN.E. 1987 Der Naturschutzwert von einigen normalen agrarischen Flurbereinigungsmaßnahmen. McNeely. Ecosystems and Environments 42:194-204. McConnell.J. & Lovelock. Developing and using economic incentives to conserve biological resources. J. 1989 How to pay for conserving biological diversity.A. K. & Tobias. 1988 Environmental considerations and the choice of the discount rate in developing countries. 1991 Developed country policies and biological diversity in developing countries..The Economic Valuation of Biological Diversity Margulis. & Tobias.O. McNeely.J.Q. Gland.E. Mendelsohn. 1992 Measuring recreation values with multiple destination trips. R. Ambio 20(2):86-90.O. 1991 Valuing ecotourism in a tropical rainforest reserve. Basil Blackwell. J. World Bank. Agriculture. J.. Ambio 20(2):91-93. Mendelsohn. Markandya. 104 . 1987 Ecological economics. 1981 Measuring the cost of time in recreation demand analysis. J.A. L. Landschaft+Stadt 19:136-143. R.W. C. 1991 Economic incentives for conserving biological diversity in Thailand. Oxford. R. W.

. Costa Rica 1991 National study of biodiversity: Costs. 1979 Some economic considerations in wildlife preservation. Energy and Mines.B. N. Washington D. Mitchell. Journal of Applied Ecology 29.J. Ministry of Natural Resources. Praeger. E. benefits and needs for financing and conservation of biological diversity in Costa Rica..A.. Milner-Gulland.. 1989 Using surveys to value public goods: The contingent valuation method.A. E.B. 1981 Introduction to normative economics. 1994 A participatory approach to biodiversity conservation: The regional priority setting workshop. Kramer. Barbados. & Carson. Mishan. Mittermeier.C. F.Oxford. Olivieri. Duke University. New York. 105 . Southern Economic Journal 45:718-729. Cavalcanti. G. Resources for the future. I. Washington D. Centre for Resource and Environmental Policy Research.C.C. J. Conservation International. 1993 Estimating the nature tourism benefits of establishing the Mantadia National Park in Madagascar. R..J. E. New York . N. R. da Fonseca. R. Bowles. Mishan. S.Bibliography Mercer. Prepared for the Caribbean Conservation Association Conference on Economics of the Environment. Sharma.A. Miller. GEF Working Paper no. 1976 Cost-benefit analysis. Mintzer. C. & Leader-Williams. 1989 Economics and the environment: A case of small island states.. 1992 A model of incentives for illegal exploitation of rhinos and elephants: Poaching pays in Luangwa Valley. Washington D. R.R.C. I. E. 4. & Menz. Oxford University Press.J.C. NC. Zambia. Mitchel. 1993 Implementing the framework convention on climate change: Incremental costs and the role of the GEF.T.M. R.

1991 Tropical forests and climate.. N. & Kellert.. Westview Press. D. Moran. N. US Department of Commerce. M. N. Shaw.. ethics: The broken circle. N. Biodiversity and Conservation.): Ecology. 1992 Economic and policy issues in natural habitat and protected areas. Boulder. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management. Myers. D. 1993 Are economy-wide policies good for the environment? Finance and Development 30(3):40-43. K.D. Myers. N. Biodiversity and Conservation 2:2-17. In: Bormann. NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) 1994 Oil pollution act of 1990: Proposed regulations for natural resource damage assessments. Washington D. economics. 1994 The marginal cost of species preservation: The Northern Spotted Owl. G. E. Global Environmental Facility. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 20:181-201.C.D. World Bank. Cruz.R.H. Climatic Change 19:1-2. 1991 Biological diversity and global security. site choice. Washington D. Munasinghe. storehouse for human welfare.The Economic Valuation of Biological Diversity Montgomery.M. 1983 A wealth of wild species. & de Lucia. R. Myers. M.C. 1991 Tropical forests: present status and future outlook. Morey. Newcombe. 3. 1991 A discrete-choice model of recreational participation.. W. 1994 Contingent valuation and biodiversity conservation in Kenyan protected areas. and the activity valuation when complete trip data are not available. C. F. J. 26(2):111-128. Adams. 1993 Questions of mass extinction. Myers. Myers. S. 106 .. Yale University Press. 1993 Mobilising private capital against global warming: a business concept and policy issues. W. Munasinghe. Rowe.R. R. Brown. (eds. Warford. Climatic Change 19:3-32..

American Economic Review 81(2):920-937. 107 . B. Norton. B. E. (ed. & Zahrnt. University Press.A. 1992 Monitoring and assessing biodiversity. (eds. Norton.E. Csuti.) 1993 Global marine biological diversity: A strategy for building conservation into decision making.G. Cline.C.) 1989 Ökosteuern.Bibliography Nordhaus. M. Norton. Munich. 1987 The economics of biological diversity: Apologetics or theory? In: Southgate.G. B.F. J.): Achieving environmental goals: The concept and practice of environmental performance review. 1986 On the inherent danger of undervaluing species.D. 1989 Schutz der tropischen Regenwälder durch Entschuldung. (ed. W. London. 5. Ambio 21(3):244-249.B. & Disinger. Noss. Beck. R. D. 1984 Environmental ethics and weak anthropocentrism. Westview Press. Umweltsteuern und -abgaben in der Diskussion. E. Vol. (eds.. Belhaven Press.): The preservation of species. Princeton. Nordhaus. & Ulanowocz. Environmental Ethics 4:17-36. H.G. D. Karlsruhe.G. 1982 Environmental ethics and nonhuman rights. Island Press. C. S. Nutzinger. W. B. (ed. In: Norton.F. Washington D. 1991 To slow or not to slow: The economics of the greenhouse effect. 1992 Scale and biodiversity policy: A hierarchical approach. 1991 A sketch of economics of the greenhouse effect.. In: Lykke. Oberndörfer.. Norse. Scott. American Economic Review 81(2):146-150. Müller. B. Boulder London. Norgaard. A.): Sustainable resource development in the Third World.G. R. Schriftenreihe des Bundeskanzleramts. Norton. B.G.F. Environmental Ethics 6:131-148. R.

Blueprint 2: Greening the world economy. 1992 Assessing the social rate of return in temperate zone forestry. Paris.W. Pearce. Whittington.): Fragile lands of Latin America: Strategies for sustainable development. Norwich and London. D. (ed. D. S. Paris. & Langrand. 1984 Externe Effekte der Stickstoffdüngung. Paris.W. Padoch. (eds. Centre for Social and Economic Research on the Global Environment.W. Earthscan. D. Centre for Social and Economic Research on the Global Environment. S. Madagascar.W. & Markandya. Westview Press.. Pearce. & de Jong. 1991 Economic valuation and the natural world. University College London and University of East Anglia. D. University College London and University of East Anglia. Prepared by Pearce. OECD 1991 Environmental policy: How to apply economic instruments.) 1991 Earthscan. Pearce. Paris. London. Vauk. OECD 1991 Responding to climate change: Selected economic issues. 1989 Production and profit in agroforestry: an example from the Peruvian Amazon. S. Pearce.G. A. D. 1992 Discounting. In: Browder.W. 1992 Can wildlife pay its way in Madagascar? World Wildlife Fund for Nature.. Probleme ihrer Bewertung und Ansätze zu ihrer Verminderung aus ökonomischer Sicht.W. OECD. O'Hara. OECD.The Economic Valuation of Biological Diversity O'Connor. 1994 Capturing global environmental values. Pearce. Georgiou. OECD. (ed. J. Boulder. OECD. D. W. O. In: Pearce. C.): Manual of environmental projects and policy appraisal. J. Kiel. OECD 1989 Environmental policy benefits: Monentary evaluation. 108 .W. Norwich and London. London. D.

Washington D. Pearsall.W.B. D. Pearce. 1981 The social appraisal of projects. A. E. Environmental Conservation 11:3-10.A. Pearce. 109 . & Turner. D. Barbier. University College London. S. Pearce.W.W.. Report to Latin American Technical Department. Ecodecision 1:40-49. D. Pearce.W.B. R. Washington D. D. 1989 Blueprint for a green economy. London.W. et al. World Bank. D. Macmillan. Norwich.New York. Centre for Social and Economic Research on the Global Environment. Oxford University Press.H. Oxford University Press.. Macmillan.W. Centre for Social and Economic Research on the Global Environment. Pearce. Pearce. Basingstoke. & Nash.C.. Pearce. D. 1986 Cost-benefit analysis. Earthscan. 1991 Economic valuation and the natural world.W. C. Bann. World Bank. Markandya. Oxford . New York Pearce.C. D. Oxford . D. D. London . 1987 Foundations of an ecological economics.W. 1990 Economics of natural resources and the environment.Basingstoke.W.W. Ecological Modelling 38:9-18. III 1984 In absentia benefits of nature preserves: A review.K.. Pearce.. A. environment and sustainable development. S. Pearce. D. & Barbier. Barbier.W. C. Harvester Wheatsheaf. Pearce. 1992 World without end: Economics. 1993 Mexico forestry and conservation sector review: substudy of economic valuation of forests. E. Markandya. D. E. J.W. 1990 Sustainable development. 1991 Deforesting the Amazon: Toward an economic solution.B. University College London and University of East Anglia. 1992 The social costs of fuel cycles. Georgiou.Bibliography Pearce. 1987 Forest policy in Indonesia. D..New York. & Warford.

P. Parks and Wildlife Foundation. In: Wilson. W. National Academy Press. Washington D. New York 110 . 1994 Threshold effects and incentives for the conservation of biodiversity.) 1984 Valuation of wildland resource benefits. Peterson. A. 1981 Economic impact analysis for the Virgin Island Resources Foundation. Randall.): Biodiversity. (eds. Watson. 823-914. Alberta Recreation. R. St..L. Adamowicz. C. US Environmental Protection Agency. M. Washington D. Environmental Ethics 1:341-352. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 9:59-80. Westview Press. Posner. 1995 The economic value of biodiversity. Zarin. Environmental and Resource Economics 4:13-28. P. Pister. & Randall..C. Principe. et al. (eds. J. Thomas.. D. R.. E. Jipp.L. W. Boulder . A. 1979 Endangered species: Costs and benefits. In: Heywood.. V. Asafu-Adjaye. Porter.E. W. Phillips. & Pearce. G.. 1988: What mainstream economists have to say about the value of biodiversity.C. US Virgin Islands. 1991 Monetizing the pharmacological benefits of plants. A. B. (ed. 89-04. 1992 Economic returns from forest conversion in the Reuvian Amazon. Perrings. P.London. 1982 The new approach to wilderness preservation through benefit-cost analysis. 1987 Resource economics. P. Randall. D. Boxall.The Economic Valuation of Biological Diversity Perrings.O.): Global biodiversity assessment.W. Ecological Economics 6:163173. 1989 An economic assessment of the wildlife resource in Alberta. Pinedo-Vasquez. Cambridge University Press. C.C.C. Project Report no. John Wiley.

V. Draft report.D. A.V. WWF International. Randall. R. R. A. (eds.O. Reed. R. R. J. 1990 Die Entwaldung der Tropen: ein ökonomischer Fehlschlag. M. 1988 Our diminishing tropical forests. Yale University Press. Rees. Princeton University Press. World Resource Institute.C. Westview Press. C. Raven.): Managing air quality and scenic resources at national parks and wilderness areas. Cambridge University Press. Washington D. Multilateral Development Bank Program. Repetto.) 1988 Public policies and the misuse of forest resources. W. L. Washington D. Spektrum der Wissenschaft 6:122-129. Cambridge 111 .G. Repetto. 1983 Existence values in a total valuation framework. Washington D. National Academy Press. Washington D. P. E.C. Reid.G. et al. (ed. In: Norton. Reid.): Biodiversity. & Stoll. (eds.) 1993 Biodiversity prospecting: Using genetic resources for sustainable development. Repetto. 1992 Developing indicators of biodiversity conservation.): The preservation of species. World Resources Institute. In: Row. & Gillis. 1991 The global environmental facility. 1988 The forest for the trees? Government policies and the misuse of forest resources. In: Wilson. 1993 The ecologist's approach to sustainable development. (ed.Bibliography Randall. Washington D. 1986 Human preferences. D. W. & Chestnut.C. (ed. World Resources Institute.C. economics and the preservation of species. Boulder. 1986 World enough and time. Repetto.C. B. Finance and Development 30(4):14-15. R. Sharing responses for the biosphere. New Haven.

. thesis. 1990 Economic analysis of tropical forest conservation initiatives: Examples from West Africa. Paper presented to the American Agricultural Economics Association.. K. Ministry of State for Population and Environment. 1991 Mangrove management: An economic analysis of management options with a focus on Bintuni Bay. Reno. Samples. environmental impoverishment.J. Schäfer. Dissertation. London School of Economics... Ex-post-Anwendung am Beispiel der Rebflurbereinigung im Kaiserstuhl. Ruitenbeek. Dixon. 1986 Information disclosure and endangered species valuation. D. Gowen. Ph. H. Ruitenbeek. 1986 The validity of the contingent valuation method for estimating non-use components of preservation values for unique natural resources. H. Beacon Press. 1990 Evaluating economic policies for promoting rainforest conservation in developing countries. Ruitenbeek. 1994 Mortgaging the earth: The World Bank.J. Paris.J. WWF. Boston. M.The Economic Valuation of Biological Diversity Rich. A. 1992 Why existence value should not be used in cost-benefit analysis. Kassel.D. H. H. Irian Jaya. The Development Economics Research Programme. K. OECD. R. M. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 11(1):116-122. B. Samples. Jakarta. F. Rijsberman. J. 1991 Potential costs of adapting to sea level rise in OECD countries. London School of Economics and Political Science. & Nelson. Dixon. Ruitenbeek. 112 . Rosenthal. and the crisis of development.J. 1988 Kosten-Nutzen-Analyse. J.): Environmental policy: How to apply economic instruments. Land Economics 62:306-312. In: OECD (ed. 1990 The rainforest supply price: A step towards estimating a cost curve for rainforest conservation. Gowen.

(ed. Schmalensee.W. G. & Payne. Springer Verlag. 1989 Umweltschutz und Landschaftspflege im Bereich der Landwirtschaft . M. Berlin 113 . Schreiber. 1994 How people respond to contingent valuation questions: A verbal protocol analysis of willingness to pay for an environmental regulation.C. & Warford.A. Latin America and Caribbean Region.C.a.Bibliography Scheele. Frankfurt a. J. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 26:88-109. Report no. Lang. 1989 Die volkswirtschaftlichen Kosten der Agrarpolitik. 1972 Option demand and consumer's surplus: Valuing price changes under uncertainty. (eds. G. Washington D. Washington D. & Isermeyer. Schulz. Schüller.-D.Kostenwirksame Verpflichtung oder neue Einkommensquelle? Berichte über Landwirtschaft 67:86-110. O. F. 1992 Brazil: An analysis of environmental problems and policies in the Amazon. Munich. 1989 "Debt-for-nature-swap" . Vahlen. R. Fauna und Finanzen. H.M. World Bank.An instrument against debt and environmental destruction? Zeitschrift für Umweltpolitik und Umweltrecht 12:331-352. H. WISU 6:358-362. Flora. R. Schily. Schulze. 91-04-BR. (eds. Schkade. D. A World Bank Publication. A. J. E. W. 1994 Hamburg. Schramm. Schmitt. 1985 Der monetäre Wert besserer Luft.) 1989 Environmental management and economic development.) 1993 Biodiversity and ecosystem function. American Economic Review 62:813-824. Hoffmann und Campe. Schneider.) 1983 Property rights und ökonomische Theorie. & Mooney. u.

& Pereira.K. Auswege aus einem Konflikt. Land Economics 57(2). W. P. Iowa Simberloff. Setzer. (ed. N. K. D'Arge.): Biodiversity prospecting: Using genetic resources for sustainable development. 1987 The Spotted Owl fracas: Mixing academic. 1986 Are we on the verge of a mass extinction in tropical rain forests? In: Elliott. Duke University. W.. A. D. Sedjo. 1987 The economics of natural and plantation forests in Indonesia.. Schulze.D. Schmitz. R. Karlsruhe. Brookshire. et al.F. Landschaftsentwicklung und Umweltforschung 60. R. D. and political ecology.S. M. B.D. R.. R. D. D. A.C.C. applied.C. Sittenfield. John Wiley. & Gámez. Habeck. 1993 Does contingent valuation work in non-market economies? Centre for Resource and Environmental Policy Research. Schweppe-Kraft.. 1981 Valuing environmental commodities: Some recent experiments. Am Beispiel Industriegebiet Schichauweg. Kendall and Hunt.W.C. & Kramer. 1989 Ökonomische Bewertung von Eingriffen in Natur und Landschaft. T. C. Washington D. 114 . Natural Resources Journal 23. World Resources Institute. Shamsundar. Resources for the Future. 1993 Biodiversity-prospecting in InBio. Ambio 20:19-22. NC. 1992 Managing the world's forests. Washington D. Alternative Konzepte 33.V. (ed. Technische Universität Berlin. Ecology 68:766-772. 1983 Economic benefits of preserving visibility on the national parklands of the Southwest. Müller.E. Sharma. New York Simonis. 1991 Amazonia biomass burnings in 1987 and an estimate of their tropospheric emissions. Reid. Simberloff. Dubuque. U.): Dynamics of extinction. (ed.The Economic Valuation of Biological Diversity Schulze. Durham.) 1988 Ökonomie und Ökologie. W.

1987 Kommerzielle Nutzung und Export von Holz aus tropischen Feuchtwäldern.K. T. Ströbele. In: Perrings. 1990 Signals or noise? Explaining the variation in recreation benefit estimates. Swanson. 115 . T. M.M. Mäler.H. D. V. 1986 Measuring water quality benefits. T. Smith. B..D. 1983 Option value: A conceptual overview.H. Munich.und Jagd-Zeitung 158:50-55.H. V. Southgate. & Kaoru. Glass.K. (ed.K. & Desvousges.F.) 1987 Sustainable resource development in the Third World. C.Bibliography Smith.-O. The science of scarcity and diversity. Swanson. MA. Environment and Conservation 17:227234... T. Soulé. Boulder . V. N. Holling. Southern Economic Journal 54:19-26. H. Westview Press. Finance and Development 30(4):20-23.A..-G. Smith. J.. V. Jansson. Echeverria. 1994 Biodiversity and intellectual property rights.. T. Y.) 1986 Conservation biology. Kluwer-Nijhoff Publishing. Allgemeine Forst. C. 1991 The economics of natural habitat utilization: a survey of the literature and issues.J. Smith. & Disinger. Vahlen. 1991 Measuring existence value of wildlife: What do CVM estimates really show? Land Economics 67(4):390-400. W. & Schuktes. Sunderland. Folke. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 72:419-433.. R.K. 1987 Rohstoffökonomik. A. Smith. London Environmental Economics Centre. & Lutz. W.E. Steinlin. Southern Economic Journal 49:654-668. J. 1990 Deforestation and shrinking crop gene-pools in Amazonia. Boston 54:19-26. (eds. Hager. Sinauer. C.S. Stevens. E. More. K. 1993 Measuring environmentally sustainable development.J. R.London.. Steer. 1987 Non-use values in benefit-cost analysis.E.

London. B. F. Economics and wetland management. T. Ambio 116 . & Ostro. especially economic factors. Turner. C. University of Queensland. R.) 1991 20:59-63. 1992 Environmental economic guidelines . Ecological Economics 2:77-90. Journal of Environmental Management 12:19-30. K.K. E. Hollis.H.A. Tisdell. Thomas. Tunisia. crop varieties and genetic diversity. might be important in ranking these. 1989 Environmental conservation: Economics.A. C. Kassel. C. D. Ayache. Cambridge. Earthscan. Environmental Conservation 10:43-53.A.) Biodiversity loss: Ecological and economic issues. Tisdell.D.R. Tisdell. Swanson. (ed. C. T.Inter-country and inter-regional requests for financial support for protected areas: What factors. Naturschutz und Reaktorsicherheit. Cambridge University Press. 1992 Economics for the wilds: Wildlife.A. Thibodeau. C.L.. Brisbane. 1990 Economics and the debate about preservation of species. Tisdell. 1983 An economist's critique of the world conservation strategy with examples from the Australian experience. & Hampicke. Tisdell.The Economic Valuation of Biological Diversity (eds. & Barbier. Environmental Conservation 18(2):119-130. 1981 An economic analysis of wetland protection. Tampe. Environmental Conservation 16:107-112. U. 1982 Wild pigs: Environmental pest or economic resource? Pergamon Press.. ecology and ethics. 1990 Use values and non-use values in the conservation of Ichkeul National Park.und Forstwirtschaft aufgrund der geplanten Novellierung des §3b BNatSchG. Gutachten im Auftrag des Bundesministers für Umwelt. wildlands. Sydney. 1989 Die voraussichtliche Belastung der öffentlichen Haushalte durch Ausgleichszahlungen an die Land.A. diversity and development. F.

Nairobi. Umana.Boulder.A. R. UNEP. census.W.. Springer Verlag. UNEP 1992 Uganda: Country study on costs. Umana. & Jones. Ambio 20(2):91-93. (eds. 117 . R. Turner. 1988 Wetland conservation: Economics and ethics. (eds. R.A. & Brooke. W. Turner. UNEP 1992 Biodiversity country studies.Bibliography Turner. Nairobi. 121-159. 1991 Valuing ecotourism in a tropical rainforest reserve. Nairobi. J. New York.K. 1987 Costa Rica swap debt for trees. D. 1989 Debt relief for energy efficiency.K. UNEP. R.K. 1988 Sustainable environmental management.. Four case studies. Turner.K. benefits and unmet needs of biological diversity conservation. D.C.): Economics. Q. Q. benefits and unmet needs. Essays in memory of Richard Lecomber. UNEP 1992 Country study report for Nigerian costs. UNEP 1992 Bahamas: Country study on biodiversity. Nairobi. 1988 Management and valuation of an environmentally sensitive area: Norfolk broadland case study. conservation costs. D. Macmillan.) 1995 Taking nature into account. UNEP 1992 Indonesian country study on biological diversity. UNEP. van Dieren. (ed.K. Washington D. R. London.) 1991 Wetlands: Market and intervention failures. Ulph. UNEP. and unmet needs of biological diversity conservation. synthesis report. Wall Street Journal 3. T. Pearce. UNEP. & Mendelsohn. In: Collard. Environmental Management 12(3). analysis. Basingstoke . growth and sustainable environments. Earthscan.London. Nairobi. Republic of Costa Rica. conservation and sustainability. Belhaven Press & Westview Press. London . benefits. Turner. R.

Penn. Thomassen. R. World Bank Discussion Paper no.): Common property resources: Ecology and community based sustainable development. McKean.M... Willeke.. 118 . Gillman.G. J. 1986 Der ökonomische oder der ökologischecWeg? Agrarwirtschaft 35:321-327. R. Loomis.The Economic Valuation of Biological Diversity Vincent. Walsh. M.. New Zealand Journal of Botany 16:175-177. R. 1978 Gold in some New Zealand plants.. R. US Department of Agriculture Statistical Bulletin 803.R.M. 1992 Benefit transfer of outdoor recreation demand studies 1968-1988. Land Economics 60:14-29. & Brooks.G..G. G. D. Land Economics 66(2):212-223. J. 1990 Rent capture and the feasibility of tropical forest management. N. Webb. and bequest demands for wilderness. & Rosenthal. R. In: Berkes. 1984 Valuing option. 1988 The evolution of appropriate resource management systems.C. R. A.A. existence. Water Resources Research 28(3): Walsh. R. London. Washington D. Walsh. F. Berlin. 1991 Kosten des Lärms in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland.Übersicht. D. Weinschenck.. J. R. Warren. H.R.I. 1990 Estimating the public benefits of protecting forest quality. Ward.. Belhaven. Watson. (ed. Johnson. 127. D. 1990 Estimates of producer and consumer subsidy equivalents: Government intervention in agriculture 19821987. 1988 Naturschutzprogramme mit der Landwirtschaft in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland . Weinberger.D. Lopez. Vogel.B. In: ABN (ed. M. Journal of Environmental Management 30:175-189.): Jahrbuch Naturschutz Landschaftspflege 41:183-195. 1991 Using indigeneous knowledge in agricultural development. G. Erich Schmidt Verlag.

Munich. Wicke. 1991 Umweltökonomie. Eine praxisorientierte Einführung. Munich. Moran. Westman. Wells. M. 1991 Willingness to pay for improved sanitation in Kumasi. CAB International. In: Valuing Environmental Benefits in Developing Economies.C. 1992 Biodiversity conservation. D.G. R. W. L.E. affluence and poverty: Mismatched costs and benefits and efforts to remedy them. & Corkindale. 1992 A summary of the benefits. Ambio 21(3):237-243. Beck/dtv. D. 2. L. Michigan State University. 119 . A. Pearce. Wicke.. 1989 Einkommenswirkingen ökologischer Forderungen an die Landwirtschaft. Wells. Whittington. Special Report no. Wallingford. costs and risks of using environmental trust funds for biodiversity conservation. Resource Assessment Commission. 1992 People and parks: Linking protected area management with local communities. 1991 Umweltökonomie und Umweltpolitik. The World Bank. Canberra. Australian Government Publishing Service. Norwich. Wendelaar.T. D. K. World Bank. 1990 A survey of the contingent valuation method. M. & Werner. US Agency for International Development. Willis. Wilks.) 1995 Environmental valuation. K. Wells. M. Ghana: A contingent valuation study. Landwirtschaftliche Rentenbank. J. University College London and University of East Anglia. 29. L. G.. Centre for Social and Economic Research on the Global Environment. 1994 Determining biodiversity conservation priorities. Vahlen. 1977 How much are nature's services worth? Science 197:960-964. et al. Frankfurt am Main.W. World Wide Fund for Nature. & Brandon. RAC Research Paper no. Environmental Policy and Research Division.Bibliography Weinscheck. (eds.

Washington D. World Bank 1994 Implementing the convention on biological diversity.C. Washington D. 120 .G. Toward a strategy for World Bank assistance. & Garrod.G. & Benson. Environment Department. 1991 Landscape values: A contingent valuation approach and case study of the Yorkshire Dales National Park. Willis. World Bank 1994 Incorporating social assessment and participation into biodiversity conservation projects. Washington D. World Bank 1994 Financing innovation and instruments. World Bank 1993 The environmental data book: A guide to statistics on the environment and development. University of Newcastle upon Tyne. Contribution of the investment portfolio of the pilot phase of the Global Environment Facility.The Economic Valuation of Biological Diversity Willis. R. Paper presented to the Regional Conference on Biodiversity Conservation. K. London .C. Washington D. Asian Development Bank.): Sustainable environmental management.C. Willis. 1988 Valuation of wildlife: A case study on the Upper Teesdale site of special scientific interest and comparison of methods in environmental economics. K.G. K. 6-8 June 1994.K. Belhaven Press & Westview Press. World Bank Technical Paper 182. 1993 The national oceanic and atmospheric administration report on contingent valuation methods: some comments. G. Countryside Change Working Paper 21.C. J.F. Washington D. World Bank 1992 Strategy for forest sector development in Asia. Department of Town and Country Planning. Global Environment Coordination Division and Environment Department.C. Washington D. World Bank 1994 Making development sustainable: The World Bank Group and the environment.C.Boulder. University of Newcastle upon Tyne. (ed. In: Turner.

New York.C. 1993 Marine biotechnology and developing countries. Oxford. Zilinskas. Oxford World Resources Institute. World Bank 1989 World debt tables.C. Debt for nature. World Resources Institute 1992 University Press. 1986 Eco-enterprises: Eco-tourism and farming of exotics in the tropics. World Bank 1992 World Development Report 1992. World Bank 1991 A World Bank operations evaluation study: Forestry: The World Bank's experience.C.A. Ambio 15:361-363. Development and the environment. World Bank discussion paper 210. United Nations Development Programme 1985 Tropical forests: A call for action. Washington D. World Bank 1991 The forest sector.C. World Wide Fund for Nature 1988 Philippines. Washington D. D. an opportunity.M. 121 . C. The World Bank.Bibliography World Bank 1992 The World Bank and the environment: Fiscal 1992. A World Bank policy paper.C. R. Young. Washington D. A. World Resources 1992-1993. Washington D. external debt of developing countries 1982-1987. & Lundin. Oxford University Press. Washington.C. Washington D.

Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ) GmbH Tropenökologisches Begleitprogramm (TÖB) Tropical Ecology Support Program Postfach 5180 D-65726 Eschborn Federal Republic of Germany Fax: +49-(0)6196-79-6190 E-Mail: .de World Wide Web: http://www.gtz.

Im Auftrag des Bundesministeriums für wirtschaftliche Zusammenarbeit und Entwicklung (BMZ) .

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful