Recognising institutional context in simulating and generalising exchange values for monetary ecosystem accounts

IF 1.8 Q3 ECOLOGY
D. Barton
{"title":"Recognising institutional context in simulating and generalising exchange values for monetary ecosystem accounts","authors":"D. Barton","doi":"10.3897/oneeco.7.e85283","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The paper argues that monetary valuation of ecosystem services for ecosystem accounting needs to be sensitive to institutional context, when simulating markets to generate exchange values where none was available previously and when conducting value generalisation that extrapolates exchange values from specific sites to the whole acounting area. The same ecosystem type can contain different governance regimes or, conversely, a single governance regime may be present in many ecosystem types. Governance regimes are, in part, determined by ecosystem type and condition, but also by ecosystem access characteristics which vary over urban-rural gradients. An ecosystem service will not have a single price if costs of supply and transaction vary in space. This is generally true for all accounting compatible valuation methods if they are extrapolated across different market contexts, but require particular attention if markets are simulated for specific locations and then assumed to be generally valid for the accounting area. The paper exemplifies this for different institutional settings for exchange values of recreation services exploring the general recommendation in SEEA EA for making valuation methods sensitive to institutional context. Stated preference methods simulate markets for ecosystem services. The paper then reviews non-market stated preference valuation studies that have been sensitive to institutional design. Findings on institutional design are, therefore, specifically relevant for simulation of market exchange values for the purpose of compiling monetary ecosystem accounts. The paper finds that disregard for the institutional context in valuation for ecosystem accounting can lead to: (i) errors of generalisation/aggregation and (ii) downward ‘bias’ in simulated accounting prices (relative to the status quo of the institutional context).","PeriodicalId":36908,"journal":{"name":"One Ecosystem","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2022-11-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"One Ecosystem","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3897/oneeco.7.e85283","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

The paper argues that monetary valuation of ecosystem services for ecosystem accounting needs to be sensitive to institutional context, when simulating markets to generate exchange values where none was available previously and when conducting value generalisation that extrapolates exchange values from specific sites to the whole acounting area. The same ecosystem type can contain different governance regimes or, conversely, a single governance regime may be present in many ecosystem types. Governance regimes are, in part, determined by ecosystem type and condition, but also by ecosystem access characteristics which vary over urban-rural gradients. An ecosystem service will not have a single price if costs of supply and transaction vary in space. This is generally true for all accounting compatible valuation methods if they are extrapolated across different market contexts, but require particular attention if markets are simulated for specific locations and then assumed to be generally valid for the accounting area. The paper exemplifies this for different institutional settings for exchange values of recreation services exploring the general recommendation in SEEA EA for making valuation methods sensitive to institutional context. Stated preference methods simulate markets for ecosystem services. The paper then reviews non-market stated preference valuation studies that have been sensitive to institutional design. Findings on institutional design are, therefore, specifically relevant for simulation of market exchange values for the purpose of compiling monetary ecosystem accounts. The paper finds that disregard for the institutional context in valuation for ecosystem accounting can lead to: (i) errors of generalisation/aggregation and (ii) downward ‘bias’ in simulated accounting prices (relative to the status quo of the institutional context).
认识到在模拟和概括货币生态系统账户的交换价值时的制度背景
该论文认为,用于生态系统核算的生态系统服务的货币估值需要对制度背景敏感,在模拟市场以产生以前没有的交换价值时,以及在进行价值概括时,将特定地点的交换价值外推到整个计算区域。同一生态系统类型可以包含不同的治理制度,或者相反,在许多生态系统类型中可能存在单一的治理制度。治理制度在一定程度上取决于生态系统类型和条件,但也取决于城乡梯度不同的生态系统获取特征。如果供应和交易成本在空间上不同,生态系统服务就不会有单一的价格。如果所有会计兼容的估值方法是在不同的市场环境中外推的,则通常情况下都是如此,但如果对特定地点的市场进行模拟,然后假设其对会计领域普遍有效,则需要特别注意。本文举例说明了娱乐服务交换价值的不同制度环境,探讨了SEEA EA中关于使估价方法对制度背景敏感的一般建议。陈述偏好方法模拟生态系统服务市场。然后,本文回顾了对制度设计敏感的非市场陈述偏好估值研究。因此,关于制度设计的研究结果与模拟市场交换价值以编制货币生态系统账户特别相关。本文发现,在生态系统会计估值中忽视制度背景可能导致:(i)概括/汇总错误和(ii)模拟会计价格的向下“偏差”(相对于制度背景的现状)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
One Ecosystem
One Ecosystem Environmental Science-Nature and Landscape Conservation
CiteScore
4.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
26
审稿时长
12 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信