Conservation Biology Midterm-Ecological Economics 3

Front 1

use values

Back 1

direct and indirect

Front 2

direct use values

Back 2

result of contact with, or use of, natural resources, goods such as water, fish, crops, wild foods, medicines, thatch, fuelwood, pasture, timber, appreciation of a landscape

Front 3

indirect use values

Back 3

ecosystem services thru normal function such as water storage and recharge, water filtration, nutrient cycling, flood attenuation, microclimate buffering

Front 4

option values

Back 4

value placed on environmental assets by those people who want to secure the good in the future, agricultural, leisure, water use, pharmaceutical, industrial

Front 5

nonuse values

Back 5

benefits that do not imply contact between consumers and the good, include existence values, intrinsic significance in terms of: biodiversity, cultural value, heritage value, aesthetic value

Front 6

bequest values

Back 6

values we receive from knowing we will hand something down to future generations

Front 7

Contingent value method

Back 7

valuing a good (such as a species) that is difficult to value using implicit or conventional economic techniques by constructing a hypothetical market and using those values -at heart is willingness to pay technique

Front 8

conventional market techniques

Back 8

establish a link between an environmental good and some other good that already has a market value such as: substitute or alternative cost approach, production function approach, opportunity cost approach

Front 9

implicit market techniques

Back 9

assume that the behavior of people reflects their implicit valuations of the environment (thru wages accepted, prices paid for property or recreation in areas of differing environmental quality) -hedonic pricing methods, travel cost method

Front 10

CVM popularity

Back 10

1-theoretically sound 2-does not require huge amounts of data 3-applicable to all goods and services

Front 11

CVM critics

Back 11

1-difficult to impossible to validate values 2-problems with the basic technique such as WTP questionnaires, 3-assumes public can make rational value judgements 4-issues surrounding the underlying philosophy of the technique and respondents reactions to it

Front 12

conflict between environmental economics and conservation

Back 12

conservation urges the conservation of nature, economics urges the maximization of utility

Front 13

environmental economics vs environmental democracy

Back 13

-economics bases value on preference-satisfaction, utility and welfare, not plausible goals for social policy & implies consent of citizens -democracy demands actual consent thru voluntary exchanges in the market or through political deliberation in legislatures ending in a vote, legislatures are constantly seized with moral questions, not economic trade-offs

Front 14

environmental policy determined by

Back 14

questions of justice, an aesthetic judgments, and on spiritual beliefs, not economic trade offs

Front 15

alternative decision-making methods

Back 15

environmental impact statements, risk assessment and management, the precautionary principle, multi-criteria analysis, adding nonsubstitutability to CBA