The Value of Ecosystem Services
Ecosystems in our world act as vital and fundamental sections to maintain health, living, well-being and survival of human beings and other creatures (Robert Costanza et al, 1997; Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA), 2005; TEEB Foundations, 2010; TEEB Synthesis, 2010). They provide different kinds of service, such as production of goods, life support processes, and life-fulfilling conditions (Gretchen C. ,2000). Ecosystem significantly contributes to both economic and non-economic value of our planet, but when compared to market efficiency, it seems to be paid less attention when concerned in decision making. In the majority of the ongoing projects that have numerous debates on, it seems common for people …show more content…
If we consider ecosystem services as resources and property, and each individual who has access to them as the owner, then each of them has the equal right to make use of them. Since no individual in this case can actual be excluded, it is more likely for the ecosystem services to be overused. Take overfishing, deforestation and air pollution as typical examples. Although each individual or party is aware that the resource could be depleted and exhausted, no certain action or policy can be put into practice to prevent this from happening due to the difficulty in defining property rights.Another common problem is the defining of the ethical, responsible party for the damage of ecosystem services. In order to solve this predicament, certain solutions, such as “polluter pays principle” , “beneficiary pays principle” and “user pays principle”, have been raised to request involving parties to pay direct or indirect cost for their actions. The proposal of these principles established the price for the environment and ecosystems, and reverse the conventional thought that every ecosystem service is “free”. At the point that these principles are adapted to practical cases, ecosystem services are officially assigned with price and beginning to have the functions to be freely bought and sold. …show more content…
Every decision concerning the ecosystems, is a way of showing that we have already done valuation. When the government comes up with the decision to invest and construct nature reserve, it is the consequence of valuing wildlife and biodiversity over money. Likewise, when a meadow is to be destroyed and rebuilt, it suggests that the future benefit, either in market or long-term development, will make up with the cost to demolish and reconstruct and the loss of its existing property. Valuation is not an excuse that the government or companies use to mask their private goals, and it is not just a simple combination of commodification and environmental science. It is a way that must be pass in the process of development and is often not a choice that can be made by any institutions alone. Understanding the value of ecosystem services can actually help with effective management and better policy making. Therefore, the focus of the controversy should be how to draw a clear division between market and non-market, whether the produce of ecosystem services in specific situation can be traded or not. The real issue is how and where to set boundaries and limits for commodification, rather that whether to have them or
Ecosystems in our world act as vital and fundamental sections to maintain health, living, well-being and survival of human beings and other creatures (Robert Costanza et al, 1997; Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA), 2005; TEEB Foundations, 2010; TEEB Synthesis, 2010). They provide different kinds of service, such as production of goods, life support processes, and life-fulfilling conditions (Gretchen C. ,2000). Ecosystem significantly contributes to both economic and non-economic value of our planet, but when compared to market efficiency, it seems to be paid less attention when concerned in decision making. In the majority of the ongoing projects that have numerous debates on, it seems common for people …show more content…
If we consider ecosystem services as resources and property, and each individual who has access to them as the owner, then each of them has the equal right to make use of them. Since no individual in this case can actual be excluded, it is more likely for the ecosystem services to be overused. Take overfishing, deforestation and air pollution as typical examples. Although each individual or party is aware that the resource could be depleted and exhausted, no certain action or policy can be put into practice to prevent this from happening due to the difficulty in defining property rights.Another common problem is the defining of the ethical, responsible party for the damage of ecosystem services. In order to solve this predicament, certain solutions, such as “polluter pays principle” , “beneficiary pays principle” and “user pays principle”, have been raised to request involving parties to pay direct or indirect cost for their actions. The proposal of these principles established the price for the environment and ecosystems, and reverse the conventional thought that every ecosystem service is “free”. At the point that these principles are adapted to practical cases, ecosystem services are officially assigned with price and beginning to have the functions to be freely bought and sold. …show more content…
Every decision concerning the ecosystems, is a way of showing that we have already done valuation. When the government comes up with the decision to invest and construct nature reserve, it is the consequence of valuing wildlife and biodiversity over money. Likewise, when a meadow is to be destroyed and rebuilt, it suggests that the future benefit, either in market or long-term development, will make up with the cost to demolish and reconstruct and the loss of its existing property. Valuation is not an excuse that the government or companies use to mask their private goals, and it is not just a simple combination of commodification and environmental science. It is a way that must be pass in the process of development and is often not a choice that can be made by any institutions alone. Understanding the value of ecosystem services can actually help with effective management and better policy making. Therefore, the focus of the controversy should be how to draw a clear division between market and non-market, whether the produce of ecosystem services in specific situation can be traded or not. The real issue is how and where to set boundaries and limits for commodification, rather that whether to have them or