Quantifying the Non-Use Value of Biodiversity in Cost-Benefit Analysis: The Dutch Biodiversity Points

被引:2
|
作者
Bos, Frits [1 ]
Ruijs, Arjan [2 ]
机构
[1] CPB Netherlands Bur Econ Policy Anal, The Hague, Netherlands
[2] ACTIAM Sustainable Asset Management, Utrecht, Netherlands
关键词
biodiversity; cost-benefit analysis; ecological points method; ecosystem services; habitat equivalence analysis; infrastructure; natural capital; threat-weighted ecological quality area method; water management; ECOSYSTEM SERVICES; ECONOMIC VALUATION; POLICIES;
D O I
10.1017/bca.2020.27
中图分类号
F [经济];
学科分类号
02 ;
摘要
Biodiversity points are a quantitative measure for biodiversity. For over a decade, biodiversity points are being applied in the Netherlands for measuring the impact of roads, enclosure dams, and other water management projects on the non-use value of biodiversity. Biodiversity points are quite similar to the quality-adjusted life years used for cost-effectiveness analysis of healthcare treatments. Biodiversity points can be calculated by multiplying the size of the ecotope (e.g., number of hectare), the ecological quality of the ecotope (0-100 %), and the ecological scarcity of each type of ecotope. For many infrastructure projects, the impact on the non-use value of biodiversity can be a principal purpose or a major co-benefit or trade-off, for example, for a park, a fish sluice, a road, an ecoduct, an enclosure dam, or a marine protected area. Biodiversity points are a simple, transparent, and standardized way to aggregate and quantify the qualitative or ordinal assessments by ecological experts. For measuring the non-use value of biodiversity, they are also more informative than valuation by revealed or stated preferences methods. This paper provides the first overview of the application of this method in the Dutch practice of cost-benefit analysis. It also discusses its merits and limitations. The calculation and use of biodiversity points are illustrated by four case studies.
引用
收藏
页码:287 / 312
页数:26
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Dutch politicians' use of cost-benefit analysis
    Mouter, Niek
    [J]. TRANSPORTATION, 2017, 44 (05) : 1127 - 1145
  • [2] QUANTIFYING BENEFITS FOR COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS
    Gyorgy, Attila
    Vintila, Nicoleta
    Gaman, Florian
    [J]. PROCEEDINGS OF THE 8TH INTERNATIONAL MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE: MANAGEMENT CHALLENGES FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT, 2014, : 1106 - 1112
  • [3] Using Choice Modelling to Account for Biodiversity Conservation: Non-use Value for Ningaloo Reef
    Gazzani, Flavio
    Marinova, Dora
    [J]. MODSIM 2007: INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS ON MODELLING AND SIMULATION: LAND, WATER AND ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT: INTEGRATED SYSTEMS FOR SUSTAINABILITY, 2007, : 2721 - 2727
  • [4] Value Typology in Cost-Benefit Analysis
    Baum, Seth D.
    [J]. ENVIRONMENTAL VALUES, 2012, 21 (04) : 499 - 524
  • [5] Dutch politicians' attitudes towards Cost-Benefit Analysis
    Mouter, Niek
    [J]. TRANSPORT POLICY, 2017, 54 : 1 - 10
  • [6] Of What Use Is Cost-Benefit Analysis?
    Klie, Axel
    [J]. GAIA-ECOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES FOR SCIENCE AND SOCIETY, 2012, 21 (01): : 10 - 12
  • [7] Dignity as a Value in Agency Cost-Benefit Analysis
    Bayefsky, Rachel
    [J]. YALE LAW JOURNAL, 2014, 123 (06): : 1732 - +
  • [8] The non-use benefits of enhancing forest biodiversity: A contingent ranking study
    Garrod, GD
    Willis, KG
    [J]. ECOLOGICAL ECONOMICS, 1997, 21 (01) : 45 - 61
  • [9] Ranking the substantive problems in the Dutch Cost-Benefit Analysis practice
    Mouter, Niek
    Annema, Jan Anne
    van Wee, Bert
    [J]. TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH PART A-POLICY AND PRACTICE, 2013, 49 : 241 - 255
  • [10] The narrow margins of the dutch drug policy: A cost-benefit analysis
    Van Dijk J.J.M.
    [J]. European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research, 1998, 6 (3) : 369 - 393