Subject: Re: How much is a CITES organism worth?
From: Angie Shelton
Date: Sun, 10 Nov 1996 11:44:04 -0800
>Vicente Sanchez wrote:
>
>
>> 'What is the worth, in any currency, of an endangered species?'
>>Granted, this question may only be important to people writing grant
>>proposals in which an economic analysis is required, but it poses
>>curious issues. Any comments?
>
One economic measure of the value of a natural resource (including a
species or a specific ecosystem) according to Pearce & Turner (Economics of
Natural Resources & the Environment) is: Total Economic Value = Use Value
+ Option Value + Existence Value. Unfortunately this excludes Intrinsic
Value and contribution to Ecosystem Services.
Use Value is defined as any benefit deriving from direct use of a resource
whether consumptive or not. Thus this includes commercial use such as
fishing, hunting, logging, etc. plus uses such as hiking, photography,
birdwatching, etc.
Option Value is defined as the option to use a resource at some undefined
point in the future whether by a person or their children or grandchildren.
Existence Value is a somewhat more hazy category that incorporates the fact
that people are willing to pay to preserve the existence of certain species
even though they will never see them or derive any benefit from them
directly. They derive benefit from the intellectual comfort that they
continue to exist and are unique.
Values for each of the above categories are often determined by surveys of
how much people are willing to pay for the protection of something or how
much they are willing to accept to allow its destruction. They are by
nature somewaht inaccurate measures, but if we as ecologists and
conservationists expect economists and corporations to listen to us, we
need to learn to speak in their language.
Subject: Christmas Trees
From: seaseal@aol.com
Date: 11 Nov 1996 05:53:00 GMT
As stores begin putting up traditional Christmas decorations, I wish to
share a delicious discovery with you. I have found how to give a Christmas
gift by not doing something and hope you will join me this December. When
you don't buy a slowly dying tree, you will give quite a gift-you actively
will be reducing deforestation, soil erosion, flooding, and
desertification. You will be raising air quality, reducing CO2, increasing
oxygen production and saving space at the dump. What a present!
I read that over a hundred million trees may be cut down for Christmas
celebrations in the U.S. alone. You may contribute to this mass
destruction and be a part of this wasteful practice or you can say, "No!"
Make this the season you make a commitment to your environment. An even
stronger action is to buy live trees for your season's celebrations, tell
your family and friends why, and then plant these trees in your yard or
donate them to a local park or roadside area.
Start a new tradition in your community. You will be saving the trees,
saving space at the dump, and protecting the quality of soil, air, and
waterways. What a great gift! Isn't that a nice way to celebrate
Christmas? Make this the year for you.
Cecile Mills
seaseal@aol.com
The digital convergence is almost here. Get ready!
Subject: Re: How much is a CITES organism worth?
From: ricks@tc.umn.edu (Dell Erickson)
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 13:12:50 GMT
>Warren W. Aney wrote:
>A species/organism is worth at least some value greater than zero (in any
>currency you choose). Extinction is forever (an infinitely long period of
>time). Any value greater than zero accumulated over an infinitely long
>period of time becomes worth an infinite amount of money (even without
>compound interest).
I understand your point, and it should be the one to use. Technically,
however, financial types use present value analysis to determine the
current (present) value of any future benefit stream. Due to the math
involved, anything beyond 30 years or so, contributes little to added
current value. For example, something valued at $10,000,000 in 100
years, discounted at 10% gives a current value of $725. It is likely
that the value of an environmental item reflects a typical parabolic
curve, low and slowly growing values for many years, with rapidly
increasing values at the conclusion. Those distant values are not
worth much.
Presently environmental value is weakly valued, so although its value
may go up, it's value is understated or ignored. Typically, industrial
benefits are relatively greater near term and often grow over time,
while the opposite is generally true with environmental trends. This
is exacerbated by counting prevention and remedial efforts as
improving GDP, rather than allocating to the cost of the product.
I recall a graduate course in Economics & the Environment taken
several years ago. The Prof used MC=MB (marginal cost, benefit) to
determine value and trade-offs. During a cIass I mentioned that single
issue states (governments) and corporations really determine value
while multiple issue consumer/taxpayer only weakly determines benefit,
how willing they are to pay for many things. I also mentioned there
are quality and intangibles to consider. (He didn't realize it, but,
technically, they are embedded in the formula.)
I also said that there are limits (most environmental resources are
truly fixed quantities) indicating that one "curve" would be a
straight line rather than a curve, suggesting a minimum absolute value
(eg. $100 billion) to something, a forest, an animal, etc. And,
dropping the guillotine, I said doesn't expanding human populations
continually shift the demand curve, relatively reducing the value of
other things. In an overpopulated country, doesn't the pure human
value of an item always outweigh any other consideration, eg., housing
v. forest or farm field v. nature preserve.
I concluded by asking if other species have rights to exist and if
that right(?) must be quantified in dollar terms?
Economic anthropomorphism. What is rational? It is not a level playing
field.
Any students (teachers?) out there? Try those questions on your
instructors for some real entertainment. (Don't get deceived by a
capitalism v. socialism contest. Capitalism is far better at assigning
and allocating than socialism; it simply doesn't properly value some
items.)
Sorry Warren, no good news.
Dell
Subject: Re: WILDLIFE CENSUS METHODS
From: rjww@vax.oxford.ac.uk
Date: 11 Nov 96 13:11:09 GMT
Try 'Bird Census Techniques'
by Bibby, C. J., Burgess, N. D. & Hill, D. A.
Academic Press
ISBN 0-12-095830-9
Richard Woodburn
Edward Grey Institute of Field Ornithology
Department of Zoology
University of Oxford
Oxford
Ox1 3PS, UK
In article <199611100509.AAA11721@jericho.american.edu>, Henrik Moller writes:
> LAY-PERSON'S MANUAL FOR WILDLIFE CENSUS METHODS
>
> Dear Colleague
>
> I hope to locate, or if necessary, to write a lay-person's guide to
> censusing waterfowl at newly created or restored ponds and streams. The
> need is to empower grant recipients to measure the effectiveness or
> otherwise of restoration efforts that have been funded by the New Zealand
> Game Bird Habitat Trust Board. The manual needs to cover the basics of
> count methodology and data gathering; the need for replication and
> non-treatment comparisons, repeatability etc; but not the ins and outs of
> data analysis itself. It needs to be useable by intelligent but often
> inexperienced (from science data & design perspectives) farmers, shooters,
> Fish & Game officers etc. The manual needs to be brief and to the point.
>
> Do you know of anything available in this area, either on waterfowl in
> general, or on simple wildlife censusing/indexing work?
>
> If so, please advise on the references for anything you know of, and if
> possible how I can get a copy. I would be overjoyed if you could send me a
> copy of anything that your organisation has produced on this area, however
> brief or informal. If you have produced such a manual, could you advise on
> its success in the field, or lessoned learned about how we can improve it
> for our New Zealand efforts.
>
> Many thanks in advance for any responses,
>
> Yours sincerely,
>
> Dr Henrik Moller
> Director,
> Postgraduate Diploma in Wildlife Management,
> University of Otago,
> Dunedin,
> New Zealand.
>
>
>
> Dr. Henrik Moller
> Co-Director, Diploma in Wildlife Management
> Zoology Department
> University of Otago
> Po Box 56
> Dunedin
> New Zealand
> Ph: 64-3-479-7998
> Fax: 64-3-479-7584
Subject: Population Biologist Position - Boston University
From: Robert Gensemer
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 11:30:37 -0500
NOTE: Please do not direct any e-mail or other inquiries regarding this position to me
(sender), but rather to Dr. Thomas Kunz (address below, e-mail: kunz@bio.bu.edu).
POPULATION BIOLOGIST
The Department of Biology at Boston University invites applications
for a tenure-track position at the rank of ASSISTANT, ASSOCIATE or FULL
PROFESSOR in Population Biology to begin in the fall of 1997, pending
administration approval. The successful candidate will be expected to have
a strong organismal background and use molecular techniques to answer
questions in social behavior, evolution, and/or conservation biology.
Teaching responsibilities include an introductory course in genetics and an
upper-level undergraduate or graduate course in area of specialty.
Applicants should have a Ph.D. with post-doctoral experience, an active
externally-funded research program, and a record of excellence in teaching.
The successful candidate will complement an active group of faculty and
graduate students in the Ecology, Behavior, and Evolution Program, and will
have an opportunity to interact with other vital research groups and
centers in the department and university.
Interested applicants should send a curriculum vitae, statements of
teaching and research interests, copies of three major reprints, and three
letters of reference to:
Thomas H. Kunz, Chair
Population Biology Search Committee
Department of Biology
Boston University
Boston, MA 02215
Application review will begin on December 1, 1996. Closing date is January
15, 1997.
Boston University is an Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer.
--
---
Robert Gensemer
Department of Biology, and
Center for Energy and Environmental Studies
Boston University
5 Cummington St.
Boston, MA, 02215, U.S.A.
Phone: (617) 353-6339
Fax: (617) 353-6340
E-mail: gensemer@bio.bu.edu
http://bio.bu.edu:80/~gensemer/
Subject: Some CITES animals more equal than others?
From: "William E. Stone"
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 09:22:08 -0600
An interesting point was raised on the LISTSERV about the evaluation of
endangered species: endangered species are priceless because extinction is
forever, but let's leave ourselves an "out" for smallpox. As George Orwell
wrote in "Animal Farm", all animals are equal, but some are more equal than
others.
Are we willing to concede that smallpox is worthless because it poses
a threat to human survival? Shall we, by logical extension, devalue the
snaildarterbecause our human interests are jeopardized? At what point do we
strike the balance (in any currency?) between our species' (Homo sapiens)
interests and the preservation of all life on earth? Who will serve as
JUDGE, JURY, and EXECUTIONER ? If it is to be the Almighty Dollar, then it
will do an effective job of assigning relative worth to species. Smallpox
will be worth $ 0, because no dollars will be contributed to save it (it
may even have a negative value). Snaildarters will have some worth, say $
250,000 (which we may be able to defer payment on with a political fix to
the Endangered Species Act). Bengal tigers shall be worth much, much more
(say $ 50 billion) because they're "over there" and don't interfere with
the U.S. gross national product. Humans, of course, will occupy the top of
the pyramid of economic worth because I am one.
The market is already at work sorting out the values of these
critters. Our human values are reflected in the money and effort we will
spend to preserve these critical cogs. If the grant was not received to
study the species, the priorities for limited dollars have been made, and
the market has spoken. Markets are not perfect, but neither are legislative
mandates nor human morals. How much is a CITES species worth? Beauty is in
the eye of the beholder.
William E. (Wes) Stone, Ph.D.
Wildlife Research Lab
Southern Illinois University - Carbondale
618 453-6940
Subject: Re[2]: IBI metrics for Macroinvertebrates and fish??
From: Susan Dyer
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 10:36:00 -0400
I believe the IBI is a valuable tool for evaluating aquatic systems.
Karr and many others have used and refined the IBI to provide
informative assessments to support regulatory actions/decisions which
usually would have little or no biological data to support them. I
believe the IBI can provide an economical and informative tool for
aquatic evaluations. I don't believe IBI should be used without an
understanding of the limitations. EPA has adopted the approach and
acknowledges it is a rapid bioassessment technique (Rapid
Bioassessment Protocols for Use in Steams and Rivers, Benthic
Macroinvertebrates and Fish, EPA/440/4-89-001). Using an EPA-approved
methodology is a benefit for many.
Susan Dyer
susan.dyer@srs.gov
______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: IBI metrics for Macroinvertebrates and fish??
Author: hhsst+@pitt.edu at Mailhub
Date: 11/10/96 7:36 AM
On Wed, 6 Nov 1996, Jim wrote:
> re: IBI's
>
> These sort of indicies are dangerous, misleading and of questionable
> value on scientific grounds. The very idea that one can make a list of
> things from a simple survey-sampling program (with taxa identified very
> coarsely) and then assert some knowledge of pattern and process at the
> "system" level is black magic. If we don't understand how the systems
> operate how can we assign a value which says something is good or bad?
>
I disagree. We have enough exposure to, and observation of, the systems
that we value as a society. All we have to do is recognize when something
is broken (e.g., salmonids are absent where they had previously thrived
for hundredss of years). I agree, however, that metrics are
occassionally (often?) abused in an attempt to gain INSIGHT into the
PROCESSES.
Henry
------------------------------------------------------------------
M. Henry H. Stevens Internet: hhsst+@pitt.edu
Dept. of Biological Sciences Telephone: 412-624-5497
University of Pittsburgh Facsimile: 412-624-4759
Pittsburgh PA 15260
Subject: Re[2]: IBI metrics for Macroinvertebrates and fish??
From: Ethan Bright
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 11:58:10 -0500
>>...EPA has adopted the approach and acknowledges it is a rapid
>>bioassessment technique (Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for Use in Steams
>>and Rivers, Benthic Macroinvertebrates and Fish, EPA/440/4-89-001).
>>Using an EPA-approved methodology is a benefit for many... Susan Dyer<<
Speaking of RBP, the EPA web site indicated that RBP for macroinvertebrates
are being revised, with a new document coming out sometime in 1997. Does
anyone know what precisely (e.g., which indicies, weightings of community
indices, etc.) is being revised (or which literature is being incorporated
into the new methodology)? I'm helping to write a grant proposal for the
Rouge River in southeastern Michigan, and we want to use RBP as well as a
number of multivariate approaches to detect stressed stream ecosystems from
a variety of NPS and PS pollutants. However, it would be nice to
incorporate some of the newer standards, and RBP is, after all, ideas from
the 1980s.
Thanks! Ethan
===================================
Ethan Bright
ethanbr@insects.ummz.lsa.umich.edu
The University of Michigan
Museum of Zoology, Insect Division
Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1079 USA
===================================
Subject: ENVIRONMENTAL YEARBOOK
From: Vladimir Riha
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 09:23:07 +100
Dear Sirs,
the Czech Environmental Institute has compiled
ENVIRONMENTAL YEARBOOK OF THE CZECH REPUBLIC (in English)
302 pages, maps, graphs and tables,
price 20 USD plus 8 USD postage & packing
The Yearbook was prepared under the auspices of the Ministry of
Environment, in co-operation with the Czech Statistical Office,
Ministry of Health, Ministry of Agriculture, Czech Hydrometeorological
Institute, Czech Geological Institute, Research Institute of Water
Management TGM, Agency for Nature and Landscape Conservation and
other organizations.
Should you be interested in our offer, please place your order with
Dr. Vera Havrankova
Czech Environmental Institute
Kaplanova 1931/1
CZ-148 00 Praha 4
CZECH REPUBLIC
fax #42-2-7936648
e-mail: riha@ceu.cz
Yours faithfully
Dr. Vladimir Riha
Subject: Re: How much is a CITES organism worth?
From: Ashwani Vasishth
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 01:42:36 -0800
Asking the question of whether we should or should not value, monetarily,
a biological or ecological entity or an environmental attribute is itself
to define the situation in a quite particular way. Then we have already
locked ourselves into a choice between preservationist (sacred) and
conservationist (extractive) models of decision making. The question, I
think, from a pragmatic, planning theoretic perspective, is how well and
to what effect we take account of the consequences of deliberated
intervention, and the savvy with which we actively seek out what we ought
to know before we do this or that. Ethical concerns in any particular
must always be debatable--which is only proper, I think, if we take
seriously the concept of nested scale hierarchic organization, with its
attendant imperatives for multi-scale, multi-perspective purposive
descriptions. [Allen & Hoekstra, 1992, TOWARD A UNIFIED ECOLOGY, NY:
Columbia University Press, discuss some of this.]
In the context of planning, for both political and strategic needs, we do
need to get a handle on the effects of what we intend. And we do slice
out bits of the world, and reassemble these bits, on an every day basis.
The best we can do, I suspect, is to resist mistaking our models for
reality, respect the caveats of any methods we use, and insist on
multi-criteria descriptions (at least more than two, I think).
One solid reference, in general, is
Munasinghe, Mohan & Walter Shearer (Eds.). 1995. DEFINING AND
MEASURING SUSTAINABLITY: THE BIOGEOPHYSICAL FOUNDATIONS. Washington, DC:
The United Nations University (UNU) and The World Bank.
One of the survey methods used for preference and intrinsic worth
valuations is called Contingent Valuation. Two references for this are
Johansson, Per-Olov & Bengt Kristrom & Karl-Goran Maler (Eds.). 1995.
CURRENT ISSUES IN ENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMICS. Manchester; New York:
Manchester University Press: Distributed exclusively in the USA and Canada
by St. Martin's Press.
and
Mitchell, Robert Cameron & Richard T. Carson. 1989. USING SURVEYS TO
VALUE PUBLIC GOODS : THE CONTINGENT VALUATION METHOD. Washington, DC:
Resources for the Future. Distributed worldwide by the Johns Hopkins
University Press [Baltimore].
[cf. Sagoff, Mark. 1988. Some Problems with Environmental Economics.
ENVIRONMENTAL ETHICS, v10 (Spring 1988): 55(20).]
Also, I seem to recall the folks at RAND Corporation had done some quite
interesting work using an iterative version of the Delphi technique to
elicit expert opinion in complex situations.
with regards,
Ashwani Vasishth vasishth@usc.edu (213) 737-7875
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
School of Urban and Regional Planning, VKC 351
University of Southern California
Los Angeles, CA 90089
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: woody debris, logs, snags
From: Andrew Gray
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 10:27:57 -0800
Vince Selazny asked several excellent questions about woody debris in
forests. The following perspectives and citations are colored by my
experience in the Pacific Northwest; I'm sure other works are available
for other regions. The article by Harmon et al. (1986) provides a thorough
overview of the state of knowledge on the subject 10 years ago. Dead
organic matter is measured by size class and degree of composition; a system
for classifying Douglas-fir snags and logs, which transfers fairly well to
some other species, is described in Maser et al. (1979). Operationally, I
believe the Forest Service here measures the length of down wood greater
than a certain diameter to get a measure of tons/ha. The question of how
much dead wood is enough for a "healthy" ecosystem is the million-dollar
question, of course. It must be answered individually for each forest type
with reference to natural coarse woody debris dynamics (e.g. Spies et al.
1988) and specific wildlife needs (e.g. a ~continuous supply of large snags
for cavity nesters).
Decay rates for logs and snags are species-specific (alder may rot in 10
years, cedar in 200), and also depend on environment. For example, logs in
wet zones of the Pacific Northwest may remain too wet and anaerobic for
rapid decomposition, but snags often dry out and decompose more rapidly. In
the drier eastern zones of the region, snags are often too dry to support
decomposition, but logs are decomposed quite rapidly. Woody debris is used
by a whole host of organisms throughout the decay cycle (from mycorrhiza to
eagles), even after the recalcitrant compounds end up in the soil organic
matter. In some ecosystems, dead wood is an important component of aquatic
systems too (Maser and Sedell 1994). There are ways to manage for woody
debris in managed forests (Spies et al. 1991)--guidelines for woody debris
have been developed by government agencies, and are of necessity based on
rules of thumb; at rotation harvest they may leave 5-20 trees/ha for future
snag and log recruitment (some trees may be killed standing or topped to
encourage live cavities) and attempt to protect existing decayed wood. This
of course goes against the grain of fire prevention efforts. If harvest
units are burned to reduce fine and medium fuels, you might want to do it
when large fuels are wet.
As far as I know there are no universal rules of thumb for woody
debris--ideally one would test different levels and types of retention in
managed stands large enough, and periods long enough, to assess wildlife
response and productivity effects.
Harmon, M.E., Franklin, J.F., Swanson, F.J., Sollins, P., Gregory,
S.V., Lattin, J.D., Anderson, N.H., Cline, S.P., Aumen, N.G.,
Sedell, J.R., Lienkaemper, G.W., Cromack, K. Jr., and Cummins, K.W.
1986. Ecology of coarse woody debris in temperate ecosystems.
Advances in Ecological Research 15: 133-302.
Maser, C., R. G. Anderson, K. Cromack Jr., J. T. Williams, and R.
E. Martin. 1979. Dead and down woody material. Pages 78-95 in J.W.
Thomas, editor. Wildlife habitats in managed forests: the Blue
Mountains of Oregon and Washington. USDA Forest Service,
Washington D.C.
Maser, C., Sedell, J.R. 1994. From the forests to the sea: the
ecology of wood in streams, rivers, estuaries, and oceans. delRay
Beach, Florida: St. Lucie Press.
Spies, T.A., Franklin, J.F., Thomas, T.B. 1988. Coarse woody
debris in Douglas-fir forests of western Oregon and Washington.
Ecology 69(6): 1689-1702.
Spies, T. A., J. Tappeiner II, J. Pojar, and D. Coates. 1991.
Trends in ecosystem management at the stand level. Transactions of
the 56th North American Wildlife & Natural Resources Conference:
628-639.
Andrew Gray
Forest Science
Oregon State University
graya@fsl.orst.edu
=========================================================================
Dear friends,
Has anybody any knowledge to share about how practically to manage
dead organic matter (snags, downed logs, and coarse woody debris) in
forest stands?
Some questions I'd love answers to:
How is dead organic matter measured? by size class and degree of
decomposition?
What is a "healthy" abundance level of downed logs for a given forest
type?
How long does it take downed logs to rot under various conditions?
How does their value as habitat change as they decompose?
Can I provide a woodlot owner or an industrial forester with
guidelines that'll work? Do such guidelines exist?
If anybody has studied any of these questions in their own backyards
I'd love to hear from you. . .
Sincerely,
Vince Zelazny
Forest Ecologist
New Brunswick Department of Natural Resources
Fredericton, NB CANADA
marvin@nbnet.nb.ca
Subject: Re: Evolutionary stability of hoarding strategies
From: Rohan Harindra Wickramasinghe
Date: Sat, 9 Nov 1996 17:24:31 SLT
On Fri, 8 Nov 1996 15:27:00 GMT, nicklandis@aol.com wrote:
> In article ,
> reno@pop.bio.aau.dk (Reno Lindberg) writes:
>
> >What would be the evoultionary argument for keeping up a hoarding
> >strategy in such cases?
>
> If you assume that the hoarder can "remember" where at least some of his
> food is stored away, he should have: a) an equal chance of finding
> non-hoarded food (and/or other hoarders' stores) as compared to a
> non-hoarder, and; b) he has a leg up on the non-hoarder by knowing where
> at least some hoarded food is stored. It may be that extra margin that
> gives the hoarder the advantage over the non.
Hi,
This is not my field but I could not get the answer from a
professional zoologist earlier and someone here would know :
" Why do dogs bury bones ? " My dog (a cross Labrador)
does. I don't think he digs them up again nor do I think he
remembers where he buries them. (Someone said that perhaps
burying bones helps to soften something which may remain on
them but is it rather a question of hoarding ? ) He certainly
isn't burying them in order to provide for hard times unless
it is inherited instinct.
More original, he likes gnawing off the kernel remaining on a (half)
coconut shell once practically all the kernel has been scraped off.
These last weeks I have seen him trotting off to the garden carrying
a (half) coconut shell on which there was no kernel remaining and
carefully burying it. Why ? I would very much like to know if it
is common for "instinct" to operate and result in the burying
("hoarding") of something which no longer is of any conceivable
food value to a dog.
Hope this is of some relevance to the subject under discussion.
Thank you for your time.
Rohan H. Wickramasinghe, Ph.D.,
Institute for Tropical Environmental Studies,
41 Flower Road,
Colombo 7,
Sri Lanka
(e-mail: rohan@ites.ac.lk)
Subject: Re: Worth of CITES = Junk Science
From: Daniel Markhan
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 13:11:25 -0500
In the continuing debate over the worth of CITES species it has
occurred to me that the effort to afix a dollar value to any endanger
organism is the economics equivalent to junk science. Some notable
economics have been using a contingent value survey technique to
determine value of natural resources. As I understand it, the most
controvercial component of a contingent value survey is the inclusion of
passive-use participants, i.e. respondants in the lower 48 states to
queries about how much they'd be willing to pay to clean up Prince
William Sound. (In this famous study 1,000 people, never intending to
visit Alaska, said they'd be willing to pay $30. Economists then
argued that the "value" of cleaning up PWS was $2.8 billion.) So, I
suppose, one could conduct a CITES species contingent value study,
asking passive-use people what they'd be willing to pay to preserve and
protect the "CITES SPECIES" and come up with a figure. What good this
figure is, expect in calculating punitive damages in law suits I don't
know. Traditionally economics have looked to the market value of
things. Clearly when it comes to the environment other issues seem to
have importance. What market value is there to a sunny, smog-free day?
ON the otherhand, one could place an amenity value on a nature preserve by
asking people what they'd be willing to pay to use the area, with clean
running water, visable wildlife, hiking trails, wildflowers, etc.
Similarly, clean air might have an amenity value if one polled residents
asking how much they'd be willing to pay for air with less
particlent matter and toxic fumes, etc. etc. etc. My point is, if all
one wants to do is place a dollar value on nature, it can be done. But
how it helps get on with the work of preserving, restoring, and
protecting the environment escapes me.
Replies are most welcome.
Dan Markham
Environmental Communications Centre
245 Mt. Pleasant Ave
Mamaroneck, NY 10543
914 698-0395