Skip Ribbon Commands
Skip to main content
Home | Support RFF | Join E-mail List | Contact
RFF Logo
Skip navigation links
RESEARCH TOPICS
CENTERS
PUBLICATIONS
NEWS
EVENTS
RESEARCHERS
ABOUT RFF
 

 

 
Join E-mail List
Please provide your e-mail address to receive periodic newsletters and invitations to public events
 
 

Linking Ecological Science and Economic Preferences

Nonmarket Evaluation

In a new RFF Discussion Paper, The Definition and Choice of Environmental Commodities for Nonmarket Valuation, Senior Fellows James Boyd and Alan Krupnick examine a key conceptual issue central to effective interdisciplinary collaboration between economists and ecologists: identifying ecological endpoints, the nonmarket environmental goods and services most amenable to economic valuation. This requires describing ecological outputs in such a way that they are both consistent with ecological science and meaningful to respondents. The first drives new biological research and data collection and the second drives improvements in the economic science of describing preferences for environmental improvements in monetary terms.

From the paper:

Ecological systems are complex. Economists using stated preference techniques to value ecological changes face a daunting task: how to decompose these systems into commodities that are both consistent with ecological science and meaningful to respondents. We argue that ecological production theory bears directly on the commodity definition issue. It helps identify the linkages necessary to integrate ecological science with commodities useful to valuation. It also helps address a set of cognitive issues that arise when stated preference subjects are asked to assign value to environmental commodities that are complex or ambiguous. Production theory also helps avoid double counting and clarifies the interpretation of both elicited and revealed willingness-to-pay (WTP) values.

Overall, we hope to contribute to a larger conversation within nonmarket valuation about commodity definition. The difficulties associated with deriving WTP estimates have, in our view, distracted attention from a more basic issue: what commodities are actually creating value and what are the relationships between those commodities? Some of the arguments presented below raise questions about the validity and/or interpretability of stated and revealed preferences. Our goal, though, is to generate new questions and insight into how nonmarket valuations should be conducted empirically. … 
 

Another reason to discuss commodity definition is the growing interdisciplinary ecosystem services movement. Ecosystem services analysis explicitly demands a linkage between ecological outcomes and economic consequences. This elevates the importance of getting units right—or at least clarifying why economic analysts use the commodity units we do. The ultimate goal is for natural scientists and economists to describe ecological changes in the same, relevant and meaningful units.

 

 James W. Boyd
James. W. Boyd
RFF Senior Fellow

Alan J. Krupnick
Alan J. Krupnick
RFF Senior Fellow and Director of Research

RFF Home | RFF Press: An Imprint of Routledge Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Copyright Notice
1616 P St. NW, Washington, DC 20036 · 202.328.5000 Feedback | Contact Us