IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/aergaa/26457.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Evaluating Nature Conservation: The Case of Meadow Birds in The Netherlands

Author

Listed:
  • Strijker, Dirk
  • Sijtsma, F.J.
  • Bettels, K.

Abstract

Healthy growth towards sustainability requires evaluation methods that incorporate ecological and economic effects. Evaluating ecological effects in monetary terms would permit the use of Cost-Benefit Analysis. Major methodological difficulties hamper use of this approach. In this paper an alternative evaluation method is used. The method consists of a Multicriteria Analysis (MCA), in which the different aspects of nature conservation projects can be evaluated in their own terms. The net result of the monetarised effects is part of a CBA that is integrated as one of the criteria. This framework is applied to a major, publicly financed nature conservation project in the Netherlands. The project is based on a fixed budget and a fixed area in which nature can be produced using different methods. In this project, apart from analysing the net results, besides the net results of a CBA, only one other criterion is analysed: the production of nature. In this way, the concept is reduced to a straightforward analysis of the performance (cost-effectiveness) of the different methods used to produce natural environment.

Suggested Citation

  • Strijker, Dirk & Sijtsma, F.J. & Bettels, K., 2000. "Evaluating Nature Conservation: The Case of Meadow Birds in The Netherlands," Agricultural Economics Review, Greek Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 1(2), pages 1-14, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:aergaa:26457
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.26457
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/26457/files/01020054.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.26457?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Nick Hanley & Clive Spash & Lorna Walker, 1995. "Problems in valuing the benefits of biodiversity protection," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 5(3), pages 249-272, April.
    2. Toman, Michael, 1998. "Sustainable Decision-making: The State of the Art from an Economics Perspective," Discussion Papers 10602, Resources for the Future.
    3. Nick Hanley, 1992. "Are there environmental limits to cost benefit analysis?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 2(1), pages 33-59, January.
    4. Toman, Michael, 1998. "SPECIAL SECTION: FORUM ON VALUATION OF ECOSYSTEM SERVICES: Why not to calculate the value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(1), pages 57-60, April.
    5. Van Pelt, M. & Kuyvenhoven, A. & Nijkamp, P., 1990. "Project Appraisal And Substainability: The Applicability Of Cost-Benefit And Multi-Criteria Analysis," Mansholt Working Papers 1990-5, Wageningen University, Mansholt Graduate School of Social Sciences.
    6. Christie, Mike & Hanley, Nick & Warren, John & Murphy, Kevin & Wright, Robert & Hyde, Tony, 2006. "Valuing the diversity of biodiversity," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(2), pages 304-317, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Jean-Michel Salles, 2011. "Valuing biodiversity and ecosystem services: why linking economic values with Nature?," Working Papers 11-24, LAMETA, Universtiy of Montpellier, revised Dec 2011.
    2. D. Strijker & F. Sijtsma & D. Wiersma, 2000. "Evaluation of Nature Conservation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 16(4), pages 363-378, August.
    3. Oliver Froer, 2003. "Using Stated Preference Methods for Biodiversity Valuation. A critical analysis," Diskussionspapiere aus dem Institut für Volkswirtschaftslehre der Universität Hohenheim 217/2003, Department of Economics, University of Hohenheim, Germany.
    4. Iulie Aslaksen & Anne Ingeborg Myhr, 2006. ""The worth of a wildflower" Precautionary perspectives on the environmental risk of GMOs," Discussion Papers 476, Statistics Norway, Research Department.
    5. Michael Toman, 1998. "Research Frontiers in the Economics of Climate Change," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 11(3), pages 603-621, April.
    6. Nicolas Bouleau, 2012. "Limits To Growth And Stochastics," Post-Print halshs-00782948, HAL.
    7. Stefan Mann, 2007. "Comparing Interpersonal Comparisons in Utility Theory and Happiness Research," Forum for Social Economics, Springer;The Association for Social Economics, vol. 36(1), pages 29-42, April.
    8. MacMillan, Douglas & Hanley, Nick & Buckland, Steve, 1995. "Valuing Biodiversity Losses Due To Acid Deposition: A Contingent Valuation Study Of Uncertain Environmental Gains," Discussion Papers in Ecological Economics 140539, University of Stirling, Department of Economics.
    9. Windle, Jill & Rolfe, John, 2010. "Assessing community values for reducing agricultural emissions to improve water quality and protect coral health in the Great Barrier Reef," Research Reports 107583, Australian National University, Environmental Economics Research Hub.
    10. Jette Jacobsen & Nick Hanley, 2009. "Are There Income Effects on Global Willingness to Pay for Biodiversity Conservation?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 43(2), pages 137-160, June.
    11. Gabriela Scheufele & Jeff Bennett, 2011. "Valuing ecosystem resilience," Environmental Economics Research Hub Research Reports 1098, Environmental Economics Research Hub, Crawford School of Public Policy, The Australian National University.
    12. Oliver Fromm, 2000. "Ecological Structure and Functions of Biodiversity as Elements of Its Total Economic Value," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 16(3), pages 303-328, July.
    13. Patrick Chavel & Hillel Fromm & Gil Rilov & Lewi Stone & Walter Hecq, 2019. "Cost-Benefit Analysis of the Achziv marine reserve expansion considering the Barcelona Convention and the EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive," Working Papers CEB 19-004, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    14. Orchard-Webb, Johanne & Kenter, Jasper O. & Bryce, Ros & Church, Andrew, 2016. "Deliberative Democratic Monetary Valuation to implement the Ecosystem Approach," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 21(PB), pages 308-318.
    15. Taro Ohdoko & Kentaro Yoshida, 2012. "Public preferences for forest ecosystem management in Japan with emphasis on species diversity," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 14(2), pages 147-169, April.
    16. Adamowicz, Wiktor L. & Lloyd-Smith, Patrick & Zawojska, Ewa, 2018. "Is there really a difference between “contingent valuation” and “choice experiments”? Evidence from an induced-value experiment," 2018 Annual Meeting, August 5-7, Washington, D.C. 274015, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    17. Thiene, Mara & Meyerhoff, Jürgen & De Salvo, Maria, 2012. "Scale and taste heterogeneity for forest biodiversity: Models of serial nonparticipation and their effects," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(4), pages 355-369.
    18. Daniels, Silvie & Bellmore, J. Ryan & Benjamin, Joseph R. & Witters, Nele & Vangronsveld, Jaco & Van Passel, Steven, 2018. "Quantification of the Indirect Use Value of Functional Group Diversity Based on the Ecological Role of Species in the Ecosystem," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 153(C), pages 181-194.
    19. Nicolas Bouleau, 2013. "The Environmental Violence of Volatility," CIRED Working Papers halshs-00835669, HAL.
    20. Khuc, Quy Van & Nong, Duy & Phu Vu, Tri, 2022. "To pay or not to pay that is the question - for air pollution mitigation in a world’s dynamic city: An experiment in Hanoi, Vietnam," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 687-701.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Environmental Economics and Policy;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:aergaa:26457. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/etagrea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.