IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wsi/cjuesx/v04y2016i04ns2345748116500305.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Methods and Application of Evaluating the Economic Value of the Ecological Environment

Author

Listed:
  • Dan SHI

    (Institute of Industrial Economics, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, No. 2 Yuetan Beixiaojie, Xicheng District, Beijing 100836, P. R. China)

  • Junjie WANG

    (Institute of Industrial Economics, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, No. 2 Yuetan Beixiaojie, Xicheng District, Beijing 100836, P. R. China2Jiangxi University of Finance and Economics, No. 632 Fenglin Ave., Changbei Economic and Technological Development Zone Nanchang City 330013, Jiangxi Province, P. R. China)

Abstract

The evaluation of the economic value of the ecological environment can provide a vigorous support for protecting the ecological environment. The authors introduce several methods for the evaluation of economic value that are commonly used in the international community and their relevant applications; these include two methods for the evaluation of market value — the averting behavior/preventive expenditure method and the replacement cost/restoration cost method — as well as four methods for the evaluation of non-market value — the contingent valuation method, the choice experiment method, the hedonic price method and the travel cost method; moreover, they also introduce the application of the usually overlooked differential land rent theory in this field. Though these methods are widely applied, many matters need to be noted. At present, domestic research on evaluating the economic value of urban and suburban ecological environments remains extremely scarce. Regarding the preparation of the natural resource balance sheet that China is attempting to compile, only the overall economic value of the ecological environment across the country or in a specific large region is meaningful. The application of the methods for the evaluation of economic value in analyzing these issues can bring about many valuable research achievements. A combination of the mainstream foreign value evaluation methods with the Marxist differential land rent theory is conducive to evaluating the overall economic value of the ecological environment.

Suggested Citation

  • Dan SHI & Junjie WANG, 2016. "Methods and Application of Evaluating the Economic Value of the Ecological Environment," Chinese Journal of Urban and Environmental Studies (CJUES), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 4(04), pages 1-16, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:wsi:cjuesx:v:04:y:2016:i:04:n:s2345748116500305
    DOI: 10.1142/S2345748116500305
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/S2345748116500305
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1142/S2345748116500305?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Gerking, Shelby & Stanley, Linda R, 1986. "An Economic Analysis of Air Pollution and Health: The Case of St. Louis," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 68(1), pages 115-121, February.
    2. Timothy J. Bartik, 2008. "Evaluating the Benefits of Non-marginal Reductions in Pollution Using Information on Defensive Expenditures," Book chapters authored by Upjohn Institute researchers, in: Joseph Herriges & Catherine L. Kling (ed.),Revealed Preference Approaches to Environmental Valuation, volume 0, pages 459-475, W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research.
    3. P. Poor & Jamie Smith, 2004. "Travel Cost Analysis of a Cultural Heritage Site: The Case of Historic St. Mary's City of Maryland," Journal of Cultural Economics, Springer;The Association for Cultural Economics International, vol. 28(3), pages 217-229, August.
    4. Urama, Kevin C. & Hodge, Ian D., 2006. "Are stated preferences convergent with revealed preferences? Empirical evidence from Nigeria," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 59(1), pages 24-37, August.
    5. Hanley, Nick & Craig, Stephen, 1991. "Wilderness development decisions and the Krutilla-Fisher model: The case of Scotland's 'flow country'," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 4(2), pages 145-164, November.
    6. Adamowicz W. & Louviere J. & Williams M., 1994. "Combining Revealed and Stated Preference Methods for Valuing Environmental Amenities," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 271-292, May.
    7. Wiktor Adamowicz & Peter Boxall & Michael Williams & Jordan Louviere, 1998. "Stated Preference Approaches for Measuring Passive Use Values: Choice Experiments and Contingent Valuation," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 80(1), pages 64-75.
    8. Harrison, David Jr. & Rubinfeld, Daniel L., 1978. "Hedonic housing prices and the demand for clean air," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 5(1), pages 81-102, March.
    9. Charles W. Abdalla & Brian A. Roach & Donald J. Epp, 1992. "Valuing Environmental Quality Changes Using Averting Expenditures: An Application to Groundwater Contamination," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 68(2), pages 163-169.
    10. Bishwa S. Koirala & Alok K. Bohara, 2014. "Valuing US climate amenities for Americans using an hedonic pricing framework," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 57(6), pages 829-847, June.
    11. Bryan J. Hubbell & Jeffrey L. Jordan, 2000. "Joint Production and Averting Expenditure Measures of Willingness to Pay: Do Water Expenditures Really Measure Avoidance Costs?," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 82(2), pages 427-437.
    12. John R. McKean & Donn M. Johnson & Richard G. Walsh, 1995. "Valuing Time in Travel Cost Demand Analysis: An Empirical Investigation," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 71(1), pages 96-105.
    13. Boxall, Peter C. & Englin, Jeffrey & Adamowicz, Wiktor L., 2003. "Valuing aboriginal artifacts: a combined revealed-stated preference approach," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 45(2), pages 213-230, March.
    14. Ian J. Bateman & Richard T. Carson & Brett Day & Michael Hanemann & Nick Hanley & Tannis Hett & Michael Jones-Lee & Graham Loomes, 2002. "Economic Valuation with Stated Preference Techniques," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2639.
    15. Murdoch, James C. & Thayer, Mark A., 1990. "The benefits of reducing the incidence of nonmelanoma skin cancers: A defensive expenditures approach," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 18(2), pages 107-119, March.
    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. Konishi, Yoshifumi & Coggins, Jay S., 2008. "Environmental risk and welfare valuation under imperfect information," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(2), pages 150-169, May.
    2. Marta Suárez-Varela & Ariel Dinar, 2020. "The Role of Curtailment Versus Efficiency on Spillovers Among Pro-Environmental Behaviors: Evidence from Two Towns in Granada, Spain," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-24, January.
    3. Bruno Lanz, 2015. "Avertive expenditures, endogenous quality perception, and the demand for public goods: An instrumental variable approach," CIES Research Paper series 36-2015, Centre for International Environmental Studies, The Graduate Institute.
    4. Rajapakshe, Sisira & Termansen, Mette & Paavola, Jouni, 2022. "Valuing Water Service Improvements through Revealed Preference: Averting Behaviour Method," MPRA Paper 115623, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    5. repec:gii:ciesrp:cies_rp_36rev is not listed on IDEAS
    6. Lanz, Bruno & Provins, Allan, 2017. "Using averting expenditures to estimate the demand for public goods: Combining objective and perceived quality," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 20-35.
    7. Bockstael, Nancy E. & Freeman III, A. Myrick, 2006. "Welfare Theory and Valuation," Handbook of Environmental Economics, in: K. G. Mäler & J. R. Vincent (ed.), Handbook of Environmental Economics, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 12, pages 517-570, Elsevier.
    8. Konishi, Yoshifumi & Adachi, Kenji, 2011. "A framework for estimating willingness-to-pay to avoid endogenous environmental risks," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 130-154, January.
    9. Jagoda Adamus, 2023. "How Much Are Public Spaces Worth? Non-Market Valuation Methods in Valuing Public Spaces," Gospodarka Narodowa. The Polish Journal of Economics, Warsaw School of Economics, issue 2, pages 66-89.
    10. K. Willis & J. Snowball & C. Wymer & José Grisolía, 2012. "A count data travel cost model of theatre demand using aggregate theatre booking data," Journal of Cultural Economics, Springer;The Association for Cultural Economics International, vol. 36(2), pages 91-112, May.
    11. Abbie A. Rogers & Fiona L. Dempster & Jacob I. Hawkins & Robert J. Johnston & Peter C. Boxall & John Rolfe & Marit E. Kragt & Michael P. Burton & David J. Pannell, 2019. "Valuing non-market economic impacts from natural hazards," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 99(2), pages 1131-1161, November.
    12. Tenwalde, Tracy & Jones, Eugene & Hitzhusen, Frederick J., 2005. "An Economic Analysis of Consumer Expenditures for Safe Drinking Water: Addressing Nitrogen Risk with an Averting Cost Approach," 2005 Annual meeting, July 24-27, Providence, RI 19431, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    13. Mazzanti, Massimiliano, 2002. "Cultural heritage as multi-dimensional, multi-value and multi-attribute economic good: toward a new framework for economic analysis and valuation," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 31(5), pages 529-558.
    14. Siikamaki, Juha & Layton, David F., 2007. "Discrete choice survey experiments: A comparison using flexible methods," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 53(1), pages 122-139, January.
    15. Hye-Min Kim & In-Gyum Kim & Byunghwan Lim & Seung-Hoon Yoo, 2021. "Estimating the Economic Value of Improving the Asian Dust Aerosol Model in the Korean Household Sector: A Choice Experiment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-11, November.
    16. Bruno Lanz & Allan Provins, 2015. "Using discrete choice experiments to regulate the provision of water services: do status quo choices reflect preferences?," Journal of Regulatory Economics, Springer, vol. 47(3), pages 300-324, June.
    17. Bruno Lanz & Allan Provins, 2014. "The demand for tap water quality: Survey evidence on water hardness and aesthetic quality," CIES Research Paper series 23-2014, Centre for International Environmental Studies, The Graduate Institute.
    18. Thomas Laitila & Anton Paulrud, 2008. "Anglers' Valuation of Water Regulation Dam Removal for the Restoration of Angling Conditions at Storsjö-Kapell," Tourism Economics, , vol. 14(2), pages 283-296, June.
    19. Patrick Lloyd-Smith & Craig Schram & Wiktor Adamowicz & Diane Dupont, 2018. "Endogeneity of Risk Perceptions in Averting Behavior Models," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 69(2), pages 217-246, February.
    20. Choi, Andy S., 2011. "Implicit prices for longer temporary exhibitions in a heritage site and a test of preference heterogeneity: A segmentation-based approach," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 32(3), pages 511-519.
    21. Bruno Lanz & Allan Provins, 2012. "Do status quo choices reflect preferences? Evidence from a discrete choice experiment in the context of water utilities' investment planning," CEPE Working paper series 12-87, CEPE Center for Energy Policy and Economics, ETH Zurich.

    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:wsi:cjuesx:v:04:y:2016:i:04:n:s2345748116500305. 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: Tai Tone Lim (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.worldscinet.com/cjues/cjues.shtml .

    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.