IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/col/000089/003747.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Valoración De Los Beneficios Económicos Provistos Por El Sistema De Parques Nacionales Naturales: Una Aplicación Del Análisis De Transferencia De Beneficios

Author

Listed:
  • Fernando Carriazo
  • Ana María Ibañez
  • Marcela Garcia

Abstract

El Sistema de Parques Nacionales Naturales provee servicios ambientales a la economía del país que, debido a su naturaleza de bienes públicos, no se equiparan con la asignación presupuestal destinada a su manejo y administración. La protección de extensas áreas territoriales con ecosistemas naturales valiosos contribuye a la conservación del recurso hídrico, al ecoturismo y al secuestro de carbono. Hoy el Sistema está compuesto por 49 áreas protegidas, cubre 10 millones de hectáreas y comprende nueve por ciento del territorio nacional. El objetivo de esta estudio es valorar los servicios provistos por el SPNN a la economía nacional. El estudio aproxima los beneficios económicos del consumo doméstico de agua potable en $32 mil millones de pesos mensuales. Los beneficios totales anuales por ecoturismo oscilan en un rango entre $2.3 y $6.9 mil millones de pesos. La venta de carbono por la conservación de sumideros de carbono significaría para Colombia beneficios por hectárea protegida entre $556.449 y $1.669.406, es decir US$297 y US$891 por hectárea.

Suggested Citation

  • Fernando Carriazo & Ana María Ibañez & Marcela Garcia, 2003. "Valoración De Los Beneficios Económicos Provistos Por El Sistema De Parques Nacionales Naturales: Una Aplicación Del Análisis De Transferencia De Beneficios," Documentos CEDE 3747, Universidad de los Andes, Facultad de Economía, CEDE.
    • Handle: RePEc:col:000089:003747
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://repositorio.uniandes.edu.co/bitstream/handle/1992/8524/dcede2003-26.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. repec:idb:brikps:publication-detail,7101.html?id=26094 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Joseph A. Herriges & Catherine L. Kling (ed.), 1999. "Valuing Recreation and the Environment," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 1315.
    3. Herriges, Joseph A. & Kling, Catherine L., 1999. "Valuing Recreation and the Environment: Revealed Preference Methods in Theory and Practice, New Horizons in Environmental Economics," Staff General Research Papers Archive 12330, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    4. Brouwer, Roy, 2000. "Environmental value transfer: state of the art and future prospects," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 137-152, January.
    5. Barton, David N., 2002. "The transferability of benefit transfer: contingent valuation of water quality improvements in Costa Rica," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 42(1-2), pages 147-164, August.
    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. Wai Soe Zin & Aya Suzuki & Kelvin S.-H. Peh & Alexandros Gasparatos, 2019. "Economic Value of Cultural Ecosystem Services from Recreation in Popa Mountain National Park, Myanmar: A Comparison of Two Rapid Valuation Techniques," Land, MDPI, vol. 8(12), pages 1-20, December.
    2. Johnston, Robert J. & Duke, Joshua M., 2010. "Socioeconomic adjustments and choice experiment benefit function transfer: Evaluating the common wisdom," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(3), pages 421-438, August.
    3. Spash, Clive L. & Vatn, Arild, 2006. "Transferring environmental value estimates: Issues and alternatives," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(2), pages 379-388, December.
    4. Crooker, John R., 2007. "Nonparametric Bounds on Welfare with Measurement Error in Prices: Techniques for Non-Market Resource Valuation," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 36(2), pages 239-252, October.
    5. Chris Dumas & Pete Schuhmann & John C. Whitehead, 2004. "Measuring the Economic Benefits of Water Quality Improvement with the Benefit Transfer Method: An Introduction for Non-Economists," Working Papers 04-12, Department of Economics, Appalachian State University.
    6. Richard T. Carson, 2011. "Contingent Valuation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2489.
    7. Zhang, Fan & Fogarty, James, 2015. "Nonmarket Valuation of Water Sensitive Cities: Current Knowledge and Issues," Working Papers 207694, University of Western Australia, School of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
    8. Schwabe, Kurt A. & Schuhmann, Peter W., 1999. "The Value Of Increasing The Length Of Deer Season In Ohio," 1999 Annual meeting, August 8-11, Nashville, TN 21574, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    9. Egan, Kevin J. & Herriges, Joseph A. & Kling, Catherine L. & Downing, John A., 2004. "Recreation Demand Using Physical Measures Of Water Quality," 2004 Annual meeting, August 1-4, Denver, CO 19958, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    10. Jamal Othman & Yaghoob Jafari, 2019. "Economic Valuation of an Urban Lake Recreational Park: Case of Taman Tasik Cempaka in Bandar Baru Bangi, Malaysia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(11), pages 1-15, May.
    11. Dan Rigby & Mike Burton, 2006. "Modeling Disinterest and Dislike: A Bounded Bayesian Mixed Logit Model of the UK Market for GM Food," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 33(4), pages 485-509, April.
    12. Ahlheim, Michael & Fror, Oliver & Sinphurmsukskul, Nopasom, 2006. "The Role of Participation in CVM Survey Design: Evidence from a Tap Water Improvement Program in Northern Thailand," 2006 Annual Meeting, August 12-18, 2006, Queensland, Australia 25692, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    13. Abou-Ali, Hala, 2003. "Using stated preference methods to evaluate the impact of water on health: the case of metropolitan Cairo," Working Papers in Economics 113, University of Gothenburg, Department of Economics.
    14. John C. Whitehead & Subhrendu K. Pattanayak & George L. Van Houtven & Brett R. Gelso, 2008. "Combining Revealed And Stated Preference Data To Estimate The Nonmarket Value Of Ecological Services: An Assessment Of The State Of The Science," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 22(5), pages 872-908, December.
    15. Huhtala, Anni, 2004. "What price recreation in Finland? – A contingent valuation study of non-market benefits of public outdoor recreation areas," MPRA Paper 24602, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    16. McArthur, David Philip & Kleppe, Gisle & Thorsen, Inge & Ubøe, Jan, 2011. "The spatial transferability of parameters in a gravity model of commuting flows," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 19(4), pages 596-605.
    17. Alberini, Anna & Chiabai, Aline & Muehlenbachs, Lucija, 2005. "Using Expert Judgment to Assess Adaptive Capacity to Climate Change: Evidence From a Conjoint Choice Survey," Sustainability Indicators and Environmental Valuation Working Papers 12216, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM).
    18. I. Bateman & R. Brouwer & S. Ferrini & M. Schaafsma & D. Barton & A. Dubgaard & B. Hasler & S. Hime & I. Liekens & S. Navrud & L. De Nocker & R. Ščeponavičiūtė & D. Semėnienė, 2011. "Making Benefit Transfers Work: Deriving and Testing Principles for Value Transfers for Similar and Dissimilar Sites Using a Case Study of the Non-Market Benefits of Water Quality Improvements Across E," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 50(3), pages 365-387, November.
    19. Genty, Aurélien, 2005. "Du concept à la fiabilité de la méthode du transfert en économie de l’environnement : un état de l’art," Cahiers d'Economie et de Sociologie Rurales (CESR), Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA), vol. 77.
    20. Vossler, Christian A. & Kerkvliet, Joe, 2003. "A criterion validity test of the contingent valuation method: comparing hypothetical and actual voting behavior for a public referendum," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 45(3), pages 631-649, May.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    transferencia de beneficios;

    JEL classification:

    • Q25 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation - - - Water

    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:col:000089:003747. 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: Universidad De Los Andes-Cede (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ceandco.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.