Valuing ecological resources through stakeholder participation
- 1 Department of Landscape Architecture and Urban Planning, Hazard Reduction and Recovery Center, College of Architecture, Texas A&M University, College Station, USA
- 2 Department of Landscape Architecture and Urban Planning, Hazard Reduction and Recovery Center, College of Architecture, Texas A&M University, College Station, USA
Abstract
This paper presents a pilot effort to identify a methodology to more efficiently codify, quantify and illustrate the intrinsic values associated with ecological resources as expressed by stakeholders. Existing methodologies examine the value of ecological resources, but are often cri ticized for their monetary focus. These methods generally produce quasi-market values for non-market resources. The natural and cultural resources associated with a national park are analyzed in terms of the expressed values of active stakeholders to quantitatively produce multiple dimensions of value for each resource relative to all others. The resulting abstract and graphical value-space quantitatively reflects stakeholder participation, reflects non-market intrinsic value, and proactively contributes to environmental management and decision making.
- Ciriacy-Wantrup, S.V. (1947) Capital returns from soilconservation practices. Journal of Farm Economics, 29, 1181-1196. doi:10.2307/1232747
- Davis, R.K. (1963) The value of outdoor recreation an economic study of the Maine woods. Harvard University, Cambridge.
- Krutilla, J.V. (1967) Conservation reconsidered. The American Economic Review, 57, 777-786.
- Portney, P.R. (1994) The contingent valuation debate: Why economists should care. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 8, 3-17. doi:10.1257/jep.8.4.3
- Beatley, T. (1994) Ethical land use: Principles of policy and planning. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.
- Shafer Jr., E.L. and Brush, R.O. (1977) How to measure preferences for photographs of natural landscapes. Landscape Planning, 4, 237-256. doi:10.1016/0304-3924(77)90027-2
- Carlson, A.A. (1977) On the possibility of quantifying scenic beauty. Landscape Planning, 4, 131-172. doi:10.1016/0304-3924(77)90015-6
- Ribe, R.G. (1982) On the possibility of quantifying scenic beauty—A response. Landscape Planning, 9, 61-74. doi:10.1016/0304-3924(82)90011-9
- Gobster, P.H. (2008) Yellowstone hotspot: Reflections on scenic beauty, ecology, and the aesthetic experience of landscape. Landscape journal, 27, 291.
- Antrop, M. (2005) Why landscapes of the past are important for the future. Landscape and Urban Planning, 70, 21-34. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2003.10.002
- Bingham, G., et al. (1995) Issues in ecosystem valuation: Improving information for decision making. Ecological Economics, 14, 73-90. doi:10.1016/0921-8009(95)00021-Z
- Loomis, J.B. (2000) Environmental valuation techniques in water resource decision making. Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management, 126, 339-344. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9496(2000)126:6(339)
- Committee on Assessing and Valuing the Services of Aquatic and Related Terrestrial Ecosystems and National Research Council (2005) National Research Council, Valuing ecosystem services toward better environmental decision-making. National Academies Press, Washington, DC.
- Arrow, K.J., et al. (1996) Is there a role for benefit-cost analysis in environmental, health, and safety regulation? Science, 272, 221-222. doi:10.1126/science.272.5259.221
- Kelman, S. (1981) Cost-benefit analysis: An ethical critique. Regulation, 5, 33-40.