Environmental and Resource Economics

, Volume 16, Issue 4, pp 363–378 | Cite as

Evaluation of Nature Conservation

  • D. Strijker
  • F. J. Sijtsma
  • D. Wiersma
Article

Abstract

Recent literature shows a lively debate on how tocapture ecological and environmental aspects indifferent evaluation methods and the closely relatedissue of the (im)possibilities of monetization ofthese aspects. Although economists in general tend tofavour Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA) aboveMulti-Criteria Analysis (MCA), part of the literaturesuggests that CBA falls short of being the onlydecision-making device for environmental problems,both for theoretical and practical reasons. This paperdiscusses both evaluation methods and the main resultsof a major, publicly-financed nature conservationproject in The Netherlands.

The evaluation method combines the straightforwardnessof CBA with the flexibility of MCA. Conceptually, itconsists of a MCA, the net result of a CBA beingintegrated as one of the criteria. The differentaspects of the nature conservation project that can bemonetized are incorporated into the CBA. Otheraspects such as changes in biodiversity or scenicbeauty are analysed in their own dimension,provided (cardinal) quantification is possible. Infact, the analysis consists of a very simple MCA, withtwo criteria: social costs and a quantitative measureof nature.

Quantifying the amount of nature in its own,non-monetary dimension is a key element of theempirical analysis. A detailed quantitative estimateis made of the improvement of nature, based upon 564species and 131 different ecosystems. The result ofthe evaluation is a trade-off at the national levelbetween ecological improvements (plus 18 percent) andsocial costs (DFl. 3.4 billion net present value). Dueto the detailed quantification of the effect on naturethe evaluation also yields results about thecost-effectiveness of four different instruments tocreate and to preserve nature. That part of theanalysis shows that complete withdrawal ofagricultural land for nature purposes in the projectin general is more cost-effective than subsidizingnature-friendly farming, although the former is moreexpensive.

nature conservation project evaluation The Netherlands 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bal, D., H. M. Beije, Y. R. Hoogeveen, S. R. J. Jansen and P. J. van der Reest (1995), Handboek Natuurdoeltypen in Nederland. Wageningen: IKC Natuurbeheer.Google Scholar
  2. Bana e Costa, C. and M. Pirlot (1997), ‘Thoughts on the Future of the Multicriteria Field: Basic Convictions and Outline for a General Methodology’, in J. Climaco, ed., Multicriteria Analysis. Berling: Springer Verlag, 412-422.Google Scholar
  3. Bateman, I. (1994), ‘Research Methods for Valuing Environmental Benefits’, in A. Dubgaard, I. Bateman and M. Merlo, eds., Economic Valuation of Benefits from Countryside Stewardship. Kiel: Wissenschaftsverlag Vauk Kiel Ag, 47-82.Google Scholar
  4. Berenschot (1994), Onderzoek naar de financiële gevolgen van het relatienota-beleid. Utrecht: Berenschot Interim Management.Google Scholar
  5. Bink, R. J., D. Bal, V. M. van den Berk and L. J. Draaijer, eds. (1994), Toestand van de natuur 2. Wageningen: Rapport IKC-NBLF, nr. 4.Google Scholar
  6. Costanza, R., R. d'Arge, R. de Groot, S. Faber, M. Graaso, B. Hannon, K. Limburg, S. Naeem, R. V. O'Neill, J. Paruelo, R. G. Raskin, P. Sutton and M. van den Belt (1997), ‘The Value of the World's Ecosystem Services and Natural Capital’, Nature 387.Google Scholar
  7. CLM (1995), Naar een natuurmeetlat voor landbouwbedrijven. Utrecht: Centrum voor Landbouw en Milieu.Google Scholar
  8. Hanley, N. (1992), ‘Are There Environmental Limits to Cost-Benefit Analysis?’, Environmental and Resource Economics 2, 33-59.Google Scholar
  9. Hanley, N. and C. L. Spash (1993), Cost-Benefit Analysis and the Environment. Edward Elgar, U.K.Google Scholar
  10. Hanley, N., Spash, C. and Walker, L. (1995), ‘Problems in Valuing the Benefits of Biodiversity Protection’, Environmental and Resource Economics 5, 249-272.Google Scholar
  11. Hoevenagel, R. (1994), The Contingent Valuation Method: Scope and Validity, PhD thesis, Free University, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  12. IKC Natuurbeheer (1995), Handboek Natuurdoeltypen in Nederland. Wageningen.Google Scholar
  13. Korhonen, P. and J. Wallenius (1997), ‘Behavioral Issues in MCDM: Neglected Research Questions’, in J. Climaco, ed., Multi Criteria Analysis. Berling: Springer Verlag, 412-422.Google Scholar
  14. LEI-DLO (1995), ‘De betekenis van de landbouw voor de Nederlandse economie’, Publicatie 1.29. Den Haag: LEI-DLO.Google Scholar
  15. LNV (1990), Natuurbeleidsplan regeringsbeslissing. SDU, 's Gravenhage.Google Scholar
  16. LNV (1995), Ecosystemen in Nederland. Den Haag: LNV.Google Scholar
  17. Nijkamp, P. (1980), Environmental Policy Analysis; Operational Methods and Models. Chichester.Google Scholar
  18. Nijkamp, P and A. van Delft (1977), Multi-Criteria Analysis and Regional Decision-Making. Leiden: Nijhoff.Google Scholar
  19. OECD (1995), Environmental Performance Reviews; the Netherlands. Paris.Google Scholar
  20. OECD (1997), Investing in Biological Diversity; The Cairns Conference. Paris.Google Scholar
  21. Oskam, A. J. (1994), Het landbouw/natuur-vraagstuk: economisch gezien. Wageningen: LU Wageningen, Vakgroep AAE (unpublished).Google Scholar
  22. Pelt, M. van, A. Kuyvenhoven and P. Nijkamp (1990), ‘Project Appraisal and Sustainability: the Applicability of Cost-benefit and Multi-Criteria Analysis’, Wageningen Economic Papers 5. Wageningen.Google Scholar
  23. Sagoff, M. (1988), The Economy of the Earth. Cambridge.Google Scholar
  24. Sijtsma, F. J. and D. Strijker (1995), Effect-analyse Ecologische Hoofdstructuur, Deel I: Hoofdrapportand Deel II: Natuurwaarde. Groningen: Stichting REG.Google Scholar
  25. Slangen, L. H. G. (1994), ‘De financiële en economische aspecten van het omzetten van landbouw-gronden in natuurterreinen’, Agrarisch Recht 54(7), 313-318.Google Scholar
  26. Smith, V. K. (1997), ‘Mispriced Planet’, Regulation 20(3), 16-17.Google Scholar
  27. Wenstop, F., A. Carlsen, O. Bergland and P. Magnus (1997), ‘Valuation of Environmental Goods with Expert Panels’, in J. Climaco, ed., Multi Criteria Analysis. Berlin: Springer Verlag, 539-548.Google Scholar
  28. Zimmerman, H.-J. and L. Gutsche (1991), Multi-Criteria Analyse. Berlin: Springer Verlag.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • D. Strijker
    • 1
  • F. J. Sijtsma
    • 1
  • D. Wiersma
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of EconomicsUniversity of GroningenGroningenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations