Skip to main navigation Skip to search Skip to main content

Ecosystem Services: Response

  • Ian J Bateman
  • , Amii R Harwood
  • , Carlo Fezzi
  • , Jo Foden
  • , David Hadley
  • , Roy Haines-Young
  • , Mark Hulme
  • , Andreas Kontoleon
  • , Andrew A Lovett
  • , Paul Munday
  • , Unai Pascual
  • , James Paterson
  • , Georgina M Mace
  • , Grischa Perino
  • , Antara Sen
  • , Gavin Siriwardena
  • , Daan Van Soest
  • , Mette Termansen
  • , Robert T Watson
  • , David J Abson
  • Barnaby Andrews, Amy Binner, Andrew Crowe, Brett H Day, Steve Dugdale

Research output: Contribution to journalLetter

Abstract

C. Obst 'et al'. provide a welcome opportunity to clarify the difference between environmental-economic cost-benefit analyses (such as ours) and environmental accounting exercises [such as the UN-SEEA initiative]. Accounting studies attempt to assess the total value of goods related to ecosystem services in a manner comparable to that used for market-priced goods in national accounts. A decline in the ecosystem services account over time signals a potential need to invest in underlying natural capital. However, such accounts do not indicate the most cost-effective form of that investment. Environmental economic analyses such as ours typically consider changes in value from the status quo that alternative investments provide, and identify those that yield higher value for money. The two approaches are complements rather than substitutes and serve differing but highly compatible elements of the decision-making process.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)421-422
JournalScience
Volume342
Issue number6157
Publication statusPublished - 31 Dec 2013

Keywords

  • Environment and Resource Economics

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Ecosystem Services: Response'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this