250
necessary to expand the way society recognizes the diversity of values that need to be
promoted in decision-making at the nexus and to embrace pluralistic valuation
approaches as adopted by organizations such as the Intergovernmental Platform on
Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES).
9.3.2 How Can It Be Done?
Beginning two decades ago, scientists took on the ambitious task of characterizing
broad categories of ecosystem services that are fundamentally important to humans
(see discussion in Swinton and Zhang 2005). Some have gone farther: Costanza
et al. (2016) not only characterized the Earth's major ecosystem services but also
estimated their “aggregate annual monetary value.” That particular attempt to put a
price sticker on the planet’s entire ecosystem services has been justly criticized by
economists for violating microeconomic principles of diminishing marginal utility,
budget constraints, and comparison of most feasible alternatives (e.g., Pearce 1998;
Bockstael et al. 2000; Daily et al. 2000). However, the continuing, frequent citation
of Costanza et al.’s article highlights the need felt by many to link monetary values
to ecosystem services and to better understand ecosystem trade-offs within
the nexus.
Depending on how consumers and producers experience an ecosystem service,
there are many different methods to estimate its value (Freeman 2003; Shiferaw
et al. 2005). The methods used for agricultural ecosystem services focus on values
that people obtain from the use of the services. For example:
1. revealed preference methods capture the values of individuals as revealed by
how the act/spend money in existing markets; and
2. factor input valuation methods estimate the value of an ecosystem service
which can substitute for an existing marketed input, or when the service contributes to measurable marketed output, the economic value of changes in the level
of the service can readily be inferred using information from the related input
and/or crop markets. For example, the value of biological nutrient cycling can
be estimated by its fertilizer replacement value or replacement cost in cereallegume systems (Bundy et al. 1993). This refers to the concept of Substitutability.
Under factor input valuation methods, production input (the value of inputs
required to production), profitability trade-off, and stated preference methods
estimate the value of changes to the status quo, such as changing current farmer
cropping systems to include ecologically recommended practices.
So far economic research examining the economic value of the natural enemy
contribution to crop profitability has been limited, with the exception of Zhang and
Swinton (2009, 2012). Their approach to measuring the economic value of the
natural enemy complex was based on model-predicted densities of the pest and its
predators and a dynamic optimal pest control model that explicitly incorporates
N. Matthews et al.
necessary to expand the way society recognizes the diversity of values that need to be
promoted in decision-making at the nexus and to embrace pluralistic valuation
approaches as adopted by organizations such as the Intergovernmental Platform on
Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES).
9.3.2 How Can It Be Done?
Beginning two decades ago, scientists took on the ambitious task of characterizing
broad categories of ecosystem services that are fundamentally important to humans
(see discussion in Swinton and Zhang 2005). Some have gone farther: Costanza
et al. (2016) not only characterized the Earth's major ecosystem services but also
estimated their “aggregate annual monetary value.” That particular attempt to put a
price sticker on the planet’s entire ecosystem services has been justly criticized by
economists for violating microeconomic principles of diminishing marginal utility,
budget constraints, and comparison of most feasible alternatives (e.g., Pearce 1998;
Bockstael et al. 2000; Daily et al. 2000). However, the continuing, frequent citation
of Costanza et al.’s article highlights the need felt by many to link monetary values
to ecosystem services and to better understand ecosystem trade-offs within
the nexus.
Depending on how consumers and producers experience an ecosystem service,
there are many different methods to estimate its value (Freeman 2003; Shiferaw
et al. 2005). The methods used for agricultural ecosystem services focus on values
that people obtain from the use of the services. For example:
1. revealed preference methods capture the values of individuals as revealed by
how the act/spend money in existing markets; and
2. factor input valuation methods estimate the value of an ecosystem service
which can substitute for an existing marketed input, or when the service contributes to measurable marketed output, the economic value of changes in the level
of the service can readily be inferred using information from the related input
and/or crop markets. For example, the value of biological nutrient cycling can
be estimated by its fertilizer replacement value or replacement cost in cereallegume systems (Bundy et al. 1993). This refers to the concept of Substitutability.
Under factor input valuation methods, production input (the value of inputs
required to production), profitability trade-off, and stated preference methods
estimate the value of changes to the status quo, such as changing current farmer
cropping systems to include ecologically recommended practices.
So far economic research examining the economic value of the natural enemy
contribution to crop profitability has been limited, with the exception of Zhang and
Swinton (2009, 2012). Their approach to measuring the economic value of the
natural enemy complex was based on model-predicted densities of the pest and its
predators and a dynamic optimal pest control model that explicitly incorporates
N. Matthews et al.