E.C.M. Ruijgrok . P. Vellinga
view would like to make sure that the natural capital stock has not been reduced. In
order to determine this, they will try to determine ecological values at various points
in time.
The view of functionality allows for both substitution within and between capital
stock. The objective of this view is to realize substitutions that increase the income
generating capacity of the total capital stock. To achieve this objective financial values
can be used, because these represent actually earned income.
The view of coevolution only allows for substitution within capital stocks. In order
to determine how much compensation is needed within the natural capital stock, one
can use ecological values that indicate whether the new nature is equally valuable in
terms of its quantity and quality as the lost nature. This does however not provide information about the welfare generating capacity of nature for society. Since social
welfare with maintenance of ecological qualities, is the objective of this view, socialecdnomic values are needed too. In order to determine whether the welfare potential
of nature has not been reduced, socio-econornic values of nature should be determined.
It may be remarked here that the coevolution view allows for giving up natural site at
a specific location for the sake of economic activities. This site then needs to be compensated for elsewhere. The compensation site is not necessarily of equal size as the
lost site, but it is of the same socio-economic value and also of the same ecological value.
This way the welfare generating potential and the ecological potential of the natural
capital stock are secured for future generations.
5.6
Conclusions and Discussion
From the above one may conclude that how one wishes to integrate chances for nature
in coastal zone management depends on one's basic view on nature. Views on nature
determine substitution possibilities and the way in which nature is valued. According
to the coevolution. view which acknowledges both use possibilities of nature and the
possibility of overutilisation, both economic and ecological valuations of may be useful information to support public decision making.
If the coevolution view is to become more widely accepted in public decision making, the need for the development of easy to apply trade off frameworks and the role of
socio-economic valuation are expected to increase. Ecological valuation is needed to
detetmine 'nature for nature' compensations. Socio-economic valuation of natural capital seems a necessity for determining sustainable development.
The economic valuation of natural goods and services is necessary in order to determine how much society can use of each type of capital, without destroying welfare
generating capacity of the capital stocks. This requires that prices of goods and services reflect true social preferences and that these are internalized in economic transactions. A second requirement is that the inputs are used to achieve a maximum amount
of outputs. In other words: if the prices are right and if the production is cost efficient,
an optimal situation is reached concerning the use of capital resources. This is called
allocative efficiency, because resources are allocated in an efficient way (Varian 1990).
Unfortunately allocative efficiency does not automatically lead to sustainable development; it is however a prerequisite. Both allocative efficiency and sustainable use
of resources require the use of correct prices. Using the right prices may direct society
view would like to make sure that the natural capital stock has not been reduced. In
order to determine this, they will try to determine ecological values at various points
in time.
The view of functionality allows for both substitution within and between capital
stock. The objective of this view is to realize substitutions that increase the income
generating capacity of the total capital stock. To achieve this objective financial values
can be used, because these represent actually earned income.
The view of coevolution only allows for substitution within capital stocks. In order
to determine how much compensation is needed within the natural capital stock, one
can use ecological values that indicate whether the new nature is equally valuable in
terms of its quantity and quality as the lost nature. This does however not provide information about the welfare generating capacity of nature for society. Since social
welfare with maintenance of ecological qualities, is the objective of this view, socialecdnomic values are needed too. In order to determine whether the welfare potential
of nature has not been reduced, socio-econornic values of nature should be determined.
It may be remarked here that the coevolution view allows for giving up natural site at
a specific location for the sake of economic activities. This site then needs to be compensated for elsewhere. The compensation site is not necessarily of equal size as the
lost site, but it is of the same socio-economic value and also of the same ecological value.
This way the welfare generating potential and the ecological potential of the natural
capital stock are secured for future generations.
5.6
Conclusions and Discussion
From the above one may conclude that how one wishes to integrate chances for nature
in coastal zone management depends on one's basic view on nature. Views on nature
determine substitution possibilities and the way in which nature is valued. According
to the coevolution. view which acknowledges both use possibilities of nature and the
possibility of overutilisation, both economic and ecological valuations of may be useful information to support public decision making.
If the coevolution view is to become more widely accepted in public decision making, the need for the development of easy to apply trade off frameworks and the role of
socio-economic valuation are expected to increase. Ecological valuation is needed to
detetmine 'nature for nature' compensations. Socio-economic valuation of natural capital seems a necessity for determining sustainable development.
The economic valuation of natural goods and services is necessary in order to determine how much society can use of each type of capital, without destroying welfare
generating capacity of the capital stocks. This requires that prices of goods and services reflect true social preferences and that these are internalized in economic transactions. A second requirement is that the inputs are used to achieve a maximum amount
of outputs. In other words: if the prices are right and if the production is cost efficient,
an optimal situation is reached concerning the use of capital resources. This is called
allocative efficiency, because resources are allocated in an efficient way (Varian 1990).
Unfortunately allocative efficiency does not automatically lead to sustainable development; it is however a prerequisite. Both allocative efficiency and sustainable use
of resources require the use of correct prices. Using the right prices may direct society