생태계평가

Ecosystem valuation

생태계 가치평가는 생태계 및/또는 그 생태계 서비스에 가치(통화, 생물물리학 또는 기타)를 할당하는 경제적 과정이다. 예를 들어, 탄소를 격리하고, 멸종 위기에 처한 종에게 서식지를 제공하고, 유해한 화학물질을 흡수하면서 홍수와 침식을 줄이기 위한 숲의 인간 복지 혜택을 계량화함으로써, 그러한 수익화는 정책 입안자와 보호론자들이 경영에 미치는 영향을 평가하고 비용 대비 편익 분석을 비교할 수 있는 도구를 이상적으로 제공한다. 잠재적 정책의 그러나 그러한 평가는 추정치이며, 비시장적 원가와 효익을 평가하는 본질적인 양적 불확실성과 철학적 논쟁을 포함한다.

역사와 경제모델

역사

비용 편익 분석과 시장 가치 창출은 수세기 동안 경제 문헌 내에 존재해왔다. 그러나 1997년 오리건주 포틀랜드 주립대학의 로버트 코스탄자(Robert Costanza) 지속가능성(Grative University of University) 교수는 생태계 가치평가 분야에 새로운 관심을 불러일으키며 전 세계적인 생태계 서비스 가치를 최초로 추정했다. 그와 그의 동료들은 그러한 서비스들이 연간 33조 달러(현재 44조 달러)의 가치가 있다고 계산했다.[1]

코스탄자의 팡파르에도 불구하고 30년이 지난 세계은행은 "자연생태계가 제공하는 혜택은 널리 인정받고 있고 이해도 부족하다"[2]고 말했다.

2007년 G8+5 국가 환경장관들은 정책 입안에 그러한 지식의 중요성을 언급하며, 세계 생태계 혜택, 보존 비용, 그리고 그러한 생태계를 개발하기 위한 기회 비용 계산에 공개적으로 동의하고 착수했다. 그 결과로 생긴 분수령 이니셔티브와 진행중인 프로젝트는 생태계와 생물다양성의 경제학(TEB)이다.

미국에서는 2011년 대통령 직속 과학기술위원회가 생태계 성과, 품질, 가치의 동향을 연구하는 '4년마다 생태계 서비스 동향(Quest) 평가(Quest) 평가'를 제정하고 자금을 지원해야 한다고 제안했다.[3]

경제 모델: 가치, 비용 및 가치 방법론

생태계 평가는 다양한 경제 방법론을 사용하여 복잡한 자연 웹 내에 포함된 편익과 비용의 범위를 파악하려고 시도한다.

생태계는 프로비저닝(예: 먹을 물고기, 팔 목재), 규제, 지원, 문화(예: 토착 채집 기법을 지원하는 생태계, 또는 전통 의류를 위한 공급)의 네 가지 일반적인 범주의 서비스를 제공한다.[4] 이 복잡한 주제에 대한 망그로브 특유의 예는 그림 1.을 참조하십시오.

그림 1. 맹그로브 서식지에 대한 생태계 서비스 범위 예

이 네 가지 유형의 서비스는 두 가지 기본 범주인 사용 범주와 비사용 범주를 제공할 수 있다. 환경 경제학자들은 개인이 기꺼이 지불할 의향이 있는 것으로 분류했다.

  • 직접 사용 값.
    • 정통 환경 경제학자들을 위한 가장 간단한 형태의 생태계 평가로, 이것은 상품 시장에서와 같은 직접적인 생태학적 수확량을 해석한다. 예를 들어, 즉시 개발되어 시장가격으로 판매될 경우 물, 목재, 생선 또는 다른 상품들의 가치.따라서 교환가치 또는 '가격'은 생태계와 관련된 자연자본으로 간주되는 가치의 대상과 관련되며, 이는 매년 운영시장에서 교환이 가능하고 기존 교환가격을 갖는 수익률을 산출하는 시스템의 능력에 기초할 수 있다.
  • Indirect use value attributed to indirect utilization of ecosystem services, through the positive externalities that ecosystems provide.
    • 세계은행은 이러한 가치들이 "생태계 자체 밖에서 혜택을 제공하는 생태계 서비스에서 파생된 것"이라고 설명한다. 흔히 하류에 사는 사람들에게 혜택을 주는 천연물 여과, 해안가 특성과 기반시설에 혜택을 주는 맹그로브 숲의 폭풍보호 기능, 기후변화를 억제해 지구촌 전체에 혜택을 주는 탄소 격리 등이 그 예다.[2]
  • Option value attributed to preserving the option to utilize ecosystem services in the future.
  • Existence value attributed to the pure existence of an ecosystem.
  • Altruistic value based on the welfare the ecosystem may give other people.
  • Bequest value based on the welfare the ecosystem may give future generations.

Given these types of potential ecological values, economists utilize a variety of methods to calculate those market values and measure non-market values. Standard environmental economic methods are used to place a monetary value on ecosystem services where there are no market prices. These include "stated preference" methods and "revealed preference" methods. Stated preference methods, such as the contingent valuation method ask people for their willingness to pay for a certain ecosystem (service). Revealed preference methods, such as hedonic pricing and the travel cost method, use a relation with a market good or service to estimate the willingness-to-pay for the service. Applying such preference based approaches has been criticized as a means of deriving the value of ecosystems and biodiversity and for avoiding deliberation, justification and judgment in making choices.[5] The monetary value society attaches to ecosystem services depends on the income distribution.[6][7][8]

Valuation Results

While the literature is still emerging, many important studies have resulting in striking valuations.

One academic paper by de Groot et. al., which synthesized more than 300 scholarly works collectively evaluating the 10 main biomes, "shows that the total value of ecosystem services is considerable and ranges between 490 int$/year for the total bundle of ecosystem services that can potentially be provided by an ‘average’ hectare of open oceans to almost 350,000 int$/year for the potential services of an ‘average’ hectare of coral reefs."[9] This potential benefit can take many forms depending on the degree of exploitation and such exploitation's sustainability, but can result, for example, in large ecotourist revenues for local communities, protection from storm destruction, or profit for an international lumber company.

Furthermore, de Groot et. al. find that most of their paper's calculated value is "outside the market and best considered as non-tradable public benefits. The continued over-exploitation of ecosystems thus comes at the expense of the livelihood of the poor and future generations."[9]

The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB), in one of its first large, cumulative reports, also found that ecosystem services start at roughly $100/hectare/year for open ocean, and top off to more than $1,000,000/hectare/year for the most lucrative coral reefs.[10]

Beyond biome "price tags," these environmental valuations can explore quite complex policy questions. For example, the Copenhagen Consensus think tank calculated that stemming the loss of coral reefs by 50 percent by 2030 would return more than $24 for every dollar spent. The Consensus' founder, Bjorn Lomborg, explains that "coral reefs, which both act as fishery hatcheries and fishing resources while storing abundant numbers of species. At the same time, coral reefs possess an amazing beauty, which both shows up in large tourism revenues but also in most individuals saying they are willing to pay a certain amount to make sure they continue to exist for our grand children. … [Programs to preserve 50% more coral reef by 2030] cost about $3 billion per year but the total benefits likely run to at least $72, or about $24 dollars back for every dollar invested."[11]

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) manages the Integrated Valuation Environmental Services and Tradeoffs (InVEST) Natural Capital Project. This open-source tool—although geared towards policy-makers, advocates, and scientists—allows anyone to interact with a map quantifying "trade-offs between alternative management choices" and identifying "areas where investment in natural capital can enhance human development and conservation.”[12]

As another example, the Basque Centre for Climate Change (BC3) hosts the Artificial Intelligence for Environment & Sustainability (ARIES) Project. This open-source software was designed to integrate scientific models for environmental sustainability assessment and policy-making,[13] with an initial focus on ecosystem services[14]

Payment for Environmental Services (PES)

After (and, sometimes, before) evaluating the ecosystem costs and benefits, some programs have attempted to internalize those values with specific programs providing payments for environmental services. Costa Rica paid about $42/hectare for landowners to preserve forests;[15] in 2010 Norway began paying Indonesia a total of $1 billion to mitigate deforestation;[16] China responded to 1998 floods with payments targeting deforestation and soil erosion;[4] and many other programs large and small.

Controversies with and Limits to Ecosystem Valuations

From an academic perspective, although scholarly research is quite rapidly adding to this field of understanding, many knowledge gaps still remain. For example, there is an inherent uncertainty in attempting to quantify non-market goods. As pointed to by de Groot et. al., many environmental goods (such as clean air and biodiversity) are simply not traded in established markets. In addition, many environmental goods may be non-rival, non-excludable, and even inseparable goods with multiple value options further complicating any valuation.

From an ethical and philosophical perspective, too, ecosystem valuation is far from uncontroversial. Arguments about the non-market valuation of ecosystem can be found by referring to environmental ethics and deep ecology.

Since animals do not put explicit prices on ecosystems they use, but do behave as if they are valuable, e.g. by selecting one territory vs. another, defending their territories, etc., it is mostly a matter of definition whether ecology should include valuation as an issue. It may be anthropocentric to do so, since "valuation" more clearly refers to a human perception rather than being an "objective" attribute of the system perceived. Ecology itself is also human perception, and such related concepts as a food chain are constructed by humans to help them understand ecosystems. In many cases by those who hold that markets and pricing exist independently of any individual human observers and "users", and especially those who deem markets to be "out of control", ecosystem valuation is considered a (marginal, ignored) part of economics. Others argue that natural capital is an economic concept that is at least as viable as financial capital, which itself is determined on subjective valuation. Some even suggest that valuation of ecosystem services is more cogent than financial valuation, as the ecosystem would continue after the collapse of the economy, while the inverse is not valid.

게다가 생태계 혜택이 어디로 가고, 그 혜택을 누가 지불해야 하는가에 대한 많은 매혹적인 질문들은 현재 진행중인 정치적 논쟁이다. 워싱턴의 한 도시에서는 주민들이 도시 상수원에 인접한 토지를 사고 복구하기 위해 수도 요금을 지불하고 있다; 그리고 서비스를 평가하고 비용을 지불하는 국제적인 사례들은 현재 진행중인 개발의 매혹적인 분야다.[17]

참고 항목

참조

  1. ^ Constanza, Robert (15 May 1997). "The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital". Nature. 387 (6630): 253–260. Bibcode:1997Natur.387..253C. doi:10.1038/387253a0.
  2. ^ a b "How Much is an Ecosystem Worth? Assessing the Economic Value of Conservation" (PDF). The World Bank. October 2004.
  3. ^ "Report to the President. Sustaining Environmental Capital: Protecting Society and the Economy" (PDF). July 2011.
  4. ^ a b Holzman, David C. (April 2012). "Accounting for Nature's Benefits: The Dollar Value of Ecosystem Services". Environmental Health Perspectives. 120 (4): a152–a157. doi:10.1289/ehp.120-a152. PMC 3339477. PMID 22469778.
  5. ^ 2008년 C.L. 스파시. 창문에 있는 저 생태계는 얼마니? 생물학적 다중우주의 흔적을 가진 사람. 환경가치, 제17권, 제2호, 제259-284호
  6. ^ Drupp, Moritz A.; Meya, Jasper N.; Baumgärtner, Stefan; Quaas, Martin F. (August 2018). "Economic Inequality and the Value of Nature" (PDF). Ecological Economics. 150: 340–345. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2018.03.029. hdl:10419/171723. ISSN 0921-8009.
  7. ^ Baumgärtner, Stefan; Drupp, Moritz A.; Meya, Jasper N.; Munz, Jan M.; Quaas, Martin F. (September 2017). "Income inequality and willingness to pay for environmental public goods". Journal of Environmental Economics and Management. 85: 35–61. doi:10.1016/j.jeem.2017.04.005. ISSN 0095-0696.
  8. ^ Jacobsen, Jette Bredahl; Hanley, Nick (2008-08-08). "Are There Income Effects on Global Willingness to Pay for Biodiversity Conservation?" (PDF). Environmental and Resource Economics. 43 (2): 137–160. doi:10.1007/s10640-008-9226-8. hdl:1893/503. ISSN 0924-6460.
  9. ^ a b De Groot, Rudolf; Brander, Luke; Van Der Ploeg, Sander; Costanza, Robert; Bernard, Florence; Braat, Leon; Christie, Mike; Crossman, Neville; Ghermandi, Andrea; Hein, Lars; Hussain, Salman; Kumar, Pushpam; McVittie, Alistair; Portela, Rosimeiry; Rodriguez, Luis C; Ten Brink, Patrick; Van Beukering, Pieter (2012-07-01). "Global estimates of the value of ecosystems and their services in monetary units". Ecosystem Services. 1 (1): 50–61. doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2012.07.005. ISSN 2212-0416.
  10. ^ "The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) For Water and Wetlands". February 2013.
  11. ^ Lomborg, Bjørn (2014-10-31). "Biodiversity: What's Worth Saving?". Huffington Post. Retrieved 2018-03-05.
  12. ^ "Integrated Valuation of Environmental Services and Tradeoffs (InVEST)". coast.noaa.gov. Retrieved 2018-03-05.
  13. ^ ARIES: 정책 지원 도구, ipbes.그물을 치다
  14. ^ 모델 및 데이터에 대한 가이드, unstats.un.org
  15. ^ Sánchez-Azofeifa, G. Arturo; Pfaff, Alexander; Robalino, Juan Andres; Boomhower, Judson P. (October 2007). "Costa Rica's payment for environmental services program: intention, implementation, and impact" (PDF). Conservation Biology. 21 (5): 1165–1173. doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2007.00751.x. hdl:10161/6955. ISSN 1523-1739. PMID 17883482.
  16. ^ "After seven years, Norway's US$1 billion REDD deal in Indonesia is still not stopping deforestation REDD-Monitor". www.redd-monitor.org. Retrieved 2018-03-05.
  17. ^ "How much money is a healthy ecosystem worth?". Retrieved 2018-03-05.
일반
  • Daily, Gretchen (1997). Nature's services : societal dependence on natural ecosystems. Washington, DC: Island Press. ISBN 978-1-55963-476-2. OCLC 228040018.
  • Hanley, Nick (1993). Cost-benefit analysis and the environment. Aldershot, Hants, England Brookfield, Vt: E. Elgar. ISBN 978-1-85278-947-3.
  • 피어스, 데이비드 W. 그리고 R. 케리 터너, 1990. 천연자원과 환경의 경제. 영국 엑서터 BPCC Whatsons Ltd. 378 pp.
  • 푸테할리, 일마스. 전략적 선견지명 그룹, 인도. [1]

외부 링크