Evaluation of Nature Conservation

D. Strijker, F. Sijtsma and D. Wiersma

Environmental & Resource Economics, 2000, vol. 16, issue 4, 363-378

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. Copyright Kluwer Academic Publishers 2000

Keywords: nature conservation; project evaluation; The Netherlands (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2000
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (3)

Downloads: (external link)
http://hdl.handle.net/10.1023/A:1008344604392 (text/html)
Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:kap:enreec:v:16:y:2000:i:4:p:363-378

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.springer. ... al/journal/10640/PS2

DOI: 10.1023/A:1008344604392

Access Statistics for this article

Environmental & Resource Economics is currently edited by Ian J. Bateman

More articles in Environmental & Resource Economics from Springer, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists Contact information at EDIRC.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Sonal Shukla () and Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing ().