The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: Recent Instances for Debate
By Beatriz Rodríguez-Labajos, J. Martínez-Alier. 2013
616 citations recorded by the source corpus.
After 1992 many conservation biologists thought that the use of economic instruments would be more effective to halt biodiversity loss than policies based on setting apart some natural spaces outside the market. At the same time there was a new elaboration of the concept of ecosystem services and, since 1997, there have been attempts at costing in money terms the loss of ecosystem services and biodiversity, including the high profile TEEB (The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity) project (2008-2011). Our discussion rests on instances showing the analytical implications of three main socio-economic meanings of biodiversity loss: 1) the loss of natural capital; 2) the loss of ecosystem functions; and 3) the loss of cultural values and human rights to livelihood. We review several approaches to include economic considerations in biodiversity conservation. We show cases where monetary valuation is relevant and other cases where it is controversial and even counterproductive, as it undermines the objectives of conservation.
Subfields: Economics and Econometrics, Global and Planetary Change
View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/85e91d420d6eb9690cfc26b10b513fef6d47adc3
How researchers see this paper
The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.
In Economics and Econometrics
In Global and Planetary Change
Citations in the corpus
- The science, policy and practice of nature-based solutions: An interdisciplinary perspective. (2017, background): “This might be the biggest strength of the NBS concept, but this can also bring the risk of ‘overselling nature’ (Rodriguez-Labajos and Martinez-Alier, 2013) or of encouraging a perception of ecosystems as entirely-substitutable by other assets used by humans.”