u?Constanza, Robert Ralph d’Arge Rudolf de Groot Stephen Farber Monica Grasso Bruce Hannon Karin Limburg Shahid Naeem Robert V. O’Neill Jose Paruelo Robert G. RaskinPaul Suttonkk Marjan van den Belt1997?The Value of the World's Ecosystem Services and Natural Capital253-59Nature3876630&Introductory Survey Ecosystem Services The services of ecological systems and the natural capital stocksthat produce them are critical to the functioning of the Earth’s life-support system. They contribute to human welfare, both directly and indirectly, and therefore represent part of the total economic value of the planet.We have estimated the current economic value of 17 ecosystem service for 16 biomes, based on published studies and a few original calculations. For the entire biosphere, the value (most of which is outside the market) is estimated to be in the range of US$16–54 trillion (1012) per year, with an average of US$33trillion per year. Because of the nature of the uncertainties, thismust be considered a minimum estimate. Global gross national product total is around US$18 trillion per year.?rRobert Costanza Herman Daly Carl Folke Paul Hawken C. S. Holling Anthony J. McMichael David Pimentel David Rapport2000$Managing our Environmental Portfolio149 - 55 Bioscience502Introductory SurveyFeb.O?Hackett, Steven C.2001ZEnvironmental and Natural Resource Economics: Theory, Policy, and the Sustainable Society Armonk, NY M. E. Sharpe2nd Required text 0-7656-0682-8O?Harris, Jonathan2002EEnvironmental and Natural Resource Economics: A Contemporary ApproachBoston, New YorkHoughton Mifflin1st5Electronic Reserves Supplementary text, less advanced 0-618-13392-5N? Heal, Geofrey2002Globalization and BiodiversitySocial Science Research NetworkDIntroductory Survey Biodiversity public goods globalization bundling@Reduction of the earth's biodiversity as a result of human activities is a matter of great concern to prominent scientists. What are the economic aspects of this loss? In economic terms, what is biodiversity and why might it matter? And is the loss of biodiversity in any way connected with globalization of the economy.Zhttp://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/delivery.cfm/SSRN_ID355141_code021219670.pdf?abstractid=355141? -Rajaram Krishnan Jonathan Harris Neva Goodwin1995 A Survey of Ecological Economics 423 pages Island Press(Introductory Survey Ecological EconomicsO?6Perman, Roger Ma, Yue McGilvray, James Common, Michael2003,Natural Resource and Environmental EconomicsNew YorkPearson Addison Wesley3rd#Supplementary, more advanced, text. 0273655590HD? Solow, Robert1994.An Almost Practical Step Toward Sustainability-Assigning Economic Value to Natural Resources5Commission on Geosciences, Environment and Resources,National Academy Press"Introductory Survey Sustainability:http://books.nap.edu/books/0309051436/html/19.html#pagetop 0-309-05143-6Y? Swallow, S.K.1996FEconomic Issues in Ecosystem Management: An Introduction and Overview83-100*Agricultural and Resource Economics Review2525Introductory Survey Ecosystem Management Biodiversity* Ecosystem management may extend multiple use management, where economists identify and value a complex mix of ecosystem outputs. The dominant theme in conservation biology favors "safe minimum standards" (SMS) constraints on ecosystem attributes, which respond to complex and purely uncertain ecological knowledge and lead economists toward valuation questions that identify "tolerable" constraints. A hierarchical SMS constraint raises substitution possibilities among ecosystem-level components. Economists may identify unavoidable resource tradeoffs, such as in allocating land among elements of a reserve network, particularly when ecological wealth differs among geographically dispersed human communities. Economic and ecological ironies obfuscate intuitive contributions to ecosystem management policy.<http://agecon.lib.umn.edu/cgi-bin/detailview.pl?paperid=2938Required? "James N. Sanchirico James E. Wilen1999<Bioeconomics of Spatial Exploitation in a Patchy Environment129-1501Journal of Environmental Economics and Management372March? Rabin, Matthew1998Psychology and economics11-46Journal of Economic Literature361(Behavioral economics Bounded rationalityMarchBecause psychology systematically explores human judgment, behavior, and well-being, it can teach us important lessons about how humans differ from the way they are traditionally described by economists. This essay discusses a selection of psychological findings relevant to economics. While standard economics assumes that each person maximizes stable and coherent preferences given rationally-formed probabilistic beliefs, psychological research teaches us about ways to describe preferences more realistically, about biases in belief-formation, and about ways it is misleading to conceptualize people as attempting to maximize stable, coherent, and accurately perceived preferences.Vhttp://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0022-0515%28199803%2936%3A1%3C11%3APAE%3E2.0.CO%3B2-B? )James Wilson E. Ostrom B. Low R. Costanza2000LScale misperceptions: and the spatial dynamics of a social-ecological system243-57Ecological Economics31? Dawn C. Parker2000[Edge-effect externalities: Theoretical and empirical implications of spatial heterogeneity168#Agricultural and Resource Economics Davis, CA!University of California at DavisPh.D SeptembermydissD?"John C. V. Pezzey Michael A. Toman20028Progress and Problems in the Economics of Sustainability>International Yearbook of Environmental and Resource EconomicsT. Tietenberg H. FolmerCheltenham, UK Edward ElgarM?Herman E. Daly1991Steady-State Economics Island Press?Richard T Woodward2000[Sustainability as Intergenerational Fairness: Efficiency, Uncertainty and Numerical Methods581-593*American Journal of Agricultural Economics82F? Sandra Batie1989OSustainable development: challenges to the profession of agricultural economics*American Journal of Agricultural EconomicsDec.O?Franceschi, D. Kahn, J.R.2003Beyond strong sustainability211-220BInternational Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology103SustainabilitySince the Brundtland Commission's delineation of the term sustainable development in 1987, virtually every country has incorporated the terms sustainability and sustainable development into their planning vocabulary and criteria for decision-making. However, many issues remain unresolved. Broad and sweeping references to sustainability and sustainable development do not necessarily translate into implementable policies to achieve these goals. In particular, unresolved issues include developing an understanding of how one sector of the economy can contribute to the sustainable development of the economy as a whole and the role of ecological resources in sustainable development. Our paper provides an initial conceptual examination of these questions by folding mining and ecological quality into the sustainability discussion. We use the Brazilian Amazon as an application of our sustainable development model.?Costanza, R. Farber, Stephen2002Introduction to the special issue on the dynamics and value of ecosystem services: integrating economic and ecological perspectives367-373Ecological Economics413??Karin E. Limburg Robert V. O'Neill Costanza, R. Farber, Stephen2002Complex systems and valuation409-420Ecological Economics413EComplex system dynamics; Ecosystem services; Human welfare; ValuationEcological and economic systems are undeniably complex. Whereas a goal of delineating `ecosystem services' is to make readily apparent some of the important ways in which ecosystems underpin human welfare, insights are also gained by appreciating the nonlinear dynamic properties of ecosystems. In this paper, we review some of the relevant characteristics of complex systems. Ecosystems and economic systems share many properties, but valuation has typically been driven by short-term human preferences. Here we argue that as the force of humanity increases on the planet, ecosystem service valuation will need to switch from choosing among resources to valuing the avoidance of catastrophic ecosystem change.?.Farber, Stephen Matthew A. Wilson Costanza, R.2002?Economic and ecological concepts for valuing ecosystem services375-392Ecological Economics413The purpose of this special issue is to elucidate concepts of value and methods of valuation that will assist in guiding human decisions vis-à-vis ecosystems. The concept of ecosystem service value can be a useful guide when distinguishing and measuring where trade-offs between society and the rest of nature are possible and where they can be made to enhance human welfare in a sustainable manner. While win-win opportunities for human activities within the environment may exist, they also appear to be increasingly scarce in a `full' global ecological–economic system. This makes valuation all the more essential for guiding future human activity. This paper provides some history, background, and context for many of the issues addressed by the remaining papers in this special issue. Its purpose is to place both economic and ecological meanings of value, and their respective valuation methods, in a comparative context, highlighting strengths, weakness and addressing questions that arise from their integration.?APaul Ekins Sandrine Simon Lisa Deutsch Carl Folke Rudolf De Groot2003oA framework for the practical application of the concepts of critical natural capital and strong sustainability165-185Ecological Economics442-3cCritical natural capital; Environmental functions; Environmental sustainability; Sustainability gapFThis paper develops a methodology for identifying that natural capital––called critical natural capital (CNC)––the maintenance of which is essential for environmental sustainability. By consideration of the characteristics of natural capital, of the environmental functions that these characteristics enable natural capital to perform and of the importance of these functions to humans and the biosphere, it shows how sustainability standards in respect of these environmental functions may be derived. The difference between the current situation and these standards is termed the sustainability gap. The methodology that emerges from bringing these ideas together into a single analytical framework enables policy makers to identify the extent of current unsustainability, the principal causes of it, the elements and processes of natural capital (the CNC) which need to be maintained or restored to close the sustainability gap and the costs of so doing. The framework should therefore be of use in identifying priorities and policies for moving towards environmental sustainability.V?1Nunes, Paulo A.L.D. van den Bergh, Jeroen C.J.M.20016Economic valuation of biodiversity: sense or nonsense? 203 - 222Ecological Economics392GLife diversity; Biological resource; Biodiversity; Non-market valuation]This paper critically evaluates the notion and application of economic, monetary valuation of biological diversity, or biodiversity. For this purpose four levels of diversity are considered: genes, species, ecosystems and functions. Different perspectives on biodiversity value can be characterized through a number of factors: instrumental vs. intrinsic values, local vs. global diversity, life diversity vs. biological resources, etc. A classification of biodiversity values is offered, based on a system of logical relationships among biodiversity, ecosystems, species and human welfare. Suggestions are made about which economic valuation methods can address which type of biodiversity value. The resulting framework is the starting point for a survey and evaluation of empirical studies at each of the four levels of diversity. The contingent valuation method is by far the most used method. An important reason is that the other valuation methods are unable to identify and measure passive or nonuse values of biodiversity. At first sight, the resulting monetary value estimates seem to give unequivocal support to the belief that biodiversity has a significant, positive social value. Nevertheless, most studies lack a uniform, clear perspective on biodiversity as a distinct concept from biological resources. In fact, the empirical literature fails to apply economic valuation to the entire range of biodiversity benefits. Therefore, available economic valuation estimates should generally be regarded as providing a very incomplete perspective on, and at best lower bounds, to the unknown value of biodiversity changes.?5Brekke, Kjell Arne Howarth, Richard B. Nyborg, Karine2003GStatus-Seeking and Material Affluence: Evaluating the Hirsch Hypothesis29-39Ecological Economics451Relative consumption When individuals hold a preference for high relative consumption, competition to achieve social status can lead to inefficiently high levels of production and consumption, contributing to natural resource depletion and environmental degradation. In the 1970s, Fred Hirsch argued that an increasing portion of expenditure is allocated to status-seeking as average income rises. This paper critiques this hypothesis from two points of view. First, we note examples from the historical and anthropological literatures suggesting that status-seeking is often important in societies with relatively low incomes. Second, we consider a set of analytical models that focus on the economic consequences of status-seeking. When social status is defined in terms of the algebraic difference between an individual's consumption of a status good and the average consumption level in society, Hirsch's hypothesis holds true, and growth in the level of productivity and output can lead to declines in human welfare. If, on the other hand, status is linked to the ratio of individual and average consumption, Hirsch's hypothesis is valid only if social status and non-status goods are poor substitutes. The paper also considers two cases in which social status is defined in terms of the amount of time people devote to status-oriented activities. Under this assumption, productivity growth leaves time use unchanged, though the value of time devoted to status signaling increases in proportion to total expenditure.e?&Brekke, Kjell Arne Howarth, Richard B.2000The Social Contingency of Wants493-503Land Economics764-Relative consumption Intergenerational Equity Economic models typically assume that individual wants are determined by forces exogenous to the economic system. Social psychology and consumer research, in contrast, support the view that the perceived benefits of goods and services are strongly affected by endogenously determined social norms. We present a selective overview of the literature on the relationship between consumption and well-being, exploring the ways in which informal arguments from social science might be linked to formal models of economic behavior. We find that the "fixed preferences" hypothesis leads to the systematic undervaluation of environmental services and the underprovisioning of environmental goods.-?6Stavins, Robert N. Wagner, Alexander F. Wagner, Gernot2003_Interpreting Sustainability in Economic Terms: Dynamic Efficiency Plus Intergenerational Equity339-43Economic Letters'Intergenerational Equity Sustainability7 Economists have confined the concept of "sustainability" to intertemporal distributional equity. We propose a broader definition, combining dynamic efficiency and intergenerational equity, and relate it to two concepts from neoclassical economics: potential Pareto-improvements and inter-personal compensation.h? $Pezzey, John C. V. Toman, Michael A.2002=The Economics of Sustainability: A Review of Journal ArticlesWashington, DCResources for the Future'Intergenerational Equity Sustainability* Resources for the Future Discussion Paper_ Concern about sustainability helped to launch a new agenda for development and environmental economics and challenged many of the fundamental goals and assumptions of the conventional, neoclassical economics of growth and development. We review 25 years' of refereed journal articles on the economics of sustainability, with emphasis on analyses that involve concern for intergenerational equity in the long-term decisionmaking of a society; recognition of the role of finite environmental resources in long-term decisionmaking; and recognizable, if perhaps unconventional, use of economic concepts, such as instantaneous utility, cost, or intertemporal welfare. Taken as a whole, the articles reviewed here indicate that several areas must be addressed in future investigation: improving the clarity of sustainability criteria, maintaining distinctions between economic efficiency and equity, more thoroughly investigating many common assumptions in the literature about prospects for resource substitution and resource-enhancing technical change, and encouraging the empirical investigation of sustainability issues.02/03sc?2 Parker, D.2007\Revealing "Space" in Spatial Externalities: Edge-Effect Externalities and Spatial"?Rabin, Matthew2002)A perspective on psychology and economics657-685European Economic Review464-5<Behavioral economics Time inconsistency Relative consumptionThis essay provides a perspective on the recent trend towards integrating psychology into economics. Some specific topics are discussed briefly, and arguments are provided for why greater psychological realism will improve mainstream economics._http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6V64-44XCB5M-2/2/6a6fe9ca92b4999e11b262afdb046e28Required G?)Keohane, N. O. Revesz, R. Stavins, Robert2000<The choice of regulatory instruments in environmental policy559-602/Economics of the Environment: Selected ReadingsStavins, RobertNew York W. W. Norton4thRequired03-393-97523-1O? Tietenberg, T.2003&Storable, renewable resources: Forests254-280,Environmental and Natural Resource EconomicsBostonAddison Wesley6thO?!Tietenberg, T.2003@Renewable common-property resources: Fisheries and other species281-311,Environmental and Natural Resource EconomicsBostonAddison Wesley6th?"&Hanley, Nick Shogren, Jason White, Ben2001 Biodiversity294-315'Introduction to Environmental EconomicsNew YorkOxford University Press$D?#"John C. V. Pezzey Michael A. Toman2002 IntroductionThe Economics of Sustainability"John C. V. Pezzey Michael A. Toman Aldershot, UK?$ Sandra Batie1992KSustainable agricultural development: The role of international cooperation391-402SProceedings of the Twenty-First International Conference of Agricultural EconomistsBrookfield, Vt. Aldershot 22-29 August4?%/George Loewenstein Ted O'Donoghue Matthew Rabin2003,PROJECTION BIAS IN PREDICTING FUTURE UTILITY 1209 -- 1248Quarterly Journal of Economics1184People exaggerate the degree to which their future tastes will resemble their current tastes. We present evidence from a variety of domains which demonstrates the prevalence of such projection bias, develop a formal model of it, and use this model to demonstrate its importance in economic environments. We show that, when people exhibit habit formation, projection bias leads people to consume too much early in life, and to decide, as time passes, to consume more - and save less - than originally planned. Projection bias can also lead to misguided purchases of durable goods. We discuss a number of additional applications and implications.F?&$Tassone, V.C. Wesseler, J. Nesci, S.In pressDiverging incentives for the afforestation from carbon sequestration: an economic analysis of the EU afforestation program in the south of ItalyForest policy and economics?'Sedjo, R. A. Marland, G.2003vInter-trading permanent emissions credits and rented temporary carbon emissions offsets: some issues and alternatives435-444Climate Policy3?( Daily, G.1997=Nature's Services: Societal Dependence on Natural Ecosystems Covelo, CA Island PressEcosystem Services#?)Gretchen C. Daily Tore Söderqvist Sara Aniyar Kenneth Arrow Partha Dasgupta Paul R. Ehrlich Carl Folke AnnMari Jansson Bengt-Owe Jansson Nils Kautsky Simon Levin Jane Lubchenco Karl-Göran Mäler David Simpson David Starrett David Tilman Brian Walker2000+The Value of Nature and the Nature of Value395-396Science289Ecosystem Services Ecosystems are capital assets: When properly managed, they yield a flow of vital goods and services. Relative to other forms of capital, however, ecosystems are poorly understood, scarcely monitored, and--in many important cases--undergoing rapid degradation. The process of economic valuation could greatly improve stewardship. This potential is now being realized with innovative financial instruments and institutional arrangements?*:de Groot, Rudolf S. Matthew A. Wilson Roelof M.J. Boumans2002gA typology for the classification, description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services 393–408Ecological Economics41Ecosystem ServicesAn increasing amount of information is being collected on the ecological and socio-economic value of goods and services provided by natural and semi-natural ecosystems. However, much of this information appears scattered throughout a disciplinary academic literature, unpublished government agency reports, and across the World Wide Web. In addition, data on ecosystem goods and services often appears at incompatible scales of analysis and is classified differently by different authors. In order to make comparative ecological economic analysis possible, a standardized framework for the comprehensive assessment of ecosystem functions, goods and services is needed. In response to this challenge, this paper presents a conceptual framework and typology for describing, classifying and valuing ecosystem functions, goods and services in a clear and consistent manner. In the following analysis, a classification is given for the fullest possible range of 23 ecosystem functions that provide a much larger number of goods and services. In the second part of the paper, a checklist and matrix is provided, linking these ecosystem functions to the main ecological, socio–cultural and economic valuation methods.?+John V. Krutilla1967Conservation Reconsidered777-786American Economic Review574Introductory SurveyF?,Ussif R. Sumaila Carl WaltersIn Press7Intergenerational discounting: a new intuitive approachEcological EconomicsThis paper proposes a new intergenerational discounting approach for computing net benefits from the use of environmental resources. The approach explicitly incorporates the perspectives of both the current and future generations, as argued for by Pigou [Pigou, A.C., 1920. The Economics ofWelfare 1952 (4th edition), London: Macmillan] and Ramsey [Ramsey, F.P., 1928. A mathematical theory of saving, Econ. J., 38 543–559], and required by most national and international laws related to the use of these resources. An equation for use in the calculation of net discounted benefits is developed, which provides a dmiddleT position whereby both the drealityT of dpersonalT discounting and that of dsocialT discounting are included in a social welfare function.X?1J Parker, Dawn C. Munroe, Darla K.2007vThe geography of market failure: Edge-effect externalities and the location and production patterns of organic farming821-833Ecological Economics6040http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.02.002?. Cooper, Ben1999JChasing After the Wind: the Pursuit of Happiness Through Economic Progress4-12 Kategoria13?/Swallow, S.K. Wear, D.1993^Spatial Interactions in Multiple-Use Forestry and Substitution and Wealth for the Single Stand103-1201Journal of Environmental Economics and Management25?04Amacher, Gregory S. Erkki Koskella Markku Ollikainen2004WForest Rotations and Stand Interdependency: Ownership Structure and Timing of Decisions1-43Natural Resource Modeling171  Incentives84-991Journal of Environmental Economics and Management541,http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jeem.2006.12.004+D?3 (Kjell Arne Brekke Olof Johansson-Stenman2008+The Behavioural Economics of Climate ChangeWORKING PAPERS IN ECONOMICS@School of Business, Economics, and Law, University of GothenburgMayNThis paper attempts to bring some central insights from behavioural economics into the economics of climate change. In particular, it discusses (i) implications of prospect theory, the equity premium puzzle and time inconsistent preferences in the choice of discount rate used in climate change cost assessments, and (ii) the implications of various kinds of social preferences for the outcome of climate negotiations. Several reasons are presented for why it appears advisable to choose a substantially lower social discount rate than the average return on investments. It also seems likely that taking social preferences into account increases the possibilities of obtaining international agreements, compared to the standard model. However, there are also effects going in the opposite direction, and the importance of sanctions is emphasised.305?4 Jason F. Shogren Laura O. Taylor2008%On Behavioral-Environmental Economics26-44,Review of Environmental Economics and Policy21Ojl?5Robert Mendelsohn2008)Is the Stern Review an Economic AnalysOj?9 Thomas Sterner U. Martin Persson2008OAn Even Sterner Review:Ol?:Simon Dietz Nicholas Stern2008hWhy Economic Analysis SupportOkH?;John P. Weyant2008SA Critique of the Stern Review's Mitigati Bis?45-60,Review of Environmental Economics and Policy21 -j Introducing Relative Prices into the Discoun Jting Debate61-76,Review of Environmental Economics and Policy21ion Cost Analyses and Integrated Assessment77-93,Review of Environmental Economics and Policy21/?l?<ARobert Mendelsohn Thomas Sterner U. Martin Persso s Strong Action on Climate Change: A Response to the Stern Review's Critics94-113,Review of Environmental Economics and Policy21 n John P. Weyant2008Comments on Simon Dietz and Nicholas Stern's Why Economic Analysis Supports Strong Action on Climate Change: A Response to the Stern Review's Critics309-313,Review of Environmental Economics and Policy22|?=William Nordhaus2007:Critical Assumptions in the Stern Review on Climate Change201-202Science317?>Nicholas Stern Chris Taylor20072Climate Change: Risk, Ethics, and the Stern Review203-204Science317;?? "Cass R. Sunstein Richard H. Thaler2003*Libertarian Paternalism Is Not An Oxymoron1AEI-BROOKINGS JOINT CENTER FOR REGULATORY STUDIES~The idea of libertarian paternalism might seem to be an oxymoron, but it is both possible and legitimate for private and public institutions to affect behavior while also respecting freedom of choice. Often people’s preferences are ill-formed, and their choices will inevitably be influenced by default rules, framing effects, and starting points. In these circumstances, a form of paternalism cannot be avoided. Equipped with an understanding of behavioral findings of bounded rationality and bounded self-control, libertarian paternalists should attempt to steer people’s choices in welfare-promoting directions without eliminating freedom of choice. It is also possible to show how a libertarian paternalist might select among the possible options and to assess how much choice to offer. Examples are given from many areas, including savings behavior, labor law, and consumer protection.www.aei.brookings.org03-02?@ 8Elizabeth J Z Robinson Heidi J Albers Jeffrey C Williams2005uAnalyzing the Impact of Excluding Rural People from Protected Forests: Spatial Resource Degradation and Rural Welfare?AJMike Christie Nick Hanley John Warren Kevin Murphy Robert Wright Tony Hyde2006%Valuing the diversity of biodiversity 304– 317Ecological Economics58FPolicy makers have responded to concerns over declining levels of biodiversity by introducing a range of policy measures including agri-environment and wildlife management schemes. Costs for such measures are relatively easy to establish, but benefits are less easily estimated. Economics can help guide the design of biodiversity policy by eliciting public preferences on different attributes of biodiversity. However, this is complicated by the generally low level of awareness and understanding of what biodiversity means on the part of the general public. In this paper we report research that applied the choice experiment and contingent valuation methods to value the diversity of biological diversity. Focus groups were used to identify ecological concepts of biodiversity that were important and relevant to the public, and to discover how best to describe these concepts in a meaningful and understandable manner. A choice experiment examined a range of biodiversity attributes including familiarity of species, species rarity, habitat, and ecosystem processes, while a contingent valuation study examined public willingness to pay for biodiversity enhancements associated with agri-environmental and habitat re-creation policy. The key conclusions drawn from the valuation studies were that the public has positive valuation preferences for most, but not all, aspects of biodiversity, but that they appeared to be largely indifferent to how biodiversity protection was achieved. Finally, we also investigate the extent to which valuation workshop approaches to data collection can overcome some of the possible information problems associated with the valuation of complex goods. The key conclusion was that the additional opportunities for information exchange and group discussion in the workshops helped to reduce the variability of value estimates.?B6LUKE M. BRANDER RAYMOND J. G. M. FLORAX JAN E. VERMAAT2006`The Empirics of Wetland Valuation: A Comprehensive Summary and a Meta-Analysis of the Literature 223–250$Environmental and Resource Economics33Wetlands are highly productive ecosystems, providing a number of goods and services that are of value to people. The open-access nature and the public-good characteristics of wetlands often result in these regions being undervalued in decisions relating to their use and conservation. There is now a substantial literature on wetland valuation, including two meta-analyses that examine subsets of the available wetland valuation literature. We collected over 190 wetland valuation studies, providing 215 value observations, in order to present a more comprehensive meta-analysis of the valuation literature that includes tropical wetlands (e.g., mangroves), estimates from diverse valuation methodologies, and a broader range of wetland services (e.g., biodiversity value). We also aim for a more comprehensive geographical coverage. We find that socio-economic variables, such as income and population density, that are often omitted from such analyses are important in explaining wetland value. We also assess the prospects for using this analysis for out-of-sample value transfer, and find average transfer errors of 74%, with just under one-fifth of the transfers showing errors of 10% or less.?C"R.J. Imeson J.C.J.M. van den Bergh2006}Policy failure and stakeholder dissatisfaction in complex ecosystem management: The case of the Dutch Wadden Sea shellfishery 488– 507Ecological Economics56]Birds; Co-management; Ecosystem management; Predator–prey system; Shellfish; SustainabilityPAt the beginning of the 1990s, a combination of a sharp decline in shellfish populations and mass bird mortality in the Dutch Wadden Sea led to a conflict between conservationists and the shellfishery. The conflict gave rise to the establishment of a shellfish management policy in 1993. Although this policy certainly improved upon the old situation, without clear restrictions on fishing effort, the policy has been unable to manage the complex ecosystem satisfactorily. This paper addresses the question of why the conflict was not resolved. At the heart of the problem lie an improperly functioning co-management arrangement and general disagreement about which changes in the management policy should be adopted. In order to understand the fishing industry, the conservationist and the government positions in the co-management arrangement, we analyse what has been the impact of the current shellfish policy on the satisfaction of the objectives of the various stakeholders. We examine whether the implementation of alternative policy scenarios could lead to the establishment of a sustainable shellfishery. The case of the Dutch shellfishery is an important example of an unsustainable management policy. As such, this paper illuminates many of the problems faced by fisheries management regimes worldwide and suggests how some of them could be avoided.4F?DRobert U. Ayres2008,Sustainability economics: Where do we stand?Ecological EconomicsIn PressEnvironmental economics, which is a branch of resource economics – the environment as a scarce resource – is essentially about market failures, the costs of pollution and pollution abatement, and the economics of regulation. Sustainability economics includes the problem of maintaining economicgrowth,while reducingpollutionand/or its impacts,with special attention to the linked problems of energy supply (not tomention the supply other exhaustible resources), climate change and – most urgently – fossil fuel consumption. There is a need for integration of resource and environmental economics under a new rubric, sustainability economics.0http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.12.009TF?E(Fabio Grazia Jeroen C.J.M. van den Bergh2008jSpatial organization, transport, and climate change: Comparing instruments of spatial planning and policy Ecological EconomicsIn PressICommuting; Global warming; Location choice; Physical planning; Urban formApproaching the analysis of climate policies from a spatial organization perspective is necessary for realizing both efficient and effective mitigation of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. In particular, it allows assessing the potential contribution of specific mechanisms of spatial organization and related spatial planning and policy to climate policy goals. So far, this spatial organization angle of climate policy has hardly received attention in the literature. The main sector significantly contributing to GHG emissions and sensitive to spatial organization and planning is urban transport. A qualitative evaluation of the available spatial organization policy options is provided, on the basis of four standard ‘E criteria’ and a decomposition of CO2 emissions.0http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.01.014F?FL. Venkatachalam2008-Behavioral economics for environmental policyEcological EconomicsIn PresslBounded rationality; Behavioral anomalies; Endowment effect; Hyperbolic discounting and Environmental policyThe predictions of widely prescribed global and country level environmental policies at present are based mainly on mainstream economic models, which treat individual actors to be ‘unboundedly rational’ in their decision making. In recent years, however, behavioral and experimental economists have found that the individual actors in many circumstances act within a ‘bounded rationality’ framework, suggesting that predictions based on the ‘unbounded rationality’ models would be less valid. While some of mainstream economists have already started adopting the bounded rationality-based models in their academic discourse, many environmental economists seem to be reluctant to use these alternative models of rationality in their research and policy prescriptions. This paper highlights the implications of using bounded rationality models in environmental research in general and policymaking in particular.0http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.01.018F?G5Peter Nijkampa Gabriella Vindignib Paulo A.L.D. Nunes20087Economic valuation of biodiversity: A comparative studyEcological EconomicsIn PressMeta-analysis; Biodiversity values; Policy formulation; Non-market valuation methods; Market valuation methods; Benefit transferIn recent years, an intensive debate on the economic valuation of biodiversity has entered the environmental-economics literature. The present paper seeks to offer first a critical review of key concepts that are essential for a proper understanding of such evaluation issues. Particular attention is given here to various monetary valuation approaches and to comparative (i.e., meta-analytical) methods from the perspective of conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity. Several illustrative examples are presented in order to highlight the usefulness of the various approaches discussed. Next, an attempt is made to infer general findings and lessons from past applied research by means of meta-analysis. In this context, a multi-dimensional technique originating from the field of artificial intelligence is deployed. It allows us to identify the most important variables responsible for changes in economic estimates of biodiversity.0http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.03.003 >Ashgate1http://people.anu.edu.au/jack.pezzey/ashg2002.doc S?HPezzey, John C. V.2006ZReconsidering reconsidered: Why sustainable discounting need not be inconsistent over time69-766Discounting and Discount Rates in Theory and Practice.D. Pannell S. Schilizzi Cheltenham Edward ElgarEconomists assess dollar costs and benefits in the future by discounting them. Each cost or benefit is multiplied by a discount factor appropriate to the time when it occurs, and then total discounted costs are subtracted from total discounted benefits to get net present value. The rate by which the discount factor declines over time is the discount rate. Economists also apply discounting to costs and benefits measured in terms of wellbeing, and the discount rate is then called (the rate of) impatience. Whether or not impatience should be constant over time is important to long-run development theory. If non-renewable resources are essential inputs to production, then the return on capital investment will eventually decline towards zero, and thus fall below any constant rate of impatience. Once this happens, and assuming the economy always maximises net present value, then wellbeing will be falling over time. So there is considerable interest in ‘sustainable discounting’: using a falling rate of impatience that stays below the return on capital investment, and thus gives a sustainable development of, rather than an eventual fall in, wellbeing. However, any non-constant rate of impatience typically causes inconsistency, where people make a plan now for their entire future, but on reconsidering it later, want to change their plan. I show diagrammatically that inconsistency occurs only if people use a relative time approach to reconsidering, by using a discount factor that depends only on how far off future costs and benefits are relative to the moment of reconsidering. If instead people use an absolute time approach, where the discount factor depends only on the date of some future cost or benefit, then no inconsistency occurs. So sustainable discounting using the absolute time approach offers a way of achieving sustainable development where conventional, constant discounting would make it impossible. However, there is little evidence so far that people are prepared to constrain their impatience as may be required by sustainable discounting.1http://people.anu.edu.au/jack.pezzey/incnsis7.pdf