Loading…
Equity and Cost-Effectiveness in Valuation and Action Planning to Preserve Biodiversity
Economic research and frameworks, comprehensively synthesized in “The Economics of Biodiversity: The Dasgupta Review” (Dasgupta 2021), can do much to help stem global biodiversity loss. However, ingrained features of economics as a discipline often produce explanations and solutions for environmenta...
Saved in:
Published in: | Environmental & resource economics 2022-12, Vol.83 (4), p.999-1015 |
---|---|
Main Author: | |
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Subjects: | |
Citations: | Items that this one cites Items that cite this one |
Online Access: | Get full text |
Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
cited_by | cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c420t-5e00ee2d235498ee4e6f0783823151626f245297571e57010c0531b8141ca2a43 |
---|---|
cites | cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c420t-5e00ee2d235498ee4e6f0783823151626f245297571e57010c0531b8141ca2a43 |
container_end_page | 1015 |
container_issue | 4 |
container_start_page | 999 |
container_title | Environmental & resource economics |
container_volume | 83 |
creator | Ando, Amy W. |
description | Economic research and frameworks, comprehensively synthesized in “The Economics of Biodiversity: The Dasgupta Review” (Dasgupta 2021), can do much to help stem global biodiversity loss. However, ingrained features of economics as a discipline often produce explanations and solutions for environmental problems that advantage wealthy and powerful entities in our global society rather than those who are poor or otherwise marginalized. This paper highlights two dimensions of economic research related to biodiversity where disciplinary bias can lead to ineffective and inequitable work: biodiversity valuation, and targeting causes of biodiversity loss to be changed. First, it shows how valuation approaches can best be used to inform actions that capture both use and non-use values and include the perspectives and needs of people who are typically marginalized in governance processes. Second, it discusses how global action to preserve biodiversity will be cost-ineffective and inequitable unless we take at least some steps to identify and correct actions taken by wealthy countries and large-scale producers that contribute much to the biodiversity crisis, rather than focusing policy primarily on the behavior of low-income individuals and households. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1007/s10640-022-00674-1 |
format | article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2739296937</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2739296937</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c420t-5e00ee2d235498ee4e6f0783823151626f245297571e57010c0531b8141ca2a43</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kEtLw0AURgdRsFb_gKuA69F755ksa6kPKNiFj-UwpjclpU7amaTQf29sBHeu5i7O-QYOY9cItwhg7xKCUcBBCA5grOJ4wkaoreSoQZyyERRCcaMMnLOLlNYAUFhlRuxjtuvq9pD5sMymTWr5rKqobOs9BUopq0P27jedb-smHJlJeTwXGx9CHVZZ22SLSIninrL7uln2Ykz94CU7q_wm0dXvO2ZvD7PX6ROfvzw-TydzXioBLdcEQCSWQmpV5ESKTAU2l7mQqNEIUwmlRWG1RdIWEErQEj9zVFh64ZUcs5thdxubXUepdeumi6H_0gkrC1GYQtqeEgNVxialSJXbxvrLx4NDcD8B3RDQ9QHdMaDDXpKDlHo4rCj-Tf9jfQNh6nGb</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2739296937</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Equity and Cost-Effectiveness in Valuation and Action Planning to Preserve Biodiversity</title><source>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)</source><source>ABI/INFORM Global (ProQuest)</source><source>EconLit with Full Text【Remote access available】</source><source>Springer Link</source><creator>Ando, Amy W.</creator><creatorcontrib>Ando, Amy W.</creatorcontrib><description>Economic research and frameworks, comprehensively synthesized in “The Economics of Biodiversity: The Dasgupta Review” (Dasgupta 2021), can do much to help stem global biodiversity loss. However, ingrained features of economics as a discipline often produce explanations and solutions for environmental problems that advantage wealthy and powerful entities in our global society rather than those who are poor or otherwise marginalized. This paper highlights two dimensions of economic research related to biodiversity where disciplinary bias can lead to ineffective and inequitable work: biodiversity valuation, and targeting causes of biodiversity loss to be changed. First, it shows how valuation approaches can best be used to inform actions that capture both use and non-use values and include the perspectives and needs of people who are typically marginalized in governance processes. Second, it discusses how global action to preserve biodiversity will be cost-ineffective and inequitable unless we take at least some steps to identify and correct actions taken by wealthy countries and large-scale producers that contribute much to the biodiversity crisis, rather than focusing policy primarily on the behavior of low-income individuals and households.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0924-6460</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1573-1502</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s10640-022-00674-1</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands</publisher><subject>Action planning ; Biodiversity ; Biodiversity loss ; Cost analysis ; Economic Policy ; Economic research ; Economics ; Economics and Finance ; Environmental Economics ; Environmental Law/Policy/Ecojustice ; Environmental Management ; Governance ; Households ; Valuation</subject><ispartof>Environmental & resource economics, 2022-12, Vol.83 (4), p.999-1015</ispartof><rights>The Author(s) 2022</rights><rights>The Author(s) 2022. This work is published under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c420t-5e00ee2d235498ee4e6f0783823151626f245297571e57010c0531b8141ca2a43</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c420t-5e00ee2d235498ee4e6f0783823151626f245297571e57010c0531b8141ca2a43</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-3279-8075</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/2739296937/fulltextPDF?pq-origsite=primo$$EPDF$$P50$$Gproquest$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/2739296937?pq-origsite=primo$$EHTML$$P50$$Gproquest$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,11688,12847,27924,27925,33223,36060,44363,74895</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Ando, Amy W.</creatorcontrib><title>Equity and Cost-Effectiveness in Valuation and Action Planning to Preserve Biodiversity</title><title>Environmental & resource economics</title><addtitle>Environ Resource Econ</addtitle><description>Economic research and frameworks, comprehensively synthesized in “The Economics of Biodiversity: The Dasgupta Review” (Dasgupta 2021), can do much to help stem global biodiversity loss. However, ingrained features of economics as a discipline often produce explanations and solutions for environmental problems that advantage wealthy and powerful entities in our global society rather than those who are poor or otherwise marginalized. This paper highlights two dimensions of economic research related to biodiversity where disciplinary bias can lead to ineffective and inequitable work: biodiversity valuation, and targeting causes of biodiversity loss to be changed. First, it shows how valuation approaches can best be used to inform actions that capture both use and non-use values and include the perspectives and needs of people who are typically marginalized in governance processes. Second, it discusses how global action to preserve biodiversity will be cost-ineffective and inequitable unless we take at least some steps to identify and correct actions taken by wealthy countries and large-scale producers that contribute much to the biodiversity crisis, rather than focusing policy primarily on the behavior of low-income individuals and households.</description><subject>Action planning</subject><subject>Biodiversity</subject><subject>Biodiversity loss</subject><subject>Cost analysis</subject><subject>Economic Policy</subject><subject>Economic research</subject><subject>Economics</subject><subject>Economics and Finance</subject><subject>Environmental Economics</subject><subject>Environmental Law/Policy/Ecojustice</subject><subject>Environmental Management</subject><subject>Governance</subject><subject>Households</subject><subject>Valuation</subject><issn>0924-6460</issn><issn>1573-1502</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2022</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>8BJ</sourceid><sourceid>M0C</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kEtLw0AURgdRsFb_gKuA69F755ksa6kPKNiFj-UwpjclpU7amaTQf29sBHeu5i7O-QYOY9cItwhg7xKCUcBBCA5grOJ4wkaoreSoQZyyERRCcaMMnLOLlNYAUFhlRuxjtuvq9pD5sMymTWr5rKqobOs9BUopq0P27jedb-smHJlJeTwXGx9CHVZZ22SLSIninrL7uln2Ykz94CU7q_wm0dXvO2ZvD7PX6ROfvzw-TydzXioBLdcEQCSWQmpV5ESKTAU2l7mQqNEIUwmlRWG1RdIWEErQEj9zVFh64ZUcs5thdxubXUepdeumi6H_0gkrC1GYQtqeEgNVxialSJXbxvrLx4NDcD8B3RDQ9QHdMaDDXpKDlHo4rCj-Tf9jfQNh6nGb</recordid><startdate>20221201</startdate><enddate>20221201</enddate><creator>Ando, Amy W.</creator><general>Springer Netherlands</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>C6C</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7ST</scope><scope>7WY</scope><scope>7WZ</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>87Z</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8BJ</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8FL</scope><scope>ABJCF</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BEZIV</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FQK</scope><scope>FRNLG</scope><scope>F~G</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>JBE</scope><scope>K60</scope><scope>K6~</scope><scope>L.-</scope><scope>L6V</scope><scope>M0C</scope><scope>M7S</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PQBIZ</scope><scope>PQBZA</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PTHSS</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>SOI</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3279-8075</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20221201</creationdate><title>Equity and Cost-Effectiveness in Valuation and Action Planning to Preserve Biodiversity</title><author>Ando, Amy W.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c420t-5e00ee2d235498ee4e6f0783823151626f245297571e57010c0531b8141ca2a43</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2022</creationdate><topic>Action planning</topic><topic>Biodiversity</topic><topic>Biodiversity loss</topic><topic>Cost analysis</topic><topic>Economic Policy</topic><topic>Economic research</topic><topic>Economics</topic><topic>Economics and Finance</topic><topic>Environmental Economics</topic><topic>Environmental Law/Policy/Ecojustice</topic><topic>Environmental Management</topic><topic>Governance</topic><topic>Households</topic><topic>Valuation</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Ando, Amy W.</creatorcontrib><collection>Springer_OA刊</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest_ABI/INFORM Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (PDF only)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Materials Science & Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Agricultural & Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>AUTh Library subscriptions: ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Premium Collection</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (Corporate)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Professional Advanced</collection><collection>ProQuest Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (ProQuest)</collection><collection>Engineering Database</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>One Business (ProQuest)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>Engineering Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><jtitle>Environmental & resource economics</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Ando, Amy W.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Equity and Cost-Effectiveness in Valuation and Action Planning to Preserve Biodiversity</atitle><jtitle>Environmental & resource economics</jtitle><stitle>Environ Resource Econ</stitle><date>2022-12-01</date><risdate>2022</risdate><volume>83</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>999</spage><epage>1015</epage><pages>999-1015</pages><issn>0924-6460</issn><eissn>1573-1502</eissn><abstract>Economic research and frameworks, comprehensively synthesized in “The Economics of Biodiversity: The Dasgupta Review” (Dasgupta 2021), can do much to help stem global biodiversity loss. However, ingrained features of economics as a discipline often produce explanations and solutions for environmental problems that advantage wealthy and powerful entities in our global society rather than those who are poor or otherwise marginalized. This paper highlights two dimensions of economic research related to biodiversity where disciplinary bias can lead to ineffective and inequitable work: biodiversity valuation, and targeting causes of biodiversity loss to be changed. First, it shows how valuation approaches can best be used to inform actions that capture both use and non-use values and include the perspectives and needs of people who are typically marginalized in governance processes. Second, it discusses how global action to preserve biodiversity will be cost-ineffective and inequitable unless we take at least some steps to identify and correct actions taken by wealthy countries and large-scale producers that contribute much to the biodiversity crisis, rather than focusing policy primarily on the behavior of low-income individuals and households.</abstract><cop>Dordrecht</cop><pub>Springer Netherlands</pub><doi>10.1007/s10640-022-00674-1</doi><tpages>17</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3279-8075</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0924-6460 |
ispartof | Environmental & resource economics, 2022-12, Vol.83 (4), p.999-1015 |
issn | 0924-6460 1573-1502 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_2739296937 |
source | International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS); ABI/INFORM Global (ProQuest); EconLit with Full Text【Remote access available】; Springer Link |
subjects | Action planning Biodiversity Biodiversity loss Cost analysis Economic Policy Economic research Economics Economics and Finance Environmental Economics Environmental Law/Policy/Ecojustice Environmental Management Governance Households Valuation |
title | Equity and Cost-Effectiveness in Valuation and Action Planning to Preserve Biodiversity |
url | http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-24T03%3A23%3A21IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Equity%20and%20Cost-Effectiveness%20in%20Valuation%20and%20Action%20Planning%20to%20Preserve%20Biodiversity&rft.jtitle=Environmental%20&%20resource%20economics&rft.au=Ando,%20Amy%20W.&rft.date=2022-12-01&rft.volume=83&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=999&rft.epage=1015&rft.pages=999-1015&rft.issn=0924-6460&rft.eissn=1573-1502&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s10640-022-00674-1&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2739296937%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c420t-5e00ee2d235498ee4e6f0783823151626f245297571e57010c0531b8141ca2a43%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2739296937&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |