The importance of sound biological information and theory for ecological economics studies valuing Brazilian biodiversity: A response to Mendonça et al. (2003)

• Published in: Ecological economics 2005-10, Vol.55 (1), p.5-10
• Main Author: Brito, Daniel
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Biodiversity; Conservation biology; Contingent valuation; Ecology; Environmental economics; Information acquisition; Leontopithecus chrysopygus; Leontopithecus rosalia; Micoureus travassosi; Nature conservation; Population viability analysis; Project evaluation
• ISSN: 0921-8009; 1873-6106
• DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2005.05.009

Biodiversity valuation is a controversial issue. Mendonça et al. (2003) [Mendonça, M.J.C., Sachsida, A., Loureiro, P.R.A., 2003. A study on the valuing of biodiversity: the case of three endangered species in Brazil. Ecological Economics 46, 9–18] use data from published results of population viability analyses (PVAs) coupled with taxonomic information based on a methodology proposed by Montgomery et al. (1999) [Montgomery, C.A., Pollak, R.A., Freemark, K., White, D., 1999. Pricing biodiversity. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 38, 1–19] to estimate the management price of three mammal species from Brazil: the golden lion tamarin ( Leontopithecus rosalia), the black lion tamarin ( Leontopithecus chrysopygus) and the long-furred woolly mouse opossum ( Micoureus travassosi). However, there are several inconsistencies in the information given by Mendonça et al. (2003) and articles from which they based their analyses. Mendonça et al. (2003) misunderstand metapopulation and extinction concepts, wrongfully interpret PVAs results, and show a lack of knowledge on mammalian taxonomy and systematics. These data are cornerstones for their analyses. Therefore, the results presented by Mendonça et al. (2003) should be viewed with caution. Despite being a controversial issue, ecological economics studies will only give reliable results and management insights if they rely on sound biological information. The lack of biological knowledge and the lack of interaction with biologists may invalidate results, and worst of all, if not detected, they may lead to dissemination of wrong information, mislead management strategies and lead to catastrophic consequences for biodiversity. Biodiversity conservation is part of an economic world, and I praise Mendonça et al. (2003) for trying to merge technical biological information to economic studies of biodiversity valuation, but sound scientific information from biological sciences is of paramount importance for the development of such multidisciplinary approaches, and the sources of such information should be biologists, not economists. For such analyses to have any chance to succeed, a collaboration of both economists and biologists is necessary.