Sinha Paramita, Ringold Paul, Van Houtven George, Krupnick Alan
RTI International, 701 13th Street, N.W., Suite 750, Washington, D.C. 20005 USA.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 200 SW 35th Street, Corvallis, Oregon 97333 USA.
Ecosphere. 2018 Sep;9(9). doi: 10.1002/ecs2.2382. Epub 2018 Sep 13.
Evaluating environmental policies requires estimating the impacts of policy-induced changes on ecological and human systems. Drawing connections between biophysical and economic models is complex due to the multidisciplinary nature of the task and the lack of data. Further, time and resource constraints typically limit our ability to conduct original valuation studies to fit the specific policy context. Policy analysts thus rely on methods to transfer and adapt value estimates from existing studies. To conduct end-to-end policy analysis, assumptions are needed to make the linkages between ecological and valuation models as well as to conduct benefit transfers. This paper discusses an approach that can potentially help a policy analyst to minimize assumptions and identify appropriate caveats. This approach focuses on what human beings truly value from ecosystems, or, in other words, metrics of Final Ecosystem Goods and Services (FEGS). our hypothesis is that the FEGS approach will help support policy analysis by drawing important linkages between ecological and economic models as well as by designing valuation studies that will be more conducive to benefit transfers. To examine this hypothesis, we use a selected set of existing valuation studies as case study examples, and we examine how the methods used in these studies compare with the FEGS approach. We find that the studies are not always consistent with the FEGS approach, in many cases due to data limitations. We illustrate ways in which using FEGS metrics can provide economists with a useful starting point for considering how the commodity can be defined and specified in the valuation study. Even if data limitations exist, a FEGS approach can help in determining whether the context in which the original study was conducted matches with the policy context. This can also help in determining the extent of uncertainty associated with the analysis and in providing transparent documentation that can be informative for policy makers.
评估环境政策需要估算政策引发的变化对生态系统和人类系统的影响。由于这项任务具有多学科性质且缺乏数据,因此在生物物理模型和经济模型之间建立联系十分复杂。此外,时间和资源限制通常会制约我们开展原创性估值研究以契合特定政策背景的能力。政策分析师因此依赖于从现有研究中转移和调整价值估算的方法。为了进行端到端的政策分析,需要做出假设来建立生态模型和估值模型之间的联系,并进行效益转移。本文讨论了一种方法,该方法可能有助于政策分析师尽量减少假设并识别适当的注意事项。这种方法关注人类从生态系统中真正重视的东西,或者换句话说,关注最终生态系统产品和服务(FEGS)的指标。我们的假设是,FEGS方法将通过在生态模型和经济模型之间建立重要联系以及设计更有利于效益转移的估值研究,来帮助支持政策分析。为了检验这一假设,我们选取了一组现有的估值研究作为案例研究示例,并考察这些研究中使用的方法与FEGS方法相比如何。我们发现,这些研究并不总是与FEGS方法一致,在许多情况下是由于数据限制。我们举例说明了使用FEGS指标如何能为经济学家提供一个有用的起点,以便考虑在估值研究中如何定义和明确商品。即使存在数据限制,FEGS方法也有助于确定原始研究开展的背景是否与政策背景相匹配。这也有助于确定与分析相关的不确定性程度,并提供可为政策制定者提供信息的透明文档。