There are two approaches for evaluating the enviromental resources: physical and monetary. Of course, they have many advantages according to themselves. but, how can we entitle as "this is best"? on the other hand, do we benefit from both of them? If we do, how?
Hello Ahmet, as you say they both have advantages and limitations. I would say it would depend on your audience, or who needs the results, and neither approach is superior to the other. But considering money talks louder than sentiment in our world then a monetary evaluation would have a greater impact. Consider how investors and financial companies are now concerned about climate change not because of the environmental impacts but because of the impact it will have on their investments. If this then leads to a cleaner environment and then less impact from climate change, then we have received a benefit. - Michael
If the evaluation can be done accurately, both approaches should yield the same result. The physical costs and benefits, with appropriate pricing, should be convertible to monetary values. But it is easier said than done. hence, wild guesstimates abound. Good luck with your efforts.
Evaluation is needed to make a decision. It is necessary to put a price on natural resources, because assuming, that they are "priceless" would result in spending all the money on the natural environment protection and abandoning other fields (for example education). However looking for an efficient solution basing at monetary evaluation is dangerous: let's say that trees are a bit more valuable that lakes. The result would be to concentrate all effort on protecting trees, because this would bring about the best outcomes in terms of money. Of course later the WTA for trees would decrease and WTA for lakes would increase, but this could be too late. Thereof think about using multi-criteria decison methods. It can help balancing tangible and intangible goals.
Bests
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Phytochemistry
- Extracts