Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-ttngx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-30T16:46:43.634Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Quantifying the Non-Use Value of Biodiversity in Cost–Benefit Analysis: The Dutch Biodiversity Points

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 January 2021

Frits Bos Open the ORCID record for Frits Bos [Opens in a new window]  and
Arjan Ruijs
Frits Bos*
Affiliation:
CPB Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis, The Hague, Netherlands
Arjan Ruijs
Affiliation:
ACTIAM Sustainable Asset Management, Utrecht, Netherlands
*
*e-mail: bosghirmai@kpnmail.nl
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Biodiversity points are a quantitative measure for biodiversity. For over a decade, biodiversity points are being applied in the Netherlands for measuring the impact of roads, enclosure dams, and other water management projects on the non-use value of biodiversity. Biodiversity points are quite similar to the quality-adjusted life years used for cost-effectiveness analysis of healthcare treatments. Biodiversity points can be calculated by multiplying the size of the ecotope (e.g., number of hectare), the ecological quality of the ecotope (0–100 %), and the ecological scarcity of each type of ecotope. For many infrastructure projects, the impact on the non-use value of biodiversity can be a principal purpose or a major co-benefit or trade-off, for example, for a park, a fish sluice, a road, an ecoduct, an enclosure dam, or a marine protected area. Biodiversity points are a simple, transparent, and standardized way to aggregate and quantify the qualitative or ordinal assessments by ecological experts. For measuring the non-use value of biodiversity, they are also more informative than valuation by revealed or stated preferences methods. This paper provides the first overview of the application of this method in the Dutch practice of cost–benefit analysis. It also discusses its merits and limitations. The calculation and use of biodiversity points are illustrated by four case studies.

Keywords

biodiversitycost–benefit analysisecological points methodecosystem serviceshabitat equivalence analysisinfrastructurenatural capitalthreat-weighted ecological quality area methodwater managementH43H54Q51Q57
Type
Article
Information
Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis , Volume 12 , Issue 2 , Summer 2021 , pp. 287 - 312
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Society for Benefit-Cost Analysis

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Annema, J. A., and Koopmans, C.. 2015. “The Practice of Valuing the Environment in Cost-Benefit Analyses in Transport and Spatial Projects.” Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 58: 1635–1648.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Asian Development Bank. 2013. “Cost-Benefit Analysis for Development: A Practical Guide.” Mandaluyong City, Philippines.Google Scholar
Atkinson, G., and Mourato, S.. 2008. “Environmental Cost-Benefit Analysis.” Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 33(1): 317–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartkowski, B., Lienhoop, N., and Hansjürgens, B.. 2015. “Capturing the Complexity of Biodiversity: A Critical Review of Economic Valuation Studies of Biological Diversity.” Ecological Economics, 113: 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boardman, A. E., Greenberg, D. H., Vining, A. R., and Weimer, D. L.. 2006. Cost-Benefit Analysis: Concepts and Practice, 3rd edition. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.Google Scholar
Bos, F. 2008. “The Dutch Fiscal Framework; History, Current Practice and the Role of the Central Planning Bureau.” OECD Journal on Budgeting, 8(1): 7–48.Google Scholar
Bos, F., and Ruijs, A.. 2018. How to Account for the Impact on Nature in CBA Practice? Five Case Studies from the Netherlands, Paper Presented at the 10th BCA-Conference, Washington, March 15–16, 2018.Google Scholar
Bos, F., and Ruijs, A.. 2019. Biodiversity in the Dutch Practice of Cost-Benefit Analysis, CPB Background Document.Google Scholar
Bos, F., and Zwaneveld, P.. 2017. Cost-Benefit Analysis for Flood Risk Management and Water Governance in the Netherlands: An Overview of One Century. The Hague, The Netherlands: CPB Background Document August 2017, CPB Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis.Google Scholar
Bos, F., Zwaneveld, P., and Puijenbroek, P.. 2012. Een snelle kosten-effectiviteitanalyse voor het Deltaprogramma IJsselmeergebied, CPB Background Document.Google Scholar
Boyd, J., and Banzhaf, S.. 2007. “What Are Ecosystem Services? The Need for Standardized Environmental Accounting Units.” Ecological Economics, 63: 616–626.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boyd, J., Ringold, P., Krupnick, A., Johnston, R. J., Weber, M. A., and Hall, K.. 2014. “Ecosystem Services Indicators: Improving the Linkages Between Biophysical and Economic Analyses.” International Review of Environmental and Resource Economics, 8: 359–443.Google Scholar
Cardinale, B. J., Duffy, J. E., Gonzalez, A., Hooper, D. U., Perrings, C., Venail, P., Narwani, A., Mace, G. M., Tilman, D., Wardle, D. A., Kinzig, A. P., Daily, G. C., Loreau, M., Grace, J. B., Larigauderie, A., Srivastava, D. S., and Naeem, S.. 2012. “Biodiversity Loss and Its Impact on Humanity.” Nature, 486: 59–67.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). 2004. Decision VII/30.Google Scholar
Ebregt, J., Eijgenraam, C. J. J., and Stolwijk, H. J. J.. 2005. Kosteneffectiviteit van maatregelen en pakketten – kosten-baten analyse voor Ruimte voor de Rivier, deel 2 (Cost-effectiveness of measures and packages – cost-benefit analysis for More Room for Rivers, Part 2), CPB document 83, The Hague, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Eijgenraam, C. J. J., Koopmans, C. C., Tang, P. J. G., and Verster, A. C. P.. 2000. Evaluatie van infrastructuurprojecten; leidraad voor Kosten-batenanalyse, Deel I. The Hague, The Netherlands: Hoofdrapport Onderzoeksprogramma Economische Effecten Infrastructuur.Google Scholar
European Commission. 1992. Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the Conservation of Natural Habitats and of Wild Fauna and Flora.Google Scholar
European Commission. 2014. Guide to Cost-Benefit Analysis of Investment Project; Economic Appraisal Tool for Cohesion Policy 2014-2020.Google Scholar
European Environment Agency. 2012. Streamlining European biodiversity indicators 2020: Building a future on lessons learnt from the SEBI 2010 process. Available at: https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/streamlining-european-biodiversity-indicators-2020. (accessed November 4, 2020).Google Scholar
Fiselier, J., and Botman, B.. 2020. Pilot Grevelingen Natuurlijk Kapitaal, Ecosysteemdiensten en Biodiversiteit. Report by Royal Haskoning DHV and B2 Consultancy.Google Scholar
Freeman, A. M. III, Herriges, J. A., and Kling, C. L.. 2014. The Measurement of Environmental and Resource Values, 3rd edition. New York: RFF Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grevers, W., and Zwaneveld, P.. 2011. Een kosten-effectiviteitsanalyse naar de toekomstige inrichting van de Afsluitdijk. The Hague, The Netherlands: CPB.Google Scholar
Isbell, F., Gonzalez, A., Loreau, M., Cowles, J., Díaz, S., Hector, A., Mace, G., Wardle, D. A., and O’Connor, M. I., Duffy, J. E., Turnbull, L. A., Thompson, P. L., and Larigauderie, A.. 2017. “Linking the Influence and Dependence of People on Biodiversity Across Scales.” Nature, 546: 65–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jaspers, C. J., Mouissie, M., Wessels, S., Barke, J., Kolen, M., and Bucholc, A.. 2016. Natuurpuntensysteem voor uniforme waardering van natuur-kwaliteit. Houten, The Netherlands: SWECO Nederland.Google Scholar
Johnston, R. J., Boyle, K. J., Adamowicz, W., Bennett, J., Brouwer, R., Cameron, T. A., Hanemann, W. M., Hanley, N., Ryan, M., Scarpa, R., Tourangeau, R., and Vossler, C. A. 2017. “Contemporary Guidance for Stated Preference Studies .” Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, 4(2): 319–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klooster, J., Warringa, G., and Ohm, J.. 2018. Werkwijzer Natuur: Maatschappelijke Kosten-Baten Analyses. CE Delft, The Netherlands: Arcadis.Google Scholar
Koetse, M. J., Renes, G., Ruijs, A., and de Leeuw, A. J.. 2018. Relative Price Increase for Nature and Ecosystem Services in Cost-Benefit Analysis. The Hague, The Netherlands: PBL Background Study.Google Scholar
Laurans, Y., Rankovic, A., Billé, R., Pirard, R., and Mermet, L.. 2013. “Use of Ecosystem Services Economic Valuation for Decision Making: Questioning a Literature Blindspot.” Journal of Environmental Management, 119: 208–219.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lely, C. 1901. Ontwerp van wet tot afsluiting en droogmaking van de Zuiderzee met toelichtende memorie, Text downloadable via www.gutenberg.org, eBook 36317.Google Scholar
Liefveld, W. M., Didderen, K., Lengkeek, W., Japink, M., Bouma, S., and Visser, M. M.. 2011. Evaluating Biodiversity of the North Sea Using Eco-points; Testing the Applicability for European Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) Assessments, Bureau Waardenburg Consultants for Environment & Ecology. Report on Request of the Dutch Ministry of Infrastructure and Water Management. Google Scholar
Markandya, A. 2016. Cost-benefit Analysis and the Environment: How to Best Cover Impacts on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, OECD Working Papers 101, Paris, France: OECD Publishing.Google Scholar
Mishan, E. J., and Quah, E.. 2007. Cost-Benefit Analysis. 5th edition. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
NEI and RIN. 1978. Een haven op het Balgzand? Een economische en ecologische afweging van de voor- en nadelen van een beperkte zeehavenontwikkeling ten behoeve van Den Helder. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Rijksinstituut voor Natuurbeheer, Nederlands Economisch Instituut.Google Scholar
OECD. 2006. Cost-Benefit Analysis and the Environment: Recent Developments. Paris, France: OECD Publishing.Google Scholar
OECD. 2018. Cost-Benefit Analysis and the Environment: Further Developments and Policy Use. Paris, France: OECD Publishing. Report by Atkinson, G., Braathen, N. A., Groom, B., and Mourata, S. Google Scholar
Ray, G. L. 2008. Habitat Equivalency Analysis: A Potential Tool for Estimating Environmental Benefits. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center. http://www.dtic.mil/cgibin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA475708&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf Google Scholar
Rijkswaterstaat. 2020. Handreiking natuurlijk kapitaal en ecosysteemdiensten grote wateren. Royal HaskoningDHV and B2consultancy.Google Scholar
Roach, B., and Wade, W. W.. 2006. “Policy Evaluation of Natural Resource Injuries Using Habitat Equivalency Analysis.” Ecological Economics, 58(2): 421–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Romijn, G., and Renes, G.. 2013. General Guidance for Cost-Benefit Analysis. CPB Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis / PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency . The Hague, The Netherlands. Available at https://www.pbl.nl/sites/default/files/downloads/pbl-cpb-2015-general-guidance-for-cost-benefit-analysis_01512.pdf. (accessed November 4, 2020).Google Scholar
Ruijgrok, E. C. M., Brouwer, R., and Verbruggen, H.. 2004. Waardering van Natuur, Water en Bodem in Maatschappelijke Kosten-batenanalyses, Aanvulling op de Leidraad OEI, In opdracht van het ministerie van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit, in samenwerking met de ministeries van Verkeer en Waterstaat, Economische Zaken, Financiën en VROM.Google Scholar
Saitua, R. 2004. Verruiming van de vaarweg van de Schelde; een maatschappelijke kosten-batenanalyse. The Hague, The Netherlands: CPB, VITO.Google Scholar
Schaefer, M., Goldman, E., Bartuska, A. M., Sutton-Grier, A., and Lubchenco, J.. 2015. “Nature as Capital: Advancing and Incorporating Ecosystem Services in United States Federal Policies and Programs.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112(24): 7383–7389.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sijtsma, F. J. 2006. “Project Evaluation, Sustainability and Accountability – Combining Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA) and Multi-Criteria Analysis (MCA).” PhD Thesis, University of Groningen. Stichting REG, nr 27. Groningen. http://dissertations.ub.rug.nl/faculties/eco/2006/f.j.sytsma/.Google Scholar
Sijtsma, F. J., Farjon, H., van Tol, S., van Hinsberg, A., van Kampen, P., and Buijs, A.. 2013. “Evaluation of Landscape Changes – Enriching the Economist’s Toolbox with the Hotspot Index.” In The Economic Value of Landscapes, edited by Heijman, W., and van der Heide, C. M. J., 136–164. London, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
Sijtsma, F. J., van der Heide, C. M., and van Hinsberg, A.. 2011. “Biodiversity and Decision-support: Integrating CBA and MCA.” In Evaluation for Participation and Sustainability in Planning. Chapter 9, edited by Hull, A., Alexander, E., Khakee, A., and Woltjer, J., 197–218. London, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
Sijtsma, F. J., van der Heide, C. M., and van Hinsberg, A.. 2013. “Beyond Monetary Measurement: How to Evaluate Projects and Policies Using the Ecosystem Services Framework.” Environmental Science & Policy, 32: 14–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sijtsma, F. J., van der Veen, E., van Hinsberg, A., Pouwels, R., Bekker, R., van Dijk, R. E., Grutters, M., Klaassen, R., Krijn, M., Mouissie, M., and Wymenga, E.. 2020. Ecological Impact and Cost-effectiveness of Wildlife Crossings in a Highly Fragmented Landscape: A Multi-method Approach, Landscape Ecology (Forthcoming).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sijtsma, F. J., van der Veen, E., van Hinsberg, A., Pouwels, R., Wymenga, E., Krijn, M., Klaassen, R., Mouissie, M., Grutters, M., van Dijk, R., Wackwitz, E., and Kisjes, K.. 2018. Analyse van kosten en baten van het Meerjarenprogramma Ontsnippering (MJPO), Report by the University Groningen, Faculty of Spatial Sciences.Google Scholar
Sijtsma, F. J., van Hinsberg, A. V., Kruitwagen, S., and Dietz, F.. 2009. Natuureffecten in de MKBA’s van projecten voor integrale gebiedsontwikkeling. Den Haag, The Netherlands: PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency.Google Scholar
Spaans, M. 2020. “Marine Protected Areas in the Europe; An Assessment of the Current Status and the Representation of Benefits in Socio-economic Analyses in Order to Support Decision-making, Dutch Ministry of Infrastructure and Water Management.” Paper Presented at the OSPAR Meeting June 2020.Google Scholar
Stolwijk, H., and Verrips, A.. 2000. Ruimte voor water; kosten en baten van zes projecten en enige alternatieven, CPB Werkdocument 130.Google Scholar
Strijker, D., Sijtsma, F. J., and Wiersma, D.. 2000. “Evaluation of Nature Conservation – An Application to the Dutch Ecological Network.” Environmental and Resource Economics, 16(4): 363–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
TEEB. 2010. The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: Mainstreaming the Economics of Nature: A Synthesis of the Approach, Conclusions and Recommendations of TEEB. Bonn, Germany: TEEB.Google Scholar
TEEB. 2013. A Synthesis of Approaches to Assess and Value Ecosystem Services in the EU in the Context of TEEB, TEEB Follow-up Study for Europe, edited by Brouwer, R., Brander, L., Kuik, O., Papyrakis, E. and Bateman, I.. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: VU, University of Amsterdam, Institute for Environmental Studies.Google Scholar
Tinbergen, J. 1953. De economische balans van het Deltaplan (Annex to the report of the Deltacommission).Google Scholar
Treasury, H. M. 2011. The Green Book: Appraisal and Evaluation in Central Government Treasury Guidance. London, UK: TSO.Google Scholar
USEPA. 2014. Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analyses. Available at: https://www.epa.gov/environmental-economics/guidelines-preparing-economic-analyses. (accessed November 4, 2020).Google Scholar
van Gaalen, F., van Hinsberg, A., Franken, R., Vonk, M., van Puijenbroek, P., and Wortelboer, R.. 2014. Natuurpunten: kwantificering van effecten op natuurlijke ecosystemen en biodiversiteit in het Deltaprogramma, PBL Background Paper.Google Scholar
van Oostenbrugge, H., Slijkerman, D., Hamon, K., Bos, O., Machiels, M., van de Valk, O., Hintzen, N., Bos, E., van der Wal, J., and Coolen, J.. 2015. Effects of Seabed Protection on the Frisian Front and Central Oyster Grounds; A Cost Benefit Analysis, LEI Wageningen and IMARES, Report on Request of the Dutch Ministry of Infrastructure and Water Management. Google Scholar
van Puijenbroek, P. J. T. M., Sijtsma, F. J., Wortelboer, F. G., Ligtvoet, W., and Maarse, M.. 2015. “Towards Standardised Evaluative Measurement of Nature Impacts: Two Spatial Planning Case Studies for Major Dutch Lakes.” Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 22(4): 2467–2478.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wende, W., Tucker, G. M., Quétier, F., Rayment, M., and Darbi, M. (eds.). 2018. Biodiversity Offsets:European Perspectives on No Less Loss of Biodiversity Loss and Ecosystem Services. Cham, Switzerland: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Werkgroep Discontovoet. 2015. Rapport van de Werkgroep Discontovoet 2015.Google Scholar
Wessels, S., Jaspers, H., Wortelboer, R., van Puijenbroek, P., Zwaneveld, P., Grevers, W., and Sijtsma, F.. 2011. Natuurpunten voor de Afsluitdijk, Toets, Kennisplatform over Milieueffectrapportage, 3: 28.Google Scholar
Witteveen, & Bos, . 2006. Kentallen Waardering Natuur, Water, Bodem en Landschap; hulpmiddel bij MKBA’s, Ministerie van LNV.Google Scholar
Witteveen, & Bos, , and Arcadis, . 2006. CBA daling grondwater veengebieden.Google Scholar
World Bank. 2010. Cost-benefit Analysis in World Bank Projects.Google Scholar
Zerbe, R., Davis, T. B., Garland, N., and Scott, T.. 2010. Towards Principles and Standards in the Use of Benefit-Cost Analysis; A Summary of Work, Report by the Benefit-Cost Analysis Center.Google Scholar
Zwaneveld, P., Grevers, W., Eijgenraam, C., van der Meulen, Y., Pluut, Z., Hoefsloot, N., and de Pater, M.. 2012. “De kosten en baten van de Toekomst van de Afsluitdijk; Economisch onderzoek, gebruik daarvan en invloed op het uiteindelijke kabinetsbesluit.” Water Governance, 2(2): 23–34.Google Scholar