Revista Chapingo Serie Ciencias Forestales y del Ambiente
Universidad Autónoma Chapingo
Declaración de privacidad

 
 

 

 

 
Revista Chapingo Serie Ciencias Forestales y del Ambiente
Volume XXIII, issue 1, January - April 2017
play_arrow
play_arrow
play_arrow

Valoración económica de la biodiversidad forestal en México, una revisión
Economic valuation of the forest biodiversity in Mexico, a review

José Luis Romo-Lozano; Javier López-Upton; J. Jesús Vargas-Hernández; María L. Ávila-Angulo

http://dx.doi.org/10.5154/r.rchscfa.2016.03.015

Received: 2016-03-08

Accepted: 2016-10-30

Available online: 2016-12-12 / pages.75-90

 

picture_as_pdfDownload cloudxml picture_as_pdf View Online
  • descriptionAbstract

    The growing deterioration of natural resources creates the need to value ecosystem services, including biodiversity. The economic value has focused on non-market goods and services, which is complicated. Techniques have been developed to measure these values whose acceptance has increased lately. A search of economic valuation made in Mexico was conducted. Almost all valuation studies undertaken in the country are restricted to travel cost (TCM) and contingent valuation (CVM) methods. The only level of biodiversity explored was at level of ecosystem. At the level of gene or species no studies have been developed in terms of non-market goods and services. The most widely valuation method used is the contingent valuation (11 studies), followed by the travel cost method with one study, which was conducted along with the CVM. Eight studies did not consider the most important biases (time, substitution, multiple destinations, payment instrument, strategic and hypothetical) of these methods.

    Keyworks: Travel cost method, contingent valuation method, ecosystem services, nonmarket valuation methods
  • beenhereReferences
    • Arrow, K., Solow, R., Portney, P. R., Leamer, E. E., Radner, R., & Schuman, H. (1993). Report of the NOAA Panel on Contingent Valuation. USA: Nacional and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

    • Barreda, A. (2001). Biopiratería y resistencia en México. El cotidiano, 18(110), 21–39.

    • Bishop, R. C., & Heberlein, T. A. (1990). The contingent valuation method. In R. L. Johnson, & G. V. Johnson (Eds.), Economics valuation of natural resources: Issues, theory and application (pp. 81–104). Boulder, CO, USA: Westview Press.

    • Blomquist, G. C., & Whitehead, J. C. (1995). Existence value, contingent valuation, and natural resources damages assessment. Growth and Change, 26(4), 573–589.

    • Brown, T. C. (1984). The concept of value in resources allocation. Land Economics, 60(3), 231–246.

    • Brown, T. C., & Gregory, R. (1999). Why the WTA–WTP disparity matters. Ecological Economics, 28(3), 323-335.

    • Burt, O. R., & Brewer, D. (1971). Estimation of net social benefits from outdoor recreation. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 39(5), 813-827.

    • Carson, R. T. (2001). Resources and environment: contingent valuation. In N. J. Smelser, & P. B. Baltes (Eds.), International encyclopedia of the social & behavioral sciences (pp. 13272-13275). London: Elsevier Science.

    • Cesario, F. J. (1976). Value of time in recreation benefit studies. Land economics, 52(1), 32-41.

    • Cesario, F. J., & Knetsch, J. L. (1970). Time bias in recreation benefit estimates. Water Resources Research, 6(3), 700-704.

    • Ciriacy-Wantrup, S. V. (1947). Capital returns from soil-conservation practices. Journal Farm Economics, 29(4), 1181–96.

    • Clawson, M. (1959). Methods of measuring the demand and value of outdoor recreation. Washington, D.C., USA: Resources for the Future, Inc.

    • Cummings, R. G., Brookshire, D. S., & Schulze, W. D. (1986). Valuing environmental goods: An assessment of the contingent valuation method. Totowa, NJ, USA: Rowman & Allanheld.

    • Davis, R. (1963). Recreation planning as an economic problem. Natural Resources Journal, 3(2), 239–249.

    • de Groot, R. S., Wilson, M. A., & Boumans, R. M. J. (2002). A typology for the classification, description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services. Ecological Economics, 41, 393–408.

    • de Yta-Castillo, D. (2013). El método de valoración contingente: una aplicación al bosque de niebla de la zona de Pluma Hidalgo, Oaxaca. Temas de Ciencia y Tecnología, 17(51), 35–40.

    • del Ángel-Pérez, A. L., Mendoza-Briseño, M. A., & Rebolledo-Martínez, A. (2006). Población y ambiente en Coatepec: valor social de la cubierta vegetal. Espiral: Estudios sobre Estado y Sociedad, 12(36), 163–196.

    • del Ángel-Pérez, A. L., Rebolledo-Martínez, A., Villagómez-Cortés, J. A., & Zetina-Lezama, R. (2009). Valoración del servicio ambiental hidrológico en el sector doméstico de San Andrés Tuxtla, Veracruz, México. Estudios sociales, 17(33), 225–257.

    • Dixon, J. A., Scura, L. F., Carpenter, R. A., & Sherman, P. B. (1996). Economic analysis of environmental impacts (2a ed.). London: Earthscan Pub.

    • Dwyer, J. F., Kelly, J. R., & Bowes, M. D. (1977). Improved procedures for valuation of the contribution of recreation to national economic development.

    • Figueroa, J. R. (2005). Valoración de la biodiversidad: Perspectiva de la economía ambiental y la economía ecológica. Interciencia: Revista de ciencia y tecnología de América, 30(2), 103–107.

    • Flores-Xolocotzi, R., González-Guillén, M. D. J., & de los Santos-Posadas, H. M. (2010). Valoración económica del servicio recreativo del parque Hundido de la Ciudad de México. Región y sociedad, 22(47), 123–144.

    • Freeman III, A. M. (1986). On assessing the state of the arts of the contingent valuation method of valuing environmental changes. In R. G. Cummmings, D. S. Brookshire, & W. D. Schulze (Eds.), Valuing environmental goods: An assessment of the contingent valuation method (pp. 180-195). Totowa, NJ, USA: Rowman & Allanheld.

    • Freeman III, A. M., Herriges, J. A., & Kling, C. L. (1993). The measurement of environmental and resource values: Theory and methods. Washington, DC, USA: Resources for the Future, Inc.

    • Hanemann, W. M., & Kanninen, B. (1999). The statistical analysis of discrete-response CV data. In I. J. Bateman, & K. G. Willis (Eds.), Valuing environmental preferences: theory and practice of the contingent valuation method in the US, EU, and developing countries (pp. 302-440). New York, USA: Oxford University Press.

    • Hanley, N., Spash, C., & Walker, L. (1995). Problems in valuing the benefits of biodiversity protection. Environmental and Resource Economics, 5(3), 249–272.

    • Hotelling, H. (1949). An economic study of the monetary evaluation of recreation in the national parks. Washington, DC, USA: Department of the Interior, National Park Service and Recreational Planning Division.

    • Jaramillo-Villanueva, J. L., Galindo-de-Jesús, G., Bustamante-González, Á., & Cervantes-Vargas, J. (2013). Valoración económica del agua del río Tlapaneco en la ‘‘montaña de Guerrero’’ México. Tropical and Subtropical Agroecosystems, 16(3), 363–376.

    • Larqué-Saavedra, B. S., Valdivia-Alcalá, R., Islas-Gutiérrez, F., & Romo-Lozano, J. L. (2004). Valoración económica de los servicios ambientales del bosque del municipio de Ixtapaluca, Estado de México. Revista Internacional de Contaminación Ambiental, 20(4), 193–202.

    • López-Paniagua, C., González-Guillén, M. de J., Valdez-Lazalde, J. R., & de los Santos-Posadas, H. M. (2007). Demanda, disponibilidad de pago y costo de oportunidad hídrica en la Cuenca Tapalpa, Jalisco. Madera y Bosques, 13(1), 3–23.

    • Martínez-Cruz, D. A., Bustamante-González, Á., Jaramillo-Villanueva, J. L., Silva-Gómez, S. E., Tornero-Campante, M. A., & Vargas-López, S. (2010). Disposición de los productores forestales de la región Izta-Popo a aceptar pagos por mantener los servicios ambientales hidrológicos. Tropical and Subtropical Agroecosystems, 12(3), 549–556.

    • McCollum, D. W., Peterson, G. L., & Sorg-Swanson, C. (1992). A manager’s guide to the valuation of nonmarket resources: what do you really want to know? In G. L. Peterson, C. Sorg-Swanson, D. W. McCollum, & M. H. Thomas (Eds.), Valuing wildlife resources in Alaska (pp. 25–52). Boulder, CO. USA: Westview Press.

    • Mendelsohn, R., & Brown, G. M. (1983). Revealed preferences approaches to valuing outdoor recreation. Natural Resources Journal, 23(3), 607–618.

    • Mendelsohn, R., Hof, J., Peterson, G., & Johnson, R. (1992). Measuring recreation values with multiple destination trips. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 74(4), 926-933.

    • Millenium Ecosystem Assessment. (2005). Ecosystems and human well-being. Washington, DC, USA: Island Press.

    • Mitchell, R. C., & Carson, R. T. (1981). An experiment in determining willingness to pay for national water quality improvements. Washington, DC, USA: Resource for the Future, Inc.

    • Mitchell, R. C., & Carson, R. T. (1986). Some comments on the state of arts assessment of the contingent valuation method. In R. G. Cummings, D. S. Brookshire, & W. D. Shulze (Eds.), Valuing environmental goods: An assessment of the contingent valuation method (pp. 284–296). Totowa, NJ, USA: Rowman & Allanheld.

    • Mitchell, R. C., & Carson, R. T. (1989). Using surveys to value public goods. the contingent valuation method. Washington, DC, USA: Resources for the Future.

    • Munasinghe, M., & Lutz, E. (1993). Environment economics and valuation in development decision making. In M. Munasinghe (Ed.), Environmental economics and natural resources management in developing countries (pp. 17–71). Washington, DC, USA: Committee of International Development Institutions on Environment.

    • Nijkamp, P., Vindigni, G., & Nunes, P. A. (2008). Economic valuation of biodiversity: A comparative study. Ecological economics, 67(2), 217–231.

    • Pak, M., & Türker, M. F. (2006). Estimation of recreational use value of forest resources by using individual travel cost and contingent valuation methods (Kayabaşi Forest Recreation site sample). Journal of applied sciences, 6(1), 1-5.

    • Pearce, D., Moran, D., & Biller, D. (2002). Handbook of biodiversity valuation. A guide for policy makers. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

    • Polasky, S., Costello, C., & Solow, A. (2005). Chapter 29 The economics of biodiversity. Handbook of environmental economics, 3, 1517–1560.

    • Romo-Lozano, J. L. (1998). Valuing the migration of monarch butterflies. Doctoral Dissertation, School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, Yale University. USA

    • Sanjurjo-Rivera, E., & Islas-Cortés, I. (2007). Valoración económica de la actividad recreativa en el río Colorado. Región y sociedad, 19(40), 147-172.

    • Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (SCBD). (2001). The value of forest ecosystems. Montreal, Canadá.

    • Silva-Flores, R., Pérez-Verdín, G., & Návar-Cháidez, J. de J. (2010). Valoración económica de los servicios ambientales hidrológicos en El Salto, Pueblo Nuevo, Durango. Madera y Bosques, 16(1), 31–49.

    • Tourkolias, C., Skiada, T., Mirasgedis, S., & Diakoulaki, D. (2015). Application of the travel cost method for the valuation of the Poseidon temple in Sounio, Greece. Journal of Cultural Heritage, 16(4), 567-574.

    • United Nations Environment and Development Program (UNEP). (1992). Rio Declaration, World Conference on Environment and Development.

    • Zhang, F., Wang, X. H., Nunes, P. A. L. D., & Ma, C. (2015). The recreational value of gold coast beaches, Australia: An application of the travel cost method. Ecosystem Ser vices, 11, 106-114.

  • starCite article

    Romo-Lozano, J. L.,  López-Upton, J., Vargas-Hernández, J. J.,  &  Ávila-Angulo, M. L. (2017).  Economic valuation of the forest biodiversity in Mexico, a review. Revista Chapingo Serie Ciencias Forestales y del Ambiente, XXIII(1), 75-90. http://dx.doi.org/10.5154/r.rchscfa.2016.03.015