However, it expands the account to include things that enter human preference structures but are not exchanged in organized markets. This extension and completion of a utilitarian account, where preservation of biodiversity is at issue, is useful because it shows that commercial interests do not always prevail over economic arguments.

The claim that it is useful to complete this utilitarian account does not depend on any prior claim that the utilitarian framework is itself the preferred ethical system. Environmental goals that may be served by arguments that the biota has rights that should be considered, or that it is the beneficiary of duties and obligations deriving from ethical principles incumbent on humans, may also be served by completing a utilitarian account that demonstrates the value implications of human preferences that extend beyond commercial goods to include biodiversity. Some people would argue that a complete discussion of the value of biodiversity should extend beyond utilitarian concerns. Even these people would, presumably, prefer a reasonably complete and balanced utilitarian analysis to the truncated and distorted utilitarian analysis that emerges from commercial accounts.

REFERENCES

Bennett, J. 1984. Using direct questioning to value the existence benefits of preserved national areas. Aust. J. Agric. Econ. 28:136–152.

Bishop, R. 1980. Endangered species: An economic perspective. Trans. North Am. Wildl. Nat. Resour. Conf. 45:208–218.

Bishop, R. In press. Uncertainty and resource valuation: Theoretical principles for empirical research. In G.Peterson and C.Sorg., eds. Toward the Measurement of Total Value. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station General Technical Report, Fort Collins, Colo.

Brown, G., and H.Pollakowski. 1977. Economic value of shoreline. Rev. Econ. Stat. 69:273–278.


Clawson, M., and J.Knetsch. 1966. Economics of Outdoor Recreation. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore. 327 pp.

Cummings, R., D.Brookshire, and W.Schulze. 1986. Valuing Environmental Goods: A State of the Art Assessment of the Contingent Valuation Method. Rowman and Allenheld, Totowa, N.J. 270 pp.


Fisher, A., and M.Hanemann. 1984. Option Values and the Extinction of Species. Working Paper No. 269. Giannini Foundation of Agricultural Economics, Berkeley, Calif. 39 pp.


Stoll, J., and L.Johnson. 1984. Concepts of value, nonmarket valuation, and the case of the whooping crane. Trans. North Am. Wildl. Nat. Resour. Conf. 49:382–393.



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement