James Boyd talks with
ScienceWatch.com and answers a few questions about
this month's New Hot Paper in the field of Economics &
Business.
Article Title: What are ecosystem services? The
need for standardized environmental accounting
units
Authors: Boyd,
J;Banzhaf, S
Journal: ECOL ECON
Volume: 63
Issue: 2-3
Page: 616-626
Year: AUG 1 2007
* Resources Future Inc, Energy & Nat Resources Div,
1616 P St NW, Washington, DC 20036 USA.
* Resources Future Inc, Energy & Nat Resources Div,
Washington, DC 20036 USA.
* Georgia State Univ, Atlanta, GA 30303 USA.
Why do you think your paper is highly
cited?
It asks and answers a basic (though complicated) question being asked by
many people.
Does it describe a new discovery, methodology, or
synthesis of knowledge?
It describes and advocates a method (a framework for thinking and ways to
measure things). The key thing about the method is that it provides a
roadmap to unite disparate disciplines, basically ecology and economics.
But also areas within economics, like accounting theory and natural
resource economics.
Would you summarize the significance of your paper
in layman's terms?
"...a core objective of this
research is to develop credible yardsticks by
which our governments and other
decision-makers can be held
accountable."
What is happening to nature—are things getting better or
worse—and what does that mean for our well-being? This is a
fundamental question facing humanity right now. The thing is it's very
difficult to answer these questions. One reason is that we don't have
standard ecological measures that we can track over time. Our market
economy has very convenient measures—the number of things bought and
sold and the prices paid for them. These measures are used to judge the
health of our economy (GDP).
But we need to also know about the economy of nature. What units, i.e.,
what quantities of natural things and qualities, should we count in order
to track the health of nature and its implications for the health of our
economies and communities? The paper asks that question and attempts to
answer it.
How did you become involved in this research, and
were there any problems along the way?
Several fundamental questions (see above) drove the research. As well as a
sense that existing approaches—actually a confusion of
approaches—is inhibiting the power of science in this area.
Where do you see your research leading in the
future?
To more effective coordination of the biophysical sciences (ecology,
hydrology, atmospheric science, soil ecology) and economic sciences. To a
greater and needed focus on intuitive biophysical outcomes as the key to
progress. To a future ability to develop measures of our nation and globe's
natural economy.
A GDP-like measure that tracks not only the health of the market economy,
but also the gains and losses suffered in the natural economy. The natural
economy is the whole basket of ecosystem goods and services on which
everything else depends, but that are public goods and thus difficult to
measure.
Do you foresee any social or political implications
for your research?
Socially, the paper is part of a broader movement in economics and ecology
to make our dependence on natural goods and services more "apparent" to all
decision-makers. Losses in natural goods and services are all too easy to
miss.
Politically, a core objective of this research is to develop credible
yardsticks by which our governments and other decision-makers can be held
accountable. What gets measured gets managed. We don't manage nature's
economy very well because we haven't quite figured out yet how to
consistently and comprehensively measure what's going on.
James Boyd
Senior Fellow
Resources for the Future
Washington, DC, USA
Keywords: ecology and economics, accounting theory, natural
resource economics, coordination of the biophysical sciences and
economic sciences, natural economy, ecosystem goods and services.