This is incredible! I look forward to sharing it with others. Thanks for taking the time to explain these salient points about conservation, value, and usage.
great points! really interesting subject. i have questions! 1. is use value limitless? at what point does over-use cause devaluation? 2. is existence value limitless? 3. should it be a goal of managers to maximize the value of their resources by maximizing use? 4. if the goal is not to maximize, then how much value does a resource need before it becomes worth conserving? rare things are worth more than abundant things. people pay way more to hunt tigers than they do to hunt coyotes. if the goal is to maximize value, but prevent things from becoming rare, then what value should be the target?
All fantastic questions here. So a point I didn't have the time to discuss in the video is the idea of market vs. non-market valuation. When we talk about the "value" of houses, haircuts, tacos, etc... there's a clear signal on the agreed upon value-- the market price. But for things that aren't bought/sold-- like catch and release fishing, mountain views, fully regenerated rainforests' biodiversity.. there isn't. So we have to lean on ways to estimate these values properly, otherwise, the perceived value is 0. So in the context of this video, I'm starting from there. Non-market valuation of species such as bull trout, or redeye bass. With that in mind, here's my (brief) responses though I bet this could be another video or dissertation chapter! 1. It's really hard to say. Take the context of Mongolian Taimen-- there's an obviously high use value ($10,000+ for a week long trip) for the species. From an economic point of view, that's like the demand curve shifting (moving) outwards, which means at every level of provisions (read stream saturation) folks are willing and able to pay more for those opportunities. Alternatively, consider largemouth bass fishing. Some folks may loathe the corporate flair of the tournament rodoes... but there's obvious a very very very high usage value for fishing for largemouth. SO, the value might indeed be boundless. 2. Technically... no. Each portion of value here is based on discrete monetary amounts, and there's not endless amount of dollars. Now, *estimating* existence value is the most thorny in economics, so I'll admit there's a generous upper bound here... but it's not limitless. 3. From a pure economists perspective (notice the philosophical punt there), I'd advocate for a maximization of *all* values. Not just use values. So if you have something like the California Condor, which does not impact tourism values (use value) nor option value, yet the entire state is like "hey I want to donate $4,000 of my taxes to condors every year" then WOO! We have some existence values to be reckoned with. So, a manager should maximize the *total* value of *all* the species across *all* time. The *all* time portion of that sentence does a lot of work here. If managers are short-sighted and don't realize the interactions of resources, externalities, and policies... we'll be left with a suboptimal outcome. 4. This is where there's significant heterogeneity! I'd imagine if we took the per-animal valuation of tigers vs. largemouth bass, tigers would dwarf a single largemouth bass. Yet, if we multiplied said value across the total population, the seesaw flips, because of the sheer amount of largemouth bass *times* the value of each. So on a species-by-species basis there could be a sweet spot, but to circle back to the root question here--" how much value does a resource need before it becomes worth conserving?" Man. That's the million dollar question. People's valuations of nature are notoriously fickle and in my opinion, grounded at zero. That's why marketing campaigns, community initiatives, etc are so powerful! They're literally driving up the valuation of ecosystem services, or species, or biodiversity; overnight! Without those, folks will have a foundational value of $0 for these environmental amenities, which really messes with the tradeoffs. Love these questions and keep em coming!
In NC it seems that the "WILD" designation ( keep 4 fish over 7 inches ) is being re designated to "Catch and Release" several miles below where our Native Appalachian Brook trout live. This lessens the opportunity for folks to take a few wild fish for the campfire but ups the survival rate of these fish. It's a pay off.
![Diggy Graves - Red Vineyard [Official Lyric Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/8Ro085T0mnQ/mqdefault.jpg)
This is incredible! I look forward to sharing it with others. Thanks for taking the time to explain these salient points about conservation, value, and usage.
Thanks, Benjamin! Glad these concepts were well received!
great points! really interesting subject. i have questions!
1. is use value limitless? at what point does over-use cause devaluation?
2. is existence value limitless?
3. should it be a goal of managers to maximize the value of their resources by maximizing use?
4. if the goal is not to maximize, then how much value does a resource need before it becomes worth conserving? rare things are worth more than abundant things. people pay way more to hunt tigers than they do to hunt coyotes. if the goal is to maximize value, but prevent things from becoming rare, then what value should be the target?
All fantastic questions here. So a point I didn't have the time to discuss in the video is the idea of market vs. non-market valuation.
When we talk about the "value" of houses, haircuts, tacos, etc... there's a clear signal on the agreed upon value-- the market price.
But for things that aren't bought/sold-- like catch and release fishing, mountain views, fully regenerated rainforests' biodiversity.. there isn't. So we have to lean on ways to estimate these values properly, otherwise, the perceived value is 0.
So in the context of this video, I'm starting from there. Non-market valuation of species such as bull trout, or redeye bass. With that in mind, here's my (brief) responses though I bet this could be another video or dissertation chapter!
1. It's really hard to say. Take the context of Mongolian Taimen-- there's an obviously high use value ($10,000+ for a week long trip) for the species. From an economic point of view, that's like the demand curve shifting (moving) outwards, which means at every level of provisions (read stream saturation) folks are willing and able to pay more for those opportunities. Alternatively, consider largemouth bass fishing. Some folks may loathe the corporate flair of the tournament rodoes... but there's obvious a very very very high usage value for fishing for largemouth. SO, the value might indeed be boundless.
2. Technically... no. Each portion of value here is based on discrete monetary amounts, and there's not endless amount of dollars. Now, *estimating* existence value is the most thorny in economics, so I'll admit there's a generous upper bound here... but it's not limitless.
3. From a pure economists perspective (notice the philosophical punt there), I'd advocate for a maximization of *all* values. Not just use values. So if you have something like the California Condor, which does not impact tourism values (use value) nor option value, yet the entire state is like "hey I want to donate $4,000 of my taxes to condors every year" then WOO! We have some existence values to be reckoned with. So, a manager should maximize the *total* value of *all* the species across *all* time.
The *all* time portion of that sentence does a lot of work here. If managers are short-sighted and don't realize the interactions of resources, externalities, and policies... we'll be left with a suboptimal outcome.
4. This is where there's significant heterogeneity! I'd imagine if we took the per-animal valuation of tigers vs. largemouth bass, tigers would dwarf a single largemouth bass. Yet, if we multiplied said value across the total population, the seesaw flips, because of the sheer amount of largemouth bass *times* the value of each. So on a species-by-species basis there could be a sweet spot, but to circle back to the root question here--" how much value does a resource need before it becomes worth conserving?" Man. That's the million dollar question.
People's valuations of nature are notoriously fickle and in my opinion, grounded at zero. That's why marketing campaigns, community initiatives, etc are so powerful! They're literally driving up the valuation of ecosystem services, or species, or biodiversity; overnight! Without those, folks will have a foundational value of $0 for these environmental amenities, which really messes with the tradeoffs.
Love these questions and keep em coming!
This is awesome! Great points!
Thanks, Sam! We appreciate the feedback.
In NC it seems that the "WILD" designation ( keep 4 fish over 7 inches ) is being re designated to "Catch and Release" several miles below where our Native Appalachian Brook trout live. This lessens the opportunity for folks to take a few wild fish for the campfire but ups the survival rate of these fish. It's a pay off.
And that's the game right? Long term gains require short term sacrifices!