This video was very helpful to answer my homework question "Explain the difference between use and non-use value, with reference to a particular environmental policy in which you may be interested like climate change or endangered species preservation."
Really well explanation of the subjects for the concept of use valuation and non-use valuation for natural capital" I could not find anything online that is well and easily explained knowledge on the topic like this video. My only problem is that the volume for this video needed to be a bit higher. But the still awesome video, I can finally do my ESS 8.2 homework now.
Please answer the questions: why should we value benefits from nature in the first place? If people do not value these benefits already, does valuation create a value which is not held by anyone except fot the valuator? Are we supposed to impose expert derived values onto society because they are to dumb to realize how important nature is? Meaning, the experts know better what is valuable for me than i do? If a value is not reflected in a market, it is not traded, why do the proponents of valuation assume that people cannot appreciate these benefits? How does marketization help to understand that nature provides benefits for free? Why is it assumed that only market mechanisms can facilitate sustainable use? Why do scientist resort to unscientific measurement unit (money) and concepts (theory of utility)? When something is provided for free - technically a gift, thus not an exachge - why should we force it to be an exchange when it is the opposite?
'Willingness to pay' is much more absent in non-use than you seem to imply. While s-om-e $ flow to NGO's, conservation easement purchase et al, it is small.....and most voters see simple regulation of control-seizure as an out-of-pocket or tax-cheap expedient. If the cost of non-use is perceived as low, an ever-less-rural and ever-more-unrealistic public may vote for it and over-bias toward it.
great video but you guys need a subtitles, I sometimes just can't heard clearly from what you are saying. Thanks and I'm appreciated it if you can do some subtitle :D
This video was very helpful to answer my homework question
"Explain the difference between use and non-use value, with reference to a particular environmental policy in which you may be interested like climate change or endangered species preservation."
This was the most simple and best explanation videos I've ever watched.
thank you so much for making this video, i will have my final exam this coming thursday! this video help me alot to better understanding. keep it up!
Thanks from your effort, you explain it very easy. you made my day. Appreciate that.
+Sabawoon Rahimi You're very welcome! Happy we could help.
Great video! So crisp and clear Bravo.
Really well explanation of the subjects for the concept of use valuation and non-use valuation for natural capital"
I could not find anything online that is well and easily explained knowledge on the topic like this video.
My only problem is that the volume for this video needed to be a bit higher.
But the still awesome video, I can finally do my ESS 8.2 homework now.
Could you advise the link to the next video pls :) I'm afraid I did not find it in the playlist.
I lost it when there was a sound effect of the deer head coming off xD no right hahaha
SO useful thank you so much!!!
Then you for this indirect use value.
Hi really nice video! Thank you
Please answer the questions: why should we value benefits from nature in the first place? If people do not value these benefits already, does valuation create a value which is not held by anyone except fot the valuator? Are we supposed to impose expert derived values onto society because they are to dumb to realize how important nature is? Meaning, the experts know better what is valuable for me than i do? If a value is not reflected in a market, it is not traded, why do the proponents of valuation assume that people cannot appreciate these benefits? How does marketization help to understand that nature provides benefits for free? Why is it assumed that only market mechanisms can facilitate sustainable use? Why do scientist resort to unscientific measurement unit (money) and concepts (theory of utility)? When something is provided for free - technically a gift, thus not an exachge - why should we force it to be an exchange when it is the opposite?
Value is individual-based and conceptual.
Great video
U r genious sir
thanks
thank you
You are very welcome!
Keep up the good work (:
thank you for that......
This vedio is awesome!
He talks so fast, but info was useful. Thanks
waaw nice is important
'Willingness to pay' is much more absent in non-use than you seem to imply. While s-om-e $ flow to NGO's, conservation easement purchase et al, it is small.....and most voters see simple regulation of control-seizure as an out-of-pocket or tax-cheap expedient. If the cost of non-use is perceived as low, an ever-less-rural and ever-more-unrealistic public may vote for it and over-bias toward it.
2020 anyone?
2022 end 😂🤌
We're from u r sir
great video but you guys need a subtitles, I sometimes just can't heard clearly from what you are saying. Thanks and I'm appreciated it if you can do some subtitle :D
Lâm Ngọc Lê Nguyễn hey guy... I just want to some word:...." who do you think you are ? keep the fuck silent" hiehie
Just click on the "CC" button on the bottom right of the video et... voilà!
BANTER XXXXXDDD
Very diifficult for south Asian students to follow the pronounciation
Based on your voice I imagine you as a 115 pound 5 foot 7 waif of a man who wears turtlenecks and was always picked last for sports