Introduction – humans, nature and human nature - Ecological Applications: Toward a Sustainable World - page 29

For example, travel cost paid by people to access a natural area provides a minimum
value of this recreational service. Contingent valuation may be determined in a survey
of people's willingness to pay for each of a set of hypothetical landuse scenarios
(perhaps in terms of a hypothetical 'nature tax'). Replacement cost is an estimate of
how much would need to be spent to replace an ecosystem service with a manmade
alternative - such as substituting the natural waste disposal capacity of a wetland
by building a treatment works. Avoided cost is an estimate of the cost that would
have occurred had a service not been available - such as fl ood damage if a protective
off-shore reef were not present.
And when an ecosystem service has already been lost, the real costs - in loss of
property, livelihoods, health and so on - can be determined. Take, for example, the
collapse through overexploitation of the Newfoundland cod fi shery in the early
1990s - this cost at least $2 billion in income support and retraining for the thou-
sands of people who lost their jobs. Another graphic example is provided by the
largely deliberate burning of 50,000 km 2 of Indonesian vegetation in 1997 - the
economic cost comprised $4.5 billion in lost forest products and agriculture,
increased greenhouse gas emissions, reductions in income from tourism, and
healthcare expenditure on 12 million people affected by the smoke (Balmford &
Bond, 2005).
Viewed from the broadest perspective of all, the total value of the world's ecosys-
tem services has been roughly estimated at $38 trillion (10 12 ) - more than the gross
domestic product of all nations combined (Costanza et al., 1997). The 'new econom-
ics' provides persuasive reasons for taking great care of biodiversity. You can dip
into this topic's smorgasbord of examples where economic arguments are prominent
in Sections 2.4.3, 4.4, 4.5.3, 4.5.4, 5.6, 7.5, 7.6, 8.3 and 10.5.3.

1.3.3 The
sociopolitical
dimension

Many ecologists feel outside their comfort zone when asked to confront economic
realities. But the situation is more complex still, because environmental issues
almost always have a sociopolitical angle too. Sociologists can help managers iden-
tify the best approaches to reconcile the desires of all interested parties, from
farmers and harvesters to tourism operators and conservationists. And political
scientists help address the twin problems of whether sustainable management
should be fostered by penalties or inducements, and be set in law or encouraged by
education. Moreover, there are both sociological and political dimensions to the
question of how the needs and perspectives of indigenous people can be taken into
account. Sustainable environmental management clearly has a triple bottom line -
ecological, economic and sociopolitical.
At the local level, the knowledge and ideals of the community can be of great
value in improving sustainable behavior. So-called social capital is a measure of
connectedness in a community, refl ecting relationships of trust, willingness to share
information, and to develop common rules about biodiversity protection and the
sustainable use of nature (Pretty & Smith, 2004). By getting together, rural people,
for example, can improve their understanding of the relationship between agricul-
ture and nature and fi nd ways to deal with adverse effects - by fencing waterways,
replanting riparian (stream-side) vegetation buffer strips, and implementing more
careful use of plough, fertilizer and pesticide. This process of social learning
increases 'social capital' and helps new ideas to spread more rapidly through the
community and to other places. Community groups reach a zenith of achievement