:: comments

 

bev - email - url
It seems to me that the real value of properties is being applied in certain areas, it's just that it's pretty low key. For example, up where I come from, for several years, farmers were given a grant to use for fencing off streams and installing watering systems to keep their cattle from wading into the water to drink (and poop). Similarly, I think there has been a money - probably in the form of property tax breaks - available to farmers (especially those who grow cash crops) to set aside land for fence rows which benefit wildlife and reduce soil erosion. I believe that will be where real value will be most applicable - in situations where landowners are asked (or perhaps ordered) to provide a service. I'm thinking of your oaks and the acorns feeding the deer. If you were to consider deer as a consumer product (venison), it would be interesting to figure out what the yield of venison would be per acre. Perhaps those acorns are producing quite a lot of pounds of meat per year and $43 per hectare would actually be a low valuation.
Saturday: 28 November 2009 @ 13:49:03

 

Wayne - email - url
Bev - here there are relatively few opportunities for grants or tax relief of the sort you describe. Where they exist, they subside practices (like animal farming in your example) that we don't have any interest in getting into. Plantings for wildlife and reducing soil erosion would certainly fit the bill.

I think I was most drawn to the idea that there is a lively discussion, defining terms and giving examples, about how much ecosystems contribute to economies while remaining unreimbursed. And it's not just a flat one-time payment - the contributions are ongoing, year after year.
Monday: 30 November 2009 @ 09:09:04

 

Diane - email
Externalities?
Tuesday: 1 December 2009 @ 08:56:39

 

Wayne - email - url
Well, you know, Diane, that was actually one of the several words, like intangibles, that I had found groping around in my mind for words that might be the one I was looking for. And maybe externalities is the right one. It certainly fits the bill as well or better than contingencies. One of the made-up words I came up with was "extraneities." ; - ) 
Tuesday: 1 December 2009 @ 09:25:58

 

Wayne - email - url
Diane - the more I think about it the more I think externalities must be the word. It doesn't grab me any more than contingencies did, but a quick look at wikipedia's entry convinces me that it must have been. Like contingencies, externalities also has the flavor of not quite being important enough for inclusion into real value. Thanks for that suggestion!
Tuesday: 1 December 2009 @ 09:36:44

 

:: leave a comment

 

name

email

url

Add your comment.

Auto-BR (line-breaks become <br> tags)
Please enter the first word of the TITLE of this post:

 

:: close this window

[powered by b2.]