Ecosystem Services ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Ecosystem Services journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ecoser
The eco-price: How environmental emergy equates to currency Elliott T. Campbell n, David R. Tilley Department of Environmental Science and Technology, University of Maryland, College Park, United States
art ic l e i nf o
a b s t r a c t
Article history: Received 26 April 2013 Received in revised form 19 November 2013 Accepted 5 December 2013
Energy flows through economies in a hierarchical pattern with vast amounts supporting the base while each step has less and less flowing through it. Money is inextricably connected to many of these energy flows in a countercurrent. At the most aggregated scale of an economy, where its gross domestic product is measured, the mean ratio between the flows of solar emergy and money is known as the emergy-todollar ratio (EDR). However, the relationship between solar emergy and money is not constant along the energy hierarchy of an economy. While estimates of this dynamic relationship exist for marketed goods and services, there has been less work to estimate the relationship for nonmarketed services. We develop the “eco-price” to meet the goal of better predicting correlation between environmentally derived services and currency. It is defined as the flow of emergy of an ecosystem service relative to the money estimated to flow as a countercurrent. Twenty-nine eco-prices were estimated from cases of known exchange for water, soil, air pollution and natural resource commodities. The eco-price reconciles the biophysical value of the environment with economic value and extends the capability of emergy analysis to suggest “marketable” monetary values for the work of the environment. & 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Ecosystem service Emergy Environmental accounting Natural capital Eco-price
1. Introduction A system of environmental accounting for energy invested in all studied aspects of a system, called emergy synthesis, was developed by Odum, H.T. (1988, 1996) to provide valuation external to the economy, adherent to the fundamental laws of thermodynamics. This system of valuation allows the connections between nature's production of ecosystem goods and services and people's consumption of them to be quantified in the same physical unit (i.e., solar energy) and then translated into financial terms (i.e., money). Previously this translation was done by equating the emergy flowing in a studied economic system (i.e., total empower throughput) to the dollars flowing in that same economy (e.g., gross domestic product) during a given time period. However, this method does not discriminate between the origins of the emergy and assumes a constant emergy-to-dollar ratio across products and sectors, which is demonstrably inaccurate (Ukidwe and Bhakshi, 2007, see Fig. 1). The emergy per dollar ratio decreases as you rise through the sectors of the economy, with the highest emergy to dollar being found in the primary economy and lowest in the quaternary economy (Campbell and Ohrt (2009); Baral and Bakshi, 2010; Ukidwe and Bhakshi, 2007). The primary economy deals in goods made up of work from the environment,
n Correspondence to: 0426 Animal Science Building, University of Maryland, College Park 20742, USA. Tel.: þ 1 401 212 6735. E-mail address:
[email protected] (E.T. Campbell).
not valued by the economy (see Section 1.2). This research introduces a method that estimates financially realistic dollar values for ecological work (i.e. ecosystem goods, services, and capital), based entirely on environmental emergy flows. The need for an ecological system of valuation was perhaps best stated by Odum and Odum (2000): “When human valuations do not measure the real contributions of natural ecosystems, as is currently the case, ecosystems are not protected, and the larger systems produce less when the natural ecosystems are lost to development”. This research introduces a novel method for linking the biophysical measurement of ecosystem function with the economic value that people place upon that function. This is a reconciliation of donor value (inherent worth, like the ability to do work) and receiver value (worth placed upon a good/service by the beneficiary). Efforts have been made to value the work of ecosystems from a purely biophysical standpoint (Hall and Kiltigarrd, 2011; Odum, 1972) and from the purely economic perspective (Daily et al., 1997; Costanza et al., 1997) but taken from these singular perspectives they fall short of capturing the full spectrum of value (Odum, 1996; Odum and Odum, 2000; Daly and Farley, 2004). Environmental accounting has attempted to put monetary value on ecological work (Campbell and Brown, 2012; Pulselli et al., 2011) but these evaluations still tend toward the biophysical perspective and fail to capture society's preferences regarding the environment. This study introduces the “eco-price” to assess the value of ecological work. The eco-price is defined here as the amount of money that flows countercurrent to a flow of emergy derived directly from the environment. It has units
2212-0416/$ - see front matter & 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2013.12.002
Please cite this article as: Campbell, E.T., Tilley, D.R., The eco-price: How environmental emergy equates to currency. Ecosystem Services (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2013.12.002i
e2
E.T. Campbell, D.R. Tilley / Ecosystem Services ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎
of solar emjoules per dollar (sej/$). The eco-price reconciles the biophysical reality of ecosystem performance with economic measures of the value people place on ecological work. Suggesting that there is a strong relationship between ecological emergy and dollars is not a new method. The first such calculation was performed by Odum et al. (1959), when he related the price of hay to an equivalent production of marine turtle grass in south Texas bays (Kangas, 2004; Odum et al., 1959). The research presented here aims to estimate, assemble and compare a set of eco-prices for a diverse set of ecosystem services (e.g., hydrologic, carbon, soil, biodiversity). This paper also includes a demonstration of how eco-prices can be used to convert ecological emergy flows of ecosystem services to monetary values that would be useful for estimating how much land stewards of ecosystem services should be compensated for producing such services. To this end, provisioning services (timber, recreation) are not included in our study as their value is already determined by a market and included in the economy. While there are many instances where markets, taxes and regulatory programs have paid for the continued provision of ecosystem goods or services these are imperfect measures of total preference for products of ecosystems. Tax and regulatory programs directed at the environment are examples of revealed societal preference for sustained/increased provision of ecological goods and services, rather than direct measures. A tax can be viewed as revealed preference because citizens of a state or country have given implicit consent/willingness to pay a tax given that they are responsible for electing the governmental officials and are participants in the society. By looking at the collection of revealed and direct estimates of what people will invest in ecological goods/services/capital a complete realization of how society values ecological work can be made without the ability to rely on direct, free markets dynamics where the price of a good is controlled by supply and demand. The current economic system considers the work of the environment to be a free subsidy, and exploits it as such. The eco-price allows a fair payment value to be put on the work of the environment, reflecting the real cost to society that occurs when environmental resources are lost. Putting a value on ecological work has the potential to compel society to lessen their impact on the environment and raise awareness of the intrinsic nature of the environment to human well-being, ultimately strengthening the long term sustainability of society (Odum and Odum, 2000; Daly and Farley, 2004; Daily et al., 1997). The eco-prices presented in this paper were calculated as a part of research on ecosystem services from forest lands in Maryland (Campbell, 2012; Campbell and Tilley, in press) and as such predominately focus on examples from the Mid-Atlantic region of the United States. The value society places on ecosystem services likely varies significantly by region so calculating local eco-prices is encouraged for future work using this method. 1.1. How emergy relates to money Money is the unit for accounting financial debits and credits and can be traded for goods or services. Goods and services have a variable (in relation to the money exchanged, determined by price) amount of “real wealth”, which can be measured using emergy. Money flows countercurrent to the flow of “real wealth”. Price (currency per quantity) is normally determined by what a consumer is “willing to pay” for a good or service in a market. Spending money in an economy on a good or service serves to reinforce the production of said good/service, supporting the labor necessary to provide it. Higher prices stimulate production while lower prices stimulate consumers to use more. Free market pricing identifies the optimal level of production per consumer demand, serving to maximize empower (emergy per time) for the system as
a whole, in accordance with the maximum empower principle (a system will self-organize to maximize the flow of useful energy, i.e. emergy, Odum, 1996). The capitalist, free market pricing system facilitates maximization of empower, rather than limiting empower by attempting to control production and consumption. It can be construed that the dominance of free market capitalism as an economic paradigm for the world supports the maximum empower principle. The concept of a free market is predicated on an efficient distribution of goods and services, allowing growth and a maximal throughput of useful work (i.e. emergy). Further exploration of the relationship of macroeconomics and emergy can be found in Odum (1996). Brown and Ulgiati (2011) present evidence that the recent global economic recession in 2008 was triggered by the reliance of a growth economy on energy sources that are decreasing in net energy (or emergy) yield and suggest that this relationship is not sustainable. 1.2. The price of emergy along the energy hierarchy The price (currency per emergy) of a good or service is dependent on the origin of the emergy embodied in the good or service. As the percentage of the total emergy of a good or service comprised by human work or investment increases the money associated with the good/service increases. Human labor/investment is the major determining factor in determining price ($ per emergy) but scarcity can factor in as well, as in the case of precious metals and gems that have prices above what would be predicted purely from the human work necessary for mining and manufacture. Fig. 1 is an idealized representation of how emergy and money change as you move through the sectors of the economy. Environmental emergy in nature is not highly valued, if at all, by the economy, whereas financial markets and the information economy are on the other end of the spectrum with large quantities of money and very little emergy.
2. Methods The eco-price is a refinement to the emergy methodology, with the goal of more accurately representing what people are willing to pay for the work of the ecosystem. An eco-price is the ratio of emergy to dollars observed when an ecological good/service is paid for or economically valued in some way. An average of several eco-prices is used to determine monetary value because the ecoprice is not a direct measure of willingness to pay; multiple proxies are necessary to establish the best estimate of how society values environmental work. We determined the emergy to dollar exchange for 29 market and non-market instances over the past 15 years, predominately in the Mid-Atlantic region of the United States. The eco-prices are aggregated in the following categories – hydrologic, carbon, soil, air pollution, biodiversity, and commodities. Average eco-prices were calculated for each category, generating a specific eco-price for that category. Fig. 2 shows an energy system’s language diagram depicting ecosystem service provision from natural lands and how the eco-price could be used to set the price for ecosystem services. 2.1. Expressing public value in dollars We define public value as the average monetary value placed on emergy of a good or service in a given system (Table 1). When an emergy analyst wants to express the solar emergy as dollars of public value, the standard practice (Odum, 1996) has been to divide the solar emergy (sej) by the mean solar emergy-to-dollar ratio (sej/$) of the economy that encompasses the flow of solar emergy. It has been common practice in emergy synthesis to show the public value as a
Please cite this article as: Campbell, E.T., Tilley, D.R., The eco-price: How environmental emergy equates to currency. Ecosystem Services (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2013.12.002i
E.T. Campbell, D.R. Tilley / Ecosystem Services ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎
e3
Fig. 1. Idealized depiction of the relationship of the flows of emergy and money. It should be noted that this figure represents the change in the emergy per $ ratio and that emergy and money are not on the same y-axis scale, emergy is a cumulative measure and will always be greater than money regardless of sector; the figure shows relative change in emergy and money. Emergy approaches but never reaches zero in the information economy, the money flow reaches zero in a wholly natural environment.
Fig. 2. Energy systems language diagram of ecosystem services. Ecosystem services are products of components of the environment (in this case, water, soil and consumers). Money flows countercurrent to the ecosystem service; with the rate of $ per emergy determined by Peco (eco-price). Money (represented by the dotted lines) is not paid to the ecosystem but to the owner/manager, represented in this diagram by landowner. Ecosystem services from primary production are not represented for clarity of the figure.
column labeled “emdollars” or in some cases, “em$”. However, since we were not only interested in public value, but also in suggested economic value, we suggest structuring the emergy table like shown in Table 2 and dispensing with the emdollar terminology when referring to monetary values determined using the eco-price. 2.2. Estimating the eco-price (Peco) The exchange between ecological emergy and money can be observed in markets, tax programs, and government regulations. We looked at all these categories together to better estimate how society values ecological goods/services/capital. This particular group of eco-prices were assembled to inform a potential payment for ecosystem service (PES) program in Maryland so many of the eco-prices are specific to the Mid-Atlantic region of the United States. In general, it is a good practice to use eco-prices as specific
to the region of study as possible, as they will better reflect the preferences for ecological work of the population in the studied region/State P eco ¼ EMj =P j
ð1Þ
where EMj is annual solar emergy flow of an ecosystem service j and Pj is the annual flow of money associated with an ecosystem service j. 2.2.1. Market based Peco Primary goods such as timber and water supply are mostly composed of ecological emergy and are sold in free market conditions. We calculated the average emergy exchanged per dollar in these markets over a year time period. The commodity eco-price was calculated by averaging the average emergy to dollar exchange in nine US commodity markets over the 2011
Please cite this article as: Campbell, E.T., Tilley, D.R., The eco-price: How environmental emergy equates to currency. Ecosystem Services (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2013.12.002i
E.T. Campbell, D.R. Tilley / Ecosystem Services ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎
e4
Table 1 Definition of terms. Emergy (M) Transformity (sej/ unit) Eco-price (Peco) Monetary value (MV) Public value (PV)
(Component of the system, unit)n(transformity for that component, sej/unit) Emergy is the energy necessary to make something and indicates ability to do work or cause influence (Sum total of emergy necessary to make a component of the system, sej)/(existent energy or mass of the component in the system, j or g) Either calculated in the study or taken from the literature, transformities are used to convert energy or mass to emergy values (Known emergy of ecological good or service, sej)/(known dollar amount exchanged, $) Suggests the quantity of ecological emergy to be exchanged for $1 (Known emergy of the ecological good or service in question, sej)/(derived eco-price, sej/$) The suggested dollar value of ecological work can be used to suggest compensation for ecological work, loss of natural capital, or price points in payment for ecosystem service programs (Known emergy of the ecological good or service in question, sej)/(emdollar ratio in the studied economy, sej/$) The public value is the value of ecological work if it was valued using the average exchange of emergy to dollars in an economy. It can be viewed as the emergy “surplus” above the suggested investment
Table 2 Output table template for showing value based eco-prices (commodity or specific eco-price). Ecological service/good/ or capital
Units
Energy or material
Unit emergy values (sej/unit)
Solar emergy (1E18 sej)
Eco-price (1E12 sej/$)
Monetary value ($ million)
Ecosystem service i Ecosystem good j Total public value
J g
ei aj
ti sj
EMi ¼ ti ei EMj ¼ sj aj
Peco Peco MVT ¼FPi þ FPj
MVi ¼ EMi/Peco MVj ¼ EMj/Peco
Notes: Peco is the eco-price (commodities, specific eco-price); MVi and MVj are the monetary values for ecosystem services/goods i and j, respectively; PV and PV/a are total and per area public value to Maryland, respectively; MVcp and MVcp/a are total and per area value, respectively, based on the commodity price model.
calendar year Market P eco ¼ ðemergy of eco: service=good=capital; sejÞ= ðmarket price of eco: service=good=capital; $Þ
ð2Þ
2.2.2. Tax based Peco We looked at how several tax programs generate a certain amount of monetary investment by the public used to affect ecologically positive actions. The amount of money generated by the tax was compared to the emergy of the ecologically positive impact, generating an eco-price. Tax based P eco ¼ ðemergy of eco: positive impact; sejÞ= ðdollars generated by the tax; $Þ
ð3Þ
2.2.3. Regulatory based Peco The monetary investment necessary for enacting an environmental regulation was compared to the emergy of the ecologically positive impact generated by the regulation. So, the eco-price was the emergy of the ecologically positive impact divided by the dollar investment in the regulation. Regulatory P eco ¼ ðemergy of eco: positive impact; sejÞ= ðdollars invested in the regulatory action; $Þ
ð4Þ
2.3. Estimating monetary value in dollars An estimate of the dollar amount that should be paid for production of the ecosystem, given conditions observed in analogous markets and other direct and indirect measures of societal preference. The two methods for estimating the monetary value were based on (1) specific eco-price and (2) commodity eco-price. The monetary value is estimated using eco-prices (emergy per dollar) to translate solar emergy flows to dollar payments. Table 2 shows the tabular template for displaying suggested monetary value based on the two eco-price models. The emergy value is estimated using the following equation: EMj ¼ t j ej
ð5Þ
when tj is solar transformity of ecosystem service j and ej is the energy value of ecosystem service j. Monetary value of an ecosystem service/good/capital is estimated by MVj ¼ EMj =P eco
ð6Þ
where EMj is the emergy of ecosystem service j and Peco is the determined eco-price. We suggest two alternative methods for demining Peco: (1) Average emergy–dollar exchange for each category of ecosystem service (specific eco-price). Convert the emergy of an ecological good or service using the eco-price for the appropriate category (e.g. the soil eco-price should be used to convert the emergy of soil building to dollars). (2) Average the emergy to dollar exchange of commodity markets in the system being studied (commodity eco-price). The same eco-price is used for all ecosystem services. To demonstrate how the eco-price can be used we calculate the monetary value of clean water and soil building ecosystem services provided by United States Forest Service lands using the specific and commodity eco-price. The emergy value was obtained from Campbell and Brown (2012) and the eco-price from this paper (see Table 3 for list of eco-prices). The emergy values are divided by the specific and commodity eco-prices (Table 4) to demonstrate how choice of eco-price affects the estimate of monetary value.
3. Results 3.1. Carbon sequestration eco-price calculation Eco-prices for carbon sequestration were estimated based on (1) the average price of carbon on the European Carbon Exchange in 2010, which was $15 per ton (The Katoomba Group, 2011), (2) the average price of carbon on the Chicago Carbon Exchange in 2008 prior to the collapse of the market, which was $2 per ton (The Katoomba Group, 2011) and (3) the average price of log timber in Maryland in 2010, $138 per ton of wood (Bloomberg
Please cite this article as: Campbell, E.T., Tilley, D.R., The eco-price: How environmental emergy equates to currency. Ecosystem Services (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2013.12.002i
E.T. Campbell, D.R. Tilley / Ecosystem Services ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎
e5
Table 3 Summary table of calculated eco-prices.a Note
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29
Item Carbon sequestration European carbon exchange Chicago carbon exchange Timber market price Carbon seq. specific eco-price Storm water mitigation: NY Watershed Protection Groundwater recharge: municipal water Nutrient uptake Chesapeake Bay Clean Water Act Nutrient Trading in Chesapeake Bay Watershed Water Quality BMP Cost Share Program Hydrologic specific eco-price Erosion prevention: cost of fill dirt Soil carbon: cost of mulch Soil specific eco-price Air Pollutant Removal: Clean Skies Act Cost of air pollution in Maryland Air pollution specific eco-price Biodiversity Maryland Env. Trust Conservation Fund Hunting Lease Biodiversity specific eco-price Eco-prices not included in specific eco-price calculations West Virginia Tax on Air Pollutants NO3-N NH4-N S in wet/dry deposition Cl in wet/dry deposition Pollination by wild insects Coal Rock, sand, gravel, clay Timber harvest Natural gas Total petroleum Electricity Copper Corn Wool Commodity eco-price, line item 21–29 weighted by yearly emergy flow Average of all eco-prices
News, 2011). The energy content of a ton of wood was multiplied by a transformity, 36,200 sej/J (Tilley, 1999), to obtain the emergy value of the wood. This value is then divided by the dollar value of the ton of wood in each of the three examples to arrive at three unique eco-prices (emergy per dollar, see Section 2.3). The three eco-prices were averaged to obtain the specific eco-price for carbon sequestration, 182E12 sej/$. 3.2. Hydrologic eco-price calculation New York City invested $1.5 billion in protecting the watersheds of NYC from 1997 to 2010 and over that time period 7.19E21 sej (see Appendix A for calculation) of clean water has been supplied by the ecosystem (NYCEP, 2010). The ratio of the emergy of the clean water supplied since the beginning of the program to the dollars spent was used to estimate eco-price 4 in Table 3. When municipal water in Maryland is purchased it costs approximately $3.79 for 1 m3 of clean water (WSSC, 2010), containing 3.74E12 sej (see Appendix A) and the ratio of the emergy to dollars is represented in Table 3, item 5. The emergy ratio of emergy benefits to dollars spent in the Chesapeake Bay Clean Water Act and the Water Quality Best Management Practices (BMP) Cost Share Program. The emergy of the nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment inputs avoided through the implementation of the
Eco-price, (1012) sej per $
$ per quadrillion (1012) sej
35.4 506.0 3.5 182.0 7.3 8.2
$19 $3 $286 $102 $136 $122
9.3 1.1 10.9 7.4 153.0 7.5 80.1 11.4 3.9 7.6
$107 $930 $92 $277 $9 $101 $55 $88 $258 $173
4.7 3.8 59.4 22.6
$212 $345 $17 $168
283.0 58.3 6580.0 546.0 13.0 12.9 153.0 4.8 10.6 5.0 5.6 35.4 4.0 6.0 $50.8
$4 $17 $0 $2 $77 $77 $9 $207 $95 $200 $18 $28 $252 $166 $79
297.0
$134
Chesapeake Bay Clean Water Act is projected to average 1.32E21 per year over the 15 years of the project with a total cost of $2.13 billion ($142 million/yr, CBF, 2010). The average price paid for 1 lb of N in the Pennsylvania Chesapeake Bay Watershed trading program was $3.81 in 2010 (PDEP, 2010), with an associated emergy of 4E12 sej/lb (eco-price 7). The BMP cost share program in Maryland costs $250,000 in 2010 (MDA, 2011) and was responsible for avoiding approximately 2.82E18 sej of sediment, nitrogen and phosphorus loading (eco-price 8). The average of the hydrologic eco-prices was 8.95E12 sej/$, which was nearly four times the emdollar ratio in Maryland.
3.3. Air pollutant eco-price calculation The state of Maryland estimates that on average over the last 10 years air pollution cost the state $400 million per year (Maryland Genuine Progress Indicator, 2011). This cost is derived from the methodology found in Costanza et al. (1997) and includes hospital costs and damage to crops, forests and water quality. The equation used calculates the cost in 1970 dollars and is as follows: cost of air pollution in 1970¼(national costs for different aspects scaled by state characteristics) plus (costs of air pollution in other years based on ozone levels and national air pollution trends).
Please cite this article as: Campbell, E.T., Tilley, D.R., The eco-price: How environmental emergy equates to currency. Ecosystem Services (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2013.12.002i
E.T. Campbell, D.R. Tilley / Ecosystem Services ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎
e6
Table 4 Monetary value of clean water and soil building ES by eco-price. Ecosystem service
Clean water Soil building a
Specific Emergy Peco valuea (10E18 sej)
Commodity Peco
Monetary value using specific Peco
Monetary value using commodity Peco
81,096
9.0E þ12
50.8E þ12
9.1E þ 09
1.6E þ09
36,087
80.1E þ 12 50.8E þ12
4.5E þ08
7.1E þ 08
Emergy value from Campbell and Brown (2012).
Ozone and PM10 (airborne particulate matter less than 10 μm) levels in Maryland were used to calculate the health cost as they are the principal air pollutants of concern in Maryland (Improving Maryland's Air Quality, MDE, 2009). The emergy of ozone was calculated in Maryland on days where the NAAQS (National Atmospheric Air Quality Standards) were exceeded. It was assumed that only after standards are exceeded are costs incurred by excessive ozone concentration. PM10 is a more persistent air pollutant and a constant concentration in the urban airshed was assumed for the year. The emergy of air pollutants was determined by multiplying the concentration by the volume of the urban airshed in Maryland (Jacko and Fatogoma, 2002; Fatogoma, 1996). It was found that on average between 2000 and 2010 there were 23 days per year that exceeded NAAQ standards. The average yearly emergy of ozone on these exceeding days was 12.7E20 sej and PM10 was 3.3E20 sej for the year. These emergy values were summed and divided by the dollar cost to determine an eco-price of 3.9E12 sej/$ for ozone/PM10 pollution in Maryland. In addition, the Clear Skies Act (EPA, 2003) is used to assess the willingness of the public to invest in air pollution removal. It should be noted this legislation was never enacted, however the program was estimated to cost $4 billion over 15 years, and reduce SO2, NOx, and Hg by 8.2, 3.4 and 0.000033 million tons, respectively. The total emergy of the pollutants was estimated by multiplying SO2, NOx and Hg by transformities found in the literature and yielded values of 15.5E20, 288.0E20, and 0.924E20 sej, respectively. The summed emergy was divided by the total cost to find the eco-price of 11.4E12 sej/$ (Table 3, item 11).
the storage of natural capital that the forest fosters and what people are willing to pay for products that perform similar functions.
3.5. Pollination and biodiversity eco-price calculation The dollar contribution of native pollinators to US agriculture was estimated by Losey and Vaughn (2006) at $3 billion per year. The values presented by Losey and Vaughn (2006) were adapted to the state of Maryland and it was found that native pollinators contribute $11 million per year. The emergy of the crops produced was derived by multiplying the mass of crop production attributed to native pollinators by the appropriate transformity from the literature and estimated to be 8.0E19 sej/yr (see Table 3 item 17 for eco-price). A representative eco-price for biodiversity was considered to be the price paid for land set aside in long-term conservation and the annual cost lease land for hunting. Two organizations, Maryland Environmental Trust (MET, 2011) and The Conservation Fund Mid-Atlantic (CFMA, 2011), were the source of information used to determine the eco-price. This land was purchased in Maryland in the case of the MET and in the Mid-Atlantic region by the Conservation Fund. MET purchased nearly 3000 acres in 2009 for $1 million and the CFMA purchased 155,000 acres in Maryland since 1985 for $592 million (average of $24 million per year). The organizations attempt to purchase land with the greatest potential for conservation of ecological and cultural value. In the case of both organizations the emergy of the purchased land (the renewable emergy flow for the year estimated to be 6.0E14 sej/acre/yr, see Appendix A) was divided by the cost to acquire the land. These investments perpetuate not only biodiversity but all the ecosystem services of the land. However, as biodiversity is key in supporting many other ecosystem services land conservation was determined to be a fair approximation of biodiversity willingness to pay. A payment also determined to be representative of societal preference for biodiversity was payments for hunting leases. A payment of $10 per acre per year was found to be typical in Maryland (Kays, 2003). The average renewable emergy flow of an acre of forest (6.0E14 sej/acre/yr) in Maryland per year was divided by the dollar amount to find the eco-price of 22.6E12 sej/$. 3.6. Commodity eco-price
3.4. Soil eco-price calculation The eco-price of soil was estimated from two direct market exchanges for soil products. The first estimate was based on the market price of fill dirt, $13.76/m3 (average price on www. earthproducts.net) and its emergy content, 2.6E15 sej. Fill dirt is largely inorganic, thus represents the inorganic fraction of soil and predominately used in bulk for landscaping and land development. The eco-price for fill dirt was found to be 153.0E12 sej/$. The second estimate was based on the market price for bark mulch, $26/m3 (average of several prices online), with an emergy content of 2E14, considered to be representative of the organic fraction of soil. The organic content of soil is one of its most important characteristics because it is indicative of many of its physical, chemical and biological properties. The generation of soil organic matter is also directly tied to the main emergy flows of the forest ecosystem, making the energy flows easily traceable to this fraction of soil. The eco-price of mulch was found to be 7.5E12 sej/$. While the eco-price may not be directly what the society is willing to pay for soil or OM in a forest they are representative of
The average price for nine commodities (see Table 3, line item 21–29), on June 2nd 2011, (Bloomberg News, 2011) was observed and the emergy per quantity was calculated (see Appendix A) to generate an average eco-price. The average eco-price for the nine commodities was calculated by weighting the individual eco-prices by their yearly emergy flow in the state of Maryland, to adjust for relative importance (see Appendix A for calculation). In future practice the commodities should be calculated for the region of study and dynamically updated as commodities change in price. Our calculation yielded a value of 50.8E12 sej/$. Five eco-prices are presented in Table 3 but not included in the specific or commodity eco-price. These eco-prices either did not fit into a category (pollination) or were judged to be outliers (the WV air pollutants) compared to the other eco-prices in the category and are presented to illustrate the potential range of eco-price values. The eco-prices ranged from 1.0E12 sej/$ for nutrient trading to 6500E12 sej/$ for sulfur deposition, which is a range of over four orders of magnitude (Table 3 and Fig. 3). When log transformed the mean of the data was 35E12, less than the arithmetic average
Please cite this article as: Campbell, E.T., Tilley, D.R., The eco-price: How environmental emergy equates to currency. Ecosystem Services (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2013.12.002i
E.T. Campbell, D.R. Tilley / Ecosystem Services ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎
4. Discussion In theory, all eco-prices should be greater than the emdollar ratio observed in a state or nation. An emdollar ratio, as typically calculated in emergy analysis, accounts for all flows of emergy in a country, state or region and the countercurrent flow of dollars, measured by GDP/GSP/GRP whereas an eco-price is an observation of the exchange of goods/services primarily consisting of environmental emergy and dollars. As a general rule, the emdollar ratio decreases through the “levels” of the economy, being the highest in the primary economy to the secondary, the tertiary (service) economy and lowest in the quaternary (information) sector. The eco-prices we observe are expected to be similar to the emergy/ dollar relationship observed in the primary economy, and higher than the average value of emergy per dollar calculated by the EDR. The only instance in this study of an eco-price observed to be lower than the US emdollar ratio (2.5E12 sej/$ in the year 2008, Sweeney et al., 2007, 2012) was the Pennsylvania nutrient trading program in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. The ratio of the emergy of the nutrients traded to the cost per credit was 1.1E12 sej per dollar spent. At first glance, this appears to indicate an inefficient policy but for a conclusion to be made further study should be given to the emergy value of the downstream effect of decreasing nutrients in the Chesapeake Bay watershed, and possibly attribute a positive benefit to the emergy purchased by the credit program.
advantage of using weighted averages is that it mitigates the effect that any one erroneous or outlier eco-price could have on the overall estimate of annual ecosystem service value. The downside of using weighted averages is that information is lost, in particular the estimates of the willingness to pay for particular services. When weighted averages are used one cannot observe the differences in willingness to pay (reflected in the eco-price) across different ecosystem goods/services or forms of capital (see Fig. 4). Society places a high value on controlling storm water (this service by forests would be costly for society to replicate through infrastructure) and on controlling O3 (ozone has the potential to be detrimental to human health) and thus they have low eco-prices (low emergy per $, high $ per emergy). Using a weighted average loses this information. The area where the difference in how society values forms of ecological services/capital is most evident is water and soil. Water has average emergy values but lower than average eco-prices (lower eco-price equates to more money per sej of emergy) while soil has high emergy values but a lower than average eco-prices (society does not highly value soil). The specific eco-price captures this variability; Fig. 4 shows that clean water from USFS lands has approximately 4.5 times the value of soil building on USFS lands when the specific eco-price is used. The relationship flips when the commodity eco-price is used; soil has nearly double the value of water. The commodity eco-price has the
10,000 9,000
9,062
8,000 7,000
Million $'s
of 297E12 sej/$. The high values, outliers when compared to the rest of the dataset, skew the arithmetic mean. The choice of specific eco-price versus one of the weighted averages affects both the collective value of the ecosystem services/goods/capital being studied and the relative values. Hydrologic eco-prices trended lower than the average eco-price and soil trended higher. Table 4 and Fig. 4 show how the variability in ecoprice affects the value generated, in this case for ecosystem services from the United States Forest Service system (Campbell and Brown, 2012).
e7
6,000 Specific Eco-Price
5,000
Commodity Eco-Price
4,000 3,000 2,000
1,596
1,000
451
Clean Water
4.1. Comparison of eco-price methods The three presented methods of calculating an eco-price to convert emergy to dollars have advantages and disadvantages. An
710
0
Soil Building
Fig. 4. Comparison of ecosystem service dollar value by eco-price. The choice of eco-price can have a great effect on the dollar estimate of ecological work. The values of soil building in, and clean water from, the USFS system are displayed here system (original emergy values taken from Campbell and Brown, 2012).
Fig. 3. Rank order of eco-prices for ecosystem services evaluated. The mean (35E12 sej/$, represented by the red line) was based on the log transformed eco-price. (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure caption, the reader is referred to the web version of this paper.)
Please cite this article as: Campbell, E.T., Tilley, D.R., The eco-price: How environmental emergy equates to currency. Ecosystem Services (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2013.12.002i
e8
E.T. Campbell, D.R. Tilley / Ecosystem Services ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎
advantage of relying on the market price of commodities so a more definite emergy–dollar ratio is generated and could be calculated dynamically. However, it relies on the assumption that society values ecological work the same way it values commodities The question of the best way to convert the emergy value of ecosystem services to dollars is unsettled, but upon completion of this study the commodity eco-price and specific service price seem to be more valid than simply taking a weighted average. When weighting the eco-prices by emergy flow the ecosystem services with high emergy flow dominates the averaged eco-price, these tended to be higher eco-prices and thus a high average ecoprice was generated. The commodity eco-price was also a weighted average but the eco-price values tended to be more similar and a more representative averaged eco-price was produced. 4.2. Trade-offs It stands to reason that there would be trade-offs between choosing between lower and higher investment in the ecosystem. Higher values provide more incentive for preservation and restoration of ecosystems but a program demanding a greater investment would be more difficult to enact politically. The service specific eco-price should be further refined through calculating more ecoprices and identifying outliers (i.e. eco-prices that deviate several orders of magnitude from the mean, especially within a service specific eco-price with a smaller n), to increase the accuracy of estimated preference for an ecosystem service. The commodity eco-price is consistent with the logic that ecosystem services should be valued similar to primary inputs to the economy and yields a value that may be more feasible for action in Maryland. As we observed in the USFS water and soil example, the choice of ecoprice can affect relative magnitudes as well as total value. This could affect management priorities or trade-offs and should be considered when determining the eco-price to be used. 4.3. Comparison with previous work Pulselli et al. (2011) make a similar calculation to the eco-price at the global level, dividing the global emergy budget (Campbell, 2000) by a global estimate of ecosystem service dollar value (Costanza et al, 1997). The resulting number is lower than the observed global emergy-to-dollar ratio and the authors conclude that this indicates “Nature is more efficacious in producing “money” (in form of ecosystem services) than economic systems (e.g., national economies and their GDP)” (Pulselli et al., 2011). This is contrary to our findings; in all but in one case the ratio of emergy to dollars for ecosystem services was higher than the average emdollar ratio observed in the US. The gulf in our findings can be attributed to the fact that the dollar values found in Costanza et al. (1997) attempt to measure total value, rather than market value, of ecosystem services; it is not actually possible for the estimated value to be paid, it exceeds the 1997 Gross World Product. While this is an estimate of the value inherent in ecosystem services benefiting humanity, the dollar value generated using this method is irrelevant to setting market price. In addition, the global renewable emergy budget of the earth is an incomplete accounting of the emergy value provided by ecosystem services. We suggest that the emergy of global ecosystem services is greater than the global renewable emergy budget. A benefit to humanity can either be a direct, consumptive service or a service in terms of cost avoided. For example, we account for the emergy of the cost avoided by having forests that reduce storm water runoff and avoid erosion as well as the service of recharging groundwater and building soil. Because the former services are cost avoided and the latter are consumptive we propose that it is
not double counting to include both on the ledger of total benefit provided by the ecosystem. In addition, some ecosystem services consumed (e.g., ground water, biomass, soil fertility, etc.) are composed of “legacy” emergy, or emergy built up over time. Considering both these factors, an emergy value of ecosystem services is almost certainly greater than the yearly global renewable emergy budget. The total monetary value of global ecosystem services in not definable. Humanity is wholly dependent on the global ecosystem in which it resides and as such would pay any amount to sustain these essential services, as can be inferred from Costanza et al. (1997). However, when ecosystem service emergy–dollar exchange is observed in a real economy the ratio is always lower than the average observed, as the work of nature is considered to be a free subsidy and not given economic value. Nature is the ultimate producer of real wealth, but a poor producer of monetary value.
5. Conclusions This work sought to define how environmental emergy is valued by society. We were able to do this by observing 29 instances of goods/services (consisting wholly or primarily of environmental emergy) exchanged for dollars in markets, through regulations, or required by a tax. We found that the work of the environment was valued between 3 and 64 times less than the average dollar value for emergy observed in the United States using the specific eco-price and 18 times less using the commodity eco-price. Testing theory was not the focus of our study, but the findings are consistent with the theoretical understanding that the ratio of emergy to money increases with the percentage of renewable emergy embodied in the good/service. We do not advocate for one eco-price method over another, but do present that the specific eco-price has the advantage of increased information regarding preference for different types of ecological work, as shown by the water and soil ecosystem services from the USFS system. The emdollar ratio (EDR) treats environmental emergy as equivalent in economic value to all other forms of emergy (e.g. human work, information, fossil fuels) but the reality is that the economy does not value this work. The eco-price provides a way to assign monetary value to ecosystem services/goods capital, in a way consistent with previously established measures of economic preference for ecological work. This study provides the methodology for estimating economic preference for environmental work. While the monetary value of ecosystems has been addressed in the emergy literature (Odum, 1996; Odum and Odum, 2000; Campbell and Brown, 2012; Pulselli, 2011) a consistent methodology had not been previously developed. This research is a step towards developing that methodology and an example of how environmental accounting can be used to inform policy for the mutual benefit of humanity and the environment. While details remain in how the eco-price methodology can be implemented in valuing ecosystem services, natural capital, or environmental impacts, it could potentially enhance the long term sustainability of ecosystems by putting a dollar value on previously unvalued ecological work, incorporating that value into the economy and suggesting consumers pay for value received.
Appendix A See appendix Table A1, Table A2.
Please cite this article as: Campbell, E.T., Tilley, D.R., The eco-price: How environmental emergy equates to currency. Ecosystem Services (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2013.12.002i
E.T. Campbell, D.R. Tilley / Ecosystem Services ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎
e9
Table A1 Calculation of commodity eco-price in Maryland. Note
Description
Data
Units/ yr
Emergy E12 sej
Emprice
% Emergy flow
Portion of emprice
1 2
Coala Rock, sand, gravel, clayb Timber Harvestc Natural gasd Total petroleume Electricityf Corng Woolh Sum
2.30E þ17 3.37E þ 13
J g
9.04E þ02 3.43E þ03
1.29E þ 13 1.53E þ 14
7.96E 02 3.02E 01
1.03Eþ 12 4.61E þ13
2.72E þ 11 2.27E þ 17 3.75E þ17 2.18E þ17 3.10E þ16 1.03E þ12 1.08E þ18
g J J J J J
1.87E 03 9.89E þ02 2.38E þ03 2.98E þ03 6.70Eþ 02 4.55E 01 1.14E þ 04
4.82E þ 12 1.06E þ13 5.00E þ12 5.59E þ 12 3.96E þ 12 6.03E þ 12 Commodity eco-price ¼
1.64E 07 8.71E 02 2.09E 01 2.62E 01 5.90E 02 4.01E 05 5.08E þ 13
7.93Eþ 05 9.19E þ 11 1.05Eþ 12 1.47E þ12 2.34E þ 11 2.42E þ 08
8.64E þ 06 1 80 12,500 25,000,000 2.63E þ 10 3.92E þ 04 1.03Eþ 15 1.29Eþ 13
Short tons/yr Ton $/ton btu/lb btu/ton J/ton sej/J sej/ton sej/$
US Census Bureau (2000)
4.86E þ 10 $18 $13.76 1 0.76
Short tons/yr $ yd 3 m3 yd3 m3
1,250,000 1.68E þ09 2.10E þ 15 1.53Eþ 14
Grams sej g 1 sej sej/$
2.72E11 235
g/yr $/1000 bd ft
2.27Eþ07 0.235 50,000 4.82E þ 12
J/bd ft $/bd ft sej/J sej/$
2.07Eþ 08 1 $4.80
Thousand cubic ft MMBtu
1.06E þ09 1.00E þ 00 48,000 5.06E þ 13 1.06E þ13
J/MMBtu kg/m3 sej/J sej/MMBtu sej/$
6.89E þ 06 1 $100.00
Barrels yr bbl
4.30E þ 04 8.73Eþ02 90,000 5.38E þ 14 5.38E þ 12
J/g kg/m3 sej/J sej/bbl sej/$
1 $2.97
Gallon
1.35Eþ 08 110,000 1.49E þ13
J/gal sej/J sej/gal
3 4 5 6 7 8
a
Eco-price coal Quantity in MD Coal Price Energy content
Transformity
July 29, 2011 http://www.eia.gov/coal/news_markets/
Odum (1996)
b
Rock, sand, gravel Quantity in MD Eco-price of fill dirt
1 yd3 ¼ Assume 1.25 g/cm3
sej/$ c Eco-price timber Quantity harvested in MD Commodity market trade Energy of 1000 bd ft Solar transformity Eco-price timber Eco-price d Eco-price Nat Gas Quantity in MD Amount Price Energy density Density Solar transformity Eco-price natural gas e Eco-price crude oil Quantity in MD Amount Price Energy density Density Solar transformity Eco-price crude oil Eco-price gasoline Amount Price, commodity Energy density Solar transformity
Eco-price gasoline5.00E þ 12sej/$ Quantity in MD 1.00E þ 09
US Census Bureau (2000)
Commodity Flow Survey (2000) Bloomberg.com June 2, 2011 http://www.bloomberg.com/markets/ commodities/futures/
Campbell (2012)
Bloomberg.com June 2, 2011 http://www.bloomberg.com/markets/ commodities/futures/
US Census Bureau (2000) Bloomberg.com June 2, 2011 http://www.bloomberg.com/markets/ commodities/futures/ West Texas, http://www.simetric.co.uk/si_liquids.htm
Bloomberg.com June 2, 2011 http://www.bloomberg.com/markets/ commodities/futures/
kWh
Please cite this article as: Campbell, E.T., Tilley, D.R., The eco-price: How environmental emergy equates to currency. Ecosystem Services (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2013.12.002i
E.T. Campbell, D.R. Tilley / Ecosystem Services ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎
e10
Table A1 (continued ) f
Electricity Quantity in MD Electricity Price
1E9 1 0.1 3.60E þ 06 160,000 5.76E þ 11 5.76E þ 12
kWh kWh $/kWh J/kWh sej/J sej/kWh sej/$
Campbell (2012)
Tilley (2006), unpublished data
Eco-price electricity (est#1) Eco-price electricity (est#1) Eco-price copper Quantity in MD
5.59E þ 12
sej/$
?
amount Price, commodity
1 $4.09
Not available through US Census Bureau lb
Energy density Solar transformity
2.20E þ 03 6.58E þ 10 1.45E þ 14 3.54E þ 13
g/lb sej/g sej/lb sej/$
2.11E6 1 $ 7.66
mt Bushel
1.90E þ 04 7.60E þ 02 3.50E þ 01 60,000 3.03E þ 13 3.96E þ 12
J/g kg/m3 l/bushel sej/J sej/bushel sej/$
3.25E11 1 $14.32
g kg
2.00E þ04 4.32E þ 06 8.63E þ 13 6.03E þ 12
J/g sej/J sej/kg sej/$
Eco-price copper g Eco-price corn Quantity in MD Amount Price, commodity Energy density Density Solar transformity Eco-price Corn h Eco-price Wool Quantity textiles Amount Price, commodity Energy density Solar transformity Eco-price wool
Bloomberg.com June 2, 2011 http://www.bloomberg.com/markets/ commodities/futures/ Huang and Odum (1991)
US Census Bureau (2000) Bloomberg.com June 2, 2011 http://www.bloomberg.com/markets/ commodities/futures/
Campbell, 2012.
US Census Bureau (2000) Bloomberg.com June 2, 2011 http://www.bloomberg.com/markets/ commodities/futures/
Table A2 Footnotes for Table 3. a
Carbon sequestration eco-price Price per ton C European Carbon Exchange (ECX) Chicago Carbon Exchange (CCX)
Emergy ¼
1 2 3
¼ ECX eco-price ¼ sej/ha/$/ha CCX eco-price Eco-price of timber Market price Avg density Joules Transformity Emergy Eco-price
15 2 1.5 (mt ha 1)*(g mt 1)* (3.5 kcal g C 1)*(4186 J kcal 1)* (3.62 E4 sej J 1) 7.95E þ 14 3.54E þ13 5.06E þ 14
$ ton 1 $ ton 1 mt ha 1 (Renewable emergy for MD forests, Campbell, 2012) sej ha 1 sej $ 1 sej $ 1
106 700
$ per m3 kg/m3
1.03E þ 10 3.62E þ04 3.71E þ 14 3.50E þ12
J sej J 1 sej sej/$
The Katoomba Group (2011) The Katoomba Group (2011)
http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/ftp/hva/external/!publish/web/ logreports/coast/2011/3m_Jan11.pdf http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/wood-density-d_40.html NYC gov, calculated
Modeled, Campbell (2012) 4
Storm water mitigation eco-price NY State Watershed Protection Supply Energy ¼ ¼ Transformity
1,381,675,300 (volume)*(1000 kg/m3)*(4940 J/ kg) 6.82548E þ 15 124,000 8.46,359Eþ 20
m 3 yr 1
J yr 1 sej J-1 sej yr 1
Washington Suburban Sanitation Commission
Please cite this article as: Campbell, E.T., Tilley, D.R., The eco-price: How environmental emergy equates to currency. Ecosystem Services (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2013.12.002i
E.T. Campbell, D.R. Tilley / Ecosystem Services ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎
e11
Table A2 (continued ) Average yearly investment ecoprice 5
7
8
9
$ yr 1
7.34E þ 12
sej $ 1
Groundwater recharge eco-price Municipal price of water 1000 gal¼ Energy of 1000 gal ¼
6
1.15E þ 08
¼ Transformity Emergy ¼ Eco-price Nutrient uptake eco-price The Chesapeake Clean Water and Ecosystem Restoration Act of 2009 Total program cost Avg. yearly cost Reduction of N per year Reduction of P per year Reduction of sediment per year Specific emergy N Specific emergy P Specific emergy sed Emergy N ¼ Emergy P¼ Emergy sed ¼ Sum ¼ Eco-price (emergy yr 1/$ yr 1) Nutrient Trading in Chesapeake Bay Grams N
Modeled, Campbell (2012) 3 3.78541178 (volume)*(1000 kg/m3)*(4940 J/ kg) 18,699,934.19 1,320,000 2.46E þ 13 8.22E þ 12
$1000 gal m3
1
J sej sej $ 1
2.13E þ 09 1.42E þ 08 1.30E þ 10 1.79E þ 09 7.31E þ 11 4.10E þ 09 2.16E þ 10 1.68E þ 09 5.33Eþ19 3.87E þ 19 1.23E þ 21 1.32E þ 21 9.32E þ 12 3.81
$ over 15 years $ yr 1 gN gP g sed sej g 1 sej g 1 sej g 1 sej yr 1 sej yr 1 sej yr 1 sej yr 1 sej $ 1 $ per lb N
453.59
g lb 1
Specific emergy Emergy ¼ Eco-price ¼ BMP cost share program Plus private funds
4.10E þ 09 1.86E þ 12 4.88E þ 11 $230,094.59 $28,761.82
sej g 1 sej sej $ 1
Will prevent approximately
268 69 312 4.10E þ 09 2.16E þ 10 1.68E þ 09 9.97E þ17 1.35Eþ 18 4.76E þ 17 2.82E þ 18 1.09E þ 13 $18 $13.76 1 0.76
Specific emergy Specific emergy Specific emergy Emergy N Emergy P Emergy sed Sum Eco-price Cost of erosion:
N P sed
price of fill dirt
1 yd3 ¼ Assume 1.25 g/cm3
sej/$ 10 Soi carbon: mulch
Transformity Eco-price Air pollutant removal eco-price 11 Clear Skies Act Dollars spent Expected reduction in NOx Expected reduction in SO2 Expected reduction in Hg NOx specific emergy
Avg. for N forms from from Campbell (2009)
Approx. 12.5% of funds from landowner Tons N Tons P Tons sediment sej g 1 sej g 1 sej g 1 sej sej sej
http://www.mda.state.md.us/article.php?i=22550
$ yd 3 m3 yd3 m3
www.earthproducts.net/
1,250,000 1.68E þ 09 2.10E þ 15 1.53E þ 14 20 26.15901239 450 588.5777787 266,974.3896 3.5 3,911,441,781 50,400 1.97137E þ 14 7.53609E þ 12
Grams sej g 1 sej sej/$ $ yd3 $ m3 lbs yd3 lbs m3 g m3 kcal/g J m3 sej/j sej sej/$
4.00E þ10
$ total investment over 15 years, EPA (2003) Average per year Mill tons Mill tons Tons sej g 1
2.67Eþ09 3.4 8.2 33 6.84E þ 09
http://www.dep.state.pa.us/river/Nutrient%20Trading_files/ Workshops/ NutrientTradingProgram-CreditGeneration-Lancaster.pdf
Campbell and Ohrt (2009) Campbell and Ohrt (2009) Campbell and Ohrt (2009)
Average of online retailer survey
Tilley and Swank (2003)
Please cite this article as: Campbell, E.T., Tilley, D.R., The eco-price: How environmental emergy equates to currency. Ecosystem Services (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2013.12.002i
E.T. Campbell, D.R. Tilley / Ecosystem Services ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎
e12
Table A2 (continued ) SO2 specific emergy Hg specific emergy Emergy calculation ¼ Emergy of NOx Emergy of SO2 Emergy of Hg Sum ¼ Eco-price ¼ ¼ 12 Cost of Air Pollution in MD Avg cost per year (2000–2010) Urban area of MD Air shed height Avg days exceeding air qual. stds (2000–2010) Ozone on exceeding days Specific emergy Emergy on exceeding day Emergy on exceeding days PM10 Avg concentration PM in MD Specific emergy
13 14 15 16 17
18
19
Eco-price West Virginia Air Quality Fees All filterable air pollutants Transformities NO3-N NH4-N S in wet/dry dep Cl in wet/dry dep Polination Eco-price $ value of crops pollinated by natives Emergy value of crops pollinat. by natives Eco-price Eco-price of Biodiversity Conservation Maryland Env. Trust 2009 Budget Ha conserved Avg MD emergy per Ha Emergy of land conserved Eco-price Conservation Fund Mid-Atlantic Cost paid for land conserved Ha of land conserved Emergy of land conserved Eco-price Hunting Lease Renewable emergy per acre Average of biodiversity eco-price
5.26E þ10 4.20E þ13 (tons)*(1e6 g ton 1)* (sej g 1) /15 years 1.55E þ 21 2.88E þ22 9.24Eþ19 3.04E þ 22 avg emergy of pollutants avoided yr 1/average $ spent yr 1 1.14E þ 13
sej g 1 sej g 1
4.14E þ 08 2.80E þ09 1000 23
$/yr m2 m of ozone formation days/yr
9.01E þ 08 6.23E þ10 5.62E þ19 1.27Eþ21
g O3 sej/g O3 sej/day sej/yr
1.60E 05 1.64E þ 10 2.04E þ 10 3.33Eþ20 3.88E þ12
g m3 g yr sej g 1 sej yr sej/$
24
$/ton
6.80E þ09 1.40E þ 09 1.58E þ 11 1.31E þ 10
sej/g sej/g sej/g sej/g
1.12E þ07
$ yr 1
1.45E þ 20
sej yr 1
1.30E þ 13
sej $ 1
1,000,000 2325.23 2.02E þ15 4.71E þ 18 4.71E þ 12
$ yr 1 ha in 2009 sej ha 1 sej yr 1 sej $ 1
592,011,099 846,767.87 1.72Eþ21 2.90E þ12 10 5.938E þ 14 5.938E þ 13 2.23E þ13
$ ha sej ha 1 sej $ 1 $/acre/year sej/acre sej/$ sej/$
Avg Avg Avg Avg
Campbell and Ohrt (2009) Campbell and Ohrt (2009)
sej yr 1 sej yr 1 sej yr 1 sej yr 1
sej $ 1
References Baral, Anil, Bakshi, Bhavik, 2010. Emergy analysis using US economic input–output models with applications to life cycles of gasoline and corn ethanol. Ecol. Modell. 221 (24 July (15)), 1807–1818. Bloomberg News. 〈http://www.bloomberg.com/markets/commodities/futures〉 (accessed 2.06.11). Brown, M.T., Ulgiati, S., 2011. Understanding the global economic crisis: a biophysical perspective. Ecol. Modell. 223 (1), 4–13. Campbell, D.E., 2000. A revised solar transformity for tidal energy received by the earth and dissipated global: implications for emergy analysis. In: Brown, M. (Ed.), Emergy Synthesis. The Center for Environmental Policy. University of Florida, Gainesville, USA, pp. 255–264. Campbell, D.E., Andrew Ohrt. 2009. Environmental Accounting Using Emergy: Evaluation of Minnesota. United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Document 600/R-09/002.
Fatogoma (1996)
Campbell (2012)
Campbell (2012)
Campbell Campbell Campbell Campbell
and and and and
Ohrt Ohrt Ohrt Ohrt
(2009) (2009) (2009) (2009)
Calculated from Losey and Vaughn (2006)
MD Env Trust, 2011 MD Env Trust, 2011
The Conservation Fund (2011) The Conservation Fund (2011) Kays (2003) Campbell (2012)
Campbell, E.T., Tilley, D.R. Valuing ecosystem services from Maryland forests using environmental accounting. Ecosyst. Serv., http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser. 2013.10.003, in press. Campbell, E.T., 2012. Valuing Forest Ecosystem Services in Maryland and Suggesting Fair Payment Using the Principles of Systems Ecology (Ph.D. dissertation). University of Maryland, College Park, 244 pp. Campbell, E.T., Brown, M.T., 2012. Emergy synthesis of natural capital and environmental services of the United States Forest Service System. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 14 (5), 691–724. The Chesapeake Bay Foundation (CBF). 2010. The Chesapeake Clean Water and Ecosystem Restoration Act of 2009 (HR 3852/S 1816). 〈http://www.cbf.org/ Document.Doc?id=398〉. The Conservation Fund. 2011. Mid-Atlantic. 〈http://www.conservationfund.org/ midatlantic/maryland〉. Costanza, R, et al., 1997. The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387, 253–259.
Please cite this article as: Campbell, E.T., Tilley, D.R., The eco-price: How environmental emergy equates to currency. Ecosystem Services (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2013.12.002i
E.T. Campbell, D.R. Tilley / Ecosystem Services ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎ Daly, H., Farley, J., 2004. Ecological Economics: Principles and Applications, 1st ed. Island Press, Washington D.C. p. 488. Daily, G. (Ed.), 1997. Nature’s Services: Societal Dependence on Natural Ecosystems, 1st ed. Island Press. Earth Products. Fill Dirt Search Criteria. 〈http://www.earthproducts.net/〉 (accessed 2011). Fatogoma, Ouattara, 1996. The Estimation of Mixing Height and Its Effects on the Urban Airshed Models Prediction of Tropospheric Ozone Concentration (Doctoral dissertation). Purdue University. Hall, Charles, Kiltigarrd, Kent, 2011. Energy and the Wealth of Nations: Understanding the Biophysical Economy, 1st ed. Springer, New York, NY p. 421. Huang, Shu-Li, Odum, H.T., 1991. Ecology and economy: emergy synthesis and public policy. Taiwan J. Environ. Manage. 32, 313–333. Jacko, Robert B, Fatogoma, Ouattara, 2002. A model to estimate mixing height and its effects on ozone modeling. Atmos. Environ. 36 (22), 3699–3708. Kangas, Patrick, 2004. Ecological economics began on the Texas bays during the 1950s. Ecol. Modell. 178 (1–2), 179–181. (15). The Katoomba Group. Ecosystem Marketplace 〈http://www.ecosystemmarketplace. com/〉 (accessed 2011). Kays, J.S., 2003. Hunting Lease Enterprise. University of Maryland Cooperative Extension, University of Maryland, College Park MD. Losey, J.E, Vaughn, M., 2006. The economic value of ecological services provided by insects. BioScience 56 (4), 311–323. Maryland Department of Agriculture (MDA). 2011. Maryland Agricultural Water Quality Cost Share Annual Report. 〈http://mda.maryland.gov/resource_conser vation/counties/MACS2011.pdf〉. Maryland Department of the Environment. 2009. Improving Maryland's Air Quality 1990–2008. The Maryland Department of the Environment Air and Radiation Management Administration, Baltimore, MD. Maryland Environmental Trust. 2011. Maryland Environmental Trust. 〈http://www. dnr.state.md.us/met/〉. Maryland Genuine Progress Indicator. Accessed 2011. State of Maryland Smart Green and Growing: Cost of Air Pollution. 〈http://www.green.maryland.gov/ mdgpi/9a.asp〉. New York City Environmental Protection (NYCEP). 2010. Watershed Protection Information and Resources. 〈http://www.nyc.gov/html/dep/html/watershed_ protection/about.shtml〉.
e13
Odum, H.T., 1972. Environment, Power and Society. Wiley Interscience, 2nd ed. Columbia University Press, New York, NY. (2007). Odum, H.T., 1988. Self-organization, transformity, and information. Science 242 (4882), 1132–1139. Odum, H.T., 1996. Environmental Accounting: Emergy and Environmental Decision Making. John Wiley & Sons, New York p. 370. Odum, H.T., Odum, E.P., 2000. The energetic basis for valuing ecosystem services. Ecosystems 3 (1), 21–23. Odum, H.T., Muehlberg, P.E., Kemp, R., 1959. Marine Resources. Texas Natural Resources. Report of the Research Committee of the Houston Chamber of Commerce, Houston, TX, pp. 39–52. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PDEP). Nutrient Trading Program. 〈http://www.dep.state.pa.us/river/Nutrient%20trading.htm〉 (accessed 2010). Pulselli, Frederico, Coscieme, Luca, Bastianoni, Simone, 2011. Ecosystem services as a counterpart of emergy flows to ecosystems. Ecol. Modell. 222, 2924–2928. Sweeney, S., M.J. Cohen, D.M. King, M.T. Brown, 2007. Creation of a global emergy database for standardized national emergy synthesis. In: M.T. Brown, Ed., Proceedings of the Fourth Biennial Emergy Research Conference. Center for Environmental Policy, Gainesville, FL. Sweeney, S., Cohen, M.J., King, D.M., Brown, M.T., 2012. National Environmental Accounting Database. Available online at 〈http://www.cep.ees.ufl.edu/nead/〉. Tilley, D.R., Swank, W.T., 2003. EMERGY-based environmental systems assessment of a multi-purpose temperate mixed-forest watershed of the southern Appalachian Mountains, USA. J. Environ. Manage. 69, 213–227. Tilley, D.R., 1999. Emergy Basis of Forest Systems (Ph.D. dissertation). Department of Environmental Engineering Sciences, University of Florida, 300 pp. Ukidwe, N.U., Bhakshi, B.R., 2007. Industrial and ecological cumulative exergy consumption of the United States via the 1997 input–output benchmark model. Energy 32 (September (9)), 1560–1592. United States Census Burea. 2000. Commodity Flow Survey 2000 Data. 〈http:// www.census.gov/econ/cfs/〉. United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2003. The Clear Skies Act of 2003. 〈http://www.epa.gov/clearskies/fact2003.html〉. Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission. 2010. Rates and Billing. 〈http://www. wsscwater.com/home/jsp/content/rates-billing-index〉.
Please cite this article as: Campbell, E.T., Tilley, D.R., The eco-price: How environmental emergy equates to currency. Ecosystem Services (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2013.12.002i
