Ecosystem Services Valuation

Use market prices when available (e.g. crop pollination benefit observed in yield or price premium). Use replacement cost when markets don't exist but you can proxy via cost of substitution (e.g. water treatment cost vs natural filtration). Use contingent valuation (surveys) only when neither is feasible, and only with trained surveyors and careful experimental design—results are sensitive to framing and incentive-compatibility.

Report the range and explain the sensitivity. Prioritize methods with stronger conceptual and empirical grounding for your specific service. Consult benefit-transfer guidelines and databases to see if your service has a robust empirical consensus. If not, acknowledge uncertainty and use the range to bound decision-making (e.g. 'even the low estimate makes conservation cost-effective').

Yes, but be transparent about which services you've valued and which you've excluded. Development projects typically value timber or minerals while omitting habitat, water, or carbon. For a fair comparison, value all significant services on both sides, or explicitly acknowledge the omission and its implications for distributional equity.

Use global valuation methods (social cost of carbon for climate) rather than local replacement-cost or beneficiary-pay approaches. Be explicit about who the beneficiaries are and whether local communities will receive compensation. If not, ESV may justify conservation but doesn't resolve distributional injustice—combine with benefit-sharing mechanisms.