Is economic valuation of ecosystem services useful to decision-makers? Lessons learned from Australian coastal and marine management

Economic valuation of ecosystem services is widely advocated as a useful decision-support tool for ecosystem management. However, the extent to which economic valuation of ecosystem services is actually used or considered useful in decision-making is poorly documented. This literature blindspot is explored with an application to coastal and marine ecosystems management in Australia. Based on a nation-wide survey of eighty-eight decision-makers representing a diversity of management organizations, the perceived usefulness and level of use of ecosystem services economic valuation in support of coastal and marine management are examined. A large majority of decision-makers are found to be familiar with economic valuation and consider it useful - even necessary - in decision-making, although this varies across decision-makers groups. However, most decision-makers never or rarely use it. The perceived level of importance and trust in estimated dollar values differ across ecosystem services, and are especially high for values that relate to commercial activities. A number of factors are also found to influence respondent’s use of economic valuation. Such findings concur with conclusions from other existing works, and are instructive to reflect on the issue of the usefulness of ESV in environmental management decision-making. They also confirm that the survey-based approach developed in this application represents a sound strategy to examine this issue at various scales and management levels.

Building economic capability to improve the management of marine resources in Australia: Final report

FRDC project 2008/306 Building economic capability to improve the management of marine resources in Australia was developed and approved in response to the widespread recognition and acknowledgement of the importance of incorporating economic considerations into marine management in Australia and of the persistent undersupply of suitably trained and qualified individuals capable of providing this input. The need to address this shortfall received broad based support and following widespread stakeholder consultation and building on previous unsuccessful State-based initiatives, a collaborative, cross-jurisdictional cross-institutional capability building model was developed. The resulting project sits within the People Development Program as part of FRDC’s ‘investment in RD&E to develop the capabilities of the people to whom the industry entrusts its future’, and has addressed its objectives largely through three core activities: 1. The Fisheries Economics Graduate Research Training Program which provides research training in fisheries/marine economics through enrolment in postgraduate higher degree studies at the three participating Universities; 2. The Fisheries Economics Professional Training Program which aims to improve the economic literacy of non-economist marine sector stakeholders and was implemented in collaboration with the Seafood Cooperative Research Centre through the Future Harvest Masterclass in Fisheries Economics; and, 3. The Australian Fisheries Economics Network (FishEcon) which aims to strengthen research in the area of fisheries economics by creating a forum in which fisheries economists, fisheries managers and Ph.D. students can share research ideas and results, as well as news of upcoming research opportunities and events. These activities were undertaken by a core Project team, comprising economic researchers and teachers from each of the four participating institutions (namely the University of Tasmania, the University of Adelaide, Queensland University of Technology and the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation), spanning three States and the Commonwealth. The Project team reported to and was guided by a project Steering Committee. Commensurate with the long term nature of the project objectives and some of its activities the project was extended (without additional resources) in 2012 to 30th June 2015.

The legality of deep packet inspection

Deep packet inspection is a technology which enables the examination of the content of information packets being sent over the Internet. The Internet was originally set up using “end-to-end connectivity” as part of its design, allowing nodes of the network to send packets to all other nodes of the network, without requiring intermediate network elements to maintain status information about the transmission. In this way, the Internet was created as a “dumb” network, with “intelligent” devices (such as personal computers) at the end or “last mile” of the network. The dumb network does not interfere with an application's operation, nor is it sensitive to the needs of an application, and as such it treats all information sent over it as (more or less) equal. Yet, deep packet inspection allows the examination of packets at places on the network which are not endpoints, In practice, this permits entities such as Internet service providers (ISPs) or governments to observe the content of the information being sent, and perhaps even manipulate it. Indeed, the existence and implementation of deep packet inspection may challenge profoundly the egalitarian and open character of the Internet. This paper will firstly elaborate on what deep packet inspection is and how it works from a technological perspective, before going on to examine how it is being used in practice by governments and corporations. Legal problems have already been created by the use of deep packet inspection, which involve fundamental rights (especially of Internet users), such as freedom of expression and privacy, as well as more economic concerns, such as competition and copyright. These issues will be considered, and an assessment of the conformity of the use of deep packet inspection with law will be made. There will be a concentration on the use of deep packet inspection in European and North American jurisdictions, where it has already provoked debate, particularly in the context of discussions on net neutrality. This paper will also incorporate a more fundamental assessment of the values that are desirable for the Internet to respect and exhibit (such as openness, equality and neutrality), before concluding with the formulation of a legal and regulatory response to the use of this technology, in accordance with these values.

Is it the economy, stupid? The role of social versus economic factors in people’s support for hosting the Olympic Games: Evidence from 12 democratic countries

Public referenda have gained momentum as a democratic tool to legitimize public mega projects such as hosting the Olympic Games. Interest groups in favour of hosting the Olympics therefore try to influence voters through public campaigns that primarily focus on economic benefits. However, recent studies find no or hardly any economic impact of hosting the Olympics, instead providing evidence for a positive social impact. This raises the question whether citizens consider economic or social factors when deciding on hosting the Olympics. Based on representative survey data from 12 countries, our results suggest that economic factors can influence voting behaviour, although the influence of social factors is stronger.

Reforming technology company incentive programs for achieving knowledge-based economic development:a Brazil-Australia comparative study

This doctoral thesis aims to demonstrate the importance of incentives to technology-based firms as a strategy to promote knowledge-based economic development (KBED). To remain competitive, technology-based firms must innovate and seek new markets; therefore, this study aims to propose an incentive model to technology-based firms as a strategy to promote knowledge-based urban development, according to framework described by Yigitcanlar (2011). This is an exploratory and descriptive research with a qualitative approach. Surveys were carried out with national trade associations that represented technology-based firms both in Brazil and Australia. After analysing the surveys, structured interviews were conducted with government representatives, trade associations and businessmen who had used financial support by the federal government. When comparing both countries, the study found the importance of direct incentives through tax incentives, for it is a less bureaucratic, quicker and more direct process for firms. We suggest to include the terms incentives in the framework of knowledge-based urban development, as one of the pillars that contribute to knowledge-based economic development.