Comments for Singapore's Green Awakening

Comment on An interview vignette – Economics don offers alternative perspective on land allocation by chun fong

chun fong — Tue, 25 Mar 2008 12:03:01 +0000

i feel that it is not so simple as asking people for their opinion on how much a biodiversity-rich piece of land should cost, as people changes with time and what an earlier generation deems as dispensable may not be so for the next subsequent generation(s). hence i do not agree with the monetary assessment of land. indeed, nature is priceless.

Comment on An interview vignette – Economics don offers alternative perspective on land allocation by chuaclarence

chuaclarence — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 07:18:55 +0000

To see Dr. Ho Hua Chews perspectives on this issue, please find:

“Environmental Values and the Willingness to Pay” in Environmental Issues in Development & Conservation (edited by Clive Briffett & Sim Loo Lee. SNP Publishers.)

Available in the NUS library.

Comment on Ulu Pandan: A Wonderful Home for All? by chuaclarence

chuaclarence — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 07:12:15 +0000

I would like to make an amendment to a detail in this article.

The species of birds the woodlands number 36, not seven. The difference is due to the number of migratory species also which also call the woodlands home.

Comment on An interview vignette – Economics don offers alternative perspective on land allocation by budak

budak — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 05:00:04 +0000

it seems to me that Prof Quah’s way of valuing nature is ad hoc as well, as it seems to rely on the population’s subjective assessment of the land’s value. One could argue that using purely monetary measurements on the worth of nature areas could well result in the economically ‘optimal’ outcome of nearly zero nature areas as people accord more value to ‘development’ in total, without taking into account the services (both measurable and less so) than nature areas provide.