A forest that is cut down shows up in the national accounts as income. The same forest left standing shows up as nothing at all. Environmental accounting is the attempt to fix that gap — to give nature a number so it stops being treated as worth zero. This page is about how that is done, and why so many people argue about it.
📚 What you need to know
Accounting means recording transactions, summarising them into statements and analysing what they show about financial health.
Environmental accounting (or green accounting) does three things: assign economic value to natural resources, track their depletion over time, and put a money figure on the environmental costs and benefits of economic activity.
Environmental accounts are statistical frameworks that combine economic and environmental data, measuring what the environment gives the economy and what the economy does to the environment.
The UN’s System of Environmental-Economic Accounting (SEEA) gives countries a standard way to compile that data. Firms increasingly publish corporate sustainability reports alongside their financial ones.
Use value comes from using a resource. Non-use value is worth beyond any direct use, and splits into intrinsic, option and bequest value.
Non-use value is estimated by survey: willingness to pay to protect something, or willingness to accept as compensation for losing it.
The hard part is agreement. Stakeholders value things differently, data is patchy, and the numbers carry real uncertainty.
Why bother pricing nature at all?
Ordinary accounting is a well-worn process: record the transactions, summarise them into financial statements, then analyse those to see how a business or a country is doing. Bookkeeping, financial reporting and auditing are all part of it.
The problem is what gets recorded. A transaction only exists if money changed hands. So when a country logs a forest, the timber sale is counted as income — but the forest itself, which was an asset, quietly disappears from the books without ever appearing as a loss. On paper the country got richer. In reality it swapped a long-term asset for a one-off payment and did not write the swap down anywhere.
Environmental accounting exists to close that hole. It aims to:
Assign economic value to natural resources, so a standing forest, a fish stock or an aquifer counts as something rather than nothing.
Track depletion over time, so you can see the asset shrinking year by year instead of only seeing the income it produced.
Quantify environmental costs and benefits in money, so they can sit in the same table as everything else a decision-maker is looking at.
The honest argument for pricing nature is not that money captures its worth. It is that decisions get made in spreadsheets, and anything left out of the spreadsheet is treated as worth zero. A rough number is a far better description of a wetland than zero is.
Environmental accounts: two directions at once
Environmental accounts are statistical frameworks that sit economic and environmental data side by side. They give a systematic way of measuring two flows that normally get discussed completely separately.
Standard national accounts record only the green arrow, and only the part of it that was sold. The red arrow has no column at all.
In a national accounting system, environmental accounts can track what sectors like agriculture, forestry and fishing contribute to the economy, and set that next to their environmental impacts such as deforestation or habitat destruction. Businesses do the same at a smaller scale, working out the environmental costs tied to their operations — pollution control equipment, waste handling, resource depletion.
Real initiatives
SEEA — the System of Environmental-Economic Accounting, developed by the United Nations. It gives a standardised approach for compiling and organising data on how the economy and the environment interact. Standardisation is the whole point: without it, no two countries’ figures can be compared.
Corporate sustainability reports — company reports that publish environmental performance measures alongside the financial figures. These are becoming increasingly common, though what goes in them is far less regulated than what goes in a financial statement.
Link back to greenwashing: a sustainability report is only as good as its verification. If a firm chooses which measures to publish and nobody audits them, the report becomes a marketing document. Auditing is the difference between accounting and advertising.
Use value and non-use value
Economic value is usually tied to use. A tree’s economic value is worked out from the timber or paper it can produce — that is, from how people consume it. Straightforward enough, and it is how almost all resources get valued.
But some value cannot be reached that way at all. Non-use value is the worth of a resource beyond any direct use of it: what it is worth to you that a thing simply exists, even if you never touch it.
Cutting the forest down captures the value in one box and destroys the value in the other four. That is the whole argument in a single picture.
Type of non-use value
What it means
Example
Intrinsic value
The inherent worth of a species or ecosystem, regardless of whether it is useful to humans at all
A deep-sea species nobody will ever see or eat still matters
Option value
The value of keeping a resource so that it can be used or enjoyed at some point in the future
Protecting a rainforest plant that might one day yield a medicine
Bequest value
The value of preserving something for the benefit of future generations
Keeping a national park intact so your grandchildren can visit it
These three are easy to muddle because they overlap. Use the person at the centre of each one: intrinsic is about the thing itself, no humans required. Option is about you, later. Bequest is about someone else, later. Say who benefits and you will pick the right term every time.
How do you measure something with no price?
If there is no market, there is no price, so economists build one by asking people. Non-use value is usually estimated through surveys that ask one of two questions:
Both numbers are meant to describe the same reef. If a survey can move the answer just by rephrasing, that tells you how carefully these figures need handling.
The Exxon Valdez case
After the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil disaster, surveys were used to estimate the non-use value of the marine habitats that were damaged. Researchers asked people hypothetical questions: how much would you pay to prevent a similar spill in future, or to restore these ecosystems to their pre-spill condition?
Scaling those answers up across the population produced an estimate of the non-use value of protecting the ecosystem. What made the case important is what it was measuring — the inherent worth of that marine environment, over and above the fishing and tourism income anyone could count. Before this, damages tended to stop at lost commercial catch.
Other cases
The Great Barrier Reef has non-use value as a globally significant ecosystem. Surveys have asked how much people would be willing to pay to protect it from threats such as climate change and pollution — including plenty of people who will never visit it.
National parks and protected areas carry bequest value for future generations and intrinsic value for the biodiversity they hold, on top of whatever visitors spend at the gate.
🧩 How a valuation survey is put together
Define exactly what is being valued. “The reef” is too vague; “preventing a 10% loss of coral cover over 20 years” can be answered.
Choose the question type. Willingness to pay, or willingness to accept. Say which, because it changes the number.
Sample properly. Ask a group that represents the population, not just people who already care.
Find the average response per household or per person.
Scale it up by the number of households, and state the time period clearly.
Report the uncertainty. A single headline figure with no range is a red flag, not a result.
Why this is so hard
It would be neat if you could just look these numbers up. You cannot, and the reasons are worth knowing because they are where the evaluation marks live.
Challenge
Why it is a problem
Stakeholders disagree
Getting consensus on what a natural resource is worth is very difficult when different groups want different things. One stakeholder prioritises preservation, another economic growth, another social equity — and each ends up with a different valuation of the same forest.
Data limitations
Environmental data is patchy, expensive to gather and often missing for exactly the ecosystems that need it most.
Valuation uncertainty
Survey answers are hypothetical. Nobody actually hands over the money, so stated amounts may not match what people would really pay.
Combining two kinds of data
Economic data comes in currency, environmental data comes in tonnes, hectares and species counts. Merging them into one framework is technically awkward and forces assumptions.
Some things resist pricing
Intrinsic value says a species matters regardless of its usefulness to humans. Attaching a figure to that is arguably a category error, and some stakeholders reject the exercise on principle.
This last row is your best evaluation point, and it connects straight to environmental value systems. An ecocentric viewpoint says pricing nature misses the point entirely, because worth is not the same as price. A technocentric one says an imperfect number that gets into the decision beats a perfect principle that does not. You do not have to pick a side — but showing you know both exists is what turns a description into an evaluation.
Worked examples
WORKED EXAMPLE
Outline the aims of environmental accounting and explain one challenge it faces. [4]
State the three aims
Assign economic value to natural resources; track their depletion over time; put a money figure on the environmental costs and benefits of economic activity.
Say why it existsNo number → treated as worth zero → ignored in the decision.Pick one challenge and explain it
Stakeholders disagree on value. A logging firm, a conservation group and a local community will each value the same forest differently because they prioritise growth, preservation and equity in different orders.
Show the consequence
So there is no single agreed figure, and the valuation chosen shapes the decision that follows.
Aims stated, purpose explained, one challenge developedNotice the challenge is explained, not just named. Naming alone gets one mark.
WORKED EXAMPLE
A survey finds that households are willing to pay US$12 per year to protect a reef. There are 9 million households. Estimate the annual non-use value, and comment on how reliable the figure is. [4]
Step 1: scale the average up12 × 9 000 000 = US$108 000 000 per yearStep 2: state it clearlyEstimated non-use value ≈ US$108 million per yearStep 3: comment on reliability
The payment is hypothetical, so real payments may be lower. The figure also depends on who was surveyed, and asking willingness to accept instead would very likely give a much larger number.
The maths is one mark. The three sentences after it are the other three.
💡 Exam tip
Learn the three aims as a list. Value resources, track depletion, quantify costs and benefits. It is a common four-mark opener.
Name SEEA and say what it adds. It is a United Nations framework, and its contribution is standardisation — comparable data between countries.
Keep intrinsic, option and bequest apart by asking who benefits and when: the thing itself, you later, someone else later.
Always say willingness to pay or willingness to accept. Examiners want the specific method, not “they did a survey”.
Have one case ready. Exxon Valdez 1989 for non-use value after damage, the Great Barrier Reef for protecting something globally significant.
Uncertainty is worth marks. Hypothetical answers, sample choice and the wording of the question are all fair criticisms of any valuation figure.
⚠️ Common mix-up
Thinking non-use value means worthless. It means valuable without being used. Those are opposite claims.
Calling tourism a non-use value. Visiting a reef is direct use. Valuing a reef you will never visit is non-use.
Mixing up option and bequest value. Option value keeps the door open for you. Bequest value keeps it open for people who come after you.
Confusing environmental accounting with environmental impact assessment. Accounting tracks values and depletion over time; an EIA assesses one proposed project before it goes ahead.
Treating a valuation figure as a hard fact. It is an estimate built on stated preferences, and the method chosen moves the answer.
Assuming a corporate sustainability report is audited. Financial statements usually are. Sustainability reports often are not, which is where greenwashing gets in.
That completes Topic 10 — Environmental Economics. Check yourself across all three pages: explain a market failure, explain why a shared resource collapses, and explain how you would put a number on a forest nobody is cutting down. If all three come out cleanly, this topic is finished.
Want this explained one-to-one?
Book a free session with an experienced IB ESS tutor and get your trickiest topics made simple.
