Then you're not speaking in economic terms and it's a pointless conversation. If you're trying to say how much a national park is worth, you need to speak economically. Saying a given parcel is "worth" $1 million doesn't mean you should sell it for any amount more than that. You can still think it's a bad idea in the long term to sell for ten times what it's "worth."

You can still talk in economic terms by estimating value in others ways, e.g., using scientific models based on replacement rates, etc.

I think that parent comment is spot on in saying that value determination based on what people are willing to pay for it, does often come not even close to the real/potential value of complex resource systems. Of course all estimations are still grounded in base prices of less complex resources.

/\ This thread is great for illustrating the article in real time.

Some people want to be able to put things in purely economic terms to be able to relate the current situation to the past, some want language to reflect the current crisis of natural resources, and then the conversation gets side-tracked by semantics.

The semantics are important, but lens-crafting makes conversations difficult, especially when meta-comments like this one further detract from the goal.

Important note: insulting myself, not any of the posters above.