Barbier (2021) traces how economic views on natural resource scarcity have changed to include which concepts?

• A. Economic views unchanged; scarcity remains sole driver.
• B. A shift to include sustainability and ecosystem services.
• C. Ecosystem services have no policy relevance.
• D. Value of nature purely aesthetic.

Answer: (B)

Economic views of natural resource scarcity have evolved to recognize that nature provides more than extractable materials. Barbier (2021) shows that thinking has shifted to include sustainability and ecosystem services as central ideas. This matters because ecosystems deliver a wide range of benefits—provisioning (food, water), regulating (climate, floods, disease), supporting (habitat, pollination), and cultural values—that underpin economies and human well‑being. Valuing these services helps explain why preserving ecosystems can be economically sensible, not just environmentally friendly, and it supports policy tools like natural capital accounting and payments for ecosystem services to maintain resources for the long term. So the right view is that economic thinking now includes sustainability and ecosystem services.

Sticking to unchanged scarcity ignores the documented shift toward broader valuation and long‑term viability. Treating ecosystem services as irrelevant to policy contradicts how these services are increasingly integrated into decision making. Viewing the value of nature as purely aesthetic misses the substantial economic roles ecosystems play through provisioning, regulating, and supporting services.