Ecosystem services valuation: a review of concepts, systems, new issues, and considerations about pollution in ecosystem services.
Basic value transfer method
Classical valuation methods
Climate change
Deliberative ecosystem service valuation
Journal
Environmental science and pollution research international
ISSN: 1614-7499
Titre abrégé: Environ Sci Pollut Res Int
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 9441769
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jul 2023
Jul 2023
Historique:
received:
01
10
2022
accepted:
02
06
2023
medline:
24
7
2023
pubmed:
20
6
2023
entrez:
20
6
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Managers can determine the function of ecosystem services in decision-making processes through valuation. Ecological functions and processes that benefit people lead to ecosystem services. Valuing ecosystem services mean finding values for the benefits of ecosystem services. For the concepts related to ecosystem services and their valuation, categories in different articles have been presented. One of the most important issues is providing a suitable grouping for different methods and concepts of valuing ecosystem services. In this study, the most recent topics related to ecosystem service valuation methods were compiled and categorized by using the system theory. The aim of this study was to introduce some of the most important classical and modern methods and concepts of valuing ecosystem services. For this aim, a review of articles related to ecosystem service valuation methods, content analysis, and categorization of their contents was used to provide definitions, concepts, and categorization of different methods. To summarize, valuation methods are classified into two types: classical and modern methods. Classical approaches include the avoided cost method, the replacement cost method, the factor income method, the travel cost method, hedonic pricing, and contingent value. Modern methods include the basic value transfer method, deliberative ecosystem service valuation, valuation of climate change risks, and other cases that evolve every day in the world of science. Findings of the paper have the potential to be beneficial in comprehending the definitions and ideas of ecosystem services in ecosystem management, particularly in protected areas, participatory management, and pollutant research. This research can add to the worldwide literature on the valuing of ecosystem services while also determining the most pressing issues and difficulties of today, such as climate change, pollution, ecosystem management, and participatory management.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37338682
doi: 10.1007/s11356-023-28143-2
pii: 10.1007/s11356-023-28143-2
doi:
Substances chimiques
Environmental Pollutants
0
Types de publication
Review
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
83051-83070Informations de copyright
© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.
Références
Alphayo IL, Lance W, Oliver RVW et al (2020) Economic valuation of grazing management practices: discrete choice modeling in pastoral systems of Kenya. J Environ Plan Manage 63(2):335–351. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2019.1584097
doi: 10.1080/09640568.2019.1584097
Amirnejad H, AtaeiSolout K (2017) Estimation of economic value of gas regulation function in Bemo National Park rangeland ecosystem (case study: stabilization of carbon dioxide and oxygen supply). J Environ Res 8(15):193–202 (In Persian)
Azadi H, Van Passel S, Cools J (2021) Rapid economic valuation of ecosystem services in man and biosphere reserves in Africa: a review. Global Ecol Conserv 28:e01697
doi: 10.1016/j.gecco.2021.e01697
Bernue’s A, Rodrı’guez-Ortega T, Ripoll-Bosch R, Alfnes F (2014) socio-cultural and economic valuation of ecosystem services provided by Mediterranean mountain agroecosystems. Plos One 9(7):e102479. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0102479
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0102479
Byrne AT, Hadrich JC, Robinson E, Han G (2020) A factor-income approach to estimating grassland protection subsidy payments to livestock herders in Inner Mongolia China. Land Use Policy 91:104352. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.104352
doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.104352
Chen H (2021) The ecosystem service value of maintaining and expanding terrestrial protected areas in China. Sci Total Environ 781:146768. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.146768
Chen H, Costanza R, Kubiszewski R (2022) Land use trade-offs in China’s protected areas from the perspective of accounting values of ecosystem services. J Environ Manage 315:115178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.115178
doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.115178
Comte A, Campagne CS, Lange S et al (2022) Ecosystem accounting: Past scientific developments and future challenges. Ecosyst Serv 58:101486. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2022.101486
Costanza R (2020) Valuing natural capital and ecosystem services toward the goals of efficiency, fairness, and sustainability. Ecosyst Serv 43:101096. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2020.101096
doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2020.101096
Costanza R, de Groot R, Sutton PC et al (2014) Changes in the global value of ecosystem services. Global Environ Change 26:152–158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.04.002
doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.04.002
Costanza R, De Groot R, Braat L et al (2017) Twenty years of ecosystem services: how far have we come and how far do we still need to go? Ecosyst Serv 28:1–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.09.008
doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.09.008
Costanza R, Anderson ShJ, Sutton P et al (2021) The global value of coastal wetlands for storm protection. Global Environ Change 70:102328. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2021.102328
doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2021.102328
Czembrowski P, Kronenberg J (2016) Hedonic pricing and different urban green space types and sizes: Insights into the discussion on valuing ecosystem services. Landsc Urban Plan 146:11–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2015.10.005
doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2015.10.005
Czúcza B, Haines-Young R, Kissa M et al (2020) Ecosystem service indicators along the cascade: how do assessment and mapping studies position their indicators? Ecol Indic 118(2020):106729. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2020.106729
doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2020.106729
Danehkar A, Zandebasiri M (2020) System analysis in environment. University of Tehran Press. (In Persian)
de Groot RS, Wilson M, Boumans R (2002) A typology for the description, classification and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services. Ecol Econ 41(3):393–408
doi: 10.1016/S0921-8009(02)00089-7
DEWHA (Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts), (2009). Ecosystem services: key concepts and applications, Occasional Paper No 1, Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, Canberra. Available at: https://www.awe.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/ecosystem-services.pdf
ELD (Economics of Land Degradation) Initiative (2019). ELD Campus. Module: valuation of ecosystem services. 40 P. Available from www.eld-initiative.org .
Farber S, Costanza R, Wilson MA (2002) Economic and ecological concepts for valuing ecosystem services. Ecol Econ 41:375–392
doi: 10.1016/S0921-8009(02)00088-5
Farber S, Costanza R, Childers DL et al (2006) Linking ecology and economics for ecosystem management. Bioscience 56:121–133. https://doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568(2006)056[0121:LEAEFE]2.0.CO;2
doi: 10.1641/0006-3568(2006)056[0121:LEAEFE]2.0.CO;2
Goel P (2006) Water pollution: causes, effects and control. New Age International
Haines‐Young R and Potschin M (2014) Typology/classification of ecosystem services. In: Potschin, M. and K. Jax (eds): OpenNESS Ecosystem services reference book. EC FP7 Grant Agreement no. 308428. Available via: http://www.openness-project.eu/library/reference-book
Hassen A, Zander KK, Manes S, Meragiaw M (2023) Local People’s perception of forest ecosystem services, traditional conservation, and management approaches in North Wollo Ethiopi. J Environ Manage 330:117118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.117118
doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.117118
Herd-Hoare S, Shackleton CM (2020) Ecosystem disservices matter when valuing ecosystem benefits from small-scale arable agriculture. Ecosyst Serv 46:101201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2020.101201
doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2020.101201
Himes-Cornell A, Pendleton L, Atiyah P (2018) Valuing ecosystem services from blue forests: a systematic review of the valuation of salt marshes, sea grass beds and mangrove forests. Ecosyst Serv 30(Part A):36–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2018.01.006
doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2018.01.006
Iranmanesh Y, Pourhashemi M, Jahanbazi H et al (2022) Study of traditional and formal knowledge of acorn harvesting of brant`s oak (Quercus brantii Lindl.) trees in the Zagros forests. Ecol Iranian For 9(18):81–93 (In Persian with English abstract)
Jones MLM, Provins A, Harper-Simmonds L, et al. (2012) Using the Ecosystems Services Approach to value air quality. Full technical report to Defra, project NE0117. Available via: https://ukair.defra.gov.uk/assets/documents/reports/cat10/1511251138_NE0117_Using_the_ecosystems_services_approach_to_value_air_quality.pdf
Jones L, Vieno M, Morton D, et al. (2017) Developing estimates for the valuation of air pollution removal in ecosystem accounts. Final report for Office of National Statistics, July 2017. Available via: https://nora.nerc.ac.uk/id/eprint/524081/7/N524081RE.pdf
Jackson S, Finn M, Scheepers K (2014) The use of replacement cost method to assess and manage the impacts of water resource development on Australian indigenous customary economies. J Environ Manage 135:100–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2014.01.018
doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2014.01.018
Juutinen A, Immerzeel B, Pouta E et al (2022) A comparative analysis of the value of recreation in six contrasting Nordic landscapes using the travel cost method. J Outdoor Recreat Tour 39(2022):100528. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jort.2022.100528
doi: 10.1016/j.jort.2022.100528
Kubiszewski I, Concollato L, Costanza R, Stern DI (2023) Changes in authorship, networks, and research topics in ecosystem services. Ecosyst Serv 59:101501. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2022.101501
doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2022.101501
Langle-Flores A, Quijas S (2020) A systematic review of ecosystem services of Islas Marietas National Park, Mexico, an insular marine protected area. Ecosyst Serv 46:101214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2020.101214
doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2020.101214
Lefeuvre NB, Keller N, Plagnat-Contoreggi P et al (2022) The value of logged tropical forests: a study of ecosystem services in Sabah, Borneo. Environ Sci Policy 128:56–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2021.11.003
doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2021.11.003
Liebelt V, Bartke S, Schwarz N (2018) Hedonic pricing analysis of the influence of urban green spaces onto residential prices: the case of Leipzig Germany. Eur Plan Stud 26(1):133–157. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2017.1376314
doi: 10.1080/09654313.2017.1376314
Liu Y, Zhou S, Chen Y et al (2022) How do local people value ecosystem service benefits receive from conservation programs? Evidence from nature reserves on the Hengduan Mountains. Global Ecol Conserv 33:e01979. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2021.e01979
doi: 10.1016/j.gecco.2021.e01979
Ling MA, King S, Mapendembe A, Brown C (2018) A review of ecosystem service valuation progress and approaches by the Member States of the European Union. UNEPWCMC, Cambridge,UK. https://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/capital_accounting/pdf/eu_es_valuation_review.pdf
Martínez-Jiménez ET, Pérez-Campuzano E, Ibarra AA (2017) Hedonic pricing model for the economic valuation of conservation land in Mexico City. Trans Ecol Environ 223:101–111. https://doi.org/10.2495/SC170091
doi: 10.2495/SC170091
Mashayekhi Z, Sharzehi GhA, Danehkar A, Majed V (2018) A comparison of stated preferences methods for economic valuation of ecosystem services (case study: Qeshm mangrove ecosystems). Environ Sci 16(1):69–88 (In Persian with English abstract)
Maynard S, James D, Davidson A (2015) Determining the value of multiple ecosystem services in terms of community wellbeing: who should be the valuing agent? Ecol Econ 115:22–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.02.002
doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.02.002
McPhearson T, Cook EM, Berbe’s-Bla’zquez M (2022) A social-ecological- echnological systems framework for urban ecosystem services. One earth 5(5):505–518. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2022.04.007
doi: 10.1016/j.oneear.2022.04.007
Melgar-Melgar RE, Hall ChAS (2020) Why ecological economics needs to return to its roots: the biophysical foundation of socio-economic systems. Ecol Econ 169:106567. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2019.106567
doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2019.106567
Melvani K, Myers TLB, Stacey N et al (2022) Farmers’ values for land, trees and biodiversity underlie agricultural sustainability. Land Use Policy 117:105688. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2021.105688
doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2021.105688
Ndebele T, Forgie V (2017) Estimating the economic benefits of a wetland restoration programme in New Zealand: a contingent valuation approach. Econ Anal Policy 55:75–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eap.2017.05.002
doi: 10.1016/j.eap.2017.05.002
Nesbitt L, Hotte N, Barron S et al (2017) The social and economic value of cultural ecosystem services provided by urban forests in North America: a review and suggestions for future research. Urban For Urban Green 25:103–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2017.05.005
doi: 10.1016/j.ufug.2017.05.005
Ninan KN, Inoue M (2013) Valuing forest ecosystem services: case study of a forest reserve in Japan. Ecosyst Serv 5:e78–e87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2013.02.006
doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2013.02.006
Ninan KN, Kontolen A (2016) Valuing forest ecosystem services and disservices –case study of a protected area in India. Ecosyst Serv 20:1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.05.001
doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.05.001
Novikov DA (2015) Systems theory and systems analysis. systems engineering in cybernetics: from past to future. – Heidelberg: Springer, 107 p. https://link.springer.com/chapter/ https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-27397-6_4
Potschin M, Haines-Young R (2011) Ecosystem services. Prog Phys Geogr 35(5):575–594
doi: 10.1177/0309133311423172
Potschin M and Haines-Young R (2016) Defining and measuring ecosystem services. In: Potschin M, Haines-Young R, Fish R, Turner RK (eds) Routledge Handbook of Ecosystem Services. Routledge, London and ä New York. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315775302
Pourtoosi N, Koocheki A, Nasiri Mahalati M, Ghorbani M (2018) Economic valuation of the ecosystem services of Mashhad’s Parks. Environ Sci 15(4):155–176 (In Persian with English abstract)
Richter F, Jan P, Benni NEI et al (2021) A guide to assess and value ecosystem services of grasslands. Ecosyst Serv 52:101376. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2021.101376
doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2021.101376
Rising JM, Taylor Ch, Ives MC, Ward RET (2022) Challenges and innovations in the economic evaluation of the risks of climate change. Ecol Econ 197(2022):107437. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2022.107437
doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2022.107437
Rolón E, José Rosso J, Mabragaña E et al (2022) Distribution and accumulation of major and trace elements in water, sediment, and fishes from protected areas of the Atlantic Rainforest. Environ Sci Pollut Res 29:58843–58868. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-19416-3
doi: 10.1007/s11356-022-19416-3
Sanchez JJ, Marcos-Martinez R, Srivastava L et al (2021) Valuing the impacts of forest disturbances on ecosystem services: an examination of recreation and climate regulation services in U.S. national forests. Trees For People 5:100123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tfp.2021.100123
doi: 10.1016/j.tfp.2021.100123
Sangha KK, Russell-Smith J, Morrison SC (2017) Challenges for valuing ecosystem services from an indigenous estate in northern Australia. Ecosyst Serv 25:167–178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.04.013
doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.04.013
Schon NL, Dominati EJ (2020) Valuing earthworm contribution to ecosystem services delivery. Ecosyst Serv 43:101092. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2020.101092
doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2020.101092
Sharzei GhA, Majed V (2015) Using choice experiment to value Zarinehroud’s environmental functions improvement. Environ Sci 13(2):133–144 (In Persian with English abstract)
Shen X, Gatto P, Pagliacci F (2023) Unravelling the role of institutions in market-based instruments: a systematic review on forest carbon mechanisms. Forests 14:136. https://doi.org/10.3390/f14010136
doi: 10.3390/f14010136
Small N, Munday M, Durancec I (2017) The challenge of valuing ecosystem services that have no material benefits. Glob Environ Chang 44:57–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2017.03.005
Small A, Owne A, Paavola J (2021) Organizational use of ecosystem service approaches: a critique from a systems theory perspective. Bus Strat Environ: 1 –13. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2887
Smith N, Deal R, Kline J, et al. 2011 Ecosystem services as a framework for forest stewardship: Deschutes National Forest overview. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-852. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 46 p.
Stenger A, Harou P, Navrud S (2009) Valuing environmental goods and services derived from the forests. J for Econ 15:1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfe.2008.03.001
doi: 10.1016/j.jfe.2008.03.001
Torrel LA, Torell GL, Skaggas RK (2014) Incorporating ecosystem services into economic assessments of restoration projects. Rangelands 36(2):45–51. https://doi.org/10.2111/RANGELANDS-D-13-00054.1
doi: 10.2111/RANGELANDS-D-13-00054.1
Torres-Ortega S, Pérez-Álvarez R, Díaz-Simal P et al (2018) Economic valuation of cultural heritage: application of travel cost method to the National Museum and Research Center of Altamira. Sustainability 2018(10):2550. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10072550
doi: 10.3390/su10072550
Turner H, Archer RA, Downey LE et al (2021) An introduction to the main types of economic evaluations used for informing priority setting and resource allocation in healthcare: key features, uses, and limitations. Front Public Health 9:722927. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2021.722927
doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2021.722927
Tyllianakis E, Callaway A, Vanstaen K, Luisetti T (2019) The value of information: Realising the economic benefits of mapping seagrass meadows in the British Virgin Islands. Sci Total Environ 650:2107–2116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.09.296
doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.09.296
Van Houtven G, Mansfield C, Phaneuf DJ et al (2014) Combining expert elicitation and stated preference methods to value ecosystem services from improved lake water quality. Ecol Econ 99:40–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2013.12.018
doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2013.12.018
Van Opstal NV, Seehaus MS, Gabioud EA et al (2022) Quality of the surface water of a basin affected by the expansion of the agricultural frontier over the native forest in the Argentine Espinal region. Environ Sci Pollut Res 29:57395–57411. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-19760-4
doi: 10.1007/s11356-022-19760-4
Vejre H, Jensen FS, Thorsen BJ (2010) Demonstrating the importance of intangible ecosystem services from peri-urban landscapes. Ecol Complex 7(3):338–348. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecocom.2009.09.005
doi: 10.1016/j.ecocom.2009.09.005
Villegas-Palacio C, Berrouet L, López C et al (2016) Lessons from the integrated valuation of ecosystem services in a developing country: three case studies on ecological, socio-cultural and economic valuation. Ecosyst Serv 22(Part B):297–308. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.10.017
doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.10.017
Wang J, Koopman KR, Collas FPL et al (2021) Towards an ecosystem service-based method to quantify the filtration services of mussels under chemical exposure. Sci Total Environ 763(2021):144196. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.144196
Zandebasiri M, Pourhashemi M (2018) Traditional forest-related knowledge, part one: describing the foundations and features of traditional and scientific systems. Iran J Nature 3(2):10–15. https://doi.org/10.22092/IRN.2018.116430
doi: 10.22092/IRN.2018.116430
Zandebasiri M, Soosani J, Pourhashemi M (2017) Evaluating existing strategies in environmental crisis of Zagros forests of Iran. Appl Ecol Environ Res 15(3):621–632. https://doi.org/10.15666/aeer/1503_621632
doi: 10.15666/aeer/1503_621632
Zandebasiri M, Filipe JA, Soosani J et al (2020) An incomplete information static game evaluating community-based forest management in Zagros Iran. Sustainability 12(1750):1–14. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12051750
doi: 10.3390/su12051750
Zandebasiri M, Groselj P, Azadi H et al (2021) DPSIR framework priorities and its application to forest management: a fuzzy modeling. Environ Monit Assess 193:598. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-021-09257-x
doi: 10.1007/s10661-021-09257-x
Zandebasiri M, Azadi H, Viira AH et al (2023) Modeling ecosystem functions’ failure modes: formulating fuzzy risk priorities in the forests of Western Iran. Int J Environ Sci Technol 20:2581–2600. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13762-022-04619-5
doi: 10.1007/s13762-022-04619-5
Zhai Y, Jiang Y, Cao X et al (2022) Valuation of ecosystem damage induced by soil-groundwater pollution in an arid climate area: framework, method and case study. Environ Res 211:113013. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2022.113013
doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2022.113013