The role of benefit transfer in ecosystem service valuation

doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.02.018

Ecological Economics

Volume 115, July 2015, Pages 51-58

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.02.018 Get rights and content

Highlights

•
We summarize the demand for and supply of ecosystem service values.
•
A benefit transfer methodology can be used to value ecosystem services.
•
We review accepted guidelines for conducting benefit transfers.
•
We discuss advancements in benefit transfer methods and modeling techniques.

Abstract

The demand for timely monetary estimates of the economic value of nonmarket ecosystem goods and services has steadily increased over the last few decades. This article describes the use of benefit transfer to generate monetary value estimates of ecosystem services specifically. The article provides guidance for conducting such benefit transfers and summarizes advancements in benefit transfer methods, databases and analysis tools designed to facilitate its application.

Introduction

The articles that make up this special section of Ecological Economics all have one common feature. Either explicitly or implicitly, they address the need for valuing the services provided by the natural environment in order to achieve more informed resource policy decisions. It is not always possible or efficient to conduct an original valuation study for each specific geographic area or service of concern. This article addresses the potential for using benefit transfer to estimate the value of nonmarket environmental goods and services generated by ecosystem processes. We first discuss the growing demand for monetized values of ecosystem services, and the role of benefit transfer in meeting this demand. We then review accepted guidelines for conducting benefit transfers and discuss advancements in transfer methods and modeling techniques. Next, we discuss the role of web-based resources in the valuation of ecosystem services along with recent references that provide in-depth reviews of these resources. Finally, we offer suggestions for improving benefit transfers in the spirit of improving ecosystem service valuation for future project or policy analysis.

Section snippets

The Demand for and Supply of Ecosystem Service Valuation Research

Growth in human population or per-capita resource consumption, shifting public preferences, increasing resource scarcity, declining environmental health and many other pressures mean that policymakers across the globe face increasingly complex decisions about natural resource management. Coupled with recent global assessments of the status of ecosystems and the benefits they provide to society (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005, The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB), 2011, UK

Benefit Transfer as a Method to Estimate Ecosystem Service Values

Benefit transfer is broadly defined as “…the use of existing data or information in settings other than for what it was originally collected” (Rosenberger and Loomis, 2003, p. 445). In the context discussed here, this involves the transfer of original ecosystem service value estimates from an existing ‘study site’ or multiple study sites to an unstudied ‘policy site’ with similar characteristics that is being evaluated. Benefit transfer is increasingly being used to meet the demand for

The Future of Benefit Transfer in Ecosystem Service Valuation

Benefit transfer has been widely practiced for several decades now. The motivation driving its use, namely, to supply information on ecosystem service values for use in policy decisions, is only growing. Given that economic analyses must be available in a timely manner to be policy-relevant, and often face budget constraints that prevent original study, the existing stock of welfare estimates will continue to be drawn on for valuation studies for new policy sites. Considerable advancements in

References (89)

K.J. Bagstad et al.
A comparative assessment of decision-support tools for ecosystem services quantification and valuation
Ecosyst. Serv.
(2013)
J. Boyd et al.
What are ecosystem services? The need for standardized environmental accounting units
Ecol. Econ.
(2007)
L.M. Brander et al.
The recreational value of coral reefs: a meta-analysis
Ecol. Econ.
(2007)
R. Brouwer
Environmental value transfer: state of the art and future prospects
Ecol. Econ.
(2000)
F. Escobedo et al.
Urban forests and pollution mitigation: analyzing ecosystem services and disservices
Environ. Pollut.
(2011)
B. Fisher et al.
Ecosystem services: classification for valuation
Biol. Conserv.
(2008)
B. Fisher et al.
Defining and classifying ecosystem services for decision making
Ecol. Econ.
(2009)
W.R. Gascoigne et al.
Valuing ecosystem and economic services across land-use scenarios in the Prairie Pothole Region of the Dakotas, USA
Ecol. Econ.
(2011)
L. Hein et al.
Spatial scales, stakeholders and the valuation of ecosystem services
Ecol. Econ.
(2006)
R. Iovanna et al.
Clean water, ecological benefits, and benefits transfer: a work in progress at the U.S. EPA
Ecol. Econ.
(2006)

W.A. Jenkins et al.

Valuing ecosystem services from wetlands restoration in the Mississippi Alluvial Valley

Ecol. Econ.

(2010)

R.J. Johnston et al.

An operational structure for clarity in ecosystem service values

Ecol. Econ.

(2011)

T. Kroeger

The quest for the “optimal” payment for environmental services program: ambition meets reality, with useful lessons

For. Policy Econ.

(2013)

J.B. Loomis et al.

A willingness-to-pay function for protecting acres of spotted owl habitat from fire

Ecol. Econ.

(1998)

J.B. Loomis et al.

Reducing barriers in future benefit transfers: needed improvements in primary study design and reporting

Ecol. Econ.

(2006)

J.B. Loomis et al.

Economic benefits of rare and endangered species: summary and meta-analysis

Ecol. Econ.

(1996)

G. McComb et al.

International valuation databases: overview, methods and operational issues

Ecol. Econ.

(2006)

M. Morrison

Non-market valuation databases: how useful are they?

Econ. Anal. Policy

(2001)

S. Piper et al.

Evaluating the accuracy of the benefit transfer method: a rural water supply application in the USA

J. Environ. Manag.

(2001)

L. Richardson et al.

The total economic value of threatened, endangered and rare species: an updated meta-analysis

Ecol. Econ.

(2009)

R.S. Rosenberger et al.

Measurement, generalization, and publication: sources of error in benefit transfers and their management

Ecol. Econ.

(2006)

V.K. Smith et al.

What have we learned since Hotelling's letter? A meta-analysis

Econ. Lett.

(1990)

A. Troy et al.

Mapping ecosystem services: practical challenges and opportunities in linking GIS and value transfer

Ecol. Econ.

(2006)

R.K. Turner et al.

Ecological-economic analysis of wetlands: scientific integration for management and policy

Ecol. Econ.

(2000)

R.T. Woodward et al.

The economic value of wetland services: a meta-analysis

Ecol. Econ.

(2001)

M. Zandersen et al.

A meta-analysis of forest recreation values in Europe

J. For. Econ.

(2009)

B.P. Allen et al.

The decision to use benefit transfer or conduct original valuation research for benefit–cost and policy analysis

Contemp. Econ. Policy

(2008)

K.J. Bagstad et al.

Spatial dynamics of ecosystem service flows: a comprehensive approach to quantifying actual services

Ecosyst. Serv.

(2012)

I.J. Bateman et al.

Contrasting conventional with multi-level modeling approaches to meta-analysis: expectation consistency in U.K. woodland recreation values

Land Econ.

(2003)

I.J. Bateman et al.

Economic analysis for ecosystem service assessments

Environ. Resour. Econ.

(2011)

I.J. Bateman et al.

Making benefit transfers work: deriving and testing principles for value transfers for similar and dissimilar sites using a case study of the non-market benefits of water quality improvements across Europe

Environ. Resour. Econ.

(2011)

D.M. Bauer et al.

The economics of rural and agricultural ecosystem services: purism versus practicality

Agric. Resour. Econ. Rev.

(2013)

N.E. Bockstael et al.

On measuring economic values for nature

Environ. Sci. Technol.

(2000)

J. Boyd et al.

The Definition and Choice of Environmental Commodities for Nonmarket Valuation

RFF DP 09-35

(2009)

K.J. Boyle et al.

Benefit transfer studies: myths, pragmatism, and idealism

Water Resour. Res.

(1992)

K.L. Boyle et al.

What do we know about groundwater values? Preliminary implications from a meta analysis of contingent-valuation studies

Am. J. Agric. Econ.

(1994)

L.M. Brander et al.

The empirics of wetland valuation: a comprehensive summary and meta-analysis of the literature

Environ. Resour. Econ.

(2006)

R. Brouwer et al.

The validity of environmental benefits transfer: further empirical testing

Environ. Resour. Econ.

(1999)

R. Brouwer et al.

A meta-analysis of wetland contingent valuation studies

Reg. Environ. Chang.

(1999)

E. Bulte et al.

Economic science, endangered species, and biodiversity loss

Conserv. Biol.

(2000)

R. Costanza et al.

The value of the world's ecosystems and natural capital

Nature

(1997)

C. Curtice et al.

Why ecosystem-based management may fail without changes to tool development and financing

Bioscience

(2012)

W.H. Desvousges et al.

Benefits transfer: conceptual problems in estimating water quality benefits using existing studies

Water Resour. Res.

(1992)

A.M. Freeman

On the tactics of benefit estimation under Executive Order 12291

Cited by (235)

What is the economic value of coastal and marine ecosystem services? A systematic literature review
2024, Marine Policy
This paper examines the economic value of marine and coastal ecosystem services by analyzing 67 studies published in scientific literature. It appraises, collects, and analyzes economic valuations, combining a systematic literature review and meta-analysis regressions. The studies focus on ecosystem services provided by coral reefs, marine waters, and mangrove forests, with recreation, tourism, and fishing being the most valued services. The economic value ranges for provisioning services are between $99 to $1535 per hectare per year, cultural services are between $45 to $2170 per hectare per year, and recreation and tourism services range from $185 to $895 per individual per year. However, the estimates should be used with caution due to the limited number of publications and the use of value transfer techniques. This paper’s findings can help develop future research for academics and practitioners communities and inform policy discussions about preserving these valuable ecosystems in the context of the climate crisis.
Study on the spatial changes in land use and landscape patterns and their effects on ecosystem services in Ghana, West Africa
2024, Environmental Development
Changes in land use significantly affect the environment by disrupting the natural landscape patterns. These changes may alter the ecological processes that affect the flow and provision of ecosystem services. In this study, we quantified land-use changes and the effects of landscape patterns on estimated Ecosystem Service Values (ESVs) at spatial and temporal scales in Ghana for four different years: 1995, 2005, 2015, and 2020. Using Fragstats spatial software, we computed landscape metrics to calculate the landscape patterns of the study area. We established a relationship between ecosystem services and landscape patterns by using correlation and regression analyses. The dominant land use in Ghana found in decreasing order were agriculture, forest, and savannah. The proportions covered by settlement and bare land were relatively small. The estimated ESVs for the study periods were US$172.11 billion in 1995, US$166.38 billion in 2005, US$166.07 billion in 2015 and US$166.59 in 2020. The entire decline observed was very significant (US$5.52 billion) because of the huge reduction in wetlands during this period. Linear multiple regression and correlation analyses revealed the relationships between ecosystem services and landscape patterns. According to the regression models, the landscape metrics of landscape composition and configuration had a net effect on the individual ecosystem services. This study provides useful reference material for land use policy makers, managers, and institutions involved in the implementation of policies and conservation practices to enhance the provision of ecosystem services.
Quantifying multi-dimensional services of water ecosystems and breakpoint-based spatial radiation of typical regulating services considering the hierarchical clustering-based classification
2024, Journal of Environmental Management
This study proposes a set of water ecosystem services (WES) research system, including classification, benefit quantification and spatial radiation effect, with the goal of promoting harmonious coexistence between humans and nature, as well as providing a theoretical foundation for optimizing water resources management. Hierarchical cluster analysis was applied to categorize WES taking in to account the four nature constraints of product nature, energy flow relationships, circularity, and human social utility. A multi-dimensional benefit quantification methodology system for WES was constructed by combining the emergy theory with multidisciplinary methods of ecology, economics, and sociology. Based on the theories of spatial autocorrelation and breaking point, we investigated the spatial radiation effects of typical services in the cyclic regulation category. The proposed methodology has been applied to Luoyang, China. The results show that the Resource Provisioning (RP) and Cultural Addition (CA) services change greatly over time, and drive the overall WES to increase and then decrease. The spatial and temporal distribution of water resources is uneven, with WES being slightly better in the southern region than the northern region. Additionally, spatial radiation effects of typical regulating services are most prominent in S County. This finding suggests the establishment of scientific and rational intra-basin or inter-basin water management systems to expand the beneficial impacts of water-rich areas on neighboring regions.
Industrial development zoning with dual objectives of spatial development suitability and ecosystem service value a case study in Xiaonanhai Hydropower Station basin
2024, Ecological Indicators
The future development of the reservoir basin after the construction of the hydropower station is an important topic in the current context of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) advocated by the United Nations. This study proposed a method for industrial development zoning in reservoir basins focusing on the need for sustainable development and environmental protection, aiming to achieve the double targets of maintaining the spatial development suitability and ecosystem service value. The method is validated with a case study carried out at the Xiaonanhai Hydropower Station, which is located in Chongqing, China, and is currently in the planning stage. The results showed that: (1) Post-construction Suitable Protected Areas for the Xiaonanhai Hydropower Station are mainly located in the upstream area of the reservoir basin, taking 55.14% of the reservoir basin area, the ecosystem service value is up to 48.64%. (2) The reservoir basin is divided into nine industrial sub-districts through a double overlay coupling of development and protection, i.e., the Eco-tourism Zone, Industrial Research Zone, Nature reserve, Industrial Zone, Agro-processing Zone, Agricultural Zone, Modern agricultural park, Eco-industrial Zone, and the Eco-agricultural Zone. (3) The Agro-processing Zone is suggested as the most developed zone as the development conditions of the study area are ideal for processing agricultural products. The Agro-processing Zone can take up to 25.03% of the total area. In conclusion, the industrial zoning delineation method that couples the suitability of land development and the Ecosystem Service Value is able to reasonably determine the functional orientation of each region in the future development of the reservoir area, and optimize the new pattern of development in the reservoir basin.
Societal benefits of floodplains in the Chesapeake Bay and Delaware River watersheds: Sediment, nutrient, and flood regulation ecosystem services
2023, Journal of Environmental Management
Floodplains provide critical ecosystem services to people by regulating floodwaters and retaining sediments and nutrients. Geospatial analyses, field data collection, and modeling were integrated to quantify a portfolio of services that floodplains provide to downstream communities within the Chesapeake Bay and Delaware River watersheds. The portfolio of services included floodplain sediment and nutrient retention and flood regulation. Sediment and nutrient retention were quantified and valued for all non-tidal wadable streams in the Chesapeake Bay and Delaware River watersheds. Predicted nitrogen fluxes from measurements of streambanks and floodplain geomorphic changes were summarized at various scales (river basin, state, and county) and valued using a benefits transfer approach. Floodplain flood regulation services were assessed through a pilot study focused on the Schuylkill River watershed in the Delaware River watershed. Geospatial analysis and published flood frequency estimates were used to assess baseline and counterfactual (i.e., floodplain storage removed) scenarios. Flood regulation was valued using the Federal Emergency Management Agency's Hazus model to compare differences in structural damage to private residences under baseline and counterfactual scenarios. The estimated value of floodplain sediment and nutrient retention was $223 million United States dollars (USD) per year in the Chesapeake Bay watershed and $38 million USD per year in the Delaware River watershed. Sediment and nutrient retention benefits were offset by a streambank erosion cost of $123 million and $14 million USD annually in the Chesapeake and Delaware watersheds, respectively. In the Schuylkill River watershed floodplain flood regulation was valued at $860,000 USD per year, with an additional $7.2 million USD annually provided through floodplain sediment and nutrient retention. Together this portfolio of floodplain ecosystem services indicates that floodplains provide substantial benefits to people by trapping nutrients and storing floodwaters.
Contribution of seagrass productivity to waste treatment in a highly oligotrophic urbanised coast
2023, Ecosystem Services
Seagrass inhabit a large proportion of the world’s coastal waters, but these waters are used as a sink for vast loads of nitrogen pollution from many sources. Seagrass assimilate nitrogen, an essential nutrient, for growth, some is stored in sinks, while a proportion is transformed and lost from the system. When anthropogenic nitrogen is discharged into coastal waters, seagrass (and other vegetated coastal ecosystems) will assimilate nitrogen and treat wastes providing a critical ecosystem service. However, nutrient over enrichment will result in degradation and eventually loss of seagrass habitats and loss of services.
The monetary value of the waste treatment ecosystem service provided by Posidonia seagrass has been valued using Adelaide, South Australia as a case study site. Posidonia leaf nitrogen content was used to estimate the nitrogen assimilation capacity across the Adelaide coastal waters, a highly oligotrophic system. By establishing a Posidonia baseline measured nutrient requirement for the region, coupled with estimates of nitrogen retention and export, the study demonstrates that nitrogen assimilation above the baseline, can be considered waste treatment ecosystem service. This waste treatment has been valued with a replacement cost model using monetary values determined from nitrogen reduction technology from wastewater treatment plants, stormwater and industry. The Posidonia seagrass along Adelaide’s coast has the potential waste treatment value of $729 – 1784 per hectare per year for Posidonia seagrass depending on three different treatment scenarios tested. Importantly, this work shows that when seagrass area or density declines, the waste treatment value also declines.
This method of calculating waste treatment service for seagrass can be applied for seagrass meadows throughout the world, but consideration of waste treatment needs to be closely coupled to a long term and comprehensive monitoring program to ensure that any discharges are sustainable for the seagrass meadows and do not result in irreversible impacts to biodiversity, ecosystem services and value to society.

View all citing articles on Scopus

View full text

Published by Elsevier B.V.

The role of benefit transfer in ecosystem service valuation

Highlights

Abstract

Introduction

Section snippets

The Demand for and Supply of Ecosystem Service Valuation Research

Benefit Transfer as a Method to Estimate Ecosystem Service Values

The Future of Benefit Transfer in Ecosystem Service Valuation

Ecosyst. Serv.

Ecol. Econ.

Ecol. Econ.

Ecol. Econ.

Environ. Pollut.

Biol. Conserv.

Ecol. Econ.

Ecol. Econ.

Ecol. Econ.

Ecol. Econ.

Ecol. Econ.

Ecol. Econ.

For. Policy Econ.

Ecol. Econ.

Ecol. Econ.

Ecol. Econ.

Ecol. Econ.

Econ. Anal. Policy

J. Environ. Manag.

Ecol. Econ.

Ecol. Econ.

Econ. Lett.

Ecol. Econ.

Ecol. Econ.

Ecol. Econ.

J. For. Econ.

The decision to use benefit transfer or conduct original valuation research for benefit–cost and policy analysis

Contemp. Econ. Policy

Spatial dynamics of ecosystem service flows: a comprehensive approach to quantifying actual services

Ecosyst. Serv.

Contrasting conventional with multi-level modeling approaches to meta-analysis: expectation consistency in U.K. woodland recreation values

Land Econ.

Economic analysis for ecosystem service assessments

Environ. Resour. Econ.

Making benefit transfers work: deriving and testing principles for value transfers for similar and dissimilar sites using a case study of the non-market benefits of water quality improvements across Europe

Environ. Resour. Econ.

The economics of rural and agricultural ecosystem services: purism versus practicality

Agric. Resour. Econ. Rev.

On measuring economic values for nature

Environ. Sci. Technol.

The Definition and Choice of Environmental Commodities for Nonmarket Valuation

RFF DP 09-35

Benefit transfer studies: myths, pragmatism, and idealism

Water Resour. Res.

What do we know about groundwater values? Preliminary implications from a meta analysis of contingent-valuation studies

Am. J. Agric. Econ.

The empirics of wetland valuation: a comprehensive summary and meta-analysis of the literature

Environ. Resour. Econ.

The validity of environmental benefits transfer: further empirical testing

Environ. Resour. Econ.

A meta-analysis of wetland contingent valuation studies

Reg. Environ. Chang.

Economic science, endangered species, and biodiversity loss

Conserv. Biol.

The value of the world's ecosystems and natural capital

Nature

Why ecosystem-based management may fail without changes to tool development and financing

Bioscience

Benefits transfer: conceptual problems in estimating water quality benefits using existing studies

Water Resour. Res.

On the tactics of benefit estimation under Executive Order 12291