(Dis) integrated valuation – Assessing the information gaps in ecosystem service appraisals for governance support

Ecosystem Services

Volumn 29, Issue , 2018, Pages 529-541

  Barton, D N ^a   Kelemen, E ^b,c   Dick, J ^d   Martin Lopez, B ^e   Gomez Baggethun E ^a,f   Jacobs, S ^g   Hendriks, C M A ^h   Termansen, M ⁱ   Garcia Llorente M ^j   Primmer, E ^k   Dunford, R ^d,l   Harrison, P A ^d   Turkelboom, F ^g   Saarikoski, H ^k   van Dijk, J ^a   Rusch, G M ^m   Palomo, I ^m   Yli Pelkonen, V J ⁿ   Carvalho, L ^d   Baro F ^o   Langemeyer, J ^h   van der Wal, J Tjalling ^d   Mederly, P ^p   Priess, J A ^q   Luque, S ^r   Berry, P ^s   Santos, R ^s   Odee, D ^c,t   Pastur, G Martines ^u   Garcia Blanco G ^v   Saarela, S R ^k   Silaghi, D ^w   Pataki, G ^x   Masi, F ^y   Vadineanu A ^z   Mukhopadhyay, R ^aa   Lapola, D M ^ab   more..

^a NORWEGIAN INSTITUTE FOR NATURE RESEARCH   (Norway)

^b Environmental Social Science Research Group (ESSRG)   (Hungary)

^c Institute of Entrepreneurship and Innovation   (Hungary)

^d CENTRE FOR ECOLOGY AND HYDROLOGY   (United Kingdom)

^e LEUPHANA UNIVERSITY OF LÜNEBURG   (Germany)

^f NORWEGIAN UNIVERSITY OF LIFE SCIENCES   (Norway)

^g RESEARCH INSTITUTE FOR NATURE AND FOREST INBO   (Belgium)

^h WAGENINGEN UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

ⁱ AARHUS UNIVERSITY   (Denmark)

^j Madrid Institute for Rural   (Spain)

^k FINNISH ENVIRONMENT INSTITUTE   (Finland)

^l UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

^m UNIVERSITY OF THE BASQUE COUNTRY UPV EHU   (Spain)

ⁿ UNIVERSITY OF HELSINKI   (Finland)

^o INSTITUT DE CIÈNCIA I TECNOLOGIA AMBIENTALS   (Spain)

^p The Philosopher University in Nitra Geoinformatics and Regional Development   (Slovakia)

^q HELMHOLTZ CENTRE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH UFZ   (Germany)

^r UMR TETIS   (France)

^s UNIVERSIDADE NOVA DE LISBOA   (Portugal)

^t KENYA FORESTRY RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (Kenya)

^u CENTRO AUSTRAL DE INVESTIGACIONES CIENTÍFICAS CADIC CONICET   (Argentina)

^v TECNALIA RESEARCH AND INNOVATION   (Spain)

^w Institutul de Cercetari si Amenajari Silvice Romania   (Romania)

^x INSTITUTE OF ECOLOGY AND BOTANY   (Hungary)

^y IRIDRA Srl   (Italy)

^z UNIVERSITY OF BUCHAREST   (Romania)

^aa Indian Institute of Bio Social Research and Development   (India)

^ab SÃO PAULO STATE UNIVERSITY UNESP   (Brazil)

more..

Author keywords

Eccosystem services cascade; Ecosystem service appraisal; Ecosystem service governance; Information costs; Integrated valuation; Uncertainty; Valuation

Indexed keywords

EID: 85039460157     PISSN: 22120416     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.10.021     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. Bagstad, K.J., Semmens, D.J., Waage, S., Winthrop, R., A comparative assessment of decision-support tools for ecosystem services quantification and valuation. Ecosyst. Serv. 5 (2013), E27–E39.
2. Barton, D.N., How much is enough? The value information from benefit transfers in a policy context. Navrud, S., Ready, R., (eds.) Environmental Value Transfer: Issues and Methods, 2007, Springer, Dordrecht, 261–282.
3. Barton, D.N., Andersen, T., Bergland, O., Engebretsen, A., Moe, S.J., Orderud, G.I., Tominaga, K., Romstad, E., Vogt, R.D., Eutropia: integrated valuation of lake eutrophication abatement decisions using a bayesian belief network. Chap.14 in Niel, Z. P. (Ed.) Handbook of Applied Systems Science, 2016, Routledge, New York and London, 297–320, 10.4324/9781315748771.ch14.
4. Barton, D.N., Saloranta, T., Moe, S.J., Eggestad, H.O., Kuikka, S., Bayesian belief networks as a meta-modelling tool in integrated river basin management — Pros and cons in evaluating nutrient abatement decisions under uncertainty in a Norwegian river basin. Ecol. Econ. 66 (2008), 91–104.
5. Barton, D.N., Stange, E., Blumentrath, S., Traaholt, N.V., 2015. Economic valuation of ecosystem services for policy. A pilot study on green infrastructure in Oslo [NINA Report 1114, 77p]. http://www.openness-project.eu/node/78.
6. Dick, J., Verweij, P., Carmen, E., Rodela, R., Andrews, C., Testing the ecosystemservice cascade framework and QUICKScan software tool in the context of landuse planning in Glenlivet Estate Scotland. Int. J. Biodivers. Sci. Ecosyst. Serv. Manage. 13 (2017), 12–25, 10.1080/21513732.2016.1268648.
7. Dick, J., et al. Stakeholders’ perspectives on the operationalisation of the ecosystem service concept: results from 27 case studies. Ecosyst. Serv. 29 (2018), 552–565, 10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.09.015.
8. Dunford, R., et al. Integrating methods for ecosystem service assessment: experiences from real world situations. Ecosyst. Serv. 29 (2018), 499–514, 10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.10.014.
9. Fagerland, M.W., Sandvik, L., Mowinckel, P., Parametric methods outperformed non-parametric methods in comparisons of discrete numerical variables. BMC Med. Res. Methodol., 11, 2011.
10. Fontaine, C.M., Dendoncker, N., De Vreese, R., Jacquemin, I., Marek, A., Van Herzele, A., Devillet, G., Mortelmans, D., François, L., Towards participatory integrated valuation and modelling of ecosystem services under land-use change. J. Land Use Sci. 9 (2014), 278–303.
11. Gomez-Baggethun, E., Barton, D.N., Classifying and valuing ecosystem services for urban planning. Ecol. Econ. 86 (2013), 235–245.
12. Gómez-Baggethun, E., Martín-López, B., Barton, D.N., Braat, L., Saarikoski, H., Kelemen, E., García-Llorente, M., van den Burgh, J., Arias, P., Berry, P., Potschin, M., Keene, H., Dunford, R., Schröter-Schlaack, C., Harrison, P., EU FP7 OpenNESS Project Deliverable 4.1. State-of-the-art report on integrated valuation of ecosystem services. 2014, European Commission FP7.
13. Grêt-Regamey, A., Altwegg, J., Sirén, E.A., van Strien, M.J., Weibel, B., Integrating ecosystem services into spatial planning—A spatial decision support tool. (online version) Landscape Urban Plann., 2016.
14. Haines-Young, R., Potschin, M., The links between biodiversity, ecosystem services and human well-being’. Raffaelli, D., Frid, C., (eds.) Ecosystem Ecology: a new synthesis, 2010, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 110–139.
15. Harrison, P.A., et al. Selecting methods for ecosystem service assessment: A decision tree approach. Ecosyst. Serv. 29 (2018), 481–498, 10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.09.016.
16. Hauck, J., Görg, C., Varjopuro, R., Ratamäki, O., Maes, J., Wittmer, H., Jax, K., “Maps have an air of authority”: Potential benefits and challenges of ecosystem service maps at different levels of decision making. Ecosyst. Serv., 2013, 25–32.
17. Hausknost, D., Grima, N., Singh, S.J., The political dimensions of Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES): Cascade or stairway?. Ecol. Econ. 131 (2017), 109–118.
18. IPBES, 2015. Preliminary guide regarding diverse conceptualization of multiple values of nature and its benefits, including biodiversity and ecosystem functions and services (deliverable 3 (d)). Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services.
19. Jacobs, S., Dendoncker, N., Martin-Lopez, B., Barton, D.N., Gomez-Baggethun, E., Boeraeve, F., McGrath, F.L., Vierikkoh, K., Geneletti, D., Sevecke, K.J., Pipart, N., Primmer, E., Mederly, P., Schmidt, S., Aragao, A., Baral, H., Bark, R.H., Briceno, T., Brogna, D., Cabral, P., De Vreese, R., Liquete, C., Mueller, H., Peh, K.S.H., Phelan, A., Rincon, A.R., Rogers, S.H., Turkelboom, F., Van Reeth, W., van Zanten, B.T., Wam, H.K., Washbourne, C.L., A new valuation school: Integrating diverse values of nature in resource and land use decisions. Ecosyst. Serv. 22 (2016), 213–220.
20. Jacobs, S., et al. The means determine the end – pursuing integrated valuation in practice. Ecosyst. Serv. 29 (2018), 515–528, 10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.07.011.
21. Laurans, Y., Mermet, L., Ecosystem services economic valuation, decision-support system or advocacy?. Ecosyst. Serv. 7 (2014), 98–105.
22. Laurans, Y., Rankovic, A., Billé, R., Pirard, R., Mermet, L., Use of ecosystem services economic valuation for decision making: Questioning a literature blindspot. J. Environ. Manage. 119 (2013), 208–219.
23. Martin-Lopez, B., Gomez-Baggethun, E., Garcia-Llorente, M., Montes, C., Trade-offs across value-domains in ecosystem services assessment. Ecol. Indic. 37 (2014), 220–228.
24. Martín-López, B., Gomez-Baggethun, E., García-Llorente, M., Montes, C., Trade-offs across value-domains in ecosystem services assessment. Ecol. Indic. 37:2014 (2014), 220–228.
25. Martinez-Harms, M.J., Bryan, B.A., Balvanera, P., Law, E.A., Rhodes, J.R., Possingham, H.P., Wilson, K.A., Making decisions for managing ecosystem services. Biol. Conserv. 184 (2015), 229–238.
26. Nassl, M., Loffler, J., Ecosystem services in coupled social-ecological systems: Closing the cycle of service provision and societal feedback. Ambio 44 (2015), 737–749.
27. Pascual, U.E.A.C.-A., Valuing nature's contributions to people: the IPBES approach. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustainability, 2017, 10.1016/j.cosust.2016.12.006 26-27, 7-16.
28. Peri, P., López, D., Rusch, V.E., Rusch, G.M., Martínez-Pastur, G., State and transition model approach in native forests of Southern Patagonia: Linking ecosystem services, thresholds and resilience. Int. J. Biodivers. Sci. Ecosyst. Serv. Manage., 2017, 105–118.
29. Potschin, M., Haines-Young, R., Defining and measuring ecosystem services. Potschin, M., Haines-Young, R., Fish, R., Turner, R.K., (eds.) Routledge Handbook of Ecosystem Services, 2016, Routledge, 640.
30. Primmer, E., Jokinen, P., Blicharska, M., Barton, D.N., Bugter, R., Potschin, M., Governance of ecosystem services: a framework for empirical analysis. Ecosyst. Serv. 16 (2015), 158–166, 10.1016/j.ecoser.2015.05.002i.
31. Rasch, D., Teuscher, F., Guiard, V., How robust are tests for two independent samples?. J. Stat. Plan. Infer. 137 (2007), 2706–2720.
32. Ruckelshaus, M., McKenzie, E., Tallis, H., Guerry, A., Daily, G., Kareiva, P., Polasky, S., Ricketts, T., Bhagabati, N., Wood, S.A., Bernhardt, J., Notes from the field: Lessons learned from using ecosystem service approaches to inform real-world decisions. Ecol. Econ. 115 (2015), 11–21.
33. Saarikoski, H., Mustajoki, J., Barton, D.N., Geneletti, D., Langemeyer, J., Gomez-Baggethun, E., Marttunen, M., Antunes, P., Keune, H., Santos, R., Multi-criteria decision analysis and cost-benefit analysis: comparing alternative frameworks for integrated valuation of ecosystem services. Ecosyst. Serv. 22 (2016), 238–249.
34. Schröter, M., Barton, D.N., Remme, R.P., Hein, L., Accounting for capacity and flow of ecosystem services: a conceptual model and a case study for Telemark, Norway. Ecol. Indic. 36 (2014), 539–551.
35. Spangenberg, J.H., von Haaren, C., Settele, J., The ecosystem service cascade: Further developing the metaphor. Integrating societal processes to accommodate social processes and planning, and the case of bioenergy. Ecol. Econ. 104 (2014), 22–32.
36. Stata, 2013. Stata graphics reference manual. Release 13. https://www.stata.com/manuals13/g.pdf Stata Press Publication, StataCorp LP, College Station, Texas.
37. TEEB, 2010. The Economics of Ecosystems and biodiversity: mainstreaming the economics of nature: a synthesis of the approach, conclusions and recommendations of TEEB. TEEB Ocotber 2010.
38. van Oudenhoven, A.P.E., Siahainenia, A.J., Sualia, I., Tonneijck, F.H., van der Ploeg, S., de Groot, R.S., Alkemade, R., Leemans, R., Effects of different management regimes on mangrove ecosystem services in Java, Indonesia. Ocean Coast. Manage. 116 (2015), 353–367.
39. Vatn, A., Institutions and the environment. 2005, Edward Elgar Pub., Cheltenham, UK; Northampton, MA.
40. Vatn, A., An institutional analysis of methods for environmental appraisal. Ecol. Econ. 68 (2009), 2207–2215.
41. Verburg, R., Selnes, T., Verweij, P., Governing ecosystem services: National and local lessons from policy appraisal and implementation. Ecosyst. Serv. 18 (2016), 186–197.
42. Yee, S.H., Carriger, J.F., Bradley, P., Fisher, W.S., Dyson, B., Developing scientific information to support decisions for sustainable coral reef ecosystem services. Ecol. Econ. 115 (2015), 39–50.