IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecomod/v203y2007i3p290-296.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Selection and evaluation of projects to conserve ecosystem services

Author

Listed:
  • Prato, Tony

Abstract

Climate and land use changes are reducing ecosystem services. Ecosystem managers can alleviate such adverse impacts by being more efficient in allocating limited budgets to projects designed to conserve ecosystem services, and ensuring that implemented projects are effective in stemming losses in ecosystem services. A conceptual framework is developed that managers can use for this purpose. The framework consists of two elements: (1) an a priori optimization model for selecting projects that minimize present value loss in ecosystem services subject to a budget constraint; and (2) an a posteriori model for determining the extent to which implemented projects have decreased ecosystem losses. An optimization model is formulated for three cases, which assume the ecosystem manager: (1) knows for sure how project expenditures influence losses in ecosystem services (certainty case); (2) does not know for sure how project expenditures influence losses in ecosystem services, but is able to specify the probabilities of service losses for different projects (risk case); and (3) is uncertain how project expenditures influence losses in ecosystem services (uncertainty case). Efficient selection of projects is evaluated for two areas of an ecosystem in mathematical and graphical terms using a continuous negative exponential relationship between present value losses and project expenditures for the certainty case, and for five expenditure classes in the risk and uncertainty cases. Two versions of the certainty case are evaluated, weak sustainability and strong sustainability. Weak sustainability allows gains in one ecosystem service to compensate for losses in another ecosystem service; strong sustainability does not. The risk case requires the manager to specify the conditional probabilities for present value losses given project expenditures, and utilizes expected costs and expected budget amounts in the budget constraint. It is solved by allocating the budget among projects so as to equalize the expected marginal present value losses in ecosystem services across projects. The uncertainty case requires the manager to specify ecosystem sustainability states and the present value losses in ecosystem services for combinations of states and projects. It is solved by selecting projects that minimize the maximum present value loss in ecosystem services subject to the budget constraint. The a posteriori evaluation method uses Bayesian statistical inference to test hypotheses about the extent to which implemented projects reduce losses in ecosystem services. It requires specifying ecosystem states that describe conditions for ecosystem services, and decides which hypothesis is true based on posterior probabilities of ecosystem states.

Suggested Citation

  • Prato, Tony, 2007. "Selection and evaluation of projects to conserve ecosystem services," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 203(3), pages 290-296.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecomod:v:203:y:2007:i:3:p:290-296
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2006.11.030
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304380006006065
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2006.11.030?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Prato, Tony, 1999. "Multiple attribute decision analysis for ecosystem management," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(2), pages 207-222, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Watanabe, Marcos D.B. & Ortega, Enrique, 2014. "Dynamic emergy accounting of water and carbon ecosystem services: A model to simulate the impacts of land-use change," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 271(C), pages 113-131.
    2. Hearnshaw, Edward J.S. & Cullen, Ross, 2010. "The Sustainability and Cost-Effectiveness of Water Storage Projects on Canterbury Rivers: The Opihi River Case," 2010 Conference, August 26-27, 2010, Nelson, New Zealand 97265, New Zealand Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    3. Boerema, A. & Van Passel, S. & Meire, P., 2018. "Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Ecosystem Management With Ecosystem Services: From Theory to Practice," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 152(C), pages 207-218.
    4. Dongyan Guo & Dongyan Wang & Xiaoyong Zhong & Yuanyuan Yang & Lixin Jiang, 2021. "Spatiotemporal Changes of Land Ecological Security and Its Obstacle Indicators Diagnosis in the Beijing–Tianjin–Hebei Region," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1-16, July.
    5. Hone-Jay Chu & Chun-Yu Liu & Chi-Kuei Wang, 2013. "Identifying the Relationships between Water Quality and Land Cover Changes in the Tseng-Wen Reservoir Watershed of Taiwan," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 10(2), pages 1-12, January.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Hajkowicz, Stefan & Higgins, Andrew, 2008. "A comparison of multiple criteria analysis techniques for water resource management," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 184(1), pages 255-265, January.
    2. Prato, Tony, 2001. "Modeling carrying capacity for national parks," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 39(3), pages 321-331, December.
    3. Haiming Yan & Jinyan Zhan & Bing Liu & Yongwei Yuan, 2014. "Model Estimation of Water Use Efficiency for Soil Conservation in the Lower Heihe River Basin, Northwest China during 2000–2008," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 6(9), pages 1-17, September.
    4. Hojatollah Khedrigharibvand & Hossein Azadi & Dereje Teklemariam & Ehsan Houshyar & Philippe Maeyer & Frank Witlox, 2019. "Livelihood alternatives model for sustainable rangeland management: a review of multi-criteria decision-making techniques," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 21(1), pages 11-36, February.
    5. Wilson, Matthew A. & Howarth, Richard B., 2002. "Discourse-based valuation of ecosystem services: establishing fair outcomes through group deliberation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(3), pages 431-443, June.
    6. M.A. Quaddus & M.A.B. Siddique, 2013. "Application of decision support tools in sustainable development planning: review and analysis," Chapters, in: M. A. Quaddus & M. A.B. Siddique (ed.), Handbook of Sustainable Development Planning, chapter 1, pages 3-16, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    7. Schläpfer, Felix & Erickson, Jon D., 2001. "A Biotic Control Perspective on Nitrate Contamination of Groundwater from Agricultural Production," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 30(2), pages 113-126, October.
    8. de Castro, Mónica & Urios, Vicente, 2017. "A critical review of multi-criteria decision making in protected areas," Economia Agraria y Recursos Naturales, Spanish Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 16(02), January.
    9. Stefan Hajkowicz & Kerry Collins, 2007. "A Review of Multiple Criteria Analysis for Water Resource Planning and Management," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 21(9), pages 1553-1566, September.
    10. Strassert, Gunter & Prato, Tony, 2002. "Selecting farming systems using a new multiple criteria decision model: the balancing and ranking method," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 40(2), pages 269-277, February.
    11. Hayashida, Tomohiro & Nishizaki, Ichiro & Ueda, Yoshifumi, 2010. "Multiattribute utility analysis for policy selection and financing for the preservation of the forest," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 200(3), pages 833-843, February.
    12. Strager, Michael P. & Rosenberger, Randall S., 2006. "Incorporating stakeholder preferences for land conservation: Weights and measures in spatial MCA," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(4), pages 627-639, June.
    13. Saez, Carmen Almansa & Requena, Javier Calatrava, 2007. "Reconciling sustainability and discounting in Cost-Benefit Analysis: A methodological proposal," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(4), pages 712-725, February.
    14. Prato, Tony, 2003. "Multiple-attribute evaluation of ecosystem management for the Missouri River system," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 45(2), pages 297-309, June.
    15. van Calker, K.J. & Berentsen, P.B.M. & Romero, C. & Giesen, G.W.J. & Huirne, R.B.M., 2006. "Development and application of a multi-attribute sustainability function for Dutch dairy farming systems," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(4), pages 640-658, June.
    16. Prato, Tony, 2007. "Assessing ecosystem sustainability and management using fuzzy logic," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(1), pages 171-177, February.
    17. Ananda, Jayanath & Herath, Gamini, 2009. "A critical review of multi-criteria decision making methods with special reference to forest management and planning," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(10), pages 2535-2548, August.
    18. Strager, Michael P. & Rosenberger, Randall S., 2006. "Incorporating stakeholder preferences for land conservation: Weights and measures in spatial MCA," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(1), pages 79-92, June.
    19. Prato, Tony, 2008. "Stochastic multiple attribute evaluation of land use policies," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 219(1), pages 115-124.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ecomod:v:203:y:2007:i:3:p:290-296. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.journals.elsevier.com/ecological-modelling .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.