IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecomod/v392y2019icp196-211.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Ecosystem services accounts: Valuing the actual flow of nature-based recreation from ecosystems to people

Author

Listed:
  • Vallecillo, Sara
  • La Notte, Alessandra
  • Zulian, Grazia
  • Ferrini, Silvia
  • Maes, Joachim

Abstract

Natural capital accounting aims to measure changes in the stock of natural assets (i.e., soil, air, water and all living things) and to integrate the value of ecosystem services into accounting systems that will contribute to better ecosystems management. This study develops ecosystem services accounts at the European Union level, using nature-based recreation as a case study and following the current international accounting framework: System of Environmental-Economic Accounting – Experimental Ecosystem Accounting (SEEA EEA). We adapt and integrate different biophysical and socio-economic models, illustrating the workflow necessary for ecosystem services accounts: from a biophysical assessment of nature-based recreation to an economic valuation and compilation of the accounting tables. The biophysical assessment of nature-based recreation is based on spatially explicit models for assessing different components of ecosystem services: potential, demand and actual flow. Deriving maps of ecosystem service potential and demand is a key step in quantifying the actual flow of the service used, which is determined by the spatial relationship (i.e., proximity in the case of nature-based recreation) between service potential and demand. The nature-based recreation accounts for 2012 show an actual flow of 40 million potential visits to ‘high-quality areas for daily recreation’, with a total value of EUR 50 billion. This constitutes an important contribution of ecosystems to people's lives that has increased by 26% since 2000. Practical examples of ecosystem services accounts, as shown in this study, are required to derive recommendations and further develop the conceptual and methodological framework proposed by the SEEA EEA. This paper highlights the importance of using spatially explicit models for ecosystem services accounts. Mapping the different components of ecosystem services allows proper identification of the drivers of changes in the actual service flow derived from ecosystems, socio-economic systems and/or their spatial relationship. This will contribute to achieving one of the main goals of ecosystem accounts, namely measuring changes in natural capital, but it will also support decision-making that targets the enhancement of ecosystems, their services and the benefits they provide.

Suggested Citation

  • Vallecillo, Sara & La Notte, Alessandra & Zulian, Grazia & Ferrini, Silvia & Maes, Joachim, 2019. "Ecosystem services accounts: Valuing the actual flow of nature-based recreation from ecosystems to people," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 392(C), pages 196-211.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecomod:v:392:y:2019:i:c:p:196-211
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2018.09.023
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030438001830320X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2018.09.023?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. Veronika Liebelt & Stephan Bartke & Nina Schwarz, 2018. "Hedonic pricing analysis of the influence of urban green spaces onto residential prices: the case of Leipzig, Germany," European Planning Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 26(1), pages 133-157, January.
    2. La Notte, Alessandra & Maes, Joachim & Dalmazzone, Silvana & Crossman, Neville D. & Grizzetti, Bruna & Bidoglio, Giovanni, 2017. "Physical and monetary ecosystem service accounts for Europe: A case study for in-stream nitrogen retention," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 23(C), pages 18-29.
    3. Gallai, Nicola & Salles, Jean-Michel & Settele, Josef & Vaissière, Bernard E., 2009. "Economic valuation of the vulnerability of world agriculture confronted with pollinator decline," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(3), pages 810-821, January.
    4. Remme, Roy P. & Schröter, Matthias & Hein, Lars, 2014. "Developing spatial biophysical accounting for multiple ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 10(C), pages 6-18.
    5. Schröter, Matthias & Remme, Roy P. & Sumarga, Elham & Barton, David N. & Hein, Lars, 2015. "Lessons learned for spatial modelling of ecosystem services in support of ecosystem accounting," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 13(C), pages 64-69.
    6. Fisher, Brendan & Turner, R. Kerry & Morling, Paul, 2009. "Defining and classifying ecosystem services for decision making," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(3), pages 643-653, January.
    7. Gallai, Nicola & Salles, Jean-Michel & Settele, Josef & Vaissière, Bernard E., 2009. "Economic valuation of the vulnerability of world agriculture confronted with pollinator decline," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(3), pages 810-821, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Costanza, Robert & Howarth, Richard B. & Kubiszewski, Ida & Liu, Shuang & Ma, Chunbo & Plumecocq, Gaël & Stern, David I., 2016. "Influential publications in ecological economics revisited," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 123(C), pages 68-76.
    2. Breeze, T.D. & Bailey, A.P. & Potts, S.G. & Balcombe, K.G., 2015. "A stated preference valuation of the non-market benefits of pollination services in the UK," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 76-85.
    3. Nogué, Sandra & Long, Peter R. & Eycott, Amy E. & de Nascimento, Lea & Fernández-Palacios, José María & Petrokofsky, Gillian & Vandvik, Vigdis & Willis, Kathy J., 2016. "Pollination service delivery for European crops: Challenges and opportunities," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 1-7.
    4. Spangenberg, Joachim H. & Görg, Christoph & Settele, Josef, 2015. "Stakeholder involvement in ESS research and governance: Between conceptual ambition and practical experiences – risks, challenges and tested tools," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 16(C), pages 201-211.
    5. Moriah Bostian & Tommy Lundgren, 2022. "Valuing Ecosystem Services for Agricultural TFP: A Review of Best Practices, Challenges, and Recommendations," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(5), pages 1-19, March.
    6. R. David Simpson, 2019. "Conservation Incentives from an Ecosystem Service: How Much Farmland Might Be Devoted to Native Pollinators?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 73(2), pages 661-678, June.
    7. Balzan, Mario V & Caruana, Julio & Zammit, Annrica, 2018. "Assessing the capacity and flow of ecosystem services in multifunctional landscapes: Evidence of a rural-urban gradient in a Mediterranean small island state," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 711-725.
    8. Smith, Helen F. & Sullivan, Caroline A., 2014. "Ecosystem services within agricultural landscapes—Farmers' perceptions," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 72-80.
    9. Lippert, Christian & Feuerbacher, Arndt & Narjes, Manuel, 2021. "Revisiting the economic valuation of agricultural losses due to large-scale changes in pollinator populations," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 180(C).
    10. Nicholas W Calderone, 2012. "Insect Pollinated Crops, Insect Pollinators and US Agriculture: Trend Analysis of Aggregate Data for the Period 1992–2009," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(5), pages 1-27, May.
    11. repec:idb:brikps:64718 is not listed on IDEAS
    12. Ioannis Arzoumanidis & Andrea Raggi & Luigia Petti, 2019. "Life Cycle Assessment of Honey: Considering the Pollination Service," Administrative Sciences, MDPI, vol. 9(1), pages 1-13, March.
    13. Molla Sitotaw, Tegegne & Willemen, Louise & Tsegaye Meshesha, Derege & Nelson, Andrew, 2024. "Empirical assessments of small-scale ecosystem service flows in rural mosaic landscapes in the Ethiopian highlands," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 67(C).
    14. Centner, Terence J. & Brewer, Brady & Leal, Isaac, 2018. "Reducing damages from sulfoxaflor use through mitigation measures to increase the protection of pollinator species," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 70-76.
    15. Margot Karlikow & Evan Amalfitano & Xiaolong Yang & Jennifer Doucet & Abigail Chapman & Peivand Sadat Mousavi & Paige Homme & Polina Sutyrina & Winston Chan & Sofia Lemak & Alexander F. Yakunin & Adam, 2023. "CRISPR-induced DNA reorganization for multiplexed nucleic acid detection," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 14(1), pages 1-11, December.
    16. Melathopoulos, Andony P. & Stoner, Alexander M., 2015. "Critique and transformation: On the hypothetical nature of ecosystem service value and its neo-Marxist, liberal and pragmatist criticisms," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 173-181.
    17. Laura Christ & Daniel C. Dreesmann, 2022. "SAD but True: Species Awareness Disparity in Bees Is a Result of Bee-Less Biology Lessons in Germany," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(5), pages 1-15, February.
    18. Giannini, Tereza C. & Acosta, André L. & Garófalo, Carlos A. & Saraiva, Antonio M. & Alves-dos-Santos, Isabel & Imperatriz-Fonseca, Vera L., 2012. "Pollination services at risk: Bee habitats will decrease owing to climate change in Brazil," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 244(C), pages 127-131.
    19. Häyhä, Tiina & Franzese, Pier Paolo & Paletto, Alessandro & Fath, Brian D., 2015. "Assessing, valuing, and mapping ecosystem services in Alpine forests," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 14(C), pages 12-23.
    20. Cavalletti, B. & Di Fabio, C. & Lagomarsino, E. & Ramassa, P., 2020. "Ecosystem accounting for marine protected areas: A proposed framework," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 173(C).
    21. Tremlett, Constance J. & Peh, Kelvin S.-H. & Zamora-Gutierrez, Veronica & Schaafsma, Marije, 2021. "Value and benefit distribution of pollination services provided by bats in the production of cactus fruits in central Mexico," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 47(C).

    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:392:y:2019:i:c:p:196-211. 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.