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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    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. Pierre Mokondoko & Robert H Manson & Taylor H Ricketts & Daniel Geissert, 2018. "Spatial analysis of ecosystem service relationships to improve targeting of payments for hydrological services," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(2), pages 1-27, February.
    2. 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.
    3. 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).
    4. Valencia Torres, Angélica & Tiwari, Chetan & Atkinson, Samuel F., 2021. "Progress in ecosystem services research: A guide for scholars and practitioners," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 49(C).
    5. Remme, Roy P. & Edens, Bram & Schröter, Matthias & Hein, Lars, 2015. "Monetary accounting of ecosystem services: A test case for Limburg province, the Netherlands," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 116-128.
    6. 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.
    7. Choquet, Pauline & Gabrielle, Benoit & Chalhoub, Maha & Michelin, Joël & Sauzet, Ophélie & Scammacca, Ottone & Garnier, Patricia & Baveye, Philippe C. & Montagne, David, 2021. "Comparison of empirical and process-based modelling to quantify soil-supported ecosystem services on the Saclay plateau (France)," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 50(C).
    8. Chalkiadakis, Charis & Drakou, Evangelia G. & Kraak, Menno-Jan, 2022. "Ecosystem service flows: A systematic literature review of marine systems," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 54(C).
    9. Havinga, Ilan & Bogaart, Patrick W. & Hein, Lars & Tuia, Devis, 2020. "Defining and spatially modelling cultural ecosystem services using crowdsourced data," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 43(C).
    10. Richter, Franziska & Jan, Pierrick & El Benni, Nadja & Lüscher, Andreas & Buchmann, Nina & Klaus, Valentin H., 2021. "A guide to assess and value ecosystem services of grasslands," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 52(C).
    11. Lai, Tin-Yu & Salminen, Jani & Jäppinen, Jukka-Pekka & Koljonen, Saija & Mononen, Laura & Nieminen, Emmi & Vihervaara, Petteri & Oinonen, Soile, 2018. "Bridging the gap between ecosystem service indicators and ecosystem accounting in Finland," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 377(C), pages 51-65.
    12. 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.
    13. Wang, Lijuan & Zheng, Hua & Chen, Yongzhe & Ouyang, Zhiyun & Hu, Xiaofei, 2022. "Systematic review of ecosystem services flow measurement: Main concepts, methods, applications and future directions," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 58(C).
    14. 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.
    15. Hualin Xie & Zhenhong Zhu & Zhe Li, 2022. "Spatial Divergence Analysis of Ecosystem Service Value in Hilly Mountainous Areas: A Case Study of Ruijin City," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(6), pages 1-17, May.
    16. 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.
    17. Pandeya, B. & Buytaert, W. & Zulkafli, Z. & Karpouzoglou, T. & Mao, F. & Hannah, D.M., 2016. "A comparative analysis of ecosystem services valuation approaches for application at the local scale and in data scarce regions," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 22(PB), pages 250-259.
    18. La Notte, Alessandra & Vallecillo, Sara & Marques, Alexandra & Maes, Joachim, 2019. "Beyond the economic boundaries to account for ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 116-129.
    19. 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.
    20. Jiang, Wei & Lü, Yihe & Liu, Yuanxin & Gao, Wenwen, 2020. "Ecosystem service value of the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau significantly increased during 25 years," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 44(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.