IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/lauspo/v96y2020ics0264837718317149.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Can process-based modelling and economic valuation of ecosystem services inform land management policy at a catchment scale?

Author

Listed:
  • Lusardi, Jane
  • Sunderland, Timothy John
  • Crowe, Andrew
  • Jackson, Bethanna Marie
  • Jones, Glyn

Abstract

Land produces a range of benefits, from ecosystem services, but markets only incentivise the production of a small proportion of them. The Ecosystem Approach develops plans for moving towards a more optimal mix. This requires stakeholders to understand the value of ecosystem services and how these values change with land-use and management. We investigate whether process-based modelling and economic valuation can help stakeholders to do this. We do this by applying these tools to a plan to improve ecosystem services delivery in a catchment. To be used in decision-support, analytical approaches need to be relatively inexpensive and rapid, and our analysis was deliberately constrained in this way. Two 25-year future scenarios were developed and compared against a baseline scenario. The first Designated Site scenario was based on enhancing the condition of nationally important nature conservation sites. The second, Ecosystem Services scenario, represented implementing the ecosystem services delivery plan. We modelled the change between the scenarios with an internationally recognised process based ecosystem services toolkit (the Land Use Capability Indicator, LUCI tool) and used the model outputs to inform economic valuation methods. Our selection of which ecosystem services to model and value were initially identified through a participatory approach. However those we could quantify was limited by evidence and data availability. We assessed changes in water quality (phosphorus load), sediment generation, carbon storage and flood regulation. We were able to put economic values on only carbon sequestration and flood regulation. Both the modelling results and the experience of applying the linked modelling-valuation approach are examined in the discussion to consider the limitations to the current usefulness of linking process based modelling to economic valuation for informing land management policy. We explore the origin and nature of these limitations and the key bottlenecks that need to be overcome, applicable to its use in other sites, regions and countries. This includes the availability of suitable coefficients and/or underlying data/evidence to parameterise the model, and the compatibility of model outputs with available economic valuation evidence (for value transfer).

Suggested Citation

  • Lusardi, Jane & Sunderland, Timothy John & Crowe, Andrew & Jackson, Bethanna Marie & Jones, Glyn, 2020. "Can process-based modelling and economic valuation of ecosystem services inform land management policy at a catchment scale?," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 96(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:lauspo:v:96:y:2020:i:c:s0264837718317149
    DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.104636
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264837718317149
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.104636?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. Trodahl, Martha I. & Jackson, Bethanna M. & Deslippe, Julie R. & Metherell, Alister K., 2017. "Investigating trade-offs between water quality and agricultural productivity using the Land Utilisation and Capability Indicator (LUCI)–A New Zealand application," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 26(PB), pages 388-399.
    2. Norgaard, Richard B., 2010. "Ecosystem services: From eye-opening metaphor to complexity blinder," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(6), pages 1219-1227, April.
    3. Clarke, Stewart J. & Harlow, Julian & Scott, Alexandra & Phillips, Mark, 2015. "Valuing the ecosystem service changes from catchment restoration: A practical example from upland England," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 15(C), pages 93-102.
    4. Ackerman, Frank & Stanton, Elizabeth A., 2012. "Climate risks and carbon prices: Revising the social cost of carbon," Economics - The Open-Access, Open-Assessment E-Journal (2007-2020), Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel), vol. 6, pages 1-25.
    5. I.J. Bateman & A.P. Jones & A.A. Lovett & I.R. Lake & B.H. Day, 2002. "Applying Geographical Information Systems (GIS) to Environmental and Resource Economics," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 22(1), pages 219-269, June.
    6. Ian Bateman & Georgina Mace & Carlo Fezzi & Giles Atkinson & Kerry Turner, 2011. "Economic Analysis for Ecosystem Service Assessments," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 48(2), pages 177-218, February.
    7. Boyle Kevin J. & Desvousges William H. & Johnson F. Reed & Dunford Richard W. & Hudson Sara P., 1994. "An Investigation of Part-Whole Biases in Contingent-Valuation Studies," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 27(1), pages 64-83, July.
    8. Bagstad, Kenneth J. & Semmens, Darius J. & Waage, Sissel & Winthrop, Robert, 2013. "A comparative assessment of decision-support tools for ecosystem services quantification and valuation," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 5(C), pages 27-39.
    9. Ferdinando Villa & Kenneth J Bagstad & Brian Voigt & Gary W Johnson & Rosimeiry Portela & Miroslav Honzák & David Batker, 2014. "A Methodology for Adaptable and Robust Ecosystem Services Assessment," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(3), pages 1-18, March.
    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. 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).
    2. Fabian Delpy & Maibritt Pedersen Zari & Bethanna Jackson & Rubianca Benavidez & Thomas Westend, 2021. "Ecosystem Services Assessment Tools for Regenerative Urban Design in Oceania," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(5), pages 1-22, March.
    3. Richardson, Leslie & Loomis, John & Kroeger, Timm & Casey, Frank, 2015. "The role of benefit transfer in ecosystem service valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 51-58.
    4. Kubiszewski, Ida & Concollato, Luke & Costanza, Robert & Stern, David I., 2023. "Changes in authorship, networks, and research topics in ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 59(C).
    5. Achille Amatucci & Vera Ventura & Anna Simonetto & Gianni Gilioli, 2024. "The Economic Value of Ecosystem Services: Meta-analysis and Potential Application of Value Transfer for Freshwater Ecosystems," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 87(11), pages 3041-3061, November.
    6. Léa Tardieu, 2017. "The need for integrated spatial assessments in ecosystem service mapping," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, Springer, vol. 98(3), pages 173-200, December.
    7. Harrison, Paula A. & Dunford, Rob & Barton, David N. & Kelemen, Eszter & Martín-López, Berta & Norton, Lisa & Termansen, Mette & Saarikoski, Heli & Hendriks, Kees & Gómez-Baggethun, Erik & Czúcz, Báli, 2018. "Selecting methods for ecosystem service assessment: A decision tree approach," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 29(PC), pages 481-498.
    8. Hansjürgens, Bernd & Schröter-Schlaack, Christoph & Berghöfer, Augustin & Lienhoop, Nele, 2016. "Reprint:Justifying social values of nature: Economic reasoning beyond self-interested preferences," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 22(PB), pages 228-237.
    9. Sumarga, Elham & Hein, Lars & Edens, Bram & Suwarno, Aritta, 2015. "Mapping monetary values of ecosystem services in support of developing ecosystem accounts," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 12(C), pages 71-83.
    10. Hugé, J. & Rochette, A.J. & de Béthune, S. & Parra Paitan, C.C. & Vanderhaegen, K. & Vandervelden, T. & Van Passel, S. & Vanhove, M.P.M. & Verbist, B. & Verheyen, D. & Waas, T. & Janssens, I. & Jansse, 2020. "Ecosystem services assessment tools for African Biosphere Reserves: A review and user-informed classification," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 42(C).
    11. Tomscha, Stephanie & Jackson, Bethanna & Benavidez, Rubianca & de Róiste, Mairéad & Hartley, Stephen & Deslippe, Julie, 2023. "A multiscale perspective on how much wetland restoration is needed to achieve targets for ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 61(C).
    12. Zhichao Li & Tianqu Shao, 2019. "An Improved Ecological Services Valuation Model in Land Use Project," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(8), pages 1-17, April.
    13. Yu-Pin Lin & Wei-Chih Lin & Hsin-Yi Li & Yung-Chieh Wang & Chih-Chen Hsu & Wan-Yu Lien & Johnathen Anthony & Joy R. Petway, 2017. "Integrating Social Values and Ecosystem Services in Systematic Conservation Planning: A Case Study in Datuan Watershed," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(5), pages 1-22, April.
    14. Stephen B. Stewart & Anthony P. O’Grady & Daniel S. Mendham & Greg S. Smith & Philip J. Smethurst, 2022. "Digital Tools for Quantifying the Natural Capital Benefits of Agroforestry: A Review," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(10), pages 1-32, September.
    15. Hansjürgens, Bernd & Schröter-Schlaack, Christoph & Berghöfer, Augustin & Lienhoop, Nele, 2017. "Justifying social values of nature: Economic reasoning beyond self-interested preferences," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 23(C), pages 9-17.
    16. Alcon, Francisco & Zabala, José A. & Martínez-García, Victor & Albaladejo, José A. & López-Becerra, Erasmo I. & de-Miguel, María D. & Martínez-Paz, José M., 2022. "The social wellbeing of irrigation water. A demand-side integrated valuation in a Mediterranean agroecosystem," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 262(C).
    17. Adrienne Grêt-Regamey & Bettina Weibel & Kenneth J Bagstad & Marika Ferrari & Davide Geneletti & Hermann Klug & Uta Schirpke & Ulrike Tappeiner, 2014. "On the Effects of Scale for Ecosystem Services Mapping," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(12), pages 1-26, December.
    18. van den Belt, Marjan & Stevens, Sharon M., 2016. "Transformative agenda, or lost in the translation? A review of top-cited articles in the first four years of Ecosystem Services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 22(PA), pages 60-72.
    19. Winthrop, Robert H., 2014. "The strange case of cultural services: Limits of the ecosystem services paradigm," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 208-214.
    20. Dargains, Alexandre & Cabral, Pedro, 2021. "A GIS-based methodology for sustainable farming planning: Assessment of land use/cover changes and carbon dynamics at farm level," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 111(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:lauspo:v:96:y:2020:i:c:s0264837718317149. 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: Joice Jiang (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/land-use-policy .

    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.