IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ene/journl/y2016p71-78.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Methodological approaches for the evaluation of ecosystem services

Author

Listed:
  • Oksana Sakal

    (Public Institution "Institute of Environmental Economics and Sustainable Development of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine", Kyiv)

Abstract

Research of adequate approaches for the evaluation of ecosystem services is an objective necessity of effective public policy for providing rational nature usage, due a wide range of provisioning, regulating and supporting and cultural ecosystem services. In this regard, the real valuation of natural resources and environmental conditions based on systemized approaches, in particular in terms of the theory of social value of natural resources and the concept of «willingness to pay» for their evaluation can become an effective instrument for the market mechanism regulation of nature usage. Is proved, that valuation of ecosystem goods and services, if taken into account both positive and negative externalities usage of natural resources, the irrational nature usage by private business, reflects the deterioration of effectiveness (profitability) of economic activity. Economic evaluation of natural resources and environmental conditions is a priority instrument for indirect state influence on the processes nature usage, creating incentives for business entities to rationalize their behavior concerning ecosystem services. The above mentioned, in complex provides incorporation the impact of ecosystem services on the public welfare. The structure of the total economic value and relevant asset of evaluation ecosystem services is researched. Highlight the benefits that are the subject of evaluation both direct and indirect use and non-use of ecosystem services. Criteria for selection an approach to the evaluation of ecosystem services are generalized. The basic methods of valuation of ecosystem services are systematized (revealed-preference; stated-preference; benefits transfer).

Suggested Citation

  • Oksana Sakal, 2016. "Methodological approaches for the evaluation of ecosystem services," Economics of Nature and the Environment, Mykhaylo Khvesyk, pages 71-78.
    • Handle: RePEc:ene:journl:y:2016:p:71-78
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://economics-of-nature.net/uploads/2016/sakal.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Costanza, Robert & d'Arge, Ralph & de Groot, Rudolf & Farber, Stephen & Grasso, Monica & Hannon, Bruce & Limburg, Karin & Naeem, Shahid & O'Neill, Robert V. & Paruelo, Jose, 1998. "The value of ecosystem services: putting the issues in perspective," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(1), pages 67-72, April.
    2. Costanza, Robert, 1998. "The value of ecosystem services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(1), pages 1-2, April.
    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. Wang, Han & Tian, Fuan & Wu, Jianxian & Nie, Xin, 2023. "Is China forest landscape restoration (FLR) worth it? A cost-benefit analysis and non-equilibrium ecological view," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 161(C).
    2. Rodrigues, João & Domingos, Tiago & Conceição, Pedro & Belbute, José, 2005. "Constraints on dematerialisation and allocation of natural capital along a sustainable growth path," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 54(4), pages 382-396, September.
    3. Meixler, Marcia S., 2017. "Assessment of Hurricane Sandy damage and resulting loss in ecosystem services in a coastal-urban setting," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 24(C), pages 28-46.
    4. repec:dgr:rugcds:200218 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. Margarita Ignatyeva & Vera Yurak & Oksana Logvinenko, 2020. "A New Look at the Natural Capital Concept: Approaches, Structure, and Evaluation Procedure," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(21), pages 1-21, November.
    6. Kumar, Pavan & Singh, S.S. & Pandey, A.K. & Singh, Ram Kumar & Srivastava, Prashant Kumar & Kumar, Manoj & Dubey, Shantanu Kumar & Sah, Uma & Nandan, Rajiv & Singh, Susheel Kumar & Agrawal, Priyanshi , 2021. "Multi-level impacts of the COVID-19 lockdown on agricultural systems in India: The case of Uttar Pradesh," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 187(C).
    7. Hendriksen, Astrid & Jouanneau, Charlène & Koss, Rebecca & Raakjaer, Jesper, 2014. "Fishing for opinions: Stakeholder views on MSFD implementation in European Seas," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(PB), pages 353-363.
    8. Sinden, John Alfred & Griffith, Garry, 2007. "Combining economic and ecological arguments to value the environmental gains from control of 35 weeds in Australia," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(2-3), pages 396-408, March.
    9. María del Pilar García Pachón, 2016. "Instrumentos Económicos Y Financieros Para La Gestión Ambiental," Books, Universidad Externado de Colombia, Facultad de Derecho, number 853, November.
    10. Weesie, Peter & Andel, J. van, 2003. "On biodiversity and its valuation," CDS Research Reports 200218, University of Groningen, Centre for Development Studies (CDS).
    11. Natacha LASKOWSKI, 2013. "Optimal allocation of wetlands: Study on conflict between agriculture and fishery," Cahiers du GREThA (2007-2019) 2013-07, Groupe de Recherche en Economie Théorique et Appliquée (GREThA).
    12. Ruijs, A. & Wossink, A. & Kortelainen, M. & Alkemade, R. & Schulp, C.J.E., 2013. "Trade-off analysis of ecosystem services in Eastern Europe," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 4(C), pages 82-94.
    13. Watson, Stephen C.L. & Paterson, David M. & Queirós, Ana M. & Rees, Andrew P. & Stephens, Nicholas & Widdicombe, Stephen & Beaumont, Nicola J., 2016. "A conceptual framework for assessing the ecosystem service of waste remediation: In the marine environment," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 20(C), pages 69-81.
    14. Foody, G.M., 2015. "Valuing map validation: The need for rigorous land cover map accuracy assessment in economic valuations of ecosystem services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 23-28.
    15. Henghui Xi & Wanglai Cui & Li Cai & Mengyuan Chen & Chenglei Xu, 2021. "Evaluation and Prediction of Ecosystem Service Value in the Zhoushan Islands Based on LUCC," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-13, February.
    16. Costanza, Robert & Fisher, Brendan & Mulder, Kenneth & Liu, Shuang & Christopher, Treg, 2007. "Biodiversity and ecosystem services: A multi-scale empirical study of the relationship between species richness and net primary production," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(2-3), pages 478-491, March.
    17. Chunbo Chen & Chi Zhang, 2017. "Projecting the CO 2 and Climatic Change Effects on the Net Primary Productivity of the Urban Ecosystems in Phoenix, AZ in the 21st Century under Multiple RCP (Representative Concentration Pathway) Sce," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(8), pages 1-20, August.
    18. Parks, Sarah & Gowdy, John, 2013. "What have economists learned about valuing nature? A review essay," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 3(C), pages 1-10.
    19. Mayer, Andreas & Kaufmann, Lisa & Kalt, Gerald & Matej, Sarah & Theurl, Michaela C. & Morais, Tiago G. & Leip, Adrian & Erb, Karl-Heinz, 2021. "Applying the Human Appropriation of Net Primary Production framework to map provisioning ecosystem services and their relation to ecosystem functioning across the European Union," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 51(C).
    20. Sutton, Paul C. & Costanza, Robert, 2002. "Global estimates of market and non-market values derived from nighttime satellite imagery, land cover, and ecosystem service valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(3), pages 509-527, June.
    21. Pendleton, Linwood H. & Thébaud, Olivier & Mongruel, Rémi C. & Levrel, Harold, 2016. "Has the value of global marine and coastal ecosystem services changed?," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 156-158.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:ene:journl:y:2016:p:71-78. 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: Ludmila Shashula (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://economics-of-nature.net/ .

    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.