IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v17y2025i2p446-d1562853.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Assessment of the Biodiversity Value of Benthic Macroinvertebrates in the Tuojiang River Basin, Chengdu

Author

Listed:
  • Yanan Yu

    (Institute of Mountain Hazards and Environment, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Chengdu 610200, China)

  • Bin Fu

    (Institute of Mountain Hazards and Environment, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Chengdu 610200, China)

  • Jingjing Liu

    (Institute of Mountain Hazards and Environment, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Chengdu 610200, China)

Abstract

Benthic macroinvertebrates are crucial to the health of river ecosystems. However, their conservation status is often overlooked. Due to their limited mobility and sensitivity to habitat changes, their survival is threatened. Given the current lack of research on their value composition and evaluation, this study refers to the total economic value (TEV) framework to preliminarily construct a systematic evaluation framework for freshwater benthic macroinvertebrates. Through field surveys, questionnaires, and market survey data, the value composition of benthic macroinvertebrates in the Tuojiang River Basin of Chengdu was systematically clarified. The total value was monetized using methods such as the market price method, substitute market method, and simulated market method. The main conclusions are as follows: (1) The biodiversity value of benthic macroinvertebrates in the study area ranges from 6.36 × 10 8 to 12.76 × 10 8 CNY/a, accounting for 0.17–0.34% of the region’s 2019 GDP. The various values in order of proportion are as follows: non-use value > direct service value > Direct Material value > indirect use value. This indicates that this biological group has enormous potential value and significant conservation importance. (2) The proportions of the value amounts of various species in the total value differ. The proportions of Viviparidae , Odonata , Ephemeroptera , and Palaemonidae are relatively high, reaching 9.8–23.8%. The proportions of Atyidae , Semisulcospiridae , and Bithyniidae are about 5%. The proportions of Unionidae , Corbiculidae , and Aillpullaridae are less than 3%. These differences are mainly influenced by factors such as species population numbers in the region, public value perception, aesthetic preferences, and dietary habits. This evaluation framework scientifically and comprehensively assesses the biodiversity value of regional benthic macroinvertebrates, providing a reference for the value assessment of other biological groups within the region and offering a scientific basis for the conservation and sustainable utilization of the target biological groups.

Suggested Citation

  • Yanan Yu & Bin Fu & Jingjing Liu, 2025. "Assessment of the Biodiversity Value of Benthic Macroinvertebrates in the Tuojiang River Basin, Chengdu," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 17(2), pages 1-28, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:17:y:2025:i:2:p:446-:d:1562853
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/17/2/446/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/17/2/446/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Xiaojiong Zhao & Jian Wang & Junde Su & Wei Sun & Haoxian Meng, 2021. "Research on a Biodiversity Conservation Value Assessment Method Based on Habitat Suitability of Species: A Case Study in Gansu Province, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(6), pages 1-30, March.
    2. Nico Eisenhauer & Aletta Bonn & Carlos Guerra, 2019. "Recognizing the quiet extinction of invertebrates," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 10(1), pages 1-3, December.
    3. Bartkowski, Bartosz & Lienhoop, Nele & Hansjürgens, Bernd, 2015. "Capturing the complexity of biodiversity: A critical review of economic valuation studies of biological diversity," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 1-14.
    4. Brander, L.M. & de Groot, R. & Schägner, J.P. & Guisado-Goñi, V. & van 't Hoff, V. & Solomonides, S. & McVittie, A. & Eppink, F. & Sposato, M. & Do, L. & Ghermandi, A. & Sinclair, M. & Thomas, R., 2024. "Economic values for ecosystem services: A global synthesis and way forward," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 66(C).
    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. Daniels, Silvie & Bellmore, J. Ryan & Benjamin, Joseph R. & Witters, Nele & Vangronsveld, Jaco & Van Passel, Steven, 2018. "Quantification of the Indirect Use Value of Functional Group Diversity Based on the Ecological Role of Species in the Ecosystem," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 153(C), pages 181-194.
    2. Randrianarison, Henintsoa & Ramiaramanana, Jeannot & Wätzold, Frank, 2017. "When to Pay? Adjusting the Timing of Payments in PES Design to the Needs of Poor Land-users," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 138(C), pages 168-177.
    3. Michael Getzner & Barbara Färber & Claudia Yamu, 2016. "2D Versus 3D: The Relevance of the Mode of Presentation for the Economic Valuation of an Alpine Landscape," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(6), pages 1-16, June.
    4. Fujino, Masaya & Kuriyama, Koichi & Yoshida, Kentaro, 2017. "An evaluation of the natural environment ecosystem preservation policies in Japan," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 29(PA), pages 62-67.
    5. Martínez-Jauregui, María & White, Piran C.L. & Touza, Julia & Soliño, Mario, 2019. "Untangling perceptions around indicators for biodiversity conservation and ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 1-1.
    6. Meinard, Yves & Remy, Alice & Schmid, Bernhard, 2017. "Measuring Impartial Preference for Biodiversity," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 45-54.
    7. Dehuan Li & Wei Sun & Fan Xia & Yixuan Yang & Yujing Xie, 2021. "Can Habitat Quality Index Measured Using the InVEST Model Explain Variations in Bird Diversity in an Urban Area?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(10), pages 1-27, May.
    8. Mercado, Waldemar & Vásquez Lavín, Felipe & Ubillus, Karina & Orihuela, Carlos Enrique, 2020. "¿Es relevante la biodiversidad en la decisión de visita a los parques nacionales en el Perú?," Economia Agraria y Recursos Naturales, Spanish Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 20(02), December.
    9. Bartkowski, Bartosz, 2016. "Are diverse ecosystems more valuable? A conceptual framework of the economic value of biodiversity," 90th Annual Conference, April 4-6, 2016, Warwick University, Coventry, UK 236293, Agricultural Economics Society.
    10. Bartosz Bartkowski & Nils Droste & Mareike Lie{ss} & William Sidemo-Holm & Ulrich Weller & Mark V. Brady, 2019. "Implementing result-based agri-environmental payments by means of modelling," Papers 1908.08219, arXiv.org, revised Dec 2020.
    11. Mergenthaler, Marcus & Schröter, Iris, 2020. "Institutionelle Grenzen und Perspektiven bei der ökonomischen Bewertung und der Bereitstellung von Tierwohl," 60th Annual Conference, Halle/ Saale, Germany, September 23-25, 2020 305598, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA).
    12. Daniels, Silvie & Witters, Nele & Beliën, Tim & Vrancken, Kristof & Vangronsveld, Jaco & Van Passel, Steven, 2017. "Monetary Valuation of Natural Predators for Biological Pest Control in Pear Production," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 134(C), pages 160-173.
    13. Bettina Wenzel & Julian Winkler & Sascha M. Kirchner & Stephan Martin Junge & Pedro Mendonça & Fátima Alves & Hella Kehlenbeck, 2024. "Improving ecosystem services through applied agroecology on German farms: costs and benefits," Agricultural and Food Economics, Springer;Italian Society of Agricultural Economics (SIDEA), vol. 12(1), pages 1-23, December.
    14. Bartkowski, Bartosz, 2016. "Are diverse ecosystems more valuable? A conceptual framework for economic valuation of biodiversity," UFZ Discussion Papers 9/2016, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research (UFZ), Division of Social Sciences (ÖKUS).
    15. Bartkowski, Bartosz & Droste, Nils & Ließ, Mareike & Sidemo-Holm, William & Weller, Ulrich & Brady, Mark V., 2021. "Payments by modelled results: A novel design for agri-environmental schemes," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 102(C).
    16. Aggelos Tsaligopoulos & Stella Sofia Kyvelou & Michalis Chiotinis & Aimilia Karapostoli & Eleftheria E. Klontza & Demetris F. Lekkas & Yiannis G. Matsinos, 2022. "The Sound of a Circular City: Towards a Circularity-Driven Quietness," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(19), pages 1-22, September.
    17. Sebastian Scheuer & Dagmar Haase & Annegret Haase & Nadja Kabisch & Manuel Wolff & Nina Schwarz & Katrin Großmann, 2020. "Combining tacit knowledge elicitation with the SilverKnETs tool and random forests – The example of residential housing choices in Leipzig," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 47(3), pages 400-416, March.
    18. Otto, Clint R.V. & Zheng, Haochi & Hovick, Torre & Post van der Burg, Max & Geaumont, Benjamin, 2022. "Grassland conservation supports migratory birds and produces economic benefits for the commercial beekeeping industry in the U.S. Great Plains," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 197(C).
    19. De Valck, Jeremy & Rolfe, John, 2019. "Comparing biodiversity valuation approaches for the sustainable management of the Great Barrier Reef, Australia," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 23-31.
    20. Qiaoyu Wang & Li Wang & Qiang Wu & Peng Du, 2025. "Analysis of Spatial and Temporal Evolution of Ecosystem Service Value Based on the Framework of “Risk-Association-Driver”: A Case Study of Panjin City," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 17(7), pages 1-25, March.

    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:gam:jsusta:v:17:y:2025:i:2:p:446-:d:1562853. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.