IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wsi/jeapmx/v17y2015i04ns1464333215500374.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

In Search of Marine Ecosystem Services Values: The V-MESSES Database

Author

Listed:
  • M. Skourtos

    (Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development, Agricultural University of Athens, 11855 Athens, Greece)

  • D. Damigos

    (#x2020;School of Mining and Metallurgical Engineering, National Technical University of Athens, Zografou Campus, 15780 Athens, Greece)

  • D. Tsitakis

    (Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development, Agricultural University of Athens, 11855 Athens, Greece)

  • A. Kontogianni

    (#x2021;Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Western Macedonia, 50100 Kozani, Greece)

  • C. Tourkolias

    (#x2021;Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Western Macedonia, 50100 Kozani, Greece)

  • N. Streftaris

    (#xA7;Hellenic Centre for Marine Research, 19013 Anavyssos, Greece)

Abstract

Economic valuation of marine ecosystem services is strongly anchored within the logic of Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD). An inventory and critical assessment of marine valuation studies was conducted within the European Union funded Policy-oriented marine Environmental Research for the Southern European Seas (PERSEUS) research project (http://www.perseus-net.eu/) and this information was fed into a suitable, spatially explicit valuation database, namely Valuation database for Marine Ecosystem Services of Southern European Seas (V-MESSES), with the objective of providing monetary values for Southern European Seas (SES) to be used in cost–benefit and cost-effectiveness applications. At present, the database contains 93 studies offering over 110 value estimates for four categories and 20 subcategories of marine ecosystem services covering all regions of Mediterranean and Black Sea. The database enables so far the estimation of the aggregated value of all ecosystem services. However, the selection of appropriate, policy relevant value estimates is not a simple and straightforward task, since several conditions should be met in order to conduct effective and efficient value transfers. Bearing in mind the above limitations, tentative reference value estimates are compiled from the V-MESSES database for a number of coastal and marine ecosystem services, although not all service categories are covered sufficiently.

Suggested Citation

  • M. Skourtos & D. Damigos & D. Tsitakis & A. Kontogianni & C. Tourkolias & N. Streftaris, 2015. "In Search of Marine Ecosystem Services Values: The V-MESSES Database," Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management (JEAPM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 17(04), pages 1-27, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:wsi:jeapmx:v:17:y:2015:i:04:n:s1464333215500374
    DOI: 10.1142/S1464333215500374
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/S1464333215500374
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1142/S1464333215500374?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. William D. Nordhaus, 2006. "Principles of National Accounting For Nonmarket Accounts," NBER Chapters, in: A New Architecture for the US National Accounts, pages 143-160, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    2. James Murphy & P. Allen & Thomas Stevens & Darryl Weatherhead, 2005. "A Meta-analysis of Hypothetical Bias in Stated Preference Valuation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 30(3), pages 313-325, March.
    3. Elena Ojea & Julia Martin-Ortega & Aline Chiabai, 2010. "Classifying Ecosystem Services for Economic Valuation: The case of forest water services," Working Papers 2010-12, BC3.
    4. Samuelson, William & Zeckhauser, Richard, 1988. "Status Quo Bias in Decision Making," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 1(1), pages 7-59, March.
    5. Areti Kontogianni & Ian Langford & Andreas Papandreou & Mihalis Skourtos, 2003. "Social Preferences for Improving Water Quality: An Economic Analysis of Benefits from Wastewater Treatment," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 17(5), pages 317-336, October.
    6. Kontogianni, A. & Tourkolias, C. & Machleras, A. & Skourtos, M., 2012. "Service providing units, existence values and the valuation of endangered species: A methodological test," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 97-104.
    7. Don L. Coursey & John L. Hovis & William D. Schulze, 1987. "The Disparity Between Willingness to Accept and Willingness to Pay Measures of Value," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 102(3), pages 679-690.
    8. -, 2009. "The economics of climate change," Sede Subregional de la CEPAL para el Caribe (Estudios e Investigaciones) 38679, Naciones Unidas Comisión Económica para América Latina y el Caribe (CEPAL).
    9. Jason F. Shogren & Laura O. Taylor, 2008. "On Behavioral-Environmental Economics," Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 2(1), pages 26-44, Winter.
    10. Raymond J. Kopp, 1992. "Why existence value should be used in cost-benefit analysis," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 11(1), pages 123-130.
    11. Boyd, James & Banzhaf, Spencer, 2007. "What are ecosystem services? The need for standardized environmental accounting units," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(2-3), pages 616-626, August.
    12. McComb, Greg & Lantz, Van & Nash, Katrina & Rittmaster, Robyn, 2006. "International valuation databases: Overview, methods and operational issues," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(2), pages 461-472, December.
    13. 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.
    14. Roy Brouwer, 2008. "The potential role of stated preference methods in the Water Framework Directive to assess disproportionate costs," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 51(5), pages 597-614.
    15. Kontogianni, Areti & Luck, Gary W. & Skourtos, Michalis, 2010. "Valuing ecosystem services on the basis of service-providing units: A potential approach to address the 'endpoint problem' and improve stated preference methods," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(7), pages 1479-1487, May.
    16. Ready, Richard & Navrud, Stale, 2006. "International benefit transfer: Methods and validity tests," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(2), pages 429-434, December.
    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. Michalis Skourtos & Dimitris Damigos & Areti Kontogianni & Christos Tourkolias & Alistair Hunt, 2019. "Embedding Preference Uncertainty for Environmental Amenities in Climate Change Economic Assessments: A “Random” Step Forward," Economies, MDPI, vol. 7(4), pages 1-22, October.
    2. H. Spencer Banzhaf & James Boyd, 2012. "The Architecture and Measurement of an Ecosystem Services Index," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 4(4), pages 1-32, March.
    3. Cordier, Mateo & Pérez Agúndez, José A. & Hecq, Walter & Hamaide, Bertrand, 2014. "A guiding framework for ecosystem services monetization in ecological–economic modeling," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 8(C), pages 86-96.
    4. McVittie, Alistair & Norton, Lisa & Martin-Ortega, Julia & Siameti, Ioanna & Glenk, Klaus & Aalders, Inge, 2015. "Operationalizing an ecosystem services-based approach using Bayesian Belief Networks: An application to riparian buffer strips," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 15-27.
    5. 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.
    6. Johnston, Robert J. & Segerson, Kathleen & Schultz, Eric T. & Besedin, Elena Y. & Ramachandran, Mahesh, 2011. "Indices of biotic integrity in stated preference valuation of aquatic ecosystem services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(11), pages 1946-1956, September.
    7. Halkos, George, 2012. "The use of contingent valuation in assessing marine and coastal ecosystems’ water quality: A review," MPRA Paper 42183, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    8. Johnston, Robert J. & Russell, Marc, 2011. "An operational structure for clarity in ecosystem service values," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(12), pages 2243-2249.
    9. Selomane, Odirilwe & Reyers, Belinda & Biggs, Reinette & Tallis, Heather & Polasky, Stephen, 2015. "Towards integrated social–ecological sustainability indicators: Exploring the contribution and gaps in existing global data," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 140-146.
    10. Coscieme, Luca & Pulselli, Federico M. & Jørgensen, Sven E. & Bastianoni, Simone & Marchettini, Nadia, 2013. "Thermodynamics-based categorization of ecosystems in a socio-ecological context," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 258(C), pages 1-8.
    11. Sagoff, Mark, 2011. "The quantification and valuation of ecosystem services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(3), pages 497-502, January.
    12. Ileana Pătru-Stupariu & Constantina Alina Hossu & Simona Raluca Grădinaru & Andreea Nita & Mihai-Sorin Stupariu & Alina Huzui-Stoiculescu & Athanasios-Alexandru Gavrilidis, 2020. "A Review of Changes in Mountain Land Use and Ecosystem Services: From Theory to Practice," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(9), pages 1-21, September.
    13. John K. Horowitz & Kenneth E. McConnell & James J. Murphy, 2013. "Behavioral foundations of environmental economics and valuation," Chapters, in: John A. List & Michael K. Price (ed.), Handbook on Experimental Economics and the Environment, chapter 4, pages 115-156, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    14. D'Amato, D. & Rekola, M. & Li, N. & Toppinen, A., 2016. "Monetary valuation of forest ecosystem services in China: A literature review and identification of future research needs," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 121(C), pages 75-84.
    15. Saarikoski, Heli & Jax, Kurt & Harrison, Paula A. & Primmer, Eeva & Barton, David N. & Mononen, Laura & Vihervaara, Petteri & Furman, Eeva, 2015. "Exploring operational ecosystem service definitions: The case of boreal forests," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 14(C), pages 144-157.
    16. Hearnshaw, Edward J.S. & Cullen, Ross, 2010. "The Sustainability and Cost-Effectiveness of Water Storage Projects on Canterbury Rivers: The Opihi River Case," 2010 Conference, August 26-27, 2010, Nelson, New Zealand 97265, New Zealand Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    17. Chavez, Daniel E. & Palma, Marco A. & Nayga, Rodolfo M. & Mjelde, James W., 2020. "Product availability in discrete choice experiments with private goods," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 36(C).
    18. Hooper, Tara & Cooper, Philip & Hunt, Alistair & Austen, Melanie, 2014. "A methodology for the assessment of local-scale changes in marine environmental benefits and its application," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 8(C), pages 65-74.
    19. Qenani-Petrela, Eivis & Noel, Jay E. & Mastin, Thomas, 2007. "A Benefit Transfer Approach to the Estimation of Agro-Ecosystems Services Benefits: A Case Study of Kern County, California," Research Project Reports 121605, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, California Institute for the Study of Specialty Crops.
    20. Ulrich Schmidt & Stefan Traub, 2009. "An Experimental Investigation of the Disparity Between WTA and WTP for Lotteries," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 66(3), pages 229-262, 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:wsi:jeapmx:v:17:y:2015:i:04:n:s1464333215500374. 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: Tai Tone Lim (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.worldscinet.com/jeapm/jeapm.shtml .

    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.