IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/rff/dpaper/dp-02-63.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Measuring Ecosystem Service Benefits: The Use of Landscape Analysis to Evaluate Environmental Trades and Compensation

Author

Listed:
  • Boyd, James

    (Resources for the Future)

  • Wainger, Lisa

Abstract

Ecosystem compensation and exchange programs require benefit analysis in order to guarantee that compensation or trades preserve the social benefits lost when ecosystems are destroyed or degraded. This study derives, applies, and critiques a set of ecosystem benefits indicators (EBIs). Organized around the concept of ecosystem services and basic valuation principles we show how GIS mappings of the physical and social landscape can improve understanding of the ecosystem benefits arising from specific ecosystems. The indicator system focuses on landscape factors that limit or enhance an ecosystem's ability to provide services and that limit or enhance the expected value of those services. The analysis yields an organized, descriptive, and numerical depiction of sites involved in specific mitigation projects. Indicator-based evaluations are applied to existing wetland mitigation projects in Florida and Maryland in order to practically illustrate the virtues and limits of the approach.

Suggested Citation

  • Boyd, James & Wainger, Lisa, 2003. "Measuring Ecosystem Service Benefits: The Use of Landscape Analysis to Evaluate Environmental Trades and Compensation," RFF Working Paper Series dp-02-63, Resources for the Future.
    • Handle: RePEc:rff:dpaper:dp-02-63
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.rff.org/RFF/documents/RFF-DP-02-63.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Macauley, Molly, 2006. "Some Issues at the Forefront of Public Policy for Environmental Risk," RFF Working Paper Series dp-06-01, Resources for the Future.
    2. Boyd, James, 2010. "Lost Ecosystem Goods and Services as a Measure of Marine Oil Pollution Damages," RFF Working Paper Series dp-10-31, Resources for the Future.
    3. Cole, Scott, 2012. "Equity over Efficiency: A Problem of Credibility in Scaling Resource-Based Compensatory?," CERE Working Papers 2012:12, CERE - the Center for Environmental and Resource Economics.
    4. Scott G. Cole, 2013. "Equity over efficiency: a problem of credibility in scaling resource-based compensation?," Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 2(1), pages 93-117, March.
    5. 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.
    6. H. Spencer Banzhaf & James Boyd, 2012. "The Architecture and Measurement of an Ecosystem Services Index," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 4(4), pages 1-32, March.
    7. Hoekman, S. Kent & Broch, Amber, 2018. "Environmental implications of higher ethanol production and use in the U.S.: A literature review. Part II – Biodiversity, land use change, GHG emissions, and sustainability," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 81(P2), pages 3159-3177.
    8. 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.
    9. MacAuley, Molly K., 2006. "Issues at the Forefront of Public Policy for Environmental Risk: Comments for the American Meteorological Society's Annual Policy Colloquium," Discussion Papers 10494, Resources for the Future.
    10. Buhle, Eric & Margolis, Michael & Ruesink, Jennifer L., 2004. "Bang for the Buck: Cost-Effective Control of Invasive Species with Different Life Histories," Discussion Papers 10793, Resources for the Future.
    11. Buhle, Eric R. & Margolis, Michael & Ruesink, Jennifer L., 2005. "Bang for buck: cost-effective control of invasive species with different life histories," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 52(3), pages 355-366, February.
    12. Martin Drechsler, 2021. "Bundling of Ecosystem Services in Conservation Offsets: Risks and How They Can Be Avoided," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-10, June.
    13. Kroeger, Timm & Casey, Frank, 2007. "An assessment of market-based approaches to providing ecosystem services on agricultural lands," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(2), pages 321-332, December.
    14. 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.
    15. Wendland, Kelly J. & Honzák, Miroslav & Portela, Rosimeiry & Vitale, Benjamin & Rubinoff, Samuel & Randrianarisoa, Jeannicq, 2010. "Targeting and implementing payments for ecosystem services: Opportunities for bundling biodiversity conservation with carbon and water services in Madagascar," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(11), pages 2093-2107, September.
    16. Scarlett, Lynn & Boyd, James, 2015. "Ecosystem services and resource management: Institutional issues, challenges, and opportunities in the public sector," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 3-10.
    17. Kadykalo, Andrew N. & Findlay, C. Scott, 2016. "The flow regulation services of wetlands," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 20(C), pages 91-103.
    18. Salazar-Ordóñez, Melania & Rodríguez-Entrena, Macario & Villanueva, Anastasio J., 2021. "Exploring the commodification of biodiversity using olive oil producers’ willingness to accept," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 107(C).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Ecosystem Valuation; Wetlands; Spatial Analysis; Landscape Analysis;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • Q0 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - General
    • Q3 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Nonrenewable Resources and Conservation

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:rff:dpaper:dp-02-63. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Resources for the Future (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/rffffus.html .

    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.