IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecomod/v430y2020ics0304380020302039.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Ecosystem intrinsic value and its evaluation

Author

Listed:
  • Ye, Sufen
  • Zhang, Luoping
  • Feng, Huan

Abstract

The objective recognition and scientific evaluation of ecosystem values are essential for sustainable decision-making and nature conservation. However, the ecosystem services value, which is the most popular concept, measures ecosystem value mainly through an estimation of the “willingness-to-pay” of individuals and thus can cause a bias in estimating ecosystem value. The ecosystem intrinsic value (EIV), which has been recognized by the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment and The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity, is an objective value of ecosystems. In this study, the EIV is defined as the objective value of the ecosystem in and for itself irrespective of needs, wants, and benefits of humans. Specifically, EIV is an integration of matter, energy, and information of an ecosystem, which can be measured by calculating the work capacity. Furthermore, an EIV approach based on exergy, eco-exergy, and development capacity analysis was developed for EIV evaluation and then applied in three marine ecosystems, i.e., Northern Beibu Gulf, Bohai Sea, and Yangtze Estuarine and its adjacent waters in China. A comparison among three case studies in different years showed that the EIV density is ranked in the following sequence: Yangtze Estuarine and adjacent waters (2000) > Northern Beibu Gulf (2006) > Yangtze Estuarine and adjacent waters (2006) > Bohai Sea (1982) > Bohai Sea (1992). The results of EIV density reflect the intrinsic properties of the ecosystems and is determined only by the ecosystem itself. The results have demonstrated to some extent that temperature and nutrients are playing important roles in controlling ecosystem productivity, further affecting the work capacity and determining EIV of the ecosystem. The approach and methods established in this study provide a stricter and more objective pathway for evaluating ecosystem value compared to our previous study, which is expected to improve current decision-making processes towards sustainability.

Suggested Citation

  • Ye, Sufen & Zhang, Luoping & Feng, Huan, 2020. "Ecosystem intrinsic value and its evaluation," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 430(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecomod:v:430:y:2020:i:c:s0304380020302039
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2020.109131
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304380020302039
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2020.109131?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. Heymans, Johanna Jacomina & Coll, Marta & Link, Jason S. & Mackinson, Steven & Steenbeek, Jeroen & Walters, Carl & Christensen, Villy, 2016. "Best practice in Ecopath with Ecosim food-web models for ecosystem-based management," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 331(C), pages 173-184.
    2. Lin, Henry, 2015. "Thermodynamic entropy fluxes reflect ecosystem characteristics and succession," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 298(C), pages 75-86.
    3. Hermann, Weston A., 2006. "Quantifying global exergy resources," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 31(12), pages 1685-1702.
    4. Marcia J. Bates, 2006. "Fundamental forms of information," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 57(8), pages 1033-1045, June.
    5. Farber, Stephen C. & Costanza, Robert & Wilson, Matthew A., 2002. "Economic and ecological concepts for valuing ecosystem services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(3), pages 375-392, June.
    6. Wang, Xuan & Chen, Weiqi & Zhang, Luoping & Jin, Di & Lu, Changyi, 2010. "Estimating the ecosystem service losses from proposed land reclamation projects: A case study in Xiamen," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(12), pages 2549-2556, October.
    7. Jørgensen, Sven E. & Nielsen, Søren Nors & Fath, Brian D., 2016. "Recent progress in systems ecology," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 319(C), pages 112-118.
    8. Vassallo, P. & Paoli, C. & Buonocore, E. & Franzese, P.P. & Russo, G.F. & Povero, P., 2017. "Assessing the value of natural capital in marine protected areas: A biophysical and trophodynamic environmental accounting model," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 355(C), pages 12-17.
    9. Cleveland, Cutler J., 2005. "Net energy from the extraction of oil and gas in the United States," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 30(5), pages 769-782.
    10. Li, Fengbing & Ma, Zhongjun & Duan, Qichang, 2019. "Partial component synchronization on chaotic networks," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 515(C), pages 707-714.
    11. Jørgensen, S.E. & Nors Nielsen, Søren, 2007. "Application of exergy as thermodynamic indicator in ecology," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 32(5), pages 673-685.
    12. Howarth, Richard B. & Farber, Stephen, 2002. "Accounting for the value of ecosystem services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(3), pages 421-429, June.
    13. 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.
    14. Miedziejko, Ewa M. & Kędziora, Andrzej, 2014. "Impact of plant canopy structure on the transport of ecosystem entropy," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 289(C), pages 15-25.
    15. Bastianoni, S. & Facchini, A. & Susani, L. & Tiezzi, E., 2007. "Emergy as a function of exergy," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 32(7), pages 1158-1162.
    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. Nikodinoska, Natasha & Paletto, Alessandro & Pastorella, Fabio & Granvik, Madeleine & Franzese, Pier Paolo, 2018. "Assessing, valuing and mapping ecosystem services at city level: The case of Uppsala (Sweden)," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 368(C), pages 411-424.
    2. Wu, Zijian & Wu, Xiaofu & Yang, Zhihui & Ouyang, Linnan, 2018. "Internal energy ratios as ecological indicators for description of the phytoremediation process on a manganese tailing site," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 374(C), pages 14-21.
    3. Beça, Pedro & Santos, Rui, 2010. "Measuring sustainable welfare: A new approach to the ISEW," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(4), pages 810-819, February.
    4. Azqueta, Diego & Sotelsek, Daniel, 2007. "Valuing nature: From environmental impacts to natural capital," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(1), pages 22-30, June.
    5. Dupont, Elise & Koppelaar, Rembrandt & Jeanmart, Hervé, 2018. "Global available wind energy with physical and energy return on investment constraints," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 209(C), pages 322-338.
    6. Houdet, Joël & Trommetter, Michel & Weber, Jacques, 2012. "Understanding changes in business strategies regarding biodiversity and ecosystem services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 37-46.
    7. Häyhä, Tiina & Franzese, Pier Paolo & Paletto, Alessandro & Fath, Brian D., 2015. "Assessing, valuing, and mapping ecosystem services in Alpine forests," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 14(C), pages 12-23.
    8. de Groot, Rudolf S. & Wilson, Matthew A. & Boumans, Roelof M. J., 2002. "A typology for the classification, description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(3), pages 393-408, June.
    9. Gasparatos, Alexandros & El-Haram, Mohamed & Horner, Malcolm, 2009. "The argument against a reductionist approach for measuring sustainable development performance and the need for methodological pluralism," Accounting forum, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 245-256.
    10. Anca Ionascu & Costel Negrei & Marian Tudor, 2015. "Benefits of the ecosystems restoration in the Danube Delta – theoretical approach," International Conference on Competitiveness of Agro-food and Environmental Economy Proceedings, The Bucharest University of Economic Studies, vol. 4, pages 107-114.
    11. Wu, Zijian & Wu, Xiaofu & Yang, Zhihui & Ouyang, Linnan, 2017. "A simple thermodynamic model for evaluating the ecological restoration effect on a manganese tailing wasteland," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 346(C), pages 20-29.
    12. Capriolo, A. & Boschetto, R.G. & Mascolo, R.A. & Balbi, S. & Villa, F., 2020. "Biophysical and economic assessment of four ecosystem services for natural capital accounting in Italy," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 46(C).
    13. Carson, Rebecca M. & Bergstrom, John C., 2003. "A Review Of Ecosystem Valuation Techniques," Faculty Series 16651, University of Georgia, Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics.
    14. Chen, Mingli & Wu, Zijian & Fu, Xinxi & Ouyang, Linnan & Wu, Xiaofu, 2021. "Thermodynamic analysis of an ecologically restored plant community:Number of species," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 455(C).
    15. Turner, Katrine Grace & Anderson, Sharolyn & Gonzales-Chang, Mauricio & Costanza, Robert & Courville, Sasha & Dalgaard, Tommy & Dominati, Estelle & Kubiszewski, Ida & Ogilvy, Sue & Porfirio, Luciana &, 2016. "A review of methods, data, and models to assess changes in the value of ecosystem services from land degradation and restoration," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 319(C), pages 190-207.
    16. Hoang, Viet-Ngu & Alauddin, Mohammad, 2009. "Analysis of Agricultural Sustainability: A Review of Exergy Methodologies and Their Application in OECD," MPRA Paper 90406, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 15 Mar 2010.
    17. Swinton, Scott M. & Zhang, Wei, 2005. "Rethinking Ecosystem Services from an Intermediate Product Perspective," 2005 Annual meeting, July 24-27, Providence, RI 19536, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    18. Ping Zhang & Liang He & Xin Fan & Peishu Huo & Yunhui Liu & Tao Zhang & Ying Pan & Zhenrong Yu, 2015. "Ecosystem Service Value Assessment and Contribution Factor Analysis of Land Use Change in Miyun County, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(6), pages 1-24, June.
    19. Sciubba, Enrico, 2010. "On the Second-Law inconsistency of Emergy Analysis," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 35(9), pages 3696-3706.
    20. Brown, Mark T. & Ulgiati, Sergio, 2010. "Updated evaluation of exergy and emergy driving the geobiosphere: A review and refinement of the emergy baseline," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 221(20), pages 2501-2508.

    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:ecomod:v:430:y:2020:i:c:s0304380020302039. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.journals.elsevier.com/ecological-modelling .

    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.