IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecoser/v46y2020ics2212041620301340.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Incorporating insurance value into ecosystem services assessments: Mitigation of ecosystem users’ welfare uncertainty through biological control

Author

Listed:
  • Peled, Yoav
  • Zemah-Shamir, Shiri
  • Israel, Alvaro
  • Shechter, Mordechai
  • Ofir, Eyal
  • Gal, Gideon

Abstract

Ecosystems and underlying biodiversity frequently ensure sustained welfare by reducing the risk associated with detrimental biological agents. This attribute is commonly termed biological control, but its valuation is usually underrepresented in the ecosystem services literature. In our study, a unique valuation method is applied, based on the natural insurance value of biological control and its contribution to expected welfare, evaluating its importance in mitigating ecosystem users’ welfare loss under uncertain conditions. The study tests the feasibility of a conceptual valuation model using the Mediterranean Sea as a case study by assessing the properties of indigenous species to mitigate the impact of invasive species. The results show that varying the levels of indigenous ecosystem components governs the probability of potential welfare loss and its associated value to ecosystem users. While an increase in indigenous biomass levels results in an increase in the total value of biological control, positive values of insurance are achieved only at a certain biomass level, from which the welfare uncertainty of ecosystem users is gradually reduced. Below such levels, the ecosystem component responsible for mitigating risk does not supply any insurance values, as it increases the certainty of low welfare for ecosystem users.

Suggested Citation

  • Peled, Yoav & Zemah-Shamir, Shiri & Israel, Alvaro & Shechter, Mordechai & Ofir, Eyal & Gal, Gideon, 2020. "Incorporating insurance value into ecosystem services assessments: Mitigation of ecosystem users’ welfare uncertainty through biological control," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 46(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecoser:v:46:y:2020:i:c:s2212041620301340
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2020.101192
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212041620301340
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ecoser.2020.101192?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. Ghermandi, Andrea & Galil, Bella & Gowdy, John & Nunes, Paulo A.L.D., 2015. "Jellyfish outbreak impacts on recreation in the Mediterranean Sea: welfare estimates from a socioeconomic pilot survey in Israel," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 11(C), pages 140-147.
    2. Nestor Gandelman & Ruben Hernandez-Murillo, 2015. "Risk Aversion at the Country Level," Review, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, vol. 97(1), pages 53-66.
    3. Kahneman, Daniel & Knetsch, Jack L., 1992. "Valuing public goods: The purchase of moral satisfaction," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 22(1), pages 57-70, January.
    4. Sandhu, Harpinder S. & Wratten, Stephen D. & Cullen, Ross & Case, Brad, 2008. "The future of farming: The value of ecosystem services in conventional and organic arable land. An experimental approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(4), pages 835-848, February.
    5. Dallimer, Martin & Martin-Ortega, Julia & Rendon, Olivia & Afionis, Stavros & Bark, Rosalind & Gordon, Iain J. & Paavola, Jouni, 2020. "Taking stock of the empirical evidence on the insurance value of ecosystems," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 167(C).
    6. Erdem Seçilmiş, 2019. "The role of risk aversion in public goods dilemmas with environmental uncertainty: an experimental analysis," Applied Economics Letters, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 26(17), pages 1434-1438, October.
    7. Paulo Nunes & Jeroen van den Bergh, 2004. "Can People Value Protection against Invasive Marine Species? Evidence from a Joint TC–CV Survey in the Netherlands," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 28(4), pages 517-532, August.
    8. Nir Becker & Doron Lavee, 2009. "Commercial Development and Conservation Value," Journal of Infrastructure Development, India Development Foundation, vol. 1(2), pages 193-217, December.
    9. Lata Gangadharan & Veronika Nemes, 2009. "Experimental Analysis Of Risk And Uncertainty In Provisioning Private And Public Goods," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 47(1), pages 146-164, January.
    10. Bartkowski, Bartosz, 2017. "Are diverse ecosystems more valuable? Economic value of biodiversity as result of uncertainty and spatial interactions in ecosystem service provision," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 24(C), pages 50-57.
    11. Potschin-Young, Marion & Czúcz, Balint & Liquete, Camino & Maes, Joachim & Rusch, Graciela M. & Haines-Young, Roy, 2017. "Intermediate ecosystem services: An empty concept?," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 27(PA), pages 124-126.
    12. Gandelman, Néstor & Hernández-Murillo, Rubén, 2013. "What do happiness and health satisfaction data tell us about relative risk aversion?," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 301-312.
    13. McIntosh, Christopher R. & Shogren, Jason F. & Finnoff, David C., 2010. "Invasive species and delaying the inevitable: Valuation evidence from a national survey," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(3), pages 632-640, January.
    14. Murphy, James J. & Stevens, Thomas H., 2004. "Contingent Valuation, Hypothetical Bias, and Experimental Economics," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 33(2), pages 182-192, October.
    15. 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.
    16. Pascual, Unai & Termansen, Mette & Hedlund, Katarina & Brussaard, Lijbert & Faber, Jack H. & Foudi, Sébastien & Lemanceau, Philippe & Jørgensen, Sisse Liv, 2015. "On the value of soil biodiversity and ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 15(C), pages 11-18.
    17. Letourneau, Deborah K. & Ando, Amy W. & Jedlicka, Julie A. & Narwani, Anita & Barbier, Edward, 2015. "Simple-but-sound methods for estimating the value of changes in biodiversity for biological pest control in agriculture," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 215-225.
    18. Kyohei Matsushita & Hisatomo Taki & Fumihiro Yamane & Kota Asano, 2018. "Shadow Value of Ecosystem Resilience in Complex Natural Land as a Wild Pollinator Habitat," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 100(3), pages 829-843.
    19. Jürgen Meyerhoff & Morten Mørkbak & Søren Olsen, 2014. "A Meta-study Investigating the Sources of Protest Behaviour in Stated Preference Surveys," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 58(1), pages 35-57, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Nogues, Quentin & Baulaz, Yoann & Clavel, Joanne & Araignous, Emma & Bourdaud, Pierre & Ben Rais Lasram, Frida & Dauvin, Jean-Claude & Girardin, Valérie & Halouani, Ghassen & Le Loc'h, François & Lo, 2023. "The usefulness of food web models in the ecosystem services framework: Quantifying, mapping, and linking services supply," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 63(C).

    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. Paul Mwebaze & Jeff Bennett & Nigel W. Beebe & Gregor J. Devine & Paul Barro, 2018. "Economic Valuation of the Threat Posed by the Establishment of the Asian Tiger Mosquito in Australia," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 71(2), pages 357-379, October.
    3. Hahn, Thomas & Sioen, Giles B. & Gasparatos, Alexandros & Elmqvist, Thomas & Brondizio, Eduardo & Gómez-Baggethun, Erik & Folke, Carl & Setiawati, Martiwi Diah & Atmaja, Tri & Arini, Enggar Yustisi & , 2023. "Insurance value of biodiversity in the Anthropocene is the full resilience value," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 208(C).
    4. Zhang, Jingjing, 2020. "International production fragmentation, trade in intermediate goods and environment," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 1-7.
    5. Elena A. Mikhailova & Hamdi A. Zurqani & Christopher J. Post & Mark A. Schlautman & Gregory C. Post, 2021. "Soil Diversity (Pedodiversity) and Ecosystem Services," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(3), pages 1-34, March.
    6. Paavola, Jouni & Primmer, Eeva, 2019. "Governing the Provision of Insurance Value From Ecosystems," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 164(C), pages 1-1.
    7. 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.
    8. Juan Cardenas, 2011. "Social Norms and Behavior in the Local Commons as Seen Through the Lens of Field Experiments," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 48(3), pages 451-485, March.
    9. Ordine, Patrizia & Rose, Giuseppe, 2017. "On the State and Wealth dependence of risk aversion: An analysis using severance pay allocation," The North American Journal of Economics and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 156-171.
    10. Dallimer, Martin & Martin-Ortega, Julia & Rendon, Olivia & Afionis, Stavros & Bark, Rosalind & Gordon, Iain J. & Paavola, Jouni, 2020. "Taking stock of the empirical evidence on the insurance value of ecosystems," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 167(C).
    11. Hyytiäinen, Kari & Lehtiniemi, Maiju & Niemi, Jarkko K. & Tikka, Kimmo, 2013. "An optimization framework for addressing aquatic invasive species," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 69-79.
    12. Ryan, Anthony M. & Spash, Clive L., 2011. "Is WTP an attitudinal measure? Empirical analysis of the psychological explanation for contingent values," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 32(5), pages 674-687.
    13. Lo, Alex Y. & Jim, C.Y., 2015. "Protest response and willingness to pay for culturally significant urban trees: Implications for Contingent Valuation Method," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 58-66.
    14. Donggeun Han & Donghee Yoo & Taeyoung Kim, 2023. "Analysis of social welfare impact of crop pest and disease damages due to climate change: a case study of dried red peppers," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 10(1), pages 1-13, December.
    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. Juan Camilo Cárdenas, 2009. "Experiments in Environment and Development," Annual Review of Resource Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 1(1), pages 157-182, September.
    17. Oleg Sheremet & John R. Healey & Christopher P. Quine & Nick Hanley, 2017. "Public Preferences and Willingness to Pay for Forest Disease Control in the UK," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 68(3), pages 781-800, September.
    18. Bartosz Bartkowski & Bernd Hansjürgens & Stefan Möckel & Stephan Bartke, 2018. "Institutional Economics of Agricultural Soil Ecosystem Services," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1-14, July.
    19. Johannes Rüdisser & Erich Tasser & Thomas Peham & Erwin Meyer & Ulrike Tappeiner, 2020. "Hidden Engineers and Service Providers: Earthworms in Agricultural Land-Use Types of South Tyrol, Italy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(1), pages 1-14, December.
    20. Bartkowski, Bartosz, 2017. "Existence value, biodiversity, and the utilitarian dilemma," UFZ Discussion Papers 2/2017, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research (UFZ), Division of Social Sciences (ÖKUS).

    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:ecoser:v:46:y:2020:i:c:s2212041620301340. 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: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/ecosystem-services .

    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.