IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecoser/v56y2022ics2212041622000547.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Modeling water regulation ecosystem services: A review in the context of ecosystem accounting

Author

Listed:
  • Nedkov, Stoyan
  • Campagne, Sylvie
  • Borisova, Bilyana
  • Krpec, Petr
  • Prodanova, Hristina
  • Kokkoris, Ioannis P.
  • Hristova, Desislava
  • Le Clec'h, Solen
  • Santos-Martin, Fernando
  • Burkhard, Benjamin
  • Bekri, Eleni S.
  • Stoycheva, Vanya
  • Bruzón, Adrián G.
  • Dimopoulos, Panayotis

Abstract

Natural Capital Accounting (NCA) has evolved rapidly in recent years through substantial efforts of both international organizations and the scientific community. Water regulation ecosystem services (ES) are key elements of regulating services in ecosystem accounting, with most relevant studies strongly relying on models for ES quantification up to now. In this paper, we provide a review of modeling efforts for water regulation ES based on 148 scientific papers, properly systematized, analyzed and interpreted by using a detailed and structured original template. We examined emerging trends and gaps in model applications and the readiness to integrate them into the NCA and SEEA-EA frameworks. We propose a classification scheme which organizes the 92 different models and modeling approaches identified in the review process into eight model categories so that this scheme can be efficiently used in the water ES assessment of and for further integration into the accounting framework. Among the models, the hydrologic model SWAT and the modeling tool InVEST are by far the most popular. The results of the review revealed differences between the general ES literature and the accounting-related papers. Moreover, our analysis sets the basis for useful recommendations of which model categories are the most appropriate for the water regulation ES, included in the SEEA-EA reference list. Based on the number of relevant papers, the reliability and the confidence level of the recommendations for the use of models have been incorporated in our analysis. We highlight as model category with the highest confidence the ones relative to quantification water flow and flood control service aiming at ES accounting. Models for erosion control ES can only be recommended with a lower confidence, while for water purification the results lack clear evidence for using a particular group of models. Based on the research findings we identified the main research priorities on model integration in the accounting of water regulation ES: 1) further development of guidelines for the use of models in ecosystem accounting; 2) analyses of the spatial aspects of the model towards a clear distinction between ecosystem service supply and use; and 3) development of integrated modeling approaches for water regulation ES accounting.

Suggested Citation

  • Nedkov, Stoyan & Campagne, Sylvie & Borisova, Bilyana & Krpec, Petr & Prodanova, Hristina & Kokkoris, Ioannis P. & Hristova, Desislava & Le Clec'h, Solen & Santos-Martin, Fernando & Burkhard, Benjamin, 2022. "Modeling water regulation ecosystem services: A review in the context of ecosystem accounting," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 56(C).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecoser:v:56:y:2022:i:c:s2212041622000547
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2022.101458
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212041622000547
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ecoser.2022.101458?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. Lai, Tin-Yu & Salminen, Jani & Jäppinen, Jukka-Pekka & Koljonen, Saija & Mononen, Laura & Nieminen, Emmi & Vihervaara, Petteri & Oinonen, Soile, 2018. "Bridging the gap between ecosystem service indicators and ecosystem accounting in Finland," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 377(C), pages 51-65.
    2. Ochoa, Vivian & Urbina-Cardona, Nicolás, 2017. "Tools for spatially modeling ecosystem services: Publication trends, conceptual reflections and future challenges," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 26(PA), pages 155-169.
    3. Grossmann, Malte, 2012. "Economic value of the nutrient retention function of restored floodplain wetlands in the Elbe River basin," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 108-117.
    4. Perevochtchikova, María & De la Mora-De la Mora, Gabriela & Hernández Flores, José à lvaro & Marín, Wilmer & Langle Flores, Alfonso & Ramos Bueno, Arturo & Rojo Negrete, Iskra Alejandra, 2019. "Systematic review of integrated studies on functional and thematic ecosystem services in Latin America, 1992–2017," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 1-1.
    5. Yang, Y.C. Ethan & Passarelli, Simone & Lovell, Robin J. & Ringler, Claudia, 2018. "Gendered perspectives of ecosystem services: A systematic review," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 31(PA), pages 58-67.
    6. Posthumus, H. & Rouquette, J.R. & Morris, J. & Gowing, D.J.G. & Hess, T.M., 2010. "A framework for the assessment of ecosystem goods and services; a case study on lowland floodplains in England," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(7), pages 1510-1523, May.
    7. La Notte, Alessandra & Maes, Joachim & Dalmazzone, Silvana & Crossman, Neville D. & Grizzetti, Bruna & Bidoglio, Giovanni, 2017. "Physical and monetary ecosystem service accounts for Europe: A case study for in-stream nitrogen retention," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 23(C), pages 18-29.
    8. Harrison, Paula A. & Dunford, Rob & Barton, David N. & Kelemen, Eszter & Martín-López, Berta & Norton, Lisa & Termansen, Mette & Saarikoski, Heli & Hendriks, Kees & Gómez-Baggethun, Erik & Czúcz, , 2018. "Selecting methods for ecosystem service assessment: A decision tree approach," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 29(PC), pages 481-498.
    9. Simonit, Silvio & Perrings, Charles, 2011. "Sustainability and the value of the 'regulating' services: Wetlands and water quality in Lake Victoria," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(6), pages 1189-1199, April.
    10. Cheng, Xin & Van Damme, Sylvie & Li, Luyuan & Uyttenhove, Pieter, 2019. "Evaluation of cultural ecosystem services: A review of methods," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 1-1.
    11. Barth, Nina-Christin & Döll, Petra, 2016. "Assessing the ecosystem service flood protection of a riparian forest by applying a cascade approach," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 21(PA), pages 39-52.
    12. 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.
    13. Vardon, Michael & Lenzen, Manfred & Peevor, Stuart & Creaser, Mette, 2007. "Water accounting in Australia," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(4), pages 650-659, March.
    14. 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).
    15. Vardon, Michael & Keith, Heather & Lindenmayer, David, 2019. "Accounting and valuing the ecosystem services related to water supply in the Central Highlands of Victoria, Australia," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 39(C).
    16. Vallecillo, Sara & Kakoulaki, Georgia & La Notte, Alessandra & Feyen, Luc & Dottori, Francesco & Maes, Joachim, 2020. "Accounting for changes in flood control delivered by ecosystems at the EU level," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 44(C).
    17. Luederitz, Christopher & Brink, Ebba & Gralla, Fabienne & Hermelingmeier, Verena & Meyer, Moritz & Niven, Lisa & Panzer, Lars & Partelow, Stefan & Rau, Anna-Lena & Sasaki, Ryuei & Abson, David J. & La, 2015. "A review of urban ecosystem services: six key challenges for future research," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 14(C), pages 98-112.
    18. Driss Ezzine-de-Blas & Sven Wunder & Manuel Ruiz-Pérez & Rocio del Pilar Moreno-Sanchez, 2016. "Global Patterns in the Implementation of Payments for Environmental Services," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(3), pages 1-16, March.
    19. Tammi, Ilpo & Mustajärvi, Kaisa & Rasinmäki, Jussi, 2017. "Integrating spatial valuation of ecosystem services into regional planning and development," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 26(PB), pages 329-344.
    20. Logsdon, Rebecca A. & Chaubey, Indrajeet, 2013. "A quantitative approach to evaluating ecosystem services," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 257(C), pages 57-65.
    21. Kyle Onda & Joe LoBuglio & Jamie Bartram, 2012. "Global Access to Safe Water: Accounting for Water Quality and the Resulting Impact on MDG Progress," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 9(3), pages 1-15, March.
    22. Anna Lüke & Jochen Hack, 2018. "Comparing the Applicability of Commonly Used Hydrological Ecosystem Services Models for Integrated Decision-Support," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(2), pages 1-22, January.
    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. Valencia Torres, Angélica & Tiwari, Chetan & Atkinson, Samuel F., 2021. "Progress in ecosystem services research: A guide for scholars and practitioners," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 49(C).
    2. Kubiszewski, Ida & Concollato, Luke & Costanza, Robert & Stern, David I., 2023. "Changes in authorship, networks, and research topics in ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 59(C).
    3. Jiang, Wei & Wu, Tong & Fu, Bojie, 2021. "The value of ecosystem services in China: A systematic review for twenty years," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 52(C).
    4. Crossman, Neville D. & Burkhard, Benjamin & Nedkov, Stoyan & Willemen, Louise & Petz, Katalin & Palomo, Ignacio & Drakou, Evangelia G. & Martín-Lopez, Berta & McPhearson, Timon & Boyanova, Kremena & , 2013. "A blueprint for mapping and modelling ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 4(C), pages 4-14.
    5. Agudelo, César Augusto Ruiz & Bustos, Sandra Liliana Hurtado & Moreno, Carmen Alicia Parrado, 2020. "Modeling interactions among multiple ecosystem services. A critical review," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 429(C).
    6. Cavalletti, B. & Di Fabio, C. & Lagomarsino, E. & Ramassa, P., 2020. "Ecosystem accounting for marine protected areas: A proposed framework," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 173(C).
    7. Vardon, Michael & Burnett, Peter & Dovers, Stephen, 2016. "The accounting push and the policy pull: balancing environment and economic decisions," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 145-152.
    8. Eduardo Blanco & Maibritt Pedersen Zari & Kalina Raskin & Philippe Clergeau, 2021. "Urban Ecosystem-Level Biomimicry and Regenerative Design: Linking Ecosystem Functioning and Urban Built Environments," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(1), pages 1-12, January.
    9. Kiefer, Katharina & Kremer, Jasper & Zeitner, Philipp & Winkler, Bastian & Wagner, Moritz & von Cossel, Moritz, 2023. "Monetizing ecosystem services of perennial wild plant mixtures for bioenergy," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 61(C).
    10. Manley, Kyle & Nyelele, Charity & Egoh, Benis N., 2022. "A review of machine learning and big data applications in addressing ecosystem service research gaps," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 57(C).
    11. Yan, Haiming & Yang, Huicai & Guo, Xiaonan & Zhao, Shuqin & Jiang, Qun'ou, 2022. "Payments for ecosystem services as an essential approach to improving ecosystem services: A review," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 201(C).
    12. Bagstad, Kenneth J. & Ingram, Jane Carter & Shapiro, Carl D. & La Notte, Alessandra & Maes, Joachim & Vallecillo, Sara & Casey, C. Frank & Glynn, Pierre D. & Heris, Mehdi P. & Johnson, Justin A. & Lau, 2021. "Lessons learned from development of natural capital accounts in the United States and European Union," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 52(C).
    13. Li-Chun Peng & Wan-Yu Lien & Yu-Pin Lin, 2020. "How Experts’ Opinions and Knowledge Affect Their Willingness to Pay for and Ranking of Hydrological Ecosystem Services," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(23), pages 1-18, December.
    14. Xiaoyong Li & Wenhui Kuang & Fengyun Sun, 2020. "Identifying Urban Flood Regulation Priority Areas in Beijing Based on an Ecosystem Services Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(6), pages 1-18, March.
    15. Barth, Nina-Christin & Döll, Petra, 2016. "Assessing the ecosystem service flood protection of a riparian forest by applying a cascade approach," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 21(PA), pages 39-52.
    16. Elliot, Thomas & Bertrand, Alexandre & Babí Almenar, Javier & Petucco, Claudio & Proença, Vânia & Rugani, Benedetto, 2019. "Spatial optimisation of urban ecosystem services through integrated participatory and multi-objective integer linear programming," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 409(C), pages 1-1.
    17. Lai, Tin-Yu & Salminen, Jani & Jäppinen, Jukka-Pekka & Koljonen, Saija & Mononen, Laura & Nieminen, Emmi & Vihervaara, Petteri & Oinonen, Soile, 2018. "Bridging the gap between ecosystem service indicators and ecosystem accounting in Finland," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 377(C), pages 51-65.
    18. Emily C. Hazell, 2020. "Disaggregating Ecosystem Benefits: An Integrated Environmental-Deprivation Index," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(18), pages 1-20, September.
    19. Czúcz, Bálint & Arany, Ildikó & Potschin-Young, Marion & Bereczki, Krisztina & Kertész, Miklós & Kiss, Márton & Aszalós, Réka & Haines-Young, Roy, 2018. "Where concepts meet the real world: A systematic review of ecosystem service indicators and their classification using CICES," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 29(PA), pages 145-157.
    20. Petersen, Jan-Erik & Mancosu, Emanuele & King, Steven, 2022. "Ecosystem extent accounts for Europe," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 57(C).

    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:56:y:2022:i:c:s2212041622000547. 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.