IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/aare10/58895.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Ecosystem services review of water projects

Author

Listed:
  • Hearnshaw, Edward J.S.
  • Cullen, Ross
  • Hughey, Kenneth F.D.

Abstract

Water projects are typically evaluated using benefit cost analysis. Ecosystem services are the direct and indirect benefits that people obtain from ecosystems. Many of these benefits are ignored in benefit cost analysis, because of the absence of markets and the limited information or understanding of how the benefits from ecosystem services are produced. Regional or local government may be interested in learning how the value of ecosystem services associated with projects may change if a project occurs. Ecosystem Service Reviews aim to make ecosystem services explicit and quantifiable so that they can be accounted for in the evaluation of water use projects. Water storage projects can enable land use intensification to occur, and confer environmental benefits in some instances (e.g., flow augmentation) and costs in others (e.g., groundwater contamination and flow‐on effects). Water storage projects can have both positive and negative outcomes for the environment. More flow can lead led to better fishing, better clarity, more contaminant dilution and a healthier aquatic ecosystem. It can also result in loss of braided river‐bird habitat, and regulated flows can result in nuisance growths of potentially toxic algal species. Irrigation can increase productivity of land within the scheme, with attendant benefits to soil quality and other out‐of‐river environmental characteristics. This paper reports the methods used to assess the impact of a water storage dam on the flow of ecosystem services in a river system. We review the range of ecosystem services that are available in a river system and examine how the flow of ecosystem services can be altered by water storage and flow augmentation through the construction of a dam. In order to list and quantify ecosystem services an attempt is made to determine a suitable site specific set of ecosystem service indicators for the Opuha‐Opihi river system case. We draw inferences about shifts in the value of ecosystem services that might arise from water projects in other contexts.

Suggested Citation

  • Hearnshaw, Edward J.S. & Cullen, Ross & Hughey, Kenneth F.D., 2010. "Ecosystem services review of water projects," 2010 Conference (54th), February 10-12, 2010, Adelaide, Australia 58895, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:aare10:58895
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.58895
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/58895/files/Cullen_%20Ross.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.58895?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. 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.
    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. 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.
    2. Edward Hearnshaw & Jean-Marie Tompkins & Ross Cullen, 2014. "Evaluating The Sustainability Of Impounded Rivers: An Ecosystem Services Approach," Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management (JEAPM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 16(04), pages 1-35.
    3. Pamela Kaval & Marjan van den Belt, 2017. "The Organizing Framework of Ecosystem Services and its use in River Management," Working Papers in Economics 17/22, University of Waikato.
    4. Borimnejad, Vali & Salimian, Fatemeh, 2014. "Investigation of Socio-Economic and Environmental Effects of Taleghan Dam Using Structural Equation Modeling," International Journal of Agricultural Management and Development (IJAMAD), Iranian Association of Agricultural Economics, vol. 4(3).

    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. Comino, E. & Ferretti, V., 2016. "Indicators-based spatial SWOT analysis: supporting the strategic planning and management of complex territorial systems," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 64142, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    2. Bolaños-Valencia, Ingrid & Villegas-Palacio, Clara & López-Gómez, Connie Paola & Berrouet, Lina & Ruiz, Aura, 2019. "Social perception of risk in socio-ecological systems. A qualitative and quantitative analysis," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 1-1.
    3. Alessio D’Auria & Pasquale De Toro & Nicola Fierro & Elisa Montone, 2018. "Integration between GIS and Multi-Criteria Analysis for Ecosystem Services Assessment: A Methodological Proposal for the National Park of Cilento, Vallo di Diano and Alburni (Italy)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-25, September.
    4. Johann Audrain & Mateo Cordier & Sylvie Faucheux & Martin O’Connor, 2013. "Écologie territoriale et indicateurs pour un développement durable de la métropole parisienne," Revue d'économie régionale et urbaine, Armand Colin, vol. 0(3), pages 523-559.
    5. Bo Yang & Ming-Han Li & Shujuan Li, 2013. "Design-with-Nature for Multifunctional Landscapes: Environmental Benefits and Social Barriers in Community Development," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-26, October.
    6. Stapleton, L.M. & Hanna, P. & Ravenscroft, N. & Church, A., 2014. "A flexible ecosystem services proto-typology based on public opinion," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 83-90.
    7. Beichen Ge & Congjin Wang & Yuhong Song, 2023. "Ecosystem Services Research in Rural Areas: A Systematic Review Based on Bibliometric Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(6), pages 1-18, March.
    8. Aevermann Tim & Schmude Jürgen, 2015. "Quantification and monetary valuation of urban ecosystem services in Munich, Germany," ZFW – Advances in Economic Geography, De Gruyter, vol. 59(3), pages 188-200, December.
    9. Braat, Leon C. & de Groot, Rudolf, 2012. "The ecosystem services agenda:bridging the worlds of natural science and economics, conservation and development, and public and private policy," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 1(1), pages 4-15.
    10. Mateo Cordier & José Pérez Agúndez & Walter Hecq & Bertrand Hamaide, 2013. "A guiding framework for ecosystem services monetization in ecological-economic modeling," Working Papers CEB 13-018, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    11. Grilli, Gianluca & Fratini, Roberto & Marone, Enrico & Sacchelli, Sandro, 2020. "A spatial-based tool for the analysis of payments for forest ecosystem services related to hydrogeological protection," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 111(C).
    12. Jiayi Zhou & Kangning Xiong & Qi Wang & Jiuhan Tang & Li Lin, 2022. "A Review of Ecological Assets and Ecological Products Supply: Implications for the Karst Rocky Desertification Control," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(16), pages 1-20, August.
    13. 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.
    14. Jian Zhang & Hengxing Xiang & Shizuka Hashimoto & Toshiya Okuro, 2021. "Observational Scale Matters for Ecosystem Services Interactions and Spatial Distributions: A Case Study of the Ussuri Watershed, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(19), pages 1-16, September.
    15. Sattler, Claudia & Trampnau, Susanne & Schomers, Sarah & Meyer, Claas & Matzdorf, Bettina, 2013. "Multi-classification of payments for ecosystem services: How do classification characteristics relate to overall PES success?," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 6(C), pages 31-45.
    16. Rasmussen, Laura Vang & Mertz, Ole & Christensen, Andreas E. & Danielsen, Finn & Dawson, Neil & Xaydongvanh, Pheang, 2016. "A combination of methods needed to assess the actual use of provisioning ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 17(C), pages 75-86.
    17. Schaeffer, Y. & Dissart, J.-C., 2018. "Natural and Environmental Amenities: A Review of Definitions, Measures and Issues," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 475-496.
    18. Chaikumbung, Mayula & Doucouliagos, Hristos & Scarborough, Helen, 2016. "The economic value of wetlands in developing countries: A meta-regression analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 164-174.
    19. 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.
    20. Vedel, Suzanne Elizabeth & Thorsen, Bo Jellesmark & Jacobsen, Jette Bredahl, 2009. "First-movers, non-movers, and social gains from subsidising entry in markets for nature-based recreational goods," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(8-9), pages 2363-2371, June.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Resource /Energy Economics and Policy;

    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:ags:aare10:58895. 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: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aaresea.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.