IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/2001.01605.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Classifying ecosystem disservices and comparing their effects with ecosystem services in Beijing, China

Author

Listed:
  • Shuyao Wu
  • Jiao Huang
  • Shuangcheng Li

Abstract

To completely understand the effects of urban ecosystems, the effects of ecosystem disservices should be considered along with the ecosystem services and require more research attention. In this study, we tried to better understand its formation through the use of cascade flowchart and classification systems and compare their effects with ecosystem services. It is vitally important to differentiate final and intermediate ecosystem disservices for understanding the negative effects of the ecosystem on human well-being. The proposed functional classification of EDS (i.e. provisioning, regulating and cultural EDS) should also help better bridging EDS and ES studies. In addition, we used Beijing as a case study area to value the EDS caused by urban ecosystems and compare the findings with ES values. The results suggested that although EDS caused great financial loss the potential economic gain from ecosystem services still significantly outweigh the loss. Our study only sheds light on valuating the net effects of urban ecosystems. In the future, we believe that EDS valuation should be at least equally considered in ecosystem valuation studies to create more comprehensive and sustainable development policies, land use proposals and management plans.

Suggested Citation

  • Shuyao Wu & Jiao Huang & Shuangcheng Li, 2020. "Classifying ecosystem disservices and comparing their effects with ecosystem services in Beijing, China," Papers 2001.01605, arXiv.org.
    • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2001.01605
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://arxiv.org/pdf/2001.01605
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Olson, Lars J., 2006. "The Economics of Terrestrial Invasive Species: A Review of the Literature," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 35(1), pages 178-194, April.
    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.
    3. Ninan, K.N. & Inoue, Makoto, 2013. "Valuing forest ecosystem services: What we know and what we don't," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 137-149.
    4. Costanza, Robert & de Groot, Rudolf & Braat, Leon & Kubiszewski, Ida & Fioramonti, Lorenzo & Sutton, Paul & Farber, Steve & Grasso, Monica, 2017. "Twenty years of ecosystem services: How far have we come and how far do we still need to go?," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 28(PA), pages 1-16.
    5. Ninan, K.N. & Kontoleon, Andreas, 2016. "Valuing forest ecosystem services and disservices – Case study of a protected area in India," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 20(C), pages 1-14.
    6. Carole Sylvie Campagne & Philippe K. Roche & Jean-Michel Salles, 2018. "Looking into Pandora’s box: ecosystem disservices assessment and correlations with ecosystem services," Post-Print hal-01952506, HAL.
    7. Gómez-Baggethun, Erik & Barton, David N., 2013. "Classifying and valuing ecosystem services for urban planning," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 235-245.
    8. Richardson, Leslie & Loomis, John & Kroeger, Timm & Casey, Frank, 2015. "The role of benefit transfer in ecosystem service valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 51-58.
    9. Brouwer, Roy, 2000. "Environmental value transfer: state of the art and future prospects," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 137-152, January.
    10. Pimentel, David & Zuniga, Rodolfo & Morrison, Doug, 2005. "Update on the environmental and economic costs associated with alien-invasive species in the United States," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 52(3), pages 273-288, February.
    11. 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.
    12. Kevin Berry & Jude Bayham & Spencer R. Meyer & Eli P. Fenichel, 2018. "The Allocation of Time and Risk of Lyme: A Case of Ecosystem Service Income and Substitution Effects," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 70(3), pages 631-650, July.
    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. Sina Razzaghi Asl & Hamil Pearsall, 2022. "How Do Different Modes of Governance Support Ecosystem Services/Disservices in Small-Scale Urban Green Infrastructure? A Systematic Review," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(8), pages 1-21, August.

    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. Bianchi, Ettore & Accastello, Cristian & Trappmann, Daniel & Blanc, Simone & Brun, Filippo, 2018. "The Economic Evaluation of Forest Protection Service Against Rockfall: A Review of Experiences and Approaches," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 154(C), pages 409-418.
    4. Peng, Jian & Wang, Xiaoyu & Liu, Yanxu & Zhao, Yan & Xu, Zihan & Zhao, Mingyue & Qiu, Sijing & Wu, Jiansheng, 2020. "Urbanization impact on the supply-demand budget of ecosystem services: Decoupling analysis," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 44(C).
    5. Karen T. Lourdes & Chris N. Gibbins & Perrine Hamel & Ruzana Sanusi & Badrul Azhar & Alex M. Lechner, 2021. "A Review of Urban Ecosystem Services Research in Southeast Asia," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(1), pages 1-21, January.
    6. Hérivaux, Cécile & Grémont, Marine, 2019. "Valuing a diversity of ecosystem services: The way forward to protect strategic groundwater resources for the future?," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 184-193.
    7. Costanza, Robert & Howarth, Richard B. & Kubiszewski, Ida & Liu, Shuang & Ma, Chunbo & Plumecocq, Gaël & Stern, David I., 2016. "Influential publications in ecological economics revisited," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 123(C), pages 68-76.
    8. Shanwen Zheng & Baolong Han & Dang Wang & Zhiyun Ouyang, 2018. "Ecological Wisdom and Inspiration Underlying the Planning and Construction of Ancient Human Settlements: Case Study of Hongcun UNESCO World Heritage Site in China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-19, April.
    9. 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.
    10. Hao Wang & Sander Meijerink & Erwin van der Krabben, 2020. "Institutional Design and Performance of Markets for Watershed Ecosystem Services: A Systematic Literature Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(16), pages 1-26, August.
    11. Tavárez, Héctor & Elbakidze, Levan, 2019. "Valuing recreational enhancements in the San Patricio Urban Forest of Puerto Rico: A choice experiment approach," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    12. Xiaojuan Lin & Min Xu & Chunxiang Cao & Ramesh P. Singh & Wei Chen & Hongrun Ju, 2018. "Land-Use/Land-Cover Changes and Their Influence on the Ecosystem in Chengdu City, China during the Period of 1992–2018," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(10), pages 1-20, October.
    13. Jarmila Makovníková & Stanislav Kološta & Filip Flaška & Boris Pálka, 2023. "Potential of Regulating Ecosystem Services in Relation to Natural Capital in Model Regions of Slovakia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(2), pages 1-22, January.
    14. Tadaki, Marc & Allen, Will & Sinner, Jim, 2015. "Revealing ecological processes or imposing social rationalities? The politics of bounding and measuring ecosystem services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 168-176.
    15. Finisdore, John & Rhodes, Charles & Haines-Young, Roy & Maynard, Simone & Wielgus, Jeffrey & Dvarskas, Anthony & Houdet, Joel & Quétier, Fabien & Lamothe, Karl A. & Ding, Helen & Soulard, François &, 2020. "The 18 benefits of using ecosystem services classification systems," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 45(C).
    16. Moriah Bostian & Tommy Lundgren, 2022. "Valuing Ecosystem Services for Agricultural TFP: A Review of Best Practices, Challenges, and Recommendations," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(5), pages 1-19, March.
    17. Grammatikopoulou, Ioanna & VaÄ kářová, Davina, 2021. "The value of forest ecosystem services: A meta-analysis at the European scale and application to national ecosystem accounting," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 48(C).
    18. Zhou, Peng & Zhang, Haijie & Huang, Bei & Ji, Yongli & Peng, Shaolin & Zhou, Ting, 2022. "Are productivity and biodiversity adequate predictors for rapid assessment of forest ecosystem services values?," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 57(C).
    19. Acharya, Ram Prasad & Maraseni, Tek & Cockfield, Geoff, 2019. "Global trend of forest ecosystem services valuation – An analysis of publications," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 39(C).
    20. Nekane Castillo-Eguskitza & María F. Schmitz & Miren Onaindia & Alejandro J. Rescia, 2019. "Linking Biophysical and Economic Assessments of Ecosystem Services for a Social–Ecological Approach to Conservation Planning: Application in a Biosphere Reserve (Biscay, Spain)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(11), pages 1-23, May.

    More about this item

    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:arx:papers:2001.01605. 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: arXiv administrators (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://arxiv.org/ .

    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.