IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/aue/wpaper/1714.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Valuation of Marine Ecosystems

Author

Listed:
  • Achilleas Vassilopoulos
  • Phoebe Koundouri

Abstract

Water accounts for more than 70% of Earth's surface, making marine ecosystems the largest and most important ecosystems of the planet. However, the fact that a large part of these ecosystems and their potential contribution to humans remains unexplored has rendered them unattractive for valuation exercises. On the contrary, coastal zones, ,being the interface between the land, the sea, and human activities competing for space and resources, have been extensively studied with the objective of marine ecosystem services valuation. Examples of marine and coastal ecosystems are open oceans, coral reefs, deep seas, hydrothermal vents, abyssal plains, wetlands, rocky and sandy shores, mangroves, kelp forests, estuaries, salt marshes, and mudflats. Although there are arguments that no classification can capture the ways in which ecosystems contribute to human well-being and support human life, very often policymakers have to decide upon alternative uses of such natural environments. Should a given wetland be preserved or converted to agricultural land? Should a mangrove be designated within the protected areas system or be used for shrimp farming? To answer these questions, one needs first to establish the philosophical basis of value within the ecosystems framework. To this end, two vastly different approaches have been proposed. On the one hand, the nonutilitarian (biocentric) approach relies on the notion of intrinsic value attached to the mere existence of a natural resource, independent of whether humans derive utility from its use (if any) or preservation. Albeit useful in philosophical terms, this approach is still far from providing unambiguous and generally accepted inputs to the tangible problem of ecosystem valuation. The utilitarian (anthropocentric) perspective, on the other hand, assumes that natural environments have value to the extent that humans derive utility from placing such value. According to the total economic value (TEV) approach, this value can be divided into "use" and "nonuse". Use values involve some interaction with the resource, either directly or indirectly, while nonuse values are derived simply from the knowledge that natural resources and aspects of the natural environment are maintained. Existence and altruistic values fall within this latter category. Not surprisingly, economists have long revealed a strong preference for the utilitarian approach. As a result, the valuation of marine ecosystems requires that we understand the ecosystem services they deliver and then attach a value to the services. But what tools are available to economists when valuing marine ecosystems? For the most part, ecosystem services are not traded in formal markets and thus actual prices are usually not available. Valuation techniques essentially seek different ways to estimate measures like Willingness To Pay (WTP), Willingness To Accept (WTA), or expenditures and costs. The techniques used for the valuation of ecosystem services can be divided into three main families: market-based, revealed preference, and stated preference. Finally, value-transfer methods are also used when estimates of value are available in similar contexts. All these methods have advantages and disadvantages, with different methods being suitable for different situations. Hence, extra caution is required during the design and implementation of valuation attempts.

Suggested Citation

  • Achilleas Vassilopoulos & Phoebe Koundouri, 2017. "Valuation of Marine Ecosystems," DEOS Working Papers 1714, Athens University of Economics and Business.
  • Handle: RePEc:aue:wpaper:1714
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://wpa.deos.aueb.gr/docs/2017.Valuation.marine.Ecosystems.pdf
    File Function: First version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. George Parsons & Steven Thur, 2008. "Valuing Changes in the Quality of Coral Reef Ecosystems: A Stated Preference Study of SCUBA Diving in the Bonaire National Marine Park," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 40(4), pages 593-608, August.
    2. Suthawan Sathirathai, 1998. "Economic Valuation of Mangroves and the Roles of Local Communities in the Conservation of Natural Resources: Case Study of Surat Thani, South of Thailand," EEPSEA Research Report rr1998061, Economy and Environment Program for Southeast Asia (EEPSEA), revised Jun 1998.
    3. Lynne, Gary D. & Conroy, Patricia & Prochaska, Frederick J., 1981. "Economic valuation of marsh areas for marine production processes," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 8(2), pages 175-186, June.
    4. Halstead, John M. & Luloff, A.E. & Stevens, Thomas H., 1992. "Protest Bidders In Contingent Valuation," Northeastern Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 21(2), pages 1-10, October.
    5. 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.
    6. Aanesen, Margrethe & Armstrong, Claire & Czajkowski, Mikołaj & Falk-Petersen, Jannike & Hanley, Nick & Navrud, Ståle, 2015. "Willingness to pay for unfamiliar public goods: Preserving cold-water coral in Norway," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 53-67.
    7. Remoundou, Kyriaki & Diaz-Simal, Pedro & Koundouri, Phoebe & Rulleau, Bénédicte, 2015. "Valuing climate change mitigation: A choice experiment on a coastal and marine ecosystem," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 11(C), pages 87-94.
    8. -, 2009. "The economics of climate change," Sede Subregional de la CEPAL para el Caribe (Estudios e Investigaciones) 38679, Naciones Unidas Comisión Económica para América Latina y el Caribe (CEPAL).
    9. Hussain, S. Salman & Winrow-Giffin, Alexandra & Moran, Dominic & Robinson, Leonie A. & Fofana, Abdulai & Paramor, Odette A.L. & Frid, Chris L.J., 2010. "An ex ante ecological economic assessment of the benefits arising from marine protected areas designation in the UK," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(4), pages 828-838, February.
    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. Phoebe Koundouri & Vassiliki Manoussi & Lydia Papadaki, 2020. "Introduction to the Oceans of Tomorrow: The Transition to Sustainability," DEOS Working Papers 2017, Athens University of Economics and Business.
    2. Ruda Zhang & Patrick Wingo & Rodrigo Duran & Kelly Rose & Jennifer Bauer & Roger Ghanem, 2020. "Environmental Economics and Uncertainty: Review and a Machine Learning Outlook," Papers 2004.11780, arXiv.org.

    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. Halkos, George, 2012. "Assessing the economic value of protecting artificial lakes," MPRA Paper 39557, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    2. Edward Barbier & Ivar Strand & Suthawan Sathirathai, 2002. "Do Open Access Conditions Affect the Valuation of an Externality? Estimating the Welfare Effects of Mangrove-Fishery Linkages in Thailand," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 21(4), pages 343-365, April.
    3. Nick Hanley & Stephen Hynes & Niels Jobstvogt & David M. Paterson, 2014. "Economic valuation of marine and coastal ecosystems:Is it currently fit for purpose?," Discussion Papers in Environment and Development Economics 2014-11, University of St. Andrews, School of Geography and Sustainable Development.
    4. John Robinson, Peter & van Beukering, Pieter & Brander, Luke & Brouwer, Roy & Haider, W. & Taylor, Michael & Mau, Paulus, 2022. "Understanding the determinants of biodiversity non-use values in the context of climate change: Stated preferences for the Hawaiian coral reefs," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 53(C).
    5. S Sathirathai & EB Barbier, 2001. "Valuing Mangrove Conservation In Southern Thailand," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 19(2), pages 109-122, April.
    6. Zhang, Zhong Xiang, 2012. "Competitiveness and Leakage Concerns and Border Carbon Adjustments," International Review of Environmental and Resource Economics, now publishers, vol. 6(3), pages 225-287, December.
    7. van den Bergh, J.C.J.M. & Botzen, W.J.W., 2015. "Monetary valuation of the social cost of CO2 emissions: A critical survey," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 33-46.
    8. Li, Aijun & Du, Nan & Wei, Qian, 2014. "The cross-country implications of alternative climate policies," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 155-163.
    9. Strand, Jon, 2011. "Carbon offsets with endogenous environmental policy," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 371-378, March.
    10. Bosetti, Valentina & Carraro, Carlo & Duval, Romain & Tavoni, Massimo, 2011. "What should we expect from innovation? A model-based assessment of the environmental and mitigation cost implications of climate-related R&D," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(6), pages 1313-1320.
    11. Ponce, Roberto & Bosello, Francesco & Giupponi, Carlo, 2012. "Integrating Water Resources into Computable General Equilibrium Models - A Survey," Climate Change and Sustainable Development 138499, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM).
    12. Mouez Fodha, 2015. "Nuclear waste storage and environmental intergenerational externalities," International Journal of Sustainable Development, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 18(1/2), pages 94-114.
    13. Khan, Mohammad Ismail, 2011. "Water Management In Bangladesh Agriculture: Optimal Use And Investment Policies For Adaptation To Climate Change," 2011 Conference (55th), February 8-11, 2011, Melbourne, Australia 100571, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    14. William Oman & Romain Svartzman, 2021. "What Justifies Sustainable Finance Measures? Financial-Economic Interactions and Possible Implications for Policymakers," CESifo Forum, ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich, vol. 22(03), pages 03-11, May.
    15. Ing-Marie Gren & Carl Folke & Kerry Turner & Ian Batemen, 1994. "Primary and secondary values of wetland ecosystems," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 4(1), pages 55-74, February.
    16. Jeff Connor & Kurt Schwabe & Darran King & David Kaczan & Mac Kirby, 2009. "Impacts of climate change on lower Murray irrigation ," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 53(3), pages 437-456, July.
    17. Mittenzwei, Klaus & Bullock, David S. & Salhofer, Klaus, 2012. "Towards a theory of policy timing," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 56(4), pages 1-14.
    18. Yoosoon Chang & Robert K. Kaufmann & Chang Sik Kim & J. Isaac Miller & Joon Y. Park & Sungkeun Park, 2015. "Time Series Analysis of Global Temperature Distributions: Identifying and Estimating Persistent Features in Temperature Anomalies," Working Papers 1513, Department of Economics, University of Missouri, revised 25 Jul 2016.
    19. Emanuele Massetti, 2011. "Carbon tax scenarios for China and India: exploring politically feasible mitigation goals," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 11(3), pages 209-227, September.
    20. Waqas Manzoor, 2021. "Analysis of the Vulnerability of Farm Households to Flood Risk in Punjab, Pakistan," Journal of Economic Impact, Science Impact Publishers, vol. 3(1), pages 27-38.

    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:aue:wpaper:1714. 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: Ekaterini Glynou (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/diauegr.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.