IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/aue/wpaper/2230.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Ecosystem Services into Water Resource Planning and Management

Author

Listed:
  • Phoebe Koundouri
  • Angelos Alamanos
  • Kostas Dellis
  • Artemis Stratopoulou

Abstract

The broad economic notion of Ecosystem Services (ES) refers to the benefits that humans derive, directly or indirectly, from ecosystem functions. Provisioning ES refer to human-centred benefits that can be extracted from nature (e.g., food, drinking water, timber, wood fuel, natural gas, oils etc.), whereas regulating ES include ecosystem processes that moderate natural phenomena (pollination, decomposition, flood control, carbon storage, climate regulation etc.). Cultural ES entail non-material benefits accruing to the cultural advancement of people, such as the role of ecosystems in national, and supranational cultures, recreation and the spur of knowledge and creativity (music, art, architecture). Finally, supporting ES refer to the main natural cycles that nature needs to function, such as photosynthesis, nutrient cycling, the creation of soils, and the water cycle. Most ES either depend on or provide freshwater services, so they are linked to Water Resources Management (WRM). The concept of ES initially had a pedagogical purpose to raise awareness on the importance of reasonable WRM, however, later it started being measured with economic methods, and having policy implications. The valuation of ES is an important methodology aimed at achieving environmental, economic and sustainability goals. The Total Economic Value (TEV) of ecosystems includes market values (priced) as well as non-market values (not explicit in any market) of different services for humanity's benefit. The valuation of ES inherently reflects human preferences and perceptions regarding the contribution of ecosystems and their functions to the economy and society. The ES concept and associated policies have been criticised on the technical weaknesses of the valuation methods, interdisciplinary conflicts (e.g., ecological vs economic perception of value), and ethical aspects on the limits of economics, nature's commodification, and its policy implications. Since valuation affects the incentives and policies aimed at conserving key ES, e.g., through payment schemes, it is important to understand the way that humans decide and develop preferences under uncertainty. Behavioural Economics attempts to understand human behaviour and psychology and can help to identify appropriate institutions and policies under uncertainty that enhance ecosystem services that are key to water resources management.

Suggested Citation

  • Phoebe Koundouri & Angelos Alamanos & Kostas Dellis & Artemis Stratopoulou, 2022. "Ecosystem Services into Water Resource Planning and Management," DEOS Working Papers 2230, Athens University of Economics and Business.
  • Handle: RePEc:aue:wpaper:2230
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://wpa.deos.aueb.gr/docs/2022.Ecosystem.Services.Water.Resource.Planning.Management.pdf
    File Function: First version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Colombo, Sergio & Calatrava-Requena, Javier & Hanley, Nick, 2006. "Analysing the social benefits of soil conservation measures using stated preference methods," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(4), pages 850-861, July.
    2. Greg Murtough & Barbara Aretino & Anna Matysek, 2002. "Creating markets for ecosystem services," Urban/Regional 0207001, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    3. Bin, Okmyung & Polasky, Stephen, 2005. "Evidence on the Amenity Value of Wetlands in a Rural Setting," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 37(3), pages 589-602, December.
    4. Farley, Joshua, 2012. "Ecosystem services: The economics debate," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 1(1), pages 40-49.
    5. Sergio Colombo & Nick Hanley & Javier Calatrava‐Requena, 2005. "Designing Policy for Reducing the Off‐farm Effects of Soil Erosion Using Choice Experiments," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 56(1), pages 81-95, March.
    6. Farber, Stephen C. & Costanza, Robert & Wilson, Matthew A., 2002. "Economic and ecological concepts for valuing ecosystem services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(3), pages 375-392, June.
    7. Hansjürgens, Bernd & Schröter-Schlaack, Christoph & Berghöfer, Augustin & Lienhoop, Nele, 2016. "Reprint:Justifying social values of nature: Economic reasoning beyond self-interested preferences," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 22(PB), pages 228-237.
    8. Moore, Michael R. & Doubek, Jonathan P. & Xu, Hui & Cardinale, Bradley J., 2020. "Hedonic Price Estimates of Lake Water Quality: Valued Attribute, Instrumental Variables, and Ecological-Economic Benefits," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 176(C).
    9. Angelos Alamanos & Phoebe Koundouri, 2022. "Economics of Incorporating Ecosystem Services into Water Resource Planning and Management," DEOS Working Papers 2211, Athens University of Economics and Business.
    10. Paul J. Ferraro & Michael K. Price, 2013. "Using Nonpecuniary Strategies to Influence Behavior: Evidence from a Large-Scale Field Experiment," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 95(1), pages 64-73, March.
    11. Bingham, Gail & Bishop, Richard & Brody, Michael & Bromley, Daniel & Clark, Edwin (Toby) & Cooper, William & Costanza, Robert & Hale, Thomas & Hayden, Gregory & Kellert, Stephen, 1995. "Issues in ecosystem valuation: improving information for decision making," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 14(2), pages 73-90, August.
    12. Ming, Jiang & Xian-guo, Lu & Lin-shu, Xu & Li-juan, Chu & Shouzheng, Tong, 2007. "Flood mitigation benefit of wetland soil -- A case study in Momoge National Nature Reserve in China," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(2-3), pages 217-223, March.
    13. Murtough, Greg & Aretino, Barbara & Matysek, Anna, 2002. "Creating Markets for Ecosystem Services," Staff Research Papers 31912, Productivity Commission.
    14. Turpie, J.K. & Marais, C. & Blignaut, J.N., 2008. "The working for water programme: Evolution of a payments for ecosystem services mechanism that addresses both poverty and ecosystem service delivery in South Africa," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(4), pages 788-798, May.
    15. Deal, Robert L. & Cochran, Bobby & LaRocco, Gina, 2012. "Bundling of ecosystem services to increase forestland value and enhance sustainable forest management," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 17(C), pages 69-76.
    16. United Nations, 2016. "The Sustainable Development Goals 2016," Working Papers id:11456, eSocialSciences.
    17. Schmidt, Katja & Martín-López, Berta & Phillips, Peter M. & Julius, Eike & Makan, Neville & Walz, Ariane, 2019. "Key landscape features in the provision of ecosystem services: Insights for management," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 353-366.
    18. Pattison-Williams, John K. & Pomeroy, John W. & Badiou, Pascal & Gabor, Shane, 2018. "Wetlands, Flood Control and Ecosystem Services in the Smith Creek Drainage Basin: A Case Study in Saskatchewan, Canada," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 147(C), pages 36-47.
    19. Häyhä, Tiina & Franzese, Pier Paolo, 2014. "Ecosystem services assessment: A review under an ecological-economic and systems perspective," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 289(C), pages 124-132.
    20. A. Alamanos & D. Latinopoulos & A. Loukas & N. Mylopoulos, 2020. "Comparing Two Hydro-Economic Approaches for Multi-Objective Agricultural Water Resources Planning," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 34(14), pages 4511-4526, November.
    21. Phoebe Koundouri & Panos Pashardes, 2003. "Hedonic Price Analysis and Selectivity Bias," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 26(1), pages 45-56, September.
    22. Swinton, Scott M. & Lupi, Frank & Robertson, G. Philip & Hamilton, Stephen K., 2007. "Ecosystem services and agriculture: Cultivating agricultural ecosystems for diverse benefits," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(2), pages 245-252, December.
    23. Winkler, Ralph, 2006. "Valuation of ecosystem goods and services: Part 1: An integrated dynamic approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 59(1), pages 82-93, August.
    24. Kathleen McAfee, 2012. "The Contradictory Logic of Global Ecosystem Services Markets," Development and Change, International Institute of Social Studies, vol. 43(1), pages 105-131, January.
    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 & George Halkos & Conrad Landis & Angelos Alamanos, 2023. "Ecosystem Services Valuation for supporting Sustainable Life Below Water," DEOS Working Papers 2316, Athens University of Economics and Business.

    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. Angelos Alamanos & Phoebe Koundouri, 2022. "Economics of Incorporating Ecosystem Services into Water Resource Planning and Management," DEOS Working Papers 2211, Athens University of Economics and Business.
    2. Nikodinoska, Natasha & Paletto, Alessandro & Pastorella, Fabio & Granvik, Madeleine & Franzese, Pier Paolo, 2018. "Assessing, valuing and mapping ecosystem services at city level: The case of Uppsala (Sweden)," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 368(C), pages 411-424.
    3. 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.
    4. Ekin Birol & Phoebe Koundouri & Yiannis Kountouris, 2008. "Using Economic Valuation Techniques to Inform Water Resources Management in the Southern European, Mediterranean and Developing Countries: A Survey and Critical Appraisal of Available Techniques," DEOS Working Papers 0806, Athens University of Economics and Business.
    5. Adam P. Hejnowicz & Murray A. Rudd, 2017. "The Value Landscape in Ecosystem Services: Value, Value Wherefore Art Thou Value?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(5), pages 1-34, May.
    6. Sell, Joachim & Koellner, Thomas & Weber, Olaf & Pedroni, Lucio & Scholz, Roland W., 2006. "Decision criteria of European and Latin American market actors for tropical forestry projects providing environmental services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(1), pages 17-36, June.
    7. 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.
    8. Valle, Haydn & Capon, Timothy & Harris, Michael & Reeson, Andrew, 2012. "Coordination and Strategic Behaviour in Landscape Auctions," 2012 Conference (56th), February 7-10, 2012, Fremantle, Australia 124466, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    9. Folkersen, Maja Vinde, 2018. "Ecosystem valuation: Changing discourse in a time of climate change," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 29(PA), pages 1-12.
    10. Whitten, Stuart M. & Salzman, James & Shelton, Dave & Procter, Wendy, 2003. "Markets for ecosystem services: Applying the concepts," 2003 Conference (47th), February 12-14, 2003, Fremantle, Australia 58269, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    11. Vassallo, P. & Paoli, C. & Buonocore, E. & Franzese, P.P. & Russo, G.F. & Povero, P., 2017. "Assessing the value of natural capital in marine protected areas: A biophysical and trophodynamic environmental accounting model," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 355(C), pages 12-17.
    12. Chenai Murata & Sukhmani Mantel & Chris de Wet & Anthony R Palmer, 2019. "Lay Knowledge of Ecosystem Services in Rural Eastern Cape Province, South Africa: Implications for Intervention Program Planning," Water Economics and Policy (WEP), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 5(02), pages 1-29, April.
    13. Smith, Helen F. & Sullivan, Caroline A., 2014. "Ecosystem services within agricultural landscapes—Farmers' perceptions," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 72-80.
    14. Turner, Katrine Grace & Anderson, Sharolyn & Gonzales-Chang, Mauricio & Costanza, Robert & Courville, Sasha & Dalgaard, Tommy & Dominati, Estelle & Kubiszewski, Ida & Ogilvy, Sue & Porfirio, Luciana &, 2016. "A review of methods, data, and models to assess changes in the value of ecosystem services from land degradation and restoration," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 319(C), pages 190-207.
    15. Flugge, Felicity & Schilizzi, Steven, 2003. "Greenhouse Gas Abatement Policies and the Value of Carbon Sinks: Do Grazing and Cropping Systems have Different Destinies?," 2003 Conference (47th), February 12-14, 2003, Fremantle, Australia 57865, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    16. Yoann Verger, 2015. "Sraffa and ecological economics: review of the literature," Working Papers hal-01182894, HAL.
    17. Clark, V. Ralph & Vidal, João de Deus & Grundy, Isla M. & Fakarayi, Togarasei & Childes, Susan L. & Barker, Nigel P. & Linder, H. Peter, 2019. "Bridging the divide between intuitive social-ecological value and sustainability in the Manica Highlands of southern Africa (Zimbabwe-Mozambique)," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 39(C).
    18. Yang, Wu & Chang, Jie & Xu, Bin & Peng, Changhui & Ge, Ying, 2008. "Ecosystem service value assessment for constructed wetlands: A case study in Hangzhou, China," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(1-2), pages 116-125, December.
    19. Nathalie Meißner & Etti Winter, 2019. "Design principles for protected area certificates: a case study on strategic investor groups," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 21(1), pages 303-329, February.
    20. Novikova, Anastasija & Rocchi, Lucia & Vitunskienė, Vlada, 2017. "Assessing the benefit of the agroecosystem services: Lithuanian preferences using a latent class approach," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 277-286.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Ecosystem Services; Water Resources; Management; Valuation; Total Economic Value;
    All these keywords.

    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:aue:wpaper:2230. 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.