IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/aolpei/355704.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Inclusion of Ecosystem Service in Land Valuation and Impact on Cadastral Land Value – a Case Study

Author

Listed:
  • Slaboch, Josef
  • Malý, Michal

Abstract

In the Czech Republic, a system of evaluated soil-ecological units (ESEU) is used for soil valuation, where the price is determined on the basis of production potential. In practice, the production potential of soil is also very important for spatial planning because it is used to determine the protection class of agricultural land with regard to the possibility of designating it for non-productive purposes. This paper focuses on the application of an econometric model to determine the effect on soil value in selected cadastral areas when the effect of the non-productive function of soil in the form of retention is taken into account. This is effectively an ecosystem service calculation, as only the production function is included in the ESEU price in the Czech Republic. For the purposes of the paper, three alternative scenarios are chosen in which the production price includes the price for the non-production function in the form of retention, in the amounts of 5%, 10% and 20%. The results show that even a 5% inclusion of soil retention has a significant impact on its price and, more precisely, on its value. The difference between the original value and the shadow value with the greatest effect of water retention at the 20% level is approximately CZK 12.3 million for the Ivančice site and approximately CZK 20.6 million for the Lysá nad Labem site, which indicates the importance of changing the current government methodology. The higher increase for the Ivančice site is due to the higher proportion of more productive ESEU and, at the same time, the higher retention capacity of the main soil units (MSU), which is absolutely necessary for the valuation of agricultural land in the main production areas of the Czech Republic. The results confirm that in these most valuable areas, the increased share of ecosystem components would lead to the greatest increase in the price of agricultural land, which can be considered as an adequate and meaningful result, if only in the context of comparing agricultural land prices between EU Member States. The water retention capacity of the soil is a qualitative indicator of the non-productive function of the soil and is increasingly supported as such.

Suggested Citation

  • Slaboch, Josef & Malý, Michal, 2025. "The Inclusion of Ecosystem Service in Land Valuation and Impact on Cadastral Land Value – a Case Study," AGRIS on-line Papers in Economics and Informatics, Czech University of Life Sciences Prague, Faculty of Economics and Management, vol. 17(1), March.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:aolpei:355704
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.355704
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/355704/files/651_agris-on-line-1-2025-slaboch-maly.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.355704?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. 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.
    2. Choumert, Johanna & Phélinas, Pascale, 2015. "Determinants of agricultural land values in Argentina," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 134-140.
    3. Tezcan, Ahmet & Büyüktaş, Kenan & Akkaya Aslan, Şerife Tülin, 2020. "A multi-criteria model for land valuation in the land consolidation," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 95(C).
    4. James Salzman & Genevieve Bennett & Nathaniel Carroll & Allie Goldstein & Michael Jenkins, 2018. "The global status and trends of Payments for Ecosystem Services," Nature Sustainability, Nature, vol. 1(3), pages 136-144, March.
    5. Vasileios G. Iliopoulos & Dimitris Damigos, 2024. "Groundwater Ecosystem Services: Redefining and Operationalizing the Concept," Resources, MDPI, vol. 13(1), pages 1-14, January.
    6. Giles Atkinson & Ian Bateman & Susana Mourato, 2012. "Recent advances in the valuation of ecosystem services and biodiversity," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press and Oxford Review of Economic Policy Limited, vol. 28(1), pages 22-47, Spring.
    7. Plaas, Elke & Meyer-Wolfarth, Friederike & Banse, Martin & Bengtsson, Jan & Bergmann, Holger & Faber, Jack & Potthoff, Martin & Runge, Tania & Schrader, Stefan & Taylor, Astrid, 2019. "Towards valuation of biodiversity in agricultural soils: A case for earthworms," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 159(C), pages 291-300.
    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. 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).
    2. Shrestha, Kripa & Shakya, Bandana & Adhikari, Biraj & Nepal, Mani & Shaoliang, Yi, 2023. "Ecosystem services valuation for conservation and development decisions: A review of valuation studies and tools in the Far Eastern Himalaya," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 61(C).
    3. 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).
    4. Mark V. Brady & Jordan Hristov & Fredrik Wilhelmsson & Katarina Hedlund, 2019. "Roadmap for Valuing Soil Ecosystem Services to Inform Multi-Level Decision-Making in Agriculture," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(19), pages 1-20, September.
    5. Lukas Baumbach & Thomas Hickler & Rasoul Yousefpour & Marc Hanewinkel, 2023. "High economic costs of reduced carbon sinks and declining biome stability in Central American forests," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 14(1), pages 1-11, December.
    6. Jen Iris Allan & Graeme Auld & Timothy Cadman & Hayley Stevenson, 2022. "Comparative Fortunes of Ecosystem Services as an International Governance Concept," Global Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 13(1), pages 62-75, February.
    7. Brownson, Katherine & Anderson, Elizabeth P. & Ferreira, Susana & Wenger, Seth & Fowler, Laurie & German, Laura, 2020. "Governance of Payments for Ecosystem Ecosystem services influences social and environmental outcomes in Costa Rica," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 174(C).
    8. Martinez-Valencia, Lina & Garcia-Perez, Manuel & Wolcott, Michael P., 2021. "Supply chain configuration of sustainable aviation fuel: Review, challenges, and pathways for including environmental and social benefits," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 152(C).
    9. Josef Slaboch & Michal Malý, 2022. "Approaches towards Land Valuation and Land Pricing under the Influence of Geo-Climate Change," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-26, January.
    10. Ritter, Matthias & Hüttel, Silke & Odening, Martin & Seifert, Stefan, 2020. "Revisiting the relationship between land price and parcel size in agriculture," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 97(C).
    11. Aryal, Kishor & Maraseni, Tek & Apan, Armando, 2023. "Examining policy−institution−program (PIP) responses against the drivers of ecosystem dynamics. A chronological review (1960–2020) from Nepal," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 132(C).
    12. Liu, Duan & Tang, Runcheng & Xie, Jun & Tian, Jingjing & Shi, Rui & Zhang, Kai, 2020. "Valuation of ecosystem services of rice–fish coculture systems in Ruyuan County, China," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).
    13. Busch, Christin & Specht, Kathrin & Inostroza, Luis & Falke, Matthias & Zepp, Harald, 2024. "Disentangling cultural ecosystem services co-production in urban green spaces through social media reviews," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 70(C).
    14. Simin He & Yusong Xie & Jing Zhang & Yanyun Luo & Qianna Wang, 2025. "Heterogeneity of Ecosystem Service Interactions Through Scale Effects and Time Effects and Their Social-Ecological Determinants in the Tuo River Basin," Land, MDPI, vol. 14(1), pages 1-23, January.
    15. Yajing Shao & Xuefeng Yuan & Chaoqun Ma & Ruifang Ma & Zhaoxia Ren, 2020. "Quantifying the Spatial Association between Land Use Change and Ecosystem Services Value: A Case Study in Xi’an, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(11), pages 1-20, May.
    16. Pietrzyk-Kaszyńska, Agata & Olszańska, Agnieszka & Rechciński, Marcin & Tusznio, Joanna & Grodzińska-Jurczak, Małgorzata, 2022. "Divergent or convergent? Prioritization and spatial representation of ecosystem services as perceived by conservation professionals and local leaders," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 119(C).
    17. Mayer, Alex & Jones, Kelly & Hunt, David & Manson, Robert & Carter Berry, Z. & Asbjornsen, Heidi & Wright, Timothy Max & Salcone, Jacob & Lopez Ramirez, Sergio & Ávila-Foucat, Sophie & Von Thaden Ugal, 2022. "Assessing ecosystem service outcomes from payments for hydrological services programs in Veracruz, Mexico: Future deforestation threats and spatial targeting," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 53(C).
    18. Wenjie Zhu & Xiaobin Jin & Xiaolin Zhang & Jingping Liu & Yinkang Zhou, 2024. "Ecosystem services to support sustainable development: The modifiable areal unit problem in the transition between evaluation and management units," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 32(6), pages 6253-6273, December.
    19. Robbie Maris & Mark Holmes, 2023. "Economic Growth Theory and Natural Resource Constraints: A Stocktake and Critical Assessment," Australian Economic Review, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, vol. 56(2), pages 255-268, June.
    20. Shuzhen Song & Xingyan Chen & Yuehua Song & Yongkuan Chi, 2024. "Vegetation Restoration Patterns Influence the Supply and Interrelations of Grassland Ecosystem Services in Karst Desertification Control," Land, MDPI, vol. 13(12), pages 1-16, November.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Agribusiness; Consumer/Household Economics;

    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:aolpei:355704. 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/fevszcz.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.