IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecolec/v68y2008i1-2p116-125.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Ecosystem service value assessment for constructed wetlands: A case study in Hangzhou, China

Author

Listed:
  • Yang, Wu
  • Chang, Jie
  • Xu, Bin
  • Peng, Changhui
  • Ge, Ying

Abstract

Based on a comprehensive analysis of various classifications of natural resource values, we summarized an ecological economic value system of constructed wetland (CW) ecosystems for treating eutrophic water. Using the CW located at the Hangzhou Botanical Garden as an example, the contingent valuation method (CVM) and shadow project approach (SPA) were applied to estimate the economic values of CW system ecosystem services. The CVM estimated a value of 800,000 yuan (yuan: Chinese Currency, 7.6 yuan = 1 USD as of August, 2007) as the total economic value of the CW in a twenty year period. Meanwhile, the SPA calculated a value of 23.04 million yuan as the total economic value of the CW in a twenty year period. It is determined that compared to the CVM, the SPA provides a more approximate value of the true monetary value of the Hangzhou Botanical Garden CW. This study could fill the gap of knowledge and provide a benchmark when evaluating constructed ecosystem services and help policy makers to promote the development of constructed wetlands in China.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:68:y:2008:i:1-2:p:116-125
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921-8009(08)00084-0
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Turner, R. Kerry & van den Bergh, Jeroen C. J. M. & Soderqvist, Tore & Barendregt, Aat & van der Straaten, Jan & Maltby, Edward & van Ierland, Ekko C., 2000. "Ecological-economic analysis of wetlands: scientific integration for management and policy," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 35(1), pages 7-23, October.
    2. Green, Donald & Jacowitz, Karen E. & Kahneman, Daniel & McFadden, Daniel, 1998. "Referendum contingent valuation, anchoring, and willingness to pay for public goods," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 20(2), pages 85-116, June.
    3. Bateman, Ian J. & Day, Brett H. & Georgiou, Stavros & Lake, Iain, 2006. "The aggregation of environmental benefit values: Welfare measures, distance decay and total WTP," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(2), pages 450-460, December.
    4. Richard Carson & Nicholas Flores & Norman Meade, 2001. "Contingent Valuation: Controversies and Evidence," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 19(2), pages 173-210, June.
    5. Winkler, Ralph, 2006. "Valuation of ecosystem goods and services: Part 2: Implications of unpredictable novel change," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 59(1), pages 94-105, August.
    6. Casey, James F. & Kahn, James R. & Rivas, Alexandre, 2006. "Willingness to pay for improved water service in Manaus, Amazonas, Brazil," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(2), pages 365-372, June.
    7. Costanza, Robert & Fisher, Brendan & Mulder, Kenneth & Liu, Shuang & Christopher, Treg, 2007. "Biodiversity and ecosystem services: A multi-scale empirical study of the relationship between species richness and net primary production," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(2-3), pages 478-491, March.
    8. 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.
    9. Brander, Luke M. & Van Beukering, Pieter & Cesar, Herman S.J., 2007. "The recreational value of coral reefs: A meta-analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(1), pages 209-218, June.
    10. 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.
    11. Anna Alberini & Paolo Rosato & Alberto Longo & Valentina Zanatta, 2005. "Information and Willingness to Pay in a Contingent Valuation Study: The Value of S. Erasmo in the Lagoon of Venice," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 48(2), pages 155-175.
    12. Horowitz, John K. & McConnell, K. E., 2003. "Willingness to accept, willingness to pay and the income effect," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 51(4), pages 537-545, August.
    13. Ahlheim, Michael, 1998. "Contingent valuation and the budget constraint," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 27(2), pages 205-211, November.
    14. Barbier, Edward B., 2000. "Valuing the environment as input: review of applications to mangrove-fishery linkages," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 35(1), pages 47-61, October.
    15. W. Michael Hanemann, 1984. "Welfare Evaluations in Contingent Valuation Experiments with Discrete Responses," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 66(3), pages 332-341.
    16. Sattout, E.J. & Talhouk, S.N. & Caligari, P.D.S., 2007. "Economic value of cedar relics in Lebanon: An application of contingent valuation method for conservation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(2-3), pages 315-322, March.
    17. Brookshire, David S. & Ives, Berry C. & Schulze, William D., 1976. "The valuation of aesthetic preferences," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 3(4), pages 325-346, December.
    18. Daniel McFadden, 1994. "Contingent Valuation and Social Choice," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 76(4), pages 689-708.
    19. Norton, Bryan G. & Noonan, Douglas, 2007. "Ecology and valuation: Big changes needed," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(4), pages 664-675, September.
    20. Langford, Ian H. & Bateman, Ian J., 1996. "Elicitation and truncation effects in contingent valuation studies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 19(3), pages 265-267, December.
    21. 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.
    22. Hougner, Cajsa & Colding, Johan & Soderqvist, Tore, 2006. "Economic valuation of a seed dispersal service in the Stockholm National Urban Park, Sweden," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 59(3), pages 364-374, September.
    23. Michael Hanemann & John Loomis & Barbara Kanninen, 1991. "Statistical Efficiency of Double-Bounded Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 73(4), pages 1255-1263.
    24. Bolund, Per & Hunhammar, Sven, 1999. "Ecosystem services in urban areas," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 293-301, May.
    25. Guy Garrod & Kenneth G. Willis, 1999. "Economic Valuation of the Environment," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 1368.
    26. Konarska, Keri M. & Sutton, Paul C. & Castellon, Michael, 2002. "Evaluating scale dependence of ecosystem service valuation: a comparison of NOAA-AVHRR and Landsat TM datasets," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(3), pages 491-507, June.
    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. Halkos, George, 2012. "Assessing the economic value of protecting artificial lakes," MPRA Paper 39557, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    2. Richard Carson & Theodore Groves, 2007. "Incentive and informational properties of preference questions," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 37(1), pages 181-210, May.
    3. Ndebele, Tom & Forgie, Vicky, 2017. "Estimating the economic benefits of a wetland restoration programme in New Zealand: A contingent valuation approach," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 75-89.
    4. Cook, David & Davíðsdóttir, Brynhildur & Kristófersson, Daði Már, 2018. "Willingness to pay for the preservation of geothermal areas in Iceland – The contingent valuation studies of Eldvörp and Hverahlíð," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 116(PA), pages 97-108.
    5. Halkos, George, 2013. "The relationship between people’s attitude and willingness to pay for river conservation," MPRA Paper 50560, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    6. Robert J. Johnston & Kevin J. Boyle & Wiktor (Vic) Adamowicz & Jeff Bennett & Roy Brouwer & Trudy Ann Cameron & W. Michael Hanemann & Nick Hanley & Mandy Ryan & Riccardo Scarpa & Roger Tourangeau & Ch, 2017. "Contemporary Guidance for Stated Preference Studies," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 4(2), pages 319-405.
    7. Richard T. Carson & Miko_aj Czajkowski, 2014. "The discrete choice experiment approach to environmental contingent valuation," Chapters, in: Stephane Hess & Andrew Daly (ed.), Handbook of Choice Modelling, chapter 9, pages 202-235, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    8. Powe, N. A. & Bateman, I. J., 2003. "Ordering effects in nested 'top-down' and 'bottom-up' contingent valuation designs," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 45(2), pages 255-270, June.
    9. Norton, Daniel & Hynes, Stephen, 2018. "Estimating the Benefits of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive in Atlantic Member States: A Spatial Value Transfer Approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 82-94.
    10. Schlapfer, Felix, 2008. "Contingent valuation: A new perspective," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(4), pages 729-740, February.
    11. Kim, Ju-Hee & Yoo, Seung-Hoon, 2020. "South Koreans’ perspective on assisting the power supply to North Korea: Evidence from a contingent valuation," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 139(C).
    12. Ojea, Elena & Loureiro, Maria L., 2011. "Identifying the scope effect on a meta-analysis of biodiversity valuation studies," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 706-724, September.
    13. Bateman, Ian J. & Langford, Ian H. & Jones, Andrew P. & Kerr, Geoffrey N., 2001. "Bound and path effects in double and triple bounded dichotomous choice contingent valuation," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 23(3), pages 191-213, July.
    14. Martinez-Espineira, Roberto, 2006. "A Box-Cox Double-Hurdle model of wildlife valuation: The citizen's perspective," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(1), pages 192-208, June.
    15. Bateman, Ian J. & Burgess, Diane & Hutchinson, W. George & Matthews, David I., 2008. "Learning design contingent valuation (LDCV): NOAA guidelines, preference learning and coherent arbitrariness," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 55(2), pages 127-141, March.
    16. Araña, Jorge E. & León, Carmelo J., 2008. "Do emotions matter? Coherent preferences under anchoring and emotional effects," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 66(4), pages 700-711, July.
    17. Bateman, Ian J. & Brouwer, Roy, 2006. "Consistency and construction in stated WTP for health risk reductions: A novel scope-sensitivity test," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 28(3), pages 199-214, August.
    18. Ju-Hee Kim & Kyung-Ran Choi & Seung-Hoon Yoo, 2020. "Public Perspective on Increasing the Numbers of an Endangered Species, Loggerhead Turtles in South Korea: A Contingent Valuation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(9), pages 1-14, May.
    19. Franz Hackl & Gerald J. Pruckner, 2005. "Warm glow, free‐riding and vehicle neutrality in a health‐related contingent valuation study," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(3), pages 293-306, March.
    20. Pere Riera & Raúl Brey & Guillermo Gándara, 2008. "Bid design for non-parametric contingent valuation with a single bounded dichotomous choice format," Hacienda Pública Española / Review of Public Economics, IEF, vol. 186(3), pages 43-60, October.

    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:eee:ecolec:v:68:y:2008:i:1-2:p:116-125. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolecon .

    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.