IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this article

A framework for the assessment of ecosystem goods and services; a case study on lowland floodplains in England


  • Posthumus, H.
  • Rouquette, J.R.
  • Morris, J.
  • Gowing, D.J.G.
  • Hess, T.M.


The rural space is increasingly valued for the multiple ecosystem services that it can deliver. For example, priorities in many lowland floodplains in England have changed in recent years from a focus on agricultural production towards environmental quality and the management of flood risk, in part linked to climate change. Recent concerns about food security, however, may reinstate the importance of agricultural production in these fertile areas. This paper explores changes in rural land use in floodplains by measuring the range of ecosystem services provided under different management scenarios. Generic land use scenarios consider management options that focus on single objectives, such as maximising agricultural production, maximising biodiversity and maximising flood storage capacity. Indicators are developed to value the ecosystem services provided by floodplains under each scenario, identifying potential synergy and conflict. This integrated ecosystems approach can help to inform future policy and practice for floodplain management, hopefully in ways that appeal to key stakeholders.

Suggested Citation

  • Posthumus, H. & Rouquette, J.R. & Morris, J. & Gowing, D.J.G. & Hess, T.M., 2010. "A framework for the assessment of ecosystem goods and services; a case study on lowland floodplains in England," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(7), pages 1510-1523, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:69:y:2010:i:7:p:1510-1523

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    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

    1. Fisher, Brendan & Turner, R. Kerry & Morling, Paul, 2009. "Defining and classifying ecosystem services for decision making," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(3), pages 643-653, January.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. Mitsch, William J. & Gosselink, James G., 2000. "The value of wetlands: importance of scale and landscape setting," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 35(1), pages 25-33, October.
    5. Doyle, C. J., 1982. "Modelling the determinants of grassland stocking rates on dairy farms in England and Wales," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 9(2), pages 83-95, September.
    6. Prato, Tony & Herath, Gamini, 2007. "Multiple-criteria decision analysis for integrated catchment management," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(2-3), pages 627-632, August.
    7. 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.
    8. Sandhu, Harpinder S. & Wratten, Stephen D. & Cullen, Ross & Case, Brad, 2008. "The future of farming: The value of ecosystem services in conventional and organic arable land. An experimental approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(4), pages 835-848, February.
    9. Zhang, Wei & Ricketts, Taylor H. & Kremen, Claire & Carney, Karen & Swinton, Scott M., 2007. "Ecosystem services and dis-services to agriculture," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(2), pages 253-260, December.
    10. Latacz-Lohmann, Uwe & Hodge, Ian D., 2003. "European agri-environmental policy for the 21st century," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 47(1), March.
    11. Hess, T. M. & Morris, J., 1988. "Estimating the value of flood alleviation on agricultural grassland," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 15(2), pages 141-153, December.
    12. Brouwer, Roy & van Ek, Remco, 2004. "Integrated ecological, economic and social impact assessment of alternative flood control policies in the Netherlands," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 50(1-2), pages 1-21, September.
    13. Jules Pretty & Craig Brett & David Gee & Rachel Hine & Chris Mason & James Morison & Matthew Rayment & Gert Van Der Bijl & Thomas Dobbs, 2001. "Policy Challenges and Priorities for Internalizing the Externalities of Modern Agriculture," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 44(2), pages 263-283.
    14. Thomas L. Dobbs & Jules N. Pretty, 2004. "Agri-Environmental Stewardship Schemes and “Multifunctionality”," Review of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 26(2), pages 220-237.
    15. Boyd, James, 2007. "Nonmarket benefits of nature: What should be counted in green GDP?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(4), pages 716-723, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)


    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.

    Cited by:

    1. repec:gam:jsusta:v:9:y:2017:i:6:p:1002-:d:101050 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Violeta FLORIAN, 2015. "The Risk Culture. Case Study In Peri-Urban Areas ," Agricultural Economics and Rural Development, Institute of Agricultural Economics, vol. 12(1), pages 3-26.
    3. Sandhu, Harpinder S. & Crossman, Neville D. & Smith, F. Patrick, 2012. "Ecosystem services and Australian agricultural enterprises," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 19-26.
    4. Gao, Jie & Wang, Rusong & Huang, Jinlou & Liu, Min, 2015. "Application of BMP to urban runoff control using SUSTAIN model: Case study in an industrial area," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 318(C), pages 177-183.


    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:69:y:2010:i:7:p:1510-1523. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dana Niculescu). General contact details of provider: .

    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 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.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.