IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecoser/v20y2016icp44-55.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Applying ecosystem benefit valuation to inform quarry restoration planning

Author

Listed:
  • Wilker, Jost
  • Rusche, Karsten
  • Benning, Alexander
  • MacDonald, Michael A.
  • Blaen, Phillip

Abstract

European societies and economies depend heavily on a steady supply of materials extracted from quarries. Due to this dependence, a significant amount of space in Europe is covered with minerals extraction sites. For each of these, plans for the post-extraction phase are a policy-required need. The decision on after-use offers room for support by appropriate information to assess which restoration scenario delivers the highest benefits for society and nature. In this paper, we suggest an approach for assessing the wide range of information on ecosystem benefits that are provided by alternative restoration scenarios. Three case studies are presented, for which we develop and discuss integrated ecosystem benefit valuation approaches. The results suggest that, for these three case studies, the value of socio-cultural fulfillment provided by conservation-focused restoration outweigh the value of benign climate that is foregone by restoring to habitats with lower carbon storage and sequestration. Further, these site-specific results demonstrate how information can be narrowed down to be relevant for decision making in quarry restoration. Communication of these results is also key to improve decision making in quarry restoration, in order to increase ecosystem service knowledge among all stakeholders involved.

Suggested Citation

  • Wilker, Jost & Rusche, Karsten & Benning, Alexander & MacDonald, Michael A. & Blaen, Phillip, 2016. "Applying ecosystem benefit valuation to inform quarry restoration planning," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 20(C), pages 44-55.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecoser:v:20:y:2016:i:c:p:44-55
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.06.003
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212041616301139
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.06.003?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
    ---><---

    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. Braat, Leon C. & de Groot, Rudolf, 2012. "The ecosystem services agenda:bridging the worlds of natural science and economics, conservation and development, and public and private policy," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 1(1), pages 4-15.
    2. 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.
    3. Tol, Richard S. J., 2005. "The marginal damage costs of carbon dioxide emissions: an assessment of the uncertainties," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(16), pages 2064-2074, November.
    4. Karel Prach & Kl�ra Řehounkov� & Jiř� Řehounek & Petra Konvalinkov�, 2011. "Ecological Restoration of Central European Mining Sites: A Summary of a Multi-site Analysis," Landscape Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 36(2), pages 263-268, April.
    5. John Turnpenny & Duncan Russel & Andrew Jordan, 2014. "The Challenge of Embedding an Ecosystem Services Approach: Patterns of Knowledge Utilisation in Public Policy Appraisal," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 32(2), pages 247-262, April.
    6. Peh, Kelvin S.-H. & Balmford, Andrew & Bradbury, Richard B. & Brown, Claire & Butchart, Stuart H.M. & Hughes, Francine M.R. & Stattersfield, Alison & Thomas, David H.L. & Walpole, Matt & Bayliss, Juli, 2013. "TESSA: A toolkit for rapid assessment of ecosystem services at sites of biodiversity conservation importance," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 5(C), pages 51-57.
    7. Emily McKenzie & Stephen Posner & Patricia Tillmann & Joanna R Bernhardt & Kirsten Howard & Amy Rosenthal, 2014. "Understanding the Use of Ecosystem Service Knowledge in Decision Making: Lessons from International Experiences of Spatial Planning," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 32(2), pages 320-340, April.
    8. Robert J. Johnston & Randall S. Rosenberger, 2010. "Methods, Trends And Controversies In Contemporary Benefit Transfer," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 24(3), pages 479-510, July.
    9. Richard Cowell & Mick Lennon, 2014. "The Utilisation of Environmental Knowledge in Land-Use Planning: Drawing Lessons for an Ecosystem Services Approach," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 32(2), pages 263-282, April.
    10. Wilson, Matthew A. & Hoehn, John P., 2006. "Valuing environmental goods and services using benefit transfer: The state-of-the art and science," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(2), pages 335-342, December.
    11. 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.
    12. 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.
    13. Scholte, Samantha S.K. & van Teeffelen, Astrid J.A. & Verburg, Peter H., 2015. "Integrating socio-cultural perspectives into ecosystem service valuation: A review of concepts and methods," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 67-78.
    14. Andrew Jordan & Duncan Russel, 2014. "Embedding the Concept of Ecosystem Services? The Utilisation of Ecological Knowledge in Different Policy Venues," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 32(2), pages 192-207, April.
    15. Richardson, Leslie & Loomis, John & Kroeger, Timm & Casey, Frank, 2015. "The role of benefit transfer in ecosystem service valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 51-58.
    16. Danley, Brian & Widmark, Camilla, 2016. "Evaluating conceptual definitions of ecosystem services and their implications," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 132-138.
    17. Nele Lienhoop & Frank Messner, 2009. "The Economic Value of Allocating Water to Post-Mining Lakes in East Germany," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 23(5), pages 965-980, March.
    18. Ian Bateman & Georgina Mace & Carlo Fezzi & Giles Atkinson & Kerry Turner, 2011. "Economic Analysis for Ecosystem Service Assessments," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 48(2), pages 177-218, 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. Yueshu Yang & Daxiang Liu & Hai Xiao & Jiangang Chen & Yu Ding & Dong Xia & Zhenyao Xia & Wennian Xu, 2019. "Evaluating the Effect of the Ecological Restoration of Quarry Slopes in Caidian District, Wuhan City," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(23), pages 1-16, November.
    2. Sapfo Τsolaki-Fiaka & George D. Bathrellos & Hariklia D. Skilodimou, 2018. "Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis for an Abandoned Quarry in the Evros Region (NE Greece)," Land, MDPI, vol. 7(2), pages 1-16, April.
    3. Filippo Carlo Pavesi & Anna Richiedei & Michele Pezzagno, 2021. "Advanced Modelling Tools to Support Planning for Sand/Gravel Quarries," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-14, June.

    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. Verburg, René & Selnes, Trond & Verweij, Pita, 2016. "Governing ecosystem services: National and local lessons from policy appraisal and implementation," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 18(C), pages 186-197.
    2. Heink, Ulrich & Jax, Kurt, 2019. "Going Upstream — How the Purpose of a Conceptual Framework for Ecosystem Services Determines Its Structure," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 156(C), pages 264-271.
    3. 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.
    4. Richardson, Leslie & Loomis, John & Kroeger, Timm & Casey, Frank, 2015. "The role of benefit transfer in ecosystem service valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 51-58.
    5. Nápoles-Vértiz, Sonia & Caro-Borrero, Angela, 2024. "Conceptual diversity and application of ecosystem services and disservices: A systematic review," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 67(C).
    6. Martin, Jean-Christophe & Mongruel, Rémi & Levrel, Harold, 2018. "Integrating Cultural Ecosystem Services in an Ecosystem Satellite Account: A Case Study in the Gulf of Saint-Malo (France)," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 143(C), pages 141-152.
    7. Saarikoski, Heli & Primmer, Eeva & Saarela, Sanna-Riikka & Antunes, Paula & Aszalós, Réka & Baró, Francesc & Berry, Pam & Blanko, Gemma Garcia & Goméz-Baggethun, Erik & Carvalho, Laurence & Dick, Jan , 2018. "Institutional challenges in putting ecosystem service knowledge in practice," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 29(PC), pages 579-598.
    8. Wright, William C.C. & Eppink, Florian V. & Greenhalgh, Suzie, 2017. "Are ecosystem service studies presenting the right information for decision making?," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 25(C), pages 128-139.
    9. Posner, Stephen & Verutes, Gregory & Koh, Insu & Denu, Doug & Ricketts, Taylor, 2016. "Global use of ecosystem service models," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 17(C), pages 131-141.
    10. Watson, Stephen C.L. & Paterson, David M. & Queirós, Ana M. & Rees, Andrew P. & Stephens, Nicholas & Widdicombe, Stephen & Beaumont, Nicola J., 2016. "A conceptual framework for assessing the ecosystem service of waste remediation: In the marine environment," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 20(C), pages 69-81.
    11. 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).
    12. Dickinson, Dawn C. & Hobbs, Richard J., 2017. "Cultural ecosystem services: Characteristics, challenges and lessons for urban green space research," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 25(C), pages 179-194.
    13. Pandeya, B. & Buytaert, W. & Zulkafli, Z. & Karpouzoglou, T. & Mao, F. & Hannah, D.M., 2016. "A comparative analysis of ecosystem services valuation approaches for application at the local scale and in data scarce regions," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 22(PB), pages 250-259.
    14. Newbold, Stephen C. & Johnston, Robert J., 2020. "Valuing non-market valuation studies using meta-analysis: A demonstration using estimates of willingness-to-pay for water quality improvements," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 104(C).
    15. McVittie, Alistair & Norton, Lisa & Martin-Ortega, Julia & Siameti, Ioanna & Glenk, Klaus & Aalders, Inge, 2015. "Operationalizing an ecosystem services-based approach using Bayesian Belief Networks: An application to riparian buffer strips," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 15-27.
    16. Frélichová, Jana & Vačkář, David & Pártl, Adam & Loučková, Blanka & Harmáčková, Zuzana V. & Lorencová, Eliška, 2014. "Integrated assessment of ecosystem services in the Czech Republic," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 8(C), pages 110-117.
    17. Agudelo, César Augusto Ruiz & Bustos, Sandra Liliana Hurtado & Moreno, Carmen Alicia Parrado, 2020. "Modeling interactions among multiple ecosystem services. A critical review," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 429(C).
    18. Ruijs, A. & Wossink, A. & Kortelainen, M. & Alkemade, R. & Schulp, C.J.E., 2013. "Trade-off analysis of ecosystem services in Eastern Europe," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 4(C), pages 82-94.
    19. McInnes, R.J. & Everard, M., 2017. "Rapid Assessment of Wetland Ecosystem Services (RAWES): An example from Colombo, Sri Lanka," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 25(C), pages 89-105.
    20. Correa, Alicia & Forero, Jorge & Marco Renau, Jorge & Lizarazo, Ivan & Mulligan, Mark & Codato, Daniele, 2023. "Advancing spatial decision-making in a transboundary catchment through multidimensional ecosystem services assessment," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 64(C).

    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:ecoser:v:20:y:2016:i:c:p:44-55. 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: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/ecosystem-services .

    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.