IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecoser/v21y2016ipap53-58.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A conceptual framework for environmental flows assessment based on ecosystem services and their economic valuation

Author

Listed:
  • Gopal, Brij

Abstract

In recent decades, environmental flows has emerged a major instrument for sustaining and/or rehabilitating the ecosystem functions and services of rivers worldwide. The holistic methodologies of assessment of environmental flows (=EFlows) take into account the physical, biological, water quality and socio-cultural as well as livelihood aspects of riverine ecosystems, and increasingly depend upon consultations with experts and local communities to make a negotiated socio-political decision by consensus within the society. This paper presents a conceptual framework for the assessment of EFlows on the basis of a change in total ecosystem services and their total economic value with the alteration of flow regimes. Such an assessment would consider the gain and loss of ecosystem services both upstream and downstream of the point of intervention which alters the flow regime. It is also proposed that the economic valuation should provide for appropriate weightages to ecosystem services with a strong social, cultural and livelihood bearing in regional/local context. It is further argued that a top-down approach to E-Flows assessment should be followed wherever possible to convince the policy makers.

Suggested Citation

  • Gopal, Brij, 2016. "A conceptual framework for environmental flows assessment based on ecosystem services and their economic valuation," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 21(PA), pages 53-58.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecoser:v:21:y:2016:i:pa:p:53-58
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.07.013
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212041616301875
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.07.013?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. Holmes, Thomas P. & Bergstrom, John C. & Huszar, Eric & Kask, Susan B. & Orr, Fritz III, 2004. "Contingent valuation, net marginal benefits, and the scale of riparian ecosystem restoration," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 49(1), pages 19-30, May.
    2. Müller, Felix & Burkhard, Benjamin, 2012. "The indicator side of ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 1(1), pages 26-30.
    3. Loomis, John & Kent, Paula & Strange, Liz & Fausch, Kurt & Covich, Alan, 2000. "Measuring the total economic value of restoring ecosystem services in an impaired river basin: results from a contingent valuation survey," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 103-117, April.
    4. 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.
    5. Zander, Kerstin K. & Straton, Anna, 2010. "An economic assessment of the value of tropical river ecosystem services: Heterogeneous preferences among Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Australians," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(12), pages 2417-2426, October.
    6. Ojeda, Monica Ilija & Mayer, Alex S. & Solomon, Barry D., 2008. "Economic valuation of environmental services sustained by water flows in the Yaqui River Delta," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(1), pages 155-166, March.
    7. Amigues, Jean-Pierre & Boulatoff (Broadhead), Catherine & Desaigues, Brigitte & Gauthier, Caroline & Keith, John E., 2002. "The benefits and costs of riparian analysis habitat preservation: a willingness to accept/willingness to pay contingent valuation approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 43(1), pages 17-31, November.
    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. Guojiao Chen & Cuiyou Yao & Lurong Fan & Linze Li & Haiqing Cao, 2022. "Sustainability-oriented system dynamics method for coordinated megacity ecosystem development: the case of Beijing, China," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 24(9), pages 11027-11057, September.
    2. Pereau, Jean-Christophe & Pryet, Alexandre & Rambonilaza, Tina, 2019. "Optimality Versus Viability in Groundwater Management with Environmental Flows," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 161(C), pages 109-120.
    3. Bo Cheng & Huaien Li & Siyu Yue, 2020. "Quantity of Reasonable Distribution of River Ecological Basic Flow Considering the Economic Value of its Own Ecological Functions: a Case Study in the Baoji Section of the Weihe River, China," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 34(3), pages 1111-1122, February.
    4. Zheng Zang, 2021. "Conceptual Model of Ecosystem Service Flows from Carbon Dioxide to Blue Carbon in Coastal Wetlands: An Empirical Study Based on Yancheng, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(9), pages 1-12, April.
    5. King, Steven & O'Hanley, Jesse R. & Fraser, Iain, 2021. "How to choose? A bioeconomic model for optimizing river barrier mitigation actions," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 181(C).

    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. Zhaoyi Shang & Yue Che & Kai Yang & Yu Jiang, 2012. "Assessing Local Communities’ Willingness to Pay for River Network Protection: A Contingent Valuation Study of Shanghai, China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 9(11), pages 1-17, October.
    2. Hackbart, Vivian C.S. & de Lima, Guilherme T.N.P. & dos Santos, Rozely F., 2017. "Theory and practice of water ecosystem services valuation: Where are we going?," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 23(C), pages 218-227.
    3. Jette Jacobsen & Nick Hanley, 2009. "Are There Income Effects on Global Willingness to Pay for Biodiversity Conservation?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 43(2), pages 137-160, June.
    4. 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.
    5. Awad, Ibrahim M., 2012. "Using econometric analysis of willingness-to-pay to investigate economic efficiency and equity of domestic water services in the West Bank," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 41(5), pages 485-494.
    6. Jackson, Laura E. & Rashleigh, Brenda & McDonald, Michael E., 2012. "Economic Value of Stream Degradation across the Central Appalachians," Journal of Regional Analysis and Policy, Mid-Continent Regional Science Association, vol. 42(3), pages 1-10.
    7. 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).
    8. Sheila M. Olmstead, 2010. "The Economics of Managing Scarce Water Resources," Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 4(2), pages 179-198, Summer.
    9. Duke, Joshua M. & Borchers, Allison M. & Johnston, Robert J. & Absetz, Sarah, 2012. "Sustainable agricultural management contracts: Using choice experiments to estimate the benefits of land preservation and conservation practices," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 95-103.
    10. 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.
    11. Ik-Chang Choi & Hyun No Kim & Hio-Jung Shin & John Tenhunen & Trung Thanh Nguyen, 2017. "Economic Valuation of the Aquatic Biodiversity Conservation in South Korea: Correcting for the Endogeneity Bias in Contingent Valuation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(6), pages 1-20, June.
    12. Strong, Aaron & Flores, Nicholas E., 2008. "Estimating the economic benefits of acidic rock drainage clean up using cost shares," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(2), pages 348-355, April.
    13. Stoeckl, Natalie & Farr, Marina & Larson, Silva & Adams, Vanessa M. & Kubiszewski, Ida & Esparon, Michelle & Costanza, Robert, 2014. "A new approach to the problem of overlapping values: A case study in Australia׳s Great Barrier Reef," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 10(C), pages 61-78.
    14. Charles F. Mason & Lucija A. Muehlenbachs & Sheila M. Olmstead, 2015. "The Economics of Shale Gas Development," Annual Review of Resource Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 7(1), pages 269-289, October.
    15. Choi, Pak-Sing & Espínola-Arredondo, Ana & Muñoz-García, Félix, 2018. "Conservation procurement auctions with bidirectional externalities," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 559-579.
    16. Gianluca Grilli & John Curtis & Stephen Hynes, 2020. "Modelling anglers' fish release choices using logbook data," Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 9(2), pages 206-219, April.
    17. Nahlik, Amanda M. & Kentula, Mary E. & Fennessy, M. Siobhan & Landers, Dixon H., 2012. "Where is the consensus? A proposed foundation for moving ecosystem service concepts into practice," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 27-35.
    18. Anzaldua, Gerardo & Gerner, Nadine V. & Lago, Manuel & Abhold, Katrina & Hinzmann, Mandy & Beyer, Sarah & Winking, Caroline & Riegels, Niels & Krogsgaard Jensen, Jørgen & Termes, Montserrat & Amorós, 2018. "Getting into the water with the Ecosystem Services Approach: The DESSIN ESS evaluation framework," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 30(PB), pages 318-326.
    19. Sophal Chhun & Paul Thorsnes & Henrik Moller, 2013. "Preferences for Management of Near-Shore Marine Ecosystems: A Choice Experiment in New Zealand," Resources, MDPI, vol. 2(3), pages 1-33, September.
    20. Breeze, T.D. & Bailey, A.P. & Potts, S.G. & Balcombe, K.G., 2015. "A stated preference valuation of the non-market benefits of pollination services in the UK," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 76-85.

    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:21:y:2016:i:pa:p:53-58. 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.