IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecoser/v8y2014icp86-96.html

A guiding framework for ecosystem services monetization in ecological–economic modeling

Author

Listed:
  • Cordier, Mateo
  • Pérez Agúndez, José A.
  • Hecq, Walter
  • Hamaide, Bertrand

Abstract

Monetary valuation techniques are often used for evaluating the effect of a change in ecosystem services on components of human wellbeing, even though they face several drawbacks. This paper seeks to reconcile monetary valuation techniques with methods that address ecosystem–economy interactions by developing a guiding framework that limits the use of monetary valuation to various market simulations. Simulations of scenarios of environmental measures are carried out with a semi-dynamic hybrid input–output model. The guiding framework ensures that monetary valuation techniques contribute to the understanding of the impact of economic activities on changes in ecosystems services and the feedback impact of these changes on economic activities. The framework operates according to three criteria: (i) the category of ecosystem components (intermediate products, ecosystem services, benefits obtained from the ecosystem), (ii) existence of a market, intention to exchange or possibility for restoration or preservation, and (iii) direct/indirect monetary valuation techniques. The methodology is then tested with a case-study.

Suggested Citation

  • Cordier, Mateo & Pérez Agúndez, José A. & Hecq, Walter & Hamaide, Bertrand, 2014. "A guiding framework for ecosystem services monetization in ecological–economic modeling," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 8(C), pages 86-96.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecoser:v:8:y:2014:i:c:p:86-96
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.03.003
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212041614000230
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.03.003?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 look for a different version below or

    for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Patrick Chavel & Hillel Fromm & Gil Rilov & Lewi Stone & Walter Hecq, 2019. "Cost-Benefit Analysis of the Achziv marine reserve expansion considering the Barcelona Convention and the EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive," Working Papers CEB 19-004, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    2. Dani Broitman, 2020. "The Game of Developers and Planners: Ecosystem Services as a (Hidden) Regulation through Planning Delay Times," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(15), pages 1-14, July.
    3. Mateo Cordier & Walter Hecq & José A. Pérez Agúndez, 2015. "The problem of high restoration costs of marine habitats damaged in the past decades by harbour facilities: Extended Producer Responsibility as an option," Working Papers CEB 15-045, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    4. Mateo Cordier & Walter Hecq & Rima Hawi & José Pérez Agúndez, 2014. "How to Make Environmental Targets Affordable in Estuarine Waters: Extending the Polluter Pays Principle?," Working Papers CEB 14-001, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    5. Mateo Cordier & T Poitelon & W Hecq, 2018. "Developing a shared environmental responsibility principle for distributing cost of restoring marine habitats destroyed by industrial harbors," Working Papers hal-04566013, HAL.
    6. Cordier, Mateo & Pérez Agúndez, José A. & Hecq, Walter & Hamaide, Bertrand, 2014. "A guiding framework for ecosystem services monetization in ecological–economic modeling," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 8(C), pages 86-96.
    7. Olosutean Horea, 2015. "Methods for Modeling Ecosystem Services: A Review," Management of Sustainable Development, Sciendo, vol. 7(1), pages 5-12, June.
    8. Cordier, Mateo & Uehara, Takuro & Weih, Jeffrey & Hamaide, Bertrand, 2017. "An Input-output Economic Model Integrated Within a System Dynamics Ecological Model: Feedback Loop Methodology Applied to Fish Nursery Restoration," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 140(C), pages 46-57.
    9. Barth, Nina-Christin & Döll, Petra, 2016. "Assessing the ecosystem service flood protection of a riparian forest by applying a cascade approach," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 21(PA), pages 39-52.
    10. Potschin-Young, M. & Haines-Young, R. & Görg, C. & Heink, U. & Jax, K. & Schleyer, C., 2018. "Understanding the role of conceptual frameworks: Reading the ecosystem service cascade," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 29(PC), pages 428-440.
    11. Yiting Chen & Zhanbin Li & Peng Li & Zipei Zhang & Yixin Zhang, 2021. "Identification of Coupling and Influencing Factors between Urbanization and Ecosystem Services in Guanzhong, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(19), pages 1-21, September.
    12. Alexia Stokes & Géraldine Bocquého & Pascal Carrère & Raphaël Conde Salazar & Marc Deconchat & Léo Garcia & Antoine Gardarin & Christian Gary & Cédric Gaucherel & Mamadou Gueye & Mickael Hedde & Franç, 2023. "Services provided by multifunctional agroecosystems : Questions, obstacles and solutions," Post-Print hal-04056486, HAL.
    13. Stebbings, Emily & Hooper, Tara & Austen, Melanie C. & Papathanasopoulou, Eleni & Yan, Xiaoyu, 2021. "Accounting for benefits from natural capital: Applying a novel composite indicator framework to the marine environment," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 50(C).
    14. Chaigneau, Tomas & Brown, Katrina & Coulthard, Sarah & Daw, Tim M. & Szaboova, Lucy, 2019. "Money, use and experience: Identifying the mechanisms through which ecosystem services contribute to wellbeing in coastal Kenya and Mozambique," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 1-1.
    15. Nathalie Dumax & Anne Rozan & Bénédicte Rulleau, 2020. "“Adapted” Habitat Evaluation Procedure and Choice Experiment: Substitutes or Complements?," Water Economics and Policy (WEP), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 6(02), pages 1-30, April.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    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:eee:ecoser:v:8:y:2014:i:c:p:86-96. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.