IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jresou/v8y2019i2p66-d220872.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Systems-Based Approach to Ecosystem Services Valuation of Various Atmospheric Calcium Deposition Flows

Author

Listed:
  • Elena A. Mikhailova

    (Department of Forestry and Environmental Conservation, Clemson University, Clemson, SC 29634, USA)

  • Christopher J. Post

    (Department of Forestry and Environmental Conservation, Clemson University, Clemson, SC 29634, USA)

  • Mark A. Schlautman

    (Department of Environmental Engineering and Earth Sciences, Clemson University, Anderson, SC 29625, USA)

  • Garth R. Groshans

    (Department of Forestry and Environmental Conservation, Clemson University, Clemson, SC 29634, USA)

  • Michael P. Cope

    (Department of Forestry and Environmental Conservation, Clemson University, Clemson, SC 29634, USA)

  • Lisha Zhang

    (Agricultural Sciences Department, Clemson University, Clemson, SC 29634, USA)

Abstract

Atmospheric resources are very important for assessing ecosystem services at different administrative levels (e.g., state, region, etc.). Quantification of atmospheric calcium (Ca 2+ ) deposition on the total basis provides incomplete information about the ecosystem services flows (both “natural” and “human-derived”), therefore lacking a systems approach to guide sustainable management of the flows which support many ecosystem services. This study assessed the value of wet, dry, and total atmospheric calcium deposition flows in the contiguous United States (U.S.) by different spatial aggregation levels (e.g., state, region) using information from the National Atmospheric Deposition Program (NRSP-3) and commodity prices of human-derived materials: agricultural limestone (CaCO 3 ) and uncalcined gypsum (CaSO 4 •2H 2 O). The total provisioning ecosystem value of atmospheric calcium deposition flows was $66.7M (i.e., 66.7 million U.S. dollars) ($30M wet + $36.7M dry) based on an average 2014 price of $10.42 per U.S. ton of agricultural limestone (CaCO 3 ) or nearly $364M ($164M wet + $200M dry) based on an average 2014 price of $33.00 per U.S. ton gypsum (CaSO 4 •2H 2 O). The quantified spatial distribution of wet, dry, and total atmospheric calcium deposition could be used to identify areas with opportunities for more efficient use of “human-derived” materials since they are already being supplied by atmospheric deposition.

Suggested Citation

  • Elena A. Mikhailova & Christopher J. Post & Mark A. Schlautman & Garth R. Groshans & Michael P. Cope & Lisha Zhang, 2019. "A Systems-Based Approach to Ecosystem Services Valuation of Various Atmospheric Calcium Deposition Flows," Resources, MDPI, vol. 8(2), pages 1-14, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jresou:v:8:y:2019:i:2:p:66-:d:220872
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2079-9276/8/2/66/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2079-9276/8/2/66/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Garth R. Groshans & Elena A. Mikhailova & Christopher J. Post & Mark A. Schlautman & Hamdi A. Zurqani & Lisha Zhang, 2018. "Assessing the Value of Soil Inorganic Carbon for Ecosystem Services in the Contiguous United States Based on Liming Replacement Costs," Land, MDPI, vol. 7(4), pages 1-12, November.
    2. Remme, Roy P. & Schröter, Matthias & Hein, Lars, 2014. "Developing spatial biophysical accounting for multiple ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 10(C), pages 6-18.
    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. Juan F. Velasco-Munoz & José A. Aznar-Sánchez & Marina Schoenemann & Belén López-Felices, 2022. "The economic valuation of ecosystem services: bibliometric analysis," Oeconomia Copernicana, Institute of Economic Research, vol. 13(4), pages 977-1014, December.

    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. Nikodinoska, Natasha & Paletto, Alessandro & Pastorella, Fabio & Granvik, Madeleine & Franzese, Pier Paolo, 2018. "Assessing, valuing and mapping ecosystem services at city level: The case of Uppsala (Sweden)," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 368(C), pages 411-424.
    2. Sylla, Marta & HarmÃ¡Ä ková, Zuzana V. & Grammatikopoulou, Ioanna & Whitham, Charlotte & Pártl, Adam & VaÄ kářová, Davina, 2021. "Methodological and empirical challenges of SEEA EEA in developing contexts: Towards ecosystem service accounts in the Kyrgyz Republic," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 50(C).
    3. La Notte, Alessandra & Maes, Joachim & Dalmazzone, Silvana & Crossman, Neville D. & Grizzetti, Bruna & Bidoglio, Giovanni, 2017. "Physical and monetary ecosystem service accounts for Europe: A case study for in-stream nitrogen retention," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 23(C), pages 18-29.
    4. Warnell, Katherine J.D. & Russell, Marc & Rhodes, Charles & Bagstad, Kenneth J. & Olander, Lydia P. & Nowak, David J. & Poudel, Rajendra & Glynn, Pierre D. & Hass, Julie L. & Hirabayashi, Satoshi & In, 2020. "Testing ecosystem accounting in the United States: A case study for the Southeast," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 43(C).
    5. Carl Obst & Lars Hein & Bram Edens, 2016. "National Accounting and the Valuation of Ecosystem Assets and Their Services," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 64(1), pages 1-23, May.
    6. Pierre Mokondoko & Robert H Manson & Taylor H Ricketts & Daniel Geissert, 2018. "Spatial analysis of ecosystem service relationships to improve targeting of payments for hydrological services," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(2), pages 1-27, February.
    7. 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.
    8. Cavalletti, B. & Di Fabio, C. & Lagomarsino, E. & Ramassa, P., 2020. "Ecosystem accounting for marine protected areas: A proposed framework," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 173(C).
    9. Per Arild Garnåsjordet & Margrete Steinnes & Zofie Cimburova & Megan Nowell & David N. Barton & Iulie Aslaksen, 2020. "Urban Green. Integrating ecosystem extent and condition as a basis for ecosystem accounts. Examples from the Oslo region," Discussion Papers 941, Statistics Norway, Research Department.
    10. Abramowicz Dawid & Stępniewska Małgorzata, 2020. "Public Investment Policy as a Driver of Changes in the Ecosystem Services Delivery by an Urban Green Infrastructure," Quaestiones Geographicae, Sciendo, vol. 39(1), pages 5-18, March.
    11. van den Belt, Marjan & Stevens, Sharon M., 2016. "Transformative agenda, or lost in the translation? A review of top-cited articles in the first four years of Ecosystem Services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 22(PA), pages 60-72.
    12. Remme, Roy P. & Edens, Bram & Schröter, Matthias & Hein, Lars, 2015. "Monetary accounting of ecosystem services: A test case for Limburg province, the Netherlands," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 116-128.
    13. Garth R. Groshans & Elena A. Mikhailova & Christopher J. Post & Mark A. Schlautman & Lisha Zhang, 2019. "Determining the Value of Soil Inorganic Carbon Stocks in the Contiguous United States Based on the Avoided Social Cost of Carbon Emissions," Resources, MDPI, vol. 8(3), pages 1-15, June.
    14. Burke, Thomas & Whyatt, J. Duncan & Rowland, Clare & Blackburn, G. Alan & Abbatt, Jon, 2020. "The influence of land cover data on farm-scale valuations of natural capital," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 42(C).
    15. Elena A. Mikhailova & Garth R. Groshans & Christopher J. Post & Mark A. Schlautman & Gregory C. Post, 2019. "Valuation of Total Soil Carbon Stocks in the Contiguous United States Based on the Avoided Social Cost of Carbon Emissions," Resources, MDPI, vol. 8(4), pages 1-16, September.
    16. Choquet, Pauline & Gabrielle, Benoit & Chalhoub, Maha & Michelin, Joël & Sauzet, Ophélie & Scammacca, Ottone & Garnier, Patricia & Baveye, Philippe C. & Montagne, David, 2021. "Comparison of empirical and process-based modelling to quantify soil-supported ecosystem services on the Saclay plateau (France)," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 50(C).
    17. Xiao, Lan & Haiping, Tang & Haoguang, Liang, 2017. "A theoretical framework for researching cultural ecosystem service flows in urban agglomerations," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 28(PA), pages 95-104.
    18. Schröter, Matthias & Stumpf, Klara H. & Loos, Jacqueline & van Oudenhoven, Alexander P.E. & Böhnke-Henrichs, Anne & Abson, David J., 2017. "Refocusing ecosystem services towards sustainability," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 25(C), pages 35-43.
    19. Mokondoko, Pierre & Manson, Robert H. & Pérez-Maqueo, Octavio, 2016. "Assessing the service of water quality regulation by quantifying the effects of land use on water quality and public health in central Veracruz, Mexico," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 22(PA), pages 161-173.
    20. Hein, Lars & Remme, Roy P. & Schenau, Sjoerd & Bogaart, Patrick W. & Lof, Marjolein E. & Horlings, Edwin, 2020. "Ecosystem accounting in the Netherlands," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 44(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:gam:jresou:v:8:y:2019:i:2:p:66-:d:220872. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.