IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v14y2022i19p11966-d922521.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Pluralistic Valuation of Codling Moth Regulation by Brown Long-Eared Bats in English Apple Orchards

Author

Listed:
  • Francis Murphy

    (Sustainability Research Institute, School of Earth and Environment, The University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT, UK)

  • Joe Ament

    (Community Development and Applied Economics, The University of Vermont, Burlington, VT 05401, USA)

Abstract

The benefits humans utilise from the ecological interactions of the Brown Long-eared bat ( Plecotus auritus ) have gone relatively unnoticed in the UK. This study aimed to expose one such interaction through a pluralistic valuation of Codling moth ( Cydia pomonella ) regulation by P. auritus in the context of English apple orchards. A stage-structured model linking C. pomonella population dynamics through consumption by P. auritus was created to understand crop loss reduction estimates due to this predation. The model found that the presence of a single P. auritus individual resulted in a significant reduction of 81.06–83.68% crop lost per hectare. The results of the avoided costs methods yielded a range of economic estimates with between GBP 307.59 and 604.95/ha private, ecological and social costs being avoided. Traditional biodiverse apple orchards that support P. auritus habitats are at risk from land development and agricultural intensification which would have serious consequences on biodiversity. The findings of this study could form the basis of further research that informs apple orchard managers, local communities dependent on apple production and policymakers of the importance of ecosystem services in sustainable agriculture.

Suggested Citation

  • Francis Murphy & Joe Ament, 2022. "Pluralistic Valuation of Codling Moth Regulation by Brown Long-Eared Bats in English Apple Orchards," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(19), pages 1-20, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:19:p:11966-:d:922521
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/19/11966/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/19/11966/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hanley, Nick & Shogren, Jason & White, Ben, 2013. "Introduction to Environmental Economics," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, edition 2, number 9780199568734.
    2. Norgaard, Richard B., 1989. "The case for methodological pluralism," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 1(1), pages 37-57, February.
    3. Farber, Stephen C. & Costanza, Robert & Wilson, Matthew A., 2002. "Economic and ecological concepts for valuing ecosystem services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(3), pages 375-392, June.
    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. Thomasz, Esteban Otto & Kasanzew, Andrés & Massot, Juan Miguel & García-García, Agustín, 2024. "Valuing ecosystem services in agricultural production in southwest Spain," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 68(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. Olivier Petit & Franck-Dominique Vivien, 2015. "When economists and ecologists meet on Ecological Economics: two science paths around two interdisciplinary concepts," Post-Print halshs-01249774, HAL.
    2. Wu Yang & Thomas Dietz & Wei Liu & Junyan Luo & Jianguo Liu, 2013. "Going Beyond the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment: An Index System of Human Dependence on Ecosystem Services," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(5), pages 1-9, May.
    3. Spash, Clive L., 2020. "A tale of three paradigms: Realising the revolutionary potential of ecological economics," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 169(C).
    4. Gasparatos, Alexandros & El-Haram, Mohamed & Horner, Malcolm, 2009. "The argument against a reductionist approach for measuring sustainable development performance and the need for methodological pluralism," Accounting forum, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 245-256.
    5. Goddard, Jessica J. & Kallis, Giorgos & Norgaard, Richard B., 2019. "Keeping multiple antennae up: Coevolutionary foundations for methodological pluralism," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 165(C), pages 1-1.
    6. 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.
    7. Kenter, Jasper O. & Bryce, Rosalind & Christie, Michael & Cooper, Nigel & Hockley, Neal & Irvine, Katherine N. & Fazey, Ioan & O’Brien, Liz & Orchard-Webb, Johanne & Ravenscroft, Neil & Raymond, Chris, 2016. "Shared values and deliberative valuation: Future directions," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 21(PB), pages 358-371.
    8. Agnieszka Dembicka-Niemiec & Edyta Szafranek-Stefaniuk, 2025. "Financial Directions for Renewable Energy Sources Investments as a Support for Sustainable Development Policy—Examples of Polish Cities," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 17(7), pages 1-17, April.
    9. Stern, David I., 1997. "Limits to substitution and irreversibility in production and consumption: A neoclassical interpretation of ecological economics," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(3), pages 197-215, June.
    10. Admiraal, Jeroen F. & Wossink, Ada & de Groot, Wouter T. & de Snoo, Geert R., 2013. "More than total economic value: How to combine economic valuation of biodiversity with ecological resilience," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 115-122.
    11. Wiśniewska Anna Maria, 2021. "Sustainable development and management of medical tourism companies in Poland," International Journal of Management and Economics, Warsaw School of Economics, Collegium of World Economy, vol. 57(2), pages 151-160, June.
    12. Magrini, Marie-Benoit & Anton, Marc & Cholez, Célia & Corre-Hellou, Guenaelle & Duc, Gérard & Jeuffroy, Marie-Hélène & Meynard, Jean-Marc & Pelzer, Elise & Voisin, Anne-Sophie & Walrand, Stéphane, 2016. "Why are grain-legumes rarely present in cropping systems despite their environmental and nutritional benefits? Analyzing lock-in in the French agrifood system," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 152-162.
    13. Christian Elleby & Frank Jensen, 2018. "How Many Instruments Do We Really Need? A First-Best Optimal Solution to Multiple Objectives with Fisheries Regulation," IFRO Working Paper 2018/05, University of Copenhagen, Department of Food and Resource Economics.
    14. 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.
    15. Daniel Muller, 2018. "Economics of Human-AI Ecosystem: Value Bias and Lost Utility in Multi-Dimensional Gaps," Papers 1811.06606, arXiv.org, revised Nov 2018.
    16. Alamanos, Angelos & Koundouri, Phoebe, 2022. "Economics of Incorporating Ecosystem Services into Water Resource Planning and Management," MPRA Paper 122046, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    17. Chen, G.Q. & Chen, B., 2007. "Resource analysis of the Chinese society 1980-2002 based on energy--Part 5: Resource structure and intensity," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(4), pages 2087-2095, April.
    18. Bachev, Hrabrin, 2009. "Governing of agro-ecosystem services - modes, efficiency, perspectives," MPRA Paper 99870, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    19. Azqueta, Diego & Sotelsek, Daniel, 2007. "Valuing nature: From environmental impacts to natural capital," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(1), pages 22-30, June.
    20. Schmidt, Katja & Walz, Ariane & Martín-López, Berta & Sachse, René, 2017. "Testing socio-cultural valuation methods of ecosystem services to explain land use preferences," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 26(PA), pages 270-288.

    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:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:19:p:11966-:d:922521. 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.