Author
Listed:
- Mahugnon Maxime Obe
- Cokou Patrice Kpadé
- Alphonse Singbo
- Terence Epule Epule
- Vincent Poirier
Abstract
The economic valuation of ecosystem services in agriculture and agroforestry is crucial for sustainable development. However, valuation methods vary significantly across contexts. Using the PRISMA framework, we systematically reviewed 146 studies, combined effect sizes through meta-analytic modeling, and conducted spatial autocorrelation analyses to explore geographic patterns. Market price valuation (MPV) and contingent valuation (CVM) are the most used methods in ecosystem service assessments, accounting for 25.8% and 20.8% of studies, respectively. The CVM and life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) approaches play a key role in interdisciplinary research, connecting all ecosystem service categories. Analysis revealed extreme heterogeneity and significant publication bias for cultural (CULT), provisioning (PROV), and regulating (REG) services. Valuation outcomes are strongly influenced by the choice of methods (such as MPV and benefit transfer methods) and unit standardization practices, with effect sizes decreasing when values are standardized to United States dollars per ha per year (USD/ha/year). Spatial autocorrelation was minimal, indicating the importance of local context in the valuation results. Temporal trends indicate episodic changes in the relative effectiveness of valuation approaches. Empirically, MPV showed greater robustness (18%) than CVM, which exhibited greater sensitivity to data constraints (16%). These findings highlight the need to prioritize data quality and context specificity within standardized valuation frameworks to improve policy relevance and comparability in ecosystem service assessments, particularly for underrepresented CULT and supporting (SUP) services.
Suggested Citation
Mahugnon Maxime Obe & Cokou Patrice Kpadé & Alphonse Singbo & Terence Epule Epule & Vincent Poirier, 2026.
"Economic valuation of ecosystem services in agriculture and agroforestry: A meta-analysis,"
PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 21(10), pages 1-26, October.
Handle:
RePEc:plo:pone00:0360792
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0360792
Download full text from publisher
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:plo:pone00:0360792. 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: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.