IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/aue/wpaper/2211.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Economics of Incorporating Ecosystem Services into Water Resource Planning and Management

Author

Listed:
  • Angelos Alamanos
  • Phoebe Koundouri

Abstract

The broad economic notion of Ecosystem Services (ES) refers to the benefits that humans derive, directly or indirectly, from ecosystem functions. ES are directly related with Water Resources Management (WRM), as any catchment's degradation is in fact a degradation of ES, and the opposite. The concept initially had a pedagogical purpose, later it started being measured with economic methods, and has policy extensions, such as markets and payment schemes. ES's valuation is an essential process for achieving environmental, economic and sustainability goals, The Total Economic Value (TEV) of ecosystems includes market values (priced) and mainly non-market values (not explicit in any market), hence the different valuation methods for their explicit valuation. This process involves also human preferences regarding the perception of the nature's contribution to the economy, services, or production processes. ES concept and relevant policies have been criticised on the technical weaknesses of valuation methods, the description of the human behaviour, the interdisciplinary conflicts (e.g. ecological vs economic perception of value), and ethical aspects on the limits of the economic science, nature's commodification, and the purpose of the policy extents. Since valuation affects the policies (markets and payment schemes), it is important to understand the way that humans decide and develop preferences under uncertainty. Those preferences are changing, our behaviour is unpredictable under deep uncertainty (i.e. unknown policies, impacts, unknown probabilistic events, and under climate change) particularly over longer-term important WRM decisions. Behavioural Economics attempt to understand human behavior and psychology, and in a way model our valuation system, under uncertainty. The purpose and use of concept must be based on solid principles, aiming to the development of policies that will improve our ecosystems and lives, achieved by scientific and stakeholder collaboration.

Suggested Citation

  • Angelos Alamanos & Phoebe Koundouri, 2022. "Economics of Incorporating Ecosystem Services into Water Resource Planning and Management," DEOS Working Papers 2211, Athens University of Economics and Business.
  • Handle: RePEc:aue:wpaper:2211
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://wpa.deos.aueb.gr/docs/2022.Ecosystem.Services.pdf
    File Function: First version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Acharya, Ram Prasad & Maraseni, Tek & Cockfield, Geoff, 2019. "Global trend of forest ecosystem services valuation – An analysis of publications," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 39(C).
    2. Greg Murtough & Barbara Aretino & Anna Matysek, 2002. "Creating markets for ecosystem services," Urban/Regional 0207001, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    3. Schomers, Sarah & Matzdorf, Bettina, 2013. "Payments for ecosystem services: A review and comparison of developing and industrialized countries," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 6(C), pages 16-30.
    4. Farley, Joshua, 2012. "Ecosystem services: The economics debate," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 1(1), pages 40-49.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. de Groot, Rudolf S. & Wilson, Matthew A. & Boumans, Roelof M. J., 2002. "A typology for the classification, description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(3), pages 393-408, June.
    8. Ming, Jiang & Xian-guo, Lu & Lin-shu, Xu & Li-juan, Chu & Shouzheng, Tong, 2007. "Flood mitigation benefit of wetland soil -- A case study in Momoge National Nature Reserve in China," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(2-3), pages 217-223, March.
    9. Murtough, Greg & Aretino, Barbara & Matysek, Anna, 2002. "Creating Markets for Ecosystem Services," Staff Research Papers 31912, Productivity Commission.
    10. Pamela McElwee & Bernhard Huber & Thị Hải Vân Nguyễn, 2020. "Hybrid Outcomes of Payments for Ecosystem Services Policies in Vietnam: Between Theory and Practice," Development and Change, International Institute of Social Studies, vol. 51(1), pages 253-280, January.
    11. Farley, Joshua & Costanza, Robert, 2010. "Payments for ecosystem services: From local to global," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(11), pages 2060-2068, September.
    12. Deal, Robert L. & Cochran, Bobby & LaRocco, Gina, 2012. "Bundling of ecosystem services to increase forestland value and enhance sustainable forest management," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 17(C), pages 69-76.
    13. Schmidt, Katja & Martín-López, Berta & Phillips, Peter M. & Julius, Eike & Makan, Neville & Walz, Ariane, 2019. "Key landscape features in the provision of ecosystem services: Insights for management," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 353-366.
    14. Pattison-Williams, John K. & Pomeroy, John W. & Badiou, Pascal & Gabor, Shane, 2018. "Wetlands, Flood Control and Ecosystem Services in the Smith Creek Drainage Basin: A Case Study in Saskatchewan, Canada," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 147(C), pages 36-47.
    15. A. Alamanos & D. Latinopoulos & A. Loukas & N. Mylopoulos, 2020. "Comparing Two Hydro-Economic Approaches for Multi-Objective Agricultural Water Resources Planning," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 34(14), pages 4511-4526, November.
    16. Stephen Farber, 1996. "Welfare Loss Of Wetlands Disintegration: A Louisiana Study," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 14(1), pages 92-106, January.
    17. Swinton, Scott M. & Lupi, Frank & Robertson, G. Philip & Hamilton, Stephen K., 2007. "Ecosystem services and agriculture: Cultivating agricultural ecosystems for diverse benefits," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(2), pages 245-252, December.
    18. Kathleen McAfee, 2012. "The Contradictory Logic of Global Ecosystem Services Markets," Development and Change, International Institute of Social Studies, vol. 43(1), pages 105-131, January.
    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. Phoebe Koundouri & George Halkos & Conrad Landis & Angelos Alamanos, 2023. "Ecosystem Services Valuation for supporting Sustainable Life Below Water," DEOS Working Papers 2316, Athens University of Economics and Business.
    2. Phoebe Koundouri & Angelos Alamanos & Kostas Dellis & Artemis Stratopoulou, 2022. "Ecosystem Services into Water Resource Planning and Management," DEOS Working Papers 2230, Athens University of Economics and Business.

    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. Phoebe Koundouri & Angelos Alamanos & Kostas Dellis & Artemis Stratopoulou, 2022. "Ecosystem Services into Water Resource Planning and Management," DEOS Working Papers 2230, Athens University of Economics and Business.
    2. Häyhä, Tiina & Franzese, Pier Paolo, 2014. "Ecosystem services assessment: A review under an ecological-economic and systems perspective," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 289(C), pages 124-132.
    3. Hejnowicz, Adam P. & Raffaelli, David G. & Rudd, Murray A. & White, Piran C.L., 2014. "Evaluating the outcomes of payments for ecosystem services programmes using a capital asset framework," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 9(C), pages 83-97.
    4. Sell, Joachim & Koellner, Thomas & Weber, Olaf & Pedroni, Lucio & Scholz, Roland W., 2006. "Decision criteria of European and Latin American market actors for tropical forestry projects providing environmental services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(1), pages 17-36, June.
    5. Divinski, Itai & Becker, Nir & Bar (Kutiel), Pua, 2018. "Opportunity costs of alternative management options in a protected nature park: The case of Ramat Hanadiv, Israel," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 494-504.
    6. Turner, Katrine Grace & Anderson, Sharolyn & Gonzales-Chang, Mauricio & Costanza, Robert & Courville, Sasha & Dalgaard, Tommy & Dominati, Estelle & Kubiszewski, Ida & Ogilvy, Sue & Porfirio, Luciana &, 2016. "A review of methods, data, and models to assess changes in the value of ecosystem services from land degradation and restoration," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 319(C), pages 190-207.
    7. Ribaudo, Marc & Greene, Catherine & Hansen, LeRoy & Hellerstein, Daniel, 2010. "Ecosystem services from agriculture: Steps for expanding markets," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(11), pages 2085-2092, September.
    8. Fan, Fan & Henriksen, Christian Bugge & Porter, John, 2016. "Valuation of ecosystem services in organic cereal crop production systems with different management practices in relation to organic matter input," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 22(PA), pages 117-127.
    9. Kaiser, Josef & Krueger, Tobias & Haase, Dagmar, 2023. "Global patterns of collective payments for ecosystem services and their degrees of commodification," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 209(C).
    10. Mueller, Hannah & Hamilton, David P. & Doole, Graeme J., 2016. "Evaluating services and damage costs of degradation of a major lake ecosystem," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 22(PB), pages 370-380.
    11. 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.
    12. Coralie Calvet & Claude Napoleone & Jean-Michel Salles & Syndhia Mathé & Hélène Rey-Valette & Leslie Carnoye & Rita Lopes & Valérie Boisvert & Philippe Méral & Jean-François Le Coq & Armelle Caron & O, 2015. "Ecosystem Services and Institutional Dynamics," Post-Print hal-03023959, HAL.
    13. 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).
    14. Sandra Notaro & Alessandro Paletto, 2008. "Natural disturbances and natural hazards in mountain forests: a framework for the economic valuation," Department of Economics Working Papers 0808, Department of Economics, University of Trento, Italia.
    15. Divinsky, Itai & Becker, Nir & Bar (Kutiel), Pua, 2017. "Ecosystem service tradeoff between grazing intensity and other services - A case study in Karei-Deshe experimental cattle range in northern Israel," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 24(C), pages 16-27.
    16. Márquez, Laura Andreina Matos & Rezende, Eva Caroline Nunes & Machado, Karine Borges & Nascimento, Emilly Layne Martins do & Castro, Joana D'arc Bardella & Nabout, João Carlos, 2023. "Trends in valuation approaches for cultural ecosystem services: A systematic literature review," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 64(C).
    17. Pei, Sha & Zhang, Chunxiao & Liu, Chunlan & Liu, Xiaona & Xie, Gaodi, 2019. "Forest ecological compensation standard based on spatial flowing of water services in the upper reaches of Miyun Reservoir, China," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 39(C).
    18. Vassallo, P. & Paoli, C. & Buonocore, E. & Franzese, P.P. & Russo, G.F. & Povero, P., 2017. "Assessing the value of natural capital in marine protected areas: A biophysical and trophodynamic environmental accounting model," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 355(C), pages 12-17.
    19. Kontogianni, Areti & Luck, Gary W. & Skourtos, Michalis, 2010. "Valuing ecosystem services on the basis of service-providing units: A potential approach to address the 'endpoint problem' and improve stated preference methods," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(7), pages 1479-1487, May.
    20. Mulatu, Dawit W. & van der Veen, Anne & van Oel, Pieter R., 2014. "Farm households' preferences for collective and individual actions to improve water-related ecosystem services: The Lake Naivasha basin, Kenya," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 7(C), pages 22-33.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:aue:wpaper:2211. 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: Ekaterini Glynou (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/diauegr.html .

    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.