IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/fem/femwpa/2013.101.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Urban Watershed Services For Improved Ecosystem Management and Risk Reduction, Assessment Methods and Policy Instruments: State of the Art

Author

Listed:
  • Yaella Depietri

    (United Nations University, Institute for Environment and Human Security (UNU-EHS), Institut de Ciència i Tecnologia Ambientals (ICTA), Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona (UAB))

  • Lorenzo Guadagno

    (International Organization for Migration (IOM))

  • Margaretha Breil

    (Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM) Euro-Mediterranean Center on Climate Change (CMCC))

Abstract

Under scenarios of increasing unplanned urban expansion, environmental degradation and hazard exposure, the vulnerability of urban populations, especially of their poorer segments, needs to be tackled through integrated economic, social and environmental solutions. Basing our analysis on the concept of ecosystem services, we suggest that urban areas would benefit from a shift in perspective towards a more regional approach, which recognizes them as one of many interconnected elements that interact at the watershed level. By integrating an ecosystem approach into the management of water-related services, urban management policies can take a first step towards fostering an improvement of the health of upstream and downstream areas of the watershed, activating environmentally sound practices which aim at guaranteeing the sustainable and cost effective supply of services. These strategies can for instance be supported by using payment schemes for ecosystem services or similar strategies, allowing for the redistribution of resources among communities in the watershed. From our analysis it results that, through the recognition of the primary role played by watershed ecosystems, cities can benefit from an enlarged set of policies, which can help strengthen the supply of essential environmental services, while reducing the vulnerability of its population and contributing to the maintenance of healthy ecosystems.

Suggested Citation

  • Yaella Depietri & Lorenzo Guadagno & Margaretha Breil, 2013. "Urban Watershed Services For Improved Ecosystem Management and Risk Reduction, Assessment Methods and Policy Instruments: State of the Art," Working Papers 2013.101, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
  • Handle: RePEc:fem:femwpa:2013.101
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.feem.it/userfiles/attach/201312101636584NDL2013-101.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Nunez, Daisy & Nahuelhual, Laura & Oyarzun, Carlos, 2006. "Forests and water: The value of native temperate forests in supplying water for human consumption," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(3), pages 606-616, June.
    2. Wunder, Sven & Albán, Montserrat, 2008. "Decentralized payments for environmental services: The cases of Pimampiro and PROFAFOR in Ecuador," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(4), pages 685-698, May.
    3. Gómez-Baggethun, Erik & de Groot, Rudolf & Lomas, Pedro L. & Montes, Carlos, 2010. "The history of ecosystem services in economic theory and practice: From early notions to markets and payment schemes," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(6), pages 1209-1218, April.
    4. Van Hecken, Gert & Bastiaensen, Johan & Vásquez, William F., 2012. "The viability of local payments for watershed services: Empirical evidence from Matiguás, Nicaragua," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 169-176.
    5. Wilson, Matthew A. & Howarth, Richard B., 2002. "Discourse-based valuation of ecosystem services: establishing fair outcomes through group deliberation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(3), pages 431-443, June.
    6. Norgaard, Richard B., 2010. "Ecosystem services: From eye-opening metaphor to complexity blinder," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(6), pages 1219-1227, April.
    7. Randhir, Timothy & Shriver, Deborah M., 2009. "Deliberative valuation without prices: A multiattribute prioritization for watershed ecosystem management," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(12), pages 3042-3051, October.
    8. Kallis, Giorgos & Gómez-Baggethun, Erik & Zografos, Christos, 2013. "To value or not to value? That is not the question," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 97-105.
    9. Gómez-Baggethun, Erik & Barton, David N., 2013. "Classifying and valuing ecosystem services for urban planning," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 235-245.
    10. Moreno-Sanchez, Rocio & Maldonado, Jorge Higinio & Wunder, Sven & Borda-Almanza, Carlos, 2012. "Heterogeneous users and willingness to pay in an ongoing payment for watershed protection initiative in the Colombian Andes," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 126-134.
    11. Bolund, Per & Hunhammar, Sven, 1999. "Ecosystem services in urban areas," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 293-301, May.
    12. Wunder, Sven & Engel, Stefanie & Pagiola, Stefano, 2008. "Taking stock: A comparative analysis of payments for environmental services programs in developed and developing countries," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(4), pages 834-852, May.
    13. Kosoy, Nicolas & Martinez-Tuna, Miguel & Muradian, Roldan & Martinez-Alier, Joan, 2007. "Payments for environmental services in watersheds: Insights from a comparative study of three cases in Central America," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(2-3), pages 446-455, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Urban Watersheds; Ecosystem Services; Water Supply And Sanitation; Disaster Risk Reduction; Valuation;

    JEL classification:

    • I14 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Health and Inequality
    • Q01 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - General - - - Sustainable Development
    • Q25 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation - - - Water
    • Q54 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Climate; Natural Disasters and their Management; Global Warming
    • Q57 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Ecological Economics

    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:fem:femwpa:2013.101. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (barbara racah). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/feemmit.html .

    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 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.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.