IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this paper

A guiding framework for ecosystem services monetization in ecological-economic modeling


  • Mateo Cordier
  • José Pérez Agúndez
  • Walter Hecq
  • Bertrand Hamaide


Monetary valuation techniques are often used for evaluating the effect of a change in ecosystem services on components of human wellbeing, even though they face several problems such as poor scientific knowledge on ecological-economic interactions, difficulty for monetary valuation techniques to consider the effect of intermediate ecosystem services on final ones, cognitive limitations of individuals, right-based responses made by individuals instead of consequentialism-based ones,… Considering those limits, this paper proposes an alternative approach for reconciling monetary valuation techniques with methods that address ecosystem-economy interactions. To achieve this goal, we develop a guiding framework that limits the use of monetary valuation to real market simulations. Simulations of scenarios of environmental measures are carried out with a hybrid ecological-economic input-output model. The guiding framework ensures that monetary valuation techniques contribute to the understanding of the impact of economic activities on changes in ecosystems services and the feedback impact of these changes on economic activities. The framework operates according to a double dichotomy: intermediate/final ecosystem services and direct/indirect monetary valuation techniques. One advantage of our guiding framework is to consider the importance of intermediate ecosystem services even if they cannot be monetized. This seems very relevant since intermediate services condition the existence of all other ecosystem services that ensure benefits to human life and economic activities. Our guiding framework may give natural scientists a better understanding of how to take advantage of economics in analyzing the impacts of interactions between the economy and the ecosystem.

Suggested Citation

  • Mateo Cordier & José Pérez Agúndez & Walter Hecq & Bertrand Hamaide, 2013. "A guiding framework for ecosystem services monetization in ecological-economic modeling," Working Papers CEB 13-018, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
  • Handle: RePEc:sol:wpaper:2013/143345

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    File Function: wp13018
    Download Restriction: no

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. Giampietro, Mario & Mayumi, Kozo & Munda, Giuseppe, 2006. "Integrated assessment and energy analysis: Quality assurance in multi-criteria analysis of sustainability," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 59-86.
    2. Johnston, Robert J. & Schultz, Eric T. & Segerson, Kathleen & Besedin, Elena Y. & Ramachandran, Mahesh, 2013. "Stated Preferences for Intermediate versus Final Ecosystem Services: Disentangling Willingness to Pay for Omitted Outcomes," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 42(1), pages 98-118, April.
    3. 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.
    4. Venkatachalam, L., 2007. "Environmental economics and ecological economics: Where they can converge?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(2-3), pages 550-558, March.
    5. Ing-Marie Gren & Carl Folke & Kerry Turner & Ian Batemen, 1994. "Primary and secondary values of wetland ecosystems," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 4(1), pages 55-74, February.
    6. Anil Markandya & Alistair Hunt & Ian Milborrow, 2005. "Developments in Green Accounting," Chapters, in: Anil Markandya & Marialuisa Tamborra (ed.), Green Accounting in Europe, chapter 2, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    7. Stephen Polasky & Erik Nelson & Derric Pennington & Kris Johnson, 2011. "The Impact of Land-Use Change on Ecosystem Services, Biodiversity and Returns to Landowners: A Case Study in the State of Minnesota," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 48(2), pages 219-242, February.
    8. Mateo Cordier & José Pérez Agúndez & Walter Hecq & Bertrand Hamaide, 2013. "A guiding framework for ecosystem services monetization in ecological-economic modeling," Working Papers CEB 13-018, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    9. Funtowicz, Silvio O. & Ravetz, Jerome R., 1994. "The worth of a songbird: ecological economics as a post-normal science," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 10(3), pages 197-207, August.
    10. Hannon, Bruce, 2001. "Ecological pricing and economic efficiency," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 36(1), pages 19-30, January.
    11. V. Kerry Smith & William H. Desvousges & Ann Fisher, 1986. "A Comparison of Direct and Indirect Methods for Estimating Environmental Benefits," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 68(2), pages 280-290.
    12. Boyd, James & Banzhaf, Spencer, 2007. "What are ecosystem services? The need for standardized environmental accounting units," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(2-3), pages 616-626, August.
    13. Spash, Clive L. & Urama, Kevin & Burton, Rob & Kenyon, Wendy & Shannon, Peter & Hill, Gary, 2009. "Motives behind willingness to pay for improving biodiversity in a water ecosystem: Economics, ethics and social psychology," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(4), pages 955-964, February.
    14. Carbone, Jared C. & Kerry Smith, V., 2013. "Valuing nature in a general equilibrium," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 66(1), pages 72-89.
    15. Johnston, Robert J. & Russell, Marc, 2011. "An operational structure for clarity in ecosystem service values," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(12), pages 2243-2249.
    16. Fisher, Brendan & Turner, R. Kerry & Morling, Paul, 2009. "Defining and classifying ecosystem services for decision making," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(3), pages 643-653, January.
    17. Olivier Beaumais & Dimitri Laroutis & Raja Chakir, 2008. "Conservation versus conversion des zones humides : une analyse comparative appliquée à l'estuaire de la Seine," Revue d'économie régionale et urbaine, Armand Colin, vol. 0(4), pages 565-590.
    18. Jin, Di & Hoagland, Porter & Morin Dalton, Tracey, 2003. "Linking economic and ecological models for a marine ecosystem," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 46(3), pages 367-385, October.
    19. Munda, Giuseppe, 2004. "Social multi-criteria evaluation: Methodological foundations and operational consequences," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 158(3), pages 662-677, November.
    20. Gret-Regamey, Adrienne & Kytzia, Susanne, 2007. "Integrating the valuation of ecosystem services into the Input-Output economics of an Alpine region," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(4), pages 786-798, September.
    21. 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.
    22. Herman E. Daly, 1968. "On Economics as a Life Science," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 76, pages 392-392.
    23. Lixon, Benoit & Thomassin, Paul J. & Hamaide, Bertrand, 2008. "Industrial output restriction and the Kyoto protocol: An input-output approach with application to Canada," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(1-2), pages 249-258, December.
    24. Leontief, Wassily, 1970. "Environmental Repercussions and the Economic Structure: An Input-Output Approach," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 52(3), pages 262-271, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)


    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.

    Cited by:

    1. Cordier, Mateo & Uehara, Takuro & Weih, Jeffrey & Hamaide, Bertrand, 2017. "An Input-output Economic Model Integrated Within a System Dynamics Ecological Model: Feedback Loop Methodology Applied to Fish Nursery Restoration," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 140(C), pages 46-57.
    2. Mateo Cordier & José Pérez Agúndez & Walter Hecq & Bertrand Hamaide, 2013. "A guiding framework for ecosystem services monetization in ecological-economic modeling," Working Papers CEB 13-018, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    3. Mateo Cordier & Walter Hecq & Rima Hawi & José Pérez Agúndez, 2014. "How to Make Environmental Targets Affordable in Estuarine Waters: Extending the Polluter Pays Principle?," Working Papers CEB 14-001, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    4. Barth, Nina-Christin & Döll, Petra, 2016. "Assessing the ecosystem service flood protection of a riparian forest by applying a cascade approach," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 21(PA), pages 39-52.
    5. Potschin-Young, M. & Haines-Young, R. & Görg, C. & Heink, U. & Jax, K. & Schleyer, C., 2018. "Understanding the role of conceptual frameworks: Reading the ecosystem service cascade," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 29(PC), pages 428-440.
    6. Chaigneau, Tomas & Brown, Katrina & Coulthard, Sarah & Daw, Tim M. & Szaboova, Lucy, 2019. "Money, use and experience: Identifying the mechanisms through which ecosystem services contribute to wellbeing in coastal Kenya and Mozambique," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 1-1.
    7. Patrick Chavel & Hillel Fromm & Gil Rilov & Lewi Stone & Walter Hecq, 2019. "Cost-Benefit Analysis of the Achziv marine reserve expansion considering the Barcelona Convention and the EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive," Working Papers CEB 19-004, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    8. Mateo Cordier & Thomas Poitelon & Walter Hecq, 2018. "Developing a shared environmental responsibility principle for distributing cost of restoring marine habitats destroyed by industrial harbors," Working Papers CEB 18-008, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    9. Mateo Cordier & Walter Hecq & José A. Pérez Agúndez, 2015. "The problem of high restoration costs of marine habitats damaged in the past decades by harbour facilities: Extended Producer Responsibility as an option," Working Papers CEB 15-045, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    10. Olosutean Horea, 2015. "Methods for Modeling Ecosystem Services: A Review," Management of Sustainable Development, Sciendo, vol. 7(1), pages 5-12, June.

    More about this item


    ecosystem services; input-output model; monetary valuation; ecological-economic interactions; limits of monetary values;

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:


    Access and download statistics


    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:sol:wpaper:2013/143345. 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: (Benoit Pauwels). General contact details of provider: .

    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.