Valuating Natural Resources and Ecosystem Services: Systematic Review of Methods in Use
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
3. Results and Discussion
3.1. “Valuation” vs. “Evaluation” or These Are Synonyms?
3.2. Traditional Approaches for (e)Valuating Natural Resources and Ecosystem Services in Russian and International Research within the Model/Concept for (e)Valuating the Used Natural Resources and “Kind of” Ecosystem Services: Before the Emergence of Ecosystem Services’ Theory
- cost approach;
- income approach;
- rental approach;
- mix of the cost and rental approach;
- point estimation approach (scoring) and expert approach; and
- normative approach.
- cost approach and its modifications;
- effective approach, including rental and income; and
- mix of the cost and rental approaches.
- The evaluation of the costs for developing new resources instead of the withdrawn ones. This method was mainly used to substantiate the standards for compensation for agricultural production losses associated with the withdrawal of agricultural land for non-agricultural needs [54]. This method has not been used in international practice. In Russia, this method has ceased to be used since the 1990s.
- The evaluation of the costs of restoration (restoration cost); the method of restoration cost. The idea is the reconstruction of the estimated object, if it disappears in the same volume, with the same set of consumer properties. We are talking about a conditional reconstruction, since it is not possible to achieve full identity. The subjects of the evaluation were rare and endangered plants and animals, while justifying the corresponding rates. Today, examples of the use of this method to valuate ecosystem services, such as pedogenesis and soil erosion management, can be found in studies [55,56,57,58].
- The evaluation of the costs of replacement/substitute (replacement/substitute cost). When implementing this method, the (e)valuation is based on the costs of employing the option that allows us to replace the natural benefits that have been provided by the (e)valuated object. For example, “replacement/substitute costs” are for building a reservoir to meet water demand in an economic valuation of water resources. Later, in relation to ecosystem services, this method was used to assess the forest ecosystems of Norway (Oslo). The analysis showed that, in 2017, the value of 700 thousand trees was 3.5 billion euros.
- The evaluation of the costs of preventing damage, which is caused by the absence of the object being evaluated (damage cost avoided). The initial condition is the assumption that the value of a natural resource is equal to the amount of economic damage, which is caused by its loss. So, the economic damage for the population, that is caused by the lack of drinking water can be considered as an economic valuation of the water resources. For example, in modern practice, the eco-efficiency of agriculture in the Amazon region in Brazil was assessed using the damage cost avoided method [59].
- income approach, which is related to the calculation of the profit, that can be obtained by using the evaluated resource [60];
- rental approach, which is based on the evaluation of a part of the profit (differential rent I), formed due to the best natural characteristics and conditions (for instance, high content of useful components, close location to the surface of ore bodies, high soil fertility, etc.), and does not require labor [61].
3.3. Evolution of Traditional Approaches for (e)Valuating Natural Resources and Ecosystem Services in Russian and International Research: After the Emergence of Ecosystem Services’ Theory
- The travel cost method, which evaluates the willingness to pay for environmental benefits based on the cost of visiting their locations. It is widely used in determining the economic value of recreational services and the tourist value of natural sites. The study [85] provides an assessment of an ecosystem service such as recreational fishing in New Zealand. The value of this ecosystem service was estimated, using the travel cost method. It was USD 48–60 per trip in 2008.
- The hedonic pricing method is designed to evaluate the natural goods at the prices of the real estate market or the labor market. It uses real estate prices, depending on environmental factors (for example, noise level, air purity, beauty of the landscape). Utilizing this method, regions of Spain and Portugal [86], as well as China [87], have been evaluated in a number of recent studies.
- The contingent valuation method is widely used. It is implemented by directly asking consumers about their willingness to pay or receive compensation for changes in the provision of natural goods in a hypothetical natural resource market. Polls can take the form of telephone interviews, face-to-face interviews, mail-order surveys, etc. The (e)valuation of the aquatic ecosystem, which is located near the Marlborough Winery, was carried out by using this method in the research [88]. Ecosystem service water regulation was estimated at USD 1.253 million in 2010.
- The preventive expenditure method, which allows us to estimate costs that the population agrees to incur to mitigate or prevent damage, which are usually associated with pollution, for example, water. The study [89] presents the evaluation results of the Louisiana wetlands, using modifications of various methods, including the preventive expenditure method. The value estimates range from USD 8437 to USD 15,763 per acre of wetland in 1996.
- The factor income method. This is where the ecosystem service is estimated by the value of the increase in income that has been obtained due to its presence outside the evaluated object. For example, improved water quality can increase the income of commercial fisheries by increasing the catch and improving the quality of fish. Some examples of the method’s application can be found in the research [90,91].
- The shadow pricing method. This method uses market prices that are adjusted for transfers, market failures, and policies. Shadow prices are calculated for products that do not have a market. In essence, this method is an evaluation of an investment project, in which regional specificity is usually taken into account and expressed in adjustments. This method could be found in the Russian research [92]. In international practice, modifications of this method are also used, but in the pollution sphere. One of the innovations was the abatement cost approach, to which Elsevier devoted a separate link with a selection of various journals and monographs on the subject. “Abatement cost is defined as total discounted cost of temperature-target scenarios compared to unconstrained “business-as-usual” reference case” [93]. Examples of this method’s application within an emission reduction approach are found in [94,95].
3.4. Classifications of Economic (e)Valuation Methods of Natural Resources and Ecosystem Services in Russian and International Research within the Concept of Total Economic Value
- total economic value approach;
- market (comparative) approach;
- rental approach;
- cost approach;
- opportunity/option value approach;
- stated preference approach;
- basic benefit transfer approach; and
- surrogate market approach.
3.5. The Author’s Classification of Economic (e)Valuation Methods of Natural Resources and Ecosystem Services
4. Conclusions
- the ecosystem approach’s development updates the economic (e)valuation of ecosystem services;
- the emergence of a new (e)valuation object (natural capital) and a new (e)valuation model (total economic value, which has replaced the model/concept for (e)valuating the used natural resources and “kind of” ecosystem services);
- the evaluation methods elaboration of value-based approach shifts to market/comparative and sociological ones;
- the transition to a market economy (specifically for Russia).
- quite often, the natural capital of regions (districts), protected areas or ecosystem service of carbon sequestration are (e)valuated at different levels of management;
- the main (e)valuation object is terrestrial ecosystems, including forest ecosystems and the flow of natural goods and services supplied by them;
- among natural resources (providing ecosystem services), the following are the subject of consideration: timber, non-timber forest resources, hunting resources (including recreational ones), fish resources (including recreational benefit), and medicinal plants. All of them are usually valued using the market price method. In the absence of market prices, the substituted goods method is used. Rarely enough, fresh water is the subject to (e)valuation employing the market price method and contingent valuation;
- among the regulating ecosystem services, the following are the subject of consideration: carbon sequestration by forests, carbon sequestration by swamps/wetlands, water purification and waste treatment by swamps/wetlands, and erosion regulation by forests, recreation, and tourism;
- if the carbon market is considered to be valid, the market price method is used for the economic (e)valuation of carbon sequestration. Some researchers define the economic equivalent as surrogate prices;
- water purification and waste treatment by swamps/wetlands is (e)valuated employing the replacement/substitute method, as well as for the (e)valuation of the ecosystem services called air quality regulation and water purification made by forests;
- erosion regulation by forests involves the use of the substituted goods method, replacement/substituted cost method, factor income method, and market price method, depending on the chosen tactic of (e)valuation;
- recreation and tourism (including ecotourism) are (e)valuated by the travel cost method and market price method, and much less often, by contingent valuation;
- in all cases with a lack of information, the analogy method (including basic benefit transfer method) is used. It is a common practice to use basic benefit transfer method for evaluation of cultural, educational, aesthetic, and spiritual ecosystem services based on the international experience.
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Gómez-Baggethun, E.; de Groot, R.; Lomas, P.L.; Montes, C. The history of ecosystem services in economic theory and practice: From early notions to markets and payment schemes. Ecol. Econ. 2010, 69, 1209–1218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Badeeb, R.A.; Lean, H.H.; Clark, J. The evolution of the natural resource curse thesis: A critical literature survey. Resour. Policy 2017, 51, 123–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Costanza, R.; dArge, R.; de Groot, R.; Farber, S.; Grasso, M.; Hannon, B.; Limburg, K.; Naeem, S.; Oneill, R.V.; Paruelo, J.; et al. The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 1997, 387, 253–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA). Ecosystems and Human WellBeing: Synthesis; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- TEEB Foundations. The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: Ecological and Economic Foundations; Earthscan: London, UK; Washington, DC, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Bobylev, S.N. Economic problems of biodiversity: Determination of interrelationships (matrix approach). In Economics of Biodiversity Conservation; Ministry of Natural Resources of Russia: Moscow, Russia, 1995; pp. 19–25. [Google Scholar]
- Bobylev, S.N.; Zakharov, V.M. Ecosystem Services and Economics; limited liability company “Typography LEVKO”; Institute for Sustainable Development, Center for Environmental Policy of Russia: Moscow, Russia, 2009; 72p. [Google Scholar]
- TEEB Synthesis. Mainstreaming the Economics of Nature: A Synthesis of the Approach, Conclusions and Recommendations of TEEB; Earthscan: London, UK; Washington, DC, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Perelet, R.A. Socio-Economic and Legal Foundations of Biodiversity Conservation; Publishing House of the Scientific and Educational-Methodical Center: Moscow, Russia, 2002; 420p. [Google Scholar]
- Braat, L.; de Groot, R. The ecosystem services agenda: Bridging the worlds of natural science and economics, conservation and development, and public and private policy. Ecosyst. Serv. 2012, 1, 4–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Dushin, A.V.; Ignatyeva, M.N.; Yurak, V.V.; Ivanov, A.N. Economic evaluation of environmental impact of mining: Ecosystem approach. Eurasian Min. 2020, 1, 30–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Costanza, R. Valuing natural capital and ecosystem services toward the goals of efficiency, fairness, and sustainability. Ecosyst. Serv. 2020, 43, 101096. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yurak, V.V. Guidelines for the Economic Valuation of Regulatory and Social Ecosystem Services; Institute of Economics the Ural Branch of RAS: Yekaterinburg, Russia, 2018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Turner, R.K.; Pearce, D.; Bateman, I. Environmental Economics: An Elementary Introduction; Harvester Wheatsheaf: Birmingham, UK; Johns Hopkins University Press: Baltimore, MD, USA, 1993; 328p. [Google Scholar]
- Krutilla, J.V. Conservation reconsidered. Am. Econ. Rev. 1967, 57, 777–786. [Google Scholar]
- Girusov, E.V.; Bobylev, S.N.; Novoselov, A.L.; Chepurnykh, N.V. Ecology and Economics of Natural Resources; Law and Law; Publishing Volume “UNITY”: Moscow, Russia, 1998; 455p. [Google Scholar]
- Yurak, V.V. Improvement of State Regulation of Environmental Management; Institute of Economics the Ural Branch of RAS: Yekaterinburg, Russia, 2016; 198p. [Google Scholar]
- Adams, W.M. The value of valuing nature. Science 2014, 346, 549–551. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dushin, A.V.; Yurak, V.V. Authors’ approach to the total economic value: Essentials, structure, evolution. Eurasian Min. 2018, 1, 11–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Parker, J. ‘Natural capital’: Ontology or analogy? In Debating Nature’s Value: The Concept of ‘Natural Capital’; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2019; pp. 89–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Maher, S.M.; Fenichel, E.P.; Schmitz, O.J.; Adamowicz, W.L. The economics of conservation debt: A natural capital approach to revealed valuation of ecological dynamics. Ecol. Appl. 2020, 30, e02132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ignatyeva, M.; Yurak, V.; Logvinenko, O. A new look at the natural capital concept: Approaches, structure, and evaluation procedure. Sustainability 2020, 21, 9236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pascual, U.; Muradian, R.; Brander, L. The economics of valuing ecosystem services and biodiversity. In TEEB, The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity. Ecological and Economic Foundations; Routledge: Abingdon, UK; New York, NY, USA, 2012; pp. 183–255. [Google Scholar]
- Daily, G.C.; Matson, P.A. Ecosystem Services: From theory to implementation. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2008, 105, 9455–9456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Gomez-Baggethun, E.; Barton, D.N.; Berry, P. Concepts and methods in ecosystem services valuation. In Routledge Handbook of Ecosystem Services; Potschin, M., Haines-Young, R., Fish, R., Turner, R.K., Eds.; Routledge Handbooks Online: Milton Prak, UK, 2016; pp. 99–111. [Google Scholar]
- Schaub, S.; Finger, R.; Leiber, F.; Probst, S.; Kreuzer, M.; Weigelt, A.; Buchmann, N.; Scherer-Lorenzen, M. Reply to: Results from a Biodiversity Experiment Fail to Represent Economic Performance of Semi-Natural Grasslands. Nat. Commun. 2021, 12, 2124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Dictionary Lexico Oxford. Available online: https://www.lexico.com/definition/evaluation (accessed on 15 November 2021).
- Dictionary Lexico Oxford. Available online: https://www.lexico.com/definition/valuation (accessed on 15 November 2021).
- Sapir, J. Economics of information: A new paradigm and its boundaries. Econ. Issues 2005, 10, 4–24. [Google Scholar]
- Arias-Arévalo, P.; Gómez-Baggethun, E.; Martín-López, B.; Pérez-Rincón, M. Widening the evaluative space for ecosystem services: A taxonomy of plural values and valuation methods. Environ. Values 2018, 27, 29–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fornaro, G.; Federici, C.; Rognoni, C.; Ciani, O. Broadening the concept of value: A scoping review on the option value of medical technologies. Value Health 2021, 24, 1045–1058. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hodgson, G. Evolutionary and institutional economics as the new mainstream? Evol. Inst. Econ. Rev. 2007, 4, 7–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Farber, S.C.; Costanza, R.; Wilson, M.A. Economic and ecological concepts for valuing ecosystem services. Ecol. Econ. 2002, 41, 375–392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Costanza, R.; de Groot, R.; Sutton, P.; van der Ploeg, S.; Anderson, S.J.; Kubiszewski, I.; Turner, R.K. Changes in the global value of ecosystem services. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2014, 26, 152–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pozharitskiy, K.L. Fundamentals of deposit and mines assessment. Gornyi Zhurnal 1957, 9, 3–9. [Google Scholar]
- Pomerantsev, V.V. Discussion of the article by K.L. Pozharitsky “Fundamentals of evaluating mineral deposits and mines”. Gornyi Zhurnal 1958, 9, 12–20. [Google Scholar]
- Rachkevsky, S.Y. Fundamentals of assessing mineral deposits and mines. Gornyi Zhurnal 1958, 12, 6–9. [Google Scholar]
- Kozodoev, I.I. Differential Land Rent Under Socialism; Economizdat: Moscow, Russia, 1956; 28p. [Google Scholar]
- Cheremushkin, S.D. Theory and Practice of Economic Assessment of Lands; Economizdat: Moscow, Russia, 1963; 280p. [Google Scholar]
- Emelyanov, A.M. Differential Rent in Socialist Agriculture; Economizdat: Moscow, Russia, 1965; 100p. [Google Scholar]
- Logvinov, L.D. Differential Rent and the Economy of Collective Farms; Economizdat: Moscow, Russia, 1963; 203p. [Google Scholar]
- Dushin, A.V. Theoretical and Methodological Foundations of the Reproduction of the Mineral Resource Base; Institute of Economics the Ural Branch of RAS: Yekaterinburg, Russia, 2013; 329p. [Google Scholar]
- Nemchinov, V.S. Economic and Mathematical Methods; Nauka: Moscow, Russia, 1967; 490p. [Google Scholar]
- Fedorenko, N.P. (Ed.) Introduction to the Theory and Methodology of SOFE; Nauka: Moscow, Russia, 1983; 368p. [Google Scholar]
- Karnaukhova, E. Economic assessment of land in agriculture. Econ. Issues 1968, 8, 88–94. [Google Scholar]
- Gerasimovich, V.N.; Golub, A.A. Methodology for the Economic Assessment of Natural Resources; Nauka: Moscow, Russia, 1988; 143p. [Google Scholar]
- Novozhilov, V.V. Problems of Measuring Costs and Results with Optimal Planning; Nauka: Moscow, Russia, 1972; 432p. [Google Scholar]
- Temporary Standard Methodology for the Economic Assessment of Mineral Deposits; Price List: Moscow, Russia, 1980; 30p.
- Blagovidov, N.L. Qualitative Assessment of Lands (Bonitization of Soils and Assessment of Lands); Ministry of Agriculture of the RSFSR: Moscow, Russia, 1960; 79p.
- Armand, D.L. Qualitative assessment of land and land cadaster. Izvestia Acad. Sci. USSR 1962, 5, 52–57. [Google Scholar]
- Surovyy, L.N. Methodology for the qualitative assessment of land and planning of agricultural production. Proc. Belarusian Inst. Soil Sci. 1967, 4, 310–318. [Google Scholar]
- Khachaturov, T.S. (Ed.) Review of articles received by the editorial board of Voprosy Economiki. Economic assessment of natural resources. Voprosy Economiki 1969, 1, 75–110. [Google Scholar]
- Khachaturov, T.S. On the economic assessment of natural resources. Econ. Issues 1969, 1, 66–74. [Google Scholar]
- Witt, M.B. Economic Assessment of Land Allotted for Construction; Stroyizdat: Moscow, Russia, 1984; 120p. [Google Scholar]
- Lizin, S.; Van Passel, S.; Schreurs, E. Farmers’ perceived cost of land use restrictions: A simulated purchasing decision using discrete choice experiments. Land Use Policy 2015, 46, 115–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Qenani-Petrela, E.; Noel, J.E.; Mastin, T. A Benefit Transfer Approach to the Estimation of Agro-Ecosystems Services Benefits: A Case Study of Kern County, California; California Polytechnic State University: San Luis Obispo, CA, USA; California Institute for the Study of Specialty Crops: San Luis Obispo, CA, USA, 2007; 31p. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Martín-López, B.; García-Llorente, M.; Palomo, I.; Montes, C. The conservation against development paradigm in protected areas: Valuation of ecosystem services in the Doñana social-ecological system (Southwestern Spain). Ecol. Econ. 2011, 70, 1481–1491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Diverse Valuation and Accounting of Nature. Brief No. 05. Available online: http://www.openness-project.eu/library (accessed on 15 November 2021).
- Rosano-Peña, C.; Teixeira, J.R.; Kimura, H. Eco-efficiency in Brazilian Amazonian agriculture: Opportunity costs of degradation and protection of the environment. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2021, 28, 62378–62389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Marshall, A. The Principles of Economics; MacMillan: London, UK, 1925; 865p. [Google Scholar]
- Dorau, H.; Hinman, A. Urban Land Economics; MacMillan: New York, NY, USA, 1928; 570p. [Google Scholar]
- Vasiliev, P.V. Economics of the use and reproduction of forest resources. Izv. Acad. Sci. USSR 1963, 484. [Google Scholar]
- Vasiliev, P.V. Economic assessment of forest resources. Quest. Geogr. 1968, 78, 78–86. [Google Scholar]
- Westman, W.E. How much are nature’s services worth? Science 1977, 197, 960–964. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- De Groot, R.S. Environmental functions as a unifying concept for ecology and economics. Environmentalis 1987, 7, 105–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Medvedeva, O.E. Methods for Economic Valuation OF Biodiversity. Theory and Practice of Appraisal Work; Publishing House Dialogue-MGU: Moscow, Russia, 1998; 90p. [Google Scholar]
- Ecosystem Services Partnership. Available online: https://www.es-partnership.org/ (accessed on 25 November 2021).
- Natural Capital Coalition. Available online: https://naturalcapitalcoalition.org/natural-capital-2/ (accessed on 15 November 2021).
- ACES. Available online: https://conference.ifas.ufl.edu/aces/ (accessed on 21 October 2021).
- Earth Economics. Available online: https://www.eartheconomics.org/ (accessed on 1 December 2021).
- Marine Ecosystem Services Partnership. Available online: https://marineecosystemservices.org/ (accessed on 25 November 2021).
- Operationalisation of Natural Capital and Ecosystem Services. Available online: http://www.openness-project.eu/ (accessed on 15 November 2021).
- A Community on Ecosystem Services. Available online: https://www.sites.google.com/site/ecosystemservicesorg/ (accessed on 15 November 2021).
- The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity. Available online: http://www.teebweb.org/ (accessed on 21 October 2021).
- Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. Available online: https://ipbes.net/ (accessed on 21 October 2021).
- A Long-Term Biodiversity, Ecosystem and Awareness Research Network, Europe’s Ecosystem Research Network. Available online: http://www.alter-net.info/ (accessed on 1 December 2021).
- Biodiversity Knowledge. Available online: http://www.vliz.be/projects/biodiversityknowledge/ (accessed on 21 October 2021).
- Natural Capital Initiative. Available online: https://www.naturalcapitalinitiative.org.uk/ (accessed on 21 October 2021).
- Ecosystems Knowledge Network. Available online: https://ecosystemsknowledge.net/ (accessed on 29 October 2021).
- The Sub-Global Assessment Network. Available online: http://www.ecosystemassessments.net/ (accessed on 1 December 2021).
- BIOdiversity and Economics for CONservation. Available online: http://www.bioecon-network.org/ (accessed on 29 October 2021).
- Environmental Valuation Reference Inventory. Available online: https://evri.ca/en (accessed on 15 November 2021).
- The National Ocean Economics Program. Available online: https://www.oceaneconomics.org/nonmarket/ (accessed on 25 November 2021).
- New Zealand Non-Market Valuation Database. Available online: http://selfservice.lincoln.ac.nz/nonmarketvaluation/default.asp (accessed on 25 November 2021).
- Schischka, T.; Marsh, D. Collaborative fisheries: Results from a study on the value of recreational and commercial catch in New Zealand’s Quota Management Area. In Proceedings of the Conference of the Society for Agricultural Economics and Resources of New Zealand, Nelson, New Zealand, 28–29 August 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Solano-Sánchez, M.Á.; Santos, J.A.C.; Santos, M.C.; Fernández-Gámez, M.Á. Holiday rentals in cultural tourism destinations: A comparison of booking.com-based daily rate estimation for seville and porto. Economies 2021, 9, 157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Qiao, H.; Wang, C.; Chen, M.; Su, C.J.; Tsai, C.K.; Liu, J. Hedonic price analysis for high-end rural homestay room rates. J. Hosp. Tour. Manag. 2021, 49, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baskaran, R.; Cullen, R.; Colombo, S. Testing different types of benefit transfer in the valuation of ecosystem services: Case studies of New Zealand viticulture. Ecol. Econ. 2010, 69, 1010–1022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Farber, S. Welfare loss of wetlands disintegration: A Louisiana study. Contemp. Econ. Policy 1996, 14, 92–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zamula, I.; Tanasiieva, M.; Travin, V.; Nitsenko, V.; Balezentis, T.; Streimikiene, D. Assessment of the profitability of environmental activities in forestry. Sustainability 2020, 12, 2998. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Peng, H.; Cheng, G.; Xu, Z.; Yin, Y.; Xu, W. Social, economic, and ecological impacts of the “grain for green” project in China: A preliminary case in Zhangye, Northwest China. J. Environ. Manag. 2007, 85, 774–784. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Samoshkov, A.C. Determination of economic prices at the regional level. Probl. Reg. Econ. 2014, 27, 27–38. [Google Scholar]
- Abatement Cost. Available online: https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/abatement-cost (accessed on 1 December 2021).
- Gren, I.; Brutemark, A.; Jägerbrand, A. Air pollutants from shipping: Costs of NOx emissions to the baltic sea. J. Environ. Manag. 2021, 300, 113824. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Laporta, L.; Domingos, T.; Marta-Pedroso, C. It’s a keeper: Valuing the carbon storage service of agroforestry ecosystems in the context of CAP eco-schemes. Land Use Policy 2021, 109, 105712. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ninan, K.N.; Inoue, M. Valuing forest ecosystem services: Case study of a forest reserve in Japan. In Valuing Ecosystem Service; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2014; Volume 5, pp. 245–268. [Google Scholar]
- Wang, J.; Yu, C.; Fu, G. Warming reconstructs the elevation distributions of aboveground net primary production, plant species and phylogenetic diversity in alpine grasslands. Ecol. Indic. 2021, 133, 108355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barbier, E.B. Valuing ecosystem services as productive inputs. Econ. Policy 2007, 22, 177–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Freeman, A.M. The Measurement of Environmental and Resource Values, 2nd ed.; Resources for the Future Press: New York, NY, USA, 2003; 459p. [Google Scholar]
- Barbier, E.B.; Baumgärtner, S.; Chopra, K.; Costello, C.; Duraiappah, A.; Hassan, R.; Kinzig, A.; Lehman, M.; Pascual, U.; Polasky, S.; et al. The Valuation of Ecosystem Services. In Biodiversity, Ecosystem Functioning, and Human Wellbeing: An Ecological and Economic Perspective; Naeem, S., Bunker, D., Hector, A., Loreau, M., Perrings, C., Eds.; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2009; Volume 18, pp. 248–262. [Google Scholar]
- Evidence. Ecosystem Services Assessment of Buffer Zone Installation on the Upper Bristol Avon, Wiltshire. Available online: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/291658/scho0210brxw-e-e.pdf (accessed on 1 December 2021).
- Strazzera, E.; Atzori, R.; Meleddu, D.; Statzu, V. Assessment of renaturation measures for improvements in ecosystem services and flood risk mitigation. J. Environ. Manag. 2021, 292, 112743. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Girusov, E.V. (Ed.) Ecology and Economics of Natural Resources; UNITI-DANA: Moscow, Russia, 2007; 591p. [Google Scholar]
- Fisher, A.C.; Krutilla, J.V. Economics of Nature Preservation. In Handbook of Natural Resource and Energy Economics; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1985; Volume 1, pp. 165–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tishkova, A.A. (Ed.) Economics of Biodiversity Conservation; GEF Project “Biodiversity Conservation of the Russian Federation”: Moscow, Russia, 2002; 604p. [Google Scholar]
- Gusev, A.A.; Almykina, E. On the economic assessment of natural resources. Environ. Econ. 2005, 5, 99–103. [Google Scholar]
- Bobylev, S.N. Report on the Third Stage of Work Carried Out under a Contract with the UNDP/GEF Project of the Ministry of Natural Resources of Russia “Objectives of Biodiversity Conservation in the Policy and Development Programs of the Energy Sector of Russia”; Ministry of Natural Resources and Ecology of Russia: Moscow, Russia, 2015; 84p. [Google Scholar]
- Recommendations for the Monetary Valuation of Resources and Environmental Objects: Adaptation of the UN Environmental and Economic Accounting to the Conditions of RUSSIA; NPP “Cadastre”: Yaroslavl, Russia, 2000; 76p.
- Fomenko, G.A.; Fomenko, M.A.; Loshadkin, K.A.; Mikhailova, A.V. Monetary Assessment of Natural Resources, Objects and Ecosystem Services in the Management of Biodiversity Conservation: The Experience of Regional Works; NPP “Cadastre”: Yaroslavl, Russia, 2002; 80p. [Google Scholar]
- Richter, F.; Jan, P.; El Benni, N.; Lüscher, A.; Buchmann, N.; Klaus, V.H. A guide to assess and value ecosystem services of grasslands. Ecosyst. Serv. 2021, 52, 101376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yurak, V.; Emelyanova, E.; Kostromina, T. Ecosystems’ economic assessment in the context of different climatic zones. E3S Web Conf. 2020, 177, 04013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ignatyeva, M.; Yurak, V.; Pustokhina, N. Recultivation of post-mining disturbed land: Review of content and comparative law and feasibility study. Resources 2020, 9, 73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Afonichkin, A.I.; Mikhalenko, D.G. Management Decisions in Economic Systems; Peter: Saint Petersburg, Russia, 2009; 480p. [Google Scholar]
- Ecosystem Valuation. Available online: www.ecosystemvaluation.org (accessed on 2 December 2021).
- Wilson, M.A.; Carpenter, S.R. Economic valuation of freshwater ecosystems services in the United States 1971–1997. Ecol. Appl. 1999, 9, 772–783. [Google Scholar]
- De Groot, R.S.; Stuip, M.; Finlayson, M.; Davidson, N. Valuing Wetlands: Guidance for Valuing the Benefits Derived from Wetland Ecosystem Services; Ramsar Convention Secretariat, Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity: Ramsar, Iran, 2006; 44p. [Google Scholar]
- Christie, M.; Hanley, N.; Warren, J.; Hyde, T.; Murphy, K.; Wright, R. Valuing ecological and anthropocentric concepts of biodiversity: A choice experiments application. In Biodiversity Economics: Principles, Methods and Applications; Kontoleon, A., Pascual, U., Swanson, T., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2007; pp. 343–368. [Google Scholar]
Evaluation Approaches | Classification Criteria | |
---|---|---|
Character (Content) of (e)Valuation | The Method of Evaluation | |
Cost | + | Value-based approach |
Rental | + | |
Mix of the cost and rental | + | |
Point estimation (scoring) | Scoring-based approach | |
Normative | Normative |
Groups of Methods | The Character (Content) of (e)Valuation |
---|---|
Economic |
|
Sociological |
|
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Ignatyeva, M.; Yurak, V.; Dushin, A. Valuating Natural Resources and Ecosystem Services: Systematic Review of Methods in Use. Sustainability 2022, 14, 1901. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14031901
Ignatyeva M, Yurak V, Dushin A. Valuating Natural Resources and Ecosystem Services: Systematic Review of Methods in Use. Sustainability. 2022; 14(3):1901. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14031901
Chicago/Turabian StyleIgnatyeva, Margarita, Vera Yurak, and Alexey Dushin. 2022. "Valuating Natural Resources and Ecosystem Services: Systematic Review of Methods in Use" Sustainability 14, no. 3: 1901. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14031901