Filetype PDF | Posted on 14 Sep 2022 | 3 years ago
Authentication
digital resources
169x Filetype PDF File size 0.90 MB Source: www.agriculturejournals.cz
Journal of Forest Science, 67, 2021 (11): 499–511 Review
https://doi.org/10.17221/96/2021-JFS
Methods for monetary valuation of ecosystem services:
A scoping review
1 2
Egor Selivanov *, Petra Hlaváčková
1
Department of Landscape Carbon Storage, Global Change Research Institute of the Czech Academy
of Sciences, Brno, Czech Republic
2
Department of Forest and Wood Products Economics and Policy, Faculty of Forestry and Wood
Technology, Mendel University in Brno, Brno, Czech Republic
*Corresponding author: selivanov.e@czechglobe.cz
Citation: Selivanov E., Hlaváčková P. (2021): Methods for monetary valuation of ecosystem services: A scoping review. J. For.
Sci., 67: 499–511.
Abstract: Adequate assessment of ecosystem services is important for the development of policies and management
plans related to forestry activities and the environment. Carefully identified ecosystem values can determine which op-
tions policy makers should prioritize to provide the greatest benefit. There are numerous methods used by researchers
to evaluate ecosystem services. The most widely applied methods are monetary valuation methods, they are often deemed
to be the most pragmatic language when it comes to communication with political and business institutions. The main
goal of this review is to analyse available literature using the methodology particular to the scoping review approach
in order to identify and describe valuation methods that can be applied for monetary assessment of ecosystem services.
As a result of the scoping review, over 20 monetary valuation techniques (including several less common methods such
as willingness to sell and Delphi method) were derived from 16 literature sources. In the process of compiling the range
of different methods, a few flaws and gaps in the communication of methods were observed such as lack of consistency
in the names of different methods and mixing up concepts. In addition, a few areas for future research are suggested.
Keywords: ecosystem services; monetary valuation; stated preferences; revealed preferences; market-based approach
The concept that people benefit from the envi- classification is widely used by researchers even
ronment has been accepted for a very long time. today. According to MA, ES can be divided into
During the development of the field of environ- four categories. The first category is provisioning
mental science, this concept has become known services, which includes food, timber, fresh wa-
as ecosystem services (ES). The term was used for ter, and other products obtained from ecosystems.
the first time in an article published by Ehrlich Next, regulating services are benefits obtained
and Ehrlich (1981). In 1997, two major works were from the regulation of ecosystem processes such
published (Costanza et al. 1997; Daily 1997) that as climate regulation and water filtration. The third
served as catalysts to new research and policies category is cultural services, or nonmaterial ben-
related to this topic. In 2005, the Millennium Eco- efits derived from ecosystems including recre-
system Assessment (MEA) proposed a classifica- ation, tourism, aesthetics, and spirituality. The last
tion of ES and brought more attention from policy category is supporting services that represent
makers. Even though the classification of ES was services necessary for the production of all other
adjusted and developed in later publications (TEEB ecosystems – soil formation, nutrient cycling, etc.
2010; Haines-Young, Potschin 2018), the original In addition to the categorized definition, it is im-
499
Review Journal of Forest Science, 67, 2021 (11): 499–511
https://doi.org/10.17221/96/2021-JFS
portant to understand the difference between ES are goods and services that are enjoyed indirectly
and ecosystem functions. Ecosystem functions can but they can contribute to another activity (crop
be defined as the capacity of natural processes and pollination, carbon sequestration, etc.). Option
components to provide goods and services that value is the benefit placed on the potential abil-
satisfy human needs, directly or indirectly (De- ity to use a resource in the future even though it
Groot et al. 2002). However, ecosystem functions is not currently being used, while the likelihood
exist independently of human needs. In contrast, of future use is very low (Conner 2014). Non-use
ES require humans to appreciate the goods and values include bequest value and existence value.
services provided by ecosystems. Despite the fact Bequest value can be defined as the value attribut-
that there is no single accepted definition, ES can ed to maintaining something for the benefit of fu-
be defined as direct and indirect contributions ture generations. Existence value is the satisfaction
of ecosystems to human well-being (TEEB 2010). from knowing that something exists.
Contributions of ecosystems can also be referred Adequate assessment of ES is important for
to as benefits or values. According to the Total Eco- the development of policies and management plans
nomic Value (TEV) framework (Figure 1), benefits related to forestry activities and the environment.
that humans obtain from ecosystems can be divid- Carefully identified ecosystem values can deter-
ed into use values and non-use values. Even fur- mine which options policy makers should priori-
ther, use values consist of direct use values, indirect tize to provide the greatest benefit. It is particularly
use values, and option value. Direct use values are relevant when planning forest management ac-
goods and services that can be consumed directly tivities because forests, when sustainably man-
(timber, medicinal plants, etc.). Indirect use values aged, simultaneously fulfil ecological, economic,
Figure 1. Total economic value framework (Mendes 2012)
500
Journal of Forest Science, 67, 2021 (11): 499–511 Review
https://doi.org/10.17221/96/2021-JFS
and social functions, and provide a great number knowledge gaps, for clarifying general concepts and
of supporting, regulating, cultural, and provision- definitions in the literature, and for identifying key
ing ES that significantly affect human well-being topics within a field of research (Munn et al. 2018).
(Fürst et al. 2007). Over recent years, the influ- The approach facilitates the analysis of existing lit-
ence of the ES framework on environmental and erature and a summary of findings from a range
conservation policy has grown (Kull et al. 2015). of different study designs and methods. This paper
Generally, there are three different ways to assess will use the five original stages of the scoping re-
the value of ES: qualitative analysis, quantitative view methodology first introduced by Arksey and
analysis, and monetary analysis (TEEB 2011). Ac- O’Malley (2005) but it will also follow recommen-
cording to Kettunen et al. (2012), qualitative analysis dations derived from Guidance for the Conduct
focuses on non-numerical indicators of the value of JBI Scoping Reviews (Peters et al. 2017). The five
such as benefits to mental and physical health, so- stages are: (1) identifying the research questions,
cial benefits from recreation. Quantitative analysis (2) identifying relevant studies, (3) selecting eligi-
focuses on numerical data such as quantity of se- ble studies, (4) charting the data, (5) and summa-
questered carbon, quality of water, etc. Monetary rizing and reporting findings.
analysis focuses on translating the qualitative and Identifying research questions. The main re-
quantitative aspects into a particular currency. search question of this scoping review is: what are
Monetary valuation of ES is the most widely ap- the methods that can be used for monetary valua-
plied approach (Christie et al. 2012), as it is often tion of ecosystem services?
deemed to be the most pragmatic language when Identifying relevant studies. The Web of Science
it comes to communication with political and busi- and Scopus databases were used in order to identify
ness institutions (Spash 2013). studies relevant to the purpose of this scoping review.
Despite the fact that there is neither commonly The publication time frame entered into the search
accepted methodology nor statistical standards for criteria for each database ranged from 2010 to March
ES assessment (Whitham et al. 2015; Kornatows- of 2021, with the time frame ending at the time this
ka, Sienkiewicz 2018; Mengist, Soromessa 2019), review was performed. 2010 was chosen as a starting
the number of published articles dedicated to eco- point for the literature review because the quantity
system services and, in particular, to the assess- of articles focusing on monetary assessment of for-
ment of ES is increasing (McDonough et al. 2017; est ecosystem services rapidly increased starting that
Acharya et al. 2019). Furthermore, the number year compared to the consistently lower number
of studies devoted to the assessment of forest ES in previous years (Acharya et al. 2019). The search
has gradually increased in recent years (Mengist, strategy involved a data search by title in both da-
Soromessa 2019; Di Franco et al. 2021). There are tabases using the following key phrases: “ecosystem
numerous methods used by researchers to evaluate services assessment method” and “ecosystem services
ES. Especially, monetary valuation can be carried valuation method”. In addition, a forward-backward
out by means of a wide variety of different ap- article search (also known as ‘citation chaining’) was
proaches. The main goal of this review is to analyse used to collect references that are frequently cited
available literature using the methodology particu- in topical papers (Robinne et al. 2020). Furthermore,
lar to the scoping review approach. This approach a list of inclusion criteria was developed for the study
facilitates the identification of all possible methods selection stage:
that can be used for monetary valuation of ES. It – Peer-reviewed articles, published book chap-
should be noted that in this paper, the terms ‘meth- ters, and reports were analysed.
od’ and ‘approach’ will be used interchangeably. – All analysed publications were written
Similarly, the terms ‘valuation’ and ‘assessment’ in English.
will be treated as synonyms. – No restrictions regarding the country of publi-
cation were enforced.
SCOPING REVIEW – Reviewed articles were not limited by the eco-
system type.
The review presented here was conducted accord- – All analysed articles needed to include a de-
ing to the scoping review methodology. This meth- scription of method(s) used for monetary valuation
odology is appropriate for identifying and analysing of ecosystem services.
501
Review Journal of Forest Science, 67, 2021 (11): 499–511
https://doi.org/10.17221/96/2021-JFS
– Case studies that had a thorough descrip- of the scoping review (Peters et al. 2017). During
tion of the valuation method were also included this stage of the scoping review, the charting table
in the scoping review. was developed in order to record the key informa-
Study selection. In the study selection process, tion that was relevant to the objectives of the study.
a total of 109 articles were identified using the cho- This table included the following information
sen key phrases. Out of these 109 articles, 59 were about analysed articles: author, year of publication,
found via Web of Science (WoS) database and type of publication, goal of the study, definition
45 articles were found via Scopus database. Dur- of the ‘value’, name of the method for ecosystem
ing the screening process, 49 papers were exclud- service valuation, description of the method, and
ed as not relevant to the topic and 18 papers were other notes.
excluded as duplicates. Therefore, 42 articles were Summarizing and reporting findings. The last
obtained from WoS and Scopus; five additional ar- stage of the scoping review is summarizing
ticles were obtained through chaining. As a result the data in relation to the purpose of the review,
of the screening, 42 articles were selected for sub- making conclusions, and noting any implications
sequent full-text analysis. In the course of the full- of the findings.
text analysis, 26 articles were excluded. Therefore,
the final number of articles included in this scoping RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
review is 16. The study selection process is summa-
rized in Figure 2. Study context. A total of 16 articles were in-
Charting the data. Charting the data pro- cluded in this scoping review. Nine of them were
vides a logical and descriptive summary of the re- published within the last five years. Most of these
sults that aligns with the objective and question papers (75%) were published as peer-reviewed ar-
tion Studies identified through database searching and chaining:
a Web of Science (n = 59)
tific Scopus (n = 45)
den Additional records identified through chaining (n = 5)
I
ening Studies screened by title and Studies excluded (n = 67):
e Focus of the paper (n = 49)
r abstract (n = 109)
c Duplicates (n = 18)
S
ibility Full-text studies assessed for Studies excluded (n = 26):
Elig eligibility (n = 42) Focus of the paper (n = 17)
Language of the article (n = 3)
No access to the article (n = 4)
Articles not found (n = 2)
sion Studies included in the scoping
lu review (n = 16)
Inc
Figure 2. Flow chart of the study selection process
502
no reviews yet
Please Login to review.
