J. For. Sci., 2021, 67(7):307-317 | DOI: 10.17221/13/2021-JFS

Methodological approaches to the valuation of forest ecosystem services: An overview of recent international research trendsReview

Caterina Patrizia Di Franco, Gianmarco Lima, Emanuele Schimmenti, Antonio Asciuto*
Dipartimento di Scienze Agrarie, Alimentari e Forestali (SAAF), Università degli Studi di Palermo, Palermo, Italy

Forests represent the most important source of ecosystem services (ES) on a global level both for the production of goods and for the provision of services and externalities, nevertheless scientific research in the economic field is lacking. Currently the number of documents relating to ES is 16 673, of which only 1 379 concern the forestry sector. The aim of this study is to provide an overview of scientific research trends in the field of economic evaluation of forest ecosystem services (FES). To this end, an on-line bibliographic survey was carried out on the main scientific search engines, which made it possible to quantify the works and at the same time to detect the main evaluation methods used for the different FES. This survey allowed to collect 93 articles meeting the search criteria: the most active continents were Europe and Asia, whereas most of the articles focused on the joint evaluation of provisioning, regulation and cultural services, even if a good number of them only concerned cultural services. The most widely used valuation methodologies were the contingent valuation among the stated preference techniques and the market price among direct observation criteria.

Keywords: international classification; forests; methodologies; monetary; valuation

Published: July 20, 2021  Show citation

ACS AIP APA ASA Harvard Chicago Chicago Notes IEEE ISO690 MLA NLM Turabian Vancouver
Di Franco CP, Lima G, Schimmenti E, Asciuto A. Methodological approaches to the valuation of forest ecosystem services: An overview of recent international research trends. J. For. Sci. 2021;67(7):307-317. doi: 10.17221/13/2021-JFS.
Share...
Download citation
  • BibTeX (.bib)
  • Bookends (.ris)
  • EasyBib (.ris)
  • EndNote (.enw)
  • EndNote 8 (.xml)
  • ISI WoS (.isi)
  • Medlars (.medlars)
  • Mendeley (.ris)
  • MODS (.xml)
  • Papers (.ris)
  • RefWorks (.txt)
  • RefManager (.ris)
  • RIS (.ris)
  • MS Word (.xml)
  • Zotero (.ris)
    • Open full article

    Supplementary files:

    Download file13-2021-DiFranco ESM.pdf

    File size: 131.28 kB

    References

    1. Balmford A., Bruner A., Cooper P., Costanza R., Farber S., Green R.E., Jenkins M., Jefferiss P., Jessamy V., Madden J., Munro K., Myers N., Naeem S., Paavola J., Rayment M., Rosendo S., Roughgarden J., Trumper K., Turner R.K. (2002): Economic reasons for conserving wild nature. Science, 297: 950-953. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    2. Costanza R., D'Arge R., De Groot R., Farber S., Grasso M., Hannon B., Limburg K., Naeem S., O'Neill R.V., Paruelo J., Raskin R.G., Sutton P., Van den Belt M. (1997): The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature, 387: 253-260. Go to original source...
    3. Daily G.C. (1997): Nature's Services. Societal Dependence on Natural Ecosystems. Washington, DC, Island Press: 412.
    4. De Groot R.S. (1987): Environmental functions as a unifying concept for ecology and economics. Environmentalist, 7: 105-109. Go to original source...
    5. EFTEC (2005): The Economic, Social and Ecological Value of Ecosystem Services: A Literature Review. London, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA), Economics for the Environment Consultancy (EFTEC): 42.
    6. Ehrlich P., Ehrlich A. (1981): Extinction: The Causes and Consequences of the Disappearance of Species. New York, Random House: 305.
    7. FAO (2010): Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010: Main report. Rome, FAO: 198. Available at: http://www.fao.org/3/i1757e/i1757e.pdf
    8. FAO (2020): Global Forest Resources Assessment 2020: Main report. Rome, FAO: 184. Avaible at: http://www.fao.org/documents/card/en/c/ca9825en
    9. Gómez-Baggethun E., De Groot R. (2010): Natural capital and ecosystem services: The ecological foundation of human society. In: Hester R.E., Harrison R.M. (eds.): Ecosystem Services. Cambridge, The Royal Society of Chemistry: 105-121. Go to original source...
    10. Gren M., Folke C., Turner K., Bateman I. (1994): Primary and secondary values of wetland ecosystems. Environmental and Resource Economics, 4: 55-74. Go to original source...
    11. Haines-Young R., Potschin M. (2010): Proposal for a common international classification of ecosystem goods and services (CICES) for integrated environmental and economic accounting. Nottingham, Centre for Environmental Management, University of Nottingham: 30. Available at: https://unstats.un.org/unsd/envaccounting/ceea/meetings/UNCEEA-5-7-Bk1.pdf
    12. Haines-Young R., Potschin M. (2011): Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES): 2011 Update. Nottingham, Centre for Environmental Management, University of Nottingam: 17. Available at: https://cices.eu/content/uploads/sites/8/2009/11/CICES_Update_Nov2011.pdf
    13. Haines-Young R., Potschin M. (2013): Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services: Consultation on Version 4, August-December 2021. EEA Framework Contract No EEA/IEA/09/003: 34. Available at: https://cices.eu/content/uploads/sites/8/2012/07/CICES-V43_RevisedFinal_Report_29012013.pdf
    14. Haines-Young R., Potschin M. (2018): Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES) V5.1 and Guidance on the Application of the Revised Structure. European Environment Agency: 53. Available at: https://cices.eu/content/uploads/sites/8/2018/01/GuidanceV51-01012018.pdf Go to original source...
    15. Krutilla J.V. (1967): Conservation reconsidered. The American Economic Review, 57: 777-786.
    16. MEA (2005): Ecosystems and Human Wellbeing: Synthesis. Washington, DC, Island Press: 102.
    17. Mengist W., Soromessa T. (2019): Assessment of forest ecosystem service research trends and methodological approaches at global level: a meta-analysis. Environmental System Research, 8: 22. Go to original source...
    18. Pascual U., Muradian R., Brander L., Gómez-Baggethun E., Martín-López B., Verma M., Armsworth P., Christie M., Cornelissen H., Eppink F., Farley J., Loomis J., Pearson L., Perrings C., Polasky S. (2010): The economics of valuing ecosystem services and biodiversity. In: Kumar P. (ed): The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: Ecological and Economic Foundations. London, Washington, DC, Earthscan: 185-256.
    19. Pearce D.W. (2001): The economic value of forest ecosystems. Ecosystem Health, 7: 284-296. Go to original source...
    20. Pillari G. (2018): La valutazione dei servizi ecosistemici forestali. Metodo e orientamenti per la pianificazione territoriale attraverso il caso studio della Valle Tanaro. [Honor's Thesis.] Torino, Politecnico di Torino. (in Italian)
    21. Pimentel D., Garnick E., Berkowitz A., Jacobson S., Napolitano S., Black P., Valdes-Cogliano S., Vinzant B., Hudes E., Littman S. (1980): Environmental quality and natural biota. BioScience, 30: 750-755. Go to original source...
    22. Plummer M.L. (2009): Assessing benefit transfer for the valuation of ecosystem services. Frontiers in Ecology and Environment, 7: 38-45. Go to original source...
    23. Schirpke U., Scolozzi R., De Marco C. (2014): Modello dimostrativo di valutazione qualitativa e quantitativa dei servizi ecosistemici nei siti pilota. In: Parte Prima: Metodi di Valutazione Metodi di valutazione. Report del progetto Making Good Natura (LIFE+ 11 ENV/IT/000168). Bolzano, EURAC Research: 75. (in Italian)
    24. Sharp R., Tallis H.T., Ricketts, T., Guerry A.D., Wood S.A., Chaplin-Kramer R., Nelson E., Ennaanay D., Wolny S., Olwero N., Vigerstol K., Pennington D., Mendoza G., Aukema J., Foster J., Forrest J., Cameron D., Arkema, K., Lonsdorf E., Kennedy C., Verutes G., Kim C.K., Guannel G., Papenfus M., Toft J., Marsik M., Bernhardt J., Griffin R., Glowinski K., Chaumont N., Perelman A., Lacayo M., Mandle L., Hamel P., Vogl, A.L. (2014): InVEST User's Guide. The Natural Capital Project. Stanford, Stanford University, University of Minnesota. Available at https://invest-userguide.readthedocs.io/en/3.5.0/
    25. Sherrouse B.C., Semmens D.J. (2015): Social Values for Ecosystem Services, Version 3.0 (SolVES 3.0). Documentation and User Manual: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2005-1008. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/ofr20151008. Go to original source...
    26. Silvestri F. (2003): Lezioni di economia dell'ambiente ed ecologica. Bologna, Clueb: 226. (in Italian)
    27. Soraci M., Strollo A., Assennato F., Capriolo A., Marchetti M., Marucci A., Munafò M., Palmieri M., Regis D., Salata S., Sallustio L., Marino D. (2016): Strumenti di valutazione economica dei servizi ecosistemici a livello nazionale. In: Consumo di suolo, dinamiche territoriali e servizi ecosistemici. Rome, ISPRA, Rapporti 248/2016: 84-87. (in Italian)
    28. Turner R.K., Paavola J., Cooper P., Farber S., Jessamy V., Georgiou S. (2003): Valuing nature: Lessons learned and future directions. Ecological Economics, 46: 493-510. Go to original source...
    29. United Nations (2003). Handbook of National Accounting Integrated Environmental and Economic Accounting 2003. New York, United Nations: 598.
    30. Villa F., Bagstad K.J., Voigt B., Johnson G.W., Portela R., Honzák M., Batker D. (2014): A methodology for adaptable and robust ecosystem services assessment. PLoS ONE, 9: e91001. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    31. Westman W.E. (1977): How much are nature's services worth? Science, 197: 960-964. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    32. Wilson M.A., Hoehn J.P. (2006): Valuing environmental goods and services using benefit transfer: The state-of-the art and science. Ecological Economics, 60: 335-342. Go to original source...

    This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY NC 4.0), which permits non-comercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original publication is properly cited. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.


    Return to the content