CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 73Land Use and Ecosystem ServicesEconomic and Environmental ValuationConservation, Biodiversity, and Resource Management

Current role of social benefits in ecosystem service assessments

Open access
Schmidt, Katja, Sachse, René, Walz, Ariane·2016·Landscape and Urban Planning
DOI 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.01.005
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Ecosystem services have a significant impact on human wellbeing. While ecosystem services are frequently represented by monetary values, social values and underlying social benefits remain underexplored. The purpose of this study is to assess whether and how social benefits have been explicitly addressed within socio-economic and socio-cultural ecosystem services research, ultimately allowing a better understanding between ecosystem services and human well-being. In this paper, we reviewed 115 international primary valuation studies and tested four hypotheses associated to the identification of social benefits of ecosystem services using logistic regressions. Tested hypotheses were that (1) social benefits are mostly derived in studies that assess cultural ecosystem services as opposed to other ecosystem service types, (2) there is a pattern of social benefits and certain cultural ecosystem services assessed simultaneously, (3) monetary valuation techniques go beyond expressing monetary values and convey social benefits, and (4) directly addressing stakeholdeŕs views the consideration of social benefits in ecosystem service assessments. Our analysis revealed that (1) a variety of social benefits are valued in studies that assess either of the four ecosystem service types, (2) certain social benefits are likely to co-occur in combination with certain cultural ecosystem services, (3) of the studies that employed monetary valuation techniques, simulated market approaches overlapped most frequently with the assessment of social benefits and (4) studies that directly incorporate stakeholder's views were more likely to also assess social benefits.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.01.005

Cites

91 of 91 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The concept of ecosystem services offers a tool that takes a system perspective accounting for multiple perceptions, values, and benefits of ES providers or beneficiaries.

    “The concept of ecosystem services (ES) o ers a tool that takes a system perspective accounting for the multiple perceptions, values, and benefits of ES providers or beneficiaries [26].”

    From How Are Landscapes under Agroecological Transition Perceived and Appreciated? A Belgian Case Study (2020) · cites this paper as [26]

    The Introduction describes the ecosystem-services approach as linking ecological processes to human well-being and integrating their values into decisions. But §5.1.1 says multidimensional valuation has not been incorporated by most assessments. The paper therefore supports the concept’s potential to consider multiple values and benefits, not the stronger suggestion that it already accounts for the perspectives of both providers and beneficiaries. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 92 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 43

  1. Stanley, D., Gunning, D., Stout, J., 2013, Pollinators and pol- lination of oilseed rape crops (Brassica napus L.) in Ireland: ecological and economic incentives for pollinator conserva- tion ¨, Journal of Insect Conservation, 17, 1181-1189.
  2. Casado-Arzuaga, I., Madariaga, I., Onaindia, M., 2013, Perception, demand and user contribution to ecosystem services in the Bilbao Metropolitan Greenbelt ¨, Journal of Envi- ronmental Management, 129, 33-43.
  3. de Lange, W. J., Veldtman, R., Allsopp, M. H., 2013. Valuation of pollinator forage services provided by Eucalyptus cladocalyx, Journal of Environmental Management, 125, 12-18.
  4. Schuhmann, P. W., Casey, J. F., Horrocks, J. A., Oxenford, H. A., 2013. Recreational SCUBA divers' willingness to pay for marine biodiversity in Barbados, Journal of Environmental Management, 121, 29-36.
  5. Broekx, S., Liekens, I., Peelaerts, W., De Nocker, L., Landuyt, D., Staes, J., et al., 2013. A web application to support the quan- tification and valuation of ecosystem services, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 40, 65-74.
  6. Fourie, H., De Wit, M. P., Van der Merwe, A., 2013. The role and value of water in natural capital restoration on the Agul- has Plain, South African Journal of Economic and Management Sciences, 16, 83-95.
  7. Sander, H. A., Haight, R. G., 2012. Estimating the economic value of cultural ecosystem services in an urbanizing area using hedonic pricing, Journal of Environmental Management, 113, 194-205.
  8. García-Llorente, M., Martín-López, B., Nunes, P. A. L. D., Castro, A. J., Montes, C., 2012. A choice experiment study for land- use scenarios in semi-arid watershed environments, Journal of Arid Environments, 87, 219-230.
  9. Puerta-Pi ñero, C., Brotons, L., Coll, L., González-Olabarría, J. R., 2012. Valuing acorn dispersal and resprouting capacity eco- logical functions to ensure Mediterranean forest resilience after fire, European Journal of Forest Research, 131, 835-844.
  10. Chen, W. Y., Jim, C. Y., 2011. Contingent valuation of eco- tourism development in country parks in the urban shadow, International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecol- ogy, 19, 44-53.
  11. Siikamäki, J., 2011. Contributions of the US state park system to nature recreation, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108, 14031-14036.
  12. O'Farrell, P. J., De Lange, W. J., Le Maitre, D. C., Reyers, B., Blignaut, J. N., Milton, S. J., et al., 2011. The possibilities and pitfalls presented by a pragmatic approach to ecosystem ser- vice valuation in an arid biodiversity hotspot, Journal of Arid Environments, 75, 612-623.
  13. Zander, K. K., Garnett, S. T., Straton, A., 2010. Trade-offs between development, culture and conservation-Willingness to pay for tropical river man- agement among urban Australians, Journal of Environmental Management, 91, 2519-2528.
  14. Mashayekhi, Z., Panahi, M., Karami, M., Khalighi, S., Malekian, A., 2010. Economic valuation of water storage function of forest ecosystems (case study: Zagros Forests, Iran), Journal ofForestry Research, 21, 293-300.
  15. Poudyal, N. C., Hodges, D. G., Fenderson, J., Tarkington, W., 2010. Realizing the economic value of a forested landscape in a viewshed, Southern Journal of Applied Forestry, 34, 72-78.
  16. Dehghani, M., Farshchi, P., Danekar, A., Karami, M., Aleshikh, A. A., 2010. Recreation value of hara biosphere reserve using willingness-to-pay method, International Journal of Environ- mental Research, 4, 271-280.
  17. Takatsuka, Y., Cullen, R., Wilson, M., Wratten, S., 2009. Using stated preference techniques to value four key ecosystem services on New Zealand arable land, International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability, 7, 279-291.
  18. Kasina, J., Mburu, J., Kraemer, M., Holm-Mueller, K., 2009. Eco- nomic benefit of crop pollination by bees: a case of Kakamega small-holder farming in western Kenya, Journal of Economic Entomology, 102, 467-473.
  19. Yang, W., Chang, J., Xu, B., Peng, C., Ge, Y., 2008. Ecosystem ser- vice value assessment for constructed wetlands: a case study in Hangzhou, China, Ecological Economics, 68, 116-125. 100. Grêt-Regamey, A., Bebi, P., Bishop, I. D., Schmid, W. A., 2008. Linking GIS-based models to value ecosystem services in an Alpine region, Journal of Environmental Management, 89, 197-208. 101. Chen, W. Y., Jim, C.Y., 2008. Cost-benefit analysis of the leisure value of urban greening in the new Chinese city of Zhuhai, Cities, 25, 298-309. 102.
  20. Costanza, R., Pérez-Maqueo, O., Martinez, M. L., Sutton, P., Anderson, S. J" Mulder, K., 2008. The Value of Coastal Wet- lands for Hurricane Protection, AMBIO: A Journal of the Human Environment, 37, 241-248. 103.
  21. Knoche, S., Lupi, F., 2007. Valuing deer hunting ecosystem ser- vices from farm landscapes, Ecological Economics, 64, 313-320. 105. Wei, G., Cui, B., Yang, Z., Bai, J., Wang, J., Hu, B., 2007. Com- parison of changes of typical river segment ecosystem service value in LRGR, Chinese Science Bulletin, 52, 262-272. 106. Su, T., Zhang, E., 2007. Ecosystem valuation and the conserva- tion of wild lands in vigorous economic regions: a case study in Jiuduansha Wetland, Shanghai, Chinese Science Bulletin, 52, 2664-2674. 107. Barbier, E. B., 2007. Valuing ecosystem services as productive inputs, Economic Policy, 178-229. 108.
  22. Waluyo, H., Sadikin, S. R., Gustami, Whiting, P., 2005. An eco- nomic valuation of biodiversity in the karst area of Maros, south Sulawesi, Indonesia, Biodiversity, 6, 24-26. 115. Bräuer, I., 2005. Valuation of ecosystem services provided by bio- diversity conservation: an integrated hydrological and economic model to value the enhanced nitrogen retention in renaturated streams, Springer. References
  23. Butler, J. R. A., Radford, A., Riddington, G., & Laughton, R. (2009). Evaluating an ecosystem service provided by Atlantic salmon, sea trout and other fish species in the River Spey, Scotland: the economic impact of recreational rod fisheries. Fisheries Research, 96(2-3), 259-266.
  24. Castro, A. J., Martín-López, B., García-Llorente, M., Aguilera, P. A., López, E., & Cabello, J. (2011). Social preferences regarding the delivery of ecosystem services in a semiarid Mediterranean region. Journal of Arid Environments, 75(11), 1201-1208.
  25. Cerda, C., Ponce, A., & Zappi, M. (2013). Using choice experiments to understand public demand for the conservation of nature: a case study in a protected area of Chile. Journal for Nature Conservation, 21(3), 143-153.
  26. Chen, J.-L., Chuang, C.-T., Jan, R.-Q., Liu, L.-C., & Jan, M.-S. (2013). Recreational benefits of ecosystem services on and around artificial reefs: a case study in Penghu, Taiwan. Ocean & Coastal Management, 85(0), 58-64.
  27. Part A. Chen, N., Li, H., & Wang, L. (2009). A GIS-based approach for mapping direct use value of ecosystem services at a county scale: management implications. Ecological Economics, 68(11), 2768-2776.
  28. Hicks, C. C., Graham, N. A. J., & Cinner, J. E. (2013). Synergies and tradeoffs in how managers, scientists, and fishers value coral reef ecosystem services. Global Environmental Change, 23(6), 1444-1453.
  29. Jobstvogt, N., Hanley, N., Hynes, S., Kenter, J., & Witte, U. (2014). Twenty thousand sterling under the sea: estimating the value of protecting deep-sea biodiversity. Ecological Economics, 97(0), 10-19.
  30. Joshi, G., & Negi, G. C. S. (2011). Quantification and valuation of forest ecosystem services in the western Himalayan region of India. International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management, 7(1), 2-11.
  31. Karjalainen, T. P., Marttunen, M., Sarkki, S., & Rytkonen, A.-M. (2013). Integrating ecosystem services into environmental impact assessment: an analytic-deliberative approach. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 40, 54-64.
  32. Larson, S., Stoeckl, N., Neil, B., & Welters, R. (2013). Using resident perceptions of values associated with the Australian Tropical Rivers to identify policy and management priorities. Ecological Economics, 94(0), 9-18.
  33. Liu, S., Crossman, N. D., Nolan, M., & Ghirmay, H. (2013). Bringing ecosystem services into integrated water resources management. Journal of Environmental Management, 129(0), 92-102.
  34. MA. (2003). Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. In Ecosystems and human wellbeing: a framework for assessment. Washington, DC: Island Press.
  35. Madani, S., Ahmadian, M., KhaliliAraghi, M., & Rahbar, F. (2012). Estimating total economic value of Coral Reefs of Kish Island (Persian Gulf). International Journal of Environmental Research, 6(1), 51-60.
  36. Martín-López, B., Gómez-Baggethun, E., Lomas, P. L., & Montes, C. (2009). Effects of spatial and temporal scales on cultural services valuation. Journal of Environmental Management, 90(2), 1050-1059.
  37. Mmopelwa, G., & Blignaut, J. N. (2006). The Okavango Delta: The value of tourism. South African Journal of Economic and Management Sciences, 9(1), 113-127.
  38. Morri, E., Pruscini, F., Scolozzi, R., & Santolini, R. (2014). A forest ecosystem services evaluation at the river basin scale: supply and demand between coastal areas and upstream lands (Italy). Ecological Indicators, 37(0), 210-219.
  39. Sherrouse, B. C., Clement, J. M., & Semmens, D. J. (2011). A GIS application for assessing, mapping, and quantifying the social values of ecosystem services. Applied Geography, 31(2), 748-760.
  40. Shoyama, K., Managi, S., & Yamagata, Y. (2013). Public preferences for biodiversity conservation and climate-change mitigation: a choice experiment using ecosystem services indicators. Land Use Policy, 34(0), 282-293.
  41. Wakita, K., Shen, Z., Oishi, T., Yagi, N., Kurokura, H., & Furuya, K. (2014). Human utility of marine ecosystem services and behavioural intentions for marine conservation in Japan. Marine Policy, 46(0), 53-60.
  42. Yao, R. T., Scarpa, R., Turner, J. A., Barnard, T. D., Rose, J. M., Palma, J. H. N., et al. (2014). Valuing biodiversity enhancement in New Zealand's planted forests: Socioeconomic and spatial determinants of willingness-to-pay. Ecological Economics, 98(0), 90-101.
  43. Zander, K. K., Parkes, R., Straton, A., & Garnett, S. T. (2013). Water ecosystem services in northern australia-how much are they worth and who should pay for their provision? PLoS One, 8(5), e64411.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Schmidt, K., Sachse, R., & Walz, A.
Affiliations
University of Potsdam (DE)
Corresponding author
Schmidt, Katja
ORCID
Venue
Landscape and Urban Planning
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2016-05
Volume
149
Pages
49-64
ISSN
0169-2046 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.01.005
OpenAlex
W2283254208
Cited by
73
References
92
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 1
FWCI
4.20
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Landscape and Urban Planning (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • publish.UP (University of Potsdam) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • publish.UP (University of Potsdam) (submittedVersion)
  • Universität Potsdam
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Land Use and Ecosystem Services
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Economic and Environmental Valuation
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Conservation, Biodiversity, and Resource Management
Keywords
social benefits, ecosystem services, cultural ecosystem services, monetary valuation, human well-being, stakeholder perspectives, socio-economic valuation, socio-cultural valuation

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review