Environmental and Resource Economics

, Volume 52, Issue 3, pp 395–413 | Cite as

Using Meta-Analysis and GIS for Value Transfer and Scaling Up: Valuing Climate Change Induced Losses of European Wetlands

  • Luke M. Brander
  • Ingo Bräuer
  • Holger Gerdes
  • Andrea Ghermandi
  • Onno Kuik
  • Anil Markandya
  • Ståle Navrud
  • Paulo A. L. D. Nunes
  • Marije Schaafsma
  • Hans Vos
  • Alfred Wagtendonk
Open Access


There is growing policy and academic interest in transferring ecosystem service values from existing valuation studies to other ecosystem sites at a large geographic scale. Despite the evident policy demand for this combined transfer and “scaling up” of values, an approach to value transfer that addresses the challenges inherent in assessing ecosystem changes at a national or regional level is not available. This paper proposes a methodology for scaling up ecosystem service values to estimate the welfare effects of ecosystem change at this larger geographical scale. The methodology is illustrated by applying it to value the impact of climate change on European wetlands for the period 2000–2050. The proposed methodology makes use of meta-analysis to produce a value function. The parameters of the value function include spatial variables on wetland size and abundance, GDP per capita, and population. A geographic information system is used to construct a database of wetland sites in the case study region with information on these spatial variables. Site-specific ecosystem service values are subsequently estimated using the meta-analytic value function. The proposed method is shown to enable the adjustment of transferred values to reflect variation in important spatial variables and to account for changes in the stock of ecosystems.


Value transfer Meta-analysis GIS Scaling up Wetlands 



This research has, in part, been funded by the European Environment Agency under contract 3603/B2008/EEA.53405 (2009). The authors are grateful to four anonymous reviewers for useful comments and suggestions on this paper.

Open Access

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited.


  1. Bateman IJ, Day BH, Georgiou S, Lake I (2006) The aggregation of environmental benefit values: welfare measures, distance decay and total WTP. Ecol Econ 60: 450–460CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bischoff A, Wolter C (2001) The flood of the century on the river Oder: effects on the 0+ fish community and implications for floodplain restoration. Regul Rivers Res Manag 17: 171–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bockstael NE, Freeman AM III, Kopp RJ, Portney PR, Smith VK (2000) On measuring economic values for nature. Environ Sci Technol 34: 1384–1389CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bossard M, Feranec J, Otahel J (2000) CORINE land cover technical guide—Addendum 2000. European Environment Agency technical report No. 40Google Scholar
  5. Braat, L, ten Brink, P (eds) (2008) The cost of policy inaction: the case of not meeting the 2010 biodiversity target. Alterra, Wageningen, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  6. Brander LM, Florax RJGM, Vermaat JE (2006) The empirics of wetland valuation: a comprehensive summary and a meta-analysis of the literature. Environ Res Econ 33: 50–223Google Scholar
  7. Buijse AD, Coops H, Staras M, Jans LH, van Geest GJ, Grift RE, Ibelings BW, Oosterberg W, Roozen FCM (2002) Restoration strategies for river floodplains along large lowland rivers in Europe. Freshw Biol 47: 889–907CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Corone G, Denis C, McMorrow K, Mourre G, Roger W (2006) Long term labour productivity and GDP projections for the EU25 Member States: a production function framework. European Commission Directorate-General for Economic and Financial Affairs. Economic Papers No. 253Google Scholar
  9. Costanza R, d’Arge R, de Groot R, Farber S, Grasso M, Hannon B, Limburg K, Naeem S, O’Neill RV, Paruelo J, Raskin RG, Sutton P, van den Belt M (1997) The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387: 253–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Davis MB, Shaw RG (2001) Range shifts and adaptive responses to quaternary climate change. Science 292: 673–679CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Downing M, Ozuna J (1996) Testing the reliability of the benefit function transfer approach. J Environ Econ Manag 30: 22–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Duel H, Denneman WD, Kwakernaak C (1994) Ecological models for rivers floodplain rehabilitation. Water Sci Technol 29: 383–386Google Scholar
  13. Eshet T, Baron MG, Shechter M (2007) Exploring benefit transfer: disamenities of waste transfer stations. Environ Resour Econ 37: 47–521CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fennessy MS, Jacobs AD, Kentula ME (2004) Review of rapid methods for assessing wetland conditions. EPA/620/R-04/009. US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., USAGoogle Scholar
  15. Fisher B, Turner RK, Zylstra M, Brouwer R, De Groot R, Farber S, Ferraro P, Green R, Hadley D, Harlow J, Jefferiss P, Kirkby C, Morling P, Mowatt S, Naidoo R, Paavola J, Strassburg B, Yu D, Balmford A (2008) Ecosystem services and economic theory: integration for policy-relevant research. Ecol Appl 18: 2050–2067CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ghermandi A, van den Bergh JCJM, Brander LM, de Groot HLF, Nunes PALD (2010) The economic value of wetland conservation and creation: a meta-analysis. Water Resour Res 46: 1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hoehn JP (2006) Methods to address selection effects in the meta regression and transfer of ecosystem values. Ecol Econ 60: 389–398CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Johnston RJ, Besedin EY, Iovanna R, Miller CJ, Wardwell RF, Ranson MH (2005) Systematic variation in willingness to pay for aquatic resource improvements and implications for benefit transfer: a meta-analysis. Can J Agric Econ 53: 48–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Johnston RJ, Rosenberger RS (2009) Methods, trends and controversies in contemporary benefit transfer. J Econ Surv 24: 479–510Google Scholar
  20. Kirchhoff S (1998) Benefit function transfer vs. meta-analysis as policy-making tools: a comparison. In Proc. of Workshop on Meta-Analysis and Benefit Transfer: State-of-the-art and Prospects. Tinbergen Institute, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  21. Marchand M, Marteijn ECL, Bakonyi P (1995) Policy analysis as a tool for habitat restoration: a case study of a Danube river floodplain, Hungary. Water Sci Technol 31: 179–186Google Scholar
  22. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment: (2005) Ecosystems and human well-being synthesis. Island Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  23. Moeltner K, Boyle KJ, Paterson RW (2007) Meta-analysis and benefit transfer for resource valuation addressing classical challenges with Bayesian modelling. J Environ Econ Manag 53: 250–269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Mullan K, Kontoleon A (2008) Benefits and costs of forest biodiversity: economic theory and case study evidence. Report prepared for IUCNGoogle Scholar
  25. Navrud S, Ready R (2007) Environmental value transfer: Issues and methods. Springer, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Nelson JP, Kennedy PE (2009) The use (and abuse) of meta-analysis in environmental and resource economics: an assessment. Environ Resour Econ 42: 345–377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Nicholls RJ (2004) Coastal flooding and wetland loss in the 21st century: changes under the SRES climate and socio-economic scenarios. Glob Environ Chang 14: 69–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Osborne JW (2000) Prediction in multiple regression. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 7. ISSN 1531-7714Google Scholar
  29. Perrings C, Pearce DW (1994) Threshold effects and incentives for the conservation of biology. Environ Resour Econ 4: 13–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Ready R, Navrud S (2006) International benefits transfer: methods and validity tests. Ecol Econ 60: 429–434CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Rosenberger RS, Phipps TT (2007) Correspondence and convergence in benefit transfer accuracy: A meta-analytic review of the literature. In: Navrud S, Ready R (eds) Environmental values transfer: issues and methods. Springer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  32. Rosenberger RS, Stanley TD (2006) Measurement, generalization, and publication: Sources of error in benefit transfers and their management. Ecol Econ 60: 372–378CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Rosenberger RS, Johnston RJ (2009) Selection effects in meta-analysis and benefit transfer: Avoiding unintended consequences. Land Econ 85: 410–428Google Scholar
  34. Scheffer M, Carpenter S, Foley JA, Folke C, Walkerk B (2001) Catastrophic shifts in ecosystems. Nature 413: 591–596CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Shrestha R, Rosenberger R, Loomis L (2007) Benefit transfer using meta-analysis in recreation economic valuation. In: Navrud S, Ready R (eds) Environmental value transfer: issues and methods. Springer, Dordrecht, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  36. Smith VK, Pattanayak SK (2002) Is meta-analysis a Noah’s Ark for non-market valuation?. Environ Resour Econ 22: 271–296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Stern N (2007) The economics of climate change: the Stern review. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
  38. TEEB (2010) The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity: ecological and economic foundations. Kumar P (ed). Earthscan, London and WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  39. Turner RK, Paavola J, Cooper P, Farber S, Jessamy V, Georgiou S (2003) Valuing nature: lessons learned and future research directions. Ecol Econ 46: 493–510CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Wagtendonk A, Omtzigt N (2003) Analysis of population density around wetland areas in GPW (Gridded Population of the World) files. SPINlab document. Institute for Environmental Studies, Amsterdam, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Luke M. Brander
    • 1
  • Ingo Bräuer
    • 2
  • Holger Gerdes
    • 3
  • Andrea Ghermandi
    • 4
  • Onno Kuik
    • 5
  • Anil Markandya
    • 6
  • Ståle Navrud
    • 7
  • Paulo A. L. D. Nunes
    • 8
  • Marije Schaafsma
    • 5
    • 9
  • Hans Vos
    • 10
  • Alfred Wagtendonk
    • 5
  1. 1.Quarry BayHong Kong
  2. 2.Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact ResearchPotsdamGermany
  3. 3.Ecologic InstituteBerlinGermany
  4. 4.Cà Foscari University of VeniceVeniceItaly
  5. 5.Institute for Environmental StudiesVU University AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands
  6. 6.Basque Centre for Climate ChangeBilbaoSpain
  7. 7.Department of Economics and Resource ManagementNorwegian University of Life SciencesÅsNorway
  8. 8.Research Program on Marine EconomicsThe Mediterranean Science Commission—CIESMMonte CarloPrincipality of Monaco
  9. 9.CSERGEUniversity of East AngliaNorwichUK
  10. 10.European Environment AgencyCopenhagen KDenmark

Personalised recommendations