The Wetland Book pp 2157-2167 | Cite as

Economic Valuation of Wetlands: Case Studies

Reference work entry

Abstract

Economic valuation is recognized as an important tool to incorporate the value of nature into decision making on wetlands, but its application in the policy process is still a challenge. Valuation can be applied at different scale levels (from local to global) and a range of different methods is available. In this paper, four examples of valuation studies at different scales are reviewed: a global study estimating the value of the world's wetlands using the benefit transfer method; a study of the Kala Oya River Basin in Sri Lanka using a cost-benefit analysis of four management scenarios; a study of Randers Fjord in Denmark using a contingent valuation study to estimate the value of water quality improvement; a study of Nakivubo wetland in Uganda using market value and the replacement cost method; and a study of shrimp farming in Thailand which uses the production function and expected damage function approaches. These cases demonstrate that estimation of indirect use and of non-use values is more challenging than estimating direct use values, both in terms of the availabe valuation methods and in terms of uncertainty around the outcomes. However, the indirect use values are usually much higher than the direct use values, which emphasizes the need for governments to incorporate estimates of these values in their decision making processes to avoid the loss of the ecosystem services represented by these high values.

Keywords

Economic valuation of wetlands Decision-making Ecosystem services Trade-off analysis 

References

  1. Atkins JP, Burdon D. An initial economic evaluation of water quality improvements in the Randers Fjord, Denmark. Mar Pollut Bull. 2006;53:195–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barbier EB. Valuing ecosystem services as productive inputs. Econ Policy. 2007;22(49):177–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brander L, Schuyt K. The economic value of the world’s wetlands. Case study, the economics of ecosystems and biodiversity (TEEB); 2010. Available at: www.TEEBweb.org
  4. Brander LM, Florax RJGM, Vermaat JE. The empirics of wetland valuation: a comprehensive summary and a meta-analysis of the literature. Environ Res Econ. 2006;33:223–50.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-005-3104-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Costanza R, d’Arge R, de Groot R, Farberk S, Grasso M, Hannon B, Limburg K, Naeem S, O’Neill RV, Paruelo J, Raskin RG, Suttonkk P, van den Belt M. The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature. 1997;387:253–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Costanza R, de Groot R, Sutton P, van der Ploeg S, Anderson SJ, Kubiszewski I, Farmer S, Turner RK. Changes in the global value of ecosystem services. Glob Environ Chang. 2014;26:152–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. COWI/VKI. Kampala water quality monitoring programme: Murchison Bay water quality project. Report prepared for Ministry of Natural Resources National Water and Sewerage Corporation, Kampala; 1998.Google Scholar
  8. de Groot RS, Stuip MAM, Finlayson CM, Davidson N. Valuing wetlands: guidance for valuing the benefits derived from wetland ecosystem services, Ramsar technical report No. 3/CBD technical series no. 27. Gland/Montreal: Ramsar Convention Secretariat/Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity; 2006.Google Scholar
  9. Emerton L, editor. Values and rewards: counting and capturing ecosystem water services for sustainable development. IUCN Water, Nature and Economics Technical Paper No. 1. Sri Lanka: IUCN – The World Conservation Union, Ecosystems and Livelihoods Group Asia; 2005.Google Scholar
  10. Emerton L, IIyango L, Luwum P, Malinga A. The present economic value of Nakivubo Urban Wetland, Uganda. IUCN—The World Conservation Union, Eastern Africa Regional Office, Nairobi and National Wetlands Programme, Wetlands Inspectorate Division, Ministry of Water, Land and Environment, Kampala, Uganda; 1999.Google Scholar
  11. Hanley N, Barbier EB. Valuing ecosystem services, in pricing nature: cost-benefit analysis and environmental policy. London: Edward Elgar; 2009.Google Scholar
  12. Russi D, ten Brink P, Farmer A, Badura T, Coates D, Förster J, Kumar R, Davidson N. The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity for water and wetlands. London: IEEP; 2013.Google Scholar
  13. Schuyt K, Brander L. The economic value of the world’s wetlands. Gland/Amsterdam: IUCN and Free University; 2004. Available at: www.iucn.org.Google Scholar
  14. Stuip MAM, Baker CJ, Oosterberg W. The socio-economics of wetlands. Wageningen/Lelystad: Wetlands International/RIZA; 2002.Google Scholar
  15. Tallis H, Lubchenco J. A call for inclusive conservation. Nature. 2014;515:27–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. TEEB. The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity: mainstreaming the economics of nature: a synthesis of the approach, conclusions and recommendations of TEEB; 2010. Available at: www.teebweb.org
  17. Vidanage S, Perera S, Kallesoe M. The value of traditional water schemes: small tanks in the Kala Oya Basin, Sri Lanka. IUCN Water, Nature and Economics Technical Paper No. 6. Colombo: IUCN—The World Conservation Union, Ecosystems and Livelihoods Group Asia; 2005.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.UNESCO-IHE Institute for Water EducationDelftThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Aquatic Ecosystems Group, Department of Water Science and EngineeringUNESCO-IHE, Institue for Water EducationDelftThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations