Dr Ida Kubiszewski
17 January 2022
Ecosystem service valuations are becoming more common as both the public and the private sector are realizing that we need to take nature into account for our own good. There are a wide range of uses for the values of ecosystem services, including raising awareness and interest, developing national income and well-being accounts, analysing specific policies, planning urban and regional land use, creating payment for ecosystem services schemes, doing full cost accounting, or setting up a common asset trust (the table below describes these uses in more detail). However, many valuation methods exist. These require different data, expertise, tools, time commitments, and funding, but also provide different results, with varying scope and precision. Determining which methodology is the most appropriate in a situation has become a challenge for many, both inside and outside of academia.
Our goal with this paper was to provide some insight on the costs and benefits of the predominant methodologies utilized by academics to value ecosystem services. We did this by surveying academics who had performed valuation studies to estimate their required costs (in terms of time, money, and expertise) as well as the perceived precision of the results obtained and how these results were utilized by the policy community. We found, perhaps unsurprisingly, that there was an increase in perceived precision as the study costs increased.
It is important to remember when choosing a methodology to use, that they are not mutually exclusive. There is no reason that a quicker and cheaper methodology can’t be used to determine a general/wholistic value, followed up with a more resource intensive methodology that provides higher precision in a specific ecosystem or focuses on a specific service if motivated by the initial study.
The idea for this paper originated during a series of workshops with decision-makers in Ghana, Ethiopia, Kenya, and Rwanda. Many of these decision-makers expressed concern and confusion over the number of existing methodologies, and the difficulty in deciding which one to use with limited resources. They had specific uses in mind, had some resources available, but didn’t know where to start.
We hope this paper helps them and others account for ecosystem services.
Caption: The range of uses for ecosystem service values. From Costanza et al. (2014)
Use of Valuation |
Appropriate values |
Appropriate spatial scales |
Precision Needed |
Rising awareness and interest |
Total values, macro aggregates |
Regional to global |
Low |
National income and well-being accounts |
Total values by sector and macro aggregate |
National |
Medium |
Specific policy analysis |
Changes by policy |
Multiple depending on policy |
Medium to high |
Urban and regional land use planning |
Changes by land use scenario |
Regional |
Low to medium |
Payment for ecosystem services |
Changes by actions due payment |
Multiple depending on system |
Medium to high |
Full cost accounting |
Total values by business, product, or activity and changes by business, product, or activity |
Regional to global, given the scale of international corporations |
Medium to high |
Common asset trusts |
Totals to assess capital and changes to assess income and loss |
Regional to global |
Medium |
Read the paper: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1470160X2200022X
Dr Ida Kubiszewski is Associate Professor in Global Prosperity at the IGP.
Image Credit: Dr Ida Kubiszewski
Fatemeh Sadeghi
30 May 2024 Feminists in the Global South have stepped out of the conventional territories of ‘women’s matters’ into more fund...