Valuing Ecosystem Services at the Urban Level: A Critical Review

被引:19
|
作者
Croci, Edoardo [1 ]
Lucchitta, Benedetta [1 ]
Penati, Tommaso [1 ]
机构
[1] Bocconi Univ, GREEN Res Ctr, I-20100 Milan, Italy
基金
欧盟地平线“2020”;
关键词
urban ecosystem services valuation; nature-based solutions; economic valuation;
D O I
10.3390/su13031129
中图分类号
X [环境科学、安全科学];
学科分类号
08 ; 0830 ;
摘要
This paper critically analyses the methodologies that can be adopted to value ecosystem services (ESs) at the urban level through a literature review. While literature on ES valuation has grown in recent years, its application to urban contexts is still limited. Twenty-five papers, which include 29 different case studies, carry out an economic valuation and have undergone an in-depth analysis. The papers have been selected out of 80 papers detected through keywords. Six different valuation methodologies have been employed in the case studies. The most common ESs valued at the urban level are air quality regulation, local climate regulation, carbon sequestration and storage, and aesthetic appreciation and inspiration for culture, art, and design. The methodologies recur with different frequencies in the valuation of ESs at the urban level. Choice modeling and contingent valuation methodologies are used to value a variety of ESs, including regulating, cultural, and supporting services. Other methodologies are used to value only specific ESs. The replacement cost and damage cost avoided methodologies are used for the assessment of regulation services only; the travel cost method and contingent valuation are used for cultural services only. The results indicate that the considered valuation methodologies show different levels of appropriateness with respect to specific ES categories. Therefore, there is a need to expand the application of valuation methodologies to capture the value of all ESs provided by natural resources, in order to protect and enhance them.
引用
收藏
页码:1 / 16
页数:16
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Valuing Geodiversity in an 'Ecosystem Services' Context
    Gray, Murray
    [J]. SCOTTISH GEOGRAPHICAL JOURNAL, 2012, 128 (3-4) : 177 - 194
  • [22] ECOSYSTEM SERVICES Valuing ecosystems for climate
    Hungate, Bruce A.
    Hampton, Haydee M.
    [J]. NATURE CLIMATE CHANGE, 2012, 2 (03) : 151 - 152
  • [23] Beyond Ecosystem Services: Valuing the Invaluable
    Gunton, Richard M.
    van Asperen, Eline N.
    Basden, Andrew
    Bookless, David
    Araya, Yoseph
    Hanson, David R.
    Goddard, Mark A.
    Otieno, George
    Jones, Gareth O.
    [J]. TRENDS IN ECOLOGY & EVOLUTION, 2017, 32 (04) : 249 - 257
  • [24] Valuing Ecosystem Services in Wildlife Management
    Tsibulnikova, Margarita
    Irina, Sharf
    [J]. INNOVATION MANAGEMENT AND SUSTAINABLE ECONOMIC COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE: FROM REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT TO GLOBAL GROWTH, VOLS I - VI, 2015, 2015, : 1054 - 1059
  • [25] The providence of nature: Valuing ecosystem services
    R. A. Voeks
    M. Rahmatian
    [J]. International Journal of Environmental Science & Technology, 2004, 1 (2): : 151 - 163
  • [26] A method for valuing global ecosystem services
    Alexander, AM
    List, JA
    Margolis, M
    d'Arge, RC
    [J]. ECOLOGICAL ECONOMICS, 1998, 27 (02) : 161 - 170
  • [27] Assessing, valuing and mapping ecosystem services at city level: The case of Uppsala (Sweden)
    Nikodinoska, Natasha
    Paletto, Alessandro
    Pastorella, Fabio
    Granvik, Madeleine
    Franzese, Pier Paolo
    [J]. ECOLOGICAL MODELLING, 2018, 368 : 411 - 424
  • [28] Wetland ecosystem services research: A critical review
    Xu, Xibao
    Chen, Minkun
    Yang, Guishan
    Jiang, Bo
    Zhang, Ji
    [J]. GLOBAL ECOLOGY AND CONSERVATION, 2020, 22
  • [29] Ecosystem services research in China: A critical review
    Jiang, Wei
    [J]. ECOSYSTEM SERVICES, 2017, 26 : 10 - 16
  • [30] Valuing ecosystem services of urban forests and open spaces: application of the SEEA framework in Australia
    Tapsuwan, Sorada
    Marcos-Martinez, Raymundo
    Schandl, Heinz
    Yu, Zefan
    [J]. AUSTRALIAN JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL AND RESOURCE ECONOMICS, 2021, 65 (01) : 37 - 65