An assessment of market-based approaches to providing ecosystem services on agricultural lands

Market-based approaches are increasingly being advocated as tools for achieving the conservation of ecosystem services. We examine the reasons why markets so far appear to have failed to provide an efficient allocation of many ecosystem services, and identify the conditions under which markets deliver efficient resource allocation. We discuss different forms of market-based approaches to ecosystem services and identify the characteristics of services that make them better suited to one or another of these approaches. We find that lack of low-cost measurability and valuation currently precludes efficient allocation of many ecosystem services through market-based approaches. Still, some forms of market-based approaches hold promise for cost-effectively managing some ecosystem services provided by and to agricultural lands. In many cases some form of well-designed government involvement will be required to seek outcomes that protect the public interest.     

Valuing deer hunting ecosystem services from farm landscapes

Agricultural land provides a wide variety ecosystem services to individuals. These agroecosystem services include wildlife and biodiversity, which in turn support recreational opportunities such as hunting and wildlife viewing. Using the random utility travel cost model, we provide an estimate to illustrate the potential value of the white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) provisioning and recreational services provided by these ecosystems to deer hunters, as well as the value of providing deer hunters public access to a percentage of agricultural land.     

Soil biota, ecosystem services and land productivity

The soil environment is likely the most complex biological community. Soil organisms are extremely diverse and contribute to a wide range of ecosystem services that are essential to the sustainable function of natural and managed ecosystems. The soil organism community can have direct and indirect impacts on land productivity. Direct impacts are those where specific organisms affect crop yield immediately. Indirect effects include those provided by soil organisms participating in carbon and nutrient cycles, soil structure modification and food web interactions that generate ecosystem services that ultimately affect productivity. Recognizing the great biological and functional diversity in the soil and the complexity of ecological interactions it becomes necessary to focus in this paper on soil biota that have a strong linkage to functions which underpin ‘soil based’ ecosystem services. Selected organisms from different functional groups (i.e. microsymbionts, decomposers, elemental transformers, soil ecosystem engineers, soil-borne pest and diseases, and microregulators) are used to illustrate the linkages of soil biota and ecosystem services essential to life on earth as well as with those associated with the provision of goods and the regulation of ecosystem processes. These services are not only essential to ecosystem function but also a critical resource for the sustainable management of agricultural ecosystems. Research opportunities and gaps related to methodological, experimental and conceptual approaches that may be helpful to address the challenge of linking soil biodiversity and function to the provision of ecosystem services and land productivity are discussed. These include: 1) integration of spatial variability research in soil ecology and a focus on ‘hot spots’ of biological activity, 2) using a selective functional group approach to study soil biota and function, 3) combining new and existing methodological approaches that link selected soil organisms, the temporal and spatial dynamics of their function, and their contribution to the provision of selected ‘soil based' ecosystem services, 4) using understanding about hierarchical relationships to manage soil biota and function in cropping systems, 5) using local knowledge about plants as indicators of soil quality, remote sensing and GIS technologies, and plant-soil biota interactions to help understand the impacts of soil biota at landscape scale, and 6) developing land quality monitoring systems that inform land users about their land's ecosystem service performance, improve capacities to predict and adapt to environmental changes, and support policy and decision-making.     

Ecosystem services and agriculture: Cultivating agricultural ecosystems for diverse benefits

Crop and rangelands are over 25% of the Earth's land area, and they are expanding. Agricultural ecosystems rely on a suite of supporting ecosystem services to provide food, fiber and fuel as well as a range of accompanying but non-marketed ecosystem services (ES). Ecosystem services from agriculture include regulation of water and climate systems, aesthetic and cultural services, as well as enhanced supporting services (such as soil fertility). Many of these ES are appreciated by people, but they lack markets, so they lack the incentives for provision that come with prices. For public policy decisions to take them into account, non-market valuation techniques are needed, such as travel cost, contingent valuation, hedonic valuation, and cost-based or factor-income approaches. This article offers an overview of ES from agriculture and non-market valuation methods as it introduces the articles in this special section on “Ecosystem Services and Agriculture.” Understanding how ecological functions generate ES is fundamental to management, but so too is understanding how humans perceive and value those services. Research is required both to design cost-effective incentives to provide ES and to measure which kinds of ES could provide the greatest overall welfare benefits to society. Agricultural ecosystems offer newly recognized potential to deliver more diverse ecosystem services and mitigate the level of past ecosystem disservices. This special section of Ecological Economics conveys both how these are becoming possible and the challenges to science and public policy design of turning that potential into reality.     

Institutional incentives for managing the landscape: Inducing cooperation for the production of ecosystem services

Agricultural landscapes hold tremendous potential for producing a diverse stream of ecosystem services. Yet, because the spatial configuration of particular ecosystems is critical to the supply of many services, realizing this potential requires that farms be managed in a coordinated way across landscapes rather than as independent units. Under existing incentive programs, this level of coordination is typically neither required nor encouraged.Here we explore how to achieve such coordination from an institutional perspective using voluntary incentives rather than regulation. We focus on three services operating at contrasting scales, from local to global: pollination, hydrologic services, and carbon sequestration. First, we briefly illustrate how agricultural practices can diminish or enhance their provision. Next, we show how all three services require coordinated, landscape-scale management because provision depends upon particular spatial configurations, of which we provide several stylized examples. Finally, based on these stylized configurations, we evaluate the relative merits of three incentive designs-the “cooperation bonus,” the “entrepreneur,” and the “ecosystem service district”-to promote cross-farm cooperation to enhance service provision.All three incentive systems rely on rational self-interest, have cooperative configurations to promote ecosystem services across different scales, use tiered reward systems, and have a major voluntary element. They are distinct in certain key features. The cooperation bonus system rewards conservation even without cooperation but adds a bonus for cooperation. In the entrepreneur incentive, all tiers of reward are contingent upon cooperation. The ecosystem service district scheme is only partially voluntary and forces cooperation of all landowners once the district is formed. Our analysis of these heuristic alternatives integrates biophysical, economic, and institutional factors with the aim of addressing the suite of institutional barriers for landscape-scale management.     

Valuation of ecosystem services from rural landscapes using agricultural land prices

Agricultural lands, primarily managed for crops and livestock production, provide various ecosystem services (ES) to people. In theory, the economic value of the service flows that can be captured privately is capitalized into land prices. This study proposes an integrative framework to characterize the ecosystem services associated with agricultural lands. Using that framework, we demonstrate how hedonic analysis of agricultural land prices can be used to estimate the private values of land-based ES. The model is estimated with data from southwestern Michigan, USA. Results suggest that ES values are associated with lakes, rivers, wetlands, forests and conservation lands in rural landscapes. Ecosystem services that support direct use values, such as recreational and aesthetic services, are likely to be perceived by land owners and capitalized in land prices. Some regulating services that provide indirect use values may be partially capitalized in a land parcel's relationship to natural resources and landscapes. Other ES from the land parcel and its surroundings are unlikely to be capitalized due to lack of private incentives, unawareness, or small perceived value. The private ES values measured in this study highlight opportunities to design cost-effective public policies that factor in the value of private benefits from agricultural lands.     

The quantification and valuation of ecosystem services

This paper explores differences between economic and ecological criteria for identifying, measuring, and evaluating ecosystem services. It argues that economic stakeholders (user groups) generally do well in identifying these services and assigning prices to them. These prices arise spontaneously in—and serve to coordinate—market activity related to the environment. The relevant ecological information which markets gather and apply tends to be dispersed, contingent, particular, local, transitory, and embedded in institutions and practices. Ecologists and other scientists, in contrast, often seek to understand how ecosystems work and which populations and processes provide ecosystem services. The knowledge science seeks, unlike the information markets gather, tends to be centralized, collaborative, collective, and consensus-based; science pursues concepts and principles that are timeless and general rather than ephemeral and site-specific. The paper contrasts the dispersed and decentralized information organized by markets with the collective and centralized knowledge characteristic of science. The paper argues that the conceptual distance between market-based and science-based methods of assembling information and applying knowledge defeats efforts to determine the “value” of ecosystem services in any integrated sense.     

Payment for ecosystem services： emerging lessons

Market based initiatives for management of degrading ecosystems and their services have received the added attention as one of the innovative responses in the reent years. Those initiatives such as direct and indirect payment for ecosystem services like premium for rain forest honey, payment by the people at the lower reach to those at the upper reach for the watershed services etc. have drawn the attention of the decision makers as they have proved to be far more cost effective.This paper wynthesizes the key messages from some of the paper are carbon, watershed services and biodiversity, We find that while credible valuation of ecosystem services for all services remain a critical concern behind setting up the payment mechanism, absent of necessary institutional framework may seriously undermine this innovative response for management of ecosystems. In the paper, necessary institutional mechanisms enabling the market for those services have been sketched out, Key messages from those cases have been synthesized.     

Valuing ecosystem services: A shadow price for net primary production

We analyze the contribution of ecosystem services to GDP and use this contribution to calculate an empirical price for ecosystem services. Net primary production is used as a proxy for ecosystem services and, along with capital and labor, is used to estimate a Cobb Douglas production function from an international panel. A positive output elasticity for net primary production probably measures both marketed and nonmarketed contributions of ecosystems services. The production function is used to calculate the marginal product of net primary production, which is the shadow price for ecosystem services. The shadow price generally is greatest for developed nations, which have larger technical scalars and use less net primary production per unit output. The rate of technical substitution indicates that the quantity of capital needed to replace a unit of net primary production tends to increase with economic development, and this rate of replacement may ultimately constrain economic growth.     

Defining and classifying ecosystem services for decision making

The concept of ecosystems services has become an important model for linking the functioning of ecosystems to human welfare. Understanding this link is critical for a wide-range of decision-making contexts. While there have been several attempts to come up with a classification scheme for ecosystem services, there has not been an agreed upon, meaningful and consistent definition for ecosystem services. In this paper we offer a definition of ecosystem services that is likely to be operational for ecosystem service research and several classification schemes. We argue that any attempt at classifying ecosystem services should be based on both the characteristics of the ecosystems of interest and a decision context for which the concept of ecosystem services is being mobilized. Because of this there is not one classification scheme that will be adequate for the many contexts in which ecosystem service research may be utilized. We discuss several examples of how classification schemes will be a function of both ecosystem and ecosystem service characteristics and the decision-making context.     

In search of marginal environmental valuations — ecosystem services in Finnish forest accounting

There is currently substantial interest in valuing various services provided by different ecosystems. Concurrently economists have ascribed substantial effort on expanding traditional forest accounting systems by environmental services. This paper contributes to curtailing the existing gap between green accounting theory and applications for valuing forest ecosystem services. The multitude of links between forest ecosystem services and economy are characterized by the theoretical model for forest-economy interactions. By utilizing recently updated data we also incorporate empirical value estimates of these services comparable to other goods into Finnish forest accounting system. Finally, we discuss some problems encountered and clarify the interpretation of some value estimates incorporated to national forest account.     

Valuation of the ecosystem services: A psycho-cultural perspective

Valuation of ecosystems services has been a challenging issue for economists. There is a growing concern to capture the total and incremental changes in services of different types of ecosystems, mainly, due to perturbations arising from anthropogenic activities. Market-based valuation techniques have long been declared inadequate and a constructed market method such as the contingent valuation method albeit a robust tool does not seem to capture the expanse, nuances, and intricacies of many of the ecosystem services. The paper attempts to address the lacunae in valuation of ecosystem services from a psychological perspective by arguing that the common person's perception of the ecosystem is quite different from what is conceptualized by conventional economists. The paper shows how the ecological identity of individuals is revealed at various levels of the decision-making hierarchy that is, from local to regional and further onto a global level. The paper builds upon insights from psychoanalytic psychology and environmental-psychology. Further, it outlines recent research findings from experimental psychology to redefine concepts such as ecological identity, self-other dichotomy, and the fostering of identification with nature, as issues that must be embraced in the valuation of ecosystem services. Extending the idea of relational goods and reciprocity, the paper offers a deconstructed view of market forces and furthers the idea of interdisciplinary collaboration and cooperation in the valuation of ecosystem services. In this perspective the dichotomy and schism between markets, missing markets and non-markets, gets renovated and reconstructed beyond a utilitarian discourse.     

A theoretical model for assessing the sustainability Of ecosystem services

The Value of the World＇s Ecosystem Services and Natural Capital by Costanza in 1997 is generally regarded as a monumem for the research of valuing ecosystem services. However, the classification of ecosystem services, the method of various services summation and the purpose for static global value had be confronted by many criticisms. Based on the summary of these criticisms, suggestions, related function assessment and further study direction, the sustainability of ecosystem Services is presented. The two basic indicators in ecology, productivity and biodiversity, respectively charactering the ability of producing and self-organizing, not only represent the internal function of ecosystem, but also are proportioned to its external function of supporting and providing for human life. On presenting the general.form of ecosystem services assessment, this paper improves the mathematical formula by giving a function adjusting coefficient composea of productivity and biodiversity. Theoretically, the integration of the two indicators reflects the changes of ecosystem services at spatial and temporal scales, can physically assess the sustainability of ecosystem services, and build a firm scientific fundament of value assessment for ecosystem services. Objectively, its application should be strictly tested in next step.     

Efficient ecosystem services and naturalness in an ecological/economic model

In an integrated economic/ecological model, the economy benefits from ecosystem services that include: (1) the consumptive use of a harvested species, (2) the non-consumptive use of popular species, and (3) naturalness, i.e., the divergence of the ecosystem’s biodiversity from its natural steady state. The biological component of the model, which is applied to a nine-species Alaskan marine ecosystem, relies on individual optimizing behaviour by plants and animals to establish population dynamics. The biological component is used to define naturalness. By varying harvesting we arrive at different steady-state populations and humans choose from among these steady states. Welfare maximizing levels of the ecosystem services are derived, then it is shown that in the laissez-faire economy overharvesting occurs when the harvesting industry ignores ecosystem services (2) and (3). Lastly, we introduce efficiency restoring taxes and standards that internalize the ecosystem externalities.

Integrating ecosystem services into conservation assessments: A review

A call has been made for conservation planners to include ecosystem services into their assessments of conservation priority areas. The need to develop an integrated approach to meeting different conservation objectives and a shift in focus towards human wellbeing are some of the motivations behind this call. There is currently no widely accepted approach to planning for ecosystem services. This study contributes towards the development of this approach through a review of conservation assessments and the extent to which they include ecosystem services. Of the 476 conservation assessments identified by a set of search terms on the Web of Science, 100 were randomly selected for this review. Of these only seven had included ecosystem services, while another 13 had referred to ecosystem services as a rationale for conservation without including them in the assessment. The majority of assessments were based on biodiversity pattern data while 19 used data on ecological processes. A total of 11 of these 19 assessments used processes, which could be linked to services. Ecosystem services have witnessed an increase in attention received in conservation assessments since the year 2000, however trends were not apparent beyond this date. In order to assess which types of ecosystem services and how they have been accounted for in conservation assessments, we extended our review to include an additional nine conservation assessments which included ecosystem services. The majority included cultural ecosystem services, followed by regulatory, provisioning and supporting services respectively. We conclude with an analysis of the constraints and opportunities for the integration of ecosystem services into conservation assessments and highlight the urgent need for an appropriate framework for planning for ecosystem services.     

Spatial discounting of ecosystem services

The impact of conservation efforts targeted at preserving ecosystem services largely depend on the welfare implications associated with spatial variations in the provision of ecosystem services. While there is ample empirical evidence of spatial discounting or decay of the valuation of ecosystem services, there are still few underpinnings based on welfare economic theory. We establish a theory of spatial discounting that closely follows the concept of time discounting pertaining to climate change, and show spatial discount rates in the consumption, ecosystem service, and willingness to pay (WTP) numeraires. We consider the role of key parameters such as pure rate of spatial preference, consumption change, ecosystem services change, population density, and elasticity of marginal utility. We find that the spatial discount rate of WTP for ecosystem services that frequently appears in the empirical literature is the difference between the ecosystem service discount rate and consumption discount rate, where the ecosystem service discount rate includes both physical distance decay and welfare effects. Finally, we use numerical simulations to illustrate how the three different spatial discount rates vary with the spatial distance from the source of ecosystem services and with consumption patterns, implying many more possible spatial variations of WTP.     

Contracts payments for ecosystem services: the case of bio-pospecting

We examine the economics of royalties in bioprospecting contracts between a pharmaceutical and genetic resource supplier (local), with an eye to understanding the relative advantages of indexing royalty payments to gross revenue or net revenue. We show a risk-averse firm facing only production or only cost risks will index royalties to net revenue. When facing both types of risk, the choice of royalty type depends on the relative magnitudes of the production and cost risk. In each case, the risk-averse firm chooses the royalty type that shifts as much risk as possible to the local. When the local is risk neutral, the pharmaceutical's and local's preferences are compatible. If the local is risk averse and there is only one type of risk, it will prefer a gross revenue royalty, and shift as much risk as possible to the firm: here the local and firm preferences are compatible only if the firm is risk-neutral, Lastly, we show if the firm sets the terms of the contract, and both agents are risk averse, the firm will not likely volunteer to implement the socially optimal royalty arrangement as it prefers to shift as much risk to the local, who now also prefers a more certain return. This last outcome is at the heart of the benefit sharing discussion and suggests if risk sharing and equity are a concern in benefit sharing, then the choice of royalty type can be an important part of negotiations between pharmaceuticals and locals for the phytochemical from nature for new drug discovery.     

Contracts in the payments for ecosystem services： the case of bioprospecting

We examine the economics of royalties in bioprospecting contracts between a pharmaceutical and genetic resource supplier （local）, with an eve to understanding the relative advantages of indexing royalty, payments to gross revenue or net revenue. We show a risk-averse firm facing only production or only cost risks will index royalties to net revenue. When facing both types of risk the choice of royalty type depends on the relative magnitudes of the production and cost risk. In each case, the risk-averse firm chooses the royalty-type that shifts as much risk as possible to the local. Wheat the local is risk neutral the pharmaceutical＇s and local＇s preferences are compatible.If the local is risk averse and there is only one type of risk, it will prefer a gross revenue royalty, and shift as much risk as possible to the firm： here the local and firm preferences are compatible only ifthe firm is risk-neutral. Lastly we show if the firm sets the terms of the contract and both agents are risk averse, the.firm will not likely volunteer to implement the socially optimal royalty arrangement as it prefers to shift as much risk to the loeal, who now also prefers a more certain return, This last outcome is at the heart of the benefit sharing discussionand suggests if risk sharing and equity are a concern in benefit sharing, then the choice of rcyalty type can be an important part of negotiations between pharmaceuticals and locals for the phytochemical from nature for new drug discovery.     

Adapting auctions for the provision of ecosystem services at the landscape scale

Auctions, or competitive tenders, can overcome information asymmetries to efficiently allocate limited funding for ecosystem services. Most auctions focus on ecosystem services on individual properties to maximise the total amount provided. However, for many services it is not just the total quantity but their location in the landscape relative to other sites that matters. For example, biodiversity conservation may be much more effective if conserved sites are connected. Adapting auctions to address ecosystem services at the landscape scale requires an auction mechanism which can promote coordination while maintaining competition. Multi-round auctions, in which bidding is spread over a number of rounds with information provided between rounds on the location of other bids in the landscape, offer an approach to cost effectively deliver landscape-scale ecosystem services. Experimental economic testing shows these auctions deliver the most cost effective environmental outcomes when the number of rounds is unknown in advance, which minimises rent-seeking behaviour. It also shows that a form of bid-improvement rule facilitates coordination and reduces rent seeking. Where the biophysical science is well developed, such auctions should be relatively straightforward to implement and participate in, and have the potential to provide significantly better outcomes than standard ‘one-shot’ tenders.     

A GIS-based approach for mapping direct use value of ecosystem services at a county scale: Management implications

A GIS-based approach was designed to spatially estimate direct use value of ecosystem services and to map results for a case study at county scale. The approach highlights the use of GIS to collect data, perform spatial analysis, and map economic values of ecosystem services. Three key steps of spatial valuation for agricultural products, forest products, and tourism services were illustrated in the GIS-based technical framework. We applied this approach to the Tiantai County (1423.8 km²) in Zhejiang province of southeast China. Selected components of natural products and tourism services in the case area were mapped as data layers in GIS, with each layer containing monetary values for every 25 m cell. The total direct use value of ecosystem services was estimated in RMB to be approximately 538 million Yuan in 2005 (Chinese currency, 8.2 Yuan = US$1), of which agricultural products, forest products and tourism services accounted for 65%, 30% and 5%, respectively. The critical areas for management purpose were identified depending on the heterogeneity of direct use services learned from the case study. The spatially explicit measures provide a mechanism for incorporating spatial context into ecosystem services evaluation. Based on the present GIS-based approach and case study, the suggestions and implications for local resources protection and eco-environmental management were extensively discussed. The work was expected to highlight research avenues to advance the ecosystem services framework as an operational basis for regional ecosystem-based management.