A Global Meta-Analysis for Estimating Local Ecosystem Service Value Functions

The Meta-analysis has increasingly been used to synthesize the ecosystem services literature, with some testing of the use of such analyses to transfer benefits. These are typically based on local primary studies. However, meta-analyses associated with ecosystem services are a potentially powerful tool for transferring benefits, especially for environmental assets for which no primary studies are available. In this study we use the Ecosystem Service Valuation Database (ESVD), which brings together 1350 value estimates from more than 320 studies around the world, to estimate meta-regression functions for Provisioning, Regulating and maintenance, and Cultural ecosystem services across 12 biomes. We tested the reliability of these meta-regression functions and found that even using variables with high explanatory power, transfer errors could still be large. We show that meta-analytic transfer performs better than simple value transfer and, in addition, that local meta-analytical transfer (i.e., based on local explanatory variable values) provides more reliable estimates than global meta-analytical transfer (i.e., based on mean global explanatory variable values). Thus, we conclude that when taking into account the characteristics of the study area under analysis, including explanatory variables such as income, population density, and protection status, we can determine the value of ecosystem services with greater accuracy.

[1]  Simone Maynard,et al.  The Development of an Ecosystem Services Framework for South East Queensland , 2010, Environmental management.

[2]  R. Ready,et al.  Lessons Learned for Environmental Value Transfer , 2007 .

[3]  V. Tekken,et al.  Ecosystem service value losses from coastal erosion in Europe: historical trends and future projections , 2013, Journal of Coastal Conservation.

[4]  N. Crossman,et al.  Global estimates of the value of ecosystems and their services in monetary units , 2012 .

[5]  S. Hynes,et al.  Marine recreational ecosystem service value estimation: A meta-analysis with cultural considerations , 2018, Ecosystem Services.

[6]  Stanley T. Asah,et al.  The IPBES Conceptual Framework - connecting nature and people , 2015 .

[7]  J. C. van den Bergh,et al.  Values of natural and human‐made wetlands: A meta‐analysis , 2010 .

[8]  D. Pannell,et al.  The worth of wildlife: A meta-analysis of global non-market values of threatened species , 2019, Ecological Economics.

[9]  Claire Brown,et al.  National Ecosystem Assessments in Europe: A Review , 2016, Bioscience.

[10]  R. Moss,et al.  Ecosystems and human well-being: a framework for assessment , 2003 .

[11]  Roy Brouwer,et al.  Environmental value transfer: state of the art and future prospects , 2000 .

[12]  John P. Hoehn,et al.  Methods to address selection effects in the meta regression and transfer of ecosystem values , 2006 .

[13]  Subhrendu K. Pattanayak,et al.  Is Meta-Analysis a Noah's Ark for Non-Market Valuation? , 2002 .

[14]  P. Sutton,et al.  Changes in the global value of ecosystem services , 2014 .

[15]  M. Tundi Agardy,et al.  Advances in marine conservation: the role of marine protected areas , 1994 .

[16]  L. Galicia,et al.  Economic valuation of ecosystem services in Mexico: Current status and trends , 2016 .

[17]  G. Glass Primary, Secondary, and Meta-Analysis of Research1 , 1976 .

[18]  R. O'Neill,et al.  The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital , 1997, Nature.

[19]  T. Stanley,et al.  Wheat from Chaff: Meta-Analysis as Quantitative Literature Review: Response , 2001 .

[20]  N. Crossman,et al.  Carbon Payments and Low‐Cost Conservation , 2011, Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology.

[21]  A. Hussain,et al.  Valuing type and scope of ecosystem conservation: A meta-analysis , 2015 .

[22]  N. Crossman,et al.  Identifying cost-effective hotspots for restoring natural capital and enhancing landscape multifunctionality , 2009 .

[23]  Peter E. Kennedy,et al.  The Use (and Abuse) of Meta-analysis in Environmental and Natural Resource Economics: an Assessment , 2022 .