A Global Meta-Analysis for Estimating Local Ecosystem Service Value Functions
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Literature on Meta-Analysis
2.2. Specification of the Meta-Regression
2.3. Validity and Reliability of a Meta-Analytic Benefit Transfer
- (a)
- “Value transfer” compares each ESV estimate in the database with the corresponding global mean ESV;
- (b)
- “Global meta function transfer” compares each ESV estimate in the database with the estimates produced by the meta-model, using mean global values for the explanatory variables;
- (c)
- “Local meta function transfer” compares each ESV estimate in the database with the estimates produced by the meta-model, using mean national values for the explanatory variables.
2.4. Background and Data
3. Results
3.1. Data Summary
3.2. Meta-Regression Model Specification
3.3. Meta-Regression Model Results
3.4. Value Function Transfer Errors and Estimates
3.4.1. Transfer Errors
3.4.2. Local Value Function Transfer Estimates
4. Conclusions and Recommendations
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Say, J.B. Cours Complet D’économie Politique Pratique; Nabu Press: Paris, France, 1829; p. 790. [Google Scholar]
- Bordt, M.; Saner, M. Which ecosystems provide which services? A meta-analysis of nine selected ecosystem services assessments. One Ecosyst. 2019, 4, e31420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brouwer, R. Environmental value transfer: State of the art and future prospects. Ecol. Econ. 2000, 32, 137–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Costanza, R.; De Groot, R.; Sutton, P.; Van der Ploeg, S.; Anderson, S.J.; Kubiszewski, I.; Farber, S.; Turner, R.K. Changes in the global value of ecosystem services. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2014, 26, 152–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Groot, R.; Brander, L.; Van Der Ploeg, S.; Costanza, R.; Bernard, F.; Braat, L.; Christie, M.; Crossman, N.; Ghermandi, A.; Hein, L.; et al. Global estimates of the value of ecosystems and their services in monetary units. Ecosyst. Serv. 2012, 1, 50–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Díaz, S.; Demissew, S.; Carabias, J.; Joly, C.; Lonsdale, M.; Ash, N.; Larigauderie, A.; Adhikari, J.R.; Arico, S.; Báldi, A.; et al. The IPBES Conceptual Framework—Connecting nature and people. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2015, 14, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Lindhjem, H.; Navrud, S. How reliable are meta-analyses for international benefit transfers? Ecol. Econ. 2008, 66, 425–435. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Navrud, S.; Ready, R. Lessons Learned for Environmental Value Transfer. In Environmental Value Transfer: Issues and Methods; Navrud, S., Ready, R., Eds.; Springer: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2007; pp. 283–290. [Google Scholar]
- Alcamo, J. Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: A Framework for Assessment; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2003; p. 266. [Google Scholar]
- Haines-Young, R.; Potschin, M.B. The Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services. European Environment Agency. Available online: https://www.cices.eu (accessed on 16 June 2021).
- Crossman, N.D.; Bryan, B.A. Identifying cost-effective hotspots for restoring natural capital and enhancing landscape multi-functionality. Ecol. Econ. 2009, 68, 654–668. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Crossman, N.D.; Bryan, B.A.; Summers, D.M. Carbon payments and low-cost conservation. Conserv. Biol. 2011, 25, 835–845. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- WBCSD. Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services: Scaling Up Business Solutions: Company Case Studies That Help Achieve Global Biodiversity Targets; WBCSD Ecosystems: Geneva, Switzerland, 2012; p. 67. [Google Scholar]
- Maynard, S.; James, D.; Davidson, A. The development of an ecosystem services framework for South East Queensland. Environ. Manag. 2010, 45, 881–895. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van Houtven, G.; Powers, J.; Pattanayak, S.K. Valuing water quality improvements in the United States using meta-analysis: Is the glass half-full or half-empty for national policy analysis? Resour. Energy Econ. 2007, 29, 206–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Schröter, M.; Barton, D.N.; Remme, R.P.; Hein, L. Accounting for capacity and flow of ecosystem services: A conceptual model and a case study for Telemark, Norway. Ecol. Indic. 2014, 36, 539–551. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Perez-Verdin, G.; Sanjurjo-Rivera, E.; Galicia, L.; Hernandez-Diaz, J.C.; Hernandez-Trejo, V.; Marquez-Linares, M.A. Economic valuation of ecosystem services in Mexico: Current status and trends. Ecol. Serv. 2016, 21, 6–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schröter, M.; Albert, C.; Marques, A.; Tobon, W.; Lavorel, S.; Maes, J.; Brown, C.; Klotz, S.; Bonn, A. National Ecosystem Assessments in Europe: A Review. BioScience 2016, 66, 813–828. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Alves, F.; Roebeling, P.; Pinto, P.; Batista, P. Valuing ecosystem service losses from coastal erosion using a benefits transfer approach: A case study for the Central Portuguese coast. J. Coast. Res. 2009, 56, 1169–1173. [Google Scholar]
- Paprotny, D.; Terefenko, P.; Giza, A.; Czapliński, P.; Vousdoukas, M.I. Future losses of ecosystem services due to coastal erosion in Europe. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 760, 144310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Roebeling, P.; Costa, L.; Magalhães-Filho, L.; Tekken, V. Ecosystem service value losses from coastal erosion in Europe: Historical trends and future projections. J. Coast. Conserv. 2013, 17, 389–395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Civita, P.; Filion, F.; Frehs, J. EVRI-Environmental Valuation Reference Inventory. Environment and Climate Change Canada. Available online: https://www.evri.ca (accessed on 20 December 2020).
- ESVD. Ecosystem Service Valuation Database. Foundation for Sustainable Development. Available online: https://www.es-partnership.org/esvd (accessed on 20 December 2020).
- Rosenberger, R.; Loomis, J. Using meta-analysis for benefit transfer: In-sample convergent validity tests of an outdoor recreation database. Water Res. Resour. 2000, 36, 1097–1107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Desvousges, W.; Johnson, F.; Banzhaf, H. Environmental Policy Analysis with Limited Information: Principles and Applications of the Transfer Method; Edward Elgar: Northampton, UK, 1998; p. 244. [Google Scholar]
- Hoehn, J. Methods to address selection effects in the meta regression and transfer of ecosystem values. Ecol. Econ. 2006, 60, 389–398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Smith, V.K.; Pattanayak, S.K. Is meta-analysis a Noah’s Ark for non-market valuation? Environ. Resour. Econ. 2002, 22, 271–296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Johnston, R.J.; Besedin, E.Y.; Iovanna, R.; Miller, C.J.; Wardwell, R.F.; Ranson, M.H. Systematic variation in willingness to pay for aquatic resource improvements and implications for benefit transfer: A meta-analysis. Can. J. Agric. Econ./Rev. Can. D’agroeconomie 2005, 53, 221–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hjerpe, E.; Hussain, A.; Phillips, S. Valuing type and scope of ecosystem conservation: A meta-analysis. J. For. Econ. 2015, 21, 32–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ghermandi, A.; van den Bergh, J.C.J.M.; Brander, L.M.; de Groot, H.L.F.; Nunes, P.A.L.D. Values of natural and human-made wetlands: A meta-analysis. Water Res. Resour. 2010, 46, W12516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hynes, S.; Ghermandi, A.; Norton, D.; Williams, H. Marine recreational ecosystem service value estimation: A meta-analysis with cultural considerations. Ecosyst. Serv. 2018, 31, 410–419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ready, R.; Navrud, S. International benefit transfer: Methods and validity tests. Ecol. Econ. 2006, 2, 429–434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Subroy, V.; Gunawardena, A.; Polyakov, M.; Pandit, R.; Pannell, D.J. The worth of wildlife: A meta-analysis of global non-market values of threatened species. Ecol. Econ. 2019, 164, 106374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- World Bank. The World Bank—Databank. World Bank Group. Available online: https://databank.worldbank.org/ (accessed on 20 June 2020).
- FAOSTAT. Food and Agriculture Data. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Available online: http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data (accessed on 20 December 2020).
- Smith, V.K.; Van Houtven, G.; Pattanayak, S.K. Benefit transfer via preference calibration: ‘Prudential algebra’ for policy. Land Econ. 2002, 78, 132–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bergstrom, J.C.; De Civita, P. Status of benefit transfer in the United States and Canada: A review. Can. J. Agric. Econ. 1999, 47, 79–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Glass, G.V. Primary, secondary and meta-analysis of research. Educ. Res. 1976, 5, 3–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nelson, J.P.; Kennedy, P.E. The use (and abuse) of meta-analysis in environmental and natural resource economics: An assessment. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2009, 42, 345–377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stanley, T.D. Wheat from chaff: Meta-analysis as quantitative literature review. J. Econ. Pers. 2001, 15, 131–150. Available online: https://www.jstor.org/stable/2696560 (accessed on 20 December 2020). [CrossRef]
- Bateman, I.J.; Jones, A.P. Contrasting conventional with multi-level modeling approaches to meta-analysis: Expectation consistency in U.K. Woodland recreation values. Land Econ. 2003, 79, 235–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bergstrom, J.C.; Taylor, L.O. Using meta-analysis for benefits transfer: Theory and practice. Ecol. Econ. 2006, 60, 351–360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Pindyck, R.S.; Rubinfeld, D.L. Microeconomics, 5th ed.; Prentice Hall: São Paulo, Brazil, 2005; p. 771. [Google Scholar]
- Rao, N.; Ghermandi, A.; Portela, R.; Wang, X. Global values of coastal ecosystem services: A spatial economic analysis of shoreline protection. Ecosyst. Serv. 2015, 11, 95–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- FAO. State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture; Sustainability in Action; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2020; p. 196. [Google Scholar]
- Agardy, M.T. Advances in marine conservation: The role of marine protected areas. Trends Ecol. Evol. 1994, 9, 267–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Beurs, K.M.; Henebry, G.M. Land surface phenology, climatic variation, and institutional change: Analyzing agricultural land cover change in Kazakhstan. Remote Sens. Environ. 2004, 89, 497–509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brouwer, R.; Spaninks, A. The Validity of Environmental Benefit Transfer: Further Empirical Testing. Environ. Resour. Econ. 1999, 14, 95–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bergland, O.; Magnussen, K.; Navrud, S. Benefit Transfer: Testing for Accuracy and Reliability. In Comparative Environmental Economic Assessment; Florax, R.J.G.M., Nijkamp, P., Willis, K., Eds.; Edward Elgar: Cheltenham, UK, 2002. [Google Scholar]
- Kristofersson, D.; Navrud, S. Validity tests of benefit transfer—Are we performing the wrong tests? Environ. Resour. Econ. 2005, 30, 279–286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pearce, D.W.; Whittington, D.; Georgiou, S. Project and Policy Appraisal: Integrating Economics and Environment; OECD: Paris, France, 1994; p. 346. [Google Scholar]
- Roebeling, P.; Abrantes, N.; Ribeiro, S.; Almeida, P. Estimating cultural benefits from surface water status improvements in freshwater wetland ecosystems. Sci. Total Environ. 2016, 545, 219–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bateman, I.J.; Brouwer, R.; Ferrini, S.; Schaafsma, M.; Barton, D.N.; Dubgaard, A.; Hasler, B.; Hime, S.; Liekens, I.; Navrud, S.; et al. Making benefit transfers work: Deriving and testing principles for value transfers for similar and dissimilar sites using a case study of the non-market benefits of water quality improvements across Europe. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2011, 50, 365–387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Costanza, R.; d’Arge, R.; De Groot, R.; Farber, S.; Grasso, M.; Hannon, B.; Limburg, K.; Naeem, S.; O’Neill, R.V.; Paruelo, J.; et al. The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 1997, 387, 253–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thompson, B.H.; Paradise, R.E.; Mccarty, P.; Segerson, K.; Ascher, W.; McKenna, D.C.; Biddinger, G. Valuing the Protection of Ecological Systems and Services. A Report of the EPA Science Advisory Committee, EPA-SAB-09-012; Science Advisory Board, U.S.U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Science Advisory Board: Washington, DC, USA, 2009; p. 138.
- Townsend, M.; Davies, K.; Hanley, N.; Hewitt, J.E.; Lundquist, C.J.; Lohrer, A.M. The Challenge of Implementing the Marine Ecosystem Service Concept. Front. Mar. Sci. 2018, 5, 359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Austen, M.C.; Andersen, P.; Armstrong, C.; Döring, R.; Hynes, S.; Levrel, H.; Oinonen, S.; Ressurreição, A. Valuing Marine Ecosystems: Taking into Account the Value of Ecosystem Benefits in the Blue Economy. In EMB Future Science Brief. N.5; European Marine Board: Oostende, Belgium, 2019; p. 36. [Google Scholar]
Service 1/Biome 2 | CSys | CWet | CoRf | CuAr | Dser | FrWa | Gras | InWt | Mari | TeFo | TrFo | Wood | Total |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
ESVProv | 18 | 55 | 37 | 6 | 2 | 5 | 10 | 75 | 6 | 8 | 63 | 17 | 302 |
ESVReg&Main | 6 | 58 | 26 | 7 | - | 1 | 9 | 36 | 4 | 16 | 51 | 11 | 225 |
ESVCult | 7 | 14 | 42 | - | - | 4 | 2 | 11 | 4 | 10 | 14 | 1 | 109 |
Variables | Description |
---|---|
APer | Agricultural land refers to the share of land area that is arable, under permanent crops, and under permanent pastures, by the percentage of land area. |
FPer | Forest area with natural or planted stands of trees of at least 5 m in situ, by the percentage of land area. |
MProt | Percentage of marine protected areas, from territorial waters of a country. |
TProt | Percentage of terrestrial areas totally/partially protected, designated by national authorities. |
GNI | Gross National Income per capita, using purchasing power parity rates. |
PDen | Population density is midyear population divided by land area in square kilometers. |
Dummies | |
CSys; CWet; CoRf; CuAr; Dser; FrWa; Gras; InWt; Mari; TeFo; TrFo; Wood | Biomes: Coastal systems; Coastal wetlands; Coral reefs; Cultivated areas; Desert; Fresh water; Grasslands; Inland wetlands; Marine; Temp./Bor. forests; Tropical forests; Woodland. |
Euro; Asia; Ocea; LaAm; NoAm; Afric | Continents: Europe; Asia; Oceania; Latin America and Caribbean; North America; Africa. |
FProt; PProt; NProt | Protection Status: Fully protected; Partially protected; Not protected. |
Variables 1 | Mean | Stand. Dev. | Min | Max |
---|---|---|---|---|
Provisioning Services | ||||
TProt | 14.94 | 8.53 | 0.00 | 6.27 |
APer | 42.78 | 18.99 | 6.27 | 80.89 |
PDen | 124.60 | 143.77 | 1.70 | 1130.40 |
GNI | 7481.06 | 10,021.30 | 430.00 | 44,740.00 |
Regulating and Maintenance Services | ||||
FPer | 35.20 | 20.57 | 0.24 | 91.34 |
MProt | 12.54 | 17.12 | 0.00 | 74.70 |
TProt | 14.73 | 7.56 | 0.00 | 36.84 |
PDen | 115.70 | 127.07 | 2.40 | 502.30 |
GNI | 14,471.44 | 14,036.35 | 430.00 | 48,420.00 |
Cultural Services | ||||
MProt | 15.52 | 17.63 | 0.00 | 74.82 |
PDen | 105.23 | 116.90 | 2.30 | 478.30 |
GNI | 16,750.05 | 13,484.39 | 840.00 | 48,420.00 |
Explanatory Variables 1 | Model Specification | |||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Provisioning Serv. Model | Regu. and Main. Serv. Model | Cultural Serv. Model | ||||||||||
Full | Restricted | Full | Restricted | Full | Restricted | |||||||
Coef | t-Test (sig) | Coef | t-Test (sig) | Coef | t-Test (sig) | Coef | t-Test (sig) | Coef | t-Test (sig) | Coef | t-Test (sig) | |
CONSTANT | −3.80 | 0.36 | −6.41 | 0.01 | −7.97 | 0.03 | −3.46 | 0.19 | −12.37 | 0.07 | −7.37 | 0.03 |
CSy | 1.93 | 0.19 | 2.68 | 0.01 | 5.10 | 0.01 | 3.98 | 0.01 | 2.09 | 0.40 | - | - |
CWet | 1.51 | 0.24 | 2.22 | 0.01 | 5.31 | 0.01 | 4.19 | 0.01 | 4.70 | 0.05 | 1.35 | 0.20 |
CoRf | −0.85 | 0.53 | - | - | 5.28 | 0.01 | 4.68 | 0.01 | 5.83 | 0.01 | 2.48 | 0.01 |
CuAr | 3.07 | 0.11 | 3.69 | 0.01 | 4.28 | 0.01 | 3.07 | 0.01 | ||||
Dser | 1.24 | 0.66 | - | - | ||||||||
FrWa | 1.41 | 0.49 | 2.17 | 0.19 | 2.79 | 0.28 | - | - | 708 | 0.00 | - | - |
Gras2 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
InWt | 1.29 | 0.31 | 2.03 | 0.01 | 5.53 | 0.01 | 4.77 | 0.01 | 5.04 | 0.04 | 1.48 | 0.20 |
Mari | 1.08 | 0.57 | 2.18 | 0.15 | 2.07 | 0.17 | - | - | 1.44 | 0.58 | −2.47 | 0.12 |
TeFo | −1.46 | 0.42 | - | - | 4.80 | 0.01 | 3.35 | 0.01 | 0.81 | 0.75 | −3.09 | 0.01 |
TrFo | 1.37 | 0.29 | 2.06 | 0.01 | 3.47 | 0.01 | 2.40 | 0.01 | 4.80 | 0.04 | 1.20 | 0.20 |
Wood | −0.33 | 0.83 | - | - | 1.69 | 0.12 | - | - | 6.28 | 0.08 | - | - |
FProt | −0.18 | 0.80 | - | - | −1.83 | 0.01 | −1.73 | 0.01 | −0.42 | 0.75 | - | - |
PProt | −0.25 | 0.66 | - | - | −0.24 | 0.63 | - | - | 0.78 | 0.53 | 1.17 | 0.05 |
NProt2 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
Euro2 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
Asia | −1.05 | 0.44 | - | - | 0.43 | 0.59 | - | - | −1.09 | 0.49 | −1.75 | 0.06 |
Ocea | −0.77 | 0.60 | - | - | 1.53 | 0.13 | - | - | −0.81 | 0.59 | −1.33 | 0.16 |
LaAm | 0.82 | 0.55 | 1.76 | 0.01 | 1.14 | 0.23 | - | - | 2.55 | 0.17 | 1.33 | 0.18 |
NoAm | −0.97 | 0.53 | - | - | 0.66 | 0.41 | - | - | 0.98 | 0.46 | - | - |
Afric | −1.20 | 0.45 | - | - | −0.79 | 0.49 | −2.12 | 0.01 | 0.66 | 0.74 | - | - |
APer | −0.04 | 0.02 | −0.04 | 0.01 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
FPer | - | - | - | - | −0.01 | 0.24 | −0.02 | 0.05 | - | - | - | - |
Mprot | −0.02 | 0.33 | - | - | −0.02 | 0.25 | −0.02 | 0.19 | −0.06 | 0.01 | −0.05 | 0.01 |
TProt | −0.05 | 0.14 | −0.05 | 0.10 | −0.04 | 0.15 | −0.05 | 0.06 | −0.03 | 0.40 | - | - |
ln_GNI | 0.81 | 0.01 | 0.87 | 0.01 | 0.65 | 0.02 | 0.49 | 0.03 | 1.21 | 0.02 | 1.04 | 0.01 |
ln_PDen | 0.54 | 0.03 | 0.59 | 0.01 | 0.91 | 0.01 | 0.66 | 0.01 | 0.53 | 0.12 | 0.48 | 0.09 |
N | 302 | 225 | 109 | |||||||||
R² | 0.20 | 0.19 | 0.47 | 0.46 | 0.48 | 0.38 | ||||||
p-Value in ANOVA 3 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.01 |
Authors | Location | Ecosystem Service | Biome | R² | Samp. Size | Cut-Off in t-Test 1 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Rosenberger & Loomis [24] | United States and Canada | Outdoor activities | - | 0.26 | 682 | 0.20 |
Bateman & Jones [41] | British Forest—Great Britain | Recreation | Woodlands | 0.71 | 77 | 0.38 |
Van Houtven et al. [15] | United States | Water quality | - | 0.59–0.61 | 131 | 0.10 |
Lindhjem & Navrud [7] | Norway, Sweden, and Finland | Non-use values related to biodiversity | Forests | 0.81–0.87 | 72 | 0.20 |
Ghermandi et al. [30] | World | Flood protection, water quality, and water storage and supply | Wetlands | 0.49–0.46 | 416 | 0.10 |
Hjerpe et al. [29] | United States | Forest and freshwater restoration | Forests and Fresh waters | 0.58–0.60 | 127 | 0.18 |
Rao et al. [44] | World coastal area | Shoreline protection | Coastal Areas | 0.44–0.45 | 90 | 0.10 |
Hynes et al. [31] | World | Recreation services | Coastal Areas | 0.25–0.65 | 311 | 0.10 |
Value Transfer | Global Meta Function Transfer | Local Meta Function Transfer | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Biome 1 | Value | TE (ETE1) | Value | TE (ETE2) | Value | TE (ETE3) |
CSys | 1336.0 | 926.2 | 81.9 | 56.7 | 185.7 | 11.4 |
CWet | 362.7 | 1228.2 | 30.7 | 103.9 | 66.0 | 10.1 |
CoRf | 1463.7 | 7.0 × 106 | 10.3 | 5.0 × 104 | 23.1 | 1.6 × 104 |
CuAr | 2795.2 | 4.2 × 105 | 141.7 | 2.2 × 104 | 741.8 | 1.4 × 104 |
Dser | 82.5 | 106.2 | 1.5 | 2.0 | 1.5 | 2.0 |
FrWa | 594.9 | 107.3 | 59.7 | 10.7 | 120.5 | 15.6 |
Gras | 164.9 | 4.5 × 104 | 2.8 | 769.9 | 8.1 | 106.3 |
InWt | 176.8 | 2013.6 | 6.2 | 71.0 | 15.8 | 54.7 |
Mari | 50.8 | 2.76 | 27.6 | 1.4 | 48.0 | 4.0 |
TeFo | 68.1 | 203.2 | 10.8 | 32.1 | 14.3 | 41.0 |
TrFo | 277.3 | 297.8 | 31.2 | 33.3 | 58.3 | 19.6 |
Wood | 110.6 | 1.1 × 106 | 4.6 | 2.7 × 106 | 15.4 | 6.5 × 106 |
Value Transfer | Global Meta Function Transfer | Local Meta Function Transfer | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Biome 1 | Value | TE (ETE1) | Value | TE (ETE2) | Value | TE (ETE3) |
CSys | 941.9 | 7.6 | 258.3 | 1.8 | 1381.8 | 3.8 |
CWet | 5088.3 | 267.3 | 430.6 | 22.5 | 943.2 | 12.3 |
CoRf | 7074.0 | 3189.4 | 383.9 | 173.0 | 1236.6 | 18.6 |
CuAr | 425.6 | 20.0 | 134.4 | 6.2 | 215.0 | 1.7 |
Dser | - | - | - | - | - | - |
FrWa | 115.5 | 0.0 | 29.8 | 0.7 | 29.8 | 0.7 |
Gras | 111.9 | 1464.9 | 11.7 | 153.3 | 22.2 | 37.2 |
InWt | 1660.2 | 1430.5 | 188.8 | 162.6 | 747.4 | 17.6 |
Mari | 748.3 | 260.8 | 18.0 | 6.2 | 28.7 | 1.4 |
TeFo | 641.8 | 44.9 | 94.7 | 6.4 | 197.2 | 5.4 |
TrFo | 135.7 | 111.0 | 16.4 | 13.1 | 48.4 | 9.6 |
Wood | 199.0 | 117.5 | 17.9 | 10.7 | 41.4 | 25.0 |
Value Transfer | Global Meta Function Transfer | Local Meta Function Transfer | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Biome 1 | Value | TE (ETE1) | Value | TE (ETE2) | Value | TE (ETE3) |
CSys | 156.9 | 156.3 | 90.6 | 90.0 | 186.9 | 33.7 |
CWet | 3099.8 | 119.3 | 152.6 | 5.6 | 267.0 | 5.1 |
CoRf | 5340.9 | 2138.0 | 308.9 | 123.6 | 1695.3 | 17.1 |
CuAr | - | - | - | - | - | - |
Dser | - | - | - | - | - | - |
FrWa | 651.4 | 0.5 | 16.1 | 1.0 | 36.2 | 0.9 |
Gras | 1.4 | 0.2 | 48.6 | 35.3 | 58.2 | 46.4 |
InWt | 681.5 | 15.3 | 142.4 | 3.0 | 234.0 | 3.3 |
Mari | 311.8 | 316.9 | 7.4 | 7.2 | 20.6 | 1.6 |
TeFo | 878.8 | 1.9 × 104 | 9.1 | 204.8 | 13.2 | 180.5 |
TrFo | 275.4 | 38.3 | 38.0 | 5.1 | 85.6 | 6.2 |
Wood | 3840.5 | 0.0 | 196.7 | 0.9 | 196.7 | 0.9 |
Ecosystem Service 1 | CSys | CWet | CoRf | CuAr | Dser | FrWa | Gras | InWt | Mari | TeFo | TrFo | Wood |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
ESVProv | 44.5 | 28.0 | 3.0 | 122.0 | 3.0 | 26.7 | 3.0 | 23.1 | 27.0 | 3.0 | 23.9 | 3.0 |
ESVReg&Main | 193.2 | 238.1 | 389.9 | 78.1 | - | 3.6 | 3.6 | 425.8 | 3.6 | 103.3 | 39.9 | 3.6 |
ESVCult | 127.1 | 491.6 | 1520.7 | - | - | 127.1 | 127.1 | 555.3 | 10.8 | 5.8 | 420.8 | 127.1 |
ESVTotal | 364.8 | 757.7 | 1913.6 | 200.1 | 3.0 | 157.4 | 133.7 | 1004.2 | 41.3 | 112.2 | 484.5 | 133.7 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Magalhães Filho, L.; Roebeling, P.; Bastos, M.I.; Rodrigues, W.; Ometto, G. A Global Meta-Analysis for Estimating Local Ecosystem Service Value Functions. Environments 2021, 8, 76. https://doi.org/10.3390/environments8080076
Magalhães Filho L, Roebeling P, Bastos MI, Rodrigues W, Ometto G. A Global Meta-Analysis for Estimating Local Ecosystem Service Value Functions. Environments. 2021; 8(8):76. https://doi.org/10.3390/environments8080076
Chicago/Turabian StyleMagalhães Filho, Luiz, Peter Roebeling, Maria Isabel Bastos, Waldecy Rodrigues, and Giulia Ometto. 2021. "A Global Meta-Analysis for Estimating Local Ecosystem Service Value Functions" Environments 8, no. 8: 76. https://doi.org/10.3390/environments8080076