Ecol Econ Research Articles

Dynamicity of ecosystem service value driven by land use/land cover alteration in Vadodara City, India

The ecosystem is considered the fundamental unit of ecology which plays a crucial role in providing a range of essential services to individuals. These services include the provision of food and shelter, as well as the regulation of climate and environment, either directly or indirectly. However, the emergence of urban industrial cities has witnessed the uncontrolled exploitation of resources, the decline of biodiversity, unprecedented population growth and climate change. Consequently, these factors contribute to environmental crises as ecosystem services increase in urban areas, where higher ESV values adversely affect the environment. Considering this, the current study examines the relationship between land use change and the status of ecosystem services in Vadodara City, India. The ecosystem service value was calculated using the methodology proposed by (Costanza et al. in Ecol Econ 25:3–15, 1997;Costanza et al. in Glob Environ Chang 26:152–158, 2014;), while the contribution of Land Use/Land Cover (LULC) was determined using the Maximum Likelihood Classification. The findings highlighted that LULCs are critical drivers for the loss of ecosystem services. During 2001–2021, it was found that built-up and water bodies increased by 24.48% and 0.21%, respectively, while vegetation, agricultural and barren land decreased by 1.11%, 25.61% and 0.19% respectively. The valuation of ecosystem services in 2001 observed $3,517,118 and $125,607,186 using the corresponding coefficients of (Costanza et al. in Ecol Econ 25:3–15, 1997;Costanza et al. in Glob Environ Chang 26:152–158, 2014;), while in 2021, their cumulative value slightly increased to $3,629,024 based on the 1997 coefficient and $131,537,398 based on the 2014 coefficient. Furthermore, the study analyses the response of ecosystem service values to land use alterations and the elasticity value at the zonal level to gain insight into spatial variation.

Modelling interaction patterns in a predator-prey system of two freshwater organisms in discrete time: an identified structural VAR approach

In ecology, the concept of predation describes interdependent patterns of having one species (called the predator) killing and consuming another (the prey). Specifying the so-called functional response of prey populations to predation is an important matter of debate which is typically addressed by means of continuous time models. Empirical regression or autoregression models applied to discrete predator-prey population data promise feasible steady state approximations of often complicated dynamic patterns of population growth and interaction. Ewing et al. (Ecol Econ 60:605–612, 2007) argue in favour of the informational content of so-called vector autoregressive models for the dynamic analysis of predator-prey systems. In this work we reconsider their analysis of dynamic interaction of two freshwater organisms, and design a structural model that allows to approximate the functional response in causal form. Results from an unrestricted structural model are in line with core axiomatic assumptions of predator-prey models. Conditional on population growth lagged up to three periods (i.e., 36 h), the semi-daily population growth of the prey Paramecium aurelia diminishes, on average, by 1.2 percentage points in response to an increase of the population growth of the predator Didinium nasutum by one percentage point.

Joint problem framing as reflexive practice: honing a transdisciplinary skill

The paper introduces a heuristic framework for conducting joint problem framing (JPF) processes in transdisciplinary research (TD). JPF is an essential element in confronting real-world problems, especially in the realm of sustainability (Hirsch Hadorn et al. in Ecol Econ 60(1):119–128, 2006; Pohl and Hirsch Hadorn in Principles for designing transdisciplinary research, Oekomm, Munchen, 2007; Rossini in Technikfolgenabschatzung Theor Prax 18(1):117–119, 2009). It is the process of clarifying and prioritizing aspects of a problem situation to ensure its relevance for a diverse collection of stakeholders involved (Konig et al. in Futures 91:12–24, 2017; Schneider and Buser in Sustain Sci 13(1):129–142, 2017; Stindt et al. in J Bus Log 37(2):113–131, 2016). The goal of this paper is twofold. First, we identify the documented challenges in conducting a joint problem framing process and through personal experience with case studies. Second, we introduce a means to address these challenges in the form of a heuristic framework. This framework is a series of questions which first asks for a description and explanation of the JPF process, based on researcher observations. Then, the framework leads its user to probe for the assumptions behind these observations. Finally, the framework helps its user to derive insights and lessons for conducting future JPF processes based on these responses. This framework is geared primarily towards helping transdisciplinary researchers with varying levels of experience, but can also be used by practitioners.

Evaluation and Management of Urban Liveability: A Goal Programming Based Composite Indicator

This paper proposes a composite indicator intended to assess the degree of liveability provided by urban areas. This synthetic index makes two essential contributions to previous research. Firstly, it starts from a series of specifically urban partial indicators and dimensions. Secondly, the technique used to estimate the goal-programming-based index (Blancas et al. in Ecol Econ 69:2158–2172, 2010) enables urban managers to actively participate in constructing the indicator. The instrument was tested by estimating the index for a number of Spanish cities. The results reveal significant differences in the degree of liveability based on geographical location, population and functional hierarchy. Its application to Spain further highlights the tool’s potential for liveability analysis by varying urban manager profiles.

The UN Sustainable Development Goals and the dynamics of well‐being

The UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are a detailed dashboard of goals and targets agreed to by all 193 UN member countries. The 17 SDGs and associated 169 targets represent a global consensus, years in the making. They are an important step in the transition to a sustainable world because they open the door for much needed additional work. To achieve the SDGs, policy makers, scientists, and practitioners will have to clarify how the goals and targets interconnect, including trade-offs and synergies, and develop three additional elements: (1) an aggregation of metrics of human and ecosystem well-being, (2) dynamic models of the integrated system of humans and the natural world, and (3) innovative ways to build broad public consensus on the future we want – the details of a world in which the SDGs have been implemented. We need aggregate metrics of human and ecosystem well-being to replace growth in gross domestic product (GDP) as the primary development goal for nations (http://thesolutionsjournal.com/node/237220). One could argue that aggregating targets for the individual SDGs is not necessary (or possible) and that the pursuit of the individual goals is sufficient to achieve sustainable development. This might be true if the goals were independent of each other and they all contributed to the overarching objective equally. In reality, however, there are multiple interconnections and clear trade-offs and synergies across and within the goals, especially in how the environmental, social, and economic goals and targets interact. For example, the recent single-minded focus on GDP growth has exacerbated inequality and environmental damage in many countries. If one takes these elements into account, as the Genuine Progress Indicator (GPI) does, then there arguably has been no net progress globally for decades (Kubiszewski et al. 2013; Ecol Econ 93: 57–68). Increasing income inequality, environmental damage, and other costs can cancel out positive gains from GDP growth. The new metrics should therefore incorporate insights from ecology and psychology to describe how natural, social, human, and built capital assets interact to contribute to sustainable well-being, based on the idea that the best system is one that achieves the overarching goal of a world that is simultaneously prosperous, equitably shared, and ecologically sustainable. There is compelling new research relating ecosystem services and natural and social capital to human well-being, which can be integrated with GPI to produce an expanded version that connects more directly with the SDGs. Nevertheless, this will not be enough on its own. GDP has been successful in part because it is linked to the overall System of National Accounts (SNA), which is based on a static, linear, input–output model of the market economy. Although this approach was the best available when the SNA and GDP were developed in the 1930s and 1940s, we now know more about how complex, dynamic systems involving interacting human and natural systems function. Accordingly, we need to replace the static, linear model with more dynamic, integrated, natural and human system models that incorporate the dynamics of stocks, flows, trade-offs, and synergies among the full range of variables that affect the SDGs and human and ecosystem well-being. Finally, we need to explore and develop innovative methods to build broad consensus around the characteristics of desirable futures – the kind of world that would result if all the SDGs were achieved. This can be accomplished through the integration of scenario-planning exercises, extended to include public opinion surveys, with the metrics and modelling mentioned above. Scenario planning has been used successfully in a range of contexts. However, it can be extended to survey the public about which alternative futures they prefer (Costanza et al. 2015; J Futures Studies 19: 49–76). We also require better methods to communicate the complex trade-offs that each future scenario entails, including videos, movies, virtual reality, and other methods to fully engage people in understanding alternative futures and building consensus on the future that we want. The SDGs represent a major potential turning point in the future of humanity. For the first time in recorded history we have a set of goals and targets agreed upon by all UN countries, which include the full range of factors that contribute to equitable and sustainable well-being. We must not squander this opportunity to change the trajectory of humanity toward a more sustainable future.

Are Social, Economic and Environmental Well-Being Equally Important in all Countries Around the World? A Study by Income Levels

The main objective of this paper was to see whether different countries around the world show differences in their sustainability levels as captured in the indicators from the Sustainable Society Index (SSI, Van de Kerk and Manuel in Ecol Econ 66:228–242, 2012) according to their level of income. To do so, the X-STATIS and CO-STATIS multivariate techniques were employed. With these methods, our sample of 151 countries and 21 indicators can be jointly represented along four time periods. The results obtained permit us to visualize that the groups of countries by income levels show differences in some of the variables from the SSI, because of the lack of proximities between those variables and the countries. Moreover, with the X-STATIS technique, the possible evolution of the countries or indicators over time can be represented, and with CO-STATIS, the relations between the social, economic and environmental aspects can be shown as well. From our results we were able to deduce that, on the one hand, social and economic indicators, such as Public Debt or Employment, are associated with countries having high and upper-middle incomes, for example, Chile, Israel, Malta, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Spain, Portugal, France, Poland and Czech Republic. On the other hand, countries with low and lower-middle incomes are more associated with environmental issues. Also, after finding that the differences between the countries by income levels are mainly caused by the economic indicators, we carried out two CO-STATIS analyses, one for social and economic variables, and the other for economic and environmental variables. These findings led us to deduce that, generally, the social and economic indicators are not related to each other, nor are the economic indicators related to the environmental ones. However, for some of the countries individually both relations may be possible.

Revisiting Worst-Case DEA for Composite Indicators

Composite indicators are becoming increasingly influential tools of environmental assessment and advocacy. Nonetheless, their use is controversial as they often rely on ad-hoc and theoretically problematic assumptions regarding normalization, aggregation, and weighting. Nonparametric data envelopment analysis (DEA) methods, originating in the production-economics literature, have been proposed as a means of addressing these concerns. These methods dispense with contentious normalization and weighting techniques by focusing on a measure of best-case relative performance. Recently, the standard DEA model for composite indicators was extended to account for worst-case analysis by Zhou et al. (Ecol Econ 62(2):291–297, 2007) [hereafter, ZAP]. In this note we argue that, while valid and interesting in its own right, the measure adopted by ZAP may not capture, in a mathematical as well as practical sense, the notion of worst-case relative performance. By contrast, we focus on the strict worst-case analogue of standard DEA for composite indicators and show how it leads to tractable optimization problems. Finally, we compare the two methodologies using data from ZAP’s Sustainable Energy Index case study, demonstrating that they occasionally lead to divergent results.

Has the development of FDI and foreign trade contributed to China’s CO2 emissions? An empirical study with provincial panel data

Since the reform and opening up in 1978, China’s foreign direct investment (FDI) and foreign trade have grown rapidly. At the same time, China’s carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions surged and China has become the world’s biggest CO2 emitter. The purpose of this paper is to investigate the relationship between FDI, foreign trade and carbon dioxide emissions in China. Using a two-equation model adapted from Halkos and Paizanos (Ecol Econ 91:48–56, 2013), the total impacts of FDI and foreign trade on emission are divided into the direct and indirect impacts and estimated accordingly. The estimation results suggest that the total impact FDI on per capita CO2 emissions is negative. Concretely, the negative direct effect of FDI on carbon emissions dominates the positive indirect effect through FDI’s influence on per capita GDP. However, for foreign trade, both direct and indirect impacts on CO2 emissions are insignificant after taking consideration of potential endogeneity and introducing dynamics.

The value of nature

According to many accounts we are in the midst of a major extinction crisis, one that is unrivaled in extent and pace in evolutionary history. Despite enormous energy and expenditure devoted to conservation, we will be unable to save all imperiled species and places. How can (or even should) we come up with a prioritization approach that helps us make decisions about what is worth saving? One of the most widely promoted schemes is monetary valuation of species and ecosystems, based on the goods and services that we as humans receive. These ecosystem services can be delivered directly (eg food, fiber, or beauty) or indirectly (eg water filtration, carbon capture). While some have advocated monetary valuation as a democratic process in deciding which species or places to conserve (Nunes and van den Berg 2001; Ecol Econ 39: 203–22), others consider this a “selling out” of nature (McCauley 2006; Nature 447: 27–28). The important question is, can the economic model of anthropocentric valuing of species, ecosystems, and their goods and services deliver conservation benefits as promised? I propose a performance-based assessment using successes and failures over the past several decades, when the economic model has reigned supreme. Although space limitations prevent a detailed accounting here, I choose two crude metrics: protecting species and protecting ecosystems. Evidence suggests that we are doing rather poorly on the first, given accelerating species loss. Conversely, using protected areas, we have done better, by currently placing 12% of the global terrestrial surface area under some level of protection, with a goal of 20% by 2020. However, this growth in protected areas essentially “locks up” these places in conservation and out of the “normal” marketplace, so their applicability to assess performance of monetary evaluation is questionable. Furthermore, setting areas aside for conservation alone may not result in desired conservation benefits – we can't squeeze all of Earth's terrestrial biota into 10% or even 20% of the available area. Moreover, many protected areas are largely rock and ice (that is, not the most productive habitats) and global change will require many species to relocate. While I'm unable to judge whether – in the absence of the economic conservation model – biodiversity would have fared even worse, the status quo can't be one of comfort and promise for the future. I believe that any economic valuation of species or ecosystems will clash with long-term conservation goals. The most formidable obstacle is that managing species and ecosystems based on their utility to humans requires accurate measurements of the services that are provided and a thorough accounting of all costs and benefits. This raises serious questions about the ecological knowledge required to make such decisions. The economic value we assign to species will shift based on available information about the functional roles of species in ecosystems or food webs. For instance, we now recognize the role of top predators as structuring forces in terrestrial and aquatic environments, yet we do not assign them appropriate economic value. Non-lethal diseases and many parasites are now increasingly appreciated for their beneficial effects, for example in priming our immune systems. Any conservation approaches built on market-based evaluations rooted in past or incomplete ecological knowledge could result in extinction of species we undervalued previously. Furthermore, it is unclear how costs and benefits are being apportioned (locally, regionally, nationally, or globally). This raises serious questions about issues of accounting, governance, and enforcement, as well as the length of time economic models need to cover to account for cumulative or long-term effects. Finally, assigning trust and power to unregulated, market-based institutions to manage conservation interests implies that theoretical foundations, institutional structures, and their governance are sound and can be relied upon. The recent global financial crises indicate the opposite, because short-term profit maximizations overrode long-term stewardship responsibilities. While humans will clearly continue to be the beneficiaries of ecosystem services, the only hope for long-term conservation is to increase societal support. This requires a redefinition (in non-market terms) of our relationships with the natural world (including other people). In fact, this may provide the only means to assure the survival of many species and biotic communities for which we (currently) have no use or value. I agree with Aldo Leopold in that I have no hope for recruiting future generations of conservation-minded individuals by appealing to their pocketbooks. Instead, we should strive to reach their hearts. A nation does not buy conservation but learns it.

Towards consensus on how to measure neutral genetic diversity?

Towards consensus on how to measure neutral genetic diversity?

Progress along the path: evolving issues in the measurement of genuine saving

More than 10 years since a practical linkage between sustainable development and a measure of national wealth—expanded to include natural and environmental resources—was first posited, the empirical estimation of adjusted net savings, dubbed ‘genuine’ saving, has evolved considerably. In this paper we take stock of both progress achieved and the challenges that remain. We begin by recalling the key points made in Pearce and Atkinson (1993, Ecol Econ 8, 103), which presented the first cross-country estimates of savings rates adjusted to reflect depletion and degradation of the environment. We then briefly summarise the evolution of the theoretical argument linking savings and sustainability. However, the main focus of this paper is an aspect that concerned David Pearce greatly, namely the evolution of the measurement of genuine savings. We identify and consider the empirical evidence with regard to two particular measurement issues: the valuation of exhaustible resources and environmental degradation. Common to the both issues are concerns about measuring changes in national wealth in real world economies.

A transitional economy's metabolism: The case of Portugal

This paper follows a previous work that identifies a consistent pattern of increasing materials consumption associated with economic growth, until a certain income threshold is reached [Canas A, Ferrão P, Conceição P. A new environmental Kuznets curve? Relationship between direct material input and income per capita: evidence from industrialized countries. Ecol Econ 2003:46;217–29]. Emphasis is given to the analysis of the economy's metabolism along the period of increasing material consumption, which is associated with transitional economies. Here, an empirical analysis is provided, based on the study of the development of the Portuguese economy, which during the last two decades of the 20th century has crossed this development stage. The mechanisms that induced this transition in material consumption for the Portuguese economy are discussed and the analysis is completed by closing the material balance for the year 2000 in order to understand how material flows have crossed the economy and were transformed in products, stocks, or environmental burdens. It is demonstrated that the development model for this transitional economy corresponds to an increase in materials consumption related to strengthening the infrastructures that are required to improve physical infrastructures. Understanding the metabolism of transitional economies is assumed to be particularly relevant to a global sustainable development, as large emerging economies may be entering in this process.

Formulation of sensitivity analysis in life cycle assessment using a perturbation method

In this paper, a new method for the efficient sensitivity analysis in life cycle assessment is proposed. Introduction of a perturbation method to matrix-based life cycle assessment will enable one to evaluate the degree of influence of each element on the total sum of environmental loads. The mathematical background is described in detail together with its formulation. Special emphasis is placed on the advantage that the sensitivity matrix, in which each entity denotes the sensitivity of the corresponding element, is derived as a result of matrix operation. Therefore, even if the number of processes becomes larger, all sensitivities can be calculated easily. Furthermore, the process sensitivity is also formulated. The proposed method is compared with another sensitivity analysis by Heijungs [Heijungs R (1994) Ecol Econ 10:69–81] and the validity of the current method is examined using the example given by Heijungs.