Environ Monit Assess (2019) 191:616
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-019-7758-8
Economic value of regulating ecosystem services:
a comprehensive at the global level review
M. Balasubramanian
Received: 14 February 2019 / Accepted: 13 August 2019
# Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019
Abstract This study is the first meta-regression analy-
sis of the economic value of regulating ecosystem ser-
vices at the global level. Most of the regulating ecosys-
tem services have not been properly estimated in terms
of economic value and are also ignored in the everyday
decision-making process. This study has reviewed 100
publications and included 275 economic value esti-
mates. This study includes explanatory variables in the
meta-analysis to account for these influences on the
estimated economic value of regulating ecosystem ser-
vices. This study has estimated the economic value of
regulating ecosystem services at US$29.085 trillion for
2015. This study also has found that the values of
climate and water regulations are the highest contribu-
tors to the total value of regulating ecosystem services.
This study indicates that the results of meta-analysis
might be helpful to decision-making with respect to
three aspects: first, planning and management of urban
green cover for sustainable cities; second, integration of
the economic value of all the regulating ecosystem
services; third, budget allocation for conservation and
improvement of regulating ecosystem services for the
present and future generations.
Keywords Ecosystem services . Economic valuation .
Travel cost method . Meta-analysis
M. Balasubramanian (*)
Centre for Ecological Economics and Natural Resources, Institute
for Social and Economic Change, Bangalore, Karnataka 560 072,
India
e-mail: balasmku@gmail.com
Introduction
The issue of ecosystem services has become increasing-
ly a more important dimension of research in science
and social science disciplines in the twenty-first century.
Ecosystem services provide direct and indirect benefits
to human beings. Direct benefits include provisioning
services like food, raw material, freshwater, and medic-
inal resources (Bhatt and Sachan 2004), while indirect
benefits include regulating and cultural services like
climate regulation, water regulation, erosion regulation,
and recreation (MEA 2005). Ecosystem services make a
vital contribution to reducing poverty, especially in the
rural areas of many developing countries (Carpenter
et al. 2009; Daw et al. 2011; Raudsepp-Hearne et al.
2010; Sjöstedt 2012; Howe et al. 2014; Reyers et al.
2013; Fisher et al. 2014). Further, ecosystem services
also provide a number of health-related benefits to hu-
man beings, for example, MEA (2005) indicates that
ecosystem services have a strong association with well-
being in terms of personal security, freedom of choice,
and social relationship in society. Hence, ecosystem
services are very critical to human health and well-
being (Sandifer et al. 2015; Díaz et al. 2006; Haines-
Young and Potschin 2010). In addition, ecosystem ser-
vices improve health in terms of well-being (Han 2009;
Fjeld et al. 1998; Bringslimark et al. 2007; Mitchell and
Popham 2008). Types of Regulating Ecosystem Ser-
vices are strongly correlated with human well-being
(Guo et al. 2010) (Table 1). This study is important in
comparison to the previous meta-analyses of the value
of ecosystem services such as, the economic value of
 616 Page 2 of 27 Environ Monit Assess (2019) 191:616

Table 1 Regulating ecosystem services

MEA TEEB CICES

Air quality regulation Air quality regulation Regulation of waste

(e.g., capturing (fine) (e.g., bioremediation,
dust, and chemicals) dilution and sequestration)
Climate regulation Climate regulation Flow regulation (e.g., air flow
(including carbon regulation, water flow regulation,
sequestration, influence mass flow regulation)
of vegetation on rainfall, etc.)
Water regulation Moderation of extreme Regulation of physical environment
events (e.g., Storm (e.g., atmospheric regulation,
protection and flood prevention) water quality regulation,
soil quality regulation)
Erosion regulation Regulation of water flows Regulation of biotic environment
(e.g., natural drainage, (e.g., pest and disease control,
irrigation and drought gene pool protection)
prevention)
Water purification and waste treatment Waste treatment
(especially water
purification)
Disease regulation Erosion prevention
Pest regulation Maintenance of soil
fertility (Including
soil formation)
Pollination Pollination
Natural hazard regulation Biological control
(e.g., seed dispersal,
pest and disease control)
Soil quality regulation

Source: MEA (2005), TEEB (2010a) and Haines-Young and Potschin (2011)

mangrove ecosystem services (Brander et al. 2012); the
value of lake ecosystem services (Reynaud and
Lanzanova 2017); value of regulating ecosystem ser-
vices provided by wetland in agricultural landscapes
(Brander et al. 2013). However, there exist no separate
meta-analyses based on the Millennium Ecosystem As-
sessment (MEA) classification of regulating ecosystem
services. This meta-analysis is the first study at the
global level. Second, people get indirect benefits from
regulating ecosystem services in their everyday life, but
with no economic value attached to the benefits.
Population growth, economic expansion, and land
use change have led to increased degradation of ecosys-
tem services over the last few decades, for instance, 60%
of the ecosystem services have declined over 1960–
2000 (MEA 2003, 2005). Ecosystems’ contribution to
economic, social, and environmental domains relies on
the share of both tangible and non-tangible benefits.
Most of the ecosystem services remain unestimated in
terms of economic value and are missing in the
everyday decision-making process. But the value of
ecosystem goods and services plays a vital role in the
sustainable use of ecosystem services and poverty re-
duction. Hence, the value of ecosystem goods and ser-
vices is to help integrate the natural resources into
everyday decision-making process around the world
(Daily et al. 2009). The Economics of Ecosystem and
Biodiversity study by Pascual et al. (2010) discusses the
value of ecosystems and biodiversity in relation to miss-
ing markets, imperfect markets, and market failure, and
the uncertainty involving demand and supply of natural
resources, especially in the future. Therefore, valuing
natural resources is one of the central tools of conserva-
tion, but is not an end in itself (Daily et al. 2009).
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) points
out most of the provisioning and cultural services like
food, raw material, freshwater, medicinal resources, and
recreation estimated in terms of economic value.
Moreover, regulating services provide a number of
benefits to human beings including the regulation of
Environ Monit Assess (2019) 191:616
climate, water, some human diseases, etc. However,
most of the regulating services have not been captured
in terms of economic value because regulating services
are not sold or bought in the market. But the value of
regulating services is very important, for example,
Falkowski et al. (2000) observe that regulating ecosys-
tem services can reduce soil erosion and adjust micro-
climatic conditions beneficial to crop production and
indirectly enhance agricultural productivity. In addition,
water regulation is another valuable benefit provided by
the forest regulating ecosystem services. For example,
Ernstson et al. (2010) estimated every 10% increase in
the forest cover of watershed areas reduces the cost of
treating water for human consumption by about 20% in
the USA. Boyles et al. (2011) estimated that the eco-
nomic value of pest control provided by a little brown at
around the US $23 billion per year agriculture in North
America. Guo et al. (2000) estimated the economic
value of water flow regulation in the Yangtze River in
China. This study has found the value 0.42 times the
annual income of forestry in the country for 1994, while
estimating that it might reach 2.2 times the annual
income from forestry when three Gorges Hydroelectric
power plants would start functioning. The economic
value of pest control in agriculture is another important
service provided by regulating ecosystem services. Pest
control in agriculture helps to sustain crop production
(Power 2010; Rusch et al. 2010; Crowder and Jabbour
2014). The economic value of pest control in the
USA is very large, nearly at $4.5 billion annually
(Losey and Vaughan 2006). Another study by Zhang
and Swinton (2012) estimated the economic value of
biological control in soybean production for four
Midwestern states in 2005 at around $80 million.
This paper begins with a brief introduction to the
regulating ecosystem services and their role, section
1, followed by the economic value of regulating
ecosystem services in “The economic value of regu-
lating services.” Material and methods are discussed
in “Materials and methods.” The results and discus-
sion are presented in “Results and discussions,”
followed by the conclusion and implications of the
study presented in “Conclusion and implications.”
The economic value of regulating services
Regulating services are the benefits derived from the
regulation of ecosystem processes (MEA 2005). Regu-
lating services contribute to human well-being, for
Page 3 of 27 616
example, flood control, water quality, and water
supply. Further, wetlands provide valuable regulating
ecosystem services in many developing and developed
countries. Brander et al. (2013) have estimated the value
of regulating services provided by wetlands in agricul-
tural landscapes at the global level. This study has also
estimated the global annual economic value of regulat-
ing services such as flood control, water supply, and
nutrient recycling at US$26 billion. However, the lack
of understanding of information on the value of regulat-
ing services has generally led to their omission in the
everyday decision-making process regarding the con-
servation of ecosystems and their services. The nutrient
cycle is very important for maintaining soil quality. For
example, Hordoir et al. (2013) have estimated the eco-
nomic value of nutrient cycling at around EUR 3,800
million a year in the Baltic Sea for reducing the eutro-
phication caused by nutrient runoffs. A recent study by
Aho et al. (2015) estimated the economic value of
nutrient cycling for Finland EUR at 510 million euro,
or at around half a billion euro. Moreover, this study has
found that nutrient cycling has a strong synergy with
sustainable bioeconomy and the productivity of
agriculture and forestry. Jones et al. (2014) estimated
the economic value of the decline in nutrient deposition
with respect to six ecosystem services and the marginal
economic value of the nutrients in terms of a net benefit
(equivalent to annual value) at 65 million euros for the
UK.
The economic value of pest control is another impor-
tant ecosystem service provided by regulating services.
The economic values of pest control and pollination
have already been well recognized at the global level
(Hein 2009). For example, Brazilian free-tailed bats in
south-central Texas provide value as pest control for
cotton production at an annual value of $741,000 per
year, with a range of $121,000–$1725, 000 as compared
to $4.6–$6.4 million per year cotton harvest (Cleveland
et al. 2006). The ecological value provided by insects
including during burial, pest control, pollution, and
wildlife nutrient has been estimated at US$57 billion
for the USA. Environmental benefits of pest control in
the Philippines has been estimated at US$150,000 for
4600 local residents (Cuyno et al. 2001). Similarly, the
value of pest control for Virginia has been estimated at
US$844,000 based on willingness to pay (Mullen et al.
1997). Pollinators are a key component of biodiversity
and ecosystem services (Potts et al. 2010; Ashman et al.
2004; Aguilar et al. 2006) and agriculture productivity
 616 Page 4 of 27
(Klein et al. 2007); honeybees (Breeze et al. 2011) and
pollination ecosystem services are considered direct and
indirect benefits to human beings (Fisher et al. 2009;
Willis and Garrod 1993). The value of pollination ser-
vices has not been properly estimated in respect to
agricultural production, while other ecosystem services
are provided by regulating ecosystem services
(Melathopoulos et al. 2015a). The global economic
value of pollination has been estimated at 153 euros,
which represents 9.5% of the value of world agricultural
production for 2005 (Gallai et al. 2009). The value of
bees has increased significantly over the years, for ex-
ample, coffee farm size, bee diversity, and a cover of
semi-natural habitats in Uganda. This study has estimat-
ed that the annual value of pollinating services between
US$67.18 and US$1431.36 (Munyuli and
Mushambanyi 2014). The Parliamentary Office of Sci-
ence and Technology (2010) estimated the economic
value of insect pollination services with respect to crop
agriculture at 400 million euros for the UK. On the other
side, the economic value for insect pollinators of agri-
cultural productivity of the major crops in the Hindu
Kush Himalayan region has been estimated at US$2.7
billion. The Himalayan region accounts for the highest
value of pollination services at US$53.8 million for the
Chittagong Hill Tracts of Bangladesh; at US$17. 9
million for Bhutan; at US$678.8 million for the Chinese
Himalayan provinces; at US$365 million for Himachal
Pradesh; at US$426.8 million for Kashmir; at US$166.8
million for Uttarakhand in the Central Himalayas; and at
US$954.6 million for the Himalayan region of Pakistan.
Carbon sequestration is one of the important services
provided by forest ecosystems. Forests provide multiple
non-market ecosystem services, especially carbon se-
questration, climate regulation, and water regulation.
Further, there are a few ecosystem services estimated
in terms of economic value, for example, Ninan and
Kontoleon (2016) have estimated that the economic
value of carbon sequestration for Nagarhole National
Park in India at US$1.25 million per year. Hein (2011)
has estimated the economic value of carbon sequestra-
tion in the aboveground biomass for the Hoge Veluwe
Forest at 32,800 euro/year, while the value of carbon
services has been estimated for New Hampshire at
US$59–US$157/ha (Gutrich and Howarth 2007). The
economic value of carbon sequestration in an urban
forest (Kim 2016) has been estimated for the Roanoke
city in the USA at US$163,000. Similarly, the economic
value of carbon storage has been estimated by various
Environ Monit Assess (2019) 191:616
studies such as (Brander et al. 2013; Brown et al. 2007;
Farber et al. 2006) in respect to various ecosystem
services. Carbon storage in wetland ecosystems
has been widely studied, for example, Patton
et al. (2015) have estimated the economic value
of carbon sequestration for four National Wildlife
Refuges in the USA. This study has found that
Okefenokee accounts for the highest aggregate US
and the global carbon storage valued at USS$ 146
million, followed by Blackwater US$8.4 million,
A r r o w w o o d a t U S $ 4 4 1 , 0 0 0 , a n d , l a s t l y,
Sevilletaand Bosque del Apache at US$ 196,000
million. Carbon ecosystem services are supported
by wetland and other ecosystems in the USA.
Mangrove forests play a very significant role in car-
bon sequestration in the context of many developing
countries (Alongi 2012). Carbon storage in global man-
grove forests has been estimated at around 1,023 Mg per
hectare (Donato et al. 2011). The economic value of
carbon sequestration services ranges from US$ 945 to
US$ 1891/ha in the South Sulawesi mangroves in Indo-
nesia (Malik et al. 2015). Gazi Bay in Kenya generates
carbon sequestration to the extent value of about
US$126/ha. With respect to Central African countries,
i.e., Camerron, Gabon, Republic of Congo, and the
UNEP, The Democratic Republic of the Congo: post-
conflict environmental assessment—synthesis for poli-
cy makers (UNEP 2011).
Materials and methods
The aim of this paper is to assess the economic value of
regulating ecosystem services based on previous prima-
ry research studies at the global level. To support the
analysis, we have constructed a dataset of regulating
ecosystem services consisting of 275 value observations
from 100 valuation studies at the global level. Table 2
and Fig. 1 explain the geographical distribution of var-
ious regulating ecosystem at the global level. This study
has used primary valuation studies as well as benefit
transfer methods. Moreover, this study has used the
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment classification of
regulating ecosystem services published in 2005. Ac-
cording to Fig 1, the highest number and values are
reported for the climate regulation services, followed
by water regulation, erosion, air quality regulation, and
natural hazard regulation.
Environ Monit Assess (2019) 191:616 Page 5 of 27 616

Table 2 Geographical location and valuation method

Author and year Country Valuation method

Abson et al. 2010 UK CSERG land use model

Adger and Kelly 1990 Mexico Avoided, replacement cost and market price
Badola et al. 2010 India Replacement cost
Van Beukering et al. 2003 Indonesia Dynamic simulation model
Bahuguna and Bisht 2013 India Value transfer
Biao et al. 2010 China Replacement cost
Fearnside 1997 Brazil Value transfer
Pearce and Moren 1994 Brazil Avoided, replacement cost and market price
Brander and McEvoy 2012 Isle of Man Value transfer
Brander et al. 2012 South Asia Value transfer
Canu et al. 2015 Mediterranean Sea Biogeochemical model
Costanza et al. 1997 Global Value transfer
Creedy and Wurzbacher 2001 Australia Net present value
Eade and Moran 1996 Belize Value transfer
Emerton and Kekulandala 2003 Sri Lanka Replacement cost, damages, and avoided cost
Gang et al. 2002 China Value transfer
Gunawardena and Rowan 2005 Sri Lanka Value transfer
Guo et al. 2001 China Bioeconomic model and GIS
Gao et al. 2008 China Avoided cost
Hu et al. 2008 China Value transfer
Sathirathai and Barbier 2001 Thailand Replacement cost
Li et al. 2006 China Damaged and avoided cost
Pearce 1991 Brazil Value transfer
Loomis et al. 2000 USA CVM
Losey and Vaughan 2006 USA Hedonic price and CVM
Mashayekh 2013 Iran Replacement cost
Matero and Saastamoinen 2007 Finland Market price
Morse and Calderone 2000 USA Market price
Smajgl et al. 2015 Southeast Asia Value transfer
Nahuelhual et al. 2007 Chile Replacement cost
Ninan and Inoue 2013 Japan Market price and damaged cost
Niu et al. 2012a, 2012b China Market price
Nowak et al. 2006 USA Avoided cost
Nowak et al. 2007 USA Avoided cost
Pant et al. 2012 Nepal Value transfer
Brown and Pearce 1994 Brazil Value transfer
Peng et al. 2004 China Avoided cost
Pimentel et al. 1997 Global Value transfer
Remme et al. 2015 Netherlands Replacement and avoided cost
Seidl and Moraes 2000 Brazil Value transfer
Semwal et al. 2007 India Value transfer
Torras 2000 Brazil Value transfer
Xie et al. 2010 China Value transfer
Zhang et al. 2014 China Value transfer
 616 Page 6 of 27 Environ Monit Assess (2019) 191:616

Table 2 (continued)

Author and year Country Valuation method

Xie et al. 2003 China Replacement cost

Zhiyun et al. 2011 China Opportunity cost and market price
Ruitenbeek 1992 Cameroon Damaged cost
Suwarno et al. 2016 Indonesia Avoided cost
Wipulanusat and Herabat 2007 Thailand Contingent valuation method
Xue and Tisdell 2001 China Opportunity cost
Mukherjee et al. 2014a, 2014b Germany Delphi method
WWF/Dalberg 2013 Congo Replacement cost
Brady et al. 2015 European Union Value transfer
Brauer et al. 2015 Germany Replacement cost
Bullock et al. 2014 Ireland Replacement cost
Häyhä et al. 2015 Italy European union trading scheme, replacement
Anielski and Wilson 2003 Canada Damaged cost, annual maintenance cost
Postel and Thompson 2005 USA Avoided cost
Christie and Rayment 2012 UK Value transfer
Vieria da Silva et al. 2014 UK Value transfer
Boerema et al. 2016 Germany Damaged cost
Kubiszewski et al. 2013 Bhutan Value transfer
Sharma et al. 2015 Nepal Value transfer
Hein 2011 Netherlands Replacement cost
Aanesen et al. 2010 Norway Opportunity cost
Mwebaze et al. 2010 UK Contingent valuation method
Paletto et al. 2015 Austria Replacement cost, market price method
Považan et al. 2014 Poland Value transfer
Murillas-maza et al. 2011 Spain Replacement cost
Melathopoulos et al. 2015a Global Insect pollination economic value
Gascoigne et al. 2011 USA Value transfer
Richardson et al. 2014 Global Value transfer
Jenkins et al. 2010 USA Value transfer
Winfree et al. 2011 USA Replacement cost
Zhongmin et al. 2003 China Contingent valuation method
Schäffler and Swilling 2013 South Africa Carbon price
Adusumilli 2015 USA Value transfer
De Groot et al. 2012 USA Value transfer
Scolozzi et al. 2012 Italy Value transfer
Lal 1990 Fiji Alternative cost method
Fang et al. 2014 Global Value transfer
Song et al. China Value transfer
Lü et al. 2012 China Value transfer
Harmáčková and Vačkář 2015 Czech Republic Invest
Yang and Yang 2014 China Damaged cost, replacement cost
Tong et al. 2007 China Removal cost
Ghaley et al. 2014 Denmark European union trading scheme
Busch et al. 2012 Germany European union trading scheme, replacement
Environ Monit Assess (2019) 191:616 Page 7 of 27 616

Table 2 (continued)

Author and year Country Valuation method

Bagstad et al. 2012 USA Social cost

Blair et al. 2015 USA Replacement cost
Sara wilson 2012 Canada Avoided cost, replacement cost, damaged cost
Seidl and Moraes 2000 Brazil Value transfer
Wilson 2008 Canada Value transfer
Grabowski et al. 2012 USA Replacement cost
Gallai et al. 2009 Global Value transfer
George 2014 USA Value transfer
Emerton 2013 Cambodia Replacement cost, value transfer
Estrada et al. 2015 Brazil Maintenance cost
Favretto et al. 2014 Botswana Value transfer
Kulshreshtha et al. 2000a, b Canada Value transfer

Source: Author’s estimate

A meta-regression analysis is most helpful in and Pattanayak 2002; Nelson and Kennedy 2009;
examining the findings of empirical studies in De Salvo and Signorello 2015); in practical policy
economics and other social science disciplines decision-making (Reynaud and Lanzanova 2017);
(Stanley 2001; Salem and Mercer 2012; Smith and in welfare measure for natural resources

Fig. 1 Location of valuation of study area

 616 Page 8 of 27 Environ Monit Assess (2019) 191:616

Table 3 Explanatory variables used in the basic meta-regression model

Group variables Unit/measurement Mean (SD)

Dependent variable US$ ha/year 2015 prices (ln) 13.4 (6.3)

Socio economic (XS)
GDP (Gross domestic product) PPP Dollars (2011) (ln) 9.7 (1.03)
Population 4.3 (1.18)
Population density (ln) (people per sq. km of land area)
Valuation method (XV)
Avoided cost method Binary (range:0 or 1) 0.1 (0.34)
Replacement cost method Binary (range:0 or 1) 0.2 (0.43)
Damaged cost method Binary (range:0 or 1) 0.08 (0.27)
Opportunity cost method Binary (range:0 or 1) 0.03 (0.17)
Bio-economic model Binary (range:0 or 1) 0.02 (0.14)
Contingent valuation method Binary (range:0 or 1) 0.05 (0.21)
Value transfer method Binary (range:0 or 1) 0.4 (0.49)
CSERG Binary (range:0 or 1) 0.01 (0.10)
Hedonic price method Binary (range:0 or 1) 0.01 (0.10)
Dynamic simulation model Binary (range:0 or 1) 0.01 (0.10)
Market price method Binary (range:0 or 1) 0.08 (0.27)
Delphi method Binary (range:0 or1) 0.01 (0.10)
European Union trade scheme Binary (range:0 or 1) 0.03 (0.17)
Insect pollination economic value Binary (range:0 or 1) 0.01 (0.10)
Carbon price method Binary (range:0 or 1) 0.01 (0.10)
Alternative cost method Binary (range:0 or 1) 0.01 (0.10)
Invest Binary (range:0 or 1) 0.01 (0.10)
Removal cost method Binary (range:0 or 1) 0.01 (0.10)
Social cost method Binary (range:0 or 1) 0.01 (0.10)
Maintenance cost method Binary (range:0 or1 0.02 (0.14)
Ecosystem services provided (XE)
Air quality regulation Binary (range:0 or 1) 0.22 (0.41)
Climate regulation Binary (range:0 or 1) 0.75 (0.44)
Water regulation Binary (range:0 or 1) 0.45 (0.50)
Disease regulation Binary (range:0 or 1) 0.70(0.25)
Pollination Binary (range:0 or 1) 0.17 (0.37)
Natural hazard Binary (range:0 or 1) 0.20 (0.40)
Waste treatment Binary (range:0 or 1) 0.16 (0.36)
Erosion regulation Binary (range:0 or 1) 0.31 (0.46)
Soil quality regulation Binary (range:0 or 1) 0.14 (0.35)

Source: Author’s estimate

(Moeltner et al. 2007); Particularly, the economic
value of ecosystem services has been used
(Stanley 2001; Smith and Pattanayak 2002;
Bateman and Jones 2003; Rosenberger and
Phipps 2007; Brander et al. 2013; Brouwer et al.
1999; Brander et al. 2006; Ghermandi et al. 2010).
This study has used meta-regression analysis for
estimating the economic value of regulating ser-
vices based on various primary studies from vari-
ous parts of the world. The base meta-regression
model is specified as follows by Salem and
Mercer (2012):
Environ Monit Assess (2019) 191:616
lnðyÞ ¼ c þ X s βs þ X v βv þ X E β E þ μ ð1Þ
where the dependent variable is the value of regulating
ecosystem services standardized to 2011 US$ per hect-
are per year. The subscript an index for the 129 obser-
vations is a constant term, and vectors contain the coef-
ficients of explanatory variables and an error term that is
assumed to be well-behaved. c is the constant, the β
vectors symbolize the vectors of coefficients of the
relevant X matrices, and μ is the error term. Table 3
provides an overview of the explanatory variables. They
consist of three categories, namely characteristics of (i)
Xssocio-economic characteristics; (ii) Xv valuation
methods of regulating ecosystem services; (iii) XE types
of regulating ecosystem services.
Valuation methods have been used in the primary
studies for assessing the different values of regulating
ecosystem services. These include avoided cost
methods, replacement cost method, damaged cost meth-
od, opportunity cost method, bioeconomic model, con-
tingent valuation method, benefits transfer, CSERG,
hedonic price, market price method, and dynamic sim-
ulation model. A dummy for each of the valuation
methods has been included in the meta-regression mod-
el to account for the heterogeneity of the methods, as not
the entire valuation methods have a strong basis in
welfare theory and produce estimates of different wel-
fare measures. Most of the studies have used the benefit
transfer method followed by avoided cost and replace-
ment cost method like in this study (see Table 4).
Results and discussions
The economic value of ecosystem services has already
been recognized at the global level (Costanza et al.
1997; Assessment 2005; TEEB 2008; Hougner et al.
2006; Jim and Chen 2008; Nowak and Crane 1998;
McPherson et al. 1999; Soares et al. 2011; Tyrva¨inen
2001; Boyer and Polasky 2004; Kaplan and Kaplan
1989; Chiesura 2004; Konijnendijk et al. 2013; Sutton
and Anderson 2016; McPherson et al. 1999; Tyrväinen
et al. 2005). Economic valuation contributes to im-
proved resource allocation by informing decision-
makers on the full social cost of ecosystem exploitation
and the full social benefits of the ecosystem goods and
services that healthy ecosystems provide (Defra 2007;
Bouma and Van Beukering 2015). Robert Costnaza and
his colleague updated their 1997 paper on the value of
Page 9 of 27 616
global ecosystem services in 2014. The estimated value
of ecosystem services amounts to the US$46 trillion/
year (Costanza et al. 2014). Similarly, Kubiszewski et al.
(2016) have estimated the economic value of ecosystem
services for Asia and the Pacific region at US$ 14
trillion/year. In addition, this study points out that China
accounts for the largest ecosystem services for 2011,
valued at US$ 3.6 trillion/year, followed by Australia at
US$ 3.6 trillion/year, while this study has also estimated
the economic value of ecosystem services for India
valued at US$ 1.8 trillion/year followed by Indonesia
US$ 1.7 trillion/year.
Total value of regulating services
Table 5 provides the economic value of regulating eco-
system services based on 100 published articles from
1997 to 2015. The total value amounts to the
US$29085.185 (billions) provided by various regulating
ecosystem services. The economic value of six forest
ecosystem services in respect to China amounts to
US$1.48 trillion/year. This study has estimated the eco-
nomic value of forest ecosystem services which include
water, soil conservation, carbon sequestration, nutrient
accumulation, and atmosphere purification. These eco-
system services have contributed about 33% of the gross
domestic product of China for 2008 (Niu et al. 2012a,
b). This study also has found that the economic value of
regulating services estimated by Niu et al. (2012a, b) is
the highest when compared to other estimations of the
study. The annual value of regulating ecosystem ser-
vices in the Qinba Mountains of Shaanxi Province of
China amounts to about US$ 165049.6 million, while Li
et al. (2006) estimated the indirect value of ecosystem
services including soil and fertility conservation at 22.64
RMB, water conservation at 22.66 RMB, and carbon
fixation and oxygen supply at 352.24 RMB and 374.19
RMB, respectively. This study also has found that the
Qinba Mountains has been providing huge benefits for
the local community, both directly and indirectly. The
value of regulating services from Qinba Mountains
amounts to about US$165049.6 million (Le et al.,
2006). One of the first studies of the economic value
of ecosystem services by Pimentel et al. (1997) estimat-
ed the annual economic and environmental benefit of
biodiversity in respect of the USA at about US$300
billion. This study estimated the economic value of
regulating services such as soil formation, nitrogen
 616 Page 10 of 27 Environ Monit Assess (2019) 191:616

Table 4 Primary valuation studies of regulating ecosystem services

Author and year Air quality Climate Water Diseases Pollination Natural hazard Waste Erosion Soil quality
regulation regulation regulation regulation regulation treatment regulation regulation

Abson et al. 2010 X X

Adger and Kelly X X
1990
Badola et al. 2010 X X X
Van Beukering X X X
et al. 2003
Bahuguna and X X X X
Bisht 2013
Biao et al. 2010 X X X
Bisht et al. 2013 X
Brander et al. X X
2012
Brander and X X
McEvoy 2012
Brander et al. X X
2012
Canu et al X X
Costanza et al. X XX X X X X X X
1997
Creedy and X X
Wurzbacher
2001
Eade and Moran X X X
1996
Emerton and X X X X
Kekulandala
2003
Gang et al. 2002 X X X
Gunawarden X X
Guo et al. 2001 XX X X
Gao et al. 2008 X
Hu et al. 2008 X
Korsgaard and X XX X X X X X X
Schou 2010
Li et al. 2006 X
Li et al. 2007 X XX X X X X X X
Loomis et al. X X
2000
Losey and X X X
Vaughan 2006
Mashayekh 2013 X
Matero and X X X
Saastamoinen
2007
Morse and X
Calderone 2000
Naber et al. 2008 X X X X
Nahuelhual et al. X
2007
Environ Monit Assess (2019) 191:616 Page 11 of 27 616

Table 4 (continued)

Author and year Air quality Climate Water Diseases Pollination Natural hazard Waste Erosion Soil quality
regulation regulation regulation regulation regulation treatment regulation regulation

Ninan and Inoue X X X X X

2013
Niu et al. 2012a, b X X X X
Nowak et al. 2006 XXX
Nowak et al. 2007 X XXX
Pant et al. 2012 X X X
Pattanayak and X
Butry 2002
Peng et al X
Pimentel et al. X XX X X X X X
1997
Remme et al. X X
2015
Seidl and Moraes X XX X X X X X X
2000
Semwal et al. X XX X X X X X X
2007
Torras 2000 X X X X
Wilson and X X
Carpenter 1999
Winfree et al. X
2011
Yiran et al. 2014 X X X X
Xie et al. 2003 X X X
Zhiyun et al. 2011 X X X X
Zhongxin and X XX X X X X X X
Xinshi 2000
Suwarno et al. X X
2016b
Mukherjee et al. X X
2014a, b
WWF/Dalberg X X X
2013
Brady et al X
Brauer et al. 2015 X
Bullock et al. X X
2014
Häyhä et al. 2015 X X
Anielski and X X
Wilson 2003
Postel and X
Thompson
2005
Christie and X X
Rayment 2012
Vieria da Silva X
et al. 2014
Boerma et al. X
2014
Kubiszewski et al. X X X X X X X
2013
 616 Page 12 of 27 Environ Monit Assess (2019) 191:616

Table 4 (continued)

Author and year Air quality Climate Water Diseases Pollination Natural hazard Waste Erosion Soil quality
regulation regulation regulation regulation regulation treatment regulation regulation

Sharma et al. X
2015
Hein 2011 X X
Aanesen et al. X X
2010
Mwebaze et al. X
2010
Paletto et al. 2015 X X
Považan et al. X
2014
Murillas-maza X X
et al. 2011
Melathopoulos X
et al. 2015a
Gascoigne et al. X
2011
Richardson et al. X X
2014
Jenkins et al. 2010 X
Winfree et al. X
2011
Zhongmin et al. X
2003
Schäffler and X
Swilling 2013
Adusumilli 2015 X
De Groot et al. X X X X X X
2012
Scolozzi et al. X X X X X X
2012
Lal 1990 X
Fang et al. 2014 X X X X X X X
Song et al. X X
Lü et al. 2012 X X X X
Harmáčková and X
Vačkář 2015
Yang and Yang X X X
2014
Tong et al. 2007 X
Ghaley et al. 2014 X
Busch et al. 2012 X X
Bagstad et al. X
2012
Blair et al. 2015 X X
Sara wilson 2012 X X X X X
Seidl and Moraes X X X X X
2000
Wilson 2008 X X X X X X
Grabowski et al. X
2012
Environ Monit Assess (2019) 191:616
Table 4 (continued)
Author and year Air quality Climate Water Diseases
regulation regulation regulation regulation
Gallai et al. 2009
George 2014 X X
Emerton 2013 X X
Estrada et al. 2015 X
Favretto et al. X
2014
Kulshreshtha X
et al. 2000a, b
Source: Author’s estimate
fixation, pollination, waste treatment, and bioremedia-
tion of chemicals at about US$132.906 million.
Tammi et al. (2016) have estimated the economic
value of regulating services in respect to temperate
regions, Finland. This study has estimated the annual
value of ecosystem services at about 0.8 to 1 billion
euros. The value of regulating services particularly car-
bon sequestration, nutrient retention, and pollination has
been estimated at 31 million, 54 million and 9.9 million
euro,respectively, for 2016. In addition, this study has
estimated the value of regulating services provided by
artificial surfaces at 1.6 million euro, agricultural areas
at 3.81 million euro, forest and semi-natural areas 29.6
million euro, wetlands 0.32 million euro, and water
bodies at 44.7 million euro for Finland. The economic
value of water conservation of forest ecosystem services
for China is very significant, for example, Biao et al.
(2000) estimated the economic value of water conser-
vation at about 5.23 billion RMB and per hectare at
5704 RMB. Water ecosystem services are one of the
significant ecosystem benefits provided by regulating
services (Guo et al. 2001; Li et al. 2006). The function
and economic value of water conservation provided by
Beijing’s forests include rainfall interception at 2770.40
million RMB, soil water storage at 2147.56 million
RMB, and freshwater provision 315.33 million RMB,
for 2010. The economic value of regulating services has
been estimated for Beijing forest at about US$56318.55
million based on water conservation (Biao et al., 2000).
Forest regulating ecosystem services have been provid-
ing more economic benefits to society. For example,
Guo et al. (2001) estimated the annual economic value
of some forest ecosystem services in respect to
Xingshan, China. This study has also estimated the
direct and indirect economic value of forest ecosystem
Page 13 of 27 616
Pollination Natural hazard Waste Erosion Soil quality
regulation treatment regulation regulation
X
X
services. Direct economic value included timber and
other forest products at about 54.23 million RMB and
indirect economic value included water conservation,
gas regulation, and soil conservation at about 528.73
million RMB. Sharma et al. (2015) estimated the eco-
nomic benefits from the Koshi Tappu Wildlife Reserve
at US$ 16 million per year, while the economic value of
regulating ecosystem services in respect of Brazil has
been estimated at about US$ 16436.81 million (Seidl
and Moraes 2000). The value of climate regulation,
water regulation, pollination services, waste regulation,
and erosion regulation services for Canada has been
estimated at about US$16436.81 (Wilson 2009). Many
studies have estimated the economic value of regulating
services in respect to the USA, for example, George
(2014) estimated the value of three regulating services
at about the US$79754 million; Blair et al. (2015)
assessed the value of water regulation and soil quality
regulation at about US$1513.819 million; de Groot et al.
(2012) estimated the value of regulating ecosystem ser-
vices at about US$65273.01 million. On the other hand,
Häyhä et al. (2015) estimated the value of climate reg-
ulation and erosion regulation for Italy at about
US$19531.38 million. The value of regulating ecosys-
tem services at the global level has estimated by
Melathopoulos et al. (2015a) at about US$182590 mil-
lion; Richardson et al. (2014) at about US$121909.5;
Fang et al. (2014) at about US$645.74 million; Gallai
et al. (2009) estimated the global value of pollination
services at about US$6740.1 million.
Value of air quality regulation
Air quality is a vital component of human well-
being. For instance, urban air quality regulation is
 616 Page 14 of 27 Environ Monit Assess (2019) 191:616

Table 5 Economic value of regulating ecosystem services (US$ 2015)

Abson et al. 2010 5.1 M

Adger and Kelly 1990 7217.82 M

Badola et al. 2010 69.13 M
Van Beukering et al. 2003 5909.96 M
Bahuguna and Bisht 2013 103.97 M
Biao et al. 2000 56318.55 M
Fearnside 1997 103.37
Pearce et al. 1997 319.86
Brander and McEvoy 2012 12.03 M
Brander et al. 2012 1.3 M
Canu et al. 2015 1824.459 M
Costanza et al. 1997 921.49 M
Creedy and Wurzbacher 2001 669.54
Eade and Moran 1996 490.95
Emerton and Kekulandala 2003 0.014 M
Gang et al. 2002 0.27 M
Gunawarden 2005 323.79 M
Guo et al. 2001 258.167 M
Gao et al. 2008 6248.87 M
Hu et al. 2008 3420.35
Sathirathai and Barbier 2001 0.048 M
Li et al. 2006 165049.6 M
Pearce 1991 102.67
Loomis et al. 2000 3303 M
Losey and Vaughan 2006 5278.8 M
Mashayekh 2013 46.74
Matero and Saastamoinen 2007 2144.49 M
Morse and Calderone 2000 19269.67 M
Smajgl et al. 2015 0.000026 M
Nahuelhual et al. 2007 302.92
Ninan and Inoue 2013 2144.49 M
Niu et al. 2012a, b 1527850 M
Nowak et al. 2006 2.927 M
Nowak et al. 2007 12.9 M
Pant et al. 2012 27.46 M
Brown and Pearce 1994 159.93
Peng et al. 2004 60.75
Pimentel et al. 1997 132.906.7 M
Remme et al. 2015 13.775 M
Seidl and Moraes 2000 4125.05
Semwal et al. 2007 824.19
Torras 2000 338.6
Xie et al. 2010 434.5
Zhang et al. 2014 8275.75
Xie et al. 2003 0.0434 M
Environ Monit Assess (2019) 191:616 Page 15 of 27 616

Table 5 (continued)

Abson et al. 2010 5.1 M

Zhiyun et al. 2011 0.077 M

Ruitenbeek 1992 6.76
Suwarno et al. 2016b 2797.08
Wipulanusat and Herabat 2007 163.15
Xue and Tisdell 2001 9.765 M
Mukherjee et al. 2014a, b 0.605 M
WWF/Dalberg 2013 137.98 M
Brady et al 0.171 M
Bräuer 2005 14.513 M
Bullock et al. 2014 772.51 M
Häyhä et al. 2015 19531.38 M
Anielski and Wilson 2003 6371.42 M
Postel and Thompson 2005 2991.56 M
Christie and Rayment 2012 453.17 M
Vieria da Silva et al. 2014 62.93 M
Boerma et al. 2014 5.46 M
Kubiszewski et al. 2013 17781656 M
Sharma et al. 2015 200 M
Hein 2011 31 M
Aanesen et al. 2010 5135.87 M
Mwebaze et al. 2010 2764.47 M
Paletto et al. 2015 13447.47 M
Povazanret et al. 2014 12.405 M
Murillas-maza et al. 2011 53591 M
Melathopoulos et al. 2015a 182590 M
Gascoigne et al. 2011 906.082 M
Richardson et al. 2014 121909.5 M
Jenkins et al. 2010 0.43 M
Winfree et al. 2011 2.107 M
Zhongmin et al. 2003 86.097 M
Schäffler and Swilling 2013 65273.01 M
Adusumilli 2015 5757971 M
De Groot et al. 2012 65273.01 M
Scolozzi et al. 2012 55.38 M
Lal 1990 10.55 M
Fang et al. 2014 645.74 M
Song et al. 8333.5 M
Lü et al. 2012 0.065 M
Harmáčková and Vačkář 2015 267.32 M
Yang and Yang 2014 2378.726 M
Tong et al. 2007 0.334 M
Ghaley et al. 2014 0.478 M
Busch et al. 2012 52.05 M
Bagstad et al. 2012 146.591 M
 616 Page 16 of 27
Table 5 (continued)
Abson et al. 2010
Blair et al. 2015
Sara wilson 2012
Seidl and Moraes 2000
Wilson 2008
Grabowski et al. 2012
Gallai et al. 2009
George 2014
Emerton 2013
Estrada et al. 2015
Favretto et al. 2014
Kulshreshtha et al. 2000a, b
Total
Unit: M millions and B billions
very important for reducing heat and improving
the health conditions of urban dwellers. There is
vast literature on urban air pollution impacts on
health (Synyer et al. 2002; Mindell and Joffe
2004; Amato 2010). The economic value of urban
air quality based on willingness to pay has been
well documented, for example, Smith and Huang
(1995) reviewed 37 studies related to US air qual-
ity regulation based on the hedonic property mod-
el. Boyle and Kiel (2001) showed that the value of
a property has increased because the environmental
characteristic is a significant factor in determining
property value in Jakarta. Gupta (2008) estimated
the monetary value of individual avoided health
damages based on a reduction in air pollution for
India. This study found Rs 165 per year as the
willingness to pay in Kanpur in India. Another
study related to South Africa by Donfouet et al.
(2015) estimated the economic value of improved
air quality based on willingness to pay. The results
of the study show that household willingness to
pay was the US$ 0.42 per month. Remme et al.
(2015) used avoided cost method for estimating
the value of air quality regulation services in re-
spect to the Netherlands. This study estimates that
the value of air quality regulation ecosystem ser-
vices at around 2 million euro for the Netherlands.
Some other studies have estimated the economic
value of air quality regulation, for example,
Kubiszewski et al. (2015), Nepal; Hein (2011),
Environ Monit Assess (2019) 191:616
5.1 M
1513.819 M
64889.53 M
16436.81 M
1529.085 M
7M
6740.1 M
79754.34 M
46740.6 M
455.82 M
16780.98 M
2819435 M
29085.185 B
Netherlands; Murillas-Maza et al. (2011), Spain;
Wilson (2008), Canada.
Value of climate regulation
Studies related to the value of climate regulation have
increased across various developing and developed
countries. This paper has reviewed many climate regu-
lation ecosystem services from various published works
around the world. Nowak et al. (2013) estimated the
economic value of carbon storage in respect of urban
areas in the USA. This study considered 28 US cities
from 6 States. The value of carbon storage 643 million
tonnes was estimated at US$50.5 billion for 2005. Pat-
ton et al. (2015) estimated the value of carbon storage
with respect to United States National Wildlife Refuge
wetland ecosystem services. The value of Arrowwood
National Wildlife Refuge was estimated at US$401
billion (this value includes forested wetlands, Scrub-
shrub wetlands, emergent marshes, and unvegetated
wetlands). Second, the value of Blackwater National
Wildlife Refuge was estimated at US$7676 billion.
Third, the value of Sevilleta and Bosque del Apache
National Wildlife Refuge was estimated at US$18 bil-
lion. Kulshreshtha et al. (2000a, b) estimated the value
of carbon sequestration with respect to 39 national parks
in Canada. This study estimated carbon sequestered in
the study area at a total of 4.43 gigatonnes of carbon
across various pools. The value of carbon sequestration
was estimated at US$72 to 78 billion. Canu et al. (2015)
Environ Monit Assess (2019) 191:616
estimated the value of carbon sequestration for the Med-
iterranean Sea. This study has found the value of carbon
sequestration in the range between 127 million euros
and 1722 million euros per year. Figueroa and Pasten
(2015) estimated the economic value of protected areas
at US$194,972 per year in respect to Chile. Banasiak
et al. (2015) estimated the economic value of US Na-
tional Parks. This study has found that the carbon se-
questration in National Parks to be 17.5 million metric
tons valued at US$40.45 million. Jerath (2012) estimat-
ed the economic value of carbon sequestration of man-
grove forests of the Everglades National Park in Florida,
USA, at US$50,000/ha and US$614,000/ha based on
market price and social cost of carbon. Seidl and Moraes
(2000) assessed the economic value of climate regula-
tion in Pantanal da Nhecolandia, Brazil. The study re-
sults show the value of climate regulation at US$ 44.76.
ten Brink et al. (2011) estimated the economic value of
Natura 2000 sites. This study found that the Natura 2000
network presently stored around 9.6 billion tonnes of
carbon worth 607 billion euros for 2010. Another study
by Wilson (2014) estimated the annual value of carbon
stored in the Peace River watershed at US$ 6.7 billion to
US$ 7.4 billion per year. Further, Favretto et al. (2014)
estimated the value of carbon sequestration for Botswa-
na at about US$16780.98 million. Estrada et al. (2015)
estimated the value of climate regulation for Thailand at
about US$455.82 million while the value of carbon
regulation for Denmark has estimated at about
US$0.478 million (Ghaley et al. 2014). The economic
value of climate regulation for the Czech Republic has
put at about US$267.32 million. Schäffler and Swilling
(2013) estimated the economic value of climate regula-
tion in respect of South Africa at about US$65273.01
million.
Value of water regulation
Water ecosystem services have already been well
established in the literature (Ojea and Martin-Ortega
2015; MEA 2005; TEEB, 2010b; Coates et al. 2013).
The economic value of wetland water ecosystem ser-
vices has been estimated at 1.9 billion RMB based on
the water resource fees for Beijing, China (Zhang et al.
2017). The value of water regulation for Pantanal da
Nhecolandia, Brazil, has been estimated at US$378.81,
provided by water ecosystems services for various pur-
poses of the society. Costanza et al. (2006) estimated the
economic value of water ecosystem services with
Page 17 of 27 616
respect to New Jersey’s natural capital at US$2.4 billion
per year. Korsgaard and Schou (2010) reviewed 27
water ecosystem services valuation studies in the con-
text of developing countries. This study estimated the
value of aquatic ecosystem services at US$30 to
3,000 ha per year. Kaufman (2012) assessed the eco-
nomic value of water ecosystem services provided by
the Mattole River watershed in California. This study
used a benefit transfer method with spatial analysis,
while this study estimated the value at US$1,910,800
per year in respect of California. Wilson 2014 estimated
the value of water regulation services at US$ 22,529,524
for the Peace River watershed in Canada. The economic
value of water ecosystem services based on willingness
to pay in Florida, USA, has been estimated. An average
consumer surplus value in Florida amounts to US$31.59
per person. This study also estimated that the value
of birdwatching US$94.56; fishing at US$152; float
boating/rafting/canoeing at US$72.72 in the case of
freshwater-based recreation in the south-eastern Unit-
ed States (Wynn et al. 2014). A recent study by
Reynaud and Lanzanova (2017) has estimated the
economic value of ecosystem services based on
hedonic and non-hedonic valuation method. This
study reviewed 133 primary studies around the
world. The estimated value of ecosystem services
ranges between US$106 for hedonic and US$140
for non-hedonic and US$169 and hedonic property
value between US$403 and US$2010 at the global
level. The value of water regulation in the case of
the USA (Postel and Thompson 2005) has been
estimated at US$ 2991.56 million while Adusumilli
(2015) has assessed the economic value of water
regulation for the USA at about US$5757971
million.
Value of pollination services
Pollination is one of the significant ecosystem services
provided by regulating services. Already, a number of
studies have estimated the economic value of pollina-
tion, for example, the value of honey bee pollinators for
USA crops for 2000 has been studied by Morse and
Calderone (2000), while MA (2003) talks of pollination.
The services that are required for the production of a
wide range of agricultural crops as well as maintaining
the reproduction processes of natural ecosystems. De
Groot et al. (2002), while discussing pollinators residing
in ecosystems that pollinate fruit trees in a nearby
 616 Page 18 of 27
orchard observes that valuation of the services provided
by the ecosystem needs to include pollination of the
nearby orchard (Hein 2009). The estimated economic
value of pollination region-wise amounts to 39.7 million
euro for North Africa; for West Africa to 48.9 million
euro; for Central Asia to 11.8 million euro; for South
Asia to 219.4 million euro (Gallai and Vaissière 2009).
This study, while reviewing the previous studies by
Morse and Calderone (2000) estimated the economic
value of pollinators at about US$19269.67 million for
2000. Losey and Vaughan (2006) estimated the eco-
nomic value of insects that includes dung burial, pest
control, pollination, and wildlife nutrition at US$57
billion this includes US$0.38 billion for dung burial;
US$3.07 billion for pollination; US$4.49 billion for pest
control of native herbivores; and US$49.96 billion for
recreation in the USA. Winfree et al. (2011) estimated
the value of pollination services in respect of the USA at
about US$2.017 million.
Value of natural hazard and waste treatment regulation
There is a dearth of studies on natural hazard regulation
services. For instance, Costanza et al. (1989) assessed
the value of natural hazard regulation based on avoided
hurricane damages in Louisiana. These study results
show that the value is about US$332. Waste treatment
is a very critical ecosystem service provided by Mother
Nature. There has been very few research done on the
waste treatment regulation, for example,Kozak et al.
(2011) estimated the value of waste treatment for the
Cache River at the US$94, for wetlands at US$4005, for
Des Plaines River at US$157, and for wetlands at
US$208 based on willingness to pay for both river and
wetlands in Illinois. The estimated value of Mediterra-
nean marine ecosystem waste treatment regulation
based on water consumed protection expenditure meth-
od amounts to 2703 million euro per year (Mangos and
Jean-Pascal Sauzade 2010). The value of waste treat-
ment regulation services estimated based on annual
willingness to pay per household for reducing mercury
deposition stands at about US$212 million (Hagen et al.
1999). Another study by Pimentel (1998) assessed the
economic value of bioremediation of chemical waste at
US$23 billion per year in the case of the USA. The
value of industrial and domestic wastewater treatment
amounts to a total of US$654 for the Muthurajawela
Marsh coastal wetland area in Northern Sri Lanka (Lucy
and Kekulandala 2003). The value of waste treatment
Environ Monit Assess (2019) 191:616
regulation of the Peace River watershed in Canada has
been estimated at US$46,970,791 (Wilson (2014).
Value of erosion and soil quality regulation services
Erosion prevention1 regulation is a vital contributor to
human well-being. Erosion prevention regulation ser-
vices have been estimated in environmental valuation
through stated preference approach (Hanley and Craig
1991; Bateman and Turner 1993; Loomis 2000), acost-
based approach (Avoided costs e.g Bann 1999; Paris
and Ruzicka 1991), and replacement cost method
(Ammour et al. 2000). The total annual value of erosion
control/sediment retention amounts to US$4,467,440 in
the case of the Peace River watershed in Canada
(Wilson 2014). The annual value of erosion control
regulation in Pantanal da Nhecolandia, Brazil, has been
estimated at US$63.41 (Seidl and Moraes 2000), while
the value of soil ecosystem services in respect to New
Zeland amounts to US$3717 per hectare/year (Dominati
and Mackay 2013).
Regression results
The total number of observations estimated in the
model is 275. The results of the meta-regression
are presented in Table 6. In the estimated double
log model, the coefficients measure the constant
proportional or relative change in the dependent
variable for a given absolute change in the value
of the explanatory variable. The present study
makes an original contribution in terms of identi-
fication of the main determinants of the value of
regulating ecosystem services, including air quality
regulation, climate regulation, water regulation,
disease regulation, pollination, natural hazard reg-
ulation, waste treatment, erosion regulation, and
soil quality regulation. Most of the meta-
regression analyses have been conducted with re-
spect to wetland ecosystem services and forest
ecosystem services at the global level. This study
has mainly estimated regulating services at a glob-
al level. Meta-regression results show that environ-
mental valuation methods such as damaged cost
method, bio-economic model, contingent valuation
1
Erosion prevention (for example, retention of soils and sediments)
(TEEB, 2010)
Environ Monit Assess (2019) 191:616 Page 19 of 27 616

Table 6 Results obtained with the basic meta-regression model of regulating ecosystem services

Variable Variable definition Coefficient S.E

Avoided cost method Dummy variable for ACM 0.63 2.489

Replacement cost method Dummy variable for RCM − 1.080 2.404
Damaged cost method Dummy variable for DCM 2.056* 2.933
Opportunity cost method Dummy variable for OCM − 1.960 4.576
Bioeconomy model Dummy variable for BEM 8.655* 5.369
Contingent valuation method Dummy variable for CVM 4.187* 4.293
Value transfer Method Dummy variable for BTM − 1.511* 2.627
CSERG Dummy variable for CSERG 2.269 7.399
Hedonic price method Dummy variable for HPM 4.113 8.141
Dynamic simulation model Dummy variable for DSM 10.106* 7.685
Market price method Dummy variable for MPM 5.344** 2.878
Delphi method Dummy variable for DPM 2.005* 2.125
European Union trade scheme Dummy variable for EUTS 1.147 4.247
Insect pollination economic value Dummy variable for IPEV 1.913 7.105
Carbon price Dummy variable for CP 4.872* 7.338
Alternative cost method Dummy variable for alter cost method − 2.351 7.726
Invest Dummy variable for Invest 2.310 7.693
Removal cost method Dummy variable for Removal cost method − 5.205* 7.150
Social cost method Dummy variable for SCM 1.783 7.317
Maintenance cost method Dummy variable for MCM 1.050 5.503
Air quality regulation Dummy variable for Air quality regulation ES 2.005* 2.125
Climate regulation Dummy variable for climate regulation ES − 0.666 1.884
Water regulation Dummy variable for water regulation ES 2.829* 1.871
Disease regulation Dummy variable for disease regulation ES − 0.488 3.058
Pollination Dummy variable for pollination ES 2.262* 2.274
Natural hazard Dummy variable for natural hazard − 1.878* 2.264
Waste treatment Dummy variable for waste treatment ES 0.005 2.543
Erosion regulation Dummy variable for erosion regulation ES − 1.212* 2.285
Soil quality regulation Dummy variable for soil quality regulation ES 0.643 2.447
GDP Per capita GDP Per capita (USD, ln) − 0.052 0.779
Population density Population density (ln) − 0.317 0.663
N 100
R2 0.25

* and *1% and 5% level of significance

method, dynamic simulation model, value transfer
method, Delphi method, and removal cost method
are statistically significant at 1% level and market
price method statistically significant at 5% level.
Moreover, regression results show that avoided
cost method, replacement cost method, opportunity
cost method, an hedonic property model have a
positive association with the total value of regulat-
ing services. Regression results also show that five
regulating ecosystem services are statistically sig-
nificant, such as air quality regulation, water reg-
ulation services, pollination services; natural haz-
ard regulation service, and erosion regulation at 1
per level and climate regulation, disease regulation,
and soil quality regulation have a positive associ-
ation with the total value of regulating ecosystem
services in this study. This table also indicates that
25% of the variance in the marginal value of
 616 Page 20 of 27
regulating ecosystem services can be predicted
based on the socio-economic, valuation methods
and various ecosystem services.
Conclusion and implications
The value of regulating ecosystem services has not been
estimated properly with respect to many developing coun-
tries. Moreover, meta-analysis is more useful for assessing
the value of regulating ecosystem services in view of their
significance around the world. Quantifying of the econom-
ic value of regulating ecosystem services is difficult, be-
cause of the changes in physical, ecological, and biochem-
ical processes due to climate change and human interven-
tion with ecosystems. The main objective of this study was
to estimate the economic value of regulating ecosystem
services through a meta-regression analysis at the global
level. This study has found that the value of regulation
ecosystem services plays a very important role in econom-
ic contribution, especially forest ecosystem services in
China. This study has also found that climate regulation
and water regulation are very significant contributors
among other ecosystem services. Most of the regulating
ecosystem services have not been properly estimated in
terms of economic value at the local, national and global
levels. In GDP calculations a number of limitations crop
up in assessing the economic value of environmental
goods and services, especially regulating ecosystem ser-
vices. This study has used a meta-regression analysis for
100 published articles and 275 observations at the global
level. The total economic value of regulating ecosystem
services amounts to US$29.085 trillion. The main impli-
cation of the study is that accountings for regulating
ecosystem services can help fill the gap between the value
of regulating ecosystem services and policy decisions
related to sustainable natural resource management.
Acknowledgments This work is part of an ongoing research
project on " An Economic Value of Forest Resources: A Case
Study of Nine Districts in Karnataka, funded by Indian Council of
Social Science Research (02/334/SC/2017-18/RP/Major).
References
Aanesen, M., Armstrong, C. and Kahui, V., 2010. Tev (total
Economic Value) analysis of a marine environment in
Norway
Environ Monit Assess (2019) 191:616
Abson, D., Termansen, M., Pascual, U., Fezzi, C., Bateman, I. and
Aslam, U., (2010) Valuing regulating services (climate regu-
lation) from UK terrestrial ecosystems, Report to the
Economics Team of the UK National Ecosystem
Assessment.
Adger, W. N., & Kelly, P. M. (1990). Social vulnerability to
climate change and the architecture of entitlements.
Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 5,
4253–4266.
Adusumilli, N. (2015). Valuation of ecosystem services from
wetlands mitigation in the United States. Land, 4(1), 182–
196.
Aguilar, R., Ashworth, L., Galetto, L., & Aizen, M. A. (2006).
Plant reproductive susceptibility to habitat fragmentation:
review and synthesis through a meta-analysis. Ecology let-
ters, 9(8), 968–980.
Aho, P., Saario, M., Kumpulainen, P., Kontiokari, A., & Hillgren,
D. G. C. (2015). The economic value and opportunities of
nutrient cycling for Finland. Sitra Studies, 104.
Alongi, D. M. (2012). Carbon sequestration in mangrove forests.
Carbon management, 3(3), 313–322.
Amato (2010). Urban air pollution and climate change as environ-
mental risk factors of respiratory allergy: an update. Journal
of Investigational Allergology & Clinical Immunology.
Ammour, T., Windevoxhel, N., & Sencion, G. (2000). Economic
valuation of mangrove ecosystems and subtropical forests in
Central America. Sustainable Forest Management and
Global Climate Change, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 166–
197.
Anielski, M. and Wilson, S.J., 2003. Counting Canada's natural
capital: assessing the real value of Canada's boreal ecosys-
tems. Canadian Boreal Initiative.
Ashman, T. L., Knight, T. M., Steets, J. A., Amarasekare, P., Burd,
M., Campbell, D. R., Dudash, M. R., Johnston, M. O.,
Mazer, S. J., Mitchell, R. J., & Morgan, M. T. (2004).
Pollen limitation of plant reproduction: ecological and evo-
lutionary causes and consequences. Ecology, 85(9), 2408–
2421.
Assessment, M.E. (2005). Ecosystems and human well-being(Vol. 5).
Washington: Island press.
Badola, R., Hussain, S. A., Mishra, B. K., Konthoujam, B.,
Thapliyal, S., & Dhakate, P. M. (2010). An assessment of
ecosystem services of Corbett Tiger Reserve, India. The
Environmentalist, 30(4), 320–329.
Bagstad, K. J., Semmens, D., Winthrop, R., Jaworski, D., &
Larson, J. (2012). Ecosystem services valuation to support
decision making on public lands: a case study for the San
Pedro River. Arizona. USGS Scientific Investigations Report,
5251.
Bahuguna, V. K., & Bisht, N. S. (2013). Valuation of ecosystem
goods and services from forests in India. Indian forester,
139(1), 1–13.
Banasiak, A., Bilmes, L. and Loomis, J.B., 2015. Carbon seques-
tration in the US national parks: a value beyond visitation.
Bann, C. (1999). A contingent valuation of the mangroves of
Benut, Johor State, Malaysia. Economy and Environment
Programme for Southeast Asia (EEPSEA).
Bateman, I. J., & Turner, R. K. (1993). Valuation of the environ-
ment, methods and techniques: the contingent valuation
method. In R. K. Turner (Ed.), Sustainable economics and
Environ Monit Assess (2019) 191:616
management: principles and practice (pp. 120–191).
London: Belhaven Press.
Bateman, I. J., & Jones, A. P. (2003). Contrasting conventional
with multi-level modelling approaches to metaanalysis: An
illustration using UK woodland recreation values. Land
Economics, 79(2), 235–258.
Bhatt, B. P., & Sachan, M. S. (2004). Firewood consumption along
an altitudinal gradient in mountain villages of India. Biomass
and Bioenergy, 27(1), 69–75.
Biao, Z., Wenhua, L., Gaodi, X., & Yu, X. (2010). Water conser-
vation of forest ecosystem in Beijing and its value.
Ecological Economics, 69(7), 1416–1426.
Bisht, D. S., Tiwari, S., Srivastava, A. K., & Srivastava, M. K.
(2013). Assessment of air quality during 19th Common
Wealth Games at Delhi, India. Natural Hazards, 66, 141–
154. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-012-0349-4.
Blair, S., Adams, C., Ankerson, T., McGuire, M., Kaplan, D.
(2015). Ecosystem services valuation for estuarine and coast-
al restoration in Florida. Florida Sea Grant/University of
Florida Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences
Electronic Data Information Source, Gainesville, FL, USA.
Boerema, A., Geerts, L., Oosterlee, L., Temmerman, S., & Meire,
P. (2016). Ecosystem service delivery in restoration projects:
The effect of ecological succession on the benefits of tidal
marsh restoration. Ecology and Society, 21(2), 10. https://doi.
org/10.5751/ES-08372-210210.
Bouma, J. A., & Van Beukering, P. J. (Eds.). (2015). Ecosystem
services: from concept to practice. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Boyer, T., & Polasky, S. (2004). Valuing urban wetlands: a review
of non-market valuation studies. Wetlands, 24(4), 744–755.
Boyle, M., & Kiel, K. (2001). A Survey of House Price Hedonic
Studies of the Impact of Environmental Externalities. Journal
of Real Estate Literature, 9(2), 117–144.
Boyles, J. G., Cryan, P. M., McCracken, G. F., & Kunz, T. H.
(2011). Economic importance of bats in agriculture. Science,
332(6025), 41–42.
Brady, M. V., Hedlund, K., Cong, R. G., Hemerik, L., Hotes, S.,
Machado, S., Mattsson, L., Schulz, E., & Thomsen, I. K.
(2015). Valuing supporting soil ecosystem services in agri-
culture: a natural capital approach. Agronomy Journal,
107(5), 1809–1821.
Brander, L., & McEvoy, P. (2012). The economic value of eco-
system services from the terrestrial habitats of the Isle of
Man. In Report for the Department of Environment, Food
and Agriculture, Isle of Man Government. Isle of Man.
Brander, L. M., Florax, R. J., & Vermaat, J. E. (2006). The
empirics of wetland valuation: a comprehensive summary
and a meta-analysis of the literature. Environmental and
Resource Economics, 33(2), 223–250.
Brander, L. M., Wagtendonk, A. J., Hussain, S. S., McVittie, A.,
Verburg, P. H., de Groot, R. S., & van der Ploeg, S. (2012).
Ecosystem service values for mangroves in Southeast Asia: a
meta-analysis and value transfer application. Ecosystem
Services, 1(1), 62–69.
Brander, L., Brouwer, R., & Wagtendonk, A. (2013). Economic
valuation of regulating services provided by wetlands in
agricultural landscapes: a meta-analysis. Ecological
Engineering, 56, 89–96.
Bräuer, I. (2005). Valuation of ecosystem services provided by
biodiversity conservation: an integrated hydrological and
Page 21 of 27 616
economic model to value the enhanced nitrogen retention in
renaturated streams. In Valuation and conservation of biodi-
versity (pp. 193–204). Berlin Heidelberg: Springer.
Brauer, M., et al. (2015). Ambient air pollution exposure estima-
tion for the global burden of disease 2013. Environmental
Science & Technology, 50, 79–88.
Breeze, T. D., Bailey, A. P., Balcombe, K. G., & Potts, S. G.
(2011). Pollination services in the UK: how important are
honeybees? Agriculture. Ecosystems & Environment, 142(3),
137–143.
Bringslimark, T., Hartig, T., & Patil, G. G. (2007). Psychological
benefits of indoor plants in workplaces: putting experimental
results into context. Hortscience, 42(3), 581–587.
Brouwer, R., Langford, I. H., Bateman, I. J., & Turner, R. K.
(1999). A meta-analysis of wetland contingent valuation
studies. Reg. Environ. Chang., 1(1), 47–57.
Brown, J., & Pearce, D. W. (1994). The economic value of carbon
storage in tropical forests. In J. Weiss (Ed.), The economics of
project appraisal and the environment (pp. 102–123).
Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Brown, T. C., et al. (2007). Defining, valuing, and providing
ecosystem goods and services. Natural Resources Journal,
47(2), 329–376.
Bullock, C., Hawe, J., & Little, D. (2014). Realising the
ecosystem-service value of native woodland in Ireland.
New Zealand Journal of Forestry Science, 44(S1), 1–10.
Busch, M., La Notte, A., Laporte, V., & Erhard, M. (2012).
Potentials of quantitative and qualitative approaches to
assessing ecosystem services. Ecological indicators, 21,
89–103.
Canu, D. M., Ghermandi, A., Nunes, P. A., Lazzari, P., Cossarini,
G., & Solidoro, C. (2015). Estimating the value of carbon
sequestration ecosystem services in the Mediterranean Sea:
an ecological economics approach. Global Environmental
Change, 32, 87–95.
Carpenter, S. R., Mooney, H. A., Agard, J., Capistrano, D.,
DeFries, R. S., Díaz, S., Dietz, T., Duraiappah, A. K.,
Oteng-Yeboah, A., Pereira, H. M., & Perrings, C. (2009).
Science for managing ecosystem services: beyond the mil-
lennium ecosystem assessment. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences, 106(5), 1305–1312.
Chiesura, A. (2004). The role of urban parks for the sustainable
city. Landscape and urban planning, 68(1), 129–138.
Christie, M., & Rayment, M. (2012). An economic assessment of
the ecosystem service benefits derived from the SSSI biodi-
versity conservation policy in England and Wales. Ecosystem
Services, 1(1), 70–84.
Cleveland, C. J., Betke, M., Federico, P., Frank, J. D., Hallam, T.
G., Horn, J., López, J. D., McCracken, G. F., Medellín, R. A.,
Moreno-Valdez, A., & Sansone, C. G. (2006). Economic
value of the pest control service provided by Brazilian free-
tailed bats in south-central Texas. Frontiers in Ecology and
the Environment, 4(5), 238–243.
Coates, D., Pert, P. L., Barron, J., Muthuri, C., Nguyen-Khoa, S.,
Boelee, E., & Jarvis, D. I. (2013). 3 Water-related ecosystem
services and food security. Managing water and
agroecosystems for food security, 10, 29.
Costanza, R., d'Arge, R., De Groot, R., Farber, S., Grasso, M.,
Hannon, B., Limburg, K., Naeem, S., O'neill, R. V., Paruelo,
J., & Raskin, R. G. (1997). The value of the world’s
 616 Page 22 of 27
ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature, 387(6630),
253–260.
Costanza, R., Farber, S. C., & Maxwell, J. (1989). Valuation and
management of wetland ecosystems. Ecological economics,
1(4), 335–361.
Costanza, R., Wilson, M.A., Troy, A., Voinov, A., Liu, S.,
D'Agostino, J. (2006). The value of New Jersey's ecosystem
services and natural capital.
Costanza, R., de Groot, R., Sutton, P., van der Ploeg, S., Anderson,
S. J., Kubiszewski, I., Farber, S., & Turner, R. K. (2014).
Changes in the global value of ecosystem services. Global
environmental change, 26, 152–158.
Creedy, J., & Wurzbacher, A. D. (2001). The economic value of a
forested catchment with timber, water and carbon sequestra-
tion benefits. Ecological Economics, 38(1), 71–83.
Crowder, D. W., & Jabbour, R. (2014). Relationships between
biodiversity and biological control in agroecosystems: cur-
rent status and future challenges. Biological control, 75, 8–
17.
Cuyno, L., Norton, G. W., & Rola, A. (2001). Economic analysis
of environmental benefits of integrated pest management: a
Philippine case study. Agricultural Economics, 25(2-3), 227–
233.
da Silva, L. V., Everard, M., & Shore, R. G. (2014). Ecosystem
services assessment at Steart Peninsula, Somerset, UK.
Ecosystem Services, 10, 19–34.
Daily, G. C., Polasky, S., Goldstein, J., Kareiva, P. M., Mooney, H.
A., Pejchar, L., Ricketts, T. H., Salzman, J., & Shallenberger,
R. (2009). Ecosystem services in decision making: time to
deliver. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 7(1), 21–
28.
Daw, T., Brown, K., Rosendo, S., & Pomeroy, R. (2011). Applying
the ecosystem services concept to poverty alleviation: the
need to disaggregate human well-being. Environmental
Conservation, 38(4), 370–379.
De Groot, R. S., Wilson, M. A., & Boumans, R. M. (2002). A
typology for the classification, description and valuation of
ecosystem functions, goods and services. Ecological eco-
nomics, 41(3), 393–408.
De Groot, R., Brander, L., Van Der Ploeg, S., Costanza, R.,
Bernard, F., Braat, L., Christie, M., Crossman, N.,
Ghermandi, A., Hein, L., & Hussain, S. (2012). Global
estimates of the value of ecosystems and their services in
monetary units. Ecosystem services, 1(1), 50–61.
De Salvo, M., & Signorello, G. (2015). Non-market valuation of
recreational services in Italy: A meta-analysis. Ecosystem
services, 16, 47–62.
Defra (2007). Securing a health and natural environment: An
action plan for embedding a ecosystem approach.
Díaz, S., Fargione, J., Chapin, F. S., III, & Tilman, D. (2006).
Biodiversity loss threatens human well-being. PLoS biology,
4(8), e277.
Dominati, E., & Mackay, A. (2013). An ecosystem services ap-
proach to the cost of soil erosion and value of soil conserva-
tion. In AgResearch Ltd., Grasslands Research Centre:
Palmerston North, New Zealand.
Donato, D. C., Kauffman, J. B., Murdiyarso, D., Kurnianto, S.,
Stidham, M., & Kanninen, M. (2011). Mangroves among the
most carbon-rich forests in the tropics. Nature geoscience,
4(5), 293–297.
Environ Monit Assess (2019) 191:616
Donfouet, H. P. P., Cook, J., & Jeanty, P. W. (2015). The economic
value of improved air quality in urban Africa: a contingent
valuation survey in Douala, Cameroon. Environment and
development economics, 20(5), 630–649.
Eade, J. D. O., & Moran, D. (1996). Spatial economic valuation:
benefits transfer using geographical information systems.
Journal of Environmental Management, 48, 97–110.
Emerton, L. (2013). The economic value of ecosystem services in
the Mekong basin. In What we know and what we need to
know. Gland, Switzerland: World Wide Fund for Nature.
Emerton, Lucy, and L. D. C. B. Kekulandala. Assessment of the.
by: IUCN-Sri Lanka, 2003.
Ernstson, H., van der Leeuw, S. E., Redman, C. L., Meffert, D. J.,
Davis, G., et al. (2010). Urban transitions: On urban resil-
ience and human-dominated ecosystems. AMBIO: A Journal
of the Human Environment, 39, 531–545.
Estrada, G. C. D., Soares, M. L. G., Fernadez, V., & de Almeida, P.
M. M. (2015). The economic evaluation of carbon storage
and sequestration as ecosystem services of mangroves: a case
study from southeastern Brazil. International Journal of
Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management,
11(1), 29–35.
Falkowski, P., Scholes, R. J., Boyle, E. E. A., Canadell, J.,
Canfield, D., Elser, J., Gruber, N., Hibbard, K., Högberg,
P., Linder, S., & Mackenzie, F. T. (2000). The global carbon
cycle: a test of our knowledge of earth as a system. Science,
290(5490), 291–296.
Fang, X., Tang, G., Li, B., & Han, R. (2014). Spatial and temporal
variations of ecosystem service values in relation to land use
pattern in the Loess Plateau of China at town scale. PloS one,
9(10), e110745.
Farber, S., Costanza, R., Childers, D. L., Erickson, J., Gross, K.,
Grove, M., Hopkinson, C. S., Kahn, J., Pincetl, S., Troy, A.,
Warren, P., & Wilson, M. (2006). Linking ecology and eco-
nomics for ecosystem management. Bioscience, 56, 121–
133.
Favretto, N., Stringer, L. C., Dougill, A. J., Perkins, J. S.,
Akanyang, L., Dallimer, M., Atlhopheng, J. R., & Mulale,
K. (2014). Assessing the socio-economic and environmental
dimensions of land degradation: a case study of Botswana’s
Kalahari. Report for the ELD. Leeds, UK: ELD Initiative.
Fearnside, P. M. (1997). Environmental services as a strategy for
sustainable development in rural Amazonia. Ecological
Economics, 20(1), 53–70.
Figueroa, E., & Pasten, R. (2015). The economic value of forests
in supplying local climate regulation. Australian Journal of
Agricultural and Resource Economics, 59(3), 446–457.
Fisher, B., Turner, R. K., & Morling, P. (2009). Defining and
classifying ecosystem services for decision making.
Ecological economics, 68(3), 643–653.
Fisher, J. A., Patenaude, G., Giri, K., Lewis, K., Meir, P., Pinho, P.,
Rounsevell, M. D., & Williams, M. (2014). Understanding
the relationships between ecosystem services and poverty
alleviation: a conceptual framework. Ecosystem services, 7,
34–45.
Fjeld, T., et al. (1998). The effect of indoor foliage plants on health
and discomfort symptoms among office workers. Indoor
Built Environ., 7(4), 204–209.
Gallai, N., Vaissière, B.E. (2009). Guidelines for the economic
valuation of pollination services at a national scale. Rome,
FA.
Environ Monit Assess (2019) 191:616
Gallai, N., Salles, J. M., Settele, J., & Vaissière, B. E. (2009).
Economic valuation of the vulnerability of world agriculture
confronted with pollinator decline. Ecological economics,
68(3), 810–821.
Gang, S., Lianxi, S., & Daowei, Z. (2002). Ecosystem services and
corresponding protective strategies. Ecology, 05.
Gao, Q., Li, Y. H., Xiao, D. N., & Hu, Y. M. (2008). Assessment of
forest ecosystem service functions in Shenyang. J. Northeast
For. Univ., 36(2), 69–72.
Gascoigne, W. R., Hoag, D., Koontz, L., Tangen, B. A., Shaffer, T.
L., & Gleason, R. A. (2011). Valuing ecosystem and eco-
nomic services across land-use scenarios in the Prairie
Pothole Region of the Dakotas, USA. Ecological
Economics, 70(10), 1715–1725.
George, L., 2014. Economic impact of ecosystem services provid-
ed by ecologically sustainable roadside right of way vegeta-
tion management practices.
Ghaley, B. B., Vesterdal, L., & Porter, J. R. (2014). Quantification
and valuation of ecosystem services in diverse production
systems for informed decision-making. Environmental
Science & Policy, 39, 139–149.
Ghermandi, A., Van Den Bergh, J. C., Brander, L. M., de Groot, H.
L., & Nunes, P. A. (2010). Values of natural and human-made
wetlands: a meta-analysis. Water Resources Research,
46(12).
Grabowski, J. H., Brumbaugh, R. D., Conrad, R. F., Keeler, A. G.,
Opaluch, J. J., Peterson, C. H., Piehler, M. F., Powers, S. P., &
Smyth, A. R. (2012). Economic valuation of ecosystem
services provided by oyster reefs. BioScience, 62(10), 900–
909.
Gunawardena, M., & Rowan, J. S. (2005). Economic valuation of
a mangrove ecosystem threatened by shrimp aquaculture in
Sri Lanka. Environmental Management, 36(4), 535–550.
Guo, Z., Xiao, X., & Li, D. (2000). An assessment of ecosystem
services: water flow regulation and hydroelectric power pro-
duction. Ecological Applications, 10(3), 925–936.
Guo, Z., Xiao, X., Gan, Y., & Zheng, Y. (2001). Ecosystem
functions, services and their values–a case study in
Xingshan County of China. Ecological economics, 38(1),
141–154.
Guo, Z., Zhang, L. and Li, Y., 2010. Increased dependence of
humans on ecosystem services and biodiversity. PloS one,
5(10), p.e13113.
Gupta, U. (2008). Valuation of urban air pollution: a case study of
Kanpur City in India. Environmental and Resource
Economics, 41(3), 315–326.
Gutrich, J., & Howarth, R. B. (2007). Carbon sequestration and the
optimal management of New Hampshire timber stands.
Ecological Economics, 62(3), 441–450.
Hagen, D. A., Vincent, J. W., & Welle, P. G. (1999). Economic
benefits of reducing mercury deposition in Minnesota. St.
Paul, MN: Minnesota Pollution Control Agency.
Haines-Young, R., & Potschin, M. (2010). The links between
biodiversity, ecosystem services and human well-being. In
D. G. Raffaelli & C. L. J. Frid (Eds.), Ecosystem ecology: a
new synthesis (pp. 110–139). Cambridge, UK: BES
Ecological Reviews Series. Cambridge University Press.
Haines-Young, R. & Potschin, M. (2011). Common international
classification of ecosystem services (CICES): 2011 Update.
Nottingham: Report to the European Environmental Agency
Page 23 of 27 616
Han, K. (2009). Influence of limitedly visible leafy indoor plants
on the psychology, behavior, and health of students at a junior
high school in Taiwan. Environmental and Behavior, 41,
658–692.
Hanley, N., & Craig, S. (1991). Wilderness development decisions
and the Krutilla-Fisher model: the case of Scotlands flow
country. Ecological Economics, 4(2), 145–162.
Harmáčková, Z. V., & Vačkář, D. (2015). Modelling regulating
ecosystem services trade-offs across landscape scenarios in
Třeboňsko Wetlands Biosphere Reserve, Czech Republic.
Ecological Modelling, 295, 207–215.
Häyhä, T., Franzese, P. P., Paletto, A., & Fath, B. D. (2015).
Assessing, valuing, and mapping ecosystem services in
Alpine forests. Ecosystem Services, 14, 12–23.
Hein, L. G. (2009). The economic value of the pollination service,
a review across scales. The Open Ecology Journal, 2(9), 74–
82.
Hein, L. (2011). Economic benefits generated by protected areas:
the case of the Hoge Veluwe forest, the Netherlands. Ecology
and Society, 16(2).
Hordoir, R., Dieterich, C., Basu, C., Dietze, H., & Meier, H. E. M.
(2013). Freshwater outflow of the Baltic Sea and transport in
the Norwegian current: A statistical correlation analysis
based on a numerical experiment. Continental Shelf
Research, 64, 1–9.
Hougner, C., Colding, J., & Söderqvist, T. (2006). Economic
valuation of a seed dispersal service in the Stockholm
National Urban Park, Sweden. Ecological Economics,
59(3), 364–374.
Howe, C., Suich, H., Vira, B., & Mace, G. M. (2014). Creating
win-wins from trade-offs? Ecosystem services for human
well-being: a meta-analysis of ecosystem service trade-offs
and synergies in the real world. Global Environmental
Change, 28, 263–275.
Hu, H., Liu, W., & Cao, M. (2008). Impact of land use and land
cover changes on ecosystem services in Menglun,
Xishuangbanna, Southwest China. Environmental
Monitoring and Assessment, 146(1), 147–156.
Jenkins, W. A., Murray, B. C., Kramer, R. A., & Faulkner, S. P.
(2010). Valuing ecosystem services from wetlands restora-
tion in the Mississippi Alluvial Valley. Ecological
Economics, 69(5), 1051–1061.
Jerath, M. (2012). “An economic analysis of carbon sequestration
and storage service by mangrove forests in Everglades
National Park, Florida”. FIU Electronic Theses and
Dissertations. Paper 702.
Jim, C. Y., & Chen, W. Y. (2008). Assessing the ecosystem service
of air pollutant removal by urban trees in Guangzhou
(China). Journal of environmental management, 88(4),
665–676.
Jones, L., Provins, A., Holland, M., Mills, G., Hayes, F., Emmett,
B., Hall, J., Sheppard, L., Smith, R., Sutton, M., & Hicks, K.
(2014). A review and application of the evidence for nitrogen
impacts on ecosystem services. Ecosystem Services, 7, 76–
88.
Kaplan, S., & Kaplan, R. (1989). The experience of nature (p.
340). Cambridge: A psychological perspective. Cambridge
University Press.
Kaufman, M. (2012). Ecosystem service value of water supply
benefits provided by forest stands in the Mattole River wa-
tershed, California: a bioeconomic and benefit transfer-
 616 Page 24 of 27
spatial analysis application (Doctoral dissertation, Humboldt
State University).
Kim, G. (2016). The public value of urban vacant land: Social
responses and ecological value. Sustainability, 8(5), 486.
Klein, A. M., Vaissiere, B. E., Cane, J. H., Steffan-Dewenter, I.,
Cunningham, S. A., Kremen, C., & Tscharntke, T. (2007).
Importance of pollinators in changing landscapes for world
crops. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B:
Biological Sciences, 274(1608), 303–313.
Konijnendijk, C. C., Annerstedt, M., Busse Nielsen, A., &
Maruthaveeran, S. (2013). Benefi ts of urban parks a system-
atic review. International Federation of Parks and Recreation
Administration (IFPRA): Copenhagen/Alnarp.
Korsgaard, L., & Schou, J. S. (2010). Economic valuation of
aquatic ecosystem services in developing countries. Water
Policy, 12(1), 20–31.
Kozak, J., Lant, C., Shaikh, S., & Wang, G. (2011). The geography
of ecosystem service value: the case of the Des Plaines and
Cache River wetlands, Illinois. Applied Geography, 31(1),
303–311.
Kubiszewski, I., Costanza, R., Dorji, L., Thoennes, P., & Tshering,
K. (2013). An initial estimate of the value of ecosystem
services in Bhutan. Ecosystem Services, 3, e11–e21.
Kubiszewski, I., Costanza, R., Anderson, S., Sutton, P. (2015). The
future of ecosystem services: Global and national scenarios.
Chapter 3b, pp.64-77.
Kubiszewski, I., Anderson, S. J., Costanza, R., & Sutton, P. C.
(2016). The future of ecosystem services in Asia and the
Pacific. Asia & the Pacific Policy Studies, 3(3), 389–404.
Kulshreshtha, S.N., Lac, S., Johnston, M. and Kinar, C., 2000a.
Carbon sequestration in protected areas of Canada: an eco-
nomic valuation. The Canadian Parks Council, Economic
Framework Project, Report, 549.
Kulshreshtha, S.N., Lac, S., Johnston, M. &, Kinar, C., 2000b.
Carbon sequestration in protected areas of Canada: an eco-
nomic valuation. The Canadian Parks Council, Economic
Framework Project, Report, 549.
Lal, P.N. (1990). Conservation or Conversion of Mangroves in
Fiji. Occasional Papers of the East-West Environment and
Policy Institute, paper No. 11.
Li, J., Ren, Z., & Zhou, Z. (2006). Ecosystem services and their
values: a case study in the Qinba mountains of China.
Ecological Research, 21(4), 597–604.
Li, Q., Morimoto, K., Nakadai, A., Inagaki, H., Katsumata, M.,
Shimizu, T., Hirata, Y., Hirata, K., Suzuki, H., Miyazaki, Y.,
& Kagawa, T. (2007). Forest bathing enhances human natural
killer activity and expression of anti-cancer proteins.
International journal of immunopathology and pharmacolo-
gy, 20(2_suppl), 3–8.
Loomis, J. (2000). Vertically summing public good demand
curves: an empirical comparison of economic versus political
jurisdictions. Land Economics, 76(2), 312–321.
Loomis, J., Kent, P., Strange, L., Fausch, K., & Covich, A. (2000).
Measuring the total economic value of restoring ecosystem
services in an impaired river basin: results from a contingent
valuation survey. Ecological economics, 33(1), 103–117.
Losey, J. E., & Vaughan, M. (2006). The economic value of
ecological services provided by insects. Bioscience, 56(4),
311–323.
Lü, Y., Fu, B., Feng, X., Zeng, Y., Liu, Y., Chang, R., Sun, G., &
Wu, B. (2012). A policy-driven large scale ecological
Environ Monit Assess (2019) 191:616
restoration: quantifying ecosystem services changes in the
Loess Plateau of China. PloS one, 7(2), e31782.
Lucy, E., & Kekulandala, L. D. C. B. (2003). Assessment of the
economic values of Muthurajawela wetland. Occasional pa-
pers of IUCN Sri Lanka, IUCN-World conservation union,
Sri Lanka country office, 4.
Malik, A., Fensholt, R., & Mertz, O. (2015). Economic valuation
of mangroves for comparison with commercial aquaculture
in South Sulawesi, Indonesia. Forests, 6(9), 3028–3044.
Mangos, A. B., & Jean-Pascal Sauzade, D. (2010). The economic
value of sustainable benefits rendered by the Mediterranean
marine ecosystems. UNEP-MAP/BP-RAC.
Mashayekh, Y. (2013). Land use and congestion management
strategies to promote urban environmental sustainability.
Doctoral dissertation, figshare.
Matero, J., & Saastamoinen, O. (2007). In search of marginal
environmental valuations—ecosystem services in Finnish
forest accounting. Ecological Economics, 61(1), 101–114.
McPherson, E. G., & Simpson, J. R. (1999). Carbon dioxide
reduction through urban forestry: Guidelines for professional
and volunteer tree planters. In USDA Forest Service Pacific
Southwest Research Station General Technical Report PSW-
GTR-171. Berkeley: CA.
Mea, M. E. A. (2003). Ecosystems and human well-being: a
framework for assessment. WashingTon (DC): World
Resources Institute.
MEA. (2005). Millennium ecosystem assessment. In Ecosystems
and human wellbeing: a framework for assessment.
Washington, DC: Island Press.
Melathopoulos, A. P., Cutler, G. C., & Tyedmers, P. (2015a).
Where is the value in valuing pollination ecosystem services
to agriculture? Ecological Economics, 109, 59–70.
Mindell, J., & Joffe, M. (2004). Predicted health impacts of urban
air quality management. Journal of Epidemiology &
Community Health, 58(2), 103–113.
Mitchell, R., & Popham, F. (2008). Effect of exposure to natural
environment on health inequalities: an observational popula-
tion study. Lancet, 372, 1655–1660.
Moeltner, K., Boyle, K. J., & Paterson, R. W. (2007). Meta-
analysis and benefit transfer for resource valuation-
addressing classical challenges with Bayesian modeling.
Journal of Environmental Economics and Management,
53(2), 250–269.
Morse, R. A., & Calderone, N. W. (2000). The value of honey bees
as pollinators of US crops in 2000. Bee culture, 128(3), 1–15.
Mukherjee, N., Sutherland, W.J., Dicks, L., Hugé, J., Koedam, N.
and Dahdouh-Guebas, F., 2014a. Ecosystem service valua-
tions of mangrove ecosystems to inform decision making and
future valuation exercises. PloS one, 9(9), p.e107706.
Mukherjee, N., Sutherland, W. J., Dicks, L., Hugé, J., Koedam, N.,
& Dahdouh-Guebas, F. (2014b). Ecosystem service valua-
tions of mangrove ecosystems to inform decision making and
future valuation exercises. PloS one, 9(9), e107706.
Mullen, J. D., Norton, G. W., & Reaves, D. W. (1997). Economic
analysis of environmental benefits of integrated pest manage-
ment. Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics,
29(02), 243–253.
Munyuli, T., & Mushambanyi, B. (2014). Social and ecological
drivers of the economic value of pollination services deliv-
ered to coffee in central Uganda. Journal of Ecosystems,
2014.
Environ Monit Assess (2019) 191:616
Murillas-Maza, A., Virto, J., Gallastegui, M.C., González, P. and
Fernández-Macho, J., 2011. The value of open ocean eco-
systems: a case study for the Spanish exclusive economic
zone. In Natural Resources Forum (Vol. 35, No. 2, pp. 122-
133). Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Hoboken
Mwebaze, P., Marris, G.C., Budge, G.E., Brown, M., Potts, S.G.,
Breeze, T.D., MacLEOD, A. (2010). Quantifying the value of
ecosystem services: a case study of honeybee pollination in
the UK. Contributed Paper.
Naber, H., Lange, G., Hatziolos, M. (2008). Valuation of Marine
Ecosystem Services: a Gap Analysis.
Nahuelhual, L., Donoso, P., Lara, A., Nuñez, D., Oyarzun, C., &
Neira, E. (2007). Valuing ecosystem services of Chilean
temperate rainforests. Environment, Development and
Sustainability, 9(4), 481–499.
Nelson, J. P., & Kennedy, P. E. (2009). The use (and abuse) of
meta-analysis in environmental and natural resource econom-
ics: an assessment. Environmental and Resource Economics,
42(3), 345–377.
Ninan, K. N., & Inoue, M. (2013). Valuing forest ecosystem
services: what we know and what we don't. Ecological
Economics, 93, 137–149.
Ninan, K. N., & Kontoleon, A. (2016). Valuing forest ecosystem
services and disservices–case study of a protected area in
India. Ecosystem Services, 20, 1–14.
Niu, X., Wang, B., Liu, S., Liu, C., Wei, W., & Kauppi, P. E.
(2012a). Economical assessment of forest ecosystem services
in China: characteristics and implications. Ecological
Complexity, 11, 1–11.
Niu, Z., Zhang, H., Wang, X., Yao, W., Zhou, D., Zhao, K., Zhao,
H., Li, N., Huang, H., Li, C., & Yang, J. (2012b). Mapping
wetland changes in China between 1978 and 2008. Chinese
Science Bulletin, pp., 1–11.
Nowak, D.J., and D.E. Crane. 1998. The urban forest effects
(UFORE) model: quantifying urban forest structure and func-
tions. Integrated Tools Proceedings. pp. 714–720.
Nowak, D. J., Greenfield, E. J., Hoehn, R. E., & Lapoint, E.
(2013). Carbon storage and sequestration by trees in urban
and community areas of the United States. Environmental
pollution, 178, 229–236.
Nowak, D. J., Crane, D. E., & Stevens, J. C. (2006). Air pollution
removal by urban trees and shrubs in the United States.
Urban forestry & urban greening, 4(3), 115–123.
Nowak, D. J., Hoehn, R. E., Crane, D. E., Stevens, J. C., &
Walton, J. T. (2007). Assessing urban forest effects and
values: Philadelphia’s urban forest. USDA Forest Service,
Northern Resource Bulletin NRS-7 (p. 24). PA: Newtown
Square.
Ojea, E., & Martin-Ortega, J. (2015). Understanding the economic
value of water ecosystem services from tropical forests: a
systematic review for South and Central America. Journal of
Forest Economics, 21(2), 97–106.
Paletto, A., Geitner, C., Grilli, G., Hastik, R., Pastorella, F., &
Garcìa, L. R. (2015). Mapping the value of ecosystem ser-
vices: a case study from the Austrian Alps. Annals of Forest
Research, 58(1), 157.
Pant, K. P., Rasul, G., Chettri, N., Rai, K. R., & Sharma, E. (2012).
Value of forest ecosystem services: a quantitative estimation
from the Kangchenjunga landscape in eastern Nepal. In
ICIMOD Working Paper 2012/5. Kathmandu: ICIMOD.
Page 25 of 27 616
Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology (2010). Insect
Pollination POST Note 348; Parliamentary Office of Science
and Technology; London.
Paris, R., Ruzicka, I. (1991). Barking up the wrong tree: the role of
rent appropriation in sustainable tropical forest manage-
ment. Occasional Paper.
Pascual, U., Muradian, R., Brander, L., Gómez-Baggethun, E.,
Martín-López, B., Verma, M., Armsworth, P., Christie, M.,
Cornelissen, H., Eppink, F., & Farley, J. (2010). The econom-
ics of valuing ecosystem services and biodiversity. TEEB–
Ecological and Economic Foundation.
Pattanayak, S.K., Butry, D.T., (2002). Complementarity of forests
and farms: a spatial econometric approach to ecosystem
valuation in Indonesia.
Patton, D., Bergstrom, J. C., Moore, R., & Covich, A. P. (2015).
Economic value of carbon storage in US National Wildlife
Refuge wetland ecosystems. Ecosystem Services, 16, 94–
104.
Pearce. (1991). Blue Prient 2: Greening the Economy. London:
Earthscan Publications.
Pearce, D., & Moran, D. (1994). The Economic Value of
Biodiversity. In association with The World Conservation
Union (IUCN). London: Earthscan Publications.
Pearce, J. M., Fields, R. L., & Scribner, K. T. (1997). Nest
Materials as a Source of Genetic Data for Avian Ecological
Studies (Material del Nido Como Fuente para Obtener Datos
Genéticos en Estudios Ecológicos). Journal of Field
Ornithology, pp., 471–481.
Peng, S., Huang, J., Sheehy, J. E., Laza, R. C., Visperas, R. M.,
Zhong, X., Centeno, G. S., Khush, G. S., & Cassman, K. G.
(2004). Rice yields decline with higher night temperature
from global warming. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 101,
9971–9975.
Pimentel, D. (1998). Economic benefits of natural biota.
Ecological Economics, 25, 45–47.
Pimentel, D., Wilson, C., McCullum, C., Huang, R., Dwen, P.,
Flack, J., Tran, Q., Saltman, T., & Cliff, B. (1997). Economic
and environmental benefits of biodiversity. BioScience,
47(11), 747–757.
Postel, S. L., & Thompson, B. H. (2005). Watershed protection:
Capturing the benefits of nature’s water supply services. In
Natural Resources Forum (Vol. 29, No. 2 (pp. 98–108).
Hoboken: Blackwell Publishing, Ltd.
Potts, S. G., Biesmeijer, J. C., Kremen, C., Neumann, P.,
Schweiger, O., & Kunin, W. E. (2010). Global pollinator
declines: trends, impacts and drivers. Trends in ecology &
evolution, 25(6), 345–353.
Považan, R., Getzner, M., & Švajda, J. (2014). Value of Ecosystem
Services in Mountain National Parks. Case Study of Velká
Fatra National Park (Slovakia). Polish Journal of
Environmental Studies, 23(5).
Power, A. G. (2010). Ecosystem services and agriculture: tradeoffs
and synergies. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal
Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 365(1554),
2959–2971.
Raudsepp-Hearne, C., Peterson, G. D., Tengö, M., Bennett, E. M.,
Holland, T., Benessaiah, K., MacDonald, G. K., & Pfeifer, L.
(2010). Untangling the environmentalist's paradox: why is
human well-being increasing as ecosystem services degrade?
BioScience, 60(8), 576–589.
 616 Page 26 of 27
Remme, R. P., Edens, B., Schröter, M., & Hein, L. (2015).
Monetary accounting of ecosystem services: a test case for
Limburg province, the Netherlands. Ecological Economics,
112, 116–128.
Reyers, B., Biggs, R., Cumming, G. S., Elmqvist, T., Hejnowicz,
A. P., & Polasky, S. (2013). Getting the measure of ecosys-
tem services: a social–ecological approach. Frontiers in
Ecology and the Environment, 11(5), 268–273.
Reynaud, A., & Lanzanova, D. (2017). A global meta-analysis of
the value of ecosystem services provided by lakes.
Ecological Economics, 137, 184–194.
Richardson, L., Keefe, K., Huber, C., Racevskis, L., Reynolds, G.,
Thourot, S., & Miller, I. (2014). Assessing the value of the
Central Everglades Planning Project (CEPP) in Everglades
restoration: an ecosystem service approach. Ecological
Economics, 107, 366–377.
Rosenberger, R. S., & Phipps, T. T. (2007). Correspondence and
convergence in benefit transfer accuracy: meta-analytic re-
view of the literature. Environmental value transfer: Issues
and methods, 4, 23.
Ruitenbeek, H. (1992). The rainforest supply: a tool evaluating
rainforest conservation expenditures. Ecological economics,
57–78.
Rusch, A., Valantin-Morison, M., Sarthou, J. P., & Roger-Estrade,
J. (2010). 6 Biological control of insect pests in
agroecosystems: effects of crop management, farming sys-
tems, and seminatural habitats at the landscape scale: a re-
view. Advances in agronomy, 109, 219.
Salem, M. E., & Mercer, D. E. (2012). The economic value of
mangroves: a meta-analysis. Sustainability, 4(3), 359–383.
Sandifer, P. A., Sutton-Grier, A. E., & Ward, B. P. (2015).
Exploring connections among nature, biodiversity, ecosys-
tem services, and human health and well-being: opportunities
to enhance health and biodiversity conservation. Ecosystem
Services, 12, 1–15.
Sara, W., Borisova, T., & Hodges, A. (2014). Economic value of
the services provided by Florida Springs and other water
bodies: a summary of existing studies, UF. IFAS Extension:
University of Florida, USA.
Sathirathai, S., & Barbier, E. B. (2001). Valuing mangrove con-
servation in southern Thailand. Contemporary Economic
Policy, 19(2), 109–122.
Schäffler, A., & Swilling, M. (2013). Valuing green infrastructure
in an urban environment under pressure—the Johannesburg
case. Ecological Economics, 86, 246–257.
Scolozzi, R., Morri, E., & Santolini, R. (2012). Delphi-based
change assessment in ecosystem service values to support
strategic spatial planning in Italian landscapes. Ecological
Indicators, 21, 134–144.
Seidl, A. F., & Moraes, A. S. (2000). Global valuation of ecosys-
tem services: application to the Pantanal da Nhecolandia,
Brazil. Ecological economics, 33(1), 1–6.
Semwal, R. L., Tewari, A., GCS, N., Thadani, R., Phartiyal, P.,
Editors and Research Contributors, Verma, M., Joshi, S.,
Godbole, G., Sing, A., & Research Contributors. (2007).
Valuation of ecosystem services and forest governance: a
scoping study from Uttarakhand. New Delhi (India):
Leadership in environment & development (LEAD).
Sharma, B., Rasul, G., & Chettri, N. (2015). The economic value
of wetland ecosystem services: evidence from the Koshi
Environ Monit Assess (2019) 191:616
Tappu Wildlife Reserve, Nepal. Ecosystem Services, 12,
84–93.
Sjöstedt, M. (2012). Ecosystem services and poverty reduction:
how do development practitioners conceptualize the link-
ages? The European Journal of Development Research,
24(5), 777–787.
Smajgl, A., Xu, J., Egan, S., Yi, Z. F., Ward, J., & Su, Y. (2015).
Assessing the effectiveness of payments for ecosystem ser-
vices for diversifying rubber in Yunnan, China.
Environmental Modelling & Software, 69, 187–195.
Smith, V. K., & Huang, J. C. (1995). Can markets value air
quality? A meta-analysis of hedonic property value models.
Journal of political economy, 103(1), 209–227.
Smith, V. K., & Pattanayak, S. K. (2002). Is meta-analysis a
Noah’s ark for non-market valuation? Environmental and
Resource Economics, 22(1-2), 271–296.
Soares, A. L., Rego, F. C., McPherson, E. G., Simpson, J. R.,
Peper, P. J., & Xiao, Q. (2011). Benefits and costs of street
trees in Lisbon, Portugal. Urban Forestry & Urban
Greening, 10(2), 69–78.
Stanley, T. D. (2001). Wheat from chaff: Meta-analysis as quanti-
tative literature review. The Journal of Economic
Perspectives, 15(3), 131–150.
Sutton, P. C., & Anderson, S. J. (2016). Holistic valuation of urban
ecosystem services in New York City's Central Park.
Ecosystem Services, 19, 87–91.
Suwarno, A., van Noordwijk, M., Weikard, H. P., & Suyamto, D.
(2016a). Indonesia’s forest conversion moratorium assessed
with an agent-based model of Land-Use Change and
Ecosystem Services (LUCES). Mitigation and Adaptation
Strategies for Global Change, 1–19.
Suwarno, A., Hein, L., & Sumarga, E. (2016b). Who benefits from
ecosystem services? A case study for Central Kalimantan,
Indonesia. Environmental management, 57(2), 331–344.
Synyer, J., Basagana, X., Belmonte, J., & Anto, J. M. (2002).
Effect of Nitrogen Dioxide and ozone on the risk of dying in
patients with severe asthma. Thorax, 57, 687–693.
Tammi, I., Mustajärvi, K., & Rasinmäki, J. (2016). Integrating
spatial valuation of ecosystem services into regional planning
and development. Ecosystem Services.
TEEB (2008). The Economics of Ecosystem and Biodiversity,
Interm Report.
TEEB (2010a). The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity:
Mainstreaming the Economics of Nature: A synthesis of the
approach, conclusions and recommendations of TEEB
TEEB Foundations (2010b). The Economics of Ecosystems and
Biodiversity: Ecological and Economic Foundations. Edited
by Pushpam Kumar. Earthscan, London.
ten Brink, P., Badura, T., Bassi, S., Gantioler, S., Kettunen, M.,
Rayment, M., Pieterse, M., Daly, E., Gerdes, H., Lago, M., &
Lang, S. (2011). Estimating the overall economic value of the
benefits provided by the Natura 2000 network. Brussels:
Institute for European Environmental Policy/GHK/Ecologic.
Tong, C., Feagin, R. A., Lu, J., Zhang, X., Zhu, X., Wang, W., &
He, W. (2007). Ecosystem service values and restoration in
the urban Sanyang wetland of Wenzhou, China. Ecological
engineering, 29(3), 249–258.
Torras, M. (2000). The total economic value of Amazonian defor-
estation, 1978–1993. Ecological economics, 33(2), 283–297.
Environ Monit Assess (2019) 191:616
Tyrva¨inen, L. (2001). Economic valuation of urban forest benefits
in Finland. Journal of Environmental Management, 62, 75–
92.
Tyrväinen, L., Pauleit, S., Seeland, K., & de Vries, S. (2005).
Benefits and uses of urban forests and trees. In C.
Konijnendijk, K. Nilsson, T. Randrup, & J. Schipperijn
(Eds.), Urban Forests and Trees. Springer.
UNEP (2011). The Demographic Republic of the Congo the Post -
Conflict Environmental Assessment Synthesis for Policy
Makers. United Nations Environmental Programme.
Van Beukering, P. J., Cesar, H. S., & Janssen, M. A. (2003).
Economic valuation of the Leuser national park on
Sumatra, Indonesia. Ecological economics, 44(1), 43–62.
WWF / Dalberg (2013). The Economic Value of Virunga National
Park. WWF International, Gland, Switzerland.
Willis, K. G., & Garrod, G. D. (1993). Valuing landscape: a
contingent valuation approach. Journal of environmental
management, 37(1), 1–22.
Wilson, S. J. (2008). Ontario’s Wealth, Canada’s Future:
Appreciating the value of the Greenbelt’s eco-services.
Vancouver, B.C.: David Suzuki Foundation.
Wilson, S.J. (2009). The Value of BC’s Grasslands: Exploring
Ecosystem Values and Incentives for Conservation. Final
Report. Grasslands Conservation Council of British
Columbia (GCC). 46pp.
Wilson, S. J. (2014). The Peace dividend: assessing the economic
value of ecosystems in BC’s Peace River watershed. David
Suzuki Foundation.
Wilson, M. A., & Carpenter, S. R. (1999). Economic valuation of
freshwater ecosystem services in the United States: 1971–
1997. Ecological applications, 9(3), 772–783.
Winfree, R., Gross, B. J., & Kremen, C. (2011). Valuing pollina-
tion services to agriculture. Ecological Economics, 71, 80–
88.
Wipulanusat, W., & Herabat, P. (2007). Road user Benefits
Transfer: the Case of Contingent Valuation Method and
Vehicle Operating Cost. Science & Technology Asia, 78–87.
Wynn et al. (2014). Autonomous Underwater Vehicles (AUVs):
Their past, present and future contributions to the advance-
ment of marine geoscience.
Page 27 of 27 616
Xie, G. D., Lu, C. X., Leng, Y. F., et al. (2003). Ecological assets
valuation of the Tibetan Plateau. Journal of Natural
Resources, 18, 189–196 (in Chinese).
Xie, G., Li, W., Xiao, Y., Zhang, B., Lu, C., An, K., Wang, J., Xu,
K., & Wang, J. (2010). Forest ecosystem services and their
values in Beijing. Chinese Geographical Science, 20(1), 51–
58.
Xue, D., & Tisdell, C. (2001). Valuing ecological functions of
biodiversity in Changbaishan Mountain Biosphere Reserve
in northeast China. Biodiversity and Conservation, 10(3),
467–481.
Yang, W., & Yang, Z. F. (2014). Evaluation of sustainable envi-
ronmental flows based on the valuation of ecosystem ser-
vices: a case study for the Baiyangdian Wetland, China.
Journal of Environmental Informatics, 24(2).
Zhang, W., & Swinton, S. M. (2012). Optimal control of soybean
aphid in the presence of natural enemies and the implied
value of their ecosystem services. Journal of environmental
management, 96(1), 7–16.
Zhang, Y., Zhou, D., Niu, Z., & Xu, F. (2014). Valuation of lake
and marsh wetlands ecosystem services in China. Chinese
geographical science, 24(3), 269.
Zhang, J., Ding, Z., & Luo, M. (2017). Risk analysis of water
scarcity in artificial woodlands of semi-arid and arid China.
Land Use Policy, 63, 324–330. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
landusepol.2017.02.008.
Zhiyun, O., Yu, J., Tongqian, Z., & Hua, Z. (2011). Ecosystem
regulating services and their valuation of Hainan Island,
China. Journal of Resources and Ecology, 2(2), 132–140.
Zhongxin, C. & Xinshi, Z. (2000). Value of ecosystem services in
China.
Zhongmin, X., Guodong, C., Zhiqiang, Z., Zhiyong, S., &
Loomis, J. (2003). Applying contingent valuation in China
to measure the total economic value of restoring ecosystem
services in Ejina region. Ecological Economics, 44(2), 345–
358.
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional
affiliations.