Search

The values of goods and services provided by wetland ecosystems are examined through a meta-analysis of an expanded database of wetland value estimates and with a focus on human-made wetlands. This study extends and improves upon previous meta-analyses of the wetland valuation literature in terms of the number of observations, geographical coverage, wetland class and integrity, and the measurement of the effects of scarcity and anthropogenic pressure. We find that water quality improvement, nonconsumptive recreation, and provision of natural habitat and biodiversity are highly valued services. Substitution effects are observed through the negative correlation between values and abundance of other wetlands. Wetland values are found to increase with anthropogenic pressure. An extended metaregression model with cross effects shows that the valuation of specific services varies with the type of wetland producing them. Human-made wetlands are highly valued for biodiversity enhancement, water quality improvement, and flood control.

58 pages, 5 figures, 3 tables, The World Economic Forum now ranks biodiversity loss as a top-five risk to the global economy, and the draft post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework proposes an expansion of conservation areas to 30% of the earth’s surface by 2030 (hereafter the “30% target”), using protected areas (PAs) and other effective area-based conservation measures (OECMs). - Two immediate concerns are how much a 30% target might cost and whether it will cause economic losses to the agriculture, forestry and fisheries sectors. - Conservation areas also generate economic benefits (e.g. revenue from nature tourism and ecosystem services), making PAs/Nature an economic sector in their own right. - If some economic sectors benefit but others experience a loss, high-level policy makers need to know the net impact on the wider economy, as well as on individual sectors. [...], A. Waldron, K. Nakamura, J. Sze, T. Vilela, A. Escobedo, P. Negret Torres, R. Button, K. Swinnerton, A. Toledo, P. Madgwick, N. Mukherjee were supported by National Geographic and the Resources Legacy Fund. V. Christensen was supported by NSERC Discovery Grant RGPIN-2019-04901. M. Coll and J. Steenbeek were supported by EU Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 817578 (TRIATLAS). D. Leclere was supported by TradeHub UKRI CGRF project. R. Heneghan was supported by Spanish Ministry of Science, Innovation and Universities, Acciones de Programacion Conjunta Internacional (PCIN-2017-115). M. di Marco was supported by MIUR Rita Levi Montalcini programme. A. Fernandez-Llamazares was supported by Academy of Finland (grant nr. 311176). S. Fujimori and T. Hawegawa were supported by The Environment Research and Technology Development Fund (2-2002) of the Environmental Restoration and Conservation Agency of Japan and the Sumitomo Foundation. V. Heikinheimo was supported by Kone Foundation, Social Media for Conservation project. K. Scherrer was supported by the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 682602. U. Rashid Sumaila acknowledges the OceanCanada Partnership, which funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC). T. Toivonen was supported by Osk. Huttunen Foundation & Clare Hall college, Cambridge. W. Wu was supported by The Environment Research and Technology Development Fund (2-2002) of the Environmental Restoration and Conservation Agency of Japan. Z. Yuchen was supported by a Ministry of Education of Singapore Research Scholarship Block (RSB) Research Fellowship

The year 2020 is a critical year for sustainable development policy and practice with the review and renewal of various international commitments including the Sustainable Development Goals, the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Paris Agreement. The post-2020 agenda needs to be informed by more robust analytical approaches that capture the interactions between the economy, society and the environment. In this paper, we review the state of the art in available models and datasets that lay the groundwork for future analytical work to inform this agenda. Based on this review, we propose an integrated modeling approach for global analysis to underpin international policy discourse and advocacy, and; a sub-global approach focusing on evaluating specific strategies and policy portfolios to make progress toward sustainability commitments considering detailed local country context. Both approaches rely on integrating whole of economy computable general equilibrium models with spatial land use land cover and ecosystem services models. Endogenizing feedbacks between modeling system components ensures that evidence is based on interactions between all system components. Recent advances in methods, data and available tools discussed herein reduce barriers to entry for this type of complex systems analysis and increases the timeliness of policy advice.