Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2012 Nov 6;109(45):18619-24.
doi: 10.1073/pnas.1215991109. Epub 2012 Oct 22.

Linking water quality and well-being for improved assessment and valuation of ecosystem services

Affiliations

Linking water quality and well-being for improved assessment and valuation of ecosystem services

Bonnie L Keeler et al. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. .

Abstract

Despite broad recognition of the value of the goods and services provided by nature, existing tools for assessing and valuing ecosystem services often fall short of the needs and expectations of decision makers. Here we address one of the most important missing components in the current ecosystem services toolbox: a comprehensive and generalizable framework for describing and valuing water quality-related services. Water quality is often misrepresented as a final ecosystem service. We argue that it is actually an important contributor to many different services, from recreation to human health. We present a valuation approach for water quality-related services that is sensitive to different actions that affect water quality, identifies aquatic endpoints where the consequences of changing water quality on human well-being are realized, and recognizes the unique groups of beneficiaries affected by those changes. We describe the multiple biophysical and economic pathways that link actions to changes in water quality-related ecosystem goods and services and provide guidance to researchers interested in valuing these changes. Finally, we present a valuation template that integrates biophysical and economic models, links actions to changes in service provision and value estimates, and considers multiple sources of water quality-related ecosystem service values without double counting.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Figures

Fig. 1.
Fig. 1.
Framework for linking actions to values for water quality-related ecosystem services.
Fig. 2.
Fig. 2.
Relationships between water quality change, multiple ecosystem goods and services, and associated changes in values. Actions considered in the far left column include changing land use or land management as well as other drivers of water quality change, such as climate change, invasive species, and atmospheric deposition. Connections between columns are classified as primary or secondary, according to expert opinion. Although not representative of all possible water quality changes, pathways, and effects on well-being, the figure highlights the most important and often-measured services.
Fig. 3.
Fig. 3.
Template for water quality valuation based on integrated biophysical and economic models. Each row in the table represents a water quality change that affects an endpoint and groups of beneficiaries in a unique way, such that there is no overlap in value. Value estimates generated by each row in the template can be summed for an estimate of the value generated or lost by a given action or scenario. For some service estimates (e.g., lake recreation), users will need to select a single valuation tool (e.g., hedonic model or recreation demand model) listed in the cell to avoid double-counting value because there may be overlap in the groups of beneficiaries if multiple approaches are applied to the same water quality change (e.g., lakeshore property owners may also be lake recreationists). The examples given in the template are not meant to be a complete enumeration of all services but rather are provided as illustrative examples of the steps involved in an integrated approach.

References

    1. Bateman IJ, Mace GM, Fezzi C, Atkinson G, Turner K. Economic analysis for ecosystem service assessments. Environ Resource Econ. 2011;48:177–218.
    1. Scheffer M, Carpenter S, Foley JA, Folke C, Walker B. Catastrophic shifts in ecosystems. Nature. 2001;413(6856):591–596. - PubMed
    1. Griffiths C, et al. US Environmental Protection Agency valuation of surface water quality improvements. Rev Environ Econ Policy. 2012;6:130–146.
    1. Donner SD, Kucharik CJ. Corn-based ethanol production compromises goal of reducing nitrogen export by the Mississippi River. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2008;105(11):4513–4518. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Costello C, Griffin WM, Landis AE, Matthews HS. Impact of biofuel crop production on the formation of hypoxia in the Gulf of Mexico. Environ Sci Technol. 2009;43(20):7985–7991. - PubMed

Publication types