SPECIAL ISSUE
THE VALUES OF WETLANDS: LANDSCAPE AND INSTITUTIONAL
PERSPECTIVES
Valuation of wetlands in a landscape and institutional
perspective
Tore So¨derqvist
a,*, William J. Mitsch
b, R. Kerry Turner
caBeijer International Institute of Ecological Economics,The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences,Box50005,
SE-10405Stockholm,Sweden
bSchool of Natural Resources,The Ohio State Uni
6ersity,2021Coffey Road,Columbus OH43210,USA
cCentre for Social and Economic Research on the Global En
6ironment(CSERGE),Uni6ersity of East Anglia,
Norwich NR4 7TJ,UK
www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolecon
1. Introduction
What is a wise use of nature? This perennial issue, always controversial due to conflicting hu-man interests, has in the last decade tended to be clothed in the context of ‘sustainable develop-ment’. The rapid breakthrough of this concept in political and scientific spheres has brought to our attention the dependence of human survival and well-being upon ecosystem supports (e.g. Baskin, 1997; Costanza et al., 1997; Daily, 1997), as well as the susceptibility of ecosystems to human influ-ences. How can such a political and scientific attention to ecosystems be translated to good public policy? One necessary prerequisite is likely to be the adoption of a landscape perspective. Such a perspective implies studies of the biologi-cal and physibiologi-cal interactions among a mosaic of
ecosystems in heterogeneous land areas that to-gether comprise landscapes.
It is worth emphasising, however, that human presence and man-made social, economic and physical structures are equally ‘natural’ landscape elements, continually interacting with ecosystems. The fact that humans and nature are inseparable, and the apparently ever-increasing human influ-ence on her biological and physical environments, make an analysis of the linkages between ecosys-tems and humans an indispensable part of a land-scape perspective. Institutional design in the context of interaction between society and nature has indeed been subject to several recent studies, for example, Ostrom (1990), Bromley (1991), Hanna et al. (1996), and Berkes and Folke (1998). Institutions include social norms, codes and other informal constraints for human behaviour as well as formal ones such as constitutions and laws. Their design is one key to understanding human preferences and behaviour in relation to nature. The study of institutions is thus an integral part of a landscape perspective.
* Corresponding author. Tel.:+46-8-6739540; fax: +46-8-152464.
E-mail address:[email protected] (T. So¨derqvist).
2. The Global Wetland Economics Network (GWEN)
The adoption of a landscape perspective implies a need for co-operative efforts from a large num-ber of scientific disciplines. Research structures and initiatives that encourage interdisciplinary re-search are required. For the specific case of wet-lands, an initiative of this kind which has emerged as an informal network for social and natural scientists interested in interdisciplinary research is
The Global Wetland Economics Network
(GWEN). Besides initiating research, a purpose of GWEN is to facilitate discussions and co-opera-tion among researchers, policy makers and repre-sentatives of non-governmental organisations who share an interest in wetlands.
The first meeting of GWEN was held at the University of East Anglia, Norwich (UK), on 23 – 24 February, 1995, and was organised by the Centre for Social and Economic Research on the Global Environment (CSERGE). Since this meet-ing, GWEN workshops have been held in
Amster-dam (The Netherlands), hosted by Vrije
Universiteit on 27 – 28 November, 1995, and in Venice (Italy), hosted by Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei on 21 – 22 October, 1996. The fourth GWEN workshop, entitled Wetlands: Landscape and Institutional Perspectives, was held at the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences in Stock-holm (Sweden) on 16 – 17 November, 1997, and was organised by the Beijer International Institute of Ecological Economics.
At the time of writing, a new GWEN workshop is being planned, with valuation of mangrove ecosystems as the proposed theme. More informa-tion about this workshop, which is planned to take place in early 2001, will be found on a
preliminary web page of GWEN: http://
www.beijer.kva.se/networks/gwen.html.
3. Papers in this special issue
This special issue of Ecological Economics con-tains reviewed and revised versions of some of the papers that were presented at the 1997 GWEN workshop in Stockholm (So¨derqvist, 1998). These papers are briefly summarised below.
The initiative to the first paper included in this special issue, ‘Ecological-economic analysis of wetlands: scientific integration for management and policy’ (Turner et al., 2000), was taken at the two first GWEN workshops. After a discussion of causes of wetland degradation and loss, a frame-work is suggested for ecological-economic analy-sis of wetlands, which highlights and clarifies the links between wetland functioning, wetland uses and wetland values. It also discusses how such an integrated analysis can be carried out, and poten-tial ways to remedy present failures are discussed. The second paper, ‘The value of wetlands: im-portance of scale and landscape setting’ by Mitsch and Gosselink (2000), touches upon several issues that are covered in some detail in the following papers. First, the authors call attention to the fact that wetlands provide valuable output at various ecological scales — populations, communities, and ecosystems — and probably have different importance depending on the spatial scale on which we base our estimations. Second, the mar-ginal value paradox is that the marmar-ginal value of wetlands increases with human development (agri-cultural and urban) only to a point as wetland functions begin to be lost because the wetlands are overwhelmed with pollution, drainage, and lost biotic pools. Third, a wetland’s location in the landscape influences its output to humans and thus its value. Fourth, the authors note that at-tempts to value ecosystems separately, despite the fact that they are highly interdependent, may result in paradoxical results of unwise substitution of ‘lesser value’ natural ecosystems with ‘higher value’ created ecosystems. Finally, the authors attempt to answer the difficult question: how much of a given watershed should be wetland?
added in the paper ‘Economic criteria for using wetlands as nitrogen sinks under uncertainty’ by Bystro¨m et al. (2000). This paper addresses wet-lands’ potential capacity to reduce variability in pollutant loads that result from non-point source pollution. To monitor such variability is crucial when the extent of environmental damage caused by pollution is at least partly determined by the peak loads of pollutants. The existence of uncer-tainty suggests a probabilistic framework in which it may be possible to predict an expected pollutant load and, as the measure of uncertainty, a load variance. The authors construct a model in which a regulating agency maximises economic return from a watershed area, subject to a reliability constraint specifying the probability that a given water quality target is not violated. The analysis identifies three conditions for the economic rele-vance of wetlands as a nitrogen abatement mea-sure. Another result from the analysis is that wetlands’ capacity to reduce the nitrogen load variance influences the optimal allocation of abatement between point and non-point sources emissions. The authors illustrate their theoretical results by using empirical data for a stylised drainage basin in southwest Sweden.
In general, a good understanding of how wet-land ecosystems support society by serving as an input in, inter alia, agriculture, fisheries or indus-trial production or in household use, helps for assigning an economic value to this particular type of support. Such a procedure for economic valuation is often labelled the production function approach. A production function is a mathemati-cal device describing the relationship between in-puts into production and the output, i.e. the result of the production process. To be sure, multidisci-plinary efforts are a crucial prerequisite whenever a production function that includes the environ-ment as an input is to be specified. In the paper ‘Valuing the environment as input: applications to mangrove-fishery linkages’, Barbier (2000) reviews both a static and a dynamic version of the pro-duction function approach, and their application to estuarine wetlands’ and mangroves’ input to off-shore fisheries by providing breeding ground or nursery. Wetlands are typically multiple use ecological systems, which means that a careless
use of the production function approach may involve double counting and trade-offs between direct and indirect use values. When applied to wetlands-fishery linkages, the static version of the approach is based on assumptions of constant fish stocks or single-period or static fish production. In contrast, the dynamic version considers the relationship between wetlands’ input and fish pro-duction over time. An examination of one case study on mangroves and coastal fisheries in the Gulf of Thailand and one on mangroves’ support to the Campeche shrimp fishery in Mexico serves as an illustration of the use of the static and dynamic versions, respectively.
The production function approach to economic valuation is also employed in the next paper, ‘Approaches to valuing the hidden hydrological services of wetland ecosystems’ by Acharya (2000), whose case study concerns the economic value of the aquifer recharge function performed by the Hadejia-Nguru wetlands in northern Nige-ria. This recharge is an input to irrigated agricul-ture, which uses water from shallow aquifers. They are recharged, thanks to seasonal flooding of the wetlands. Rural households also depend on groundwater for their drinking water and domes-tic water use. This is another fine illustration of human indirect (or hidden) uses of wetlands. In-formation on input and output prices and a
spe-cification of the production function of
agriculture allowed the author to estimate the welfare change in the agricultural sector from an alteration in groundwater levels. An estimation of welfare effects for rural households from a corre-sponding alteration was accomplished by a de-mand analysis of domestic water consumption. The policy context of this study is the existence of upstream dam constructions and channelisation. Such developments will influence the flooding of the wetlands and thus the groundwater recharge function. The study shows that considerable eco-nomic values are therefore at stake.
attention to another cause of wetland loss: prop-erty rights are often neither appropriate nor recognised. The authors argue that this is mani-fested by the frequent neglect of a social
dimen-sion by the bodies interested in wetland
conservation. This does not mean, however, that wetlands are not subject to property rights sys-tems, but the authors use three case studies from South East Asia in order to illustrate that these systems tend to be complex due to the mix of water-related and terrestial-related natural re-sources in wetlands. Moreover, this multi-resource complexity is often enhanced by resource indivisi-bility and seasonal change. The case studies also illustrate conflicts between local users and the state in terms of property rights and use. The authors conclude that the complexity and indivisi-bility of wetland resources call for common-prop-erty regimes or complex territorial regimes in order to avoid over-exploitation. This provides a rationale for local management and monitoring. At the same time, the existence of regional and global wetland services calls for co-ordinated ef-forts in order to accomplish both local and larger-scale goals.
How a combination of institutional factors can contribute to wetland loss is forcefully illustrated for the case of Philippine mangroves in the paper ‘Development and conservation of Philippine mangroves: institutional issues’ (Primavera, 2000). The author summarises the long history of con-version from mangroves to aquaculture ponds, and identifies the institutional factors that have affected mangrove development and conservation. The author’s identification of causes of mangrove loss suggests a list of policy recommendations, which concludes the paper. The recommendations concern, inter alia, economic incentives, manage-ment and legislation. Similarly to the previous paper by Adger and Luttrell, the author empha-sises the important role of local, community-based management of mangroves and the need for reconciliation of presently conflicting legislation.
The next paper, ‘Wetland restoration, collective action and the role of water management institu-tions’ (Hodge and McNally, 2000) also concerns institutional issues, but here in the context of a Western society. The authors start off by
empha-sising that there is often a strong dependence between the character of wetlands and the nature of their water sources. When restoring a wetland attention has thus to be paid also to designing an appropriate management of surrounding land. This issue is especially crucial when the wetland area to be restored is small in comparison to its catchment area. When management for different types of land is difficult to co-ordinate, environ-mental benefits may be more easily achieved from the restoration of a few large wetlands instead of many small islands of wetlands. On the other hand, in many settings this requires not only efforts from one single landholder, but also co-op-eration or at least agreements with neighbours. That is, collective action by several landholders is required. This observation is a point of departure for the authors, who then proceed by discussing the design of water management institutions which can facilitate collective action. They focus in particular on an existing UK institution: Inter-nal Drainage Boards (IDBs).
way of life, and this cannot be changed by pay-ments solely. Further, whilst farmers’ and conser-vationists’ perceptions of nature differ, they both claim knowledge of nature. Farmers possess a set of locally specific and time-dependent understand-ings of the Pevensey Marsh, but it does not necessarily include the wetland entities that are important to conservationists. This difference constitutes one explanation of some farmers’ ten-dency to distrust management guidelines based on conservationists’ knowledge and perceptions. The authors conclude that payments and a scientific basis are not enough; local knowledge and local details should also be taken into account in the design of conservation schemes. Findings such as those described by Burgess et al. are highly rele-vant for any attempt to make science comprehen-sible to laymen.
4. Themes of this special issue
It is a simple task to find links between the papers that have been summarised above, despite the fact that the papers cover a multitude of issues. Broadly speaking, there are at least two research themes that unite the papers, and we believe they have a great potential for future collaborative efforts.
1. There is the search for an understanding of wetlands as functional systems which supply services to society. These services are often provided in an indirect and hidden way. Some of the important questions approached in the papers were as follows: with what certainty are these services supplied? What physical and biological links between wetlands and other landscape components does the supply hinge upon? How can they be modelled in a way that the welfare effects of a change in their supply can be estimated?
2. The papers which focus on institutional issues tend to emphasise the importance of analysing wetland loss, conservation and restoration in a local context, with respect to use, knowledge as well as institutions. This is true both for the papers dealing with case studies from the Western world (UK) and those focusing on
case studies from South East Asia. The issues of communication and bridging between local residents and users on one hand and scientists, conservationists and decision-makers on the other hand were also highlighted.
Acknowledgements
We are grateful to Robert Costanza, who pro-vided this opportunity to let these eventually se-lected papers from the GWEN workshop reach a wide audience, and to Janis King for her adminis-trative efforts. We also thank the many extramu-ral reviewers who reviewed not only these papers, but the papers that did not survive the review process; this peer-review process is the engine that advances subjects such as the one we have covered here in a more rigorous way. Thanks are also due to Astrid Auraldsson, Ing-Marie Gren and Nils Kautsky, whose advice and assistance were help-ful for the organisation of the GWEN workshop in Stockholm. Financial support for the workshop
from the Swedish Environmental Protection
Agency is gratefully acknowledged.
References
Acharya, G., 2000. Approaches to valuing the hidden hydro-logical services of wetland ecosystems. Ecol. Econ. 35 (1), 63 – 74.
Adger, W.N., Luttrell, C., 2000. Property rights and the utilisation of wetlands. Ecol. Econ. 35 (1), 75 – 89. Barbier, E.B., 2000. Valuing the environment as input:
appli-cations to mangrove-fishery linkages. Ecol. Econ. 35 (1), 47 – 61.
Baskin, Y., 1997. The Work of Nature: How the Diversity of Life Sustains Us. Island Press, Washington, DC, 263 pp. Berkes, F., Folke, C., 1998. Linking Social and Ecological
Systems: Management Practices and Social Mechanisms for Building Resilience. Cambridge University Press, Cam-bridge, UK 459 pp.
Bromley, D.W., 1991. Environment and Economy: Property Rights and Public Policy. Blackwell, Oxford, UK. Burgess, J., Clark, J., Harrison, C.M., 2000. Knowledges in
action: an actor network analysis of a wetland agri-envi-ronment scheme. Ecol. Econ. 35 (1), 119 – 132.
Costanza, R., d’Arge, R., de Groot, R., et al., 1997. The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Na-ture 387, 253 – 260.
Daily, G.C., (Ed.), 1997. Nature’s Services: Societal Depen-dence on Natural Ecosystems. Island Press, Washington, DC, 392 pp.
Hanna, S.S., Folke, C., Ma¨ler, K.-G. (Eds), 1996. Rights to Nature: Ecological, Economic, Cultural and Political Prin-ciples of Institutions for the Environment. Island Press, Washington, DC, 298 pp.
Hodge, I., McNally, S., 2000. Wetland restoration, collective action and the role of water management institutions. Ecol. Econ. 35 (1), 107 – 118.
Mitsch, W.J., Gosselink, J.G., 2000. The value of wetlands: importance of scale and landscape setting. Ecol. Econ. 35 (1), 25 – 33.
Ostrom, E., 1990. Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 280 pp.
Primavera, J.H., 2000. Development and conservation of Philippine mangroves: institutional issues. Ecol. Econ. 35 (1), 91 – 106.
So¨derqvist, T., (Ed.), 1998. Wetlands: landscape and institu-tional perspectives. In: Proceedings of the 4th Workshop of the Global Wetlands Economics Network, Stockholm, Sweden, 16 – 17 November, 1997, Beijer Occasional Paper Series. Beijer International Institute of Ecological Econom-ics, The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, Stockholm. Turner, R.K., van den Bergh, J.C.J.M., So¨derqvist, T., Baren-dregt, A., van der Straaten, J., Maltby, E., van Ierland, E.C., 2000. Ecological-economic analysis of wetlands: sci-entific integration for management and policy. Ecol. Econ. 35 (1), 7 – 23.
