{"title":"对生物安全保护的非市场生态系统服务价值进行系统审查","authors":"Richard T. Yao , Lisa Wallace","doi":"10.1016/j.ecoser.2024.101628","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>While quantified environmental benefits from biosecurity protection programmes are available, they remain scarce, patchy, and context-specific. This contributes to the oversight of non-market economic values such as recreation and conservation in practical decision-making. To better understand this situation, we conducted a systematic review focused on studies that estimated non-market values. Our systematic literature review identified and described the body of knowledge on non-market values of current and future biosecurity protection initiatives worldwide. We identified 75 studies completed between 2000 and 2020 that examined biosecurity protection values across different ecosystems, including forests, freshwater, and marine environments. The results indicated that the three main quantified ecosystem service values were biodiversity conservation and enhancement, recreation, and bundled forest ecosystem services. Among the economic valuation methods, the survey-based stated preference method called choice experiment was the most widely used. This method provides a detailed approach to estimating multiple environmental values derived from biosecurity protection. We identified some significant advancements within the subfield of biosecurity protection, particularly in the valuation methods employed. These advancements include the integration of multiple approaches, such as combining economic valuation with spatial and psychological methods. We envision that our findings will inform the design of future NMV research. This, in turn, will better equip decision-makers to develop more effective, collaborative, and inclusive policies addressing biosecurity issues. These policies will account for the multiple values associated with biosecurity programmes.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":51312,"journal":{"name":"Ecosystem Services","volume":"67 ","pages":"Article 101628"},"PeriodicalIF":6.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212041624000342/pdfft?md5=012707a5bc0a2654f79a6eed0edb338a&pid=1-s2.0-S2212041624000342-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A systematic review of non-market ecosystem service values for biosecurity protection\",\"authors\":\"Richard T. Yao , Lisa Wallace\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.ecoser.2024.101628\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>While quantified environmental benefits from biosecurity protection programmes are available, they remain scarce, patchy, and context-specific. This contributes to the oversight of non-market economic values such as recreation and conservation in practical decision-making. To better understand this situation, we conducted a systematic review focused on studies that estimated non-market values. Our systematic literature review identified and described the body of knowledge on non-market values of current and future biosecurity protection initiatives worldwide. We identified 75 studies completed between 2000 and 2020 that examined biosecurity protection values across different ecosystems, including forests, freshwater, and marine environments. The results indicated that the three main quantified ecosystem service values were biodiversity conservation and enhancement, recreation, and bundled forest ecosystem services. Among the economic valuation methods, the survey-based stated preference method called choice experiment was the most widely used. This method provides a detailed approach to estimating multiple environmental values derived from biosecurity protection. We identified some significant advancements within the subfield of biosecurity protection, particularly in the valuation methods employed. These advancements include the integration of multiple approaches, such as combining economic valuation with spatial and psychological methods. We envision that our findings will inform the design of future NMV research. This, in turn, will better equip decision-makers to develop more effective, collaborative, and inclusive policies addressing biosecurity issues. These policies will account for the multiple values associated with biosecurity programmes.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51312,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Ecosystem Services\",\"volume\":\"67 \",\"pages\":\"Article 101628\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":6.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212041624000342/pdfft?md5=012707a5bc0a2654f79a6eed0edb338a&pid=1-s2.0-S2212041624000342-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Ecosystem Services\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"93\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212041624000342\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"环境科学与生态学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ECOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ecosystem Services","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212041624000342","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
A systematic review of non-market ecosystem service values for biosecurity protection
While quantified environmental benefits from biosecurity protection programmes are available, they remain scarce, patchy, and context-specific. This contributes to the oversight of non-market economic values such as recreation and conservation in practical decision-making. To better understand this situation, we conducted a systematic review focused on studies that estimated non-market values. Our systematic literature review identified and described the body of knowledge on non-market values of current and future biosecurity protection initiatives worldwide. We identified 75 studies completed between 2000 and 2020 that examined biosecurity protection values across different ecosystems, including forests, freshwater, and marine environments. The results indicated that the three main quantified ecosystem service values were biodiversity conservation and enhancement, recreation, and bundled forest ecosystem services. Among the economic valuation methods, the survey-based stated preference method called choice experiment was the most widely used. This method provides a detailed approach to estimating multiple environmental values derived from biosecurity protection. We identified some significant advancements within the subfield of biosecurity protection, particularly in the valuation methods employed. These advancements include the integration of multiple approaches, such as combining economic valuation with spatial and psychological methods. We envision that our findings will inform the design of future NMV research. This, in turn, will better equip decision-makers to develop more effective, collaborative, and inclusive policies addressing biosecurity issues. These policies will account for the multiple values associated with biosecurity programmes.
期刊介绍:
Ecosystem Services is an international, interdisciplinary journal that is associated with the Ecosystem Services Partnership (ESP). The journal is dedicated to exploring the science, policy, and practice related to ecosystem services, which are the various ways in which ecosystems contribute to human well-being, both directly and indirectly.
Ecosystem Services contributes to the broader goal of ensuring that the benefits of ecosystems are recognized, valued, and sustainably managed for the well-being of current and future generations. The journal serves as a platform for scholars, practitioners, policymakers, and other stakeholders to share their findings and insights, fostering collaboration and innovation in the field of ecosystem services.