Assigning Unit Values in Ecosystem Services Valuation: A Comparative Analysis of Global, Regional, and Local Unit Values for Three Ecosystem Services in the Grand River Watershed, Ontario, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Economic valuations of ecosystem services often transfer previously estimated global unit values to the geographical setting of interest. While this approach produces quick results, its reliability depends on how representative the large-scale average unit values are for the given local context. Here, we estimate the values of three ecosystem services (ES) – water filtration, nutrient cycling and carbon sequestration – in the Grand River watershed (GRW) of southern Ontario, Canada. The watershed covers nearly 7000 km2, has a humid continental climate and a population of close to one million people. Land cover is dominated by agriculture. We compare ES valuations using locally derived (i.e., GRW-specific) unit values to valuations based on unit values from a regional database and those compiled in the global Ecosystem Services Valuation Database (ESVD). The regional database includes mean unit values from three case studies within southern Ontario and one boreal watershed in British Columbia. As expected, the regional database yields average monetary values for the three ES that are close to those obtained with the local unit values but with larger associated uncertainties. Using the ESVD, however, results in significantly higher monetary values for the ES. For water filtration, the ESVD value is more than five times higher than the regional and local estimates. We further illustrate the effect of the extent of aggregation of forested and agricultural land categories on the ES values. For example, by subdividing the forest category into three sub-categories (deciduous, coniferous, and mixed forest), the estimated value of the carbon sequestration ES of forested areas within the GRW increases by 15%. Overall, our results emphasize the importance of critically assessing the origin of unit values and the land cover resolution in ES valuation, especially when the latter is used as a policy-guiding tool.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".