ECONOMIC VALUATION OF FRESHWATER ECOSYSTEM SERVICES IN THE UNITED STATES: 1971–1997
The purpose of this paper is to provide ecologists and resource managers with a sense of where the economic science of ecosystem valuation has come from and where it might go in the future. To accomplish this, the paper provides a comprehensive synthesis of peer‐reviewed economic data on surface freshwater ecosystems in the United States and examines major accomplishments and gaps in the literature. Economic value has been assigned to nonmarket goods and services provided by surface freshwater systems in the United States by 30 published, refereed articles in the scientific literature from 1971 to 1997. These studies have used variations of three approaches for a quantitative assessment of economic value: travel cost methods, hedonic pricing methods, and contingent valuation methods. To determine the economic value of nonmarket ecosystem goods and services, each method focuses on a different aspect of social benefit associated with lakes, streams, rivers, and wetlands. Valuation methodologies work from different underlying assumptions while possessing unique limitations and uncertainties. [1]
A comparison of tools for modeling freshwater ecosystem services
Interest in ecosystem services has grown tremendously among a wide range of sectors, including government agencies, NGO’s and the business community. Ecosystem services entailing freshwater (e.g. flood control, the provision of hydropower, and water supply), as well as carbon storage and sequestration, have received the greatest attention in both scientific and on-the-ground applications. Given the newness of the field and the variety of tools for predicting water-based services, it is difficult to know which tools to use for different questions. There are two types of freshwater-related tools – traditional hydrologic tools and newer ecosystem services tools. Here we review two of the most prominent tools of each type and their possible applications. In particular, we compare the data requirements, ease of use, questions addressed, and interpretability of results among the models. [2]
Australia’s Murray–Darling Basin: freshwater ecosystem conservation options in an era of climate change
River flows in the Murray–Darling Basin, as in many regions in the world, are vulnerable to climate change, anticipated to exacerbate current, substantial losses of freshwater biodiversity. Additional declines in water quantity and quality will have an adverse impact on existing freshwater ecosystems. We critique current river-management programs, including the proposed 2011 Basin Plan for Australia’s Murray–Darling Basin, focusing primarily on implementing environmental flows. River management programs generally ignore other important conservation and adaptation measures, such as strategically located freshwater-protected areas. Whereas most river-basin restoration techniques help build resilience of freshwater ecosystems to climate change impacts, different measures to enhance resilience and reoperate water infrastructure are also required, depending on the degree of disturbance of particular rivers on a spectrum from free-flowing to highly regulated. [3]
Current limitations of global conservation to protect higher vulnerability and lower resilience fish species
Estuaries are threatened by intense and continuously increasing human activities. Here we estimated the sensitivity of fish assemblages in a set of estuaries distributed worldwide (based on species vulnerability and resilience), and the exposure to cumulative stressors and coverage by protected areas in and around those estuaries (from marine, estuarine and freshwater ecosystems, due to their connectivity). Vulnerability and resilience of estuarine fish assemblages were not evenly distributed globally and were driven by environmental features. Exposure to pressures and extent of protection were also not evenly distributed worldwide. Assemblages with more vulnerable and less resilient species were associated with estuaries in higher latitudes (in particular Europe), and with higher connectivity with the marine ecosystem, moreover such estuaries were generally under high intensity of pressures but with no concomitant increase in protection. [4]
Toxicity of Spent Phone Batteries on Microflora in Marine, Brackish and Freshwater Ecosystems
Aim: To analyse and compare the effect of two products of spent phone batteries on bacteria (Pseudomonas sp.) and fungi (Mucor sp.) in marine, brackish and freshwater using standard toxicological bioassay.
Study Design: The study employs experimental design, statistical analysis of the data and interpretation.
Place and Duration of Study: Freshwater was collected from Biara and Marine samples were collected from Bodo City both of Gokana L.G.A, while brackish water sample was collected from Eagle Island, all in Rivers State, Nigeria. These samples were transported with ice pack to the Microbiology Laboratory of the Rivers State University, for analyses within 6 hours. While Spent phone batteries (product A and B) were obtained from the phone market, Garrison junction, Aba road, Port Harcourt. [5]
Reference
[1] Wilson, M.A. and Carpenter, S.R., 1999. Economic valuation of freshwater ecosystem services in the United States: 1971–1997. Ecological applications, 9(3), (Web Link)
[2] Vigerstol, K.L. and Aukema, J.E., 2011. A comparison of tools for modeling freshwater ecosystem services. Journal of environmental management, 92(10), (Web Link)
[3] Pittock, J. and Finlayson, C.M., 2011. Australia’s Murray–Darling Basin: freshwater ecosystem conservation options in an era of climate change. Marine and Freshwater Research, 62(3), (Web Link)
[4] Current limitations of global conservation to protect higher vulnerability and lower resilience fish species
Rita P. Vasconcelos, Marisa I. Batista & Sofia Henriques
Scientific Reports volume 7, (Web Link)
[5] Ibietela Douglas, S., Renner Nrior, R. and Barinedum Kpormon, L. (2018) “Toxicity of Spent Phone Batteries on Microflora in Marine, Brackish and Freshwater Ecosystems”, Journal of Advances in Microbiology, 12(2), (Web Link)