Abstract
On the basis of a review of studies on the stated preference valuation of China’s marine ecosystem services conducted between 1996 and 2021, this paper presents a meta-analysis of the estimates of marine ecosystem service benefits by using a multilevel modeling approach. The results indicate that a range of factors influence the estimated economic values of China’s marine ecosystem services, including ecosystem area, ecosystem type, respondent identity, regional gross domestic product (GDP) per capita, ecosystem services being valued, valuation method, and hypothetical scenario being employed. Additionally, the meta-regression results indicate that the willingness to pay for marine ecosystem services in China depends largely on people’s perception of the importance of an ecosystem service. Such a perception is influenced by national policies, educational attainment, and the degree to which the service is linked to people’s lives. This situation is evidenced by the high willingness of people to pay for coastal wetlands and recreational services. People were also found to be most willing to pay for conservation scenarios and least willing to pay for environmental compensation scenarios. These findings contribute to the research on the valuation of marine ecosystem services in China and to the incorporation of research results into ecosystem-based management decisions by clarifying the effects of different factors on valuation estimates.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
1 Introduction
Healthy oceans and marine ecosystem services underpin the ocean economy and play an important role in the existence and development of human society. The ocean is also a site for strategic capital investment and development. However, the sustainable development of the ocean cannot be separated from the conservation of marine ecosystems. The 19th National Congress of the Communist Party of China indicated that the country should adhere to ‘land and sea coordination’ and accelerate the pace of building China into a maritime power. Land–sea coordination and land–sea interactions are important considerations for the implementation of national spatial governance in coastal countries, and increasing maritime power has become an important policy goal of the Chinese government (Gao et al., 2022). General Secretary Xi Jinping emphasized that the construction of what is referred to as ‘a marine ecosystem civilization’ should be incorporated into the overall layout of marine development such that ‘China should continue to make great strides in the conservation of marine ecology, prevention and treatment of marine pollution, and protection of marine biodiversity in a bid to leave a clean marine environment to the world’s future generations. This concerns the common well-being of China and the world'.
Marine and coastal waters provide a variety of benefits to society that are generated through ecosystem services. Such services are, therefore, closely linked to the well-being of society. As a result, the valuation of marine ecosystem service benefits has become an important component for the implementation of a number of policy instruments, such as ecosystem-based management, ecosystem compensation programs, and payments for ecosystem service schemes (Börger et al., 2014; Xie et al., 2015; Ruslan et al., 2022). The study of the valuation of marine ecosystem services in China can be traced back to 1996 (Gao & Wang, 1996). Almost a decade later, in 2005, the State Oceanic Administration of China (SOA) initiated a 5-year program called ‘Service Evaluation of Marine Ecosystems in China Waters’. Based on the current situation of marine development and utilization in China, the SOA attempted to establish a set of valuation index systems and valuation models for marine ecosystem services that were in line with the marine ecosystem characteristics of China. Over nearly three decades, the valuation of marine ecosystem service benefits to China’s society has covered more than 10 types of ecosystems, such as coastal wetlands, coastal zones, bays, beaches, mangroves, and tidal flats (Shi et al., 2007; Chao & Liu, 2013). Valuation estimates include regulation, biological conservation, use, recreation, landscape, research and culture, and nonuse values (Wang et al., 2021).
The valuation methodologies employed gradually changed from market-based methods (represented by the replacement cost approach) to nonmarket valuation methods represented by stated (e.g., contingent valuation method) and revealed (e.g., travel cost method) approaches (Hanley et al., 2015; Tonin, 2018). Stated preference approaches are the only methodologies that can be used for simultaneously estimating the use and nonuse values associated with a change in marine ecosystems (Norton & Hynes, 2014). Value transfer methods beyond primary valuation approaches have also been developed; these methods use value estimates from previously conducted primary studies to estimate changes in ecosystem service values at other ‘policy’ sites for which little or no data are available in relation to benefit values (Rosenberger & Stanley, 2006; Hynes & O' Donoghue, 2020). Value transfer can be conducted by the simple transferal of the mean value from the original research, an income-adjusted mean value from the original research, or the original complete value function. Of particular interest to this work is the meta-analysis approach for value function transfer that uses regression methods to examine the influence of study- and site-specific characteristics from relevant primary studies on estimated values (Brouwer et al., 1999; Hynes et al., 2018).
Meta-analysis is an analytical method for the quantitative review and valuation of empirical research literature. A systematic quantitative analysis of empirical results is conducted by collecting values and associated study information from previous research on the same relevant ecosystem (Field & Gillett, 2010; Folkersen et al., 2018; Fan et al., 2022). This method was first introduced into the field of ecosystem economics by Walsh et al. (1989). Variables with a considerable effect on ecosystem service values can be established on the basis of a large number of independent empirical research results. Benefit transfer equations are then estimated by using regression analysis to deduce ecosystem service values (Liu et al., 2020; Wu & Zeng, 2021; Kang et al., 2022).
The key to meta-analysis is to develop a regression equation for the values of ecosystem services. Although numerous variables affect the values of ecosystem services, ecological parameters, such as the type, service category, and size of ecosystems (Guo et al., 2016), have received more attention than other variables. The economic values of various ecosystem types can differ substantially, according to Yang et al. (2017), and coastal wetlands and offshore ecosystems have high assessment values due to the high degree of exploitation of marine ecosystems, leading to high provisioning service values in particular. Within a single ecosystem, different associated ecosystem services can have varying values. Regulating services, such as climate regulation and water purification, are typically valued higher than other services (Barbier, 2013). A large increase in the assessed value of cultural services has been seen in recent years, and the willingness to pay to maintain the recreational value of marine ecosystems is growing (Sun et al., 2018; Kang et al., 2022). In addition to ecological parameters, valuation techniques affect the economic value of ecosystem services.
The three most commonly used approaches—the contingent valuation method (CVM), choice experiments (CE), and travel cost method (TCM)—can produce widely varying results. Hynes et al. (2018) found that the CVM generates higher estimates of value than the TCM. The nonmarket valuation of ecosystem services using stated preference approaches depends on the respondents’ willingness to pay, which is influenced by factors such as income and ecological awareness. The study of Brander et al. (2012) on the value of mangrove ecosystem services in Southeast Asia revealed that a high GDP per capita is associated with a high willingness to pay for ecosystem services. The willingness to pay is also influenced by the respondents’ educational background and how important ecosystem services are to them (Qin et al., 2021). Meta-analysis, which has the advantages of transfer efficiency and the ability to control for underlying differences in the ecosystems being examined across original studies and policy sites, has become an important technical means for determining estimates of ecosystem service values (Groothuis, 2005; Navrud & Ready, 2007; Zhao & Wang, 2011a, b). However, the application of meta-analysis in the study of ecosystem service values in China is quite limited. Yang et al. (2017) conducted a meta-analysis of the values of wetland ecosystem services. However, their study was limited to a small number of coastal wetland ecosystems. In view of the increasingly extensive research on the valuation of marine ecosystem services in China, in this work, the meta-analysis method was applied to evaluate the drivers of the variation in the estimates of marine ecosystem service values in China comprehensively.
The research methods employed are fully described in the following sections. The database of the values of marine ecosystem services in China and the specific form of the meta-regression model are presented. The multilevel model (MLM) results are provided in Sect. 3. The findings are reviewed and discussed in Sect. 4, and some final conclusions are offered in Sect. 5.
2 Research methods
2.1 Data screening and coding
China National Knowledge Infrastructure; Elsevier, Google Scholar, and marine ecosystem service databases, such as The National Ocean Economics Program, Marine Ecosystem Services Partnership, The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity, and Ecosystem Services Valuation Database, were used to gather relevant studies on the valuation of marine ecosystem services in China. Chinese and English literature published between 1996 and 2021 on the valuation of the economic value of marine ecosystem services in China was compiled and supplemented by manually searching gray literature. Search keywords included ‘ecosystem services’, ‘ecosystem value’, ‘resource value’, ‘ecosystem compensation’, and ‘ecosystem payment’. In addition to these words, ‘China’ and ‘Chinese’ were used for online searches.
Figure 1 summarizes the steps in literature screening. The inclusion criteria were as follows: (1) the study must cite literature on empirical studies on the valuation of marine ecosystem services; (2) the study must quantify the monetary value of specific marine ecosystem services; (3) the study must provide clear information on the methods, subjects, and timing of research; (4) the study must use the stated preference methodsFootnote 1 represented by the CVM and/or the CE approach; (5) the researcher should be able to obtain socioeconomic indicators for the specific research location and time of each study, such as GDP per capita and years of education per capita; and (6) the researcher must be able to convert the unit of value into ‘yuan/ hectare/year’.
The quality control measures used included (1) screening the literature in accordance with the inclusion criteria, (2) excluding repeated reports and reports with little information, and (3) in putting the data from the selected literature into a suitably searchable database and double checking the data to ensure correct input.
According to Martínez-Estévez et al. (2013), each observation represents a single value estimate. When more than one value estimate is given by a study, they are recorded as separate observations, and the different methods and/or models used to produce the values are considered. By searching databases and considering the technical means and completeness of the literature, 57 studies (52 peer-reviewed journal articles and five gray literature papers) that used the stated preference method to evaluate marine ecosystem services were finally screened. A total of 72 valid sample observations were obtained, with more than one value estimate reported by a number of the studies. The specific literature information is shown in Appendix A.
2.2 Model setting
2.2.1 Meta-regression model
In this work, the value of marine ecosystem services in China was taken as the dependent variable in the model. The meta-regression model was set as
where Y is the value of a marine ecosystem service in China (in natural log form), and X is the vector set of impact factors, including a variety of variables affecting the value of a marine ecosystem service.
2.2.2 MLM
The ordinary least squares method (OLS) is widely used in the estimation of regression models. However, the sample data should meet the assumption of being independent and identically distributed. Some of the variables used to predict the values of marine ecosystem services, such as the author, study, or location to which a given estimate pertains, may be constant across a number of estimates. In such cases, a generalized least squares regression technique called multilevel modeling may be appropriate and is often used in the meta-analysis of value transfer literature (Johnston et al., 2005; Brander et al., 2007; Ghermandi et al., 2008; Hynes et al., 2018). An MLM is mainly used to study data with a hierarchical or nested structure. By establishing a set of multilevel regression equations, the total error is divided into errors at each level, which can reflect the interaction effect between levels and indicates that the restrictive assumption of random error independence does not have to be adhered to (Bateman & Jones, 2003; Li et al., 2011).
In this study, a generalized linear two-level regression model explicitly incorporating regional-level effects was estimated. The specific settings are as follows:
Level 1:
Level 2:
where X is the explanatory variable at the individual level, and W is the explanatory variable at the regional level. \(\mathrm{\rm E}\), \({\mathrm{u}}_{0}\), and \({\mathrm{u}}_{1}\) are errors.
2.2.3 Transfer error
The effectiveness of the meta-regression equation can be assessed on the basis of the transfer error. The transfer error is calculated as follows (Zhao & Wang, 2011a, b):
where \({CS}_{RT}\) is the predicted value from the regression model, and \({CS}_{ACT}\) is the actual estimate from the study.
2.3 Variable setting
2.3.1 Explained variables
The expression forms of the ecosystem service values from the literature included the annual average value per unit area of the ecosystem (unit: yuan/hectare/year), willingness to pay per capita (unit: yuan per capita), and total value (unit: yuan). The value of a marine ecosystem service was uniformly transformed into an average annual value per unit area (unit: yuan/hectare/year) to facilitate comparison and analysis.
The conversion equation for the willingness to pay per capita (unit: yuan per capita) is as follows:
The conversion equation for the total ecosystem value (unit: yuan) is as follows:
In view of the large valuation timespan (1996–2019), the GDP deflator was used to adjust all values to the year 2018, and the base period was selected in reference to the study of Roldan et al. (2021).
2.3.2 Explanatory variables
On the basis of a previous meta-analysis of value estimates and the effective information provided by the database, 25 variables were first selected across three categories, namely, the ecosystem characteristics of the research subject, technical characteristics of the research method, and socioeconomic characteristics of the study region, as the independent variables in the meta-function. The relevant variables were coded, and the assigned values were recorded in accordance with the requirements of statistical and econometric data. The details are shown in Table 1.
Stated preference methods rely on hypothetical scenarios to present the change in ecosystem services to respondents. Different scenario settings have different degrees of influence on the well-being of respondents, leading to differences in the willingness to pay (Tokunaga et al., 2020; Taye et al., 2021). In this study, the valuation scenario was included as an explanatory variable in the regression equation to test whether a ‘scenario bias’ existed in the selected study estimates. The scenarios were classified as ecosystem protection, compensation, improvement, or existence.
2.4 Data sources beyond valuation studies
In addition to the observations extracted from the literature, other socioeconomic data for the research areas under scrutiny in the original studies were obtained from The China Statistical Yearbook. In particular, the average years of education and average GDP of the study regions were recorded. The source data in the yearbook originated from the National Population Census bulletin.
3 Results
3.1 Descriptive statistics
As expected (Table 2), the degree of the data concentration of the values of marine ecosystem services, ecosystem area, and number of questionnaires have significantly increased after log-transformation. In terms of sample characteristics, the subjects of the evaluation of marine ecosystem service in China are mainly offshore and wetland ecosystems, and the value categories are mainly recreational and nonuse values. The dominant valuation approach is the CVM, and the dominant valuation scenario is ecosystem protection.
3.2 Meta-regression model estimation
OLS and MLM were estimated as part of the meta-analysis. The results are shown in Table 3 and graphically summarized in Fig. 2. Figures 2a and b report the results of the separate regression of OLS and MLM. The OLS regression results show that the F statistic is overall significant at the 1% confidence level and that R2 is 0.67 after adjustment. As shown in Table 4, the P of the White test result is 0.1985, which suggests that heteroscedasticity is not a significant problem. Moreover, the maximum value of the variance inflation factor does not exceed 10, indicating that no significant multicollinearity exists among the variables.
The results of MLM regression demonstrate that the overall model is statistically significant. The MLM is statistically different from a one-level ordinary linear regression model in accordance with the results of a likelihood ratio test (chi2 = 9.06, P < 0.01), indicating that in Eq. (3), \({u}_{j}\ne 0\). The model has a significant hierarchical structure, showing that even after controlling for the variables at the individual level of the model, statistically significant variation remains in the estimates of the values of marine ecosystem services between regions. The variance of the regression equation random error \({\sigma }_{e}^{2}\) is 1.352, and the variance of the random error \({\sigma }_{u}^{2}\) at the second level is 1.092. If \({\sigma }_{u}^{2}\) is greater than 0, differences exist in the estimated values between regions. The intragroup correlation coefficient ICCFootnote 2 is approximately 0.45, indicating that 45% of the difference in marine ecosystem values is caused by regional differences. The MLM regression can produce a better statistical imitative effect than the OLS model, and the significance of parameter estimation is considerably improved.
Among the ecosystem characteristic variables, ecosystem area, ecosystem type, and value category significantly affect thevalues of marine ecosystem services. Every 1% increase in ecosystem area reduces the values of marine ecosystem services by 0.783%, indicating that the marine ecosystem area has a negatively inelastic effect on ecosystem service values. Coastal wetlands and beaches have higher ecosystem service values than offshore. Furthermore, the recreational value is higher than the nonuse value.
Among the technical characteristic variables, the valuation method, respondent category, and valuation scenario significantly affect ecosystem service values. The values obtained by the CVM are lower than those acquired through the choice experiment method. Among respondents, professional staff shows the highest willingness to pay for marine ecosystem services, whereas tourists have the lowest willingness to pay. The willingness to pay of indiscriminate respondents and local residents is in between that of professional staff and tourist groups. Among the four valuation scenarios, the willingness to pay for ecosystem compensation is the lowest, and that for ecosystem protection is the highest.
Among the socioeconomic characteristic variables, income level significantly affects the values of marine ecosystem services at the 5% significance level. All else being equal, if the GDP per capita increases by 1%, the values of marine ecosystem services increase by 0.559%.
3.3 Transfer error
In this work, the full-sampled literature (72 study observations) was used to calculate transfer error (Fig. 3). The mean transfer errors of the OLS and MLM models are 14.19% and 15.69%, respectively. According to Brouwer (2000) and Ready & Navrud (2006), if the mean transfer error is less than 40%, a model can be considered effective. In this study, the mean transfer error is less than 20%, indicating that both models effectively predict the in-sample value.
4 Discussion
The variation in the estimates of the values of marine ecosystem services in studies from China is affected by the ecosystem characteristics of the study areas, technical characteristics of research methods, and regional socioeconomic characteristics. Consistent with the situation in other countries, the willingness to pay for marine ecosystem services in China has a diminishing marginal utility and wealth effect, indicating that the people’s willingness to pay for ecosystem services decreases as the study are increases (Woodward & Wui, 2001; Brander et al., 2006; Zhang et al., 2015). In line with other international studies, this work found that the willingness to pay increased with the increase in disposable income per capita (Trujillo et al., 2016; Hynes et al., 2018; Zambrano-Monserrate & Ruano, 2020; Kang et al., 2022). Consistent with the studies of Fan et al. (2017) and Hynes et al. (2018), this study discovered that the values of marine ecosystem services obtained by the choice experiment method were significantly higher than those obtained by the CVM.
The ecosystem type and ecosystem service value categories were identified as important factors affecting the willingness to pay for marine ecosystem services. However, their effects were closely related to regional ecosystem governance policies and the public’s ecosystem awareness. Hynes et al. (2018) found that people’s willingness to pay for beach recreation, followed by coastal wetland recreation, was the highest, whereas the willingness to pay for the recreational value of mangroves was the lowest. This study in China showed that although people are willing to pay for ecosystem services that can provide recreational value, they are more willing to pay for wetlands than for beaches, likely because coastal wetlands are culturally more important in Asia than in many other parts of the world (Xie & Guo, 2018; Wang et al., 2022). An area for future research would be a separate meta-analysis on revealed preference travel costs for coastal recreational sites in China. Such a study would provide a clear picture of the coastal and marine ecosystem preferences of Chinese recreationalists.
The momentum of sustainable and rapid economic and social development in China’s coastal areas has not diminished in the twenty-first century. The shortage of land resources and the limitations on land use have become the key factors restricting economic development (Shan & Li, 2020). China launched the fourth round of land reclamation against this background. Previous land reclamation rounds resulted in a reduction of 1.3612 million hectares of coastal wetlands in China from 2003 to 2013, representing a reduction rate of 22.91%Footnote 3. With the promotion of the concept of the construction of a marine ecosystem civilization, China has taken a number of active measures to strengthen the protection of coastal wetlands. A total of 42 national marine parks were established from 2011 to 2019. Coastal populations also have a better understanding of the ecosystem services delivered by wetlands than of those delivered by other marine ecosystem types. By contrast, people have a limited understanding of the ecosystem function of beaches and only evaluate beaches from the perspective of recreation. In addition, in terms of public education, the publicity and education related to the importance of healthy marine ecosystems and marine biodiversity protection continue to lag, and the public lacks a sufficient understanding of the broad range of marine ecosystem functions and services. This situation may explain why ecosystem value categories other than recreation have no significant effect on the willingness to pay.
The CVM and CE are the two most common stated preference valuation methods. This work further confirmed that different valuation methods did have an influence on the valuation of ecosystem services. Although a large amount of literature exists on the comparison of the two methods, a consistent conclusion on which method is betterdoes not exist (Colombo et al., 2005; Jin et al., 2006; Heet al., 2017; Bostan et al., 2020). Most researchers agree that the effectiveness of the stated preference method is affected by questionnaire design and respondent attributes (Wu et al., 2017; Liuet al., 2019). During data collection, most of the studies were found to have not elaborated on the questionnaire design in detail, and only 45% of the studies included a questionnaire as an Appendix. Therefore, the design elements of the questionnaire, such as question form (open or closed), payment form, and whether the background information related to the valuation site is explained to the respondents, could not be readily verified across the majority of studies. This situation was also the reason why the above variables were excluded from the analysis.
Although more than 40% of the studies did not distinguish between respondent categories, the results showed that respondent identity significantly affected the valuation of ecosystem services. Qin et al. (2021) suggested that the respondents of stated preference surveys should be the main beneficiaries of the evaluated ecosystem services. This suggestion implies that tourists might be the respondents of interest for destination scenic areas, whereas local residents may be the respondents of interest for local amenities. Some studies (accounting for 6.9% of the sample) selected workers with professional backgrounds as the respondents. Given that professionals tend to be better educated than other respondents, they may have a deeper understanding of ecosystem functions and services and, therefore, tend to give a higher valuation (Marzetti et al., 2016).
The stated preference method obtains respondents’ willingness to pay through the description of a hypothetical scenario. Thus, the design of scenarios is a critical feature of a questionnaire, and poorly defined scenarios elicit meaningless answers (Lindemann-Matthies & Brieger, 2016; Lee et al., 2021). This work introduced hypothetical scenarios into the meta-analysis and found that designing different categories of scenarios can affect people’s willingness to pay. In the research sample, more than a quarter of the studies did not provide any information about the scenario design. The studies were classified into corresponding categories in accordance with the title of the papers and the focus of the study. Willingness to pay was found to be the lowest in the scenario of ecosystem compensation and the highest in the scenario of management for ecosystem protection. Willingness to pay for the latter was 1.4 times higher than that for the former. Most of the literature that did not provide scenario design information was classified into the category of continued ecosystem existence.
The willingness to pay for the scenario of continued ecosystem existence was 1.1 times higher than that for ecosystem compensation. However, the actual scenario design information of this category could not be verified. Studies have shown that the reliability of the survey results increases as the understanding of the respondents about the hypothetical situation deepens (Tao et al., 2012; Maldonado & Cuervo Sánchez, 2016). With increasing environmental awareness, people have become familiar with scenarios such as ecosystem protection and ecosystem improvement. However, ecosystem compensation is a concept that has emerged in China only in recent years, and the public has very limited understanding of this concept (Wan et al., 2021; Cui, 2022). Scenario rejection or scenario adjustment is likely to occur with insufficient information. This situation will reduce the effectiveness of ecosystem service valuation.
In addition, the lack of hypothetical scenario design information indirectly reflects the lack of policy application of the research on the valuation of marine ecosystem services in China. Most of the reviewed research could be argued to be aimed at academics instead of at solving practical problems or meeting policy needs. Guo & Kildow (2015) pointed out that most of the results of the research on the valuation of marine ecosystem services have not been put into practice, resulting in a serious gap between scientific research and policy application (Zhao, 2015; Torres & Hanley, 2017; Li & Wang, 2022). Studies that are oriented to meeting the needs of ecosystem management policies or solving actual ecosystem problems are likely to come up with reasonable and credible scenarios from which reliable valuation estimates can be obtained.
5 Conclusions
On the basis of empirical studies that estimated the stated preference values of marine ecosystem services in China from 1996 to 2021, this work constructed a database for use for value transfer. The key variables driving the variation of the value estimates of marine ecosystem services in China were explored by using meta-regression analysis. Value estimates in the literature were found to be affected by the ecosystem characteristics of the site under study, characteristics of research methods and technologies, and regional socioeconomic characteristics. In terms of ecosystem characteristics, the demand for marine ecosystem services in China displayed diminishing marginal utility, and high values were associated with coastal wetland ecosystems and recreational services. In terms of the technical characteristics of the research methods, the valuation results of the choice experiment method were higher than those of the CVM, and the identity of the respondents and the design of the hypothetical scenarios were factors that influenced the resulting valuation estimates. In terms of regional socioeconomic characteristics, income level had a positive effect on people’s willingness to pay.
In this study, the MLM was used for meta-regression analysis. A two-level model was constructed from the individual and regional levels, and individual samples were nested within regions. The statistical fit obtained by controlling for regional-level effects using the MLM was better than that acquired with the standard OLS model, which assumed that the data lacked a hierarchical structure. The variance associated with the regional-level residuals was of similar magnitude as the estimated variance for the overall error term in the MLM, indicating that factors associated with the regions wherein the studies were conducted are important for explaining the residual variation in the value of marine ecosystem service estimates. While the sample size used to estimate the models was relatively small, it still represented the majority of the stated preference study estimates currently available for such an analysis in China. It also reflected that the valuation of marine ecosystem services had received less attention than that of terrestrial ecosystem services in the country.
Some deficiencies may exist in the current approach to the evaluation of marine ecosystem services in China. Existing studies mainly focused on coastal wetlands, offshore bays, and islands and rarely involved other critical marine ecosystems indigenous to China, such as mangroves and seagrass beds. Furthermore, the absence of an established standardized system for ecosystem service valuation for feeding into policymaking affects valuation quality to a certain extent and the comparison of value estimates. The current interest in generating ecosystem accounting frameworks will also require a consistent valuation approach if estimates are to be used in such accounting systems.
In recent years, some major coastal provinces and cities in China have begun to explore the construction of a standardized valuation system for marine ecosystem services that would improve valuation quality. Echoing the call of Hynes et al. (2018), such systems should also require studies to report the results from standard ‘workhorse’ models from different types of valuation approaches (e.g., a conditional logit model for CE and a basic negative binomial model for a single-site travel cost model) because this approach should provide additional statistical control over the variation in values in future value transfer exercises. The quality and effectiveness of studies on the valuation of marine ecosystem services in China can be improved only by integrating valuation study results into marine ecosystem development and management decisions and by encouraging scholars to perform additional studies with practical applications and a basis on realistic policy needs.
Availability of data and materials
The data that supports the findings of this study are available within the article.
Notes
In view of the different valuation mechanisms used by the revealed preference method, such as the travel cost method or the hedonic price models and the stated preference method represented by CVM and CE, and the difference in valuation results, this study only selected the literature using the stated preference method for meta-analysis.
\(\mathrm{ICC}=\left[{\sigma }_{u}^{2}/({\sigma }_{u}^{2}+{\sigma }_{e}^{2}\right]\times 100\%\).
This data originated from the comparison and analysis of the second and the third National Wetland Resources Survey.
References
Barbier, E. B. (2013). Economics of the regulating services. Encyclopedia of Biodiversity (Second Edition), 20(2), 45–54.
Bateman, I. J., & Jones, A. P. (2003). Contrasting conventional with multi-level modeling approaches to meta-analysis: Expectation consistency in UK woodland recreation values. Land Economics, 79(2), 235–258. https://doi.org/10.2307/3146869.
Börger, T., Beaumont, N. J., Pendleton, L., et al. (2014). Incorporating ecosystem services in marine planning: The role of valuation. Marine Policy, 46, 161–170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2014.01.019.
Bostan, Y., Fatahi Ardakani, A., Fehresti Sani, M., & Sadeghinia, M. (2020). A comparison of stated preferences methods for the valuation of natural resources: The case of contingent valuation and choice experiment. International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology, 17(9), 4031–4046. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13762-020-02714-z.
Brander, L. M., Florax, R. J. G. M., & Vermaat, J. E. (2006). The empirics of wetland valuation: A comprehensive summary and a meta-analysis of the literature. Environmental and Resource Economics, 33(2), 223–250. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-005-3104-4.
Brander, L. M., Van Beukering, P., & Cesar, H. S. (2007). The recreational value of coral reefs: A meta-analysis. Ecological Economics, 63(1), 209–218. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.11.002.
Brander, L. M., Wagtendonk, A. J., Hussain, S. S., et al. (2012). Ecosystem service values for mangroves in Southeast Asia: A meta-analysis and value transfer application. Ecosystem Services, 1(1), 62–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2012.06.003.
Brouwer, R. (2000). Environmental value transfer: State of the art and future prospects. Ecological Economics, 32(1), 137–152. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(99)00070-1.
Brouwer, R., Langford, I., Bateman, I., et al. (1999). A meta-analysis of wetland contingent valuation studies. Regional Environmental Change, 1, 47–57. https://doi.org/10.1007/s101130050007.
Chao, H., & Liu, X. (2013). Research on the valorization of marine ecosystem services. Ocean Forecast, 30, 86–91. https://doi.org/10.11737/j.issn.1003-0239.2013.03.013.
Colombo, S., Hanley, N., & Calatrava-Requena, J. (2005). Designing policy for reducing the off-farm effects of soil erosion using choice experiments. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 56(1), 81–95. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1477-9552.2005.tb00123.x.
Cui, H. Y. (2022). Research on fiscal policy of Ecosystem compensation in the context of common prosperity. Gansu Social Sciences, 4, 174–183. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTotal-GSSH202204018.html.
Fan, Z. J., Ao, C. L., Mao, B.Q., et al. (2017). Comparison of Ecosystem conservation values of wetlands in three river plains based on declarative preference method. Journal of Applied Ecology, 28(02), 500–508. https://doi.org/10.13287/j.1001-9332.201702.002.
Fan, H. Z., Liu, Y., & Hou, G. (2022). A study on the export effect of Chinese OFDI--based on Meta-analysis method. Contemporary Economic Sciences, 44, 16–23. https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1002-2848.2022.2.ddjjkx202202002.
Field, A. P., & Gillett, R. (2010). How to do a meta-analysis. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 63, 665–694. https://doi.org/10.1348/000711010X502733.
Folkersen, M. V., Fleming, M. C., & Hasan, S. (2018). The economic value of the deep sea: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Marine Policy, 94, 71–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2018.05.003.
Gao, J., An, T., Shen, J., et al. (2022). Development of a land-sea coordination degree index for coastal regions of China. Ocean & Coastal Management, 230, 106370. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2022.106370.
Gao, Z. J., & Wang, H. Y. (1996). Economic loss estimation of environmental pollution in seaside landscape. Marine Environmental Science, 3, 76–79
Ghermandi, A., van den Bergh, J. C., Brander, L. M., et al. (2008). The economic value of wetland conservation and creation: A meta-analysis. Sustainability Indicators and Environmental Valuation Working Papers, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM). https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:ags:feemsi:44229.
Groothuis, P. A. (2005). Benefit transfer: A comparison of approaches. Growth Change, 36, 551–564. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2257.2005.00294.x.
Guo, J., Zheng, J. P., & Jiang, M. J. (2016). Meta-analysis of the value of ecosystem services in China's marine and coastal zones. Proceedings of the 2016 Annual Academic Conference of the Chinese Society of Environmental Sciences, 1, 445–452. https://cpfd.cnki.com.cn/Article/CPFDTOTAL-HJKP201610009058.htm.
Guo, J., & Kildow, J. (2015). The gap between science and policy: Assessing the use of nonmarket valuation in estuarine management based on a case study of US federally managed estuaries. Ocean Coastal Management, 1(108), 20–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2014.09.017.
Hanley, N., Hynes, S., Patterson, D., et al. (2015) Economic valuation of marine and coastal ecosystems: Is it currently fit for purpose? Journal of Ocean and Coastal Econics, 2, Article 1. https://doi.org/10.15351/2373-8456.1014.
He, J., Dupras, J. G., & Poder, T. (2017). The value of wetlands in Quebec: A comparison between contingent valuation and choice experiment. Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy, 6(1), 51–78. https://doi.org/10.1080/21606544.2016.1199976.
Hynes, S., Ghermandi, A., Norton, D., et al. (2018). Marine recreational ecosystem service value estimation: A meta-analysis with cultural considerations. Ecosystem Services, 31, 410–419. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2018.02.001.
Hynes, S., & O’Donoghue, C. (2020). Value transfer using spatial microsimulation modelling: Estimating the value of achieving good Ecosystem status under the EU Water Framework Directive across catchments. Environmental Science and Policy, 110, 60–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2020.05.006.
Jin, J., Wang, Z., & Ran, S. (2006). Comparison of contingent valuation and choice experiment in solid waste management programs in Macao. Ecological Economics, 57(3), 430–441. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2005.04.020.
Johnston, R. J., Besedin, E. Y., Iovanna, R., et al. (2005). Systematic variation in willingness to pay for aquatic resource improvements and implications for benefit transfer: A meta-analysis. Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics-Rev Can Agroecon, 53(2–3), 221–248. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-7976.2005.04018.x.
Kang, N., Hou, L., Huang, J., et al. (2022). Ecosystem services valuation in China: A meta-analysis. Science of the Total Environment, 809, 151122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.151122.
Lee, F. Y., Ma, A. T., & Cheung, L. T. (2021). Resident perception and willingness to pay for the restoration and revitalization of urban rivers. Water, 13(19), 2649. https://doi.org/10.3390/w13192649.
Li, J. M., & Wang, N. (2022). How and to what extent is ecosystem services economic valuation used in coastal and marine management in China? Marine Policy, 138, 104976. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2022.104976.
Li, X. P, Fang, J., & Zhang, M. Q. (2011). A literature analysis of the application of multilayer linear modeling methods in social science research. Statistics and Decision Making, 23, 72–76. https://doi.org/10.13546/j.cnki.tjyjc.2011.23.022.
Lindemann-Matthies, P., & Brieger, H. (2016). Does urban gardening increase aesthetic quality of urban areas? A case study from Germany. Urban for Urban Green, 1(17), 33–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2016.03.010.
Liu, J., Liu, N., Zhang, Y., et al. (2019). Evaluation of the non-use value of beach tourism resources: A case study of Qingdao coastal scenic area, China. Ocean Coastal Management, 168, 63–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2018.10.030.
Liu, H., Li, C. B., Han, X. L. et al. (2020). Land use change and ecosystem service value transfer in Changbai Mountain area based on Meta-analysis. Research of Soil and Water Conservation, 27, 293–300. https://doi.org/10.13869/j.cnki.rswc.20200426.003.
Maldonado, J. H., & Cuervo Sánchez, R. (2016). Economic valuation of the Corales de Profundidad National Natural Park. Boletín de Investigaciones Marinas y Costeras-INVEMAR, 45(1), 99–121. http://www.scielo.org.co/scielo.php?pid=S0122-97612016000100006&script=sci_abstract&tlng=en.
Martínez-Estévez, L., Balvanera, P., Pacheco, J., et al. (2013). Prairie dog decline reduces the supply of ecosystem services and leads to desertification of semiarid grasslands. PLoS ONE, 8, 0075229. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0075229.
Marzetti, S., Disegna, M., Koutrakis, E., et al. (2016). Visitors’awareness of ICZM and WTP for beach preservation in four European Mediterranean regions. Marine Policy, 63, 100–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2015.10.005.
Navrud, S., & Ready, R. (2007). Review of methods for value transfer in “Environmental value transfer: Issues and methods”, Springer Dordrecht, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-5405-X.
Norton, D., & Hynes, S. (2014). Valuing the non-market benefits arising from the implementation of the EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive. Ecosystem Services., 10, 84–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.09.009.
Qin, Y. Q., Yu, Y. L., & Liu, R. H. (2021). Choice experiment method and ecological value evaluation: Principles and domestic application. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 37(17), 80–86. http://www.cqvip.com/qk/91831x/202117/7105080028.html. https://doi.org/10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2020-0531.
Ready, R., & Navrud, S. (2006). International benefit transfer: Methods and validity tests. Ecol Econ, 60(2), 429–434. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.05.008.
Roldán, D., Sarmiento, J. P., & Roldán-Aráuz, F. (2021). Economic valuation meta-analysis of freshwater improvement in developed and developing countries. Are they different? Journal Water Health, 19(5), 736–749. https://doi.org/10.2166/wh.2021.268.
Rosenberger, R., & Stanley, T. (2006). Measurement, generalization, and publication: Sources of error in benefit transfers and their management. Ecological Economics, 60, 372–378. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.03.018.
Ruslan, N. F. N., Goh, H. C., Hattam, C., et al. (2022). Mangrove ecosystem services: Contribution to the well-being of the coastal communities in Klang Islands. Marine Policy, 144, 105222. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2022.105222.
Shan. J., & Li, J. (2020). Valuing marine ecosystem service damage caused by land reclamation: Insights from a deliberative choice experiment in Jiaozhou Bay. Marine Policy, 122, 104249. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2020.104249.
Shi, H. H., Zheng, W., Chen, S., et al. (2007). A study on marine ecosystem service functions and their value assessment. Ecological Economics, 3, 139–142. https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1671-4407.2007.03.033.
Sun, B., Cui, L., Li, W., et al. (2018). A meta-analysis of coastal wetland ecosystem services in Liaoning Province, China. Estuarine Coastal and Shelf Science, 200, 349–358. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecss.2017.11.006.
Tao, Z., Yan, H., & Zhan, J. (2012). Economic valuation of forest ecosystem services in Heshui watershed using contingent valuation method. Procedia Environmental Sciences, 13, 2445–2450. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proenv.2012.01.233.
Taye, F. A., Folkersen, M. V., Fleming, C. M., et al. (2021). The economic values of global forest ecosystem services: A meta-analysis. Ecological Economics, 189, 107145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2021.107145.
Tokunaga, K., Sugino, H., Nomura, H., et al. (2020). Norms and the willingness to pay for coastal ecosystem restoration: A case of the Tokyo Bay intertidal flats. Ecological Economics, 169, 106423. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2019.106423.
Tonin, S. (2018). Economic value of marine biodiversity improvement in coralligenous habitats. Ecological Indicators, 85, 1121–1132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2017.11.017.
Torres, C., & Hanley, N. (2017). Communicating research on the economic valuation of coastal and marine ecosystem services. Marine Policy, 75, 99–107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2016.10.017.
Trujillo, J. C., Carrillo, B., Charris, C. A., et al. (2016). Coral reefs under threat in a Caribbean marine protected area: Assessing divers’willingness to pay toward conservation. Marine Policy, 68, 146–154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2016.03.003.
Walsh, R. G., Johnson, D. M., & McKean, J. R. (1989). Issues in nonmarket valuation and policy application: A retrospective glance. Western Journal of Agriculture and Economics, 14, 178–188. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40988025#metadata_info_tab_contents.
Wan, X. L., Qiu, L. L., Yuan, B., et al. (2021). The changing logic and improvement path of China's marine Ecosystem compensation policy system. China Population Resources and Environment, 31(12), 163–176. https://doi.org/10.12062/cpre.20211106.
Wang, T., He, G. S., Deng, L. J., et al. (2021). The framework design and empirical study of China’s marine ecological-economic accounting. Ecological Indicators, 132, 108325. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2021.108325.
Wang, N. N., Liu, H. Y., Li, Y., et al. (2022). Assessment of ecosystem service values of wetlands in the Yellow River Delta. Shandong Agricultural Scices, 54(02), 153–158. https://doi.org/10.14083/j.issn.1001-4942.2022.02.023.
Woodward, R. T., & Wui, Y. S. (2001). The economic value of wetland services: A meta-analysis. Ecological Economics, 37(2), 257–270. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0921-8009(00)00276-7.
Wu, J. R. (2017). Non-use value assessment of beach recreation resources: The case of Golden Beach in Huangdao District. Qingdao City. Global Market Information Guide, 14, 4–6. https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1005-4901.2017.14.001.
Wu, Z. J., & Zeng, H. (2021). A meta-analysis-based assessment of the value of forest ecosystem services in China. Journal of Ecology, 41, 5533–5545. https://doi.org/10.5846/stxb202006231639.
Xie, G. D., Zhang, C. X., Zhang, C. S., et al. (2015). The value of ecosystem services in China. Resource Science, 37, 1740–1746.
Xie, H. Y., & Guo, C. X. (2018). Assessment of ecosystem service value of Guangzhou Haizhu wetland. Tropical Geomorphology, 39(01), 26–33. CNKI:SUN:RDDM.0.2018-01-004.
Yang, L., Kong, F. L., Xi, M., et al. (2017). Evaluation of wetland ecosystem service values in Qingdao based on Meta-analysis. Journal of Ecology, 36, 1038–1046. https://doi.org/10.13292/j.1000-4890.201704.025.
Zambrano-Monserrate, M. A., & Ruano, M. A. (2020). Estimating the damage cost of plastic waste in Galapagos Islands: A contingent valuation approach. Marine Policy, 117, 103933. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2020.103933.
Zhang, L., Li, X. J., Zhou, D. M., et al. (2015). Meta-analysis-based study on the transfer of ecosystem service values in Chinese lake and marsh wetlands. Journal of Ecology, 35(16), 5507–5517. https://doi.org/10.5846/stxb201403250552.
Zhao, H. L. (2015). Advances in the classification and valuation of ecosystem services. Ecological Economics, 31(08), 27–33. https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1671-4407.2015.08.006.
Zhao, L., & Wang, E. D. (2011a). An empirical study of natural resource benefit transfer method based on Meta-analysis. Resource Science, 33, 31–40.
Zhao, L., & Wang, E. D. (2011b). Reviewing the application of the benefit transfer method in the evaluation of resource recreation value. China Population Resources Environment, 21(S2), 490–495. https://www.nssd.cn/html/1/156/159/index.html?lngId=1002124166.
Acknowledgements
This study was made possible thanks to the financial support from the Innovative Cross-Cutting Team Cultivation Project of Ocean University of China (No. 202042008) and National Science Foundation of China (No. 71973132).
Funding
The Innovative Cross-Cutting Team Cultivation Project of Ocean University of China (No. 202042008) and National Science Foundation of China (No. 71973132).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
Jing Guo: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing—review & editing, Formal analysis, Supervision, Project administration, Funding acquisition. Kai Chen: Conceptualization, Methodology, Software, Writing—original draft, Writing—review & editing. Stephen Hynes: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing—review & editing. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Appendix
Appendix
Article Title | Number of observations |
---|---|
Assessment of the non-market value of Yantai Huangshui River National Wetland Park | 1 |
Assessing the value of maintenance services of ecosystem diversity and species diversity in Sanya Sea based on the conditional value approach | 2 |
External cost measurement of sea-farming based on the conditional value assessment method—An example from Zhoushan, Zhejiang | 1 |
Assessment of non-use value of coastal tourism resources based on dichotomous questionnaire for qingdao margin green tide disaster | 1 |
A study on Ecosystem compensation for coastal protection forests in Fujian based on the conditional value assessment method (CVM) | 1 |
Uncertainty bias correction in marine biodiversity valuation: The case of Pingtan, Fujian | 1 |
CVM-based valuation of ecosystem diversity maintenance services in Marine Protected Areas in Shandong | 1 |
A study on the non-use value of tourism resources in Zhoushan Islands based on CVM | 2 |
A study on the willingness to pay for wetland ecosystems by residents of the Yellow River Delta | 1 |
Assessment of the recreational value of Jiaozhou Bay wetlands based on TCM and CVM | 1 |
A study on the willingness to pay for wetland ecosystem compensation in tidal flats based on CVM –- An example of Lianyungang Binhai new district | 1 |
Evaluation of the non-use value of wetland ecosystem in Minjiang River estuary based on CVM | 1 |
Valuation of coastal zone environmental resources: A theoretical approach and case study | 1 |
Valuing the Conditions of Ecosystem Service Restoration in Xincun Bay, Hainan | 1 |
A study on ecosystem compensation willingness of seashore tourism resources based on CVM—Taking Beihai Silver Beach as an example | 1 |
A fuzzy assessment model of Ecosystem service value of seagrass wetlands based on CVM | 1 |
Evaluation of the non-use value of beach tourism resources: A case study of Qingdao coastal scenic area, China | 1 |
Value evaluation of marine bioresources in Shandong offshore area in China | 1 |
Study on the valuation of fishery resources in Haizhou Bay | 1 |
Loss assessment of ecosystem benefits of wetland polder in Jiaozhou Bay based on choice experiment method | 1 |
Assessment of non-use value of mangrove wetland resources in Guangxi | 4 |
Assessment methods and empirical analysis of the economic value of environmental resources in coastal zone areas | 1 |
Valuation of coastal recreation resources in Qingdao based on travel cost method and willingness survey method | 3 |
Valuation of marine biodiversity maintenance services in Luoyuan Bay based on the conditional value approach | 1 |
Assessment method and empirical analysis of the economic value of environmental resources in coastal zone areas | 1 |
Study on the non-use value of resources and environment in Sanmen Bay based on the Willingness value assessment method | 3 |
Assessment of non-use value of Ecosystem in Xiamen Bay park | 1 |
Non-use value assessment of beach recreation resources: A case study of Golden Beach in Huangdao district, Qingdao | 1 |
Valuation of species diversity maintenance services in the Yellow Sea based on the willingness-to-pay method (2002–2012) | 1 |
Measurement of payment for ecosystem services in island-based rural tourism sites—Four parametric and two non-parametric models based on dichotomous CVM | 3 |
A study of national park ticket pricing based on a two-boundary dichotomous CVM—A case study of Jiaozhou Bay National Marine Park | 1 |
A study on ecosystem compensation willingness of tidal beach wetlands based on CVM –- A case study of Lianyungang Binhai new district | 1 |
Evaluation of recreational resources value in wetland nature reserves in Fujian Province–Analysis based on choice experiment method | 1 |
Valuation of environmental improvements in coastal wetland restoration: A choice experiment approach | 1 |
Valuing marine ecosystem service damage caused by land reclamation: Insights from a deliberative choice experiment in Jiaozhou Bay | 1 |
Ecosystem damage assessment of reclamation in Jiaozhou Bay—A comparison of payment card and single boundary dichotomous methods | 2 |
Conditional value assessment of ecosystem maintenance in Long Island Nature Reserve | 1 |
A study on ecosystem compensation criteria and influencing factors of Marine Protected Areas based on CVM—A case study of Shengsi Ma'anlian Island | 2 |
Valuation of mangrove ecotourism resources based on the conditional value method–Example of mangrove forests in Tehching Island, Zhanjiang | 1 |
Valuation of ecosystem service functions in Guangzhou Haizhu National Wetland Park | 1 |
Valuation of mangrove wetland ecosystem services and functions | 1 |
Valuation of tourism resources in Golden Beach | 1 |
Marine ecosystem fragmentation criteria based on CVM method—A case study of Qingdao | 1 |
Application of CVM method to the evaluation of marine ecosystem value of Yangtze River Estuary | 1 |
Valuation of ecosystem services of Chongming Ring Island wetland and its uncertainty | 1 |
Valuation of beach leisure tourism resources—An example of Qingdao sea bathing beach | 1 |
Application of dichotomous choice model in the evaluation of economic value of coastal tourism | 1 |
Evaluation of non-use value of Chongming Dongtan wetland based on CVM | 1 |
Research on ecosystem compensation criteria and its differences in island-based tourism destinations: An example of Putuo Mountain, Zhujiajian, Taohua Island and North and South Changshan Islands | 1 |
The starting point deviation and its correction of double-boundary dichotomous bootstrap technique: An example of Ecosystem damage assessment of Jiaozhou Bay marsh moss | 1 |
Willingness assessment of mangrove wetland restoration in Guangxi based on the improved choice experiment method | 1 |
Research on Ecosystem compensation standards of coastal wetlands in Jiaozhou Bay based on the choice experiment method | 1 |
Quantitative valuation of economic losses from coastal bathing beach pollution | 1 |
Estimation of economic losses of environmental pollution in seaside landscapes | 1 |
Service value of marine ecosystem in Sanggou Bay | 1 |
Research on the problem of embedding effect of non-use value assessment of tourism resources in Long Island based on CVM | 1 |
A study on the willingness to pay for non-use values of marine tourism resources in archipelagic tourism areas: a case study of the Miaodao Islands in Shandong, Zhoushan Islands in Zhejiang and Sanya and its islands in Hainan | 3 |
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Guo, J., Chen, K. & Hynes, S. Multilevel meta-analysis of stated preference values of marine ecosystem services in China. Mar Dev 1, 8 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s44312-023-00004-z
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s44312-023-00004-z