title: Dynamiques de long terme du carbone et de l'azote dans des systèmes sol-arbre parisiens
text: / %(& / 2&" 5 "& &$ )* % &4g,g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e%* 4* /. 3 0 /
  
  6&,, &4 I/ ). 34/. &3* (.
  
  *
  
  . ( "
  
  . %3
  
  $ "
  
  0&3
  
  '
  
  / 2
  
  &2
  
  '
  
  
  
  / 2".
  
  $ & " 3&
  
  %
  
  /. H-& 2(*. (2 *. $ *0,&3*. ". %3$ "0 &H$ /,/ (8 " 4 " *BC 884*-g+ * I &4 * 0*,g / 00*. ( /. /. &,&( = ) &$ ) ",,&. ( &/'&$ / 3834&%*33&26* $ &3'/
  
  2 52
  
  # ". (
  
  2
  
  &&
  
  .
  
  "
  
  . " ( 
  
  &&
  
  . 4 < 6 " % < 1BC "(. ". 5&34*/. 3 %
  
  &2&$ )&2$
  
  )& "54/ 52 %&,A"%" 04" 4* /. " 5 $ ) ". ( &&. 4 $,* " 4* 15& : # # *1 BC "2 3)",, I I,"*2 &4&23 + *. K". ( / &4 M*,,* " 3 2 &%*$ 4*. ( ". %5. %&234". %*. ( &$ / 3834&2&30/. 3&3 4/ $,* " 4&$ ) ". ( &" 4$ /. 4*. &. 4",3 $ ",& 3 6 "! / BC $ ) &23/. H L H 2* /. % &4 / 5$ ) 5". 4*'8*. ( 52# ".'/ 2 &34 3425$ 452&'5. $ 4* /. ". %6",5&
  
  4)& )*$ "(/ L2# ". / 2&34,* " 4& 2/ T&$ 4 < " * HK H e! e LH H LK H HK KH *,,&.. *5H$ / 3834&33&33&. 4 " 7 = 3 5! " " M/ 2,%K &3/ 52$ &3. 34* 454& M" 3) *. ( 4/. 0 &2-& 4 K *,,: & 2/ 8 I "2 $ 8 &4 N / 5U A". ",83& 342" 4:( * 15& %
  
  &
  
  ,"
  
  (&
  
  34*/. &. 6*2 /..
  
  &
  
  -
  
  &
  
  . 4
  
  ",&
  
  5. $
  
  "% 2&4)
  
  :
  
  / 2*
  
  15
  
  &0/
  
  520
  
  &
  
  . 3&
  
  2
  
  ,
  
  A&' X$ " $ * 4: &. -"4*; 2&%A&. 6*2 /.. &-&. 4 : # # *, BC = &8&2 M L2# ". & "4 3,". %". %L2# ". &",4) H" 2,8 &2* $ ". &230&$ 4*6 &3?
  
  
  
  -, BC / /. &8 &4 K H)2
  
  ,*$ ) H$ / 3834&3&26* $ &3 "'2" ( &. 4" 28 ) * 34/28 "*,8 BH% C BC : $! 3 " 3,". %2 &330 /7" + I H 2". & &4 I 4&6&. 3 * 2 0/,,54* /. 2&/ 6", # 8 52# ". 42&&3 ". %3)2 5# 3 *. 4)&L. * 4&%4"4& 3 < 6 " % < -B C /7" +. 34* 454* /. ",* 9*. ( 52# ".'/ 2&3428 " 3 " V# * / 4&$ ). /,/ ( 8[ 4/ * 02/ 6&&. 6* 2/. &. 4", 15",* 48 < 6" % <. BC H 4! 3 " H 5#,* 3) *. ( " 2* 3 0. &2$ ( K" 00/ 24 %&,A. &2$ "5 2 &-*& 2-*. *3 4&2&4"5 " 2,&&. 4 " / $ 5&. 4"
  
  
  
  4*
  
  
  
  /
  
  .'
  
  2". i " * 3& " 2* 3 0 "$ 4&"5 # # 3 &230&$ 4* 6&3 %5
  
  2"#
  
  ,&3
  
  A
  
  "2 $ 
  
  )*4&
  
  $ 452
  
  &%A"5T 
  
  / 52%
  
  A)5* &4&
  
  23 2 /'' -". JI "% &,)/'' &2 2* /,,*. 3 MJ *$ )&. &2 &4 ", *
  
  6*. (
  
  *. "
  
  . *. $ 2&"3 *. (,8 $ /.. &$ 4&% 7 / 2,% "'2" & 7 / 2+'/ 2 $ /. 4*. &. 4", 3$ ",& &. 6*2 /. -&. 4", 3$ *&. $ & 6 "! / BC K"3 -/. 4 / 4& %& 38. 4); 3& 352," / 24",* 4: %&3 # 54*. &523 %& $ / 522* &2 " %2&33: Wd 15* %& %2/ *4,& T". 6* &2 /. 3 &, (*1 5& PH.,*(. &Q L K )440DD777,/. ($ )"0 &33* %/ 2# &D% / $ 5&. 430 ) 0 G35# "$ 4*/. F3) / 7' 5,,@* % F@"2 $ ) * 6& F@3 4" 24S' 2/ F@5 $ " 4 F@ $ /. 35,4:,&T ". 6* &2 K&&3 M H 3 V35 34" *. " #,& $ * 48[ ". U8/ 2/. G! + BC $ /4 I ( 5*," 2,5(/,&$ + * J ". K &2* &3 I + &" -"4& *-0 "$ 43". %"% "0 9? = A / 5(," 3 K H034&*. * 6&2". " *,5 H ) / 6& " + *! I 5". ( " ( " %9" I I,* 6* &2 I " 2* + )! / 3)*. / 5". 3&
  
  44,&&. 43*. " $ ) ". ( *. ( $,* 4"4*/. *2 2. 4 3 D 4 " (? 4?! M"43 /. K O*. 8/ 7 &2" / 33 K / + + &. I H%3 " # 2* %( &L. * 6&23* 48 2&33 " # 2* %( & -* /. &4 & $ /. $ &04 %A"%" 04" 4* /. 0/,83: * & *. 4&2%*3$ * 0,*. " * 2& &4 *-0,*$ "4*/. 0/ 52,&3 $ )". (&-&. 43 $,* " 4* 15&3 : # # *0 BC -* /. &4 A"4&,*& 2 W / 5," 2&02: 3&. 4" 4* /. %&,A"%" 04" 4* /. %". 3,A:,"# / 2"4*/. %5 0,". $,* " 4 %& " 2* 3 /,5& 5 : 2/ ;! # $! PH.,* (. &Q L K )440DD6 &24*(/ 2&65&3/ 2( D /. 35,4:, &T ". 6* &2 HK H e! e LH H LK H HK KH *-/. &4 &4,". $ A"% "0 4"4*/. %&," ( &34* /. %&3 &30" $ &3. " 452&,3 52# "*. 3 "5U $ ) ". ( &&. 43 %&," 6"2 *"# *, * 4: $,*-"4* 15& 2: ( * /. ",& &U&0,& %& "2 *3 &4 /. 42: ", / 23 3: 2*& &24*(," 2&65&:,&$ 42/. * 15&&. 3$ * &. $ &3 %&
  
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c 7 / 2,%? " " 4 4& 7 "2 4 3834&-"4*$ 2&6*& 7 ". %3$ *&. 4* X$ $ 2* 4* 15& /'&4) / %/,/ ( 8 *. / %&2. 52# ". ) &" 4 * 3,". %,* 4&2" 452& 8? ",* BC ")" L 2# ". $,*-"4& 3 ". %)&"4 *3,". %3 ",# &%/ &6" 0/ 42". 30* 2" 4* /. ". % ". 4)2/ 0/ (&. *$ )& "4 " 5 +. BC )&83 I &4 H-&,*". /'' &3 $ /. 42"% *$ 4*/. 3 %&," 6*,,&%52" #,& A:$ /,/ ( * & " 5 %&,h%&, A54/ 0* & # BC = )/ -0 3/. K &4 4"2 9/ -3 + * M ) " 4 %/ &3 # * / %*6&23* 48 " $ 45",,8 %/ G 2&6* &7'/ 2 ". " ( &23 ". %0/,* $ 8 " + &23 5! "! */ BC L D DD H$ / 3834&# " 3&% " 002/ " $ ) &3 4/ " %" 04" 4* /. $ / 0*," 4* /. /'*.'/ 2" 4* /. / 4& # 8 4) & 3&$ 2&4" 2* " 4 5# 3* %*" 28 / %8'/ 2 $ * &. 4* X$ ". % &$ ). /,/ ( * $ ", %6* $ & ) * 248 X' 4) 3&33*
  
  . 52# ". 
  
  / 6&# &24/ &$ &# &2 K &,&" 3&% / 6&# &2 *)& 26"" 2" Kn. + g &4 M",, 3 2&. %3 *. H$ / 3834&&26* $ & K&3&"2 $ ) H"2,8 4&03". % 522&. 4 2*6 &23 4,2 BC *2 " &4 M %" 3 H$ / 3834&3&26* $ &3 ". % $ /. 3&26" 4* /. 342" 4&( 8 # &7 "2 &4)&3 *,6 &2# 5,,&4! + BC M",,"$ & J," 33* X$ " 4* /. /'&$ / 3834&3&26* $ &3 2/ #,&3 ". %3/,54* /. 3 5! *,2 B C M/,-". )& &4"# /,*3 /'*4*& 3 D 4 +*, BC! / 5. ( K ". "(*. ( 5. * $ *0 ", (2&&. 30"$ &' / 2&$ / 3834&3&26* $ &3 < 6" %< 2BC O)". ( M K*$ + &443 J 2&&. J "2. &8 &4 7*. 4/. H$ / 3834&3&26* $ &3". %%* 3 3&26* $ &34/ " ( 2* $ 5,452& /BC
  
  Appendix 2 Authorization to do fieldwork in Paris! 205! 206! 207! 208! Appendix 3 Laurans et al. (2013) Laurans, Y., Rankovic, A., Billé, R., Pirard, R, Mermet, L. (2013). Use of ecosystem services economic valuation for decision making: Questioning a litterature
  
  blindspot
  
  ,
  
  Journal
  
  of
  
  Environmental Management, 119, 208
  
  -
  
  219! 209!
  
  210 Journal of Environmental Management 119 (2013) 208e219 Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect Journal of Environmental Management journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jenvman Review Use of ecosystem services economic valuation for decision making: Questioning a literature blindspot
  
  Yann Laurans a, *, Aleksandar Rankovic b,1, Raphaël Billé a, 2, Romain Pirard a, 3, Laurent Mermet c, 4 a IDDRI (Institute for Sustainable Development and International Relations), Sciences Po, 27 rue Saint Guillaume, 75337 Paris Cedex 07, France Université Pierre et Marie Curie e Paris VI, UMR (CNRS) 7618 BIOEMCO, École Normale Supérieure, 46 rue d’Ulm, 75230 Paris Cedex 05, France c AgroParisTech, Centre Paris-Maine, 19 avenue du Maine, 75732 Paris Cedex 15, France b a r t i c l e i n f o
  
  a b s t r a c t Article history: Received 21 March 2012 Received in revised form 5 January 2013 Accepted 11 January 2013
  
  Available online Ecosystem Services economic Valuation (ESV) is often seen as a tool that can potentially enhance our collective choices regarding ecosystem services as it factors in the costs and benefits of
  
  
  
  their degradation. Yet, to achieve this, the social processes leading to decisions need to use ESV effectively. This makes it necessary to understand if and how ESV is or is not used by decision-makers. However, there appears to be a literature blindspot as to the issue of the Use of Ecosystem Services economic Valuation (UESV). This paper proposes a systematic review on UESV in peer-reviewed scientific literature. It shows that this literature gives little attention to this issue and rarely reports cases where ESV has been put to actual use, even though such use is frequently referred to as founding the goal and justification of ESV. The review identifies three categories of potential UESV: decisive, technical and informative, which are usually mentioned as prospects for the valuations published. Two sets of hypotheses are examined to explain this result: either the use of ESV is a common practice, but is absent from the literature reviewed here; or the use of ESV is effectively rare. These hypotheses are discussed and open up further avenues of research which should make the actual use of ESV their core concern.!
  
  2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Ecosystem services
  
  Economic valuation Decision-making Policy Use 1. Introduction
  
  High hopes have been placed on economic valuations to influence policy for coping with the accelerating degradation of ecosystem services and biodiversity (NRC, 2005). This was reaffirmed by the release of The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) report, during the Tenth Conference of the Parties (COP) to the Convention on Biological Diversity in Nagoya in 2010: economic valuation is expected to serve as a governance resource that could change our individual and collective choices. The COP report itself5 recognizes economic valuation as a key tool for a more effective mainstreaming of biodiversity. In many publications (e.g. Randall, 1988; Daily et al., 2009) the ‘measurement’ of monetary * Corresponding author. Tel.: þ33 6 15 21 93 22. E-mail addresses: yann.laurans@ecowhat.fr, yannlaurans@free.fr (Y. Laurans), aleksandar.rankovic@ens.fr (A. Rankovic), raphael.bille@iddri.org (R. Billé), romain.pirard@iddri.org (R. Pirard), laurent.Mermet@engref.agroparistech.fr (L. Mermet). 1 Tel.: þ33 1 44 32 38 78. 2 Tel.: þ33 1 45 49 76 64. 3 Tel.: þ33 1 45 49 76 69. 4 Tel.: þ33 3 25 38 40 16. 5 UNEP/CBD/COP/10/27. 0301-4797/$
  
  e see front matter
  
  !
  
  2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. http://dx
  
  .
  
  doi
  
  .
  
  org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2013.01.008
  
  values that reflect the social importance of ecosystem services is seen as a prerequisite for better management decisions. Heated debates have been ongoing for many years. In 1997, ecologists Myers and Reichert (1997) made the diagnosis that ‘we don’t protect what we don’t value’. In 2008 the TEEB Interim Report argued that ‘you cannot manage what you do not measure’ (p. 8). On the contrary, economist Heal stated: ‘Valuation is neither necessary nor sufficient for conservation. We conserve much that we do not value, and do not conserve much that we value’ (Heal, 2000). Vatn and Bromley (1994) made a similar assertion, claiming that ‘valuing (or pricing) of environmental goods and services is neither necessary nor sufficient for coherent and consistent choices about the environment’. Balmford et al. (2011) even made it a positive statement: ‘[T]here is validity in calling for societal choices, especially in the domain of environmental decision-making, to be made without recourse to valuation or with the results of a cost-benefit analysis being a single component in a larger body of evidence’. Though the debate is obviously still lively today, it is also undeniable that international talks and publications now often promote ESV (Ecosystem Services economic Valuation) as a tool susceptible to make key contributions to biodiversity and ecosystem services protection. Questioning the supposed pragmatism of ESV, while standing clear from ideological statements, is the overall objective of this paper. Y. Laurans et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 119 (2013) 208e219 Ecosystem Services economic Valuation (ESV) methods have been the subject of a large and fast-growing literature since the beginning of the 1990s (e.g. Adamowicz, 2004; Eftec, 2005; SCBD, 2007; Liu et al., 2010). Yet, economic valuation is in any case not sufficient in itself: if it is to be more than just an intellectual exercise it needs to be considered as a resource for policies and projects design, as it has been acknowledged for a long time (Pearce and Barde, 1991; Pearce and Moran, 1994). The hope that it will become an efficient political lever to alleviate biodiversity and ecosystem services erosion supposes above all that it actually be used for decision-making (OECD, 2002). For this reason, one of the key issues relating to the development of ESVs is understanding if and how they are used, or expected to be used. Fisher et al. (2008), Gowan et al. (2006), Navrud (in OECD, 2002), Pearce and Seccombe-Hett (2000) and Liu et al. (2010) have underlined the salience of this issue. Others have exposed pessimistic views on the use of cost benefit analysis for European environmental policy (Turner, 2007) or the World Bank (Warner, 2010). Navrud and Pruckner (1997) observe that Europe hardly ever uses ESV. Pearce and Seccombe-Hett (2000) deem that for green accounting indicators, ‘while there has been a considerable international “push” for green accounts, it is not obvious that they have met the high expectations of their advocates’ (p. 1423). OECD (2001) notes that ‘although fairly common in the environmental economics literature, valuation techniques have remained somewhat peripheral to environmental policymaking on major issues’ (p. 11). Turner et al. (2003) regret that the qualities required of economic studies for the purposes of informing decision-making are seldom found. The Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (SCBD, 2007) puts the paucity of ESV use down to its cost. Fisher et al. (2008) observe that ‘the integration of ecosystem services analysis directly with agents and processes within decision-making arenas is largely absent’ (p. 2063). Liu et al. (2010) point out with respect to technical guidance: ‘Indeed, one would imagine that ESV, the process of assessing the benefits of environmental services, must have been applied widely to guide payments for ecosystem services.. In practice, however, ESV results have rarely been applied in setting payment amounts’ (p. 2068). This analysis had been preceded by similar observations when Landell-Mills and Porras (2002) surveyed almost 200 PES mechanisms. More recently, Pirard and Billé (2010) reached a similar conclusion. Such observations by authors having discussed some dimensions of the UESV issue suggest at the very least that use is difficult to observe. In fact, there may well be a gap between the ambitions of ESV and its concrete achievements in terms of influencing decision-making. However, most of the few previous studies on the UESV issue are recollections of their authors’ experiences or theoretical expectations regarding UESV (e.g. Navrud and Pruckner, 1997; Pearce and Seccombe-Hett, 2000; Liu et al., 2010). Turner et al. (2003) state that they are performing a ‘literature review’ but give no indication of the list of references that were used or the reviewing methods employed. Furthermore, although they claim that their aim is to assess the ‘policy relevance’ of existing ESV, the key question of UESV is actually not addressed by the authors. The article mainly addresses ESV methods, with UESV being kept as a rather abstract horizon. To our knowledge, the article by Fisher et al. (2008) is the one which most closely tries to document UESV cases. After they identified 34 ESV case studies that seemed policy-relevant following their criteria, Fisher et al. contacted the authors with a list of questions such as ‘Was the work commissioned by agents within the policy process?’, ‘Was this research used to influence a policy decision? If so, how?’ or ‘Was there any form of post-study implementation review or ex-post analysis undertaken?’ (Fisher et al., 2008; supplementary material). The researchers received 209 only 14 answers with contrasted perceptions on UESV and, to a large extent, no knowledge of any ex post UESV analysis. This article hence intends to shed light on what we consider as a literature blindspot on UESV. It proposes a systematic review of how the peer-reviewed scientific literature addresses the question of UESV, driven by two questions: (i) What are the expected UESV? (ii) How is the UESV issue addressed by the literature? The extent to which results can be used as a proxy to measure the actual use of ESV is a subject of the ensuing discussion. The focus of this article is on “ecosystem services economic valuation”. It builds on the great interest the ‘ecosystem services’ concept generates among scientists working on environmental management in general and biodiversity conservation in particular. This follows seminal work by e.g. Daily (1997) and institutionalization with the 2005 Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA, 2005) (Vihervaara et al., 2010). The MEA defined ecosystem services as the benefits people obtain from ecosystems, including provisioning, regulating, cultural and supporting services. The ‘ecosystem services’ concept clearly draws on a utilitarian approach and facilitates the development of economic valuations in the field of biodiversity conservation. Economic valuation is understood here as a process by which economic analysis is used to allocate a monetary figure to a given entity e hence no difference is made with monetary valuation. Nevertheless, while focussing on ESV, we do allow ourselves to look at literature dedicated to other environmental subjects of economic valuation as deemed relevant for our analysis. It is all the more necessary as many economic valuations regarding similar objects (e.g. nature, species, environment, biodiversity) have been undertaken and discussed before the ecosystem services concept was introduced and mainstreamed. After a presentation of the material and methods in Section 2, Section 3 on results first provides a synthetic typology of expected uses of ESV (or categories of UESV, namely: decisive, technical and informative), and then analyses how peer-reviewed scientific literature addresses the use issue. Section 4 discusses two sets of hypotheses to explain the literature patterns observed in Section 3, and proposes associated research avenues. Section 5 concludes. 2. Material and methods 2.1. Structure of the study
  
  A systematic review was performed in order to analyse how UESV is envisaged and addressed in the dedicated literature. There are many terms and no actual consensus (e.g. Hunt, 1997; Cooper and Hedges, 2009) to refer to the process of research synthesis, i.e. the ‘attempt to integrate empirical research for the purpose of creating generalizations’ (Cooper and Hedges, 2009). The term systematic review is used to highlight that, compared to a standard review (on our topic, e.g. Turner et al., 2003), it is a process through which one methodically chooses a sample of works, extracts the targeted information and reports the results with transparency on the methods that were used at each step (Hunt, 1997). Three major analytical steps were followed in this study. The choices made in the design of each step are justified in the subsections below. Step 1 was designed to build a database of peerreviewed scientific publications to analyse. In Step 2, based on the information found in the publications within our database complemented by some grey literature references, a typology of UESV categories was built. It provided an answer to the study’s first question: What are the expected UESV that can be found in the literature? In Step 3 the most influential journal in the ESV sub-area was identified and served as a proxy to observe patterns in the way 210 Y. Laurans et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 119 (2013) 208e219 the UESV issue is addressed by the peer-reviewed scientific literature. This allowed addressing the study’s second question: How is the UESV issue addressed by the literature? Step 1 was used to provide material for Step 2 and Step 3, and the results from Step 2 were used as a framework to assess a publication pattern in Step 3: thus, both Step 1 and Step 2 fuelled the work in Step 3. As explained below, an iterative checking process was used to validate the categories of UESV and sub-categories therein.
  
  2.2. Step 1: data collection 2.2.1. Rationale
  
  The first step of the study aimed at collecting publications from the ESV field in order to constitute a database. Due to the abundance of references concerning ESV, which seems to have hampered other review exercises on our topic (e.g. Fisher et al., 2008; Liu et al., 2010), it was first decided to study only peer-reviewed scientific literature. As it was neither possible to study all the peer-reviewed works on ESV, the representative coverage (Cooper, 1988) approach was adopted. It consists in focussing the review efforts on a population of works that are considered as being ‘broadly representative of many other works in a field’ (Cooper and Hedges, 2009). Retrieving works that compose or are representative of a given research subarea is not a straightforward task, as works are scattered among many journals of more or less general scope (e.g. Van Campenhout et al., 2008). This is typically the case for the ESV literature, and it is all the more true as it is a topic of multidisciplinary interest. ESV works can hence be found in journals spanning from very general scope in natural sciences such as Nature and Science to more specialized journals in environmental economics (e.g. Ecological Economics, Environmental and Resources Economics etc.) or conservation sciences for instance (e.g. Conservation Biology). Thus, deciding whether a given coverage is representative or not always contains a part of arbitrary from the review’s authors (Cooper, 1988), and as highlighted above scientific transparency on the method used is hence essential for the reader to be able to discuss the author’s results (Hunt, 1997). For this study, the choice was made to conduct database searches with a selection of keywords judged sufficiently broad to capture a vast diversity of phrasings relative to ESV, and then to gather the output references in a database. By searching different databases with different keywords, it was possible to build a large database of pluridisciplinary scope, that was judged sufficiently large and diverse to provide a rather accurate picture of the variety of works on ESV (Supplement 1 provides access to the gathered references). 2.2.2. Databases
  
  The three ISI citation databases (Science Citation Index, Social Science Citation Index and Arts & Humanities Citation Index) were accessed through the Web of Science portal (WoS, thereafter), and Elsevier’s Scopus was also used because these databases do not have the same literature coverage, which can cause disparities in terms of citation counting (Meho and Yang, 2007). Using both therefore limited ‘false negatives’ (relevant sources that are not identified; Reed and Baxter, 2009).
  
  2.2.3. Keywords selection
  
  For the same reason, instead of using a sole query (e.g. “ecosystem service*, valuation”), results of several queries were combined. It also enabled to capture different forms in which the logic behind ESV was materialized in the last decades and that were often used interchangeably, as underlined in introduction. Since it was not possible to capture all the possible phrasings used in the literature, the database search was limited to five keyword combinations, still sufficiently broad in our experience to capture most of the terms usually associated with ESV. These combinations were: “‘valuation’ and ‘ecosystem service*’”, “natural capital”, “‘environmental’ and ‘valuation’”, “‘biodiversity’ and ‘valuation’”, and “total economic value”. 2.2.4. Gathered material
  
  On 31/01/2012, this yielded an aggregated list of 5028 unique references from 1419 sources, mostly composed of peer-reviewed scientific journals. The full list of references is reproduced in Supplement 1, and the top 25 sources in terms of number of articles and total number of citations for each keyword and each database are reported in Supplement 2. As expected, the different keyword combinations yielded different results in terms of journal rankings, the more naturalistic (“‘biodiversity’ and ‘valuation’”; “‘ecosystem service*’ and ‘valuation’”) yielding more articles in ecological and conservation journals. The query “‘environmental’ and ‘valuation’” was the one which yielded the most results and with the highest number of articles from environmental economics journals. We used this database to build categories and sub-categories in Step 2, and the selection of articles was refined in Step 3 to conduct a quantitative analysis on publication patterns concerning UESV.
  
  2.3. Step 2: construction of UESV categories and sub-categories
  
  This step analysed the various UESV expected by authors. The 5028 references gathered in Step 1 were examined in order to find references from peer-reviewed scientific journals in English that could be used as a framework to build UESV categories. The selection criterion was that the references had to propose a list of well-defined UESV categories. Only three matched this criterion: Liu et al. (2010) propose a history of ESV research and a UESV typology; Navrud and Pruckner (1997) study the context of UESV in the USA and Europe; Pearce and Seccombe-Hett (2000) examine UESV in Europe and offer a typology. Given the paucity of peer-reviewed references that matched the selection criterion, an addition of references from the grey literature was made to help define comprehensive UESV categories. Grey literature is here defined in the broadest sense, i.e. literature from various origins that has not been subjected to the peer-review process common to academic journals. It thus spans, for instance, from NGO reports and government documents to academic working papers and books. As explained by Rothstein and Hopewell (2009), grey literature can contain a lot of information that is not captured by peer-reviewed scientific literature, and can be a rich complementary resource for reviews. With the same selection criterion, several online resources that aggregated references on ESV were explored (see Supplement 3 for the list of online sources). We selected five grey literature references that matched our criterion: Navrud (2001), Pearce (2001), an anonymous chapter in OECD (2002), NRC (2005) and SCBD (2007). The definitions of UESV categories found in these eight references were sorted and synthesized in order to build a typology of categories and sub-categories. This process was iterative: at each step of the study, we double-checked that the UESV mentioned in the rest of the literature could be unambiguously classified in one of the categories, i.e. that no category was missing, that none was left empty and that there was no category overlap. This process resulted in the design of eight sub-categories under three categories, all presented in the results section. Each represents a way in which ESV is expected to be used for decisionmaking by the examined literature. 211 Y. Laurans et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 119 (2013) 208e219
  
  2.4. Step 3: searching for publication patterns in selected journals
  
  In order to investigate the second question of this paper (how is the UESV issue addressed by peer-reviewed scientific literature?), it was decided to quantitatively assess the publication patterns regarding UESV. Two patterns were considered. The first concerns the way in which UESV is referred to, and three such ways were identified: (1) Cursory reference to a potential UESV: in introduction and/or conclusion, the authors merely mention the fact that economic valuations (their own or others’) could actually be used, without more precision. (2) Analysis of the use issue: the core of the paper is UESV, i.e. the focus is, once economic valuations are produced, on how their results are used by stakeholders: which stakeholders, in which context, for which purpose, with which results etc. (3) Documentation of use cases: case studies that follow the subsequent use of an economic valuation by some stakeholders. The second pattern considered dealt with the types of UESV categories that were addressed, if any. Since it was not possible to analyse all 5028 references of our database along these lines, a subset of articles had to be isolated for this step, with the underlying idea that the observed patterns in terms of UESV treatment and expected UESV categories in this subset would reflect the rest of peer-reviewed scientific literature. Influence was chosen as a criterion to select this subset. Since there is no straightforward and unambiguous way to measure an author’s, an article’s or a journal’s influence in a given sub-area, influence was assessed using the number of articles and number of citations resulting from our keyword search as broad proxies. Journals’ rather than articles’ influence was used because some papers published in natural science journals, such as Costanza et al.’s paper in Nature (Costanza et al., 1997), were susceptible to distort the results in favour of ecological or conservation journals. The number of articles per journal and sum of citations for each journal were then compared. Table 1 shows the top 10 journals according to number of articles and number of citations for our search. The presence of the journal Nature in the list can be seen as a kind of anomaly: it is mostly due to Costanza et al.’s paper (Costanza et al., 1997) which was, alone, cited 2282 times according to WoS and 2847 times according to Scopus. Ecological Economics ranked either first or second to Nature for each keyword and on each database (Table 1 and Supplement 2). Given the ‘Costanza anomaly’, we therefore considered Ecological Economics as the most influential journal in this field, having published the highest number of ESV articles and received the highest number of citations in our database. Its editorial line strengthened our choice: from the outset, this journal aims to publish research focused on actions that support ecosystem management. Thus for example, Costanza and King (1999), in a survey article on the journal’s first decade, affirm: ‘Solving important problems is the first priority. Specific methodologies should serve this goal. [.] Methods are judged by their ability to usefully address the problem at hand’ (p. 2) (see also Castro e Silva and Teixeira, 2011; Shi, 2004). Furthermore, as the full title of the journal indicates, its goal is transdisciplinary: The Transdisciplinary Journal of the International Society for Ecological Economics, which is illustrated by the journal’s position at the interface between ecology and economics (see Costanza, 1996; Costanza et al., 2004). These three reasons: (i) the strong influence of Ecological Economics in the ESV sub-area, (ii) its action-oriented editorial line and (iii) its transdisciplinary position, seemed to make it the best candidate for an assessment of patterns in the way the UESV issue is addressed by the ESV literature. In order to ensure a thorough exploration of this particular journal, hand searching was used so as to minimize even more the risk of potentially missed articles (Rothstein and Hopewell, 2009). The whole range of papers published in Ecological Economics, from issue 1 to 74, and all the articles in press on 13/02/2012, were thus screened. A selection of 676 papers was identified on the basis of a read-through of the titles and abstracts to identify all articles related to economic valuation of the environment, of biodiversity and of ecosystem services. From these 676 papers, 313 were selected because they at least made a cursory reference to UESV. Based on a whole-paper reading, mentions of UESV were then sorted according to the way UESV was referred to and the UESV categories mentioned, in order to assess both publication patterns. Since 26 papers out of the 313 mention two different UESV (i.e. belonging to two different UESV categories as explained in Section 2.3) and one paper (Driml, 1997) mentions three UESV, there are 340 categorized UESV in the selection. Out of precaution, the 544 papers of our database that were published in the other four journals of the top 5, Nature put apart (namely Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Environmental and Resource Economics, Land Economics, Journal of Table 1 Top 10 journals according to number of articles and number of citations. Ranking in number of articles (WoS þ
  
  
  
  Scopus)
  
  Ranking in number of citations (WoS) All articles 1. Ecological Economics 2. Environmental and Resource Economics 5028 574 219 3. Journal of Environmental Management 133 4. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 5. Land Economics 6. Environmental Management 7. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 8. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 9. Environmental Values 10. Energy Policy All articles 1. Ecological Economics 2. Nature Ranking in number of citations (Scopus) 45,278 8267 2347 2022 All articles 1. Ecological Economics 2. Environmental and Resource Economics 3. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 4. Nature 103 3. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 4. Environmental and Resource Economics 1781 89 61 5. Journal of Environmental Management 6. Land Economics 1126 948 57 7. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 857 57 8. Landscape and Urban Planning 647 5. Land Economics 6. Journal of Environmental Management 7. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 8. Landscape and Urban Planning 49 45 9. Management Science 10. Science 597 596 9. Science 10. Management Science 56,738 9773 3608 2921 2914 1836 1590 931 848 630 623 212 Y.
  
  Lauran
  
  s
  
  et
  
  al.
  
  /
  
  Journal of Environmental
  
  Management 119
  
  (2013)
  
  208e
  
  219
  
  Environmental Management) were screened (whole paper screening) for a qualitative assessment of the first pattern (the way in which UESV is referred to). The result of this screening is briefly discussed as well in Section 3.2. 3. Results 3.1. Expected uses of ESV: a synthetic typology
  
  As explained in Section 2.3, a first result is the construction of categories of UESV based on three peer-reviewed articles (Navrud and Pruckner, 1997; Pearce and Seccombe-Hett, 2000; Liu et al., 2010) and five references from the grey literature (Navrud, 2001; Pearce, 2001; an anonymous chapter in OECD, 2002; NRC, 2005; SCBD, 2007). This typology is synthetic in that it synthesizes heterogeneous categories scattered in the literature. We distinguish between three main categories of UESV depending on whether ESV is considered as being primarily decisive, technical, or informative, and eight sub-categories.
  
  3.1.1. Decisive UESV (for a specific decision)
  
  This first category involves cases where the valuation is meant to inform a specific decision. Here ESV can be seen as contributing to a process in which a given choice is to be made, ex ante, by a decision-maker facing alternatives. These options may involve a project or a policy, such as a regulatory proposal to be examined. It is then up to the ESV, when incorporated into a cost-benefit analysis (CBA), to provide elements on the opportunity of the project/policy and its economic consequences with regard to ecosystem services, thus enabling an informed choice. Within this category, three sub-categories of UESV can be distinguished.
  
  3.1.1.1. ESV for trade-offs.
  
  By proposing a monetary value for ecosystem services, ESV can aim at helping to factor related concerns into the CBA that are underpinning decision-makers’ trade-offs. The CBA process is formalized quite precisely: ‘CBA is characterized by a fairly strict decision making structure that includes defining the project, identifying impacts that are economically relevant, physically quantifying impacts as benefits or costs, and then calculating a summary monetary valuation’ (Liu et al., 2010). This analysis may then be applied to all types of trade-offs about, for instance, programmes, laws and investment projects. In this respect, the purpose of the ESV is to enable the decision-maker to optimize social well-being by making choices that balance out preference criteria. 3.1.1.2. Participative ESV. Another approach considers economic analysis as a ‘negotiation language’ (Henry, 1984, 1989). Here ESV is still potentially ‘decisive’, and still intervenes ex ante as a decisionmaking tool. However, instead of providing a comprehensive range of choices that reflect a socially optimal decision, it is rather seen as a basis for discussion: through an open debate on ESV parameters and assumptions, stakeholders negotiate and define a project that is adjusted and enhanced in terms of compromise and the sum of interests. OECD (2001) gives such an example with a disputed transfer of ecosystem values in Oregon (see also Pearce and Seccombe-Hett, 2000; SCBD, 2007). Of course, this does mean that such UESV is limited to ESVs based on benefit transfers. 
  
  3.1.1.3. ESV as a criterion for environmental management
  
  . Within limited
  
  budget
  
  s allocated to ecosystem services
  
  protection
  
  ,
  
  ESV can also help prioritizing conservation
  
  efforts within
  
  an organization
  
  , in an
  
  optimal
  
  way. It can facilitate the identification of options most likely to maximize benefits, or of territories that contribute most to ecosystem services. Investment priorities may then be defined in accordance. ESV as a management criterion, or ‘management tool’ (Pearce and Seccombe-Hett, 2000), differs from the ‘trade-off’ sub-category in that it concerns only a specific organisation, and does not entail a choice among wide policy and social priorities. 3.1.2. “Technical” UESV (for the design of an instrument)
  
  This second category involves those cases where ESV is applied after the choice of a policy or project, to adjust the economic instrument that will implement the decision. It covers two possible types of UESV. 3.1.2.1.
  
  ESV for establishing levels of damage compensation.
  
  Agents responsible for ecosystem services degradation can be obliged to pay compensation for such damage. This compensation may be a priori (i.e. compensating the anticipated effect of an operation), or a posteriori (i.e. remediating damages caused by an accident) (Burlington, 2004). In this case, ESV provides guidance for administrative decisions or court rulings that determine the amounts to be paid out (see OECD, 2002). 3.1.2.2.
  
  ESV for price-setting.
  
  In cases where an economic instrument has been decided, ESV can be used to determine the amounts payable on the basis of a willingness-to-pay or willingness-toreceive logic: payments made by the beneficiaries of services in the case of Payments for Ecosystem Services, entrance fees to protected areas, etc. ESV can also help to set prices that allow externalities to be internalized, for example by factoring environmental costs into the price of a product (such as energy). This is the role discussed by Navrud and Pruckner (1997) when they mention ESV as ‘environmental costing’. 3.1.3. Informative UESV (for decision-making in general)
  
  Aside from its decisive and technical role, ESV can also be seen as a means to provide information intended to have an indirect influence on decision-making, considered in a very broad sense. For instance, this is the type of UESV formulated by Fisher et al. (2008) when they report some of the responses given by ESV authors whom they questioned on the expected uses of their works: ‘(1) distributing the research results to policy agents (.); (2) directly informing and engaging policy agents; (3) providing influential support for current conservation initiatives’ (p. 2063). In this case, the expectation is not that ESV determine a choice with respect to a specific decision, but rather that it contribute to discussions, progressively modify viewpoints, demonstrate the interest of certain policy directions or, in other words, have some sway. OECD (2001) defines this role in the following way: ‘Regardless of its shortcomings, economic valuation plays an important role in educating decision-makers about biodiversity benefits.’ (p. 20). This category of UESV has three sub-categories. 3.1.3.1. ESV for awareness-raising.
  
  Informative
  
  ESV
  
  may be seen as the vector for a broad message concerning the preferences that should be
  
  mainstream
  
  ed into 
  
  society
  
  , particularly to ensure that ecosystem services
  
  consider
  
  ations are integrated into public and private choices. Pearce (2001) and Daily et al. (2009), for example, basically consider that any ESV is a form of ‘advocacy’. Costanza et al. (1997) launch the debate on their findings by stating that ‘what this study makes abundantly clear is that ecosystem services provide an important portion of the total contribution to human welfare on this planet. We must begin to give the natural capital stock that produces these services adequate weight in the decisionmaking process, otherwise current and continued future human welfare may drastically suffer’ (p. 259). Gómez-Baggethun et al. Y. Laurans et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 119 (2013) 208e219 (2010) show that this is the primary function of the concept of ecosystem services, insofar as it provides economic arguments (by putting a monetary value on pollination, wastewater treatment, nutrient cycling services, etc.) to reinforce the biophysical arguments that appear insufficient when it comes to substantially influencing choices.