SynthesisPloS one2026
Economic valuation of ecosystem services in agriculture and agroforestry: A meta-analysis.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The economic valuation of ecosystem services in agriculture and agroforestry is crucial for sustainable development. However, valuation methods vary significantly across contexts. Using the PRISMA framework, we systematically reviewed 146 studies, combined effect sizes through meta-analytic modeling, and conducted spatial autocorrelation analyses to explore geographic patterns. Market price valuation (MPV) and contingent valuation (CVM) are the most used methods in ecosystem service assessments, accounting for 25.8% and 20.8% of studies, respectively. The CVM and life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) approaches play a key role in interdisciplinary research, connecting all ecosystem service categories. Analysis revealed extreme heterogeneity and significant publication bias for cultural (CULT), provisioning (PROV), and regulating (REG) services. Valuation outcomes are strongly influenced by the choice of methods (such as MPV and benefit transfer methods) and unit standardization practices, with effect sizes decreasing when values are standardized to United States dollars per ha per year (USD/ha/year). Spatial autocorrelation was minimal, indicating the importance of local context in the valuation results. Temporal trends indicate episodic changes in the relative effectiveness of valuation approaches. Empirically, MPV showed greater robustness (18%) than CVM, which exhibited greater sensitivity to data constraints (16%). These findings highlight the need to prioritize data quality and context specificity within standardized valuation frameworks to improve policy relevance and comparability in ecosystem service assessments, particularly for underrepresented CULT and supporting (SUP) services.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.