Throughout the years researchers have attempted to value coral reefs. One of the complications in valuing coral reefs is that its value includes three different kinds of values given to different ecosystem services according to Brander, van Beukering, and Cesar (2007). These different kind of values given to ecosystem services include direct use values (for instance recreational activities and diving, snorkelling etcetera), indirect use values (coastal protection and nurseries/habitats for fisheries) and preservation values (welfare associated with the existence of natural ecosystems). Ecosystem services are benefits, both goods and services that people receive from nature (de Groot, Wilson, & Boumans, 2002). Environmental economists acknowledge…show more content… (2007) the optimal use of coral reef resources is distorted by the fact that reefs are often open-access in nature and many of the reef’s products and services have (quasi-) public good characteristics. They are characterised by a high degree of non-rivalry and non-excludability resulting in markets for coral reef services being absent or underdeveloped. This results in coral reefs and its services often being undervalued in decision making processes related to their use and conservation (Hicks, 2011). With consistent design and methodology, coral reef valuation studies will benefit from the use of these techniques in that they will be able to compare the relative value of non-market goods and services across sites, and better approximate the total value of reef systems. Undervaluation may cause overexploitation of the reef and may eventually lead to a decline of the size and biodiversity of the…show more content… If that is difficult to achieve, researchers at least need to know where the weak points in their valuations are. In that way researchers can take those errors into account and make the appropriate decision regarding the use and conservation of coral reefs. Making use of a single valuation method throughout the entire world, will make decisions based on those valuations a lot easier to accept and implement them into new policies or management strategies. Combining different valuation methods has proven to give too much of an error even though proponents of meta-analysis believe that the valuable aspects of reviews can be preserved in meta-analysis, and are even extended with quantitative features (Rosenthal & DiMatteo, 2001). For instance, the meta-analysis of Brander et al. (2007) using different valuation methods in their observed studies found a mean transfer error between the studies of 186%. The magnitude of these errors may decline when researchers use matching valuation methods in coral reef studies. The analysis of another meta-analysis done by Hicks (2011) found that studies tend to focus on just one ‘reef service’ (Andersson, 2007; Lange & Jiddawi, 2009) or two ‘reef services’ at a time, where different services were valued using incomparable methods. According to Hicks (2011) there is a need for
