  Monetization of the non-use and nonmarket values of ecosystem services is
important especially in the areas of environmental cost-benefit analysis,
management and environmental impact assessment. However, the reliability of
valuation estimations has been criticized due to the biases that associated
with methods like the popular contingent valuation method (CVM). In order to
provide alternative valuation results for comparison purpose, we proposed the
possibility of using a method that incorporates fact-based costs and contingent
preferences for evaluating non-use and nonmarket values, which we referred to
as value allotment method (VAM). In this paper, we discussed the economic
principles of VAM, introduced the performing procedure, analyzed assumptions
and potential biases that associated with the method and compared VAM with CVM
through a case study in Guangzhou, China. The case study showed that the VAM
gave more conservative estimates than the CVM, which could be a merit since CVM
often generates overestimated values. We believe that this method can be used
at least as a referential alternative to CVM and might be particularly useful
in assessing the non-use and nonmarket values of ecosystem services from
human-invested ecosystems, such as restored ecosystems, man-made parks and
croplands.
