sustainability Article The Economic Value of Wetlands in Urban Areas: The Benefits in a Developing Country Lida Díaz-Pinzón 1 , Lya Sierra 1, * and Francesc Trillas 2 1 Department of Economics, Pontificia Universidad Javeriana de Cali, Cali 760031, Colombia; lidadiaz@javerianacali.edu.co 2 Department of Applied Economics, School of Economics and Business, Autonomous University of Barcelona (UAB), 08193 Barcelona, Spain; francesc.trillas@uab.cat * Correspondence: lyap@javerianacali.edu.co; Tel.: +57-2321-8200 Abstract: Urban growth has impacted natural ecosystems such as wetlands. This situation desta- bilizes the beneficial contributions of nature, generating a socioeconomic effect. There is a need to quantify the benefits of wetlands in developing countries and urban areas, where the growth of cities is fastest. This is the first valuation study of urban and peri-urban wetlands in Colombia. The methodology includes a benefit transfer (BT) method with a geographical information system (GIS) and an exploratory governance analysis. Because there are few studies on the economic valuation of urban wetlands in Latin America, we present a methodology of interest, which can be easily replicated in other cities of this subcontinent. Based on an economic approach, our results find that 76% of the total value of wetlands is provided by ecosystem services (ES) of existence and legacy value, followed by maintenance of the life cycle of migratory species and water supply. Urban areas are identified where users benefit more than areas where the population exerts greater pressure on wetlands. Weak governance is due to the disarticulation between regulation, land-use planning, and the social-ecological system. This research contributes to urban wetland management policies, as well as to sustainable solutions in cities. Citation: Díaz-Pinzón, L.; Sierra, L.; Keywords: wetlands; urban ecosystem services; valuation; benefit transfer Trillas, F. The Economic Value of Wetlands in Urban Areas: The Benefits in a Developing Country. Sustainability 2022, 14, 8302. https:// 1. Introduction doi.org/10.3390/su14148302 Wetland systems support human livelihoods and are critical to sustainable develop- Academic Editor: Fabio Carlucci ment [1]. Despite this, 50% of the total area of wetlands in the world has been lost because Received: 18 May 2022 of agricultural activities, cattle ranching, mining, the growth of cities, and other human Accepted: 30 June 2022 actions [1]. As a result of the degradation of wetlands in Colombia, the floods that occurred Published: 7 July 2022 between 2010 and 2011 affected 31% of the country, generating considerable economic losses [2]. In the Cauca River Valley, 88% of the wetlands were lost, mainly because of Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral drainage activities, land reclamation, river-channel regulation, and pollution [3]. The city with regard to jurisdictional claims in of Cali has 61 wetlands within its urban area and 175 peri-urban wetlands, which have published maps and institutional affil- been affected by change of use and a deterioration of their ecosystems [4]. As in other iations. regions and countries, the pursuit of short-run human wellbeing has been detrimental to biodiversity [5,6]. With the deterioration of the wetlands in Cali, some ecosystem services (ES) have been lost (e.g., carbon sequestration—thus increasing greenhouse gases). This sit- Copyright: © 2022 by the authors. uation must be quantified because it means that the loss or gain of values will ultimately be Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. reflected in society. Therefore, if the value of the benefits provided by nature is understood, This article is an open access article we can move closer to the development of sustainable cities [7]. distributed under the terms and Although there are some studies, reports, and inventories of wetlands [8] in South conditions of the Creative Commons America, there are few studies on the economic valuation of wetlands in Colombia [9], Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// none of which are conducted on urban ES valuation. A knowledge gap has therefore been creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ identified regarding the valuation of urban wetlands in developing countries, since most of 4.0/). these have mainly been conducted in Europe, North America, and China [10]. Sustainability 2022, 14, 8302. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14148302 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability Sustainability 2022, 14, 8302 2 of 19 ES valuation research, within the economic approach, recognizes that many of the services provided by nature are not found in the market and, therefore, their benefits have been underestimated, generating uncertainty with regard to their value [11]. In other words, it recognizes a market failure, which arises within the biodiversity field for several reasons: the market cannot make an efficient allocation of resources; there is no clear definition of property rights; and there are externalities that have not been included in economic models [12]. In this research, the benefits provided by wetlands (positive externalities) are determined to construct an estimated value to facilitate their understanding and their contribution to society. From an institutional perspective, it has been suggested that natural resources should be understood as common-pool resources [13]. In other words, they are rivalrous in terms of consumption because natural resources become depleted. Nor can they be excluded because they are freely accessible to people. There is a need to develop institutional rules within social-ecological systems that allow the development of institutions that achieve optimum levels of cooperation from stakeholders [13]. This work performs a monetary valuation of urban and peri-urban wetlands of Cali from an economic approach with two specific objectives; to determine and value the ES of the wetlands in Cali, and to explore governance characteristics for the management of the wetlands. To carry out the first, we use a benefit transfer (BT) method with a geographical information system (GIS). To the second, we apply the principles of institutional design proposed by Anderies et al. [14]. It should be clarified that primary research is the first-best strategy in project evalua- tion, but when there are difficulties in carrying this out, as in the case of Cali, the benefit transfer methodology is the second-best alternative to evaluate management and policy impacts [15]. Benefit transfer is understood as the estimation of a value from a study site to be applied to a policy site, where the former has similar characteristics to the latter [16]. GIS is a technique that integrates geographically referenced information [17]. Beyond using a constructive replication of the GIS-supported benefit transfer method to achieve an economic valuation of wetlands in Cali, this research proposes a starting point to apply this methodology in urban wetlands in Latin America. The results of this study provide a basis for policy implementation in urban wetland management in developing countries. In addition, this research provides information for assessment of land-use change and the impact of climate change on the city, cost- benefit analysis, ecosystem services compensation assessments, and social appropriation of knowledge, among other applications. 2. Materials and Methods We have based our methodological proposal on Champ et al. [16] and Dupras et al. [18] to create Figure 1. We merged the methodological steps and propose a new step (step 7) in Sustainability 2022, 14, x 3 of 20 our research: Figure 1. Methodological steps for economic valuation of wetlands in Cali. Note: * Ecosystem ser- Figure Methodological 1. Adapted vices. Source: steps from Champ et al. for [16] and economic Dupras et al. [18]. valuation of wetlands in Cali. Note: * Ecosystem services. Source: Adapted from Champ et al. [16] and Dupras et al. [18]. Step 1: Spatial definition of the study area. First, we worked with the files of the wet- land inventory maps provided by the Administrative Department of Environmental Man- agement of Cali (DAGMA) and Spatial Data Infrastructure of Cali (IDESC). Next, the data were obtained in the R programming language with the assigned attributes in terms of wetland type (urban or peri-urban), name, location, and area. Then we proceeded to su- perimpose the maps of the urban perimeter, comunas (a group of neighborhoods within a city), corregimientos (a territorial area, the jurisdiction of which depends on the munic- Sustainability 2022, 14, 8302 3 of 19 Step 1: Spatial definition of the study area. First, we worked with the files of the wetland inventory maps provided by the Administrative Department of Environmental Management of Cali (DAGMA) and Spatial Data Infrastructure of Cali (IDESC). Next, the data were obtained in the R programming language with the assigned attributes in terms of wetland type (urban or peri-urban), name, location, and area. Then we proceeded to superimpose the maps of the urban perimeter, comunas (a group of neighborhoods within a city), corregimientos (a territorial area, the jurisdiction of which depends on the municipality), rivers, streams, and wetlands to define the study area set out in Section 2.1. Step 2: Identification of original research studies. ES that benefit Cali were proposed by Tabares-Mosquera et al. [19]. This, therefore, was our point of reference as established in Section 2.2. ES-estimated values from the study site are taken from Ecosystem Services Valuation Database (ESVD) [20]. ESVD gives the values in USD/ha/year, which were stan- dardized in 2020 in international dollars. This database includes ES from inland wetlands that fall within the Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) classification and Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES) V.5 [21,22]. Therefore, the ESVD is defined as a reliable source for benefit transfer applied to this research. In addition, we have taken into account the study of Dayathilake et al. [23] to refine our valuation of the carbon sequestration service. Last, we differentiate the value per hectare of urban and peri-urban (rural) wetlands, following the study of Chaikumbung et al. [24], who state that urban wetlands are more valuable than rural wetlands. The authors explain these findings both by income differences and by the willingness to pay to protect wetlands among urban and rural inhabitants. Step 3: Obtaining data from original research studies. The TEEB [21] classification is used as a reference to obtain the estimates of ES values of the study site. To obtain values from studies with similar characteristics to the policy site, the ESVD was filtered in terms of geographic coordinates, selecting those studies located within 23◦ north latitude and 23◦ south latitude (Tropical zone between the Tropic of Cancer triangle and Tropic of Capricorn triangle to which the Cali wetlands belong). Next, those values obtained through primary research were selected. Those corresponding to inland wetlands with local study scale located in developing countries were also selected. Moreover, aboveground and belowground carbon stock indicators from Dayathilake et al. [23] were taken and valued. Finally, considering that the coefficient on urban wetlands of meta-regression proposed by Chaikumbung et al. [24] is positive and statistically significant, we have taken into account this coefficient to differentiate the value of urban and peri-urban wetlands in Cali. See Section 2.4. Steps 4, 5, and 6: Calculate measure of central tendency, transfer the mean value estimate, obtain total value, and spatial analysis of wetland valuation. Once the studies with the best fit for the conditions in Cali had been identified, the mean of the values obtained for each ES was calculated in USD/ha/year. Then we proceeded to calculate the total value of urban and peri-urban wetlands using Equation (3) in this paper. Next, the value of each wetland was calculated, and the maps of comunas and corregimientos were superimposed, obtaining the total valuation by zone. Last, the per capita value was obtained, considering the projected population in 2020. The results are presented in Section 3. Step 7: Wetland valuation and governance. An exploratory review of the governance system in Cali was taken. The results are presented in Section 3.5, followed in Section 4.3 by the proposal of a link between economic valuation of wetlands in Cali and governance. 2.1. Study Area This research is located in the Valle del Cauca region in southwestern Colombia, which is one of the most biodiverse countries on Earth (see https://www.un.org/es/cr%C3%B3nica- onu/celebrando-y-salvaguardando-la-biodiversidad-para-evitar-la-siguiente-pandemia (ac- cessed on 12 May 2022) for more information). The River Cauca runs through the region from south to north, where swamps and marshes are common as a result of river flooding. Sustainability 2022, 14, 8302 4 of 19 It has fertile land suitable for agriculture, natural pastures, and livestock [25]. Toward the flat region of the valley is Cali, which stands out for its richness in bird species, which include 487 breeding residents, 72 migratory species, and 2 introduced species [26]. The city of Cali extends into 56,168 hectares. This is located at latitude 3◦ 270 2600 N and longitude 76◦ 310 4200 W and lies 1079.5 m above sea level. The average temperature is 24.3 ◦ C, and the average annual relative humidity is 77.2%. By 2020 Cali had a projected population of 2,496,442 inhabitants with a gross density of 44.56 inhabit/ha [27,28]. In 2019, its GDP per capita was USD 6474 (this value is used as a proxy in the absence of municipal accounts, which is reported by the Administrative Department of Planning of the city) (current prices) with a 4.5% share of national GDP. In 2018, the access of the population to outdoor recreational areas was 0.52 m2 /inhabitant [27]. This figure is below the recommendations of the World Health Organization (9 m2 /inhabitant) [29]. The research area is located within the social-ecological structure of Cali, which was defined by Tabares-Mosquera et al. [19] taking into account land cover as a unit of analysis, as well as the urban-functional and ecological-biophysical factors of the region. Figure 2 shows the study area with 61 urban wetlands and 175 peri-urban wetlands with 33 ha and 217 ha respectively. The urban wetlands of Cali are similar in extension to the London Wetland Centre, UK (42 ha) and Kranji Marshes, Singapore (56.8 ha). The peri-urban wetlands of Cali are similar in extension to the wetlands in Sydney Olympic Park, Australia (175 ha) [30]. The proportion of inland waters in Colombia by thousands of hectares corresponds to 3225 ha (inland wetlands included) compared to 2043 ha in Mexico and 38,648 ha in Latin America and the Caribbean [31]. 2.2. Ecosystem Services Different ES taxonomies have been developed by the scientific community in conjunc- tion with intergovernmental entities such as the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA), TEEB, European Environment Agency (EEA), and Intergovernmental Science-Policy Plat- form on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES). The economic valuation of ES of this study is based on TEEB classification with the categories: provisioning, regulatory, cultural, and habitat services [21]. The characterization of ES of the wetlands in Cali is taken from the study by Tabares- Mosquera et al. [19]. This performs a nonmonetary valuation of ES based on a consulting panel of experts regarding the capacity to provide and demand ES within the social- ecological system of the city. The authors propose ES of the CICES V.4.3 classification [32] that are applicable to the land within the area of the city. Table 1 shows the ES valued. Note that the value estimates used correspond to 11 ES. We did not value other ES proposed by Tabares-Mosquera et al. [19] because of a lack of data. This situation impacts the economic valuation of wetlands in Cali because there are unvalued ES. 2.3. Benefit Transfer Method Benefit transfer is the application of values and/or data from one VSj study site to another that has little or no information, known as the VPj policy site [15]. Among the categories of benefit transfer are value transfer, including measure of central tendency, point estimate and administratively approved estimate, and function transfer, including benefit function and meta-regression analysis function [16]. Benefit transfer has been widely applied in the ES valuation literature as a tool to inform policy makers [33,34]. This methodology complemented with GIS is applied in this study to perform a cross-sectional valuation. Benefit transfer with GIS includes bio- geophysical and sociodemographic elements applicable to the policy site; therefore, it is a viable alternative in the valuation of environmental goods and services [35]. Sustainability 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 20 Sustainability 2022, 14, 8302 5 of 19 Figure Figure Study 2. 2. Study Area. Area.The geographic The geographic coordinates coordinates were wereprovided providedbybythe theSpatial SpatialData DataInfrastructure InfrastructureofofCaliCaliand andthe theresolution resolution055 055ofof2018 2018by bythe theAdministrative Administrative Department Department of Environmental Management of Cali. The red frame corresponds to the study site at national, regional and local level. The purplecolor of Environmental Management of Cali. The red frame corresponds to the study site at national, regional and local level. The purple colorononthe thered red frame corresponds to the social-ecological structure of Cali proposed by Tabares-Mosquera et al. [19]. Both comunas of Cali (urban zone) frame corresponds to the social-ecological structure of Cali proposed by Tabares-Mosquera et al. [19]. Both comunas of Cali (urban zone) and the urban expan-and the urban expansion zone sionare shown zone in white. are shown Corregimientos in white. (peri-urban Corregimientos zone) are (peri-urban shown zone) in gray. are shown in Rivers are shown gray. Rivers in blue. are shown in Sixty-one urbanurban blue. Sixty-one wetlands are located wetlands in comunas are located in comunasand and shown in green; 175 peri-urban wetlands are located in corregimientos and the urban expansion zone. These are shown in yellow. shown in green; 175 peri-urban wetlands are located in corregimientos and the urban expansion zone. These are shown in yellow. Note that most of these are small Note that most of these in are theirsmall in theirThe extension. extension. Theofinventory inventory urban andofperi-urban urban and(rural) peri-urban (rural) wetlands in wetlands in Caliupon Cali is available is available upon request. request. Sustainability 2022, 14, 8302 6 of 19 Table 1. Ecosystem services valued in wetlands of Cali. Group Description * Food Provisioning Water Raw material Climate regulation ** Regulation of extreme events Regulation and maintenance Water flow regulation Waste treatment Habitat Maintenance of life cycle of migratory species Aesthetic information Cultural Recreation and tourism Existence and legacy value Note: * Based on the description of TEEB [21] ecosystem services classification; ** this ecosystem service relates to carbon sequestration. To value urban and peri-urban wetlands in Cali, a central tendency is used following the methodology of Champ et al. [16]. This is based on taking the average value from studies of the literature, which can be defined as shown in Equation (1): VPj Q Pj = V S QS (1) where VPj is the measure needed for the policy site j, given the characteristics of policy site Q Pj . V S is the measure of central tendency of the studies of study site, given the characteristics of the study site QS . The unit of measurement of the studies is in this case USD/ha/yr. If the measure of the central tendency being worked on is the mean as shown in Equation (2), then: V S QS = VCkj (2) where VCkj is the mean value of each ES for the policy site j and category k. The total ES value of wetlands is calculated following the methodology of Dupras and Alam [36]. This is done by multiplying the total hectares by the mean value of each ES, as shown in Equation (3): ESVk = ∑ Ak × VCkj (3) j where ESVk corresponds to ES value of wetlands for category k (urban or peri-urban), Ak hectares of wetlands for category k, and VCkj is the average value of each ES j in the category k. 2.4. Data The ESVD and Dayathilake et al. [23] provided the original studies presented in Table 2, which served as the basis for the benefit transfer in Cali. There are 29 studies located in 18 developing countries. Notice that the study site valuations differ widely. Despite their location in developing countries, only two have been performed in Latin America (Mexico and Guatemala). This situation confirms the need to carry out valuations of urban wetlands in South America. Furthermore, these studies are evaluating different kinds of ES. For this reason, the method- ology of BT adopted by this research takes into account the mean value of each ES (94 value estimates in our case), as was explained in Section 2.3. As we have mentioned before, the literature indicates that the economic value of urban wetlands is different from rural wetlands, being that urban wetlands more valu- able [24]. This is why we carried out our urban wetland valuation taking into account the estimated coefficient of urban wetlands from meta-regression economic valuation by Chaikumbung et al. [24]. That is 2.531 (statistical significance at the 5% level of subgroup Sustainability 2022, 14, 8302 7 of 19 without marine); this coefficient shows that if there are urban wetlands, wetland values increase by approximately 2.531 times. See results in Section 3.1. Table 2. Studies selected for the benefit transfer in Cali. Authors Country Name of Wetland USD/ha/yr * Hanafi et al. Year 2014 ◦ Indonesia Tapin District 72,967.5 Midora y Anggraeni. Year 2006 ◦ Indonesia Batang Gadis National Park 38,360.0 Mukherjee. Year 2008 ◦ India Kalobaur beel (oxbow lake) 32,955.7 Eaton y Sarch. Year 1997 ◦ Nigeria Hadejia-Nguru wetlands 16,077.4 Ibarra et al. Year 2013 ◦ Mexico Xochimilco 13,796.4 ** Emerton et al. Year 1998 ◦ Uganda Nakivubo 10,019.8 Kadigi et al. Year 2005 ◦ Tanzania Usangu wetland and floodplain 6531.9 Nalukenge et al. Year 2009 ◦ Uganda Pallisa District wetlands 5754.9 Nuva. Year 2009 ◦ Indonesia Gunung Gede Pangrango National Park 4580.4 Karanja et al. Year 2001 ◦ Uganda Namatala 3475.0 Pallisa District wetlands 318.8 Kakuru et al. Year 2013 ◦ Uganda Kyoga plains 2818.3 Southwestern farmlands 2208.0 Lake Victoria crescent 2205.5 Gerrard. Year 2004 ◦ Laos That Luang Marsh 2662.4 ◦◦ Kolonnawa wetland and Thalawatugoda Dayathilake et al. [23] Sri Lanka 1522.8 *** wetland park Hap et al. Year 2000 ◦ Cambodia Muk Kompul and Ponheur Leu Districts 320.5 Barbier et al. Year 1991 ◦ Nigeria Hadejia-Nguru 311.2 Sención [37] ◦ Guatemala Petexbatu’n 244.3 Munasinghe. Year 1993 ◦ Madagascar Mantadia National Park 228.9 Le et al. Year 2016 ◦ Vietnam Tam Dao National Park 137.7 Siima et al. Year 2012 ◦ Tanzania Kilombero 77.9 Turpie et al. Year 1999 ◦ Mozambique Barotse floodplain 75.9 Lower Shire wetlands 21.2 Angella et al. Year 2014 ◦ Uganda Dohu Rice Irrigation system 52.3 Abila y Othina Year 2006 ◦ Kenya Yala Wetland 51.2 Loth. Year 2004 ◦ Cameroon Waza Logone 42.6 Kasthala et al. Year 2008 ◦ Tanzania Mtanza-Msona village wetlands 15.2 Mireri et al. Year 2008 ◦ Kenya Tana River Delta 7.5 Geta et al. Year 2015 ◦ Ethiopia Dechatu drainage basin 3.9 Roy et al. Year 2012 ◦ India Bhomra Beel 0.6 Setlhogile et al. Year 2010 ◦ Botswana Makgadikgadi wetland 0.6 Manlosa et al. Year 2013 ◦ Philippines Layawan Watershed 0.1 Note: * International dollars. Year 2020; ** This value includes carbon sequestration valuation = 421.34 USD/ha/yr; *** Aboveground carbon stock = 46.63 tC/ha, belowground carbon stock = 7.24 tC/ha and price EU allowances (EUA) = 28.27 USD/t; ◦ These studies and data are taken from the Ecosystem Services Valuation Database by De Groot et al. [20]; ◦ ◦ We have taken into account this study to refine our valuation of the carbon sequestration service. 3. Results 3.1. Valuation The benefit transfer method allowed us to obtain the mean for 11 ES and 94 value estimates, whose description was taken from TEEB [21]. Tables 3 and 4 present the results of the Cali urban and peri-urban wetland valuation, which is USD 8,643,583. On one hand, the total value of urban wetlands is USD 2,388,942 (72,825 USD/ha/year). On the other hand, the total value of peri-urban wetlands is USD 6,254,641 (28,773 USD/ha/year). Urban and peri-urban wetland valuations represent 28% and 72% of total value, respectively. The lower proportion of the value of the former is a consequence of their smaller quantity and extension. Sustainability 2022, 14, 8302 8 of 19 Table 3. Total value of urban wetlands in Cali. Minimum Maximum St. Deviation Mean Total ◦ ES * N ** Urban USD/ha/yr ◦ USD/ha/yr ◦ USD/ha/yr ◦ USD/ha/yr ◦ (33 ha) Provisioning Food 24 0.52 65,000 13,904 5003 164,102 Water 23 0.10 81,073 22,955 9261 303,807 Raw material 25 1.03 40,692 8518 3342 109,636 Regulation and maintenance Climate regulation 2 1066 3854 1971 2460 80,709 Regulation of extreme events 1 0.37 0.37 NA *** 0.37 12 Water flow regulation 3 4.87 449 253 156 5128 Waste treatment 7 11 24,509 9210 3627 118,973 Habitat Maintenance of life 2 348 33,379 23,356 16,864 553,195 cycle of migratory species Cultural Aesthetic information 1 1.02 1.02 NA *** 1.02 33 Recreation and tourism 4 5.14 11,593 5725 3008 98,684 Existence and legacy value 2 29,019 29,185 118 29,102 954,662 94 30,457 289,736 72,825 2,388,942 Note: * Ecosystem services; ** number of value estimates; *** does not apply; ◦ international dollars. Year 2020. Table 4. Total value of peri-urban wetlands in Cali. Minimum Maximum St. Deviation Mean Total ◦ ES * N ** Peri-Urban USD/ha/yr ◦ USD/ha/yr ◦ USD/ha/yr ◦ USD/ha/yr ◦ (217 ha) Provisioning Food 24 0.20 25,682 5494 1977 429,647 Water 23 0.04 32,032 9069 3659 795,416 Raw material 25 0.41 16,077 3366 1320 287,044 Regulation and maintenance Climate regulation 2 421 1523 779 972 211,309 Regulation of extreme events 1 0.15 0.15 NA *** 0.15 32 Water flow regulation 3 2 177 100 62 13,425 Waste treatment 7 4 9684 3639 1433 311,492 Habitat Maintenance of life cycle of 2 138 13,188 9228 6663 1,448,356 migratory species Cultural Aesthetic information 1 0.40 0.40 NA *** 0.40 87 Recreation and tourism 4 2 4580 2262 1189 258,371 Existence and legacy value 2 11,465 11,531 47 11,498 2,499,462 94 12,034 114,475 28,773 6,254,641 Note: * Ecosystem services; ** number of value estimates; *** does not apply; ◦ international dollars. Year 2020. The highest valuations obtained are those of existence and legacy value (40%), main- tenance of the life cycle of migratory species (23%), and water supply (13%). The first results can be understood as the heritage of future generations. In line with this, the land-use plan of Cali [38] includes wetlands as conservation and environmental protec- tion areas. The second findings can be interpreted as the evidence of having shelter for animals. This is why bird watching is a common activity in Valle del Cauca (see https://ebird.org/region/CO-VAC?yr=all (accessed on 10 May 2022) for more informa- tion). The latter results suggest that wetlands in Cali have the potential to provide water for the inhabitants. The following services are in lower proportions (24%). These values are understood as the potential to provide natural resources (11%), regulation services (9%), and cultural Sustainability 2022, 14, 8302 9 of 19 (4%) services to the city. Addressing regulation services, it should be clarified that carbon sequestration (climate regulation service) represents 3% of total valuation. This finding Sustainability 2022, 14, x FOR shows thatPEER the REVIEW more wetlands are lost, the more greenhouse gas emissions increase. More- 10 of over, in 2018, Latin America and the Caribbean reported 32% of greenhouse gas emissions by agriculture [31]. Thus, loss of wetlands and agricultural activities in the Valle del Cauca region are probably The differential responsible for between a greaterthe valueof impact ofclimate urban and ruralatwetlands change the localcan be explained b level. ecosystems The differential between found thein peri-urban value of urbanareas, andwhich are subjectcan rural wetlands to greater pressures be explained by caused b ecosystems found the occupation in peri-urban of territories by new areas, which arehousing subjectdevelopments, differentcaused to greater pressures types ofby governanc the occupation of and different by territories preferences new housingbetween rural and urban developments, inhabitants different types [39–41]. Additionally, pe of governance, ceptions of ES and different preferences change from between ruralbeing perceived and urban as livelihoods inhabitants and local [39–41]. cultural amenities, Additionally, the case of rural wetlands, to aesthetic and recreational activities perceptions of ES change from being perceived as livelihoods and local cultural amenities, in urban areas [42,43]. in the case of rural wetlands, to aesthetic and recreational activities in urban areas [42,43]. 3.2. Spatial Analysis 3.2. Spatial Analysis The valuation of wetlands in Cali is analyzed by taking into account their distributio by comunas The valuation andin of wetlands corregimientos. Figure Cali is analyzed 3 shows by taking that into the highest account theirtotal value areas are b distribution tween 445,879 and 3,906,323 USD/year. The lowest total value by comunas and corregimientos. Figure 3 shows that the highest total value areas areas are between are 663 an 5809 USD/year. These findings can be interpreted as the more wetlands between 445,879 and 3,906,323 USD/year. The lowest total value areas are between 663 there are, the mo ES are available to Cali. Furthermore, the findings show from which places ES are su and 5809 USD/year. These findings can be interpreted as the more wetlands there are, the plied—in other words, which are the critical ecological zones. For instance, Comuna 2 more ES are available to Cali. Furthermore, the findings show from which places ES are has 50 urban wetlands and Comuna 13 has the biggest urban wetland in the city; thu supplied—in other words, which are the critical ecological zones. For instance, Comuna 22 those wetlands have the highest ES valuation. Moreover, those wetlands have a potenti has 50 urban wetlands and Comuna 13 has the biggest urban wetland in the city; thus, to improve the quality life of people and biodiversity by promoting cultural services an those wetlands have the highest ES valuation. Moreover, those wetlands have a potential shelter for species. to improve the quality life of people and biodiversity by promoting cultural services and shelter for species. Figure 3. Total valuation of wetlands by comunas and corregimientos. The high-value areas are Figure highlighted in orange. 3. low-value The Total valuation areasof arewetlands by comunas highlighted and corregimientos. in blue. Note that comunas are The high-value areas a numbered highlighted in orange. The low-value areas are highlighted in blue. Note that comunas are num between 1 and 22. The corregimientos are indicated by their proper name. The expansion zone of the bered between 1 and 22. The corregimientos are indicated by their proper name. The expansion zo city is shown in yellow. There of the city are noinwetlands is shown in zones yellow. There that are no are shown wetlands in white. in zones that are shown in white. Sustainability 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW Sustainability 2022, 14, 8302 10 of 19 In addition, in Figure 4, we analyze and show the distribution of the value wetlands among the population of the comunas, corregimientos, and urban expa zone. Note that Figures 3 and 4 show a change in the incidence of the value that is In addition, thein Figureof4,inhabitants number we analyzeinand eachshow zone.the Fordistribution of the 4, instance, in Figure value of the of the the incidence wetlands among the population of the comunas, corregimientos, and urban expansion of wetlands is higher in Corregimientos La Castilla and Los Andes, owing to its low zone. Note that Figures ulation 3 and Moreover, density. 4 show a change in the13, in Comunas incidence 15, and of 17,the value which havethat is highest the due popu to the number concentrations of inhabitants in ineach zone.the the city, Forincidence instance,of inthe Figure 4, the value incidenceisoflower. of wetlands the This c value of wetlands is higher interpreted as in theCorregimientos existence of areas La where Castillausers and enjoy Los Andes, greaterowing to compared benefits its t low population density. Moreover, in Comunas 13, 15, and 17, which have the ers, where the population exerts greater pressure on the wetlands. Last, the per highest population concentrations value of theinurbanthe city, the incidence expansion zone isof likely the value of wetlands to decline is lower. if housing This threaten projects can be interpreted as lands. the existence of areas where users enjoy greater benefits compared to others, where the population exerts greater pressure on the wetlands. Last, the per capita value of the urban expansion zone is likely to decline if housing projects threaten wetlands. Figure 4. Valuation of wetlands per capita. The high-value and low population density areas are Figure 4. highlighted in orange. TheValuation of areas low-value wetlands and per highcapita. The high-value population and density are low population highlighted density ar in blue. highlighted in orange. The low-value areas and high population density are Note that comunas are numbered between 1 and 22. The corregimientos are indicated by their properhighlighted i Note that comunas are numbered between 1 and 22. The corregimientos are names. The expansion zone of the city is shown in yellow. There are no wetlands in zones that are indicated b proper names. The expansion zone of the city is shown in yellow. There are no wetlands in shown in white. that are shown in white. 3.3. Robustness Based on 3.3. Robustness findings in the literature, which show a negative relationship between Based onarea wetland value and wetland findings in an [24,44], theadditional literature, filter whichisshow applieda negative relationship to the data selected. betwee In this way, theland valuearea wetland andof wetland areastudies the source [24,44],isanrestricted additional byfilter is applied selecting those to the data selec smaller than 6000 ha, athis way, the dimension wetland that includesarea twoofvaluations the sourceinstudies is restricted Latin America by selecting [37,45]. Twenty- those s than 6000 seven value estimates wereha,obtained, a dimension that ES, in seven includes two valuations for wetlands located inin eight Latindeveloping America [37,45]. Tw countries. We seven value to proceeded estimates carry outwere obtained, benefit in seven transfer ES, for as shown in wetlands located Tables 5 and in eight de 6 and obtained a valueingof countries. We proceededand 76,827 USD/ha/year to carry 30,354out benefit transfer USD/ha/year forasurban shownand in peri- Tables 5 and urban wetlands, respectively. The results coincide with Chaikumbung et al. [24] and Woodward and Wui [44], where having smaller wetland areas has an increase in valuation. Sustainability 2022, 14, 8302 11 of 19 Additionally, the values obtained are similar to the benefit transfer of this research presented in Tables 3 and 4. Table 5. Total value of urban wetlands in Cali with area constraint. Minimum Maximum St. Deviation Mean Total ◦ ES * N ** Urban USD/ha/yr ◦ USD/ha/yr ◦ USD/ha/yr ◦ USD/ha/yr ◦ (33 ha) Provisioning Food 8 6 5218 2101 2071 67,932 Water 3 79 78,842 45,459 26,351 864,422 Raw material 8 10 40,692 14,115 5806 190,451 Regulation and maintenance Climate regulation 2 1066 3854 1971 2460 80,709 Water flow regulation 1 449 449 NA *** 449 14,713 Waste treatment 4 37 24,509 12,133 6311 207,022 Habitat Maintenance of life cycle of 1 33,379 33,379 NA *** 33,379 1,094,962 migratory species 27 35,026 186,943 76,827 2,520,211 ◦ Note: * Ecosystem services; ** number of value estimates; *** does not apply; international dollars. Year 2020. Table 6. Total value of peri-urban wetlands in Cali with area constraint. Minimum Maximum St. Deviation Mean Total ◦ ES * N ** Peri-Urban USD/ha/yr ◦ USD/ha/yr ◦ USD/ha/yr ◦ USD/ha/yr ◦ (217 ha) Provisioning Food 8 2 2062 830 818 177,856 Water 3 31 31,151 17,961 10,411 2,263,199 Raw material 8 4 16,077 5577 2294 498,633 Regulation and maintenance Climate regulation 2 421 1523 779 972 211,309 Water flow regulation 1 177 177 NA *** 177 38,521 Waste treatment 4 15 9684 4794 2493 542,018 Habitat Maintenance of life cycle of 1 13,188 13,188 NA *** 13,188 2,866,789 migratory species 27 13,839 73,861 30,354 6,598,324 ◦ Note: * Ecosystem services; ** number of value estimates; *** does not apply; international dollars. Year 2020. 3.4. Legal Framework There are guidelines that contain the regulations that address the management of wetlands in Cali. First, there is the Convention on Wetlands of International Importance (Ramsar Convention). Colombia committed to the Ramsar Convention through Law 357 in 1997. Nationally, the Political Constitution of Colombia protects natural resources, regulates their exploitation, and creates control agencies. There are policies related to the integrated management of water resources such as the 2002 National Policy for Inland Wetlands. There is also the 2012 National Policy for the Integrated Management of Biodiversity and its Ecosystem Services (PNGIBSE). Regionally, the 2007 Agreement No. 038 of the Regional Autonomous Corporation of Valle del Cauca (CVC) declares the natural wetlands of the Valle del Cauca as a renewable natural resource reserve. Locally, the land-use plan of Cali [38], defines the conservation and environmental protection areas of the city that include water sources, surface streams, and wetlands. This legal and regulatory framework provides the formal rules governing the man- agement of urban and peri-urban wetlands in a centralized manner. This situation poses challenges to the collective actions that could contribute to wetland management, as well Sustainability 2022, 14, 8302 12 of 19 as enhancing the capacity of cities to promote environmental culture, which is the case studied by Nagendra and Ostrom [39] in peri-urban wetlands in Bangalore, India. 3.5. Governance By reviewing the environmental management plans of wetlands available in Cali, an exploratory review of principles of institutional design proposed by Anderies et al. [14] was undertaken. The analysis shows that governance is weak in Cali; for example, there are issues to be solved in property rights, proportional equivalence in costs and benefits, efficient collective choice agreements, integrated monitoring indicators, and institutions adapted to the needs of users. The existence of regulations covering graduated sanctions, conflict resolution mechanisms, and recognition of organizational rights is highlighted. Clearly defined boundaries: Twenty-two percent of the city’s urban wetlands are located on private land and 78% on public land. This means that there are users who do not have the right to enjoy the benefits of some wetland ES located on private properties. We are faced here with an unresolved problem of property rights and social justice. Proportional equivalence between benefits and costs: Thirty-one percent of the urban wetland area is located in Comuna 22 where the socioeconomic level corresponds to the highest in the city. The wetlands in other areas are in poor condition and have a higher incidence of hostile actors such as gangs or criminality [46–48]. Despite that the wetlands of the city are protected, 27 are located in the urban expansion zone where housing activity is permitted. That is, these wetlands are in danger of being lost. Collective choice agreements: There is representation of the population for wetland management. This is the case of the community action boards, local action boards, and committees that represent the community and environmental organizations. On the other hand, a lack of organization among communities occurs in wetland areas where there is limited supply of institutional services, as well as irregular settlements, and marginalization of these ecosystems in urban planning, among others [46,47]. Monitoring: The legal framework corresponds to political-administrative limits that go against the areas of environmental influence [19]. This encompasses areas that go beyond the boundaries of the department of Valle del Cauca. Connections and shared ecological monitoring with other local authorities are needed to carry out actions in regions that share ecological structures. Gradual sanctions: The legal framework defines the uses of wetlands and water bodies, as well as the consequences of noncompliance [49]. Conflict resolution mechanisms: The legal framework includes instruments for conflict resolution [49]. Minimum recognition of organizational rights: Users have access to existing commu- nity action boards, local action boards, and on local and civic organizations. In Comuna 22, an outstanding case is that of water-user associations recognized as social stakeholders of the wetlands [50,51]. Nested enterprises: The institutions are perceived as rigid and often slow to respond, leading to inappropriate policy decisions [46]. In line with this, because of the weak governance that has been found, policy and decision makers in Cali are not well-informed. Insufficient attention is given to the economic valuation of wetlands in Cali as an input in project assessment. Therefore, if the benefits of wetlands are unknown, the cost-benefit analysis would not sufficiently take into account the benefits of biodiversity. For instance, a decision maker who is unaware of the economic value of maintenance of the life cycle of migratory species will not realize that birds will be impacted if a housing project is approved where a wetland exists. Consequently, the economic cost of damage could be higher than the benefits of the construction project. Sustainability 2022, 14, 8302 13 of 19 4. Discussion 4.1. Comparison with Other Research Table 7 shows the average value per ES of wetlands: developing countries, 236–6620 USD/ha/year/ES; developed countries, 2942–7403 USD/ha/year/ES; and global 2279 USD/ha/year/ES. On one hand, the meta-regressions by He et al. [52] and Chaikum- bung et al. [24] show that the value of wetlands in developing countries is lower than in developed countries. This can reflect findings that explain that the value of wetlands is influenced by the level of development of the country, showing a higher value in those countries with higher GDP [24]. On the other hand, in developing countries, the valuation of peri-urban wetlands in Cali presents values lower than those obtained by Ibarra et al. [45] in Mexico City for the urban wetland of Xochimilco. This can be explained by the fact that evidence has been found where urban wetlands have a higher value than rural wetlands. This is due to urban residents having higher incomes than rural inhabitants, in addition to having different preferences. Citizens with higher incomes are also more willing to pay to protect wetlands [40,41]. Furthermore, the valuation of urban wetlands in Cali presents values that are higher than Ibarra et al. [45]. This can be understood by the findings in the literature that show a negative relationship between wetland value per hectare and wetland area [24,44]. Notice that the wetland of Xochimilco in Mexico is larger than the urban wetlands of Cali. At the same time, the value of urban wetlands obtained by Liu et al. [17] is lower than our value of urban wetlands. This can be due to urban wetlands in New Jersey being larger than urban wetlands in Cali. Table 7. Valuation compared to other research. Authors Country Wetland ha * Method ** Year + USD/ha/yr ++ ES ◦ USD/ha/yr/ES ++ Costanza et al. [11] Global Generic 330,000,000 BT 1997 22,790 10 2279 New Jersey, Liu et al. [17] Urban 329,608 BT, GIS 2004 11,769 4 2942 NJ, USA Quebec, Canada: Rural and urban: Africa, North He et al. [52] Man-made, NA *** MRA, GIS 2014 22,208 ◦ ◦ 3 7403 America Asia, isolated, complex Europe Australia Developing Rural and urban: countries: Estuarine, riverine, Chaikumbung et al. [24] Asia, Africa, marine, artificial, NA*** MRA 2002 2829 ◦ ◦ 12 236 Latin America, lacustrine, marshy Pacific Islands among others Ibarra et al. [45] Mexico Urban 2614 RC, MP 2020 13,796 3 4599 This study Cali, Colombia Urban 33 BT, GIS 2020 72,825 11 6620 This study Cali Colombia Peri-Urban 217 BT, GIS 2020 28,773 11 2616 Note: * Hectares; ** BT: benefit transfer, GIS: geographical information system, MRA: meta-regression analysis, RC: replacement cost, MP: market prices; *** does not apply; + year of reported value; ++ international dollars. Year 2020; ◦ assessed ecosystem services; ◦ ◦ average per hectare value calculated from the meta-analysis database. However, the average value per ES in Cali is higher than Costanza et al. [11]. This can be attributed to the fact that this study performed worldwide valuations that do not report urban wetlands. Finally, the mean value of the studies analyzed by Chaikumbung et al. [24] includes rural and urban wetlands that mostly reflect valuations performed in Southeast Asian countries. They provide values that are very different from those obtained by Ibarra et al. [45] and the benefit transfer performed in Cali. Regarding our methodological approach, one of the applications of the GIS-supported benefit transfer method in scientific literature consists of the combination of a land cover layer with another that represents the geography, which can be connected with ES facili- tating their assessment [17]. In the context of our economic valuation, this methodology permits the analysis of physical and sociodemographic variables, such as the wetlands area and inhabitants around wetlands. As a result, we obtained the value of wetlands by zone, as well as per inhabitant. The first encourages policy makers to achieve policies for peri-urban wetlands (e.g., ecotourism), urban wetlands (e.g., appropriation of knowledge), and comunas of Cali (e.g., improvement of environmental culture). The second can be used Sustainability 2022, 14, 8302 14 of 19 as a starting point for payments of ecosystem services in the protection and conservation programs of wetlands. 4.2. Convergent Validity and Transfer Error The concept of convergent validity has been discussed in the literature in the context of the benefit transfer applied to ES assessment. Thus, validity refers to the degree to which a construct is adequately measured. In this case, the construct refers to the estimate derived from the original study site, which is a proxy for the true value [17]. There are two ways to determine whether the measurements are valid: compare the value transferred with the value of an original study site conducted in the study area and compare two transferred values to determine the variability of the valuations [15]. Since there is no primary valuation study for wetlands in Cali, the second alternative is chosen to identify the convergence between the valuation performed and the benefit transfer calculated from another study with similar characteristics to the research area. Validity is linked to the error generated during the process of benefit transfer in ES valuations. Plummer [53] identifies generalization error as the main source of errors in this methodology; there are uniformity error, sampling error, and regionalization error. The first occurs when it is assumed that the value of an ES is constant regardless of the land cover being analyzed. The second occurs with the bias in the selection of source studies (since the availability of these studies is sometimes very limited and there are few measurements). The third occurs when small study areas are taken as a reference, which may not be representative for extrapolation to a wider region [54]. Additionally, error measurement involves errors associated with the estimation of values of the source studies, which is linked to the methodology and quality of the study, and those inherent in the transfer process [17,55]. It is therefore necessary to ensure that the information is accurate and valid. Equation (4), proposed by Champ et al. [16], shows one way of measuring the accuracy of benefit transfer in which the error associated with benefit transfer is: VTi = VPj + σij (4) where VTi corresponds to the transferred value from study site i, VPj is the required value for policy site j, and σij is the transfer error. The error is calculated as the difference between the known value and the transferred value, measured in absolute percentage. In Equation (5), established by the same authors, the absolute error is:   %σij = VTi − VPj /VPj × 100 (5) As mentioned above, to identify the convergent validity of the benefit transfer of this research, two transferred values are compared to determine the variability of the valuations and the equations described are used to measure the transfer error. First, we selected the study by Ibarra et al. [45] conducted in Mexico City. They performed a monetary valuation of the Xochimilco urban wetland for three ES: waste treatment, climate regulation, and maintenance of the life cycles of migratory species. Second, we proceeded to perform benefit transfer based on the value of 13,796 USD/ha/year from Ibarra et al. [45]. Third, benefit transfer was carried out based on the estimates of ES values selected from our database for the three ES mentioned. Fourth, the variation between the two valuations was identified, finding an absolute error of 34% for peri-urban wetlands and 66% for urban wetlands. This is within the range of 4% to 191% found for wetlands by Morrison and Bennett [56]. Finally, it should be clarified that the uniformity error for this study is limited by taking value estimates from studies originating only from wetlands, so that ES values from other land cover are not involved. With regard to the sampling error, study selection bias has been declared because benefit transfer methodology requires obtaining studies with context characteristics similar to those in the policy site, which in this study are wetlands Sustainability 2022, 14, 8302 15 of 19 located in tropical zones in developing countries and continental areas. The regionalization error is dealt with by taking into account that the source studies include inland wetlands at a local level, but with a larger extension than the Cali wetlands. Therefore, it is expected that characteristics of small contexts will not be reflected in the value of the wetlands of the city. On the other hand, the error of the source studies is reduced because we worked with an ESVD database that has a peer review process, as well as published papers. 4.3. Economic Valuation and Governance The economic valuation and governance system in Cali can be interpreted through the frameworks for integrated assessment and valuation of ecosystem services [57] and social- ecological systems [58]. The first framework takes into account ES that provide benefits to society (e.g., wetlands offer ES to Cali), as well as actors who assign economic, sociocultural, and ecological values to the ES. The second considers unit resources (e.g., a wetland), system resources (e.g., urban wetlands), governance systems, and actors. All of these interact with action situations that produce social and ecological outcomes (e.g., sustainable development and conservation policies of wetlands). The above indicates that in the case of Cali, economic valuation is an input that interacts with actors and the governance system. As a result of these interactions, decision making is carried out to produce outcomes such as policies. To illustrate, because of the highest valuation of existence and legacy value and maintenance of the life cycles of migratory species, decision makers could enhance conservation policies, ecotourism, and the environmental culture in the city. Tabares-Mosquera et al. [19] confirms that these ES are relevant to the city. Therefore, there is a need for policies that are focused on these issues. Kabil et al. [59] propose policies to enhance ecotourism and environmental education in protected areas through economic valuation, as a policy to support local, regional, and national economies. The wetlands of Cali are also considered as areas of conservation and environmental protection. These policies could thus stimulate economic activities in the city. Addressing the subject of weak governance in Cali, the centralized government has to move toward governance that is more inclusive and well-informed. On one hand, decision makers must encourage collective actions where inhabitants’ points of view are taken in wetland management policies. On the other hand, policy makers should pay special attention to the provisions of the land-use planning, since approving changes in land use with misinformation could be detrimental to wetlands. For the abovementioned reasons, findings of this research can be applied to urban wetlands from developing countries (e.g., Latin America). By encouraging wetland protec- tion and restoration programs, local authorities could develop green infrastructure projects to compensate for areas where wetlands are absent or scarce. Likewise, by promoting greater community participation, social appropriation of the benefits of wetlands could be encouraged. As a result, these policies would foster environmental culture among city residents. 5. Conclusions Using benefit transfer and supported by data provided by GIS, this study carried out a total valuation of 61 urban wetlands and 175 peri-urban wetlands in Cali, covering an area of 250 ha. The wetlands are part of the environmental influence area that provides ES to the city, benefiting the population, businesses, and institutions. The total annual value of wetlands in Cali is estimated as USD 8,643,583. Seventy-six percent of the total value of the wetlands is provided by the ES for existence and legacy value, maintenance of the life cycles of migratory species, and water supply. The per capita value of wetlands depends on the distribution of the population in the comunas and corregimientos of the city. The economic valuation is an approximate estimate that provides information on the benefits of wetlands, thus being a better alternative to not recognizing any value of these ecosystems. An exploratory analysis of governance suggests the need for a regulatory framework that Sustainability 2022, 14, 8302 16 of 19 aims at wetland protection, and which includes noncompliance with regulations, dispute settlement, and legal recognition of users. The results of this research have theoretical, methodological, and public policy impli- cations. The theoretical implications have to do with the identification and valuation of positive externalities provided by wetlands, which benefit society without users paying for them. The methodological implications refer to the constructive replication of the GIS-supported benefit transfer method to perform an economic valuation of wetlands. This is not an end in itself, since it requires developing and applying integral valuation methodologies that make it possible to understand their monetary and nonmonetary di- mensions. The implications in terms of public policies are directed at the need to design dynamic institutions that allow for better coordination between environmental regulations, the land-use plan, and the social-ecological system of the city. This requires governance built on an understanding of the benefits provided by wetlands that places the needs of all users before particular short-run interests. For example, despite the national and regional legal framework that has guidelines related to the sustainable management of wetlands in the urban expansion zone, 27 wetlands are being pressured by housing projects. That is because the land-use plan has allowed construction projects in this area. Regarding the limitations of this work, the economic valuation should be interpreted with caution, owing to the small number of studies found with similar characteristics to those of Cali (of which there are only two in Latin America). Selection bias is declared because the sample of source studies is not chosen randomly. Additionally, the assessment of the wetland area does not include the hydrological complex of rivers and streams that feed them, which is due to data limitations. Last, it should be clarified that governance analysis is exploratory, and it requires confirmatory empirical studies that could emerge as lines of research derived from this work. This research is positioned as a starting point for urban wetland valuation studies in Colombia, as well as in Latin America. Research into valuations of the loss of ES is needed. An empirical analysis of the differences between urban and rural wetlands, in terms of user preferences and benefits is also necessary. Finally, it is necessary to continue research on the valuations of urban wetlands in developing countries to generate contributions to the development of their governance systems. Author Contributions: Conceptualization, L.D.-P., L.S. and F.T.; formal analysis, L.D.-P.; investiga- tion, L.D.-P.; methodology, L.D.-P., L.S. and F.T.; supervision, L.S. and F.T.; writing—original draft, L.D.-P.; writing—review and editing, L.S. and F.T. All authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. Funding: This research received no external funding. Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable. Data Availability Statement: Data are available from the corresponding authors upon reasonable request. Acknowledgments: We would like to thank Mónica Patricia Londoño, Ana María Valencia, and Andrés Felipe Zamudio from DAGMA for providing the maps of the wetlands of the city. We thank Emmanuel Zapata from the Universidad de Valle for providing the maps of the area of environmental influence of Cali, ecological structures, and nonmonetary valuation findings. We also thank Jhon Jairo Alvarado for his support in GIS and R programming language. Last, we thank Michael Williams and Roger Simpson for their support in translation and English-language editing services. Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest. Sustainability 2022, 14, 8302 17 of 19 References 1. Ramsar. Perspectiva Mundial Sobre los Humedales, Conveción Ramsar Sobre los Humed. 2018. p. 88. Available online: https://www.ramsar.org/sites/default/files/documents/library/gwo_s.pdf (accessed on 24 June 2021). 2. Ricaurte, L.F.; Olaya-Rodríguez, M.H.; Cepeda-Valencia, J.; Lara, D.; Arroyave-Suárez, J.; Finlayson, C.M.; Palomo, I. Future impacts of drivers of change on wetland ecosystem services in Colombia. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2017, 44, 158–169. [CrossRef] 3. Ramsar. Technical Session/Séance Technique/Sesión Técnica, 10. 1996. Available online: https://www.ramsar.org/search? searchapiviewsfulltext=Summary+Report+of+Technical+Session+B (accessed on 18 January 2021). 4. DAGMA. Actualización de Inventario de Humedales Urbanos de Santiago de Cali y Lineamientos para su Conservación en Predios Privados. DAGMA. 2018. Available online: https://www.cali.gov.co/dagma/publicaciones/138055/humedales-de- santiago-de-cali/ (accessed on 23 January 2021). 5. MEA. Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Wetlands and Water. World Resources Institute. 2005. Available online: https: //millenniumassessment.org/en/ (accessed on 23 January 2021). 6. Wang, C.; Wang, Y.; Wang, R.; Zheng, P. Modeling and evaluating land-use/land-cover change for urban planning and sustainability: A case study of Dongying city, China. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 172, 1529–1534. [CrossRef] 7. Filho, W.L.; Barbir, J.; Sima, M.; Kalbus, A.; Nagy, G.J.; Paletta, A.; Villamizar, A.; Martinez, R.; Azeiteiro, U.M.; Pereira, M.J.; et al. Reviewing the role of ecosystems services in the sustainability of the urban environment: A multi-country analysis. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 262, 121338. [CrossRef] 8. Hu, S.; Niu, Z.; Chen, Y.; Li, L.; Zhang, H. Global wetlands: Potential distribution, wetland loss, and status. Sci. Total Environ. 2017, 586, 319–327. [CrossRef] 9. Sierra, L.; Marin, W.; Castro, L.; Hernández-Manrique, O. Economic Valuation of Benefits in Freshwater Ecosystems: Complex Wetlands System Belonging to the San Juan River in the Magdalena Medio Region, Colombia. Sustainability 2021, 13, 5374. [CrossRef] 10. Haase, D.; Larondelle, N.; Andersson, E.; Artmann, M.; Borgström, S.; Breuste, J.; Gomez-Baggethun, E.; Gren, Å.; Hamstead, Z.; Hansen, R.; et al. A Quantitative Review of Urban Ecosystem Service Assessments: Concepts, Models, and Implementation. Ambio 2014, 43, 413–433. [CrossRef] 11. Costanza, R.; d’Arge, R.; de Groot, R.; Farber, S.; Grasso, M.; Hannon, B.; Limburg, K.; Naeem, S.; O’Neill, R.V.; Paruelo, J.; et al. The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 1997, 387, 253–260. [CrossRef] 12. Heal, G.M. The Economic Case for Protecting Biodiversity; National Bureau of Economic Research: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2020. 13. Ostrom, E. Beyond Markets and States: Polycentric Governance of Complex Economic Systems. Am. Econ. Rev. 2010, 100, 641–672. [CrossRef] 14. Anderies, J.M.; Janssen, M.A.; Ostrom, E. A Framework to Analyze the Robustness of Social-ecological Systems from an Institutional Perspective. Ecol. Soc. 2004, 9, 18. Available online: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss1/art18/ (accessed on 2 May 2021). [CrossRef] 15. Rosenberger, R.S.; Loomis, J.B. Using meta-analysis for benefit transfer: In-sample convergent validity tests of an outdoor recreation database. Water Resour. Res. 2000, 36, 1097–1107. [CrossRef] 16. Champ, P.A.; Boyle, K.J.; Brown, T.C. A Primer on Nonmarket Valuation, 1st ed.; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2003. 17. Liu, S.; Costanza, R.; Troy, A.; D’Aagostino, J.; Mates, W. Valuing New Jersey’s Ecosystem Services and Natural Capital: A Spatially Explicit Benefit Transfer Approach. Environ. Manag. 2010, 45, 1271–1285. [CrossRef] 18. Dupras, J.; Alam, M.; Réveret, J.-P. Economic value of Greater Montreal’s non-market ecosystem services in a land use management and planning perspective. Can. Geogr./Le Géographe Can. 2015, 59, 93–106. [CrossRef] 19. Tabares-Mosquera, M.; Zapata-Caldas, E.; Buitrago-Bermudez, O. Valuation of Ecosystem Services for the Identification of Metropolitan Ecological Structures: The Case of Cali, Colombia. Cuad. Investig. Geográfica 2020, 46, 603–631. [CrossRef] 20. De Groot, R.; Brander, L.; Solomonides, S. Ecosystem Services Valuation Database (ESVD) Version June 2020, Defra, UK. 2020. Available online: www.es-partnership.org/esvd (accessed on 2 February 2021). 21. TEEB. Integrating the Ecological and Economic Dimensions in Biodiversity and Ecosystem Service Valuation, TEEB. 2010. Available online: http://teebweb.org/publications/teeb-for/research-and-academia/ (accessed on 8 February 2021). 22. Haines-Young, R.; Potschin-Young, M. Revision of the common international classification for ecosystem services (CICES Version 5.1): A policy brief. One Ecosyst. 2018, 3, e27108. [CrossRef] 23. Dayathilake, D.D.T.L.; Lokupitiya, E.; Wijeratne, V.P.I.S. Estimation of aboveground and belowground carbon stocks in urban freshwater wetlands of Sri Lanka. Carbon Balance Manag. 2020, 15, 17. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 24. Chaikumbung, M.; Doucouliagos, H.; Scarborough, H. The economic value of wetlands in developing countries: A meta- regression analysis. Ecol. Econ. 2016, 124, 164–174. [CrossRef] 25. DAP. Datos de Cali y el Valle del Cauca. 2017. Available online: https://www.cali.gov.co/gobierno/publicaciones/227/ datosdecaliyelvalledelcauca/ (accessed on 30 August 2020). 26. Palacio, R.D.; Vidal-Astudillo, V.; Cárdenas, G.; Luna-Solarte, J. Aves del municipio de Santiago de Cali, Valle del Cauca, Colombia. Biota Colomb. 2018, 18, 229–239. [CrossRef] 27. DAP. Cali en Cifras 2018–2019, DAP. 2019. Available online: https://www.cali.gov.co/planeacion/publicaciones/138164/cali-en- cifras/ (accessed on 28 October 2020). Sustainability 2022, 14, 8302 18 of 19 28. DAP. Cali en Cifras 2020. DAP. 2020. Available online: http://www.cali.gov.co/planeacion/publicaciones/137803/documentos- de-cali-en-cifras/ (accessed on 10 March 2021). 29. Camps-Calvet, M.; Langemeyer, J.; Calvet-Mir, L.; Gómez-Baggethun, E. Ecosystem services provided by urban gardens in Barcelona, Spain: Insights for policy and planning. Environ. Sci. Policy 2016, 62, 14–23. [CrossRef] 30. WWT Consulting. Good Practices Handbook for Integrating Urban Development and Wetland Conservation. 2018, p. 50. Avail- able online: https://www.wwtconsulting.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Good-practices-urban-wetlands-handbook- 181004-FOR-WEBSITE.pdf (accessed on 12 May 2022). 31. CEPAL. Statistical Yearbook for Latin America and the Caribbean. 2021. Available online: https://repositorio.cepal.org/handle/ 11362/47827 (accessed on 12 May 2022). 32. Haines-Young, R.; Potschin, M. Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services CICES, Version 4.3., EEA. 2013. Available online: https://cices.eu/resources/ (accessed on 9 December 2020). 33. Campos, F.S.; David, J.; Lourenço-De-Moraes, R.; Rodrigues, P.; Silva, B.; da Silva, C.V.; Cabral, P. The economic and ecological benefits of saving ecosystems to protect services. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 311, 127551. [CrossRef] 34. Zhou, L.; Guan, D.; Huang, X.; Yuan, X.; Zhang, M. Evaluation of the cultural ecosystem services of wetland park. Ecol. Indic. 2020, 114, 122988. [CrossRef] 35. Wilson, M.A.; Hoehn, J.P. Valuing environmental goods and services using benefit transfer: The state-of-the art and science. Ecol. Econ. 2006, 60, 335–342. [CrossRef] 36. Dupras, J.; Alam, M. Urban Sprawl and Ecosystem Services: A Half Century Perspective in the Montreal Area (Quebec, Canada). J. Environ. Policy Plan. 2015, 17, 180–200. [CrossRef] 37. Sención, G.J. Evaluación Económica de Humedales: Estudio de Caso de Humedales de Petexbatun-Petén, Guatemala. Universidad de la República. 2002. Available online: https://www.colibri.udelar.edu.uy/jspui/ (accessed on 30 March 2021). 38. POT. Acuerdo N◦ 0373 de 2014 Por Medio del Cual se Adopta la Revisión Ordinaria de Contenido de Largo Plazo del Plan de Ordenamiento Territorial del Municipio de Santiago de Cali. Consejo Santiago de Cali. 2014. Available online: https: //www.cali.gov.co/planeacion/publicaciones/106497/pot_2014_idesc/ (accessed on 21 April 2021). 39. Nagendra, H.; Ostrom, E. Applying the social-ecological system framework to the diagnosis of urban lake commons in Bangalore, India. Ecol. Soc. 2014, 19, 67. [CrossRef] 40. Mombo, F.; Lusambo, L.; Speelman, S.; Buysse, J.; Munishi, P.; Van Huylenbroeck, G. Scope for introducing payments for ecosystem services as a strategy to reduce deforestation in the Kilombero wetlands catchment area. For. Policy Econ. 2014, 38, 81–89. [CrossRef] 41. Hassan, S.; Olsen, S.B.; Thorsen, B.J. Urban-rural divides in preferences for wetland conservation in Malaysia. Land Use Policy 2019, 84, 226–237. [CrossRef] 42. D’Souza, R.; Nagendra, H. Changes in Public Commons as a Consequence of Urbanization: The Agara Lake in Bangalore, India. Environ. Manag. 2011, 47, 840–850. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 43. Garnett, N.S. Managing the Urban Commons. Univ. PA. Law Rev. 2012, 160, 1995–2027. [CrossRef] 44. Woodward, R.T.; Wui, Y.-S. The economic value of wetland services: A meta-analysis. Ecol. Econ. 2001, 37, 257–270. [CrossRef] 45. Ibarra, A.A.; Zambrano, L.; Valiente, E.L.; Ramos-Bueno, A. Enhancing the potential value of environmental services in urban wetlands: An agro-ecosystem approach. Cities 2013, 31, 438–443. [CrossRef] 46. CVC. Plan de Manejo Ambiental Laguna de Charco Azul, CVC. 2010. Available online: https://www.cali.gov.co/dagma/ publicaciones/138913/humedal-charco-azul-cali/ (accessed on 11 May 2021). 47. CVC. Plan de Manejo Ambiental del Humedal El Pondaje, CVC. 2017. Available online: https://www.cali.gov.co/documentos/ 1738/charco-azul/ (accessed on 6 April 2021). 48. CVC. Plan de Manejo Ambiental Humedal Navarro, Municipio De Santiago de Cali, CVC. 2006. Available online: https: //ecopedia.cvc.gov.co (accessed on 9 March 2021). 49. The Nature Conservancy; Fundación Alma; Fundación Humedales; AUNAP. Estado de las Planicies Inundables y el Recurso Pesquero en la Macrocuenca y Propuesta para su Manejo Integrado; The Nature Conservancy: Arlington County, VA, USA, 2016; ISBN 978-958-8575-82-7. 50. DAGMA. Plan de Manejo Ambiental Humedal La Babilla—Zanjón del Burro, DAGMA. 2012. Available online: https://www. cali.gov.co/dagma/publicaciones/138918/humedal-la-babilla-cali/ (accessed on 7 April 2021). 51. DAGMA. Plan de Manejo Ambiental Humedal Panamericano, DAGMA. 2012. Available online: https://www.cali.gov.co/ dagma/publicaciones/138921/lago-panamericano/ (accessed on 7 April 2021). 52. He, J.; Moffette, F.; Fournier, R.; Revéret, J.-P.; Théau, J.; Dupras, J.; Boyer, J.-P.; Varin, M. Meta-analysis for the transfer of economic benefits of ecosystem services provided by wetlands within two watersheds in Quebec, Canada. Wetl. Ecol. Manag. 2015, 23, 707–725. [CrossRef] 53. Plummer, M.L. Assessing benefit transfer for the valuation of ecosystem services. Front. Ecol. Environ. 2009, 7, 38–45. [CrossRef] 54. Eigenbrod, F.; Armsworth, P.R.; Anderson, B.J.; Heinemeyer, A.; Gillings, S.; Roy, D.B.; Thomas, C.D.; Gaston, K.J. Error propagation associated with benefits transfer-based mapping of ecosystem services. Biol. Conserv. 2010, 143, 2487–2493. [CrossRef] Sustainability 2022, 14, 8302 19 of 19 55. Brouwer, R.; Langford, I.H.; Bateman, I.J.; Crowards, T.C.; Turner, R.K. A meta-analysis of wetland contingent valuation studies. Reg. Environ. Chang. 1999, 1, 1. Available online: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s101130050007 (accessed on 12 September 2020). [CrossRef] 56. Morrison, M.; Bennett, J. Choice Modelling, Non-Use Values and Benefit Transfer. Econ. Anal. Policy 2000, 30, 13–32. [CrossRef] 57. De Groot, R.S.; Wilson, M.A.; Boumans, R.M.J. A typology for the classification, description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services. Ecol. Econ. 2002, 41, 393–408. [CrossRef] 58. Mcginnis, M.D.; Ostrom, E. Social-ecological system framework: Initial changes and continuing. Ecol. Soc. 2014, 19, 2. [CrossRef] 59. Kabil, M.; Alayan, R.; Lakner, Z.; Dávid, L.D. Enhancing Regional Tourism Development in the Protected Areas Using the Total Economic Value Approach. Forests 2022, 13, 727. [CrossRef]