22
Presented by: Keith Lawrence, CI Study leads: Stefanie O’Gorman & Camille Bann, Jacobs UK Ltd. A Valuation of England’s Terrestrial Ecosystem Services
Presented by:Keith Lawrence, CI
Study leads: Stefanie O’Gorman &
Camille Bann, Jacobs UK Ltd.
A Valuation of England’s
Terrestrial Ecosystem
Services
Presentation Outline
BackgroundKey issues consideredThe value of England’s Terrestrial ESRecommendations
BackgroundKey issues consideredThe value of England’s Terrestrial ESRecommendations
Jacobs, for UK government (Defra)2008
‘Ecosystems Approach project’:
holistic approach to policy-makingfully reflect value of ecosystem services in decision-makingrespect environmental limits
Study Aims
1. Estimate ‘total’ annual value of England's terrestrial ecosystem services
2. Investigate existing evidence base, valuation methodologies & limitations
Broad, ambitious scopeA journey, not an end point
Key Issues: Prioritization
Academic panel:Prof. Kerry Turner, UEAProf. Dave Rafaelli, University of YorkProf. Ken Willis, University of NewcastleClient Board
Workshop
13Typology of values7Temporal considerations
13Existing and future pressures, identification & consideration
4Interactions with other habitats and ecosystems
12The counterfactual4Variation of values by location
9Extent/ availability/ scarcity of services or habitats4Variables affecting values
9Other types of value3Double counting
9Uncertainty2Multi-functional nature of habitats
8Cultural services & landscape1Scale of services & benefits
RankIssueRankIssue
Key Issues
Why do a total valuation?(Specific policies need marginal valuations)
Advocacy National accounting
Compare natural capital to produced capitalPrioritizing locations / services / habitatsTime series
Conceptually & practically harder
Key Issues
The counterfactual: What does ‘no ecosystems’ mean?
Strong sustainability argument infinite value
Assumed basics of life remain:O2
Fresh drinking water Sufficient foodComfortable climate
Key IssuesA ‘service based’ rather than a ‘habitats’ approach
Each service valued at an appropriate scaleConsider value of the system, not of a given habitat
Key Issues
Gaps in understanding biophysical mechanisms that result in ES
e.g. role of forests in water provision
Data gaps
What is the service?What is the service?
The role of ecosystems inproviding the service
The role of ecosystems inproviding the service
How people benefitHow people benefit
Monetised benefitMonetised benefit
Key Issues
Aggregation & disaggregationFrom region to nation & v.v.Summing different servicesFrom marginal source studies to total value estimates
A typology of ecosystem services & benefits
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment categoriesMaps ES against final benefits to societyHelps avoid double counting e.g. health Records valuation methods, data sources, what’s valued & what isn’tClear, consistent terminology
Consumer surplus
Economic incomeLower flood
damages
Economic income from agriculture
Provisioning Regulating Cultural
Food
Fibre & Fuel
Medicine
Climate
Erosion
Natural hazard regulation
Air quality regulation
Water regulation
Water / waste purification
Recreation Opportunities
Knowledge systems
Goods with Social Use
Values
Goods with Non-use Values
Benefits
The value of England’s Terrestrial ES
Annual benefitsIllustrative, lower bound estimates Supporting Services not valued
they are ‘intermediate’ rather than ‘final’ benefits their value may be considered infinite?
Provisioning Services
Market Value (MV) of goods sold: £10.2 billion p.a. Gross Valued Added (GVA) generated: £4.2 billion p.a.>80% of this is Agricultural Food production Used central statistics
Regulating Services
Damage Cost AvoidedCarbon sequestration £1.0 billion p.a.
Valued using UK government guidelines on Shadow Price of Carbon
Flood control & storm buffering £1.2 billion p.a.Wetlands onlyBenefits transfer
Case study on air quality regulationGap for water provision / quality
Cultural ServicesRecreation:
Participant expenditure: £5.4 billion p.a. … generating £2.0 billion economic income p.a.+ £266 million consumer surplus p.a.Used central statistics & one-off studies
Non-use value:Lower bound, based on an illustrative sourceBateman & Langford (1997): Mean WTP to preserve the Broads National Park = £18.38 p.a. per individualAt least £399 million p.a.
Summary of annual values
ProvisioningGVA
£4,211M RegulatingDamages avoided
£2,250M
RecreationEconomic Income
£1,951M Non-useCS
£399M
CS£266M
ResearchSocial Use
Recommendations1. Focus should be on
marginal valuations, both to inform policy & for advocacy
2. Research into how (and at what scales) benefits are generated
Recommendations3. Develop a benefits
transfer strategy4. Design primary valuations
with benefit transfer requirements in mind
5. Employ standards on MV & GVA that fit ecosystems approach
… And finallyLots of issues with total valuations
A serious underestimate of infinity?Some categories easier than othersDifferent conceptual frameworks for different valuationsData gapsCan generate results that illustrate where values stem fromNon monetized metrics also interesting
