Space and scale issues in valuation of ecosystem services of peatlands

in the UK

Marije Schaafsma

CSERGE, UK

VNN – 18-19 Jan 2012

Monetary valuation

• WHAT does the ecosystem provide?

• WHERE do these ES flow to?

• By HOW MUCH does this provision CHANGE if the ecosystem changes?

• WHO are the main beneficiaries? WHERE are they located?

• HOW MUCH do they benefit from the ecosystem services?

What does the ecosystem provide? Ecosystem services of peatlands Scale of benefits Valuation method

Carbon sequestration / regulation Global Market/cost-based

Biodiversity, landscape Regional - Global Stated Preference

Water (supply / quality regulation) Regional Stated Preference, cost -based

Recreation (walking, wildlife watching) Local – Regional Travel cost

Pasture/Agricultural land Local - Regional Market prices

Raw material (peat) Local – Regional? Market prices

Game, materials (reed, timber) Local Market prices

?

?

See Wichmann et al (in press, CUP)

1. Quantification of the physical flows of these services is required for valuation

2. Development options: consider the opportunity costs of conservation

Marginal valuation: change in ES provision

• Economic valuation: – Market (financial) and non-market

benefits

• Scenario: BAU => Alternative future • Change in ES provision (flow) => utility

(welfare) change (Turner et al. 2010)

– Marginal change: relatively small change, no large-scale state change (matter of scale)

– Not near thresholds – Avoid double counting in total value

estimation

Example: Carbon valuation

• Annual value depends on annual change in carbon stock – annual storage increase (+) or peatland

conversion (-), sequestration (+), product emissions (-) and peatland degradation (-)

• Do not value total stock; only (avoided) changes in flow – BAU: risk of conversion?

• Several price indices: – Market prices (EU) – DECC rates (abatement costs) – Social cost of carbon (Tol, etc)

• £/tC does not vary across space, but costs and co-benefits of carbon-related projects may

WHERE are the benefits?

Peatland values vary widely – context dependent

•Spatial information needed for human and biophysical aspects

•Where do the services flow to?

•Where are the beneficiaries?

•How do individual values vary across space?

Fisher et al. (2011)

WTP

Spatial aspects of valuation

(1) Value mapping: at location of provision (ecosystem) or at location of beneficiary?

(2) Spatial heterogeneity in overall values:

differences • between different peatland ES • between beneficiaries

– Distance decay – Substitution (scarcity) – Overall scale of ES

Distance decay and directionality

Distance-decay

• Uni-directional

• Multi-directional (Martin-Ortega et al

2010, Schaafsma et al 2010)

Directionality

• “Spatial markets” of services may differ

Aggregated values of peatland ES

Depend on: Type of ecosystem service Magnitude of ecosystem service (incl. flow) Population characteristics (income, culture, ...) Population distribution Ecosystem characteristics (location, size, ...) Ecosystem availability (accessibility, substitutes) Interactions between ecosystem and

population

All these variables may show spatial heterogeneity!

Required: spatial data/ maps for many variables

Scale issues

• Different actors at different scales: – Optimising local benefits may not be

globally optimal – Carbon vs Water

• biophysical boundaries vs Economic markets vs policy jurisdictions – Cross-boundary (political)

collaboration • Directionality

– Examples from international riverbasin cooperation

Peatland valuation in NEA (1)

• Benefit transfer: use values from (multiple) study sites to value larger policy site (UK) – Reliability of transfer depends on

• Comparability of the good under valuation • Comparability of the sites and populations

– potential of site to provide ES depends on location (e.g. flood risk)

• Soundness of original valuation study

– Required reliability depends on scale of analysis/policy: • benefit transfer sufficient or local/site-specific values

required?

• There are very few primary valuation studies about peatlands

Peatland valuation in NEA (2) No specific peatland values – MMH?

Carbon

• Soil carbon values were based land use model / land conversion

• Distinction between peat and non-peat soils

• Fixed estimates for England, Wales, and Scotland & carbon pools

Cultural heritage values, recreation: not specific to peatlands

• but applicable to more general upland studies. Probably heterogeneous.

• Recreation models based on English data

Water quality:

• Benefits from avoided costs of treatment around £5 million over 10 years (n=1) , but coloration, etc. (Julia)

Biodiversity non-use values: Brander et al. wetlands meta-analysis

• Original studies from Italy, the Netherlands, Sweden, UK (1, 1991):

• peatlands have lowest value of all wetland types, no carbon values.

References

• Brander et al. (2012) Scaling up ecosystem services values: methodology, applicability, and a case study, ERE

• Fisher et al. (2009) Defining and classifying ecosystem services for decision making. Ecological Economics 68: 643–653

• Fisher et al. (2011) Measuring, modeling and mapping ecosystem services in the Eastern Arc Mountains of Tanzania. Progress in Physical Geography 2011 35: 595

• Martin-Ortega et al (2010) • Schaafsma (2010) Spatial effects in Stated Preference Studies for

Environmental Valuation, PhD VU University Amsterdam. • Tinch et al. 2010 • Turner et al. (2010) Ecosystem valuation: A sequential decision

support system and quality assessment issues, ANYAS 1185: 79–101 • Wichmann et al (in press) Valuing peatland ecosystem services. CUP