Factors Influencing Economic Value of Ecosystem Services (ES): a Comparison Between Mediterranean Wetlands and Forests

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "Factors Influencing Economic Value of Ecosystem Services (ES): a Comparison Between Mediterranean Wetlands and Forests"

Lucas Rogers
5 years ago
Views:

Ecological Systems Laboratory Department

1 Factors Influencing Economic Value of Ecosystem Services (ES): a Comparison Between Mediterranean Wetlands and Forests Elisa Oteros-Rozas, Berta Martín-López, José A. González, Carlos Montes Social Ecological Systems Laboratory Department of Ecology Universidad Autónoma de Madrid Naples, Florida, USA, December 8-11, 2008

2 Overview 1. Introduction: Why the Mediterranean? ES in the Mediterranean basin 2. Objectives 3. Methods - data collection - data analysis 4. Results 5. Conclusions and final insights 2

3 1. Introduction: Why the Mediterranean? Source: IUCN,

4 1. Introduction Mediterranean Ecosystems deliver a wide range of Ecosystem Services REGULATING Economic valuation Decision-making process CULTURAL PROVISIONING 4

5 2. Objectives General: to identify and compare methodological and ecological factors influencing the economic value (EV) of ecosystem services in Mediterranean wetlands and forests. Specific: 1.Identify gaps in the existing body of economic valuation studies in Mediterranean wetlands and forests 2. Study the influence on economic value of the following factors: I. Ecosystem type II. Ecosystem services III. Type of value IV. Valuation methods V. Study characteristics WETLANDS PROVISIONING TYPE OF COST-BASED PUBBLICATION vs. FOREST DIRECT USE MARKET REGULATING COUNTRY INDIRECT PRICE USE CULTURAL NON COUNTRY S USE TRAVEL GDP COST 2007 CONTINGENT AREA SURFACE VALUATION 5

3. Methods: data collection - Data bases: - ISI Web Of Knowledge 435 (www.isiknowledge.

Wetlands PEER-REVIEWED - Fao Forestry Department AND - Nature Valuation and Financing GREY (URL:

6 3. Methods: data collection - Data bases: - ISI Web Of Knowledge 435 ( OBSERVATIONS - Google and Google Scholar - Mediterranean Initiative of the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands PEER-REVIEWED - Fao Forestry Department AND - Nature Valuation and Financing GREY (URL: LITERATURE - Biodiversity Hot-Spots - Main specific journals - Libraries - Author contact 98 VALUATION STUDIES 6

7 3. Methods: data analysis THE META-ANALYSIS Variables about the study HIERARCHICAL CLUSTERING Variables with significantly different EV PRINCIPAL COMPONENTS ANALYSIS (PCA) PCA factors + cluster groups + continous variables EV MULTIVARIANT REGRESSION Cluster Groups Factors Model 7

8 4. Results: descriptive Geographic Temporal ES and evolution location ecosystem of studies publications types 8

4. Results: hierarchical clustering Cluster groups

only Cultural N= 9 - Lower and more diverse GDP - ES:

9 4. Results: hierarchical clustering Cluster groups obtained reflect differences in socioeconomic factors and geografic origin of the studies. - Higher GDP - ES: Cultural N= 55 - Higher GDP - ES: only Cultural N= 9 - Lower and more diverse GDP - ES: Provisioning and Regulating N= 33 * Bray and Curtis distance, Ward method 9

10 4. Results: EV and Ecosystem Type EV per person Wetlands receive higher monetary outputs than forests both per person and per hectare. EV per hectare p-value < 0,0001 p-value < 0,0001 Number of observations

11 4. Results: EV and Valuation Methods EV per person There are significant differences on the EV depending on the valuation method used. EV per hectare COST- BASED MARKE T PRICE STATED PREFERENCE TRAVEL COST COST- BASED MARKET PRICE STATED PREFERENCE TRAVEL COST Number of observations P-value < 0,0001 P-value < 0,

12 4. Results: EV and Type of Value EV per person Economic outputs assigned to ES do not differ between Use and Non-use values. EV per hectare P-value=0,160 P-value=0,003 Number of observations

13 4. Results: GDP and EV by cluster groups y = 0,547x - 3,1324R² = 0,1303 EV per person Results from economic valuation are strongly and positively correlated with the country s s GDP. EV per hectare y = 7,5944x - 13,503R² = 0,1076 P-value < 0,0001 P-value < 0,0001 Spearman correlation coefficient = 0,250 Spearman correlation coefficient = 0,259 13

4. Results: Principal Components Analysis wetlands,

282 clearly related to observations stated preference and

Lower EV are clearly related to forests, bigger areas,

14 4. Results: Principal Components Analysis wetlands, cultural ES, groups 1 and 2, EV per person Higher EV are 282 clearly related to observations stated preference and travel costs valuation mtehods. Lower EV are clearly related to forests, bigger areas, provisioning and more ES, group 3, market prices valuation method and scientific purposes. 14

15 4. Results: Principal Components Analysis person, while second axis show EV per hectare First axis is very similar to EV per opposite tendencies of provisioning and regulating ES. 15

16 4. Results: Multivariant Regression ONLY TWO STRICTLY ECOLOGICAL! EV per person Best model: 5 variables, All positive except FOREST! F2 (13,11%) ES Provisioning & Regulating F1 (44,22%) R 2 =0,253 R 2 adjusted=0,226 16

17 4. Results: Multivariant Regression EV per hectare Best model: 6 variables, SURFACE and PROVISIONING pull NEGATIVELY! ES Regulating ES Provisioning R 2 =0,392 R 2 adjusted=0,382 17

18 4. Conclusions 1. EV is influenced by different factors, some of which have no ecological meaning and can therefore lead to a missuderstanding of the real importance and value of ES in the Mediterranean. 2. Economic valuation in Mediterranean wetlands and forests, specially in wetlands of the northern countries of the basin, is being currently captured by cultural services due to recreation activities. 3. Economic valuation is leaving behind important gaps in the research on ES in the Mediterranean. 4. There are important differences between the two ecosystem types studied: Wetlands receive more attention in northern countries because of their associations with cultural ES. Forests, as clear providers of more provisioning and regulating services (specially carbon sequestration) receive lower economic values. 5. Working with EV per person or EV per hectare can lead to different final conclusions. 18

19 4. Final insights 1. Economic valuation can be used as a powerful tool to review standard accounting systems. However ongoing trends point toward its increased absorption by market strategies, through which ES are commodified: we should be cautious when designing and implementing future research in ES. 2. A conceptual framework for the ES valuation approach is needed if it is supposed to help in decission-making processes. 3. Benefit transfer practices are rapidily becoming the final aim of ES economic valuation so we should be very careful and pay attention to intrinsic biases and ecological contradictions. 19

THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION! Social Ecological Systems Laboratory http://www.uam.

20 THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION! Social Ecological Systems Laboratory Department of Ecology Universidad Autónoma de Madrid Elisa Oteros-Rozas Berta Martín-López José A. González Carlos Montes 20

Socio-economic valuation of ecosystem services: Spanish National Ecosystem Assessment

Socio-economic valuation of ecosystem services: Spanish National Ecosystem Assessment Natural Capital Summit Madrid 5 October, 2016 Fernando Santos-Martin, Marina García-Llorente, Pedro Zorrilla, Cristina