Valuing nature s benefits for humans

Valuing nature s benefits for humans Vision

Nature s Value and Nature s Benefits receive the highest average scores. (Ranked by 7 very appealing; On a scale from 1-7 where 1 is not at all appealing and 7 is very appealing ) Nature s Value Earth s Benefits Nature s Benefits Environmental Value Environmental Wealth Natural Life-Support Nature s Health and Safety Systems The Planet s Assets 61% 55% 53% 49% 45% 44% 46% 45% Average Score 5.5 5.2 5.3 5.2 4.9 4.9 4.9 5.0 11. Here are some phrases people might use to describe the idea of calculating the dollar value of the benefits provided by conserving natural resources, including land and water, in their natural state. After you hear each phrase, please rate how appealing it sounds to you on a scale of one to seven, where one means NOT AT ALL APPEALING and seven means VERY APPEALING. A rating of 4 is NEUTRAL. Split Sample

Continued Environmental Goods Ecological Wealth Nature s Social Safety Net Natural Infrastructure The Planet s Products and Services Ecosystem Services Earth s Capital Natural Capital 44% 42% 34% 32% 34% 31% 29% 30% Average Score 4.9 4.8 4.4 4.6 4.6 4.5 4.2 4.3 11. Here are some phrases people might use to describe the idea of calculating the dollar value of the benefits provided by conserving natural resources, including land and water, in their natural state. After you hear each phrase, please rate how appealing it sounds to you on a scale of one to seven, where one means NOT AT ALL APPEALING and seven means VERY APPEALING. A rating of 4 is NEUTRAL. Split Sample

NatCap approach to mainstreaming ecosystem service information in management and policy Case examples: Designing water funds in Colombia Assessing impacts of mining concessions Defining ecological function conservation areas in China Informing marine spatial planning in British Columbia Next steps

Filling the Gap

Filling the Gap Most Policy Windows Medium spatial scale Short timeline Standard approach

Integrated Valuation of Ecosystem Services and Tradeoffs (InVEST) Applicable anywhere on the globe With minimal data Flexible scale Scenario based Relevant to many kinds of decisions Biophysical and socioeconomic outputs Biodiversity and multiservices http://www.naturalcapitalproject.org

Applying InVEST to inform decision-making Coastal & Marine Terrestrial WCVI, B.C. Hawai i California Puget Sound Chesapeake Bay Galveston Bay Belize Colombia Ecuador Amazon Basin Eastern Arc Mtns China Indonesia

Testing many kinds of decision contexts Decision Context Spatial Planning Coastal Zone Management Ecosystem-based management (terrestrial-marine links) Climate adaptation (ecosystem-based adaptation) Return on restoration investments Impact assessment, permitting, licensing Geography Tanzania, Indonesia, British Columbia, Hawaii, China Belize Puget Sound, Galveston Bay, Chesapeake Bay Galveston Bay, Monterey Bay Colombia water funds, Gulf of Mexico, Indonesia Colombia mining concessions, agricultural practices in US

Stakeholder Engagement Identify Objectives Develop Scenarios Compile Data

Water For Life and Sustainability Water Fund

Water For Life and Sustainability Water Fund Committee: Watershed Associations Sugar Cane Associations The Nature Conservancy Vallenpaz (local NGO) Maintain consistent water flows necessary for drinking water, biodiversity and agriculture through a coordinated strategy.

Scenario Development Spatially explicit land uses, agricultural/silvicultural practices Landscape ranking Efficient investment for 5 target budgets TNC and CIAT compiled data

Stakeholder Engagement InVEST Identify Objectives Develop Scenarios Compile Data Biophysical Models Economic Models

Spatial Data Inputs on Natural Capital Land Use Soil type Topography

Spatial Data Inputs on Built Capital Roads Cities Infrastructure

InVEST Outputs Supply Service Value Ecological functions Ecosystem elements Supply + Location and activity of beneficiaries Service + Social preference

Multi-Service Approach InVEST 1.003 Beta can map Biodiversity Water yield for hydropower production Avoided reservoir sedimentation Water purification: nutrient retention Carbon seq & storage Managed timber production Crop pollination

T1 Economic Valuation Methods Market valuation Carbon Timber Non-timber forest products Avoided damage costs Water purification Flood mitigation Avoided reservoir sedimentation Production Economics Water for irrigation Pollination of agricultural crops

InVEST Outputs

Return on Investment Results Amaime River Watershed

Return on Investment Results Amaime Nima Bolo Tulua Fraile Guabas Desbaratado Palo Sabaletas

Investment Portfolios Tulua River Watershed Mapped Output: Where should protection, restoration activities occur for a given investment?

Stakeholder Feedback Tulua River Watershed Not Feasible: Guerilla Activity

Stakeholder Engagement InVEST Identify Objectives Develop Scenarios Compile Data Biophysical Models Economic Models Post-Analyses

Returning Services to the Same People Servicesheds for beneficiaries of mining mitigation Erosion Impacts Nutrient Pollution Impacts

Sumatra Land Use Planning Scenario 1 Scenario 2

Spatial Pattern of Service Change

Multi-Service Tradeoffs Summed habitat quality score / 1000 80 60 Natural habitat (km2) / 1000 40 20 0 Water yield runoff depth (mm/yr) -20-40 Plantation area (km2) / 1000 Avoided erosion (tons / yr) / 100000 Carbon stock over 50 yrs (Mt) / 100

Baoxing EFCA Mapping with InVEST PRODUCTION: -Water Retention - Soil Retention - Carbon Storage - Biodiversity DEMAND: Hydropower Flood Mitigation Irrigation Agriculture, Mining Draft EFCA Map

Marine spatial planning in British Columbia 40,000 people 11% Nuu-chah-nulth First Nations Logging, fishing, aquaculture, tourism

Marine InVEST Recreation Aquaculture Fisheries Coastal Protection Nursery Transformation & sequestration Energy generation

Commercial Salmon Trawl Commercial Salmon Net Commercial Crab Recreational Groundfish Recreational Salmon WEC-1 WEC-1 : Generated the greatest energy : Caused the least changes in the aesthetic view of nearby parks : Produced the least conflicts with fishery activities WEC-2 WEC-3

Next steps: links to livelihoods, poverty alleviation, human health

Model Testing: USA Annual Avg Yield SWAT 600 500 400 300 200 100 R² = 0.8242 0 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 Annual Avg Yield InVEST

Model Testing: Colombia Comparison of SWAT and InVEST Average annual water yield (mm) TULUA SWAT InVEST % difference Baseline 805.98 804.28 0.21% No conservation 816.04 765.98 6.13% Conservation 805.54 768.87 4.55% FRAILE SWAT InVEST % difference Baseline 301.23 379.19-25.88% No conservation 319.77 335.54-4.93% Conservation 300.55 362.60-20.65%

Model Testing: Hainan Island, China