Ecosystem Services: practical usability in validating N2000 sites Van der Biest K., Meire P., Staes J., Boerema A. & Broekx S. Brugge, 2 april 2014
Introduction Can ecosystem services be used as a tool to increase the support for nature conservation and increase people engagement with nature? www.zonnepanelen.net www.groenegezondheid.nl www.campingz.nl 2
Introduction Ecosystem services - the benefits that nature supplies to humans Provisioning Goods or products produced by natural ecosystems Regulating Natural processes regulated by natural ecosystems Cultural Non-material benefits obtained from natural ecosystems Supporting Ecosystem functions that support other services 3
Valuation methods Costanza 1997: first attempt to calculate the monetary value of nature Since then: diversification of valuation methods (health impact, shared social values, intrinsic and moral values, ) $ Piramid of valuation methods (Gantioler et al., 2010) 4
Flemish government http://natuurwaardeverkenner.be Nature Value Explorer (since 2009) > online tool of the Flemish Government to assess the value of ecosystem services 5
Flemish government 2013: Valuation of the benefits of N2000 REPORT: http://natuurwaardeverkenner.be/nwv2/backgroundinfo.jsf Provide counter arguments for critiques on the high cost of nature conservation Provide inspiration for alternative financing mechanisms Demonstrate societal return on investment of conservation efforts What is today s value of the N2000 protected areas? What is the additional value of realising habitat targets by 2020? 6
N2000 valuation General procedure Spatial explicit (25 m) Variables: Landcover / landuse Physical / Abiotic characteristics Demand factors / socio-economic variables Tasks Identify (16 services) Quantify (13 services) Monetize (11 services) 7
# visitors inw/jaar Example of valuation: recreation # of visitors to green infrastructure (forest, nature, agriculture) in Flanders, based on existing Flemish data Variables: distance from residence, total surface area of green infrastructure nearby and specific characteristics of special protection zones (land use, size, ) Results for larger areas consistent with info from specific areas (+/- 25%) Assumption that area becomes accessible after conversion All nature types equally attractive 15 10 Visits nature/forest as a function of distance to residence 5 - y = 2,7253ln(x) - 0,0495 R² = 0,9937 0 20 40 60 Distance residence to visited area (km) enquête resultaten
Example of valuation: recreation Valuation based on international data (meta-analyse Sen, 2011, UKNEA) = 3-9 /visit Max. estimation consistent with estimation based on expenses for spare time and transport for average visit ( 9 /visit). For comparison: weighted average of expenses 8,2 /visit Expenses % of visits % of Activity Bron /visit expenses Local walks NPHK, 2009 3 45% 16% Short bicylce tours Prov. Antwerpen 8 45% 44% Day trips Toerisme Vlaanderen 18,6 6% 13% Residential tourism Toerisme Vlaanderen 57 4% 27% Weighted average 8,26 100% 100%
Example: Life+ Grote Nete LIFE project 2005 2012: Realisation conservation objectives Increase upstream water retention + 388 ha nature (after realisation of habitat targets) Total budget: 3,2 million 50% European Union (LIFE+) 50% other financing Actions: Terrain acquisition (from agriculture) Fill up channels Remeander straighened rivers Remove buildings Cut trees Mowing Sod Recreational infrastructure (paths, info signs, ) TABLE: Target habitats LIFE Grote Nete (Natuurpunt 2012)
Potential effects of restoration measures Action/Ecosystem service Agricultural production Wood production Carbon storage biomass Carbon storage soil Air quality Water quality Waterretention (flood + drought protection) Infiltration (water provisioning) Biodiversity Terrain acquisition - + + + + + + +- Fill up canals - - +- + +- + + + + +- Remeandering - - + + + + + + + Remove buildings + + + + + + + + + Tree cutting - - - - + + + +- Mowing + - - - + + + Sod +- - + +- + + Recreation Based on model outputs and literature green = positive effect red = negative effect yellow = effect can be positive or negative Empty = (hardly) no effect 12
Example : effects of remeandering on ecosystem services NATURAL LAND USE Agricultural production Wood production REDUCED HYDRAULIC GRADIENT Waterretention (prev. floods and droughts) Infiltration (water provision) Denitrification Nutrient retention (water purification) REWETTING Agricultural production Wood production Carbon storage soil (climate regulation) Denitrification (water purification) VEGETATION (RIPARIAN + MACROPHYTES) Denitrification Nutrient retention (water puriification) Carbon storage biomass + soil INCREASED SURFACE OXIC/ANOXIC GRADIENT Denitrification (water purification) HABITAT DIVERSITY Biodiversity Recreation
Benefits realisation conservation objectives Grote Nete 2020 Total benefits and costs period 2010-2020 1500 ha habitat worthy nature by 2020 Measures taken into account in calculations: Terrain acquisition Remove buidlings Rewetting Cut trees Total: 32 milj Total: 9 milj
Benefits realisation conservation objectives Grote Nete 2020 Total benefits and costs period 2010-2020 1500 ha habitat worthy nature by 2020 Measures taken into account in calculations: Terrain acquisition Remove buidlings Rewetting Cut trees Total: 32 milj Total: 9 milj Total: 6 milj Total: 6 milj + 3,1 milj costs for restoration measures
Benefits realisation conservation objectives Grote Nete 2020 Total benefits and costs period 2010-2020 1500 ha habitat worthy nature by 2020 Measures taken into account in calculations: Terrain acquisition Remove buidlings Rewetting Cut trees Total: 32 milj MAX ADDITIONAL BENEFIT = 26 milj = 2,6 milj /j = 1900 /ha.j MIN ADDITIONAL BENEFIT = 3 milj = 0,3 milj /j = 220 /ha.j Total: 9 milj Total: 6 milj Total: 6 milj + 3,1 milj costs for restoration measures
Quantification and valuation of the current state of the N2000 network GENERAL CONCLUSION: The total annual value of the 11 valued services is minimum in the range of 800 million up to 1400 Million per year, which is equivalent to 130-230 per capita per year. or between 4700 and 5500 per hectare per year. Especially Carbon health related sequestration services in cover soils, agricultural a large part of the production total value and (air quality, nutrient recreation, removal physical are also significant en mental health with respect effects to of the direct total value. contact with nature).
Quantification and monetary valuation of changes in ecosystem service delivery generated by the realization of the conservation objectives GENERAL CONCLUSION: The net benefits of the realization of the NCO s are estimated at 15 to 95 million per year. This estimation is conservative, since not all ES have been included in the valuation. For some services there was no objective proof that the realization of the CO s would increase the benefits, although there are reasons to hypothesize that some of these effects do occur (e.g. effect on real estate values, health effects). we Wood Removal Carbon Benefits can production observe of fine a clearly remains dust sequestration recreation particles negative equal, increase (air effect although quality soils significantly improves, on significant as agricultural changes improvement) well because as nutrient occur, the area both of production. declines, retention accessible terms of since nature location This soils pine is the of forests and increases consequence nutrient are and as able well the to in of the species capture removal size loss of the fine of by sites surface dust for composition. the denitrification. increases. agricultural entire year Pine activities. forests round These services and are with cut and are transformed greater all strongly efficiency affected to heathland, than by water other retention. whilst agricultural vegetation types. land is transformed Reduction of to leaf forest. drainage For is an individual important N2000 sites, restoration changes measure may be drastic.
Conclusion Although uncertainties are great in economic valuation of ecosystem services, the message is clear: the benefits of nature conservation and restoration clearly outweigh the costs for restoration measures. This is a strong argument to find support for nature conservation measures which worked in Flanders (cfr. SIGMA flood plan, Valuation of N2000) Demonstrating the non-monetized value of nature (natural heritage, health effects, ) can increase people s engagement with nature 19