A summary of ecosystem service economic valuation methods and recommendations for future studies

This short working paper summarizes ecosystem service economic valuation methods. The paper begins with an introduction to ecosystem services, and then describes the various methods that can be used to value them. An extensive literature review was carried out, illustrating those ecosystem service studies that attempted to value three or more ecosystem services using original data and more than one valuation method. Recommendations are then offered on how to conduct ecosystem service valuation studies

Defining, Valuing, and Providing Ecosystem Goods and Services

Ecosystem services are the specific results of ecosystem processes that either directly sustain or enhance human life (as does natural protection from the sun's harmful ultraviolet rays) or maintain the quality of ecosystem goods (as water purification maintains the quality of streamflow). "Ecosystem service" has come to represent several related topics ranging from the measurement to the marketing of ecosystem service flows. In this article we examine several of these topics by first clarifying the meaning of "ecosystem service" and then (1) placing ecosystem goods and services within an economic framework, emphasizing the role and limitations of substitutes; (2) summarizing the methods for valuation of ecosystem goods and services; and (3) reviewing the various approaches for their provision and financing.Many ecosystem services and some ecosystem goods are received without monetary payment. The "marketing" of ecosystem goods and services is basically an effort to turn such recipients - those who benefit without ownership- into buyers, thereby providing market signals that serve to help protect valuable goods and services. We review various formal arrangements for making this happen

Developing ecosystem service indicators: experiences and lessons learned from sub-global assessments and other initiatives

People depend upon ecosystems to supply a range of services necessary for their survival and well-being. Ecosystem service indicators are critical for knowing whether or not these essential services are being maintained and used in a sustainable manner, thus enabling policy makers to identify the policies and other interventions needed to better manage them. As a result, ecosystem service indicators are of increasing interest and importance to governmental and inter-governmental processes, including amongst others the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and the Aichi Targets contained within its strategic plan for 2011-2020, as well as the emerging Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES). Despite this growing demand, assessing ecosystem service status and trends and developing robust indicators is o!en hindered by a lack of information and data, resulting in few available indicators. In response, the United Nations Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC), together with a wide range of international partners and supported by the Swedish International Biodiversity Programme (SwedBio)*, undertook a project to take stock of the key lessons that have been learnt in developing and using ecosystem service indicators in a range of assessment contexts. The project examined the methodologies, metrics and data sources employed in delivering ecosystem service indicators, so as to inform future indicator development. This report presents the principal results of this project

Marine ecosystem services: Linking indicators to their classification

© 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. There is a multitude of ecosystem service classifications available within the literature, each with its own advantages and drawbacks. Elements of them have been used to tailor a generic ecosystem service classification for the marine environment and then for a case study site within the North Sea: the Dogger Bank. Indicators for each of the ecosystem services, deemed relevant to the case study site, were identified. Each indicator was then assessed against a set of agreed criteria to ensure its relevance and applicability to environmental management. This paper identifies the need to distinguish between indicators of ecosystem services that are entirely ecological in nature (and largely reveal the potential of an ecosystem to provide ecosystem services), indicators for the ecological processes contributing to the delivery of these services, and indicators of benefits that reveal the realized human use or enjoyment of an ecosystem service. It highlights some of the difficulties faced in selecting meaningful indicators, such as problems of specificity, spatial disconnect and the considerable uncertainty about marine species, habitats and the processes, functions and services they contribute to

Methodological approach for mapping ecosystem services in urban and suburban areas.

In Urban and suburban areas, the technology of remote sensing can offer a practical and economical means to study ecological quality of cities based on the specific functions or functional groups/biodiversity which support the supply of ecosystem services (e.g. habitats for species, maintenance of genetic diversity). This is because many ES are ecological processes or directly products by them. Other ecological processes can have detrimental effects on service supply. Thus, mapping the spatial distribution and the degree of ecosystem functionality can provide useful information of the service provided by them to the urban population. Within the framework of the Urbangaia project, the purpose of this study is to bridge present a methodology of ecosystem service related research in ecology and remote sensing in urban areas. Specifically, the study presents a remote sensing-based method for ES potential assessment in four European studies cases- Ghent, Coimbra, Vilnius and Leipzing-. Land cover was used as a proxy measure of ecosystem services because of its multiple linkages to carbon storage, watershed protection, and other types of services. For each land cover type, the services provided by the ecosystem are identified and given a monetary value based on previous studies and original calculations. A GeoEye-1 Satellite Sensor (0.5m spatial resolution) has been used in each study case, for its broad spatial coverage of its images. Several key areas are considered such as land cover, biodiversity, carbon, water and soil related ecosystem service. By the analysis of the different studies cases, the study also gives some global recommendation.Universidad de Málaga. Campus de Excelencia Internacional Andalucía Tech

Does landscape-scale conservation management enhance the provision of ecosystem services?

Biodiversity conservation approaches are increasingly being implemented at the landscape-scale to support the maintenance of metapopulations and metacommunities. However, the impact of such interventions on the provision of ecosystem services is less well defined. Here we examine the potential impacts of landscape-scale conservation initiatives on ecosystem services, through analysis of five case study areas in England and Wales. The provision of multiple ecosystem services was projected according to current management plans and compared with a baseline scenario. Multicriteria analysis indicated that in most cases landscape-scale approaches lead to an overall increase in service provision. Consistent increases were projected in carbon storage, recreation and aesthetic value, as well as biodiversity value. However, most study areas provided evidence of trade-offs, particularly between provisioning services and other types of service. Results differed markedly between study areas, highlighting the importance of local context. These results suggest that landscape-scale conservation approaches are likely to be effective in increasing ecosystem service provision, but also indicate that associated costs can be significant, particularly in lowland areas

A combination of methods needed to assess the actual use of provisioning ecosystem services

Failure to recognize that potential provisioning ecosystem services are not necessarily collected and used by people may have important consequences for management of land and resources. Accounting for people's actual use of ecosystem services in decision making processes requires a robust methodological approach that goes beyond mapping the presence of ecosystem services. But no such universally accepted method exists, and there are several shortcomings of existing methods such as the application of land use/cover as a proxy for provisioning ecosystem service availability and surveys based on respondents' recall to assess people's collection of e.g. wild food. By combining four complementary methods and applying these to the shifting cultivation systems of Laos, we show how people’s actual use of ecosystem services from agricultural fields differs from ecosystem service availability. Our study is the first in Southeast Asia to combine plot monitoring, collection diaries, repeat interviews, and participant observation. By applying these multiple methods borrowed from anthropology and botany among other research domains, the study illustrates that no single method is sufficient on its own. It is of key importance for scientists to adopt methods that can account for both availability of various services and actual use of those services