Misconceptions about the valuation of ecosystem services

The concept of ecosystem services – the benefits humans derive from functioning ecosystems – has been around for at least 4 decades. Attempts to value those services in monetary and other units have been around for just as long. However, several misconceptions have sprung up about ecosystem services, and especially the valuation of those services in monetary units, that are counterproductive to further dialogue, research, and solutions. This paper attempts to address some of those misconceptions, including showing that: (1) ecosystem services is not an anthropocentric concept; (2) economics is not only the market; (3) valuation is not commodification or privatization; (4) expressing relative values in monetary units is not necessarily ‘market-based’; (5) in a world of trade-offs, whether to perform a valuation is not a choice since it happens implicitly; (6) ‘intrinsic values’ are about rights, not relative valuation; and (7) relative valuation and rights-based approaches are complimentary not mutually exclusive. I address each of these misconceptions in turn and end with a plea for constructive dialogue on these important issues, not continuing unproductive debate founded on fundamental misconceptions

Valuation and management of desert ecosystems and their services

Based on different definitions, deserts may constitute 13% to 33% of the global terrestrial surface. This is larger than the area of tropical forests and all types of wetlands combined. However, desert ecosystems are among the least studied in terms of their ecosystem services (ES), especially those that arise from species and processes unique to deserts. There are numerous research gaps that need to be filled including: (1) ignorance of unique desert ES, as well as deserts’ special effects on ES; (2) limited application of sophisticated approaches for economic valuation of desert ES; and (3) lack of diverse approaches to values and valuation. Moreover, payment for ecosystem services (PES) schemes are often used to combat desertification rather than for conserving well-functioning deserts. Valuation of desert ES is crucial to implementation of PES through raising awareness of overlooked deserts, motivating investment, designing payment amounts, and estimating the social benefit-cost ratios of payments. In addition to market-based voluntary PES, common asset trusts (CATs) following Ostrom's eight core design principles may also contribute to sustainable management of desert ecosystems. Future research should explore unique desert ES, investigate the relationships between desert ES and geosystem services, improve accuracy of economic valuation of desert ES, and integrate diverse perspectives of values. The research results may potentially aid in both combatting desertification and conserving important deserts

Exploring a Hybrid Model to Develop the IR: Liaisons and Functional Specialists Collaborate to Engage and Support Scholarship

Smaller institutions may not have full-time dedicated positions to provide technical support and campus engagement for their IR, therefore alternative strategies to grow a program supporting institutional scholarship may be necessary. For example, at Trinity University we do not have a Scholarly Communication Librarian or a dedicated IR Manager, but instead, depend on the collaboration of liaisons and technical services staff to engage and support institutional scholarship. At Trinity, our low librarian-to-faculty ratio means that we have strong liaison relationships with our academic departments. While librarians at Trinity locate and create opportunities to communicate with students and teachers about digital scholarship, we also make referrals to colleagues with more specialized technical expertise in IR management or copyright in order to use our time and our resources in creative and effective ways. Rather than make the advancement of digital scholarship programs in our library and institution a province of one department or a specified group of individuals, technical and public services focus on what we each “do best” to support the work of students and faculty but we also work together to achieve our goals. This model has proved beneficial for engaging and supporting scholars on campus. However, this model can also surface tensions between liaisons and their specialist colleagues. This hybrid model of liaisons and functional specialists requires effective collaboration as well as a strong referral system. In this case-study presentation, the Head of Discovery Services and the Head of Instruction Services will offer specific examples and evidence of the ways that technical services and liaisons work together to drive the library’s and the university’s digital scholarship initiatives. Essential factors in facilitating this work will also be considered

Ecosystem Services and Human Wellbeing-Based Approaches Can Help Transform Our Economies

Despite wider recognition of human interdependence with the rest of nature, our economies continue to fail to adequately value ecosystem services. This failure is largely attributed to the economic frameworks and related measures that focus on the production and consumption of marketed goods and services, but do not consider the other essential elements upon which our lives depend. This paper highlights how the Ecosystem Services approach can shift the focus to human wellbeing while remaining within biophysical planetary boundaries. An Ecosystem Services approach applies three fundamental principles of Ecological Economics: sustainable scale, efficient allocation, and fair distribution, which are vital for sustainable economies and societies. We provide case studies, from both a local and national scale, demonstrating how such an approach offers a holistic perspective of understanding what “development” actually means. Transforming our economies to appropriately consider planetary limits, overcome societal addictions, learn from Indigenous and local communities about ways of sustainable living, and realizing the importance of ecosystem services will contribute to developing economies that are resilient, and that enhance sustainable human wellbeing

Payments for Ecosystem Services opportunities for emerging Nature-based Solutions: Integrating Indigenous perspectives from Australia

With recent growing interest and potential investment in nature-based solutions (NbS), a local, regional and global level understanding of what kinds of mechanisms or arrangements work effectively to deliver the required biodiversity and climate change outcomes is essential. This paper presents the status and opportunities for Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES) arrangements in Australia, with a focus on Indigenous peoples in northern Australia. We reviewed 62 studies related to the distribution and extent of the predominant PES schemes globally and nationally in Australia, including different ecosystems (e.g. forest, water, savannas, etc.), spatial scale (e.g. local, regional or global), types of payment methods used for ecosystem services (ES) transactions, types of ES providers and beneficiaries, funders, users, and contract arrangements and related challenges. Globally, 54% of the studies were supported by government investment, 17% by private–public, and only 29% by private investment. 80% of studies focused on forests as the most common ecosystem for PES, with 61% of the PES arrangements implemented at a local scale, 16% at a catchment scale and the rest (23%) at a national scale. In 33% of the studies, a single ES is the focus for the system, i.e. water quality or carbon sequestration; in 37% of studies a bundled approach was followed where typically > 1–2 services are included as a bundle; and in another 7% stacked ES were included. Within Australia, six main schemes were considered to be PES, i.e. Conservation Agreements, Water trading (buyback) in the Murray Darling Basin, Reef Credits, Carbon Farming, the Queensland Land Restoration Fund, and the Indigenous Protected Areas and Caring for Country programmes on Indigenous lands. About 90% these programmes are funded by the Australian Government, focusing on carbon or biodiversity outcomes, with little consideration of Indigenous values. From an Indigenous perspective, a bottom-up PES approach incorporating the social and cultural aspirations of Indigenous people is preferred. Traditional management with low transaction costs, combining both socio-economic and environmental attributes as verifiable measures, can yield conservation as well as positive socio-economic outcomes for Indigenous communities in Australia and elsewhere. Empowering local communities, recognising and supporting their skills and knowledge, ensuring equitable and just distribution of funds, sustainable and reliable co-designed incentives are essential for the success of these fast-emerging opportunities

Metadata Implementation for Building Cross-Institutional Repositories: Lessons Learned from the Liberal Arts Scholarly Repository (LASR)

Institutional repositories are an exciting innovation in scholarly communication and liberal arts institutions have a unique opportunity to create repository collections that reflect their tradition. However, the challenges of cost, staffing, infrastructure, standardized metadata, and content recruitment that are part and parcel of developing institutional repositories may be daunting to individual liberal arts institutions. The idea that multiple, like-minded institutions could join forces to share their efforts, unique challenges, and maximize their efficiencies grew into the Liberal Arts Scholarly Repository (LASR). Initial steps in this collaboration included the development of a group mission and a statement of collection policies. Technical specifications and metadata best practices were developed to facilitate searching and to ensure the interoperability of the repository. This article outlines the history of the project and the process of collaborating on metadata standards