Valuing the economic benefits of species recovery programmes

Accounting for the values placed on nature by the public is key to successful policies in reversing ongoing biodiversity declines. However, biodiversity values are rarely included in policy decisions, resulting in poorer outcomes for people and nature. Our paper addresses an important evidence gap related to the non-availability of values for appraising large-scale policies and investment programmes for species recovery and habitat improvement at the national level. We use a stated preference choice modelling approach to estimate household preferences and Willingness to Pay for species recovery and habitat improvement over a wide range of habitats in England. The framing of our stated preference study is crucial to the evidence we develop. Within the study, we define species recovery as incremental improvements to habitat quality and present respondents with choices between conservation policy options that improve different habitat types. We then use the response data to estimate values for habitat quality improvements, and the associated improvements to species presence and abundance. We are thus able to estimate economic benefits for ‘wild species recovery’ simultaneously across a wide range of habitat types. Willingness to pay values for habitat improvement was found to be highest for improvements from ‘moderate’ to ‘full’ species recovery by 2042; and for habitat types which have relatively low current extents in England, such as lowland fens. Policy Implications: biodiversity policy designers can make use of stated preference methods to guide decisions over which aspects of biodiversity targets to focus more resources on, since this enables policy to reflect public preferences, and thus engages higher public support for conservation. In our specific data and context, this implies prioritising the restoration of species recovery to high levels and focussing resources on scarcer rather than more abundant habitat types

Environment and Rural Affairs Monitoring & Modelling Programme ERAMMP - Report-32: National Forest in Wales - Evidence Review

This review was commissioned by Welsh Government (WG) from the Environment and Rural Affairs Monitoring and Modelling Programme (ERAMMP) to provide key evidence of potential benefits and disbenefits of woodland creation, woodland expansion and managing undermanaged woodland, to provide an evidence base to inform the development of a National Forest for Wales. During the commissioning process, WG emphasised that the evidence provided must reflect the collective views of the community by reviewing the literature in an objective way highlighting where evidence is contradictory or weak. Within the time available, evidence of causality of impacts, the likely timescales and magnitude of these impacts should be also be presented, for both positive and negative impacts of woodland expansion and management of undermanaged woodlands. This Evidence Pack should also build on the evidence put forward in the ERAMMP Sustainable Farm Scheme (SFS) (https://erammp.wales/en/resources) which included a range of assessments of the value of intervention measures which promoted trees within a landscape setting for a range of environmental, economic and social outcomes. The required rapid production of the review in four months meant an expert approach of key evidence was expected rather than a systematic review. Key topics to cover were selected, in partnership with WG, focussing on issues that could fundamentally change decision-making going forward. The final agreed list was arranged under a series of high-level subject headings, and the individual reviews published as ERAMMP Reports 33 to 38 and include; Biodiversity; Managing Undermanaged Woodland; Future-proofing our Woodland; Climate Change Mitigation; Ecosystem Services, and Economics and Natural Capital Accounting. An Integrated Assessment was also commissioned to provide a synthesis of cross-cutting themes and dependencies between topics. These ERAMMP reports are all provided as Annexes to this report

A normal perfusion lung scan in patients with clinically suspected pulmonary embolism. Frequency and clinical validity

To assess the frequency of a normal perfusion lung scan in a consecutive series of patients with clinically suspected pulmonary embolism, to determine the complication risk of heparin therapy in those patients treated while awaiting lung scanning, and to evaluate the clinical validity of withholding anticoagulant therapy in patients with a normal lung scan result. Prospective cohort. Two teaching hospitals in Amsterdam, the Netherlands. Consecutive inpatients and outpatients referred for clinically suspected pulmonary embolism who underwent lung scintigraphy. Initiation of intravenous heparin therapy before lung scanning was left to the discretion of the attending physician. Anticoagulant therapy was withheld or withdrawn in patients with a normal lung scan. Patients were followed-up for 6 months. A normal perfusion scan was obtained in 114 of 412 consecutive patients (28%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 23 to 32%). Major bleeding complications occurred in 2 of 30 patients (6.7%; 95% CI 0.8 to 22.1%) in whom heparin was administered while awaiting lung scintigraphy. One patient was lost to follow-up, and venous thromboembolism (0%; 95% CI 0 to 3.2%) did not develop in the remaining 113 patients. In a substantial proportion of patients with clinically suspected pulmonary embolism (28%) the diagnosis is excluded by lung scintigraphy. The test should be performed as soon as feasible to prevent unnecessary hospitalization and bleeding complications. Long-term anticoagulant therapy can be safely withheld in symptomatic patients with a normal perfusion lung sca