Patriotic values for public goods: transnational trade-offs for biodiversity and ecosystem services?

The natural environment is central to human well-being through its role in ecosystem service (ES) provision. Managing ES often requires coordination across international borders. Although this may deliver greater conservation gains than countries acting alone, we do not know whether the public supports such an international approach. Using the same questionnaire in three countries, we quantified public preferences for ES in home countries and across international borders. In all three countries, the people were generally willing to pay for ES. However, our results show that there is a limit to the extent that environmental goods can be considered global. ES with a use element (habitat conservation, landscape preservation) attracted a patriotic premium, such that the people were willing to pay significantly more for locally delivered services. Supranational management of ES needs to be balanced against the preferences that people have for services delivered in their home countries

A place-based approach to payments for ecosystem services

Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES) schemes are proliferating but are challenged by insufficient attention to spatial and temporal inter-dependencies, interactions between different ecosystems and their services, and the need for multi-level governance. To address these challenges, this paper develops a place-based approach to the development and implementation of PES schemes that incorporates multi-level governance, bundling or layering of services across multiple scales, and shared values for ecosystem services. The approach is evaluated and illustrated using case study research to develop an explicitly place-based PES scheme, the Peatland Code, owned and managed by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature’s UK Peatland Programme and designed to pay for restoration of peatland habitats. Buyers preferred bundled schemes with premium pricing of a primary service, contrasting with sellers’ preferences for quantifying and marketing services separately in a layered scheme. There was limited awareness among key business sectors of dependencies on ecosystem services, or the risks and opportunities arising from their management. Companies with financial links to peatlands or a strong environmental sustainability focus were interested in the scheme, particularly in relation to climate regulation, water quality, biodiversity and flood risk mitigation benefits. Visitors were most interested in donating to projects that benefited wildlife and were willing to donate around £2 on-site during a visit. Sellers agreed a deliberated fair price per tonne of CO2 equivalent from £11.18 to £15.65 across four sites in Scotland, with this range primarily driven by spatial variation in habitat degradation. In the Peak District, perceived declines in sheep and grouse productivity arising from ditch blocking led to substantially higher prices, but in other regions ditch blocking was viewed more positively. The Peatland Code was developed in close collaboration with stakeholders at catchment, landscape and national scales, enabling multi-level governance of the management and delivery of ecosystem services across these scales. Place-based PES schemes can mitigate negative trade-offs between ecosystem services, more effectively include cultural ecosystem services and engage with and empower diverse stakeholders in scheme design and governance

Valuing the health benefits of physical activities in the marine environment and their importance for marine spatial planning

© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. The marine environment provides a number of services which contribute to human well-being including the provision of food, regulation of climate and the provision of settings for cultural gains. To ensure these services continue to be provided, effective management is required and is being strategically implemented through the development of marine spatial plans. These plans require an understanding of the costs and benefits associated with alternative marine uses and how they contribute to human well-being. One benefit which is often difficult to quantify is the health benefit of engaging with the marine environment. To address this, the research develops an approach which can estimate the contribution aquatic physical activities makes to quality adjusted life years (QALYs) in monetary and non-monetary terms. Using data from the Health Survey for England, the research estimates that physical activities undertaken in aquatic environments at a national level provides a total gain of 24,853 QALYs. A conservative estimate of the monetary value of a QALY gain of this magnitude is £176 million. This approach provides estimates of health benefits which can be used in more comprehensive impact assessments, such as cost-benefit analysis, to compare alternative marine spatial plans. The paper concludes by discussing future steps

Quantifying Preferences for the Natural World Using Monetary and Nonmonetary Assessments of Value.

Given that funds for biodiversity conservation are limited, there is a need to understand people's preferences for its different components. To date, such preferences have largely been measured in monetary terms. However, how people value biodiversity may differ from economic theory, and there is little consensus over whether monetary metrics are always appropriate or the degree to which other methods offer alternative and complementary perspectives on value. We used a choice experiment to compare monetary amounts recreational visitors to urban green spaces were willing to pay for biodiversity enhancement (increases in species richness for birds, plants, and aquatic macroinvertebrates) with self-reported psychological gains in well-being derived from visiting the same sites. Willingness-to-pay (WTP) estimates were significant and positive, and respondents reported high gains in well-being across 3 axes derived from environmental psychology theories (reflection, attachment, continuity with past). The 2 metrics were broadly congruent. Participants with above-median self-reported well-being scores were willing to pay significantly higher amounts for enhancing species richness than those with below-median scores, regardless of taxon. The socio-economic and demographic background of participants played little role in determining either their well-being or the probability of choosing a paying option within the choice experiment. Site-level environmental characteristics were only somewhat related to WTP, but showed strong associations with self-reported well-being. Both approaches are likely to reflect a combination of the environmental properties of a site and unobserved individual preference heterogeneity for the natural world. Our results suggest that either metric will deliver mutually consistent results in an assessment of environmental preferences, although which approach is preferable depends on why one wishes to measure values for the natural world. Preferencias de Cuantificación para el Mundo Natural Usando Estudios de Valor Monetario y No Monetario