Ecosystem services. Prof. Dr. Adrienne Grêt-Regamey Ana Stritih Sibyl Brunner

Transcription

1 Ecosystem services Prof. Dr. Adrienne Grêt-Regamey Ana Stritih Sibyl Brunner

2 Services of the landscape Building plots VS. Diversity CO 2 -Sink Wood products Habitat for animals Aesthetics Recreation Agricultural products 2 53 Potential for future use Zürich Oberland

3 Degradation at all scales 3 53

4 Sources Rival Non-rival Excludable Private goods Club goods Non-excludable Common goods Public goods No market, market failure Lacking knowledge Link between ecology, economy and social system 4 53

5 Ecosystem services Fundamental changes in the perception and valuation of biodiversity, ecosystems and their services are necessary. (e.g. de Groot, 1992; Constanza et al., 1997; Daily, 1997) 5 53 Ecosystem services (Landscape services)

6 Ecosystem services Societal benefits 6 53 MEA (2005)

7 Value of ecosystem services Global, total ESS, all biomes 1997: global flow value USD 145 x vs. global GDP USD 46.3 x : global flow value USD 125 x vs. global GDP USD 75.2 x Constanza et al. (1997 and 2014)

8 Value of ecosystem services Global, total ESS, all biomes 8 53 DeGroot et al. (2012)

9 Value of ecosystem services Selected countries, different ESS, forest 9 53 MEA (2005)

10 Value of ecosystem services Europe, different ESS Schulp (2014)

11 Value of ecosystem services Limmattal, recreation service high low Wissen Hayek (accepted)

12 Processes, function and services Environmental conservation Ecology Ecosystem services Ecology, economy and social sciences Supply Potential Demand TEEB (2010)

13 Many services Habitat for animals Recreation Timber CO 2 -sink Avalanche protection Forest in Davos Climate change Grêt-Regamey et al. (2013)

14 Trade-offs Land-use, biodiversity, and ecosystem services Trade-offs Braat & DeGroot (2012) 14 53

15 Assessment of ecosystem services 2. Valuation of ecosystem services 1. Quantification of ecosystem functions Landscape metrics Lecture landscape metrics Exercises I-III (e.g. fragmentation index) Biophysical indicators Lecture ecosystem services Exercise V (e.g. temperature regulation)

16 Quantification of ecosystem structure Landscape metric(s) Proximity Index Shannon Diversity Core Area Shape Index Edge Density Ecosystem service(s) Habitat Habitat Aesthetics Habitat 1 indicator different services different indicators 1 service 16 53

17 Non-linearity Services: Habitat, pollination Increase core area, decrease fragmentation Small core area, large fragmentation Medium core area, medium fragmentation Large core area, small fragmentation Habitat, pollination 17 53

18 Quantification of structure Example: Habitats in Schlieren Indicator: Euclidian distance to potential habitats Thalmann (2012)

19 Quantification of ecosystem functions Biophysical indicator(s) Organic C content (g/g biomass) Timber growth (m 3 /ha) CO 2 -sequestration capacity (t/ha) Primary production (kg/ha) Surface run-off (m 3 /t), evapotranspiration (mm) Biodiversity (species/ha) 1 indicator different services Ecosystem service(s) Nutrient cycling Timber production, energy production Climate regulation Nutrition Water regulation Aesthetics different indicators 1 service 19 53

20 Landscape and functional metrics diversity services fragmentation Fragmentation index Recreation CO 2 -sink diversity Pollination Calculated based on biophysical process models (biophysical indicators) Threshold value Change of services Based on Grêt-Regamey et al. (2013)

21 Mapping of functions a) Regional analysis GIS-based process models e.g. Grêt-Regamey et al. (2012a) Different functions/services e.g. recreation, habitats, production CO2-sequestration GIS Data e.g. land use, temperature, topography, Binary look-up table b) Global analysis b) Global assessment e.g. Grêt-Regamey et al. (2012b) 21 53

22 Mapping of functions a) Regional analysis, process-based model Spatial input => today s LPES exercise Spatial output Thalmann (2013)

23 Mapping of functions b) Continental analysis Grêt-Regamey and Kienast (2014)

24 Calculation example Exercise: Map the timber CO 2 t/ha = G m 3 production /ha ρ kg/m 3 of the highlighted forest patches currently and in BEF C/biomass kg/kg C 1 C future, assuming a 2 C temperature increase 2 G = growth volume of a specific forest type ρ = the density of coniferous wood (394 kg/m 3 ) C 1 = temperature specific factor yield kg/ha = G m 3 /ha ρ kg/m 3 C 1 Tree type (1) small 2.88 (2) medium 4.32 (3) large 5.92 (4) very large 6.24 Growth volume [m 3 /ha and y] Average June Temp. < > Temperature specific factor Spatial data Tree type Temperature 100m 24 53

25 Valuation of ecosystem services 2. Valuation of ecosystem services 1. Quantification of ecosystem functions 25 53

26 Different values Norms, perception and valuation of societal (demand) Social value functions Societal value, societal demand Economic value Supply-oriented studies (based on potential to deliver services) neutral, objective prices 26 53

27 Valuation methods: paradigms Biophysical methods Production cost perspective How much (work, energy, ), does it cost to produce a service? e.g. Input-output analysis VS. Preference-based methods Models of human behavior based on the assumption that value is given by preferences of individuals 27 53

28 Supply of intermediate services Final demand Total production Input-output analysis x 1,1 x 1,2 x 1,n y 1,a y 1,b y 1,c x 2,1 x 2,2 x 2,n y 2,a y 2,b y 2,c x n,1 x n,2 x n,2 y n,a y n,b y n,c Intermediate services consumption p u,1 p u,2 p u,n p v,1 p v,2 p v,n p w,1 p w,2 p w,2 Primary inputs Total input Ecosystem services as primary inputs Risk analysis Market price CO2 Production costs Quantification of biophysical parameters 2. Valuation based on production-oriented methods (Grêt-Regamey und Kytzia, 2007)

29 Input-Output analysis 3. Multiplication of different values in table to evaluate direct and indirect benefits of ecosystem services Ecosystem services as primary inputs (Grêt-Regamey und Kytzia, 2007)

30 Preference-based methods YES 1. Existing markets? NO Market-based valuation methods YES 2. Proxy-markets related to ecosystem services? NO «Revealed preferences» 3. Hypothetic markets Simulated valuation «Stated Preferences» 30 53

31 Preference-based methods YES 1. Existing markets? NO Market-based valuation methods YES 2. Proxy-markets related to ecosystem services? NO Revealed preferences 3. Hypothetic markets Simulated valuation Stated preferences Production services e.g. Agricultural products Recreation, Aesthetics Travel cost method, Hedonic Prices All ecosystem services Use values, non-use values 31 53

32 Stated preferences (TEEB, Chapter 5, 2010) Revealed preferences Market valuation Overview Method Comment/example Market price mainly provisioning, e.g. fishes, wood some regulating, e.g. climate regulation Cost based Avoided cost cost in absence of ecosystem service, e.g. value flood control = estimated damage if flooding would occur Replacement cost cost of replacing service by artificial technology, e.g. value of groundwater recharge = costs of obtaining water from another source Restoration cost Production function/factor income Travel cost Hedonic pricing Contingent valuation Choice modelling cost of getting service restored, e.g. wetland service = cost of wetland restoration contribution of service to enhancement of income, e.g. how fertility improves crop yield and income of farmers mostly recreation service, e.g. recreational value = amount of time and money people spend while traveling to a site Demand for environmental attribute of commodity, e.g. value of estate increased by presence of aesthetic view, water bodies mostly non-use values, willingness to pay, e.g. recreation in lake = willingness to increase level of water quality for swimming individuals are faced with alternatives, e.g. choice experiments, contingent ranking, Group valuation For overcoming shortcomings such as lack of knowledge of individuals, manipulation during survey,

33 Travel cost method Recreation value of forest Recreation service of forest in Switzerland for the entire Swiss population = 10.5 Billion CHF/year (BUWAL, 2005) 33 53

34 Choice Experiment Stakeholder group: Local residents Future demand for ecosystem services Described by 4 verbal and 4 visual attributes Clustered random sample (n=600) Return rate: 43% Brunner et al. 2016, choice experiment by S. Rewitzer and J. Barkmann

35 Future tolerable states Attributes WTP (taxes paid) Farms (1 farm less) -0.37% Natural hazards (1 event less) 0.90% Dry meadows and pastures (1 ha more) 0.12% Tree die-off - lower elevations (1 level more) Forest expansion - higher elevations (1 level more) -6.68% Settlement - lower elevations (1 level more) % Grassland (1 level more intensive) -5.23% SQ-ASC (preference for status quo) 3.88% n.s. now future Willingness to accept state only if taxes decrease, needs compensation of 0.37% of taxes now future Willingness to pay 0.9% more taxes for state 35 53

36 Mapping ecosystem services CO2-Sequestration Hotspot (2014)

37 Calculation example Exercise: Calculate the value of the highlighted forest patches for timber production. What are the limitations of the valuation method? Assumption: Market timber price = 244 CHF/t = 6.24*394*0.8 = 1967 kg = 5.92*394*1 = 2332 kg = 5.92*394*1.2 = 2799 kg = 5.92*394*1.4 = 3265 kg = 4.32*394*0.8 = 1362 kg = 2.88*394*1 = 1135 kg = 6.24*394*1.2 = 2950 kg = 6.24*394*1.4 = 3442 kg = 4.32*394*0.8 = 1362 kg = 2.88*394*1 = 1135 kg = 5.92*394*1.2 = 2799 kg = 2.88*394*1.4 = 1589 kg = 2.88*394*0.8 = 908 kg = 4.32*394*1 = 1362 kg = 5.92*394*1.2 = 2799 kg = 4.32*394*1.4 = 2383 kg 37 53

38 (Syrbe und Walz, 2012) The spatial dimension Spatial discrepancy 38 53

39 The spatial dimension Services spatially explict a) Functions/processes (supply) vary across space b) Benefits (demand) vary across space Spatial assessment (supply, demand, costs) crucial for solid valuation c) Delivery costs vary across space 39 53

40 The temporal dimension Schmiede Wiedikon and surroundings Services: Recreation Aesthetics Fresh air Agriculture Services: Industry Traffic Education Aesthetic? 40 53

41 The temporal dimension Limmattal Fast change in services!

42 The temporal dimension Services vary/change in time Valuation of future services difficult a) Functions/processes (supply) change in time b) Values/preferences (demand) change in time (=> difficult to model!) c) Valuation changes in time (=> discounting) 42 53

43 Change in perception Perceived as abrupt/fast changes: Building development on green space in close proximity to home Fire damages Storm damages Perceived as slow changes: Changes in a larger perimeter Settlement development within a municipality Adaptation possible but threshold values: Loss of species Accumulation of different architectural styles Loss of identity 43 53

44 Summary Spatial dimension Individual preferences Temporal dimension when applied properly, the application of these methods can provide a useful input to project appraisals. Landscape processes (Bateman, 1999 ) 44 53

45 Useful concept for landscape planning 1. Ecosystem services are linked to spatial structure Pollination street No viable population Viable population No viable population meadow forest Recreation in forest No demand Demand 45 53

46 Useful concept for landscape planning 2. Relevant and understandable for local population and participation Habitat CO 2 -sink Diversity Aesthetics Timber Recreation Agricultural production Intrinsic value!!!!!???? 46 53

47 Useful concept for landscape planning 3. Monetization allows comparison and prioritization Bebi et al. (2013)

48 Planning practice LEK Cham, Master thesis, B. Meyer, More potential!

49 Planning practice Renaturation Steinach, Master thesis, B. Meyer, More potential!

50 Planning practice

51 Learning goals and materials Learning goals: You know the four categories of ecosystem services, can give examples, and understand how they interact with land use know the difference and links between for ecosystem functions/structures and ecosystem services, as well as examples know different methods for the quantification and valuation of ecosystem services and can do simple calculations can suggest valuation methods for different services know arguments for the use of ecosystem services and pro/contra a monetary valuation of the services understand the importance of spatial and temporal aspects when assessing ecosystem services Slides and background literature will be available for download on the course website