Linking water quality and well-being for improved assessment and valuation of ecosystem services

Abstract

Despite broad recognition of the value of the goods and services provided by nature, existing tools for assessing and valuing ecosystem services often fall short of the needs and expectations of decision makers. Here we address one of the most important missing components in the current ecosystem services toolbox: a comprehensive and generalizable framework for describing and valuing water quality-related services. Water quality is often misrepresented as a final ecosystem service. We argue that it is actually an important contributor to many different services, from recreation to human health. We present a valuation approach for water quality-related services that is sensitive to different actions that affect water quality, identifies aquatic endpoints where the consequences of changing water quality on human well-being are realized, and recognizes the unique groups of beneficiaries affected by those changes. We describe the multiple biophysical and economic pathways that link actions to changes in water qualityrelated ecosystem goods and services and provide guidance to researchers interested in valuing these changes. Finally, we present a valuation template that integrates biophysical and economic models, links actions to changes in service provision and value estimates, and considers multiple sources of water quality-related ecosystem service values without double counting. O ne of the fundamental challenges of mainstreaming ecosystem services into decision making involves linking ecosystem processes with changes in human well-being (1). This is especially true for water quality-related ecosystem goods and services. Water quality is highly valued by the public, and information on water quality values is increasingly demanded by decision makers. However, there is no generalizable framework for linking changes in water quality to changes in multiple ecosystem goods and services. This is problematic because limiting ecosystem service assessments to those services with direct use value and market prices systematically undervalues ecosystem services and fails to achieve a full accounting of all of the environmental and economic tradeoffs associated with decisions.Valuing water quality changes is particularly challenging relative to other ecosystem goods and services. Changing water quality affects many aspects of human well-being, and benefits and/or costs accrue to different groups of beneficiaries at varying spatial and temporal scales. This complexity contrasts with other ecosystem services, such as carbon sequestration, for which emissions are aggregated into a global atmospheric pool. Each unit increase in carbon emissions results in a more or less constant loss in value (i.e., costs associated with climate change). By contrast, each unit improvement in water quality may affect only a local area, the value of which varies widely with spatial context and may have strongly diminishing marginal benefits (e.g., additional reductions in nutrient pollution entering a clean lake generate minimal new benefits, and t...

Estimating the impacts of conservation on ecosystem services and poverty by integrating modeling and evaluation

“…For such services as hydrological or pollination services, spatial interactions are much more important, and the demands on the impact evaluation and modeling team will be more substantial. For similar reasons, the valuation of regional services, such as water quality and quantity, or local services, such as nontimber forest products and ecotourism, will require the use of nonmarket valuation designs that incorporate the characteristics of the beneficiary populations (2,50). Extending this research to examining how programs affect biodiversity, which may then affect ecosystem services, also would be fruitful, and informative for the contentious debate about the appropriate focus of conservation investments: biodiversity versus ecosystem services (51)(52)(53).…”

“…T o inform decision makers about how they can best allocate resources to maintain and enhance ecosystem services, scholars need to develop a better understanding of how policy interventions actually affect the supply of ecosystem services. In the last two decades, scholars have made important advances in defining, measuring, and valuing ecosystem services across time and space (1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6)(7). These measures and values have in turn been used as conservation planning and resource management decision tools (8)(9)(10)(11).…”

Measuring the value of groundwater and other forms of natural capital

“…Groundwater is a crucial asset globally, supporting 40% of the world's food production (28). However, its value as natural capital has not been credibly estimated (29)(30)(31). Indeed, the lack of values for water is lamented in the 2014 Inclusive Wealth Report (IWR) (2).…”

Modeling water scarcity and droughts for policy adaptation to climate change in arid and semiarid regions

“…Demand functions relate water use to the price of water and other explanatory variables such as income, climate, and household structure (Young and Loomis, 2014). Environmental benefits provided by aquatic ecosystems could be modeled by developing ecological response models of those ecosystems and using existing economic valuation studies (Keeler et al, 2012). Otherwise, environmental water uses may be represented with minimum-flow constraints if environmental valuation studies and ecosystem health indicators are unavailable.…”