Valuing nature‐conservation interests on agricultural floodplains

Abstract

Summary 1.The ecosystem approach and evaluation of ecosystem services is gaining increasing attention from scientists, practitioners and policy makers. An important part of this process is to establish the 'value' of the nature-conservation assets within an area. This value can then be compared with data for other ecosystem services to identify management priorities under different future scenarios. However, there is little consensus on how to perform such an evaluation. In this study, we assess seven methods of valuing nature-conservation interest and compare their utility. 2. Five agricultural land drainage schemes across lowland England were selected for study. The current land-use was determined and four different scenarios of future management were developed. The land-use and habitats predicted under each scenario were assessed using seven methods of determining value, namely: Ecological Impact Assessment method, reserve-selection criteria, target-based criteria, stakeholder-choice analysis, reserve-selection criteria guided by stakeholders, agri-environment scheme payments and contingent valuation. The first three methods derive values based on pre-defined priorities, the next two use stated preferences of stakeholders, and the last two methods derive monetary values based on revealed and expressed preference, respectively. 3. The results obtained from the different methods were compared. The methods gave broadly similar results and were highly correlated, but each method emphasized a different aspect of conservation value, leading to different possible outcomes in some cases. The advantages and disadvantages of each method were evaluated. 4. Synthesis and applications. As the ecosystem services approach becomes embedded in decisionmaking, ecologists are increasingly called upon to value the biodiversity of a site or to compare the value of different sites. This study has shown that seven different valuation methods, although all giving significantly correlated findings, resulted in seven different rankings of nature-conservation value for the 25 situations studied. This difference occurred in spite of the sites being of the same landscape type and occurring within the same country. The discussion concludes that each method has its strengths; monetary valuations are appropriate in some contexts, stakeholder preferences are paramount in others, but where objectivity is key, then assessment against independently defined criteria or targets should be the preferred method.

Effects of methodology and stakeholder disaggregation on ecosystem service valuation

“…Spearman's rho nonparametric correlations were used to quantify these relative rankings, both for intersite comparisons, and to compare ranks of services between the monetary values and the normalized nonmonetary values for each site. This methodology follows the practice of previous studies in which mean scores have been compared directly (e.g., Rouquette et al 2009). However, this alone does not account for the variation surrounding these means.…”

Nutrient Management in Support of Environmental and Agricultural Sustainability

“…In addition, Watts et al [38] found that increasing organic carbon in soil by 0.1% could reduce the specific plough draught by 5 kPa, which represents a fuel saving of more than 5%. Arable land that helped control flooding could make a large and valuable contribution to both the full economy of the UK [39] and to environmental quality downstream. Clearly not all land can perform all services simultaneously, but UK arable production managed as a whole might, even if not all in the same place.…”

Does landscape-scale conservation management enhance the provision of ecosystem services?

“…The distinction between 'upland' and 'lowland' BAP habitats, for example, heathland in Pumlumon and Ennerdale, was determined by calculating the area above or below 300 m using a digital terrain model (Maddock 2008). Second, an Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA) was conducted following Rouquette et al (2009). This involved scoring habitats present within each study area on a scale of 1-6, reflecting their conservation importance (ranging from being a local to an international priority) and significance (ranging from <1% regional resource of the habitat to >5% national resource, within a case study area).…”

“…This involved scoring habitats present within each study area on a scale of 1-6, reflecting their conservation importance (ranging from being a local to an international priority) and significance (ranging from <1% regional resource of the habitat to >5% national resource, within a case study area). The mean score for all habitats across each site was then calculated, following Rouquette et al (2009).…”