Monday 9 July 2012

Third paper accepted for publication in one week!

I'm on a roll ... just had a third paper accepted for publication this week!

Rudolf .S. de Groot; Luke Brander; Sander van der Ploeg; Florence Bernard; Leon Braat;
Mike Christie; Robert Costanza; Neville Crossman; Andrea Ghermandi; Lars Hein (2012). Global estimates of the value of ecosystems and their services in monetary units. Ecosystem Services. In Press

The paper discusses the Ecosystem Service Value Database (ESVD) that was used in the TEEB study. Note that we plan to build up the ESVD database in the future, so that we attain a much more comprehensive suite of value evidence on the value of ecosystem services across different biomes. In turn, this will allow more robust use of value transfers in the future. For more info on ESVD, see http://www.fsd.nl/esp/79128/5/0/50 .

Below is the abstract from the paper...

This paper provides a comprehensive overview of the value of ecosystem services provided by 10 main biomes based on data from local case studies worldwide, expressed in monetary units. In total, over 320 publications were screened covering over 300 case study locations. Approximately 1350 value estimates were coded and stored in a searchable Ecosystem Service Value Database (ESVD). A selection of 665 value estimates were used for the analysis of the methods, locations, ecosystem services, and ranges of values presented in this paper.

Acknowledging the uncertainties and contextual nature of any valuation, the analysis shows that the total Value Estimated in Monetary units (VEM) of ecosystem services is considerable and ranges between 490 int$/year for the total bundle of ecosystem services that can be provided by an ‘average’ hectare of open oceans to almost 350,000 int$/year for the potential services of an ‘average’ hectare of coral reefs.

More importantly, our results show that most of this value is outside the market and best considered as non-tradable public benefits. The continued over-exploitation of ecosystems thus comes at the expense of the livelihood of the poor, and future generations. Given that many of the positive externalities of ecosystems are lost or strongly reduced after land use conversion better accounting for the public goods and services provided by ecosystems is crucial to improved decision making and better management, and new institutions are required for better management.




Thursday 5 July 2012

'Economic valuation of ecosystem services from SSSIs' paper accepted for publication to Ecosystem Services Journal



My paper, with Matt Rayment 'An economic assessment of the ecosystem service benefits derived from the SSSI biodiversity conservation policy in England and Wales'.has now been accepted for publication of the first edition of the new Ecosystem Services journal. The paper is based on a Defra research project that we completed last year.

Abstract
Despite significant conservation efforts, global biodiversity continues to decline. A key contributing factor has been a failure to fully recognise the range of 'ecosystem service' benefits provided by biodiversity. In this paper, we use a case study relating to Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) in England and Wales to demonstrate the potential ecosystem service benefits that can be derived from biodiversity conservation policies. Our approach involved three stages. (1) a choice experiment to assess the economic value of ecosystem services delivered by SSSI sites; (2) a 'weighting matrix' to (a) assign ecosystem services to the different SSSI habitats and (b) identify the contribution that conservation management on SSSIs has on the delivery of these services; (3) estimation of the aggregated economic value of ecosystem services directly attributable to conservation management on SSSI sites.

The public are willing to pay £956m annually to secure the levels of services and benefits currently delivered by SSSI conservation activities, and a further £769 million to secure the benefits that would be delivered if SSSIs were all in favourable condition. These benefit estimates significantly exceed the annual £111 million costs of managing SSSIs, demonstrating that investing in biodiversity conservation can be cost effective.


Wednesday 4 July 2012

Tuesday 3 July 2012

New paper in Land Use Policy: Evaluation of cost-effectiveness of organic farming support as an agri-environmental measure at Swiss agricultural sector level.

A paper by one of my PhD students, Christian Schader, along with myself and several others, have got the following paper accepted in Land Use Policy: Evaluation of cost-effectiveness of organic farming support as an agri-environmental measure at Swiss agricultural sector level.


The paper's abstract is below. I'll provide a web link to the paper when I receive it; but for now feel free to email for a copy.

Abstract

The economic efficiency of financial support of organic farming has been questioned by economists and policy makers. However, little empirical research has been done in order to evaluate the economic performance of these payments. Thus, the aim of this paper is to calculate the cost effectiveness of organic farming support in achieving environmental policy targets compared to other agri-environmental measures.
The cost-effectiveness of agri-environmental measures can be understood as a function of policy uptake, environmental effects, and public expenditure. Taking the Swiss agricultural sector as an empirical case study, cost-effectiveness of organic farming support and other single agri environmental measures was calculated. For this purpose, the sector-representative PMP model FARMIS was extended by three modules encompassing a) life cycle assessments for fossil energy use, biodiversity and eutrophication according to the SALCA methodology, b) public expenditure, including policy-related transaction costs, and c) uptake of agri-environmental measures. The calculations revealed a slightly higher policy cost with organic farming support of 14 CHF/ha for a 1 % average improvement in the environmental indicators, compared to a combination of three single agri-environmental measures (11 CHF/ha), including bothextensification of arable land and meadows. In view of an average public expenditure on agriculture of 2.5 kCHF per ha in Switzerland, these differences can be considered as marginal. Sensitivity analyses confirm that the cost-effectiveness of organic farming support is very similar to combined agri-environmental measures. Furthermore, the model reveals that the cost-effectiveness of specific agri-environmental measures is higher when implemented on organic farms rather than on non-organic farms.