2 results
16 - Valuing peatland ecosystem services
- from Part III - Socio-economic and political solutions to managing natural capital and peatland ecosystem services
-
- By Sabine Wichmann, University of Greifswald, Germany, Luke Brander, Institute for Environmental Studies, VU Amsterdam, The Netherlands, Achim Schäfer, Greifswald Mire Centre, Germany, Marije Schaafsma, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK, Pieter van Beukering, Institute for Environmental Studies, VU Amsterdam, The Netherlands., Dugald Tinch, University of Sterling, UK, Aletta Bonn, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research (iDiv)
- Edited by Aletta Bonn, Tim Allott, University of Manchester, Martin Evans, University of Manchester, Hans Joosten, Rob Stoneman
-
- Book:
- Peatland Restoration and Ecosystem Services
- Published online:
- 05 June 2016
- Print publication:
- 23 June 2016, pp 314-338
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
Introduction
Throughout history, peatlands have been inhospitable places for humans; feared as wilderness, despised as wasteland and often remained as unsettled borderlands (Silvius, Joosten and Opdam 2008). They became seen as valuable only since being drained for agriculture, forestry or peat extraction. This biased focus on direct provisioning services has long ignored the destructive effects of peatland exploitation on regulating and cultural services (e.g. loss of biodiversity, emissions of CO2 and nutrients, declining water quality and quantity).
The degradation of ecosystem functions inspired the recognition of human dependence on nature (e.g. Leopold 1949; Ehrlich and Ehrlich 1981; De Groot 1992; Daily 1997) and stimulated attempts to include ecosystem values in planning and political decision making (e.g. Krutilla 1967; Krutilla and Fisher 1975; Pearce and Nash 1981). Over the last two decades the concept of ecosystem services (Chapter 1) and their valuation have raised increasing interest. Within the scientific community it is represented by an exponential growth in publications (Fisher, Turner and Morling 2009). In addition, the policy world has boosted the concept by initiating major comprehensive studies such as the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA 2005), The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB 2008, 2010) and several initiatives on the national scale such as the UK National Ecosystem Assessment (UK NEA). Launching the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) established an interface between the scientific community and policy makers comparable to the IPCC. It reflects as much the hope as the political challenge connected to the ecosystem service approach bridging nature conservation and human well-being.
This chapter aims to introduce the concept of ecosystems service valuation to readers with no economic background, gives an overview of valuation studies on peatlands, including three case studies Boxes 16.2 – 16.4), shows that expressing damage to peatlands as welfare costs provides economic reasons for conservation and restoration, and identifies instruments for the remuneration of benefits provided by functioning peatlands.
Valuing nature
The great variety of benefits derived from ecosystems is reflected by the distinction between economic value (welfare), socio-cultural value (well-being) and ecological value (ecosystem integrity and life-support functions) (e.g. MA 2005; De Groot et al. 2006). The valuation of ecosystem services integrates ecology (understanding and quantification), ethics (e.g. intergenerational justice), politics (setting objectives) as well as economics, psychology and sociology (disclosing the underlying values and motivations of people).
9 - The first United Kingdom's National Ecosystem Assessment and beyond
- from Part III - Assessing water ecosystem services
-
- By Marije Schaafsma, University of East Anglia, Silvia Ferrini, University of East Anglia, Amii R. Harwood, University of East Anglia, Ian J. Bateman, University of East Anglia
- Edited by Julia Martin-Ortega, Robert C. Ferrier, Iain J. Gordon, Shahbaz Khan, United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), France
-
- Book:
- Water Ecosystem Services
- Published online:
- 05 May 2015
- Print publication:
- 26 March 2015, pp 73-81
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
9.1 INTRODUCTION
As water and land resources become scarcer, further conflicting demands of different uses and users will arise (Vörösmarty et al. 2000). Sustainable management is required to secure water resources for future generations. Ecosystem services-based approaches aim to ensure that the values of a broad range of benefits to humanity that are provided by our natural environment are accounted for in policy making, in order to foster sustainable development (Chapter 2). National-level incorporation of sustainable development goals has propelled interest in large-scale assessments of ecosystem services which can help address complex problems of ecosystem change (Bateman et al. 2013).
The central question of this chapter is whether large-scale ecosystem services-based approaches provide an opportunity for improving water management. The UK National Ecosystem Assessment (UK-NEA) was the first analysis of the societal benefits of the UK natural environment (UK-NEA 2011a). Moreover, it was one of the leading initiatives worldwide to assess ecosystem services at national level after the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005) produced a global assessment. The first phase of the UK-NEA provided a wealth of policy-relevant information, and we use it here as a case study.
UK rivers, lakes, and ponds make up around 250 000 hectares (1.1%) of the UK total surface area. These surface waters, together with unseen groundwater systems, contribute significant ecosystem services and goods to human well-being in the UK. The quality of UK freshwaters has improved over the last 50 years following direct regulatory interventions in rural and agricultural practices and EU Directives, such as the Water Framework Directive (Watson 2012). These policies have led to a reduction of point and diffuse chemical pollution and improved ecological conditions. Nonetheless, pressures from agricultural, industrial, and domestic use on water resources remains high, both in terms of quality and quantity (Watson 2012). Agricultural practices and landscape modifications, such as use of fertilisers, habitat fragmentation, and degradation, reduce the ecosystem service provision and resulting human benefits.