Valuation of ecosystem services to inform management of multiple-use landscapes

Abstract

Public agencies worldwide are increasingly adopting an ecosystem service framework to manage lands serving multiple uses. Yet, reliable, practical, and well-tailored methods remain a major limitation in moving from conceptual to actionable approaches. Together with one of the largest federal land managing agencies, we co-develop and co-demonstrate an ecosystem services approach tailored to specific decisions, through a process with potentially widespread relevance. With the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD), we focus on balancing military training with biodiversity and resource conservation under both budgetary and land-use pressures at a representative installation. In an iterative process of co-design and application, we define, map, and quantify multiple ecosystem services under realistic management options. Resource management budget emerges as a major determinant of the degree to which managers can sustain both necessary training environments -a DoD-specific ecosystem service -and a prairie ecosystem with species of conservation concern. We also found clear tradeoffs between training intensity and forest-related services. Our co-developed approach brings otherwise hidden values and tradeoffs to the fore in a balanced way that can help public agencies safeguard priority services under potentially conflicting uses and budget limitations.

Quantifying stakeholder understanding of an ecosystem service trade-off

“…Thus, ecosystem services are spatially heterogeneous and temporally dynamic, responding to human and environmental pressures but also shifts in other ecosystem services. The ecosystem service concept has therefore gained recognition as an approach for addressing interactions within socio-ecological systems, both by research and policy-practitioner communities and those with a responsibility for land-based decision-making (Ma et al 2016;Costanza et al 2017).…”

Capturing the value of green space in urban parks in a sustainable urban planning and design context: pros and cons of hedonic pricing

“…To more effectively include the values of different health benefits generated by urban parks into urban planning and design strategies, we suggest applying alternative valuation approaches capable of disaggregating the different health benefits by including benefits irrespective of whether these benefits are enjoyed in direct relation to the park or not, or perceived by people living next to the park or not. This may be done, e.g., by combining approaches such as ecosystem services, multifunctionality, and spatial specificity (see, e.g., Bateman et al 2013, Ma et al 2016). In the context of broadening and operationalizing the array of health benefits generated by urban parks, we also suggest that qualitative health dimensions, as identified within the field of environmental psychology, such as "Serene," "Space," and "Nature" need to be translated into quantitative measures because, although much has been achieved in the context of promoting health in cities (see, e.g., WHO 2014), there is still a considerable lack of data on the many functions and values of ecosystems and landscapes (de Groot 2006).…”

“…To get at these types of shortcomings, in an urban planning and design context, there is a need to merge ecological and socioeconomic aspects of who is benefiting from ecosystem services and where (see, e.g., Polasky et al 2005, TEEB 2010 and to apply valuation approaches capable of embracing and disaggregating benefits other than just those perceived by people living next to the urban park and where the benefits are strictly enjoyed within the boundaries of the park. Valuation approaches that may serve this purpose better than the HPM are, e.g., approaches focusing on land use planning and design from the start by, e.g., applying an ecosystem service approach within the context of multifunctionality and spatial specificity (see, e.g., Tallis and Polasky 2009, Bateman et al 2013, Ma et al 2016). …”

Habitat risk assessment for regional ocean planning in the U.S. Northeast and Mid-Atlantic

“…The HRA model is a quantitative approach to evaluating the cumulative influence of stressors associated with human activities on habitats [23,51] and is available as part of the open-source InVEST ecosystem service modeling software [52]. HRA uses a well-established approach [51,[53][54][55] from the risk literature that originates from fisheries vulnerability assessment [37,39,56] and was subsequently adopted for ecological risk assessment [23,51]. A central feature and strength of the HRA model is that it explicitly breaks down exposure and consequence in a risk framework and, in so doing, offers insight into effective management strategies.…”