Valuing nature’s benefits for humans

Vision…

61%

45%

44%

(Ranked by 7 – “very appealing;” On a scale from 1-7 where 1 is “not at all appealing” and 7 is “very appealing”)

53%

“Nature’s Value” and “Nature’s Benefits” receive the highest average scores.

11. Here are some phrases people might use to describe the idea of calculating the dollar value of the benefits provided by conserving natural resources, including land and water, in their natural state. After you hear each phrase, please rate how appealing it sounds to you on a scale of one to seven, where one means NOT AT ALL APPEALING and seven means VERY APPEALING. A rating of 4 is NEUTRAL. Split Sample

55%

49%

46%

45%

Average Score5.5

5.2

5.3

5.2

4.9

4.9

4.9

5.0

Nature’s Value

Earth’s Benefits

Nature’s Benefits

Environmental Value

Environmental Wealth

Natural Life-Support

Nature’s Health and Safety Systems

The Planet’s Assets

44%

34%

31%

34%

Continued……

11. Here are some phrases people might use to describe the idea of calculating the dollar value of the benefits provided by conserving natural resources, including land and water, in their natural state. After you hear each phrase, please rate how appealing it sounds to you on a scale of one to seven, where one means NOT AT ALL APPEALING and seven means VERY APPEALING. A rating of 4 is NEUTRAL. Split Sample

42%

32%

29%

30%

Average Score4.9

4.8

4.4

4.6

4.6

4.5

4.2

4.3

Environmental Goods

Ecological Wealth

Nature’s Social Safety Net

Natural Infrastructure

The Planet’s Products and Services

Ecosystem Services

Earth’s Capital

Natural Capital

• NatCap approach to mainstreaming ecosystem service information in management and policy

• Case examples:– Designing water funds in Colombia

– Assessing impacts of mining concessions

– Defining ecological function conservation areas in China

– Informing marine spatial planning in British Columbia

• Next steps

Filling the Gap

Filling the Gap

Most Policy WindowsMedium spatial scale

Short timelineStandard approach

Integrated Valuation of Ecosystem Services and Tradeoffs (InVEST)

• Applicable anywhere on the globe

• With minimal data• Flexible scale• Scenario based• Relevant to many

kinds of decisions• Biophysical and socio-

economic outputs• Biodiversity and multi-

services http://www.naturalcapitalproject.org

China

EasternArc Mtns

California

Hawai’i

AmazonBasin

Colombia

Ecuador

WCVI, B.C.

Belize

Chesapeake Bay

Puget Sound

Galveston Bay

TerrestrialCoastal & Marine

Indonesia

Applying InVEST to inform decision-making

Testing many kinds of decision contexts

Decision Context Geography

Spatial Planning Tanzania, Indonesia, British Columbia, Hawaii, China

Coastal Zone Management Belize

Ecosystem-based management (terrestrial-marine links)

Puget Sound, Galveston Bay, Chesapeake Bay

Climate adaptation (ecosystem-based adaptation)

Galveston Bay, Monterey Bay

Return on restoration investments Colombia water funds, Gulf of Mexico, Indonesia

Impact assessment, permitting, licensing

Colombia mining concessions, agricultural practices in US

• NatCap approach to mainstreaming ecosystem service information in management and policy

• Case examples:– Designing water funds in Colombia

– Assessing impacts of mining concessions

– Defining ecological function conservation areas in China

– Informing marine spatial planning in British Columbia

• Next steps

Stak

ehol

der

Enga

gem

ent Identify Objectives

Develop Scenarios

Compile Data

Water For Life and Sustainability Water Fund

Committee:

Watershed Associations

Sugar Cane Associations

The Nature Conservancy

Vallenpaz (local NGO)

Maintain consistent water flows necessary for drinking water, biodiversity and agriculture through a coordinated strategy.

Water For Life and Sustainability Water Fund

Scenario Development

Landscape rankingEfficient investment for 5 target budgets

TNC and CIAT compiled data

Spatially explicit land uses, agricultural/silvicultural practices

Stak

ehol

der

Enga

gem

ent Identify Objectives

Develop Scenarios

Compile Data

Biophysical Models

Economic ModelsInVE

ST

Land Use Soil type Topography

Spatial Data Inputs on Natural Capital

Roads Cities Infrastructure

Spatial Data Inputs on Built Capital

InVEST Outputs

Supply Service ValueSupply

+Location and activity of

beneficiaries

Ecological functionsEcosystem elements

Service+

Social preference

InVEST 1.003 Beta can map

Biodiversity

Crop pollination

Carbon seq & storage

Managed timber production

Avoided reservoir sedimentation

Water yield for hydropower production

Water purification: nutrient retention

Multi-Service Approach

• Market valuation– Carbon– Timber– Non-timber forest products

• Avoided damage costs– Water purification– Flood mitigation– Avoided reservoir

sedimentation

• Production Economics– Water for irrigation– Pollination of agricultural

crops

T1 Economic Valuation Methods

InVEST Outputs

Return on Investment Results

Amaime River Watershed

Return on Investment Results

Amaime Nima

Palo

Bolo

Desbaratado

FraileTulua Guabas

Sabaletas

Investment Portfolios

Tulua River Watershed

Mapped Output:Where should protection, restoration activities occur for a given investment?

Stakeholder Feedback

Tulua River Watershed

Not Feasible: Guerilla Activity

Stak

ehol

der E

ngag

emen

t Identify Objectives

Develop Scenarios

Compile Data

Post-Analyses

Biophysical Models

Economic ModelsInVE

ST

Returning Services to the Same People

“Servicesheds’ for beneficiaries of mining mitigation

Nutrient Pollution ImpactsErosion Impacts

Sumatra Land Use Planning

Scenario 1 Scenario 2

Spatial Pattern of Service Change

-40

-20

0

20

40

60

80

Summed habitat quality score / 1000

Water yield runoff depth (mm/yr)

Avoided erosion (tons / yr) / 100000

Carbon stock over 50 yrs (Mt) / 100

Plantation area (km2) / 1000

Natural habitat (km2) / 1000

Multi-Service Tradeoffs

Baoxing EFCA Mapping with InVEST

PRODUCTION: -Water Retention- Soil Retention- Carbon Storage - Biodiversity

DEMAND:HydropowerFlood MitigationIrrigationAgriculture, Mining

Draft EFCA Map

• 40,000 people• 11% Nuu-chah-nulth

First Nations• Logging, fishing,

aquaculture, tourism

Marine spatial planning in British Columbia

Marine InVEST

Nursery

Fisheries

Aquaculture

Coastal Protection

Transformation & sequestration

Recreation

Energy generation

WEC-1

WEC-2

WEC-3

WEC-1 : Generated the greatest energy : Caused the least changes in the aesthetic view of nearby parks: Produced the least conflicts with fishery activities

Commercial Salmon Trawl

Commercial Salmon Net

Commercial Crab

Recreational Groundfish

Recreational Salmon

Next steps: links to livelihoods, poverty alleviation, human health

R² = 0.8242

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

Ann

ual A

vgYi

eld

SWAT

Annual Avg Yield InVEST

Model Testing: USA

Comparison of SWAT and InVESTAverage annual water yield (mm)

TULUASWAT InVEST % difference

Baseline 805.98 804.28 0.21%No conservation 816.04 765.98 6.13%Conservation 805.54 768.87 4.55%

FRAILESWAT InVEST % difference

Baseline 301.23 379.19 -25.88%No conservation 319.77 335.54 -4.93%Conservation 300.55 362.60 -20.65%

Model Testing: Colombia

Model Testing: Hainan Island, China