Ecosystem services assessment guideline
Ecosystem services assessment guideline
References
Ash, N. (2010). Ecosystems and human well-being. A manual for assessment practitioners.
Island Press, Washington, DC.
Cowling, R.M., Egoh, B., Knight, A.T., O’Farrell, P.J., Reyers, B., Rouget, M., Roux, D., Welz,
A. & Wilhelm-Rechman, A. (2008). An operational model for mainstreaming
ecosystem services for implementation. PNAS, 105 (28) 9483-9488.Layke, C.
(2009). Measuring nature’s benefits: a preliminary roadmap for improving ecosystem
services indicators, Working paper, World Resources Institute, Washington, DC.
MA (2003). The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Biodiversity and Human Well-being: A
framework for assessment. Island Press, Washington, DC.
Report Number CSIR/NRE/ECOS/IR/2011/0083/A
MA (2005). Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Ecosystems and Human Well-being:
Synthesis. Island Press, Washington, DC.
Swetnam, R.D., Marshall, A.D. and Burgess, N.D. (2010) Valuing Ecosystem Services in the
Eastern Arc Mountains of Tanzania, Bulletin of the British Ecological Society, 41(1):
7-8.
Raudsepp-Hearne C, Peterson GD and Bennett EM. (2010). Ecosystem service bundles for
analyzing tradeoffs in diverse landscapes. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences 107: 5242-5247.
Reyers, B., O’Farrell, P.J., Cowling, R.M., Egoh, B.N., Le Maitre, D.C. and Vlok, J.H.J. (2009)
Ecosystem Services, Land-Cover Change, and Stakeholders: Finding a Sustainable
Foothold for a Semiarid Biodiversity Hotspot. Ecology and Society Ecology and
Society 14(1): 38. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol14/iss1/art38/
Roux, D.J., Ashton, P.J., Nel, J.L., and Mackay, H.M. (2008). Improving Cross-Sector Policy
Integration and Cooperation in Support of Freshwater Conservation. Conservation
Biology 22(6) 1382–1387.
Assessing ecosystem services at the local scale: a guide for local
authorities and practitioners
TEEB (2010). The Economics of Ecosystem and Biodiversity for Local an Regional Policy
Makers. Progress Press, Malta.
Young, A., and Fowkes, S. (2003). The Cape Action Plan for the Environment: overview of an
Patrick O’Farrell, Belinda Reyers & Jeanne Nel
ecoregional planning process. Biological Conservation 112: 15–28.
March 2011
16
1
Ecosystem services assessment guideline
Assessing ecosystem services at the local scale: a guide for local authorities and
practitioners
Ecosystem services assessment guideline
2.4.4 Dissemination
•
1.1 What are ecosystem services and why do they need to be assessed?
•
Dissemination is situation specific, and must be tailored to each situation.
Novel strategies for dissemination that make use of a variety of media should be
considered (such as twitter, face book, dedicated websites and data portals).
Ecosystem services refer to the benefits that people get from their natural environments. The
•
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA, 2005) describes four different groups of ecosystem
services: provisioning services (such as food and timber supply), regulating services (such as
•
flood and climate regulation), cultural services (such as tourism and aesthetic beauty), and
supporting services (such as soil formation and nutrient cycling). Human activities, particularly
been beneficial increasing the amount of food available per capita globally, however global and
Identified champions have a crucial role to play here in disseminating information at this
stage of the project.
•
those which have modified natural habitats have impacted on the provision and the delivery of
these services. In some instances, such as in the case of the food production service, this has
Local community engagement throughout the assessment processes helps to streamline
the dissemination phase providing insights on what works and what doesn’t.
Bridging organisations between stakeholder groups can also play an important role here
(see for example Roux et al. 2008).
•
Maintain continuity by ensuring that a core team of scientists, who were involved in the
assessment, are actively engaged in dissemination activities.
national assessments have highlighted that some of these improvements have come at a cost
to the supply of many other services. These declines in services like water purification and
flood regulation are a concern because they are closely coupled to human well-being.
Regularly taking stock or assessing the state of the suite of available ecosystem services, their
condition and the trends in their supply improves our understanding and enables us to improve
land-use management, development decisions and planning practices into the future.
1.2 Who is interested in assessing ecosystem services at a local scale?
Ecosystem service assessments are a “social process through which the findings of science
concerning the causes of ecosystem change, their consequences for human well-being, and
management and policy options are brought to bear on the needs of decision-makers” (MA
2005). These assessments have mostly been undertaken at global and regional scales, and
have made us aware of the large regional and global shifts in ecosystem service supply. Best
practice guidelines have been developed for these scales (Ash et al. 2010). These global and
regional studies, although useful in international policy and science have been conducted at
too coarse a resolution to inform the management of services at local planning levels. This is
the level at which this guide is focused.
At the local scale there are a variety of groups and individuals interested in developing a better
understanding of the status and trends in condition of the ecosystem services on which they
depend or for which they are responsible. These include municipal and district council
managers, catchment authorities, provincial authorities in agriculture, water supply, forestry,
tourism, conservation agencies and departments, and even individual private land owners.
Whilst these groups are interested in the results of the assessments they are seldom not in a
position to carry out such assessments on their own. Currently it is environmental and
2
15
Ecosystem services assessment guideline
•
The minimum level of communication is a regular newsletter to all stakeholders and
conservation scientists and consultants who are typically called on to lead and undertake
groups.
ecosystem assessments at the local scale.
This guideline is based on a decade of learning around ecosystem service assessments in
Communicating findings of the assessment
•
•
Ecosystem services assessment guideline
South Africa and is intended to aid both the people who conduct these assessments, as well
Choose the most appropriate medium for getting the findings across at the local level.
as the people who request the assessments in order to ensure that best practices are
The medium will depend on local context ranging from the traditional reporting style to
maintained, developed and shared. We have also drawn on the learning highlighted in the
novel stage productions, websites twitter or sound bites.
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment by Ash et al. (2010).
There are three types of product that could need communicating – scientific findings,
policy products, and outreach products.
•
•
•
•
Scientific findings are best communicated in technical reports and will serve to document
1.3 Approaching ecosystem services at a local scale
approaches, methods and results. The audience is technical competent and reports
There are a number of key features to assessing ecosystem services at a local scale. A
need to cover issues relating to methods in particular such as to the stakeholder
partnership between the assessment team and the stakeholders involved needs to be
engagement process, the review processes and the scientific credibility of a project.
developed. This partnership is essential if support, participation and uptake of the final
Reports should include a brief summary.
products generated are to take place. Ecosystem service assessments need to be inspired by
Scientists can be involved in the development and presentation of products (for example,
people who will use the information generated and those who will be affected by or interested
visually compelling scenarios and maps) that are user-useful and user-friendly (More
in the decisions taken after the assessment. An interdisciplinary approach needs to be
detail can be found in Cowling et al. 2008).
followed, with the traditional ecological-economic assessment complemented by a detailed and
Policy and outreach products should be more results focussed. They can make use of
targeted social assessment. While social assessments take time and are costly, they provide
novel communication tools such as websites. Budgeting for this form of communication
necessary insight into the context and rationale behind resource use decisions, and the
is often neglected and this needs to be made explicit in the design phase of the project
implications of these decisions from both institutional and individual perspectives. Whilst
given the costs involved. They must be targeted at specific audiences.
ecosystem service assessments can be stand alone decision making process, such as in
Developing slide shows that target different groups – scientists, policy, makers, and land
establishing Payments for Ecosystem Service Schemes, they can also be integrated into
owner communities are also very useful and can provide a significant aid for champions.
existing decision making processes such as Environmental Impact Assessment processes
(particularly during the screening and scoping phases of these assessments) and Integrated
Development Plans. There as many instances where such assessments can enhancing
decision making. We think that in South Africa (as in many other countries) the potential
2.4.3 Review
uptake of ecosystem service assessment has not yet been realised and many other planning
•
•
This stage of review must be in addition to the other review processes which have
and decision making processes (e.g. growth and development strategies) may soon become
happened during the lifespan of the processes.
users of assessments. We provide details on these requirements, and how to build them into
This last review process helps to ensure that the information which is about to be
the assessment, below.
disseminated is an accurate reflection of the findings, making these both credible and
defensible. It should include a focus on the defined alternative future possible states.
•
•
A review process needs to be followed no matter which medium of communication or
2. An approach to assessing ecosystem services at a local scale
reporting on the assessments findings has been chosen.
The approach consists of four phases, the design, evaluation, planning and communication
Formal reporting processes (e.g. reports) facilitate review by experts, and are therefore
phases (Figure 1). Each of these phases has a number of steps which we describe below.
worthwhile compiling
Stakeholders are defined here as all individuals affected both directly (e.g. farmer) and
indirectly (e.g. catchment manager) by a change in ecosystem service supply. Not all
14
3
Ecosystem services assessment guideline
Ecosystem services assessment guideline
ecosystem service assessments will examine all these phases or all steps within phases. The
2.3.2 Developing strategies and responses
decision on what to include or exclude depends on the nature and purpose of the investigation.
One of the outcomes of scenario planning is consensus on a desired future. A suite of
But leaving out a phase or step should be carefully considered. It is also important to note that
possible responses and mitigation strategies focused on directing future developments
these phases and steps are suggestions based on what has been learnt mostly by the Council
towards the outlined future desired state need to be developed.
for Scientific and Industrial Research in South Africa and will differ across regions and
institutions, and will change as we learn more about ecosystem services and how to assess
•
them.
Stage 1
Design
•
Define scope of
assessment
objectives and specific actions for the safeguarding of ecosystem services.
Characterising biophysical system
Economic valuation
Integrated Analysis
(Spatial & multivariate analysis, tradeoffs, policy endpoints, equity)
Review
Define alternate future states and scenarios
Intensity of advisory and technical committee engagement
Stage 2
Evaluation
Stage 3
Planning
It is important to remember that an assessment should be policy relevant and not policy
prescriptive. The overall aim of this stage is to collaboratively identify a set of strategic
Identify services and
coupled beneficiaries
Characterising social
system
Instruments and tools identified during the evaluation phases now need to be selected
and put forward according to selected response strategies.
•
Intensity of stakeholder engagement
Focus needs to be maintained on the ecosystem services and the development of a
strategy to achieve the defined vision.
•
as well a funding commitments and responsibilities.
2.4 Stage 4 – Communicating
2.4.1Reporting and communication
Communication is an important component and a communication strategy must be developed
upfront in collaboration with the requestors of the assessment. A reporting and communication
strategy which presents the findings of a study in a clear and concise manner that caters to
different stakeholder needs is required.
Interim reporting
•
Develop strategies and responses
A further key outcome is the identification of primary role players and their partners who
understand their future roles and responsibilities in meeting their future desired states,
•
Regular reporting on project progress at milestones in the form of symposia in important.
Symposia are not a unidirectional form of communication where project findings are
delivered to an audience. Symposia serve the purpose of communicating the project
Stage 4
Communicating
Reporting
progresses, and well as building a social processes whereby you help to establish and
Review
strengthen stakeholder networks and build the relationships needed to implement the
recommendations of assessments. Through this processes of engagement capacity is
Communication & dissemination
built and a common understanding emerges. They also provide opportunity for
stakeholder review (of for example indicators and scenarios). This is especially important
Figure 1. An approach for assessing ecosystem services at a local level
if there is a need for extensive capacity development. This less important where there
Integrally involved
4
Notif ied
are experienced and well connected stakeholder groups.
13
Ecosystem services assessment guideline
scientists and planners to understand and manage uncertainty in their work. They also
offer a platform for engaging stakeholders with divergent viewpoints and competing
objectives and have succeeded in smoothing potentially contentious situations. They are
also useful in the integration of all the knowledge developed in the assessment, engaging
Ecosystem services assessment guideline
2.1 Stage 1 - Design phase
2.1.1 Defining the scope of the assessment
•
decisions or actions, and the identification of important knowledge gaps about the future.
The purpose and need for an investigation is defined together with the individual or
group requesting the assessment.
with decision makers and stakeholders on the consequences of current and future
•
Similarly, a clearly detailed list of aims that need to be achieved by the assessment is
While this is not necessarily an essential component of an assessment, its value to
collaboratively developed - often requiring intensive interaction between those
science and planning is large and should be considered in designing the assessment.
requesting the assessment and the assessor. It is important at this stage that all involved
are aware of the difference between assessment and primary research. Assessments do
The biophysical and social analysis described in the previous stage, reflects on the past
not usually collect new data or conduct new research, but instead compile existing data
and seeks to identify the trajectory or future expected states of services and their
and knowledge into an interpreted format that allows us to see the condition and trends
combined impact on the study area. Scenario planning is the creation and use of
of ecosystem services. For more detail on assessments see MA (2003). We think it is
scenarios in a structured way to stimulate thinking and evaluate assumptions about future
important to agree on the assessment aims before constituting the committees below in
events or trends and to make uncertainties about these explicit. This can be a small or
order to keep the assessment focused. However, aims can be adjusted after committee
large component to the assessment and should be decided on during the project design.
constitution if required.
In conducting a scenario planning exercise the following are useful steps.
•
Additionally it is important to consider which decision making processes and policy
•
Identify the compatibility, congruence, associations, conflicts and trade-offs between
•
Identify the strength of the important system drivers of change (such as demands for
timber or food).
process and ensure that the agreed focus of the study is maintained. We have found it
•
Make explicit the key uncertainties in the future of the area under investigation (e.g.
useful to assemble a small committee that includes people requesting the assessment,
disease, governance)
local area experts and managers, experts in selected fields of study, and other interested
•
Develop an understanding of what the baseline scenario would look like.
parties (such as institutions involved in ecosystem management eg SANBI, DOA and
•
Future possible states can be simply envisaged as firstly, business as usual,
Municipalities) to ensure the assessment remains user focused, user useful, and
inputs are the targets of this assessment (Step 2.3.2). These choices will influence the
services.
constitution of the committees discussed below.
•
credible and this in turn facilitates the later uptake and communication.
enhancements on this, or deterioration on this state.
•
•
•
The storylines of these scenarios can then be developed together with stakeholders to
An advisory committee needs to be established to guide and review the assessment
•
A technical committee or group should be established which includes all the scientists
determine their plausibility and relevance to the area.
involved in the assessment who will also have representation on the advisory committee.
An alternative option could be developing simple comparisons of a business as usual
This group should also include local experts who can make inputs in cases of low
scenario with one or more scenarios constructed around key policies or decisions to
certainty or data gaps (e.g. agricultural extension officer). The final composition of this
examine the impacts of that specific policy on the future.
group will only be clear after the phase is complete and all services to be assessed are
Dynamic models of landscape change can now be developed to depict alternative
identified. The role of this committee is to ensure the appropriateness of methodologies
and scientific credibility.
futures; these may range from complex empirical models to simple conceptual models
depending on the aims of the study. This allows us to link scenarios to ecosystem
service changes (e.g. Swetnam et al. 2010).
•
Using an iterative process between the technical committee and advisory committee the
following must be agreed upon:
o
The scope of the assessment. The physical area under assessment – i.e. how the
study will be confined either along bio-physical or administrative boundaries. This
will be strongly influenced by the motivation for the assessment and the decision
making processes into which it fits.
12
5
Ecosystem services assessment guideline
o
o
o
The time frame, depth of investigation and budgets for the assessment. The latter
•
champion is someone who is typically an impassioned stakeholder with a great deal of
The conceptual framework. If appropriate there needs to be agreement on the
drive and interest in ensuring the successful completion of the assessment (Roux et al
conceptual framework for the assessment. We have found the frameworks
2008). A champion usually emerges as the project proceeds and it is therefore not
provided by the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment useful, but modifications may
necessary to identify one at the outset. It is however ideal to have a champion in place
be required at local scales so as to retain relevance at this scale.
before the start of the planning phase.
Capacity development requirements. The current levels of understanding amongst
requirements for capacity building need to be ascertained.
2.1.2 Identifying services and coupled beneficiaries
2.2.7 Review of assessments
•
The need for peer review within an assessment is well recognised. All steps in the
assessment should be reviewed and revised along the way.
All the ecosystem services and the beneficiaries associated with these services should
•
This review should include the Social, Biophysical and Economic assessments.
be identified within the bounds of the established assessment area. It is important to
•
Review at this stage allows for identifying gaps in the assessment and the potential to
•
Review can involve the advisory committee, as well as technical reviews of results and
identify and categorise the owners, managers, beneficiaries and suppliers of actual
services during this process. Some of these individuals or institutions may be located
revisit aspects of services, adding services and beneficiary groups where appropriate.
outside of the assessment area. This process will often result in a very long list of
reports. It might be useful to have an independent review team with planned reviews
ecosystem services and beneficiaries. We have found that it can however be useful to
first develop an understanding of the entire suite of services and their linked
•
During the assessment the identification of a champion or co-ordinator very useful. A
will influence many of the decisions made.
stakeholders of the concept of ecosystem services and the associated
•
Ecosystem services assessment guideline
during the assessment.
•
Peer review of underlying data sets is also an important task where the data sets are not
beneficiaries within the area before focusing on key services.
already published and reviewed. The MA (2005) developed useful guidelines for this
A stakeholder database should be established that identifies their desired level of
type of review process.
involvement within an assessment. This could vary from: remaining informed about the
assessment; actively directing and reviewing the assessment; or using the assessment
(see Younge & Fowkes (2003)).
•
The generated list of ecosystem services can then be refined to a priority list of services
using a variety of stakeholder participation methods and the advisory committee to
provide context on the importance of services and relevance to local managers and
stakeholders. Considerations of present and future changes in ecosystem services may
also help refine this list.
•
The technical committee and its experts play a role guiding the process of service
selection based on their knowledge and data availability to ensure that the assessment
is possible within the established time and budgetary constraints. It is again important to
2.3 Stage 3 – Planning
While the formal assessment is completed in Stage 2, this stage is important for assessments
with the goal of informing decision making and policy. This stage includes the process of
collaborative planning and focuses on processes identified in the design stage of the
assessment. Collaborative planning is a discourse-based process that comprises the
identification of a vision, a strategy to realize this vision, specific strategic objectives, and
instruments, tools, and organisations for implementing actions to achieve the objectives. While
this is a new area to ecosystem service assessment we propose that scenario planning is a
useful way to conduct such a planning process.
distinguish assessment from new research. The technical committee needs to advise
where additional data gathering and field work are appropriate. Where the collection of
new data is impossible the consequences of these knowledge gaps in the assessment
need to be made clear to the decision makers.
•
Identifying and selecting services for detailed investigation may influence the bounds of
the study area (for example - if water services are selected it may be considered
appropriate to include a whole catchment rather than a portion of a catchment). An
2.3.1 Identifying and exploring alternative futures
Scenarios (defined as a set of plausible narratives that depict alternative pathways to the
future) have been used in a wide variety of contexts for a wide variety of purposes. In the
context of ecosystem assessment the main purpose of scenarios is to engage both
scientists and decision makers in the planning phase to identify key system processes,
drivers, and interactions that are most likely to result in surprise. They therefore allow
iterative process between steps 2.1.1 and 2.1.2 may therefore be necessary.
6
11
Ecosystem services assessment guideline
Ecosystem services assessment guideline
•
Identify the services for which economic valuation is appropriate.
•
Select appropriate approach to valuation (this may vary per service).
•
Using these approaches, or combination of approaches, develop a potential or possible
2.2 Stage 2 - Evaluation
range of economic values per ecosystem service. Possible upper and lower limits may
2.2.1 Technical assessment team
be most appropriate.
•
•
•
Select the most appropriate indicator of economic value (e.g. by deriving both per ha and
•
Finalise the technical team (all the scientists who will undertake the assessment) based
per capita values). The advisory and review processes should assist here in identifying
on the identified services and beneficiaries. An interdisciplinary team of social and
the most appropriate measure for reporting.
natural scientists is required. Most ecosystem services assessments to date have been
Areas where there are limited data can make use of proxy values (for example using
done by ecologists and economists, but there is a need to include social scientists in
livestock production numbers as an indicator for grazing value). This may swing the
order to conduct a comprehensive assessment. The scope and motivation for the
valuation from economic to financial where the focus is on accounting measures) as
assessment should provide direction on the type of experts required. Information may be
intensive economic valuation methods become inappropriate.
sourced from different knowledge systems (e.g. peer review literature, expert workshops,
traditional knowledge), and this needs to be considered when making up the technical
Where circumstances permit, we recommend encouraging stakeholders to reach
assessment group.
consensus on assigning subjective values to ecosystem services. This type of approach
enables social influence and consensus to define knowledge about the value of
ecosystem services and is an important overlap with the social assessment.
•
In areas of low ecosystem service supply (such as arid regions) some traditional
valuation approaches will result in low values. These need to be interpreted with caution
2.2.2 Selecting indicators
•
Indicators and measures of ecosystem services and their use need to be considered and
discussed within the technical and advisory committees prior to the commencement of
as they will often reflect service shortages and critical importance instead of low or
the assessment. We propose that these indicators measure both the ecological as well
limited recognised value. Economic valuation techniques which can reflect the value of
as social components of ecosystem services, recognising that ecosystem services are a
rarity are better in these cases.
function of social and ecological interactions. Some examples may include the ratio of
water supply to water use and livestock ownership in relation to vegetation condition.
2.2.6 Bridging work
•
This will help to improve the relevance of the assessment by ensuring that the findings
resonate with stakeholders where valuations and quantifications are appropriately
It is important to ensure constant communication between the technical team members
contextualised. This discussion and ultimately choice of indicators should consider data
working on different aspects of the assessment. It is also helpful to allocate specific time
availability and strive to promote integration between the social and biophysical
to ensuring the integration of information and coherence across disciplines and
assessment areas. Designing the assessment, the selection of composite indicators,
identification of drivers and the economic valuation discussions can be useful points of
assessment.
•
to consider the availability of data over time required to measure trends. It is important
integration. Scenario planning (see below) is also a very useful integrating activity.
•
here that some form of quantitative data are collected as expert opinion changes over
A more challenging issue is bridging different knowledge systems (science with local
time and therefore precludes future comparison.
knowledge and beliefs).
•
Integration between disciplines, assessment focus areas, and knowledge systems, may
•
scaling up effects also need to be considered. This may include for example the
associated with each service, and the trade-offs that are made between services.
Issues of spatial and temporal scale mismatches will need to be acknowledged and
resolved where possible.
The units of measurement and the scales of the approach need to be appropriate and
related to the defined aims of the study, also the effects of moving across scales and
be enhanced by focussing on the crosscutting issues of risks and threats, the drivers
•
As assessments aim to measure change in ecosystem services over time, it is important
problems with disaggregating data from regional scales to catchment scales.
•
It is useful to develop at least one indicator per service identified in the assessment.
Layke (2009) provide a review of existing ecosystem service indicators which may be
useful, but they also highlight the gaps in the available indicator set.
10
7
Ecosystem services assessment guideline
•
Recent assessments have measured bundles of services. Here indicators have been
Ecosystem services assessment guideline
•
focussed on capturing both individual services values and also the interactions between
services. These bundles can be measured for specific ecosystems or land use types and
An evaluation of broad scale policy drivers (global and national) that have previously or
are currently influencing the area.
•
Additional areas could include an examination of the social historical context with a focus
be used in assessing changes (past and future) through land use models. There are
on observed changes, processes and past system drivers and key actors. Likewise the
some examples in Reyers et al. (2009), Raudsepp Hearne et al. (2010). This moves
ability and effects of scaling up or down-scaling social data should be considered.
away from a focus on provisioning services, and forces the assessment to consider
regulating and cultural services of relevance (which often trade off with provisioning
services).
•
These indicators will help guide the assessment process below.
2.2.4 Conducting a biophysical assessment
The biophysical assessment focuses on identifying the types, condition and location of the
biophysical features, and changes in these features, that provide ecosystem services. This
2.2.3 Conducting a social assessment
requires an existing understanding of the processes or mechanics behind the delivery of
The social assessment seeks to highlight the needs, values, norms, and behaviours of
services. This is done in order to assess the current and recent historic changes in service
individuals, institutions, and organizations in the study area, with the focus on how an area
provision, the drivers of this change and to highlight any thresholds of concern. This is the area
works in social terms. This is a growing area within ecosystem service assessments and thus
where most assessments to date have focused. Steps to consider include:
best practices are not yet available. While specific issues requiring investigation will vary with
context; some basic data sets and knowledge may be required. These include: knowledge of
•
the spatial patterns of population density and how these are changing, human needs (for
example, subsistence, protection, and identity), income distribution, current and future trends
Assess (and map) the spatial and temporal flows of ecosystem services in relation to
beneficiaries using the indicators developed above.
•
in land use, land prices, infrastructure, levels of social capital investment in natural resource
These maps can be used to highlight key service areas or hotspots, and critical areas
where supply of the service is not meeting the needs of beneficiaries.
management, nature-related values, preferences and ethics, and incentives for behaviour
•
Identify and assess main drivers of change in the ecosystem services.
change. Where feasible, data need to be captured spatially and matched to the spatial and
•
Using time series data populate indicators to depict current state and trends in the
•
A temporal perspective of land and resource use for the study area, linked with
temporal scale used in the biophysical assessment below.
selected services.
Social assessments are to-date poorly developed within this ecosystem service assessment
indicators or bundles of indicators for particular land uses can providing a number of
context, and we suggest that the following steps be included:
valuable insights here.
•
•
•
An in-depth analysis of the owners/suppliers, beneficiaries, markets and demand for
2.2.5 Economic valuation
each of the identified ecosystem services, - i.e. what are the social linkages to these
Whilst placing monetary values on biodiversity and living assets is sometimes
services.
controversial, economic valuation is often requested by the stakeholders or requestors of
An evaluation of how decisions are made within the study area and what the key issues
the assessment. This type of information is often informative when deployed across
governing relationships are between individuals, communities and institutions.
competing land-uses and can assist in evaluating trade-offs between services and these
Understanding decision making processes is vital for facilitating the mainstreaming of
land uses. The need for an economic valuation of the assessed services should be
assessment findings into these processes, and should be coupled to the identification of
determined by the aims of the study. Reflecting on who might pay or get paid for these
points of entry for changing the system. This information may not be captured in reports
services is important in assessing how useful these values will be in determining decision
or available on the internet, but residing within individuals and based on their collected
making and many of these services might be public goods where value may be less
knowledge and experience of issues. In these cases structured interviews will be
meaningful. The valuation can form a connection between the social and biophysical
particularly useful in accessing this information.
assessments (Figure 1) as well as be informed by these. A variety of typologies and
An assessment of government (local, provincial and national) policy in relation to the
techniques for economic valuation have emerged (for a detailed review see TEEB 2010).
suite of identified ecosystem services.
We suggest the following considerations and steps if an economic valuation is included:
8
9