WWF DAP: Information sheet on using the protected areas benefits assessment tool number 2
Regulating services results of the PA-BAT
Introduction
Ecosystem functioning involves a series of complex processes relating to the cycling of energy, water
and nutrients: energy capture from the sun; regulation of water flow; soil building and stabilisation;
accumulation of carbon etc. The term ‘ecosystem services’ describes a wide range of benefits that
human society gets from functioning ecosystems: the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment identifies
four types: supporting, provisioning, regulating and cultural services. This information sheet focuses on
one important aspect of ecosystem services: regulating services such as climate regulation, regulation
of natural hazards, purification and detoxification of water, air and soil, water flow regulation, erosion
and soil fertility regulation, pollination and pest and disease regulation. These services are both the
hardest service to assess, but the one with potentially the greatest realisable economic benefits (one
study in 1997 estimated the planet’s annual ecosystem services could be valued at between US$16–
$54 trillion, with an estimated average of US$33 trillion -1.8 times the global gross national product at
the time1). Although the regulating services provided by ecosystems are acknowledged, their
significance and value to our everyday existence are poorly understood by most people. As humans
increasingly impact the natural world, the importance of protected areas in protecting and restoring
natural habitats is the subject of much academic and policy interest.
There are several reasons for this desire to assess and/or value regulating services:
 Long-term protection: land-use decision often focus on short-term gain rather than long-term value.
The social and/or economic benefits of resource use (such as harvesting timber or extraction of
gas or oil) are usually evident within a reasonably brief time-period. On the other hand, the
impacts on regulating services may take decades to realise and yet management can result in
either net costs or benefits that last for hundreds of years. Current economic systems make it
difficult to argue for long-term benefit over short-term gain. Trying to put an economic value on
these services – and projecting this into the long-term – has resulted in calculation of some
extraordinarily high values, as in the study referred to above. However turning this knowledge
into funding to preserve these services has proved difficult. There are nonetheless some
examples of realising at least some of these theoretical values such as Payment for Ecosystem
Services (PES) schemes. These have been developed primarily for the water sector, where water
users pay for natural resource protection to maintain water purity, and sometimes water flow, at
source instead of investing in expensive downstream purification services. The so far less proven
Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD) mechanism, which aims
to create a financial value for the carbon stored in forests, is another example.
 Adapting and mitigating human-induced climate change: As the likelihood of extreme weather events
linked to climate change increases, the need to mitigate and/or adapt to these impacts becomes
more urgent socially, economically and environmentally. Protected areas are in many cases
excellent places for such adaptation (e.g. protecting / restoring natural flood plains) and mitigation
(e.g. both through storing and sequestering carbon in natural vegetation). Protected areas can
also function as “laboratories” where management under conditions of climate change can be
tested in a controlled environment. These benefits have motivated the development of several
methodologies to, for example, look at the role of protected areas in adaptation strategies or
undertake planning that factors in climate mitigation.
 Increasing resource use: Even without considering the impacts of climate change, increased
populations and human migration (e.g., to more arid areas, or densely populated urban areas or
through mass tourism) means that vital resources such as clean and plentiful water for
consumption and agriculture are becoming, or are likely to become, scarce. The sources of water
(e.g., mountain springs, heads of rivers, wetlands and cloud forests) are often protected, as these
areas are hard to access and modify and have traditionally been seen as having little value. The
need to argue for the protection of natural water courses, rather than for their diversion,
1
Costanza, R., et al. 1997. The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital, Nature, 387
damming or modification, has led to the development of methodologies to assess water quality
and flow as approaches to realising these values in economic terms, to contribute to the costs of
protecting these vital resources.
Using the PA-BAT Results
The PA-BAT includes the assessment of several important regulating services that supply us with
benefits (Q17 on climate change mitigation;18 on soil stabilisation; 19 on coastal protection; 20 on
flood prevention; 21 on water quality and quantity; and 22 on pollination or pollination products). The
results from the PA-BAT can be used in a number of ways depending on the stakeholder groups
taking part in the assessment.
 A new concept: for many stakeholders the concept of ecosystems regulating many of the things we
take for granted , like clean water, will be new. Assessing the relative importance of these may
not therefore be particularly informed or accurate. In these cases the assessment results are
most usefully used in indentifying communication and/or educational interventions rather than as
the basis valuations (see sheet #).
 Building knowledge base: stakeholders may sometimes be more familiar with these issues than
protected area managers (e.g., if they are representatives from service sectors such as water
providers, or academics working on issues related to ecosystem services, or local communities
who understand the value of ecosystem services through long experience). In these cases the PABAT workshop provides protected area managers and staff with the opportunity to interact with
experts on key issues, learn from them and open a dialogue (if this process is not already
ongoing).
 Understanding change: even when the biological process of ecosystem services are not
understood, local people will often have important insights into any changes in regulating services
as a result of changes in management, or as a consequence of changes in climate or habitats (e.g.
changes in flooding/avalanche/landslide area or frequency, springs drying up or noticeable changes
in water flow, changes in local weather patterns etc).
 Making the case for the protection of regulating services: as noted above the concept of valuing
different ecosystem services to make the case for greater financial support for protected areas
has become the focus of many methodologies and projects within protected areas. Developing
dialogues with service providers, government departments, industry, etc can result in increased
support for protected areas – but should only be undertaken as part of a planned process, and
with the realisation that it may take many years and considerable effort to develop this wider
understanding of protected area benefits. The PA-BAT results can be used as a scoping study
when planning valuations to identify which benefits should be valued, for example by choosing
those seen as most (or potentially most) economically important.2 Of course valuation studies
are not the only way of encouraging and promoting a better understanding about the role of
protected areas in ensuring regulatory services; presentations, photographic material, maps,
videos etc can all be used to explain these linkages as part of a targeted communications plan (see
sheet #).
Issues to consider when using the PA-Bat to develop valuations
It is recommended that some caution is exercised if undertaking valuations of regulating services (or
any other services) from protected areas.
 Values can change over time: the perceived benefits of a PA can change dramatically as a result of
external developments, increased knowledge or decisions. The occurrence of a major natural
disaster can rapidly increase perceptions about the role for native vegetation to act as a buffer
(e.g., the perceived value of natural vegetation for buffering against storms increased rapidly in
Louisiana after Hurricane Katrina devastated large parts of New Orleans and surroundings).
Conversely, values can decrease: a forest set aside to provide clean water to a municipality may
lose its value in the eyes of local politicians if a new purification plant is built.
2
For information on assessing benefits and regulating services (as well as other services) see Kettunen, M. and ten Brink, P.
2013. Social and Economic Benefits of Protected Areas: An Assessment Guide, Routledge, Oxon, UK




Narrow valuation studies that only consider a few services: studies that focus on only one or two
services, and which have impacts that feed back into management decisions, may result in other
important services being neglected by managers.
New values are also emerging: valuation studies undertaken a few years previously may well have
missed values that are considered critical today. The role of natural vegetation and soils in storing
and sequestering carbon is a key case in point. This hardly appeared in assessments made ten
years ago but carbon valuation is now a large global business and is for instance a major incentive
for protecting peatlands. People assessing PAs need to look ahead at what may be important in
the future, although such projections can only ever be partial and incomplete.
A dangerous numbers game: putting a value on protected area services can encourage others to try
the same exercise by working out the comparative values of different development strategies. It
may be worth a mining company offering to pay communities for their losses in water services
for instance, or to invest in artificial slope stabilisation, if it is seen as an inevitable cost of
accessing a rich seam of minerals within a national park.
Diverting attention from the primary role of PAs: a focus on measurable economic values may put
protected area managers into the position of being under pressure to concentrate management
efforts on the most ‘valuable’ outputs rather than on the core values the area was set up to
preserve. A focus on REDD+ and carbon, for instance, could in theory encourage managers to
promote a transition from grasslands to forest in some areas, because this would supply larger
carbon credits.
Checklist and action plan for using the regulating services results
of the PA-BAT
The assessment form below draws on the discussion above and can help managers and staff in
discussions related to using the PA-BAT results.
Issue for discussion
Understanding local
people’s perceptions of
regulatory services
Making the case for the
protection of regulating
services
Using the results of the
PA-BAT to understand,
monitor and adapt to
change
Developing action plans
The results of the PA-BAT and feedback at the workshop should be
analysed to identify:
 which regulatory services local people have an understanding
about – and if this understanding is reflected in management
priorities (see sheet 1)
 if there are important services supported by the protected
area which are not understood and thus might be the focus of
a ‘making the case’ project/process (see below)
The results of the PA-BAT can be used as a tool to scope out a
project/process for developing better arguments for protection. The
results can be used as an initial filter to identify:
 the stakeholder groups which benefit most from the
protection of regulatory services, e.g. local people, business,
government
 which services are most relevant and important in the
protected area
 where potential for developing greater economic benefit from
services exist
Ensuring conservation management also provides effective and
sustainable protection of regulatory services should be a management
priority. The PA-BAT results and workshop discussions can help to
identify:

local knowledge related to management activities

knowledge of long-term change which can help the
development of monitoring or restoration plans

local knowledge related to adaptation strategies where
changing weather or habitats results in new management
strategies