The Natural Capital Project
If we provide tools to help people understand
what we get from nature,
And we test and use that understanding to
inform decisions,
Will greater and more cost effective investments
be made for ecosystems and people?
food
happiness
water
livelihoods
energy
health
protection
climate
regulation
InVEST
Recreation
Aquaculture: finfish
Fisheries
http://www.naturalcapitalproject.org/
Sediment retention
Water purification
Crop pollination
Coastal Vulnerability
Hydropower
Wave Energy
Biodiversity
Carbon sequ’n
Commercial timber
Agricultural prod’n
Flood control
Irrigation water
Aesthetic Quality
Water Quality
Habitat Risk Assmt
Carbon Sequestration
Coastal Protection
Aquaculture: shellfish
NTFPs
Production Function
NAS 2005, Daily et al 2009
An example starting with one service…..
Where do habitats provide protection?
Who or what is protected?
What is cost effectiveness of alternative
protection approaches?
Nearshore Wave and Erosion Model
Erosion and flooding hazards
mangroves
marshes
seagrass beds
oyster reef
coral reefs
sand dunes
transmission
coefficient
friction factor
wave
height
depth
distance
period
wavelength
shoaling
coefficient
Beach
Offshore
Erosion Difference: 1.5m
Guannel et al. 2012
Influence of natural habitat on coastal vulnerability
In Monterey Bay
Kelp
Wetlands (MLPA)
Coastal Vulnerability
VI
1 - 3 (Low)
3-4
4-6 (Medium)
6-10
10-16 (High)
Natural Habitat (less)
Natural Habitat (more)
Kelp
Wetlands (NWI)
Wetlands (MLPA)
Kelp
Kelp
Coastal Vulnerability
Wetlands (MLPA)
VI
1Coastal
- 3 (Low)
Vulnerability
3-4
VI
VI
1 - 3 (Low)
3-4
4-6 (Medium)
1 - 3 (Low)
6-10
Coastal Vulnerability (NWI)
3-4
10-16 (High)
4-6 (Medium)
4-6 (Medium)
6-10
10-16 (High)
Vulnerability of What? Of Whom?
Elderly population
Coastal Vulnerability
VI
1 - 3 (Low)
3-4
TEXAS CITY
4-6 (Medium)
6-10
10-16 (High)
SanatationPumpStations
Vegetation
Agriculture
Coastal Vulnerability
VI
Urban
DrainageJunctions
1 - 3 (Low)
3-4
Sanitation
Drainage
4-6 (Medium)
6-10
DIFFERENCE IN
C O A S TA L V U L N E R A B I L I T Y
10-16 (High)
Non
e
Lowe
st
Highe
st
Input Data (reflect scenarios)
Marine InVEST Models
Model Outputs
(ecosystem services & values)
ECOSYSTEM VALUATION
e.g.
SERVICES
Carbon
Carbon
Sequestered
Value of
carbon
sequestered
Energy
Captured
Value of
captured
wave energy
Avoided
Area
Flooded/Erod
ed
Value of
avoided
damages
TERRESTRIAL SYSTEMS
Wave Energy
3
BIO-PHYSICAL
9
Bathymetry & Topography
Species
distribution
Habitat
Risk
5
Oceanography
Coastal
Protection
Recreation
Visitation
Rates
Expenditures
due to
recreation
activity
Fishery
Landed
Biomass
Net present
4
7
Habitat type
Water
Quality
8
value of
SOCIO-ECONOMIC
Population density
1
6
2
Aquaculture
Demographics
Aquaculture operation costs
Property values
Aesthetic
Quality
Harvested
Biomass
finfish and
shellfish
Vancouver Island objectives: renewable,
Compatibility:
energy
sustainable
local energyWave
sources,
commercial
recreation
and fishing,
commercial
fisheries
Kim et al, in review
Testing many kinds of decision contexts
Decision Context
Geography
Spatial Planning
Tanzania, Indonesia, British Columbia,
Hawaii, China, 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,
PES schemes
Colombia water funds, Gulf of Mexico,
Indonesia, China
Impact assessment, permitting,
licensing
Colombia mining concessions,
agricultural practices in US
Supply chain/LCA, business risk
US, South America, global
NatCap demonstration projects around the world……
• Using multiple ES in decisions is appealing, but
early days
• High demand for tools
• Not all about PES, $ values
• Decision makers can easily consider trade-offs
in different (value) currencies
• Working on:
– jobs/livelihoods
– beyond basic correlations for human well being