Estimating the Value of Non‐Use Benefits from Small Changes in the Provision of Ecosystem Services

Abstract: The unit of trade in ecosystem services is usually the use of a proportion of the parcels of land associated with a given service. Valuing small changes in the provision of an ecosystem service presents obstacles, particularly when the service provides non‐use benefits, as is the case with conservation of most plants and animals. Quantifying non‐use values requires stated‐preference valuations. Stated‐preference valuations can provide estimates of the public's willingness to pay for a broad conservation goal. Nevertheless, stated‐preference valuations can be expensive and do not produce consistent measures for varying levels of provision of a service. Additionally, the unit of trade, land use, is not always linearly related to the level of ecosystem services the land might provide. To overcome these obstacles, we developed a method to estimate the value of a marginal change in the provision of a non‐use ecosystem service—in this case conservation of plants or animals associated with a given land‐cover type. Our method serves as a tool for calculating transferable valuations of small changes in the provision of ecosystem services relative to the existing provision. Valuation is achieved through stated‐preference investigations, calculation of a unit value for a parcel of land, and the weighting of this parcel by its ability to provide the desired ecosystem service and its effect on the ability of the surrounding land parcels to provide the desired service. We used the water vole (Arvicola terrestris) as a case study to illustrate the method. The average present value of a meter of water vole habitat was estimated at UK£12, but the marginal value of a meter (based on our methods) could range between £0 and £40 or more.     

The changing sociocultural context of wildlife conservation

We introduced a multilevel model of value shift to describe the changing social context of wildlife conservation. Our model depicts how cultural-level processes driven by modernization (e.g., increased wealth, education, and urbanization) affect changes in individual-level cognition that prompt a shift from domination to mutualism wildlife values. Domination values promote beliefs that wildlife should be used primarily to benefit humans, whereas mutualism values adopt a view that wildlife are part of one's social network and worthy of care and compassion. Such shifts create emergent effects (e.g., new interest groups) and challenges to wildlife management organizations (e.g., increased conflict) and dramatically alter the sociopolitical context of conservation decisions. Although this model is likely applicable to many modernized countries, we tested it with data from a 2017–2018 nationwide survey (mail and email panel) of 43,949 residents in the United States. We conducted hierarchical linear modeling and correlational analysis to examine relationships. Modernization variables had strong state-level effects on domination and mutualism. Higher levels of education, income, and urbanization were associated with higher percentages of mutualists and lower percentages of traditionalists, who have strong domination values. Values affected attitudes toward wildlife management challenges; for example, states with higher proportions of mutualists were less supportive of lethal control of wolves (Canis lupus) and had lower percentages of active hunters, who represent the traditional clientele of state wildlife agencies in the United States. We contend that agencies will need to embrace new strategies to engage and represent a growing segment of the public with mutualism values. Our model merits testing for application in other countries.     

Catalyzing sustainable fisheries management through behavior change interventions

Small-scale fisheries are an important livelihood and primary protein source for coastal communities in many of the poorest regions in the world, yet many are overfished and thus require effective and scalable management solutions. Positive ecological and socioeconomic responses to management typically lag behind immediate costs borne by fishers from fishing pressure reductions necessary for fisheries recovery. These short-term costs challenge the long-term success of these interventions. However, social marketing may increase perceptions of management benefits before ecological and socioeconomic benefits are fully realized, driving new social norms and ultimately long-term sustainable behavior change. By conducting underwater visual surveys to quantify ecological conditions and by conducting household surveys with community members to quantify their perceptions of management support and socioeconomic conditions, we assessed the impact of a standardized small-scale fisheries management intervention that was implemented across 41 sites in Brazil, Indonesia, and the Philippines. The intervention combines TURF reserves (community-based territorial use rights for fishing coupled with no-take marine reserves) with locally tailored social-marketing behavior change campaigns. Leveraging data across 22 indicators and 4 survey types, along with data from 3 control sites, we found that ecological and socioeconomic impacts varied and that communities supported the intervention and were already changing their fishing practices. These results suggest that communities were developing new social norms and fishing more sustainably before long-term ecological and socioeconomic benefits of fisheries management materialized.     

The effect of summer drought on the predictability of local extinctions in a butterfly metapopulation

The ecological impacts of extreme climatic events on population dynamics and community composition are profound and predominantly negative. Using extensive data of an ecological model system, we tested whether predictions from ecological models remain robust when environmental conditions are outside the bounds of observation. We observed a 10-fold demographic decline of the Glanville fritillary butterfly (Melitaea cinxia) metapopulation on the Åland islands, Finland in the summer of 2018 and used climatic and satellite data to demonstrate that this year was an anomaly with low climatic water balance values and low vegetation productivity indices across Åland. Population growth rates were strongly associated with spatiotemporal variation in climatic water balance. Covariates shown previously to affect the extinction probability of local populations in this metapopulation were less informative when populations were exposed to severe drought during the summer months. Our results highlight the unpredictable responses of natural populations to extreme climatic events.     

Time discounting and the decision to protect areas that are near and threatened or remote and cheap to acquire

Should conservation organizations focus on protecting habitats that are at imminent risk of being converted but are expensive or more remote areas that are less immediately threatened but where a large amount of land can be set aside? Variants of this trade‐off commonly arise in spatial planning. I used models of land‐use change near a deforestation frontier to examine this trade‐off. The optimal choice of where to protect was determined by how decisions taken today accounted for ecological benefits and economic costs of conservation actions that would occur sometime in the future. I used an ecological and economic discount rate to weight these benefits and costs. A large economic discount rate favored protecting more remote areas, whereas a large, positive ecological discount rate favored protecting habitat near the current deforestation frontier. The decision over where to protect was also affected by the influence economic factors had on landowners' decisions, the rate of technological change, and ecological heterogeneity of the landscape. How benefits and costs through time are accounted for warrants careful consideration when specifying conservation objectives. It may provide a niche axis along which conservation organizations differentiate themselves when competing for donor funding or other support.     

Facilitating climate‐change‐induced range shifts across continental land‐use barriers

Climate changes impose requirements for many species to shift their ranges to remain within environmentally tolerable areas, but near‐continuous regions of intense human land use stretching across continental extents diminish dispersal prospects for many species. We reviewed the impact of habitat loss and fragmentation on species’ abilities to track changing climates and existing plans to facilitate species dispersal in response to climate change through regions of intensive land uses, drawing on examples from North America and elsewhere. We identified an emerging analytical framework that accounts for variation in species' dispersal capacities relative to both the pace of climate change and habitat availability. Habitat loss and fragmentation hinder climate change tracking, particularly for specialists, by impeding both propagule dispersal and population growth. This framework can be used to identify prospective modern‐era climatic refugia, where the pace of climate change has been slower than surrounding areas, that are defined relative to individual species' needs. The framework also underscores the importance of identifying and managing dispersal pathways or corridors through semi‐continental land use barriers that can benefit many species simultaneously. These emerging strategies to facilitate range shifts must account for uncertainties around population adaptation to local environmental conditions. Accounting for uncertainties in climate change and dispersal capabilities among species and expanding biological monitoring programs within an adaptive management paradigm are vital strategies that will improve species' capacities to track rapidly shifting climatic conditions across landscapes dominated by intensive human land use.     

Global status of and prospects for protection of terrestrial geophysical diversity

Conservation of representative facets of geophysical diversity may help conserve biological diversity as the climate changes. We conducted a global classification of terrestrial geophysical diversity and analyzed how land protection varies across geophysical diversity types. Geophysical diversity was classified in terms of soil type, elevation, and biogeographic realm and then compared to the global distribution of protected areas in 2012. We found that 300 (45%) of 672 broad geophysical diversity types currently meet the Convention on Biological Diversity's Aichi Target 11 of 17% terrestrial areal protection, which suggested that efforts to implement geophysical diversity conservation have a substantive basis on which to build. However, current protected areas were heavily biased toward high elevation and low fertility soils. We assessed 3 scenarios of protected area expansion and found that protection focused on threatened species, if fully implemented, would also protect an additional 29% of geophysical diversity types, ecoregional‐focused protection would protect an additional 24%, and a combined scenario would protect an additional 42%. Future efforts need to specifically target low‐elevation sites with productive soils for protection and manage for connectivity among geophysical diversity types. These efforts may be hampered by the sheer number of geophysical diversity facets that the world contains, which makes clear target setting and prioritization an important next step.     

Key role for nuclear energy in global biodiversity conservation

Modern society uses massive amounts of energy. Usage rises as population and affluence increase, and energy production and use often have an impact on biodiversity or natural areas. To avoid a business‐as‐usual dependence on coal, oil, and gas over the coming decades, society must map out a future energy mix that incorporates alternative sources. This exercise can lead to radically different opinions on what a sustainable energy portfolio might entail, so an objective assessment of the relative costs and benefits of different energy sources is required. We evaluated the land use, emissions, climate, and cost implications of 3 published but divergent storylines for future energy production, none of which was optimal for all environmental and economic indicators. Using multicriteria decision‐making analysis, we ranked 7 major electricity‐generation sources (coal, gas, nuclear, biomass, hydro, wind, and solar) based on costs and benefits and tested the sensitivity of the rankings to biases stemming from contrasting philosophical ideals. Irrespective of weightings, nuclear and wind energy had the highest benefit‐to‐cost ratio. Although the environmental movement has historically rejected the nuclear energy option, new‐generation reactor technologies that fully recycle waste and incorporate passive safety systems might resolve their concerns and ought to be more widely understood. Because there is no perfect energy source however, conservation professionals ultimately need to take an evidence‐based approach to consider carefully the integrated effects of energy mixes on biodiversity conservation. Trade‐offs and compromises are inevitable and require advocating energy mixes that minimize net environmental damage. Society cannot afford to risk wholesale failure to address energy‐related biodiversity impacts because of preconceived notions and ideals.     

The theory behind,and the challenges of,conserving nature's stage in a time of rapid change

Most conservation planning to date has focused on protecting today's biodiversity with the assumption that it will be tomorrow's biodiversity. However, modern climate change has already resulted in distributional shifts of some species and is projected to result in many more shifts in the coming decades. As species redistribute and biotic communities reorganize, conservation plans based on current patterns of biodiversity may fail to adequately protect species in the future. One approach for addressing this issue is to focus on conserving a range of abiotic conditions in the conservation‐planning process. By doing so, it may be possible to conserve an abiotically diverse “stage” upon which evolution will play out and support many actors (biodiversity). We reviewed the fundamental underpinnings of the concept of conserving the abiotic stage, starting with the early observations of von Humboldt, who mapped the concordance of abiotic conditions and vegetation, and progressing to the concept of the ecological niche. We discuss challenges posed by issues of spatial and temporal scale, the role of biotic drivers of species distributions, and latitudinal and topographic variation in relationships between climate and landform. For example, abiotic conditions are not static, but change through time—albeit at different and often relatively slow rates. In some places, biotic interactions play a substantial role in structuring patterns of biodiversity, meaning that patterns of biodiversity may be less tightly linked to the abiotic stage. Furthermore, abiotic drivers of biodiversity can change with latitude and topographic position, meaning that the abiotic stage may need to be defined differently in different places. We conclude that protecting a diversity of abiotic conditions will likely best conserve biodiversity into the future in places where abiotic drivers of species distributions are strong relative to biotic drivers, where the diversity of abiotic settings will be conserved through time, and where connectivity allows for movement among areas providing different abiotic conditions.     

Relation between extinction and assisted colonization of plants in the arctic‐alpine and boreal regions

Assisted colonization of vascular plants is considered by many ecologists an important tool to preserve biodiversity threatened by climate change. I argue that assisted colonization may have negative consequences in arctic‐alpine and boreal regions. The observed slow movement of plants toward the north has been an argument for assisted colonization. However, these range shifts may be slow because for many plants microclimatic warming (ignored by advocates of assisted colonization) has been smaller than macroclimatic warming. Arctic‐alpine and boreal plants may have limited possibilities to disperse farther north or to higher elevations. I suggest that arctic‐alpine species are more likely to be driven to extinction because of competitive exclusion by southern species than by increasing temperatures. If so, the future existence of arctic‐alpine and boreal flora may depend on delaying or preventing the migration of plants toward the north to allow northern species to evolve to survive in a warmer climate. In the arctic‐alpine region, preventing the dispersal of trees and shrubs may be the most important method to mitigate the negative effects of climate change. The purported conservation benefits of assisted colonization should not be used to promote the migration of invasive species by forestry.