Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
0
Is the Water Framework Directive experience useful for the (spatial) prioritization of peatland restoration?
Is the Water Framework Directive experience useful for the (spatial) prioritization of peatland restoration?
Is the Water Framework Directive experience useful for the (spatial) prioritization of peatland restoration?
Is the Water Framework Directive experience useful for the (spatial) prioritization of peatland restoration?
Is the Water Framework Directive experience useful for the (spatial) prioritization of peatland restoration?
Is the Water Framework Directive experience useful for the (spatial) prioritization of peatland restoration?
Is the Water Framework Directive experience useful for the (spatial) prioritization of peatland restoration?
Is the Water Framework Directive experience useful for the (spatial) prioritization of peatland restoration?
Is the Water Framework Directive experience useful for the (spatial) prioritization of peatland restoration?
Is the Water Framework Directive experience useful for the (spatial) prioritization of peatland restoration?
Is the Water Framework Directive experience useful for the (spatial) prioritization of peatland restoration?
Is the Water Framework Directive experience useful for the (spatial) prioritization of peatland restoration?
Is the Water Framework Directive experience useful for the (spatial) prioritization of peatland restoration?
Is the Water Framework Directive experience useful for the (spatial) prioritization of peatland restoration?
Is the Water Framework Directive experience useful for the (spatial) prioritization of peatland restoration?
Is the Water Framework Directive experience useful for the (spatial) prioritization of peatland restoration?
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Is the Water Framework Directive experience useful for the (spatial) prioritization of peatland restoration?

1,175

Published on

Presentation by Julia Martin-Ortega from James Hutton Institute at Valuing Nature Network peatland project meeting in Leeds, 18 Jan 2012

Presentation by Julia Martin-Ortega from James Hutton Institute at Valuing Nature Network peatland project meeting in Leeds, 18 Jan 2012

Published in: Education, Technology, Business
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
1,175
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
4
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide
  • There are 3 key issues by which the experience of the WFD can be applied to peatland restoration, I think. From this 3 issues I will spend a bit more time in the first one, since the other two have been covered by MarijeNeither the IUCN report nor the DEFRA Peatland Ecosystem Service report mention the WFD as a potential source for the economics of peatlands values and restoration, while there are strong links
  • Transcript

    • 1. Is the Water Framework Directiveexperience useful for the (spatial)prioritization of peatland restoration?An environmental economic perspective Julia Martin-Ortega VNN workshop on assessing & valuing peatland ecosystem services18-19 January 2012, Leeds
    • 2. Background Water related services are consistently highlighted among the main services provided by peatland ecosystems:  Water supply, water quality, flooding and pollutant dilution But the provisioning of these services is not so straightforward:  ‘Dis-service’ of dissolved organic carbon?  Is not so much that peatlands ‘provide’ water, but that many upland catchments are peat dominated  Not all peatlands offer the same flooding services (some may contribute to flooding) But it is clear that damaged peatlands have clear negative effects in water supply, water quality and increased risk of flooding  IUCN report: business as usual will result in increased water deterioration and increased risk of flooding WFD
    • 3. Background Entered into force in 2000, the WFD prescribes that all European water bodes shall achieve the ‘good ecological status’ Peatland degradation has a clear negative effect to the ecological status of freshwater systems Therefore, peatland restoration is a necessary requirement for the attaining WFD’s objectives The achievement of the good ecological status is expected to generate substantial benefits (increased well-being) and the WFD itself requires these benefits to be assessed and monetized  This has generated a great research effort in trying to produce accurate estimates  A significant capital of knowledge on water (non-market) benefits and how to estimate them now exists
    • 4. Objectives Can this capital of knowledge be used for the economic valuation of the benefits of peatland restoration to help in the prioritization of policies? Focus on:  Non-market benefits: Crucial in the case of peatlands More difficult to estimate, often ignored in practice Added value of the WFD  Spatial dimension: Priority in the VNN
    • 5. Key issues There are 3 main areas in which the WFD experience can be of use:  The definition of valuation scenarios  The spatial dimension in the valuation of improved ecological status  Benefit transferability Neither the IUCN report nor the DEFRA Peatland Ecosystem Service report mention the WFD as a potential source for the economics of peatlands values and restoration, while there are strong linksThis can already represent an added value of this Project
    • 6. Definition of valuation scenarios The definition of GES in the WFD is based on a number of bio- physical/chemical parameters and hydro-morphological conditions The GES is assumed to generate an increase on public’s welfare This is measured in environmental economics through eliciting the public’s WTP for the improvement (welfare change from baseline to GES) For non-market values, we use hypothetical markets in which a defined environmental change is proposed in a survey to a representative sample of the relevant population and ask them how much would they be willing to pay for it (stated preferences technique)  A key challenge is how to represent an improvement in a way that is scientifically rigorous but also understandable for the lay public (valuation scenario)
    • 7. Definition of valuation scenarios Hime et al. (2009): Water quality ladder representing physical-chemical quality
    • 8. How much are you willing to pay for thisimprovement? (contingent valuation) Humber, UK Bateman et al. (2009)Spatially explicit valuation design: looking at distancedecay and substitution effects
    • 9. Definition of valuation scenarios: flooding Brouwer et al. (2010)
    • 10. Definition of valuation scenarios: water scarcity  Choice experiment: What option do you prefer? Martin-Ortega et al. (2011)
    • 11. The spatial dimension of water quality values Brouwer et al. (2009) People do not value water quality changes regardless of where they occur Spatial heterogeneity of prefences in the Guadalquivir River Basin (Spain) ALTO VALLE CAMPIÑA DOÑANA Martin-Ortega et al. (2010) Schaafsma (2011)
    • 12. Water benefits transfer Estimating the benefits of water quality improvements in all European water bodies is unrealistic Benefit transfer is required The AquaMoney project developed 3 common valuation designs to test for transferability across countries(not only international transfers) € € €
    • 13. Potential for peatland restoration Clear links between WFD environmental benefits and peatland restoration:  Economic valuation is to be used for peatland prioritization of intervention, for which the comparison between the baseline and the state after intervention is needed  The way of valuing the benefits of peatland restoration is to determine the value of the change in the water status downstream in a specific catchment This is exactly what we have been doing in the WFD valuation There is a potential for using existing WFD’s non-market benefits values in peatland restoration  Links are very clear in relation to water quality improvements, but there could also be potential for flooding risk and reduction of water supply
    • 14. Potential for peatland restorationMain limitation: Peatland restoration is not the only source of water ecological improvementFor GES values to be used as values of peatland restoration the link between a certain restoration action and the achievement of a certain level of ecological status needs to be established  Existing choice experiments might offer this possibility, because they are able to elicit values for different levels of improvement that can eventually be related to a determined restoration action (i.e. not necessarily the maximum level of improvement)
    • 15. Potential for peatland restoration However, this will not substitute the need for primary peatland valuation studies, in which:  A clear link between the biophysical role of peatland ecosystems and the services provided is established  This is translated into valuation scenarios capable of reflecting the variety of services provided by restoration actions  At the relevant scale and focusing on areas where this link is clear (including spatial heterogeneity of preferences)  Based on the modelling of theoretically led variables (rather than best fit principles) to make them available for benefit transfer
    • 16. Is the Water Framework Directiveexperience useful for the (spatial)prioritization of peatland restoration?An environmental economic perspective Julia Martin-Ortega VNN workshop on assessing & valuing peatland ecosystem services18-19 January 2012, Leeds

    ×