1. Valuing ecosystem services provided by peatlands is challenging due to issues of scale and spatial heterogeneity. The value of services like carbon sequestration is global, while others like recreation are local. 2. Spatial data on factors like population distribution, ecosystem characteristics, and accessibility is needed to understand how values vary across locations. Distance from the ecosystem and between beneficiaries also influences values. 3. Previous studies on peatland valuation provide limited spatially explicit data. Benefit transfer methods are commonly used but depend on comparability between study sites. More primary valuation studies are needed that account for spatial factors.

1. Space and scale issues in valuation
of ecosystem services of peatlands
in the UK
Marije Schaafsma
CSERGE, UK
VNN – 18-19 Jan 2012

2. Monetary valuation
• WHAT does the ecosystem provide?
• WHERE do these ES flow to?
• By HOW MUCH does this provision
CHANGE if the ecosystem changes?
• WHO are the main beneficiaries?
WHERE are they located?
• HOW MUCH do they benefit from
the ecosystem services?

3. What does the ecosystem provide?
Ecosystem services of peatlands Scale of benefits Valuation method
Carbon sequestration / regulation Global Market/cost-based
Biodiversity, landscape Regional - Global Stated Preference
Water (supply / quality regulation) Regional Stated Preference, cost
-based
Recreation (walking, wildlife watching) Local – Regional Travel cost
Pasture/Agricultural land Local - Regional Market prices
Raw material (peat) Local – Regional? Market prices
Game, materials (reed, timber) Local Market prices
?
?
See Wichmann et al (in press, CUP)
1. Quantification of the physical flows of
these services is required for valuation
2. Development options: consider the
opportunity costs of conservation

4. Marginal valuation: change in ES provision
• Economic valuation:
– Market (financial) and non-market
benefits
• Scenario: BAU => Alternative future
• Change in ES provision (flow) => utility
(welfare) change (Turner et al. 2010)
– Marginal change: relatively small change,
no large-scale state change (matter of
scale)
– Not near thresholds
– Avoid double counting in total value
estimation

5. Example: Carbon valuation
• Annual value depends on annual change in
carbon stock
– annual storage increase (+) or peatland
conversion (-), sequestration (+), product
emissions (-) and peatland degradation (-)
• Do not value total stock; only (avoided)
changes in flow
– BAU: risk of conversion?
• Several price indices:
– Market prices (EU)
– DECC rates (abatement costs)
– Social cost of carbon (Tol, etc)
• £/tC does not vary across space, but costs and
co-benefits of carbon-related projects may

6. WHERE are the benefits?
Peatland values vary widely –
context dependent
•Spatial information needed for
human and biophysical aspects
•Where do the services flow to?
•Where are the beneficiaries?
•How do individual values vary
across space?
Fisher et al. (2011)

7. Spatial aspects of valuation
(1) Value mapping: at location of provision
(ecosystem) or at location of
beneficiary?
(2) Spatial heterogeneity in overall values:
differences WTP
• between different peatland ES
• between beneficiaries
– Distance decay
– Substitution (scarcity)
– Overall scale of ES

8. Distance decay and directionality
Distance-decay Directionality
• Uni-directional • “Spatial markets” of
• Multi-directional (Martin-Ortega et al services may differ
2010, Schaafsma et al 2010)

9. Aggregated values of peatland ES
Depend on:
Type of ecosystem service All these
Magnitude of ecosystem service (incl. flow) variables may
show spatial
Population characteristics (income, culture, ...)
Population distribution
heterogeneity!
Ecosystem characteristics (location, size, ...) Required:
Ecosystem availability (accessibility, substitutes) spatial data/
maps for many
Interactions between ecosystem and
population variables

10. Scale issues
• Different actors at different scales:
– Optimising local benefits may not be
globally optimal
– Carbon vs Water
• biophysical boundaries vs
Economic markets vs
policy jurisdictions
– Cross-boundary (political)
collaboration
• Directionality
– Examples from international riverbasin
cooperation

11. Peatland valuation in NEA (1)
• Benefit transfer: use values from (multiple) study
sites to value larger policy site (UK)
– Reliability of transfer depends on
• Comparability of the good under valuation
• Comparability of the sites and populations
– potential of site to provide ES depends on location (e.g. flood risk)
• Soundness of original valuation study
– Required reliability depends on scale of analysis/policy:
• benefit transfer sufficient or local/site-specific values
required?
• There are very few primary valuation studies
about peatlands

12. Peatland valuation in NEA (2)
No specific peatland values – MMH?
Carbon
• Soil carbon values were based land use model / land conversion
• Distinction between peat and non-peat soils
• Fixed estimates for England, Wales, and Scotland & carbon pools
Cultural heritage values, recreation: not specific to peatlands
• but applicable to more general upland studies. Probably heterogeneous.
• Recreation models based on English data
Water quality:
• Benefits from avoided costs of treatment around £5 million over 10 years
(n=1) , but coloration, etc. (Julia)
Biodiversity non-use values: Brander et al. wetlands meta-analysis
• Original studies from Italy, the Netherlands, Sweden, UK (1, 1991):
• peatlands have lowest value of all wetland types, no carbon values.

13. References
• Brander et al. (2012) Scaling up ecosystem services values:
methodology, applicability, and a case study, ERE
• Fisher et al. (2009) Defining and classifying ecosystem services for
decision making. Ecological Economics 68: 643–653
• Fisher et al. (2011) Measuring, modeling and mapping ecosystem
services in the Eastern Arc Mountains of Tanzania. Progress in
Physical Geography 2011 35: 595
• Martin-Ortega et al (2010)
• Schaafsma (2010) Spatial effects in Stated Preference Studies for
Environmental Valuation, PhD VU University Amsterdam.
• Tinch et al. 2010
• Turner et al. (2010) Ecosystem valuation: A sequential decision
support system and quality assessment issues, ANYAS 1185: 79–101
• Wichmann et al (in press) Valuing peatland ecosystem services. CUP