October 24, 2014

1. Ecosystem Service Valuation in Metropolitan and Rural Landscapes Ted WeberStrategic Conservation Science ManagerJazmin Varela Strategic Conservation Information Manager Will Allen Director of Strategic Conservation October 24, 2014

2. Outline of talk Overview of ecosystem services Methods for valuing ecosystem services Selected values (Chicago region) Spatial application: Houston-Galveston region Spatial application: Cecil County, MD Spatial application: Chicago region

3. What are Ecosystem Services? Human well-being Material needs, health, security, social relations, “quality of life” Products Cultural experiences Ecosystem Services Regulating Services Supporting (Natural processes that maintain other ecosystem services) Ecological Capital Adapted from 2010 Ecological Footprint Atlas

4. Types of Ecosystem Services

5. Types of Ecosystem Services (cont.)

6. Valuation Methods • Avoided cost • Replacement cost • Factor income • Travel cost • Hedonic pricing • Contingent valuation

7. Sample Valuation Studies • Costanza et al. (1997) estimated that ecosystem services contribute at least as much as to the global economy as do marketplace processes, and probably much more. • In Maryland, Pimentel (1998) estimated the value of biodiversity as about $2.7 billion ($2010) annually. • Biosphere 2 had operational and annualized construction costs on the order of $10 million per year (Marino and Odum 1999), and was not particularly successful. If one extrapolated from this experiment, Earth’s support of 6.6 billion people in 2006 was worth $11 quadrillion, or 170 times the global GDP. • Balmford et al. (2002) found that if the values of ecological services are considered, the benefits from conserving natural land gives a return on investment of at least 100 to 1.

8. Help estimate the economic benefits of conservation in comparison with the investments required to protect land. • Help identify the most strategic locations to protect land.

9. Key Chicago-area Ecosystem Services

10. Water Flow Regulation / Flood Control • • A large tree can reduce 5,400 gallons of stormwater runoff per year in the Midwest. A forest stand can intercept over 200,000 gallons per acre per year. • • An acre of forest provides an annual avoided stormwater treatment cost of $21 per acre per year and over $9,000 per acre per year in avoided gray infrastructure investment costs. • • An acre of wetlands can typically store 1-1.5 million gallons of floodwater. • • In Wisconsin, watersheds with 30% wetland or lake area had flood peaks 60-80% lower than watersheds with no wetland or lake area. • • Not building in floodplains in the Chicago metropolitan area could save an average $900 per acre per year in flood damages.

11. Water Purification • • Forested buffers can remove up to 21 pounds of nitrogen and 4 pounds of phosphorus per acre per year from upland runoff. Forest buffers can reduce up to 98% of nitrogen, phosphorus, sediments, pesticides, pathogens, and other pollutants in surface and groundwater. • • In a comparison of 11 types of best management practices (BMPs) for treating stormwater runoff, constructed wetlands were the most effective. The wetland removed 100% of suspended solids, 99% of nitrate, 100% of zinc, and 100% of petroleum byproducts, and reduced peak flows by 85%. This greatly exceeded the performance of standard retention ponds, as well as expensive manufactured devices. • • The average wastewater treatment costs using conventional methods are $4.36 per 1,000 gallons, but through wetlands construction, the cost is only $0.63/1,000 gallons ($2014). • • The cost of restoring and operating wetlands to remove nitrogen and phosphorus can be 50-70% less than the cost of constructing and operating engineered wastewater treatment systems.

12. Assigning Values to Landscape Types

13. Green Infrastructure Elements • Cores: • Contain fully functional natural ecosystems • Provide high-quality habitat for native plants and animals • Hubs: • Slightly fragmented aggregations of core areas, plus contiguous natural cover • Corridors: • Link core areas together • Allow animal movement and seed and pollen transfer between core areas • Sites: • Important microhabitats not captured by network thresholds and criteria

14. Ecosystem services mapping example: Houston

15. Ecosystem services mapping example: Houston

16. Ecosystem services mapping example: Cecil County, MD • Green Infrastructure core areas, hubs, and corridors in Cecil County comprise 32% of land but provide approximately 81% of the county’s ecosystem service benefits.

17. Chicago Wilderness Biodiversity Recovery Plan

18. Mapping Technical Approach Apply the ecosystem service values spatially

19. Water Flow Regulation / Flood control (DRAFT)

20. Water Purification (DRAFT)

21. Groundwater Recharge (DRAFT)

22. Carbon Storage (DRAFT) The carbon storage value per grid cell = (Cabove + Cbelow) * $2/tonne/year Cabove = Aboveground carbon storage (dry weight biomass * 0.5) from NBCD Cbelow = Belowground carbon storage from gSSURGO $2/tonne/year was estimated avoided future damage from the carbon being sequestered in vegetation and soil instead of in the atmosphere. This is a snapshot in time. In the absence of disturbance, carbon storage will increase over time as forests and prairie reach maturity. Disturbances, especially fire, will release some of this carbon (primarily from the aboveground stock) into the atmosphere.

23. Support Native Flora and Fauna (DRAFT)

24. Recreation and Ecotourism (DRAFT)

25. Combined value (DRAFT)

26. Questions? Ted Weber Strategic Conservation Science Manager The Conservation Fundtweber@conservationfund.org