Search

The saltmarsh carbon storage potential is a key topic in blue carbon research and climate policy. Ecosystem service valuations provide valuable information to policymakers for habitat management and climate change mitigation policies. Yet, only few saltmarsh valuation studies have included the carbon storage service in the UK context. This paper investigates how the public values saltmarsh ecosystem services, focussing on the carbon storage service. We used a choice experiment to elicit the willingness to pay (WTP) of a representative sample of the Scottish public to support interventions that would maintain or improve the provision of these services. Furthermore, we tested the effect of information on individuals' preferences and WTP with a split sample approach where one group received a treatment in the form of additional information. We found that (i) all attributes had a significant influence on individuals' choices; (ii) both groups had, on average, a positive marginal WTP for all presented ecosystem services; (iii) the treated sample had, on average, no significantly different marginal WTP for carbon storage than the control group. This paper adds to the limited literature on the saltmarsh carbon storage ecosystem service and demonstrates a developed nation's public's openness to nature-based climate change mitigation solutions. [Display omitted] • The Scottish public on average prefers saltmarsh management over the status quo. • Providing additional information reduced heterogeneity in WTP for carbon storage. • Most respondents preferred an improvement of all saltmarsh ecosystem services. • Therefore management should focus on both climate change mitigation and adaptation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Atmospheric nitrogen pollution has severe impacts on biodiversity, but approaches to value them are limited. This paper develops a spatially explicit methodology to value the benefits from improvements in biodiversity resulting from current policy initiatives to reduce nitrogen emissions. Using the UK as a case study, we quantify nitrogen impacts on plant diversity in four habitats: heathland, acid grassland, dunes and bogs, at fine spatial resolution. Focusing on non-use values for biodiversity we apply value-transfer based on household's willingness to pay to avoid changes in plant species richness, and calculate the benefit of projected emission declines of 37% for nitrogen dioxide (NO 2 ) and 6% for ammonia (NH 3 ) over the scenario period 2007–2020. The annualised benefit resulting from these pollutant declines is £32.7 m (£4.4 m to £109.7 m, 95% Confidence Interval), with the greatest benefit accruing from heathland and acid grassland due to their large area. We also calculate damage costs per unit of NO 2 and NH 3 emitted, to quantify some of the environmental impacts of air pollution for use alongside damage costs for human health in policy appraisal. The benefit is £103 (£33 to £237) per tonne of NO 2 saved, and £414 (£139 to £1022) per tonne of NH 3 saved. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The ecosystem services concept has enjoyed widespread interest and recognition in recent years. In particular, the monetary valuation and commodification of ecosystem services in form of payments for ecosystem services schemes and the development of new markets for ecosystem services has appreciated large popularity. However, who is behind this strong momentum towards ecosystem services and especially why is less well known. In this paper I aim to shed light on this by looking specifically at advocates of the concept of ecosystem services, using forestry in the United Kingdom (UK) as an example. I explore the motivations for accommodating or actively pursuing ecosystem services thinking in this important sector through interviews with forestry and conservation experts. Four prominent groups with a specific interest in the ecosystem services concept in the context of UK forestry are governmental organisations, non-governmental conservation organisations, private forest owners, and the timber and forest industry. These stakeholder groups are interested in this new perspective, chiefly, but not exclusively, because (1) it is required under international obligations; (2) it is in line with dominant market political philosophy; (3) it holds the promise to include the environment more fully into prevailing economic decision-making processes; (4) it can help to draw more attention to biodiversity conservation; (5) it holds the promise of new sources of income from both public and private sources; and (6) it can be used as a convenient argument to promote further tree planting. However, these groups have different, but frequently overlapping reasons for pursuing this new perspective. The results provide a baseline and important insights into who was embracing ecosystem services thinking and why during the early years of the adoption of this approach in the UK. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Rural areas are subject to changing and often competing demands. Where agricultural production was once paramount, it now competes with other ecosystem services such as carbon storage, rural amenity, and wildlife habitat. If rural areas are to be managed to produce this broad range of goods and services, then more diverse and complex management regimes are needed. This paper explores the literature on property rights before using a ‘property rights bundle’ approach in the UK uplands to (1) examine the distribution of property rights between stakeholders in a multi-resource system and (2) evaluate the effect of state intervention on the redistribution of property rights and the resulting management regimes. Private land owners were found to be the dominant type of property rights holder and private property the dominant management regime in the uplands of the UK. Government intervention has also created private-state regimes for some public goods such as biodiversity but common property management is still in its infancy with regards to ecosystem services and few stakeholders have claimant rights over resources. As a result, many stakeholders are unable to influence management to produce the goods that they want. A property rights perspective highlights that single management regimes alone are unlikely to manage land sustainably for both private and public goods. Instead, a complex mix of private, private-state and common property regimes are found to be emerging in this multi-resource system. These mixed management regimes have the potential to produce sustainable outcomes but only if the appropriate management regime is matched to each resource, if links are developed between each regime to deal with conflict and if mixed management is adaptable enough to cope with new and changing demands. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]