Search

The United States and European Union (EU) face common challenges in managing natural capital and balancing conservation and resource use with consumption of other forms of capital. This paper synthesizes findings from 11 individual application papers from a special issue of Ecosystem Services on natural capital accounting (NCA) and their application to the public and private sectors in the EU and U.S. NCA is inherently a data-integration centered exercise, aiming to draw new insights by realigning environmental and economic data into a consistent framework. Drawing primarily on papers from the special issue and other key NCA literature, we identify lessons learned and gaps remaining for NCA’s development and application to decision making. In doing so, we identify eight key similarities and three major differences in NCA development, status, and application between the U.S. and EU. NCA can be highly policy relevant: special issue papers address critical issues including agriculture, water, conservation/land-use planning, climate, and corporate decision making. In both the U.S. and EU, further application is needed to drive demand for the accounts’ production. Based on these experiences, the U.S. and EU can be important leaders in cross-sector, international collaboration toward next-generation environmental economic accounts that advance global NCA practice.

The integration of ecosystem services and accounting systems can help different stakeholders understand the economic implications of environmental impacts. Any such integration requires clear understanding of how ecosystem services may match and integrate with traditional accounts. The Experimental Ecosystem Accounts (EEA) of the System of Integrated Environmental and Economic Accounts (SEEA) is developing quickly with applications at different administrative levels. One emerging feature is lack of agreement on conceptual notions and definitions that could reconcile different approaches. Some basic issues can be developed and solved only once a theoretical basis has been established. Since the first step of any application is to identify which ecosystem services to account for, this paper explores whether and to what extent the theoretical frameworks behind ecosystem services classification systems match the theoretical framework behind the SEEA EEA. This attempt first tackles the conceptual framework on the accounting side, then the conceptual framework on the ecosystem services classification side. Combining the two sides, it is possible to visualize matches or mismatches and to infer a few consequences and implications. Ecosystem services classification systems can guide separation of intra-ecosystem processes from final ecosystem services, and help disentangle ecosystem services from benefits, key requirements for integrating accounts., Highlights • The concept of ecosystem services (ES) is a viable tool for impact assessments. • Integrating ES into policies could be addressed via integrated accounting systems. • The conceptual frameworks on the accounting and ES classification sides are explored. • A consistent integration requires disentangling ES from benefits. • Identifying the ES that users value requires discriminating among different uses.

Natural capital includes the physical and biophysical components of an ecosystem working together to produce a flow of services to the economy and to society that support human well-being. An ecosystem service thus represents a type of transaction between natural capital and humans and can be considered within tools to support Ecosystem-Based Management (EBM) decision making. A natural capital perspective can be a useful way to put the value of ecosystems on par with other socioeconomic values in an EBM decision context. Further, the application of structured classifications for ecosystem components, human beneficiaries (users), and a suite of flows of final ecosystem services helps EBM practitioners organize information for a given decision context. This chapter explores the utility of natural capital accounting as a tool for EBM, outlines a standardized framework for natural capital accounting, and summarizes an ecosystem services classification system for natural capital accounting that can be used as an EBM tool, especially relevant for the decision-making step of evaluating management options (e.g., scenarios).

In this study, we develop urban ecosystem accounts in the U.S., using the System of Environmental-Economic Accounting Experimental Ecosystem Accounting (SEEA EEA) framework. Most ecosystem accounts focus on regional and national scales, which are appropriate for many ecosystem services. However, ecosystems provide substantial services in cities, improving quality of life and contributing to resiliency for substantial parts of the population. Our models estimate energy savings for indoor cooling resulting from heat mitigated by trees and rainfall intercepted by trees. Both models cover major cities in the contiguous U.S. and report the results through physical supply and use tables for multiple accounting periods (2011 and 2016). Using conservative assumptions, urban trees provide substantial heat mitigation (4,098 and 4,229 GWh, valued at $523 and $539 million in 2011 and 2016, respectively) and rainfall interception (2,422 and 2,627 million m3, valued at $434 and $425 million for 2011 and 2016, respectively). Interannual differences largely reflect variations in weather patterns. Our work shows how Earth observation data can support urban ecosystem accounting. We provide model code within a public repository to facilitate model runs elsewhere, enabling the SEEA EEA and Earth observation user communities to reuse our models and provide feedback for improvement.

Ecosystem services (ES) practitioners (e.g., researchers, policy makers) have been working to better define, measure, and value the ways that nature contributes to society. Because measurement techniques follow the labeling or identification of ES, precise identification is critical. This article reviews literature and consults experts in classification science and ES to determine the expected benefits of using ES classification knowledge (classification knowledge); ecosystem services classification systems (ES-CS) and their principles. An informal analysis of the costs of transitioning from the current ad-hoc approach—based on various ES lists—to using classification knowledge was conducted. 18 benefits of using classification knowledge were found, including allowing ES to be defined more easily and precisely, easing the transfer of knowledge among studies, and avoiding the need to recreate ES identification systems. Collectively, these 18 benefits should allow for more accurate and consistent definition of ES, thereby serving to improve communication and measurement of ES. Moreover, the expected benefits of using ES-CS outweigh expected costs of the transition. Practitioners can use ES-CS in whole, or in parts, as their research or their institutions warrant. Finally, a case study was conducted that shows how ES measures can be organized using ES-CS, delivering benefits to practitioners.

Ecosystem accounts, as formalized by the System of Environmental-Economic Accounting Experimental Ecosystem Accounts (SEEA EEA), have been compiled in a number of countries, yet there have been few attempts to develop them for the U.S. We explore the potential for U.S. ecosystem accounting by compiling ecosystem extent, condition, and ecosystem services supply and use accounts for a 10-state region in the Southeast. The pilot accounts address air quality, water quality, biodiversity, carbon storage, recreation, and pollination for selected years from 2001 to 2015. Results illustrate how information from ecosystem accounts can contribute to policy and decision making. Using an example from Atlanta, we also show how ecosystem accounts can be considered alongside other SEEA accounts to give a more complete picture of a local area’s environmental-economic trends. The process by which we determined where to place metrics within the accounting framework, which was strongly informed by the National Ecosystem Services Classification System (NESCS), can provide guidance for future ecosystem accounts in the U.S. and other countries. Finally, we identify knowledge gaps that limit the inclusion of certain ecosystem services in the accounts and suggest future research that can close these gaps and improve future U.S. ecosystem accounts.

For Korea's two most popular apartment heating systems – Individual Heating (IH) and District Heating (DH), – user convenience rests heavily on location of the boiler, availability of hot water, administration of the system, and user control of indoor temperature. A double-bounded dichotomous choice method estimates consumer value for convenience, in a hypothetical market. Higher-income more-educated consumers in more expensive apartments prefer DH. Cost-conscious consumers, who use more electrical heating appliances and more actively adjust separate room temperatures, prefer IH. With willingness-to-pay (WTP) defined as the price ratio between IH and DH, 800 survey respondents indicate a WTP of 4.0% for DH over IH. IH users unfamiliar with DH expect little greater convenience (0.1% WTP), whereas the WTP for DH users runs to 7.9%, demonstrating consumer loyalty. Quantified estimates of consumer preference and convenience can inform design of a full-cost-plus pricing system with a price cap. Results here indirectly predict the effect of abolishing regulations that exclusively establish district heating zones. Strategies to foster the many external benefits of DH systems should stress not their lower cost, but convenience, comfort, and safety. Higher installation costs still hamper DH expansion, so policy-makers could set policies to lower cost barriers to entry.

Ecosystem services approaches are material to business performance. However, the lack of sufficiently detailed and commonly used ecosystem services classification systems prevents companies from benefitting fully from them. The final ecosystem services perspective, embodied by the Final Ecosystem Goods and Services Classification System (FEGS-CS) and the National Ecosystem Services Classification System (NESCS), offers a way through key bottlenecks to mainstreaming ecosystem services in corporate decision-making and accounting. Compared to other systems, these are easier to use, improve materiality analysis, and aid stakeholder engagement. In addition, their potential to improve the accuracy of valuation makes them preferable for natural capital accounting. Companies that adopt this final ecosystem services (FES) perspective are likely to gain these immediate benefits and first-mover advantage, as this FES perspective is poised to become standard practice.

An empirical framework for assisting with water quality management is proposed that relies on open-source hydrologic data. Such data are measured periodically at fixed water stations and commonly available in time-series form. To fully exploit the data, we suggest that observations from multiple stations should be combined into a single long-panel data set, and an econometric model developed to estimate upstream management effects on downstream water quality. Selection of the model's functional form and explanatory variables would be informed by rating curves, and idiosyncrasies across and within stations handled in an error term by testing contemporary correlation, serial correlation, and heteroskedasticity. Our proposed approach is illustrated with an application to the Nakdong River basin in South Korea. Three alternative policies to achieve downstream BOD level targets are evaluated: upstream water treatment, greater dam discharge, and development of a new water source. Upstream water treatment directly cuts off incoming pollutants, thereby presenting the smallest variation in its downstream effects on BOD levels. Treatment is advantageous when reliability of water quality is a primary concern. Dam discharge is a flexible tool, and may be used strategically during a low-flow season. We consider development of a new water corridor from an extant dam as our third policy option. This turns out to be the most cost-effective way for securing lower BOD levels in the downstream target city. Even though we consider a relatively simple watershed to illustrate the usefulness of our approach, it can be adapted easily to analyze more complex upstream-downstream issues.

Offshore Dubai is a maturing oil province and to access outlying, isolated hydrocarbon reserves it is necessary to expose several unstable sections of troublesome shale during drilling operations. Historically during the drilling of these wells, wellbore time-based instability issues have been experienced in the Aruma and Laffan shales on offset wells with shorter buildup sections. It is therefore necessary to drill these sections as efficiently as possible, minimizing the time these shales are exposed. Dubai Petroleum looked at a combination of new technologies available in the market that could help both to optimize the drilling of these sections and to meet the directional objectives. To control the shales a high-performance water-based mud (HPWBM) system with triple inhibition was proposed to Dubai Petroleum after a series of tests and field experience in the region. To achieve the directional objectives and minimize the time to drill the section, a performance drilling system (rotary steerable tool in combination with a modular motor) and drilling dynamics sub were suggested. The section was drilled safely in a single run with all drilling objectives achieved and breaking all previous 24-hr ROP drilling records for an offshore Dubai Petroleum well. No shale instability issues were experienced, including the longest Aruma shale section ever drilled by Dubai Petroleum. The combination of new technologies and detailed planning applied offshore Dubai for the first time allowed a step change in the Dubai Petroleum offshore drilling and enable previously inaccessible hydrocarbon reserves to be reached and produced.

To the layman, U.S. farm policy may seem ironic. Why write lengthy and complex farm bills and offer billions in financial support to help put seeds in the ground and tend them through harvest? There seems to be little memory of the harsh, cyclical waves of boom and bust that preceded the first Agricultural Adjustment Acts of the Great Depression. Further, the public's demand for a safe, continuous, and cheap food supply can be difficult to meet when harvests are annual, and when yields vary dramatically due to unforeseeable environmental changes including heat, rainfall, and pests.

I consider three questions when planning to teach: “What am I going to have my students do today? What’s it good for? How do I know?” Serious consideration of these three simple questions has great power to transform the community of learners in any classroom.