1. No category

Valuation of ecosystem services for policy
A pilot study on green infrastructure in Oslo, Norway
David N. Barton
Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystems and their Services EEA Grants/European Conference Trondheim, Norway 27‐28 May 2015 An ES valuation dilemma…
Economic valuation of ES is seldom used in decision‐making!..
of 676 papers reviewed
313 made even
fewer still..
even fewer..
Source: Laurans et al. 2013
Overview
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Decision‐context framework Methodological challenges ES in Oslo’s municipal awareness
Example: Valuation for awareness raising
Example: Valuation of economic liability trees Take‐home
1. Framework ‐ valuation of ecosystem services for policy Values of ecosystem services are decision‐
context specific
Values are an expression of the (relative) importance of alternative courses of action with alternative levels of benefits and costs
Ecosystem
Structures
Decisions
Actions
Ecosystem functions
Ecosystem Services
Ecosystem
Benefits
Ecosystem
Values
Cost of decisions
What are the possible uses of valuation?
The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB):
Recognizing value
Demonstrating value
Capturing value
NOU 2013:10: Natural benefits – on the value of ecosystem services:
cases, asset degradation cost‐benefit
stories, on private analysis of illustrations & public
policy, balance sheets
measures, projects
setting incentive
levels, targeting
user groups
legal damage & compensation
claims
Spatial scale
Recognizing value
Demonstrating value
Capturing value
Spatial contexts of valuation?
Valuation context
Valuation context
Valuation context
Valuation context
Valuation context
100 m2
1 da
1 ha
10 ha
1 km2
10 km2
Reliability &
accuracy
requirement
Source: adapted from Gomez‐Baggethun and Barton(2013)
2. Challenges of valuation of ecosystem services for policy Biophysical heterogeneity
DIMENSIONS OF
ES VALUATON CONTEXT
Social heterogeneity
Value Plurality
Weekly average
g/m3
Visit
Area scale
Ecosystem
Structures
Location
resolutions
Process Times
Perception times
Ecosystem
Ecosystem Services
functions
Process
locations
Subject locations
Ecosystem service supply mapping
Use occasions
Ecosystem
Benefits
Subject characteristics
Decision horizons
Ecosystem
Values
Decision
alternatives
Ecosystem service demand mapping
Source: own elaboration
3. Urban ecosystem services in municipal policy & management in Oslo
Pilot Study Area
Basic stats: Total area: 454 km2
287 km2 forest
28 km2 green space
Population : 635 000 (2013)
820 000 ? (2030)
Northern Europe’s fastest
growing capital?
Oslo Municipality’s ecosystem service awareness
Urban ecosystem services of green infrastructure mentioned in key municipal policy documents
ES
1. Oslo Municipal Master plan (2008): “Kommuneplan 2008: Oslo mot 2025”
2. Oslo Municipal Master Plan (poposed) Smart, Safe and Green: “Smart, Trygg, Grønn. Kommuneplan for Oslo: Oslo mot 2030 (Høringsutkast)”
3. Green Plan for Oslo. Municipal subplan for the green infrastructure (2010): “Grøntplan for Oslo: Kommunedelplan for den blågrønne strukturen i Oslos byggesone”
4. Plan for Sport and Outdoor recreation in Oslo (2013‐2016): “Plan for Idrett og Friluftsliv i Oslo 2013‐2016”
5. City of Oslo Urban Ecology Programme 2011‐2016
6. Action Plan for Noise Reduction 2008‐2013: “Handlingsplan mot støy i Oslo 2008‐2013”
7.Strategy for Surface water management 2013‐2030.
Source: Barton et al. 2015
Recognizing value
4. Valuation for awareness raising ‐
Oslo
Recognizing value
Headline: Nature in Oslo is worth billions of NOK!
…but a smaller number of €…
Photo: VisitOslo
Illustration: CEEweb
Oslo Pilot study: monetary valuation
methods
4
3
ECONOMIC LIABILITY
VALUE OF TIME USE
1
2
WILLINGNESS‐TO‐PAY (META‐ANALYSIS)
HEDONIC PROPERTY PRICES
Spatial scale
Recognizing value
Oslo Pilot study:
monetary valuation methods
Individual
Building
Street
Neighbourhood
Built zone
Ecosystem
Reliability &
accuracy
requirement
Source: adapted from Gomez‐Baggethun and Barton(2013)
Recreation time value
23 million Marka‐visits, 71 million hours/year:
2,3‐13,3 billion NOK/year
Hedonic property pricing
36 310 flats 500m from Marka forest:
0,8‐4,1 billion NOK
Total compensation value
0,7‐1,2 million city trees on public and private land:
28‐42 billion NOK
Hedonic property pricing
160 722 flats 500m from parks:
8,3‐18,9 billion NOK
Map: Traaholt(2014) Willingness‐to‐pay park recreation (meta‐analysis): ca.1 billion NOK/year Capturing value
5. Valuation for decision‐support
Example:
Compensation value of city trees
Geographical scale
Capturing value
Building/property
Streetscape
Neighbourhood
Region
Reliability &
accuracy
requirement
Norway Maple
(Acer platanoides)
Compensation value model used by Oslo:
VAT 03— Valuation of Trees in Danish
Randrup (2005)
Source: Randrup (2005)
Source: Barton et al. 2015
Source: illustrasjon: BYM(2012) Arbeid nær trær
Economic liability – tree compensation value (VAT03)
Visibility
Crown area
Main branches and stem
Choking rot
 90 000 NOK
compensation
value
4
4
Decision‐context I: adjusting VAT03 value
to address property rights
At what distance from public space is a tree on private land of public concern (aesthetic value)? Value=
VAT03
Value=0
Value>0
Private
Public
property
Private
d*h
Tree
height
(h)
2h
1h
1/3 h
= Current «neighbour concern distance» (Granneloven)
Decision‐context II: tree density in forest
remnants and peri‐urban forest
When does a forest tree
become a city tree in terms
of non‐timber benefits?
Full VAT03 value
Adjusted VAT03? =3/10* VAT03
Timber value only
0
3
Neighbouring tree density
(radius of tree height in m)
10
Demonstrating value
Capturing value
information cost
Spatial scale
Recognizing value
100 m2
1 da
1 ha
10 ha
1 km2
10 km2
Reliability &
accuracy
requirement
Source: adapted from Gomez‐Baggethun and Barton(2013)
7. Conclusions Nature in Oslo is worth billions…
…it’s awareness raising, but will it be policy relevant?
Colleagues
Nina Oslo
David N. Barton
Erik Gómez‐Baggethun
Stefan Blumentrath
Anders Often
Olve Krange
NINA Lillehammer
Vegard Gundersen
Berit Köhler
Erik Stange
Margrethe Tingstad
NINA Trondheim
Graciela Rusch
VISTA Analyse A/S
Rasmus Reinvang , Henrik Lindhjem
MSc. students:
Claudia Fongar, NTNU Oscar Haavardsholm, UiO
Nora Vågnes Traaholt, U. København (completed)
Ph.D. students :
Emma Soy Massoni, U. de Girona, Spania
Sergi Nuss Girona, U. de Girona, Spania (completed)
Visiting researchers:
Grazia Zulian, JRC
Leena Kopperoinen, Pekka Itkonen, Arto Viinikka (SYKE)
App Development:
Joerg Preiss(UFZ), Robin Elger
OSLOpenNESS partners:
Partners Oslo Municipality:
Environment Agency
Planning and Building Agency
Water and Sewage Agency
Main funding:
Related funding:
Dissemination
Project
Project
http://www.openness‐project.eu/node/78
References
For further information on OSLOpenNESS case study visit: http://www.openness‐project.eu/node/78
Barton, D. N., et al. (2015). Economic valuation of ecosystem services for policy. A pilot study on green infrastructure in Oslo. . NINA Report 1114: 77.
Barton, D. N., et al. (2015). Materials and methods appendix for valuation of ecosystem services of green infrastructure in Oslo.–
NINA Rapport [1115. 65 pp.].
Laurans, Y., et al. (2013). "Use of ecosystem services economic valuation for decision making: Questioning a literature blindspot." Journal of Environmental Management 119: 208‐219.