Incorporating environmental costs of ecosystem service loss in political decision making: A synthesis of monetary values for Germany

Germany faces on-going degradation and biodiversity loss. As a consequence, goods and services provided by biodiversity for human well-being, so-called ecosystem services, are being lost. The associated economic costs and benefits are often unknown. To fill this gap, we conducted a literature review and developed a database of monetary values for the changes in ecosystem services that result from ecosystem change in Germany. In total, 109 monetary valuation studies of regulating and cultural ecosystem services were identified, with the majority focusing on forests and wetlands. In collaboration with valuation experts and the German Federal Environment Agency—Umweltbundesamt (UBA), we defined a set of criteria that economic valuation studies should meet in order to qualify for being used in decision making on national policies. Only 6 out of 109 valuation studies (5.5%) fulfilled the quality criteria for informing such decisions. Overall, monetary information on regulating and cultural ecosystem services is scattered and scarce compared to information on provisioning services, which is accounted for in detail in national statistics. This imbalance in information likely contributes to the distortion in land-use policies, giving preference to maximizing provisioning services in agricultural production and forestry, while neglecting the societal relevance of regulating and cultural services. Decision makers have to rely on only a few cost estimates that are scientifically robust, while being pragmatic to include also vague estimates in cases where data is lacking. The transferability of the monetary values included in our database depends on the biophysical and socio-economic site conditions as well as the decision context of the intended application. Case specific adjustments following guidance for benefit transfer are recommended. Given the lack of applicable studies, we call for more decision-relevant economic assessments. Even in cases where monetary estimates are available, we suggest decision makers to consider also other benefit information available to capture the multiple values ecosystems provide to humans.

[1]  N. Crossman,et al.  Global estimates of the value of ecosystems and their services in monetary units , 2012 .

[2]  M. Großmann Economic value of the nutrient retention function of restored floodplain wetlands in the Elbe River basin , 2012 .

[3]  G. Daily,et al.  Notes from the field: Lessons learned from using ecosystem service approaches to inform real-world decisions , 2015 .

[4]  J. Meyerhoff,et al.  Financial costs and benefits of a program of measures to implement a National Strategy on Biological Diversity in Germany , 2014 .

[5]  Pushpam Kumar The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) , 2008 .

[6]  Ralf Seppelt,et al.  Uncertainty of Monetary Valued Ecosystem Services – Value Transfer Functions for Global Mapping , 2016, PloS one.

[7]  J. Hauck,et al.  What ecosystem services information do users want? Investigating interests and requirements among landscape and regional planners in Germany , 2014, Landscape Ecology.

[8]  H. Lotze-Campen,et al.  Agricultural trade and tropical deforestation: interactions and related policy options , 2015, Regional Environmental Change.

[9]  Stanley T. Asah,et al.  The IPBES Conceptual Framework - connecting nature and people , 2015 .

[10]  Davide Geneletti,et al.  A new valuation school: Integrating diverse values of nature in resource and land use decisions , 2016 .

[11]  Ralf Seppelt,et al.  Mapping and analysing historical indicators of ecosystem services in Germany , 2017 .

[12]  W. Adams,et al.  The value of valuing nature , 2014, Science.

[13]  Ralf Seppelt,et al.  Integrating ecosystem service bundles and socio-environmental conditions – A national scale analysis from Germany , 2017 .

[14]  O. Dietrich,et al.  SOCIAL BENEFITS AND ABATEMENT COSTS OF GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSION REDUCTIONS FROM RESTORING DRAINED FEN WETLANDS: A CASE STUDY FROM THE ELBE RIVER BASIN (GERMANY) , 2012 .

[15]  M. Alló,et al.  Ecosystem Services and REDD: Estimating the Benefits of Non-Carbon Services in Worldwide Forests , 2016 .

[16]  R. Howarth,et al.  The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity: Ecological and economic foundations , 2011 .

[17]  J. Farley,et al.  The economics of valuing ecosystem services and biodiversity , 2010 .

[18]  Wu Yang,et al.  Framing ecosystem services in the telecoupled Anthropocene , 2016 .

[19]  Pushpam Kumar,et al.  The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity : mainstreaming the economics of nature : a synthesis of the approach, conclusions and recommendations of TEEB , 2010 .

[20]  Teeb The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: Ecological and Economic Foundations , 2017 .

[21]  G. Mace,et al.  Bringing Ecosystem Services into Economic Decision-Making: Land Use in the United Kingdom , 2013, Science.

[22]  C. Hepburn,et al.  The economic analysis of biodiversity: an assessment , 2012 .

[23]  Roy Brouwer,et al.  Benefit Transfer of Environmental and Resource Values - A Guide for Researchers and Practitioners , 2015 .

[24]  Garry D. Peterson,et al.  Ecosystem service bundles for analyzing tradeoffs in diverse landscapes , 2010, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[25]  Igor Linkov,et al.  Multi-criteria decision analysis to select metrics for design and monitoring of sustainable ecosystem restorations , 2013 .

[26]  T. Kuemmerle,et al.  Exploring the effects of drastic institutional and socio-economic changes on land system dynamics in Germany between 1883 and 2007 , 2014, Global environmental change : human and policy dimensions.

[27]  Heidi Wittmer,et al.  The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity in Local and Regional Policy and Management , 2012 .

[28]  M. Herold,et al.  Drivers of deforestation and forest degradation: A synthesis report for REDD+ policymakers , 2012 .

[29]  Ortwin Renn,et al.  New Energy Externalities Developments for Sustainability , 2006 .

[30]  J. Spangenberg,et al.  Value pluralism and economic valuation – defendable if well done , 2016 .

[31]  Teeb The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: mainstreaming the economics of nature: a synthesis of the approach, conclusions and recommendations of TEEB , 2017 .

[32]  Ralf Buckley,et al.  The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity: Ecological and economic foundations , 2011 .

[33]  B. Bartkowski,et al.  Informing biodiversity policy: The role of economic valuation, deliberative institutions and deliberative monetary valuation , 2015 .

[34]  Ralf Seppelt,et al.  Assessing ecosystem services for informing land-use decisions: a problem-oriented approach , 2015 .

[35]  J. Mustajoki,et al.  Participatory multi-criteria assessment as ‘opening up’ vs. ‘closing down’ of policy discourses: A case of old-growth forest conflict in Finnish Upper Lapland , 2013 .

[36]  N. Crossman,et al.  The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: The Ecological and Economic Foundations (TEEB D0). , 2010 .

[37]  R. D. de Groot,et al.  Ecosystem services and economic theory: integration for policy-relevant research. , 2008, Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America.

[38]  L. Hedges,et al.  The Handbook of Research Synthesis and Meta-Analysis , 2009 .

[39]  Roy Haines-Young,et al.  Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES): Consultation on Version 4, August-December 2012 , 2013 .