IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecoser/v43y2020ics2212041620300401.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Integrated assessment, valuation and mapping of ecosystem services and dis-services from upland land use in Wales

Author

Listed:
  • Hardaker, Ashley
  • Pagella, Tim
  • Rayment, Mark

Abstract

Upland land use in Wales has high potential value in relation to the delivery of ecosystem services which is currently uncaptured. In this study we assessed the ecosystem services and dis-services generated by the two dominant land uses (forestry and agricultural) in the uplands of Wales in qualitative and monetary units. We also mapped the distribution of ecosystem services and dis-services across the two dominant land uses. Our results provide an initial baseline estimate of the supply and economic value of ecosystem services and dis-services from upland forestry and agricultural land use in Wales. The qualitative assessment showed the highest levels of ecosystem service supply were derived from forestry land use and the highest levels of ecosystem dis-services were derived from agricultural land use. The economic value of ecosystem service benefits from upland land use in Wales is £1,472.25 million year−1 and the total costs of ecosystem dis-services are £101.54 million year−1 using 2018 values. When an economic weighting is applied the per hectare economic value of ecosystem service benefits from agriculture at £1,434.02 ha−1 year−1 is higher than that of forestry at £1,261.09 ha−1 year−1 and the per hectare costs of ecosystem dis-services from agriculture at £96.10 ha−1 year−1 was marginally lower than that of forestry at £98.58 ha−1 year−1. Overall our results highlight an imbalance in the current delivery of ecosystem services from upland land use in Wales with the majority of benefits coming in the form of private benefits through provisioning services. By using systematic qualitative and economic assessment tools this study has highlighted critical data gaps and provides a basis for rebalancing ecosystem service delivery and increasing levels of public benefits through expansion of tree cover within the Welsh uplands. Our mapping highlights where land use adaption and transformation may be approached to address the imbalance in ecosystem service supply.

Suggested Citation

  • Hardaker, Ashley & Pagella, Tim & Rayment, Mark, 2020. "Integrated assessment, valuation and mapping of ecosystem services and dis-services from upland land use in Wales," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 43(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecoser:v:43:y:2020:i:c:s2212041620300401
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2020.101098
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212041620300401
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ecoser.2020.101098?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Carlo Fezzi & Ian Bateman & Tom Askew & Paul Munday & Unai Pascual & Antara Sen & Amii Harwood, 2014. "Valuing Provisioning Ecosystem Services in Agriculture: The Impact of Climate Change on Food Production in the United Kingdom," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 57(2), pages 197-214, February.
    2. Fisher, Brendan & Turner, R. Kerry & Morling, Paul, 2009. "Defining and classifying ecosystem services for decision making," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(3), pages 643-653, January.
    3. Carmen Hubbard & John Davis & Siyi Feng & David Harvey & Anne Liddon & Andrew Moxey & Mercy Ojo & Myles Patton & George Philippidis & Charles Scott & Shailesh Shrestha & Michael Wallace, 2018. "Brexit: How Will UK Agriculture Fare?," EuroChoices, The Agricultural Economics Society, vol. 17(2), pages 19-26, August.
    4. Hardaker, Ashley, 2018. "Is forestry really more profitable than upland farming? A historic and present day farm level economic comparison of upland sheep farming and forestry in the UK," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 98-120.
    5. Pretty, J. N. & Brett, C. & Gee, D. & Hine, R. E. & Mason, C. F. & Morison, J. I. L. & Raven, H. & Rayment, M. D. & van der Bijl, G., 2000. "An assessment of the total external costs of UK agriculture," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 65(2), pages 113-136, August.
    6. Brainard, Julii & Bateman, Ian J. & Lovett, Andrew A., 2009. "The social value of carbon sequestered in Great Britain's woodlands," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(4), pages 1257-1267, February.
    7. Howarth, Richard B. & Farber, Stephen, 2002. "Accounting for the value of ecosystem services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(3), pages 421-429, June.
    8. Spangenberg, Joachim H. & Settele, Josef, 2016. "Value pluralism and economic valuation – defendable if well done," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 18(C), pages 100-109.
    9. Hein, Lars & van Koppen, Kris & de Groot, Rudolf S. & van Ierland, Ekko C., 2006. "Spatial scales, stakeholders and the valuation of ecosystem services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(2), pages 209-228, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. McNicol, Louise C. & Williams, Non G. & Chadwick, Dave & Styles, David & Rees, Robert M. & Ramsey, Rachael & Williams, A. Prysor, 2024. "Net Zero requires ambitious greenhouse gas emission reductions on beef and sheep farms coordinated with afforestation and other land use change measures," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 215(C).
    2. Zabala, José A. & Martínez-Paz, José M. & Alcon, Francisco, 2021. "Integrated valuation of semiarid Mediterranean agroecosystem services and disservices," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 184(C).
    3. Yuan Yuan & Gangchun Xu & Nannan Shen & Zhijuan Nie & Hongxia Li & Lin Zhang & Yunchong Gong & Yanhui He & Xiaofei Ma & Hongyan Zhang & Jian Zhu & Jinrong Duan & Pao Xu, 2022. "Valuation of Ecosystem Services for the Sustainable Development of Hani Terraces: A Rice–Fish–Duck Integrated Farming Model," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(14), pages 1-19, July.
    4. Alcon, Francisco & Zabala, José A. & Martínez-García, Victor & Albaladejo, José A. & López-Becerra, Erasmo I. & de-Miguel, María D. & Martínez-Paz, José M., 2022. "The social wellbeing of irrigation water. A demand-side integrated valuation in a Mediterranean agroecosystem," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 262(C).
    5. Hualin Xie & Zhe Li & Yu Xu, 2022. "Study on the Coupling and Coordination Relationship between Gross Ecosystem Product (GEP) and Regional Economic System: A Case Study of Jiangxi Province," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(9), pages 1-20, September.
    6. Hardaker, Ashley & Pagella, Tim & Rayment, Mark, 2021. "Ecosystem service and dis-service impacts of increasing tree cover on agricultural land by land-sparing and land-sharing in the Welsh uplands," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 48(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Hardaker, Ashley & Pagella, Tim & Rayment, Mark, 2021. "Ecosystem service and dis-service impacts of increasing tree cover on agricultural land by land-sparing and land-sharing in the Welsh uplands," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 48(C).
    2. Häyhä, Tiina & Franzese, Pier Paolo & Paletto, Alessandro & Fath, Brian D., 2015. "Assessing, valuing, and mapping ecosystem services in Alpine forests," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 14(C), pages 12-23.
    3. Turner, Katrine Grace & Anderson, Sharolyn & Gonzales-Chang, Mauricio & Costanza, Robert & Courville, Sasha & Dalgaard, Tommy & Dominati, Estelle & Kubiszewski, Ida & Ogilvy, Sue & Porfirio, Luciana &, 2016. "A review of methods, data, and models to assess changes in the value of ecosystem services from land degradation and restoration," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 319(C), pages 190-207.
    4. Häyhä, Tiina & Franzese, Pier Paolo, 2014. "Ecosystem services assessment: A review under an ecological-economic and systems perspective," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 289(C), pages 124-132.
    5. Ping Shen & Lijuan Wu & Ziwen Huo & Jiaying Zhang, 2023. "A Study on the Spatial Pattern of the Ecological Product Value of China’s County-Level Regions Based on GEP Evaluation," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(4), pages 1-18, February.
    6. Bo Yang & Ming-Han Li & Shujuan Li, 2013. "Design-with-Nature for Multifunctional Landscapes: Environmental Benefits and Social Barriers in Community Development," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-26, October.
    7. Stapleton, L.M. & Hanna, P. & Ravenscroft, N. & Church, A., 2014. "A flexible ecosystem services proto-typology based on public opinion," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 83-90.
    8. Gregg C. Brill & Pippin M. L. Anderson & Patrick O’Farrell, 2022. "Relational Values of Cultural Ecosystem Services in an Urban Conservation Area: The Case of Table Mountain National Park, South Africa," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-28, April.
    9. Vahid Amini Parsa & Esmail Salehi & Ahmad Reza Yavari & Peter M van Bodegom, 2019. "An improved method for assessing mismatches between supply and demand in urban regulating ecosystem services: A case study in Tabriz, Iran," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(8), pages 1-22, August.
    10. McVittie, Alistair & Norton, Lisa & Martin-Ortega, Julia & Siameti, Ioanna & Glenk, Klaus & Aalders, Inge, 2015. "Operationalizing an ecosystem services-based approach using Bayesian Belief Networks: An application to riparian buffer strips," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 15-27.
    11. Brown, Melanie G. & Quinn, John E., 2018. "Zoning does not improve the availability of ecosystem services in urban watersheds. A case study from Upstate South Carolina, USA," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 34(PB), pages 254-265.
    12. Jiayi Zhou & Kangning Xiong & Qi Wang & Jiuhan Tang & Li Lin, 2022. "A Review of Ecological Assets and Ecological Products Supply: Implications for the Karst Rocky Desertification Control," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(16), pages 1-20, August.
    13. Jones, Sarah K. & Boundaogo, Mansour & DeClerck, Fabrice A. & Estrada-Carmona, Natalia & Mirumachi, Naho & Mulligan, Mark, 2019. "Insights into the importance of ecosystem services to human well-being in reservoir landscapes," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 39(C).
    14. Heink, Ulrich & Jax, Kurt, 2019. "Going Upstream — How the Purpose of a Conceptual Framework for Ecosystem Services Determines Its Structure," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 156(C), pages 264-271.
    15. Heinze, Alan & Bongers, Frans & Ramírez Marcial, Neptalí & García Barrios, Luis E. & Kuyper, Thomas W., 2022. "Farm diversity and fine scales matter in the assessment of ecosystem services and land use scenarios," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 196(C).
    16. Sarkki, Simo & Karjalainen, Timo P., 2015. "Ecosystem service valuation in a governance debate: Practitioners' strategic argumentation on forestry in northern Finland," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 16(C), pages 13-22.
    17. Muhamad, Dendi & Okubo, Satoru & Harashina, Koji & Parikesit, & Gunawan, Budhi & Takeuchi, Kazuhiko, 2014. "Living close to forests enhances people׳s perception of ecosystem services in a forest–agricultural landscape of West Java, Indonesia," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 8(C), pages 197-206.
    18. Syndhia Mathé & Helene Rey-Valette, 2018. "Perceptions of the role played by aquaculture and the services it provides for territories: complementarity of survey types," Post-Print hal-01950060, HAL.
    19. Valencia Torres, Angélica & Tiwari, Chetan & Atkinson, Samuel F., 2021. "Progress in ecosystem services research: A guide for scholars and practitioners," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 49(C).
    20. Wang, Xuan & Chen, Weiqi & Zhang, Luoping & Jin, Di & Lu, Changyi, 2010. "Estimating the ecosystem service losses from proposed land reclamation projects: A case study in Xiamen," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(12), pages 2549-2556, October.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ecoser:v:43:y:2020:i:c:s2212041620300401. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/ecosystem-services .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.