Jessica Neumann – University of Readingj.l.neumann@reading.ac.uk / @jess_n1

Bruce Howard – Ecosystems Knowledge NetworkAlison Smith – University of Oxford

Matt Smith – Joint Nature Conservation Committee

Tool AssessorTools for Natural Capital Assessment and

Ecosystem Service Valuation

22nd August 2017

Natural Capital (NC) - the natural resources upon which humans depend.

Ecosystem Services (ES) - the benefits people obtain from ecosystems (which come from Natural Capital) – MEA (2005).

Tool - Analytical processes enabling practitioners to use data to describe, quantify, value, or map NC and ES to inform decisions.

Tool users - Parties undertaking analyses, those making management decisions and those putting these decisions into practice.

Challenges to overcome:

• A lot of tools!

• Tool information formats differ and are difficult to compare

• Technical support is often time limited

• Sourcing information / data is time consuming

• Few studies comparing outputs

Tool Assessor Objectives:

• Kick-start the process to improve accessibility

• Tool information collation standardised

• Delivered via a well-established web portal

• Co-designing to ensure success

• Link tool users to resources

• Providing assessment of how tools compare

About Tool Assessor:

• Currently 12 tools

• Focus is on ‘local’ scale• Town-based, counties, watersheds,

catchments, large developments…

• Compare with ‘site-based’ or ‘regional’ scale

About Tool Assessor:

• Focus on terrestrial systems• Carbon storage and sequestration

• Pollination

• Managed timber production

• Flood water retention

• Recreation

• …

• Many tools are ‘modular’ – terrestrial, freshwater and marine processes

What info did we collate?

• About the tool – purpose, scale, scope

• What ES it values – ‘models’

• User groups

• Input data and resource requirements

• Output type

• Time and expertise needed

• Tool versions, licences, updates, support

• Tool limitations

• About the developers

• International and UK case studies, reviews

Where did we source information from?

• Tool websites

• Tool documents e.g. user guides

• Contact with tool developers (calls, emails, social media)

• Contact with tool users

• Other online documents e.g. NEAT

• Published peer-reviewed articles

• Downloaded the tool and had a look

• 12 tools required 108 different sources of information!

The 12 tools:

ToolMulti-scale

Models Terrestrial Freshwater Marine Provisioning Regulating Cultural UK InternationalOpen access

Excel GIS Web-based

InVEST ✔ 18 ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

ARIES ✔ 11 ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

Co$ting Nature ✔ 7 ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

LUCI ✔ 9 ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

EcoServ-GIS 10 ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

i-Tree Eco ✔ 7 ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

NCPT 10 ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

GI-Val (GIVT) 14 ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

W045 BeST 19 ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

Viridian 5 ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

SENCE ✔ 15 ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

PGIS 5 ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

Total 6 Ave 11 12 10 4 6 11 10 11 6 8 4 7 2

About the tools:

• A diverse and eclectic mix

• Some very specific, others have broad and wide-ranging

application:• Ecosystem and landscape change

• Conservation

• Habitat creation

• Planning, development, green investment

• River landscape regulation

• Urban forest assessment

• Community value and perception

• Policy and decision-making

About the tools – INPUT:

• 3 data input groups; 3 broad approaches

InVESTEcoServ-GIS

ARIESLUCI

ViridianSENCE

About the tools – METHODS:

About the tools – FOCUS:

About the tools – EXPERTISE:

SENCEViridian

About the tools – OUTPUT:

Viridian

InVEST

• Overview: 18 software models for mapping and valuingecosystem services

• To inform decisions about natural resource management in terrestrial, freshwater and marine ecosystems

• Method: Process-based model (outputs maps derived using information about the environments condition and its processes)

InVEST

• Input: ‘GIS-based’

• Output: Maps – ‘actual’ data expressed in biophysical or economic terms

• Scope: Global

• Expertise: Basic-intermediate GIS skills

Grafius, D. R. et al. (2016) The impact of land use/land cover scale on modelling urban ecosystem services. Landscape Ecology. Online first 1-14.

EcoServ-GIS

• Overview: To identify where 9 ES occur, where there is high societal demand for a service and where the environment has capacity to provide a service.

• To inform local planning and target conservation efforts

• Method: Process-based models

EcoServ-GIS

• Input: ‘GIS-based’ – free data

• Output: Maps – ‘indicative data’ low – high scaling

• Scope: GB

• Expertise: Intermediate/ expert GIS skills

Winn, J. et al. (2015) Mapping the benefits of nature and the green network: A new town case study. A guide for Local Authority Planners, Green Infrastructure Officers, Ecologists and Landscape Architects. Scottish Wildlife Trust.

“BeST”

• Overview: 19 models to quantify and monetise the benefits of Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS).

• To help practitioners estimate the impacts and benefits of SuDS for new developments or for existing cases.

• Method: Uses scientific evidence based on the ES and Triple Bottom Line (accounting) frameworks plus expert opinion.

“BeST”

• Input: ‘Excel-based’ – user input

• Output: ‘Actual’ data – graphs, tablesand guidance

• Scope: UK

• Expertise: Basic knowledge of Excel

CIRIA (2015) BeST Case Study - Reducing Combined Sewer Overflow Spills in Roundhay. CIRIA, London UK.

So what about monetary value?

• Market value – usually provisioning services

• Damage value – usually regulating services

• Use value – usually cultural services

• InVEST e.g. carbon value or fish stocks to society

• i-Tree Eco e.g. reduction in public health incidents related to improvements to air quality

• Green Infrastructure Valuation Tool (GI-Val) e.g. avoided carbon emissions from building energy saving

• Benefits of SuDS Tool (BeST) e.g. reduced wastewater treatment from tree-planting

So what about monetary value?

• Tools that express results as actual ‘biophysical’ values have the potential to be valued economically.

• Tools that are indicative should not be overlooked.

• Natural Capital Planning Tool• User input information (Excel)

• Compare development options

• Score (-10 to +10) over 25 years

• Guidance for developers / planners

Hölzinger, O. et al. (2015) Planning for sustainable land-use: The Natural Capital Planning Tool

(NCPT) Project. Report by the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors. RICS, Parliament Square.

Limitations

• NC and ES frameworks have limitations

• So do the tools!

• Oversimplification; uncertainty; scenario changes…

• An objective overview based on the ‘best available evidence’ at the time

• Evidence base and literature developing at a fast rate

• Current tools are being updated

• New tools are coming out all the time

Developments

• 2017 – updates to the Tool Assessor

• Potential new tools to be included• E.g. Natural Capital Protocol for Green Infrastructure

• Possible extension to non-analytical tools in the future• E.g. TESSA, NaturETrade, MyForest

A resource for anyone wanting to share knowledge or learn about the practical benefits of the ecosystem approach

1700 members from practice, policy and research

UK-wide • Events • Newsletters Discussion • Information sharing

ecosystemsknowledge.net

http://ecosystemsknowledge.net/resources/

guidance-and-tools/tools/tool-assessor