Placing  our  university  campuses  in  the  context  of  their  regional  landscapes

Dr.  Lael  Parro: Director,  UBC  Okanagan  Ins4tute  for  Biodiversity,  Resilience,  and  Ecosystem  Services  (BRAES)  Associate  Professor,  Sustainability  The  University  of  Bri9sh  Columbia,  Okanagan  Campus  h@p://complexity.ok.ubc.ca  

PHOTO: IAN WALKER

Human  health  and  well-­‐being  are  intricately  linked  to  the  sustainability  of  the  landscapes  in  which  we  live…

PHOTO: IAN WALKER

Photos: L. Parrott

A landscape is a complex mosaic of human and biophysical components, the dynamics of which are

coupled across scales of space & time.

This coupling between humans and the environment at the landscape scale is made explicit in the concept of ecosystem services…

…the benefits humans obtain from ecosystems.

Ecosystem  services  include:

• food

• raw materials

• clean air

• erosion protection

• water flow regulation

• flood mitigation

• water purification

• biological pest control

• pollination

• soil generation and retention

• aesthetics

• recreational opportunities

The  monetary  value  of  ecosystem  services

• The value of ecosystem services provided by the biosphere was recently estimated at $125 trillion per year (Constanza et al., 2014)

• Based on global average values for different land cover types, ecosystem services provided by the Okanagan landscape would be valued at a minimum of $6.7 billion/year (Parrott, 2014)

Ecosystem  services  are  directly  linked  to  human  health  and  well-­‐being

better understanding, modeling, valuation, and management ofecosystem services and natural capital. It would be impossible tolist all of them here, but emerging regional, national, and globalnetworks, like the Ecosystem Services Partnership (ESP), are doingjust that and are coordinating their efforts (Braat and de Groot,2012; de Groot et al., 2011).

Probably the most important contribution of the widespreadrecognition of ecosystem services is that it reframes the relation-ship between humans and the rest of nature. A better understand-ing of the role of ecosystem services emphasizes our natural assetsas critical components of inclusive wealth, well-being, andsustainability. Sustaining and enhancing human well-beingrequires a balance of all of our assets—individual people, society,the built economy, and ecosystems. This reframing of the way welook at ‘‘nature’’ is essential to solving the problem of how to builda sustainable and desirable future for humanity.

Estimating the relative magnitude of the contributions ofecosystem services has been an important part of changing thisframing. There has been an on-going debate about what some seeas the ‘‘commodification’’ of nature that this approach supposedlyimplies (Costanza, 2006; McCauley, 2006) and what others see asthe flawed methods and questionable wisdom of aggregatingecosystem services values to larger scales (Chaisson, 2002). Wethink that these critiques are largely misplaced once one under-stands the context and multiple potential uses of ecosystemservices valuation, as we explain further on.

In this paper we (1) update estimates of the value of globalecosystem services based on new data from the TEEB study (deGroot et al., 2012, 2010a,b); (2) compare those results with earlierestimates (Costanza et al., 1997) and with alternative methods(Boumans et al., 2002); (3) estimate the global changes inecosystem service values from land use change over the period1997–2011; and (4) review some of the objections to aggregateecosystem services value estimates and provide some responses(Howarth and Farber, 2002).

We do not claim that these estimates are the only, or even thebest way, to understand the value of ecosystem services. Quite thecontrary, we advocate pluralism based on a broad range ofapproaches at multiple scales. However, within this range ofapproaches, estimates of aggregate accounting value for ecosystemservices in monetary units have a critical role to play in heighteningawareness and estimating the overall level of importance ofecosystem services relative to and in combination with othercontributors to sustainable human well-being (Luisetti et al., 2013).

2. What is valuation?

Valuation is about assessing trade-offs toward achieving a goal(Farber et al., 2002). All decisions that involve trade-offs involvevaluation, either implicitly or explicitly (Costanza et al., 2011).When assessing trade-offs, one must be clear about the goal.Ecosystem services are defined as the benefits people derive fromecosystems – the support of sustainable human well-being thatecosystems provide (Costanza et al., 1997; Millennium EcosystemAssessment (MEA), 2005). The value of ecosystem services istherefore the relative contribution of ecosystems to that goal. Thereare multiple ways to assess this contribution, some of which arebased on individual’s perceptions of the benefits they derive. Butthe support of sustainable human well-being is a much larger goal(Costanza, 2000) and individual’s perceptions are limited and oftenbiased (Kahneman, 2011). Therefore, we also need to includemethods to assess benefits to individuals that are not wellperceived, benefits to whole communities, and benefits tosustainability (Costanza, 2000). This is an on-going challenge inecosystem services valuation, but even some of the existingvaluation methods like avoided and replacement cost estimates

are not dependent on individual perceptions of value. For example,estimating the storm protection value of coastal wetlands requiresinformation on historical damage, storm tracks and probability,wetland area and location, built infrastructure location, populationdistribution, etc. (Costanza et al., 2008). It would be unrealistic tothink that the general public understands this complex connection,so one must bring in much additional information not connectedwith perceptions to arrive at an estimate of the value. Of course,there is ultimately the link to built infrastructure, which peopleperceive as a benefit and value, but the link is complex and notdependent on the general public’s understanding of or perceptionof the link.

It is also important to note that ecosystems cannot provide anybenefits to people without the presence of people (human capital),their communities (social capital), and their built environment(built capital). This interaction is shown in Fig. 1. Ecosystemservices do not flow directly from natural capital to human well-being – it is only through interaction with the other three forms ofcapital that natural capital can provide benefits. This is also theconceptual valuation framework for the recent UK NationalEcosystem Assessment (http://uknea.unep-wcmc.org) and theIntergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and EcosystemServices (IPBES – http://www.ipbes.net). The challenge in ecosys-tem services valuation is to assess the relative contribution of thenatural capital stock in this interaction and to balance our assets toenhance sustainable human well-being.

The relative contribution of ecosystem services can beexpressed in multiple units – in essence any of the contributorsto the production of benefits can be used as the ‘‘denominator’’ andother contributors expressed in terms of it. Since built capital in theeconomy, expressed in monetary units, is one of the requiredcontributors, and most people understand values expressed inmonetary units, this is often a convenient denominator forexpressing the relative contributions of the other forms of capital,including natural capital. But other units are certainly possible (i.e.land, energy, time, etc.) – the choice is largely about which unitscommunicate best to different audiences in a given decision-making context.

3. Valuation is not privatization

It is a misconception to assume that valuing ecosystem servicesin monetary units is the same as privatizing them or commodifying

Fig. 1. Interaction between built, social, human and natural capital required toproduce human well-being. Built and human capital (the economy) are embeddedin society which is embedded in the rest of nature. Ecosystem services are therelative contribution of natural capital to human well-being, they do not flowdirectly. It is therefore essential to adopt a broad, transdisciplinary perspective inorder to address ecosystem services.

R. Costanza et al. / Global Environmental Change 26 (2014) 152–158 153

Source: Constanza et al. 2014

Human Well-being (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment)

Causes  of  ecosystem  service  loss

• Land use and land cover change due to human activities

• Fragmentation of natural habitats

• Disruption of ecological connectivity and flows

Each  landscape  provides  essenEal  ecosystem  services...  

biodiversity

air filtration

water provisioning

recreation

crop production

timber production

(Schematic adapted from Foley et al., Science, 2005)

biodiversity

air filtration

water provisioning

recreation

crop production

timber production

biodiversity

recreation

Seymour watershed, Greater VancouverRice fields in the Philippines

crop production

timber production

Each  landscape  provides  essenEal  ecosystem  services  

air filtration

water provisioning

(Parrott and Meyer, 2012, Frontiers in Ecology & the Environment)

...  the  challenge  is  to  maintain  and  opEmize  them  in  the  context  of  an  increasing  human  footprint.  

biodiversity

air filtration

water provisioning

recreation

crop production

timber production

Each  landscape  provides  essenEal  ecosystem  services...  

What  is  a  sustainable  landscape?

• Sustainability is “the quality [a] system has if the relationships between and within its subsystems are able to persist and nourish each other.” (Bender, Judith & Beilin, Ch. 14 in Bender, H. (Ed) Reshaping Environments, 2012)

What  is  a  sustainable  landscape?

Parrott, 2015, The relationship between complexity, resilience and sustainability at the landscape scale, in review.

So  what  has  all  this  got  to  do  with  our  university  

campuses?

Source: ok.ubc.ca

Ecosystem services are provided by the landscapes we inhabit…

…and in which our university campuses are embedded.

Many of our environmentally unsustainable actions arise from a loss of sense of place

UniversiEes  can…

• lead by example in creating a sense of place and connectivity with the landscape in which they are situated

• use their campuses as living labs to explore ways to enhance and nurture ecosystem service provisioning

• promote environmentally sustainable practices on campus that decrease their institution’s ecological footprint

Conclusion

• ecosystem services provisioning by our landscapes is essential for human health and well-being

• universities could be leaders in creating institutional environments that maintain landscape-scale ecological connectivity and foster a sense of place grounded in the regional context

Placing  our  university  campuses  in  the  context  of  their  regional  landscapes

Dr.  Lael  Parro: Director,  UBC  Okanagan  Ins4tute  for  Biodiversity,  Resilience,  and  Ecosystem  Services  (BRAES)  Associate  Professor,  Sustainability  The  University  of  Bri9sh  Columbia,  Okanagan  Campus  h@p://complexity.ok.ubc.ca  

PHOTO: IAN WALKER