Valuing Ecosystem Services
Protecting today’s resources for tomorrow!
Climate Regulation
Climate regulation ensures that the air and atmosphere are suitable for human habitation. Important factors for this regulation include greenhouse gases, ocean currents, the carbon cycle, and surface reflectivity. Human actions, such as expanding urban areas and burning fossil fuels, can impact these factors.
Climate Regulation Ecosystem Services Framework
Climate regulation is the process that controls the Earth’s climate, including the atmosphere, weather, and temperature. Everyone benefits from climate regulation because of the wide-reaching impacts on individuals, communities, and the economy.
People affect the climate in many ways. Greenhouse gases trap heat in the atmosphere, raising average global temperatures. Activities that produce greenhouse gases include burning fossil fuels for energy, waste disposal (due to methane produced by landfills), land-use decisions like deforestation, and livestock farming.
Some direct measures of the effects of climate regulation include air quality (concentrations of greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide), wind strength and speed, precipitation amount and intensity, sunlight strength, air and ocean temperatures (track changes in average temperature over time), sea levels, glacier and ice sheet changes, and occurrence of extreme events (such as hurricanes and drought).
A healthy climate benefits people in many ways, including improved health, stable food security, reduced displacement from extreme events, greater economic stability due to fewer climate-related disruptions, stronger infrastructure (with less damage from flooding and freeze-thaw cycles), and less social inequality.
Because climate regulation is a complex process, valuing it can be challenging. Several methods have been used to estimate a monetary value, including avoided costs; economic valuation (such as contingent valuation, hedonic pricing); carbon pricing (carbon taxes, cap-and-trade); insurance models; productivity gains; tourism and recreation revenue; and market property value. Non-monetary methods have also been used, such as tracking indicators over time to see how ecosystem functions change.
Great Lakes Climate Regulation Studies
Halting Erosion
| Publication | Geography | Change Valued | Value Estimate ($Year) | Valuation |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bishop, R.C. and K.J. Boyle (1985) | IL, MI, WI | Ensuring the nature preserve is maintained in its current condition through an off-shore breakwater to halt erosion. | The estimated annual willingness to pay to preserve the area is $27.55 for an individual. Aggregate values are available ($1985) | Contingent valuation |
| Cangelosi, A., R. Wiher, J. Taverna, and P. Cicero (2001) | OH | A $1.3 million decrease in dredging and confining expenditures associated with 15% reduction in sediments entering the Toledo harbor. | Reduced soil erosion in the Maumee River basin could cut dredging costs by up to $1.3 million ($1995) | Price |
| Croke, K., R. Fabian, and G. Brenniman (1987) | IL, MI | Three changes in the environment were modeled using contingent markets | The total annual household value per year was estimated at $33.35 for prevention of 30 percent erosion. | Contingent valuation |
| Hansen, L. and D. Hellerstein (2007) | USA[1] | Reduction in soil erosion for more than 70,000 reservoirs in the US Army Corps of Engineers National Inventory of Dams (NID) | Across watersheds, marginal reductions in soil erosion provide benefits ranging from $0- $1.38/ton. Aggregate values are available. | Replacement costs |
| Kim, K.T (1992) | OH | The three baseline levels for erosion control were 5, 30 and 50 years until a property's setback distance is zero. | Estimated annual household value of erosion delay ranged from $64 to $280 ($1982-1984). | Hedonic property |
| Kriesel, W.P. (1988) | OH | Incremental increases in the number of years before the property setback distance is equal to zero. | Estimated change in property price from erosion protection varies from $1,787 to $74,099 depending on how much initial time is left before total erosion occurs and the amount of erosion prevention (in years) gained ($1988). | Hedonic property |
| Purvis, Amy, John P. Hoehn, Vernon L. Sorenson, and Francis J. Pierce (1989) | MI | Farmers agree to develop and maintain filter strips in exchange for payment. | An annual payment of $40/acre encourages average enrollment of 67% of eligible lands for the hay-cutting option. Without hay-cutting values are available ($1988). | Contingent valuation |
| Yang, W. and A. Weersink (2004) | ON | Sediment reduction targets of 10%, 20%, 30%, 40% and 50% were considered in the study. | The average cost estimates were $175.4, $202.5, $227.2, $264.3, and $306.3 per hectare for the abatement goals. Marginal cost values are available. ($CAN) | Actual expenditure |
Toxic Contamination/ Sediment Remediation
| Publication | Geography | Change Valued | Value Estimate ($Year) | Valuation |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Braden, J. B., X. Feng, L. Freitas and D. Won (2010) | IN, IL, MI, MN, NY, OH, PA, WI | Hazardous waste from former industrial sites. | The average reduction value in home prices was $8,312. Aggregate values are available ($2000). | Actual expenditure |
| Braden, J.B., A.A. Patunru, S. Chattopdhyay and N. Mays (2004) | IL | Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). Cleanup of Waukegan Harbor area | Homeowners' WTP for full harbor cleanup was approximately $400 million in Waukegan and $7 billion to $12 billion elsewhere in Lake County. | Hedonic property |
| Braden, J. B., L. O. Taylor, D. Won, N. Mays, A. Cangelosi and A. Patunru (2006) | WI | The welfare impacts of a partial cleanup and a full cleanup of the Area of Concern (AOC) in addition to the disbenefits due to additional pollution. | Estimated households in the middle and lower sections of the river were $56 to $90 million. The WTP of full cleanup was $194 million ($2003). | Hedonic property |
| Braden, J. B., L. O. Taylor, D. Won, N. Mays, A. Cangelosi and A. A. Patunru (2006) | NY | The welfare impacts of a partial cleanup and a full cleanup of the Area of Concern (AOC) in addition to the disbenefits due to additional pollution. | Estimated single-family homes had capital loss of $83.8 to $118 million and an estimated total WTP for full cleanup to be $247 to $304 million ($2004). | Hedonic property |
| Consulting and Audit Canada (1994) | CAN – Great Lakes Region | The change from the Chlorobiphenyls Regulations to the proposed PCB regulations. | The overall benefit was estimated at $100.78 million. The net benefits of the regulations are estimated to be $42 million ($1994 CAN). | Actual expenditure Replacement costs |
| Eastern Research Group, Inc., Arlington, Massachusetts (1992) | NY, OH | Evaluates the benefits with achieving a residual risk in the contaminated sediments of 1 in 1 million for the Fields Brook site and Massena site. | For both sites the benefits ranges were varied from $21.3 million to $70.5 million at the Fields Brook site to $8.1 million to $33.6 million for the Massena site. | Combined revealed and stated preference |
| Hushak, L. and M. Bielen (1999) | MI | Dredging of the Ottawa River for improved navigation and removal of contaminated sediments | The mean economic value of dredging to current boaters and businesses is $746,568 with an annual WTP of about $43 and $196 ($1998). | Actual expenditure Contingent valuation |
| Lichtkoppler, F.R. and T.W. Blaine (1999) | OH | Dredging of the Ashtabula River will address six problems primarily caused by contaminated sediments and help restore many of its impaired beneficial uses. | The households' average annual WTP for dredging ranged from US$25 to US$50 ($1997). | Contingent valuation |
Built Environment
| Publication | Geography | Change Valued | Value Estimate ($Year) | Valuation |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cadavid, C. L. and A. W. Ando (2013) | IL | Six attributes to determine the implementation of stormwater management projects | WTP to avoid the scenario where flooding frequency reduced by 25%. Aggregate values are available | Choice experiment |
| Daniel, V. E., R. J. Florax and P. Rietveld (2007) | CA, TX, ND, MN, WI, KY, NC, FL, LA, AL | Households built in flood areas that have changes to their prices | The marginal risk associated with living in a 100 year flood plan is negative and it amounts to between -0.6% and -0.8 of housing prices. | Hedonic property |
| Mullarkey, D. J. and R. C. Bishop (1999) | WI | Draining of the wetland area in question for the expansion of a 44-mile stretch of highway. | Sample means for the base group were $13.68, $24.07, and $37.38 for the three certainty levels. Sample means for the scope group were $20.77, $41.84 and $57.83. | Contingent valuation |
| Trenholm, R., T. Anderson, V. Lantz and W. Haider (2013) | ON | For farmers to restore wetlands by converting 1, 3, or 5 acres. For non-farm landowners to restore wetlands by converting 0.5, 1, or 1.5 acres. | For non-farm landowners, the willingness to accept for one class of individuals was $0 and the WTA for a second class ranged from -$23.46 to $617.95. For farmers, the WTA was $171.86 to $655.57/acre/ year ($CAN). | Choice experiment |