Introduction- Property Value• How are other researchers evaluating stacked ecosystem services?

– Payments for Ecosystem Services

Study Location Results

Costanza et al. 1997 Global Average value of annual ecosystem services

Costanza et al. 2006 New Jersey Value NJ’s natural capital

Troy & Wilson, 2006 Case Sites: Massachusetts, Maury Island Washington, three counties in California

Standardized ecosystem service value for changing spatial scale

Introduction- Property Value• How are we evaluating stacked ecosystem services?

– Property Value vs. Stacked Ecosystem Service Value• Stack One: Nutrient Retention, Carbon Sequestration, Pollination• Stack Two: Carbon Storage, Water Runoff

– In an area with rapid development and increasingly high land values, will the value of stacked services be able to compete?

– Is there potential for creating markets for carbon storage and water runoff?

Study Site• Upper Neuse River Basin, Central North Carolina

– Current Population = 190,000– Projected Population in 2025 = 280,000

www.unrba.org

Property Value Methods• Property Value

– Taken from Triangle Land Conservancy– Convert Property Value to $/900 sq-m (30 meter resolution)– 20 year values

Property Value Methods

• Division of Quantiles– Property value ($) divided by stacked

ecosystem service value ($)– Order of Magnitude– No Data

• Ecosystem Service Value is 0• No data on property value: Govt. Owned Sites

Category Range

1 100,000 - 1,000,000

2 10,000 - 100,000

3 1,000 - 10,000

4 100 - 1,000

5 10 - 100

6 1.05 - 10

7 0.95 - 1.05

8 0.1 - 0.95

9 0.01 - 0.1

10 0.001 - 0.0111 0.0 - 0.00112 No Data

Nutrient Retention Methods• Nitrogen Loading Caps

– NCAC 15A Rule .0234 and .0279. Rule .0234 (6) (A)

• Cost – NC DENR/DWQ WARMF Report– Estimates nitrogen offset rate of $44/lb of nitrogen

• Translates to $97/kg for a 20 year period at 1% discount rate*

Data Name Value

Maximum Allowable Nitrogen Loading (Entire Upper Neuse

Watershed) 58,370.99 kg N/yr

Nitrogen Loading (At point of interest – Falls Dam) 8,756.00 kg N/yr

Cost 97.00 $/kg*

Water Runoff Methods• InVEST Water Yield Model

– Convert all agricultural and forest land cover/land use data to urban – Assume change in water yield is the run-off expected

• Costs of storm-water BMP’s for Upper Neuse River Basin– Substituted values for study performed in Mecklenburg County, NC (American

Forests, 2010)– Unit cost of $2-6/cubic ft to mitigate additional storm-water runoff

Carbon Storage Methods– Output from InVEST model– Social Cost: $154/tCO2 (Frankhauser and Tol 1996)– Current European Market Cost: $74/tCO2

LULC Code LULC Name C_above C_below C_soil C_dead

1 Open Water 0 0 0 0

2 Urban 33 6.6 82.5 0

3 Barren 0 0 0 0

4 Forest 69.95 14.68 109 0

5 Grassland 0.239 0.16 117 0

6 Agriculture 0.98 0 4.56 0

7 Wetland 52 10 163 0

Carbon Sequestration Methods– Annual NPP for each land cover in watershed at both social and middle cost– 20 year period with 1% discount rate

LULC Code LULC Name C_above C_below C_soil C_dead

1 Open Water 0 0 0 0

2 Urban 7.98 0 0 0

3 Barren 0 0 0 0

4 Forest 10.68 0 0 0

5 Grassland 3.61 0 0 0

6 Agriculture 10.4 0 0 0

7 Wetland 15.6 0 0 0

Pollination Methods• InVEST Model Output

– Normalize relative scale– Reclassify to percentiles

• Managed Pollinator Estimate• Best Pollination Service Dollar Value:

– $50 for 1 pallets, 1 acre, 1 season – INPUT VALUE = $300 for 2 pallets, 1 acre, year = 3 seasons– Convert $/acre to $/pixel at 30 meter resolution– 20 year value with a 1% discount rate*

Data Name Value

Local Bee Keeper Quote $40-60/acre/season

Best Pollination Service $300/acre/yr

Value per Pixel $66.72/pixel/yr*

Stacked ES Values Methods

Overlay all value maps:Areas of high dollar value for ES are lighter.

Stacked ES Values Methods• One-time ES costs– Carbon Storage– Water Runoff

• 20-Year Value– Carbon Sequestration– Nutrient Retention– Pollination

Agriculture Developed Forest Grass/Shrub Wetland0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

NoData1,000 - 10,000100 - 1,00010 - 1001.05 - 100.95 - 1.050.1 - 0.950.01 - 0.10.001 - 0.010 - 0.001

Results

Carbon Full Carbon Top

N Full N Top Pollen Full Pollen Top Stacked Full

Stacked Top

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

NoData1,000 - 10,000100 - 1,00010 - 1001.05 - 100.95 - 1.050.1 - 0.950.01 - 0.1

Ecosystem Ser-vice Value >

Property Value

Property Value >

Ecosystem Ser-vice Value

Results

Results

Carbon Full Carbon Top

N Full N Top Pollen Full Pollen Top Stacked Full

Stacked Top

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

NoData1,000 - 10,000100 - 1,00010 - 1001.05 - 100.95 - 1.050.1 - 0.950.01 - 0.1

Ecosystem Ser-vice Value >

Property Value

Property Value >

Ecosystem Ser-vice Value

Results

Carbon Full Carbon Top

N Full N Top Pollen Full Pollen Top Stacked Full

Stacked Top

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

NoData1,000 - 10,000100 - 1,00010 - 1001.05 - 100.95 - 1.050.1 - 0.950.01 - 0.1

Ecosystem Service Value

>Property

Value

Property Value >

Ecosystem Service Value

FINAL REMARKS

• We have shown that ES can compete with Tax values– Carbon and stacked values, esp top quartile

• Would this actually work?– Currently carbon trades for $0.10 tCO2

• Heterogeneity– Link results to heterogeneity

Final Remarks

• Big Picture of ES & Biodiversity & Stacked Services

THANKS!

• Taylor Ricketts, Other people we worked with at WWF

• Contributing Professors• The Triangle Land Conservancy (TLC)• Others?

LITERATURE CITED