Non-Monetary Valuations of Water

Hello all,

In my previous posts, I spoke mostly about monetary valuations of ecosystem services, which have been used widely in the field due to their applicability.  In this post, I will describe in further detail about the attempts to measure cultural ecosystem services.

Intangible benefits, compared to the measurable quantities of ecosystem services, are more difficult to standardize and quantify across plurality of perspectives (Ament et al. 2017). They can only be measured qualitatively, through interviews or soft knowledge from people, but even so such responses are difficult to grapple with as the perception of value of cultural ecosystem services are often influenced by one’s cultural upbringing and beliefs. Further research however, has recognized that different ecosystem services often occur together in “service bundles” (Cumming and Peterson, 2005), either because of co-provisioning when one ecosystem provides several services or co-dependence when one ecosystem service requires another service.

These bundles have been seen through synergies and trade-offs, as I have written about in a previous post using the ecosystem services approach to determine the most financially justifiable approach. Similarly, decisions made in favour of the environment should also recognise the most balanced cultural service bundles, or which particular bundle to favour that should provide the maximal benefit to human wellbeing.

Case Study: National Parks in South Africa (Ament et al. 2017)

Visitors to the park were encouraged to complete self-explanatory questionnaires rating their appreciation of different aspects of protected areas on a five-point scale. These questions underwent exploratory factor analysis and it was found that five bundles of cultural ecosystem services explained 35.3% of the variance in survey responses, which were then grouped into titles: natural history, recreation, sense of place, safari experience, and outdoor living. These five bundles saw synergies within certain parks, but large trade-offs were also evident in certain parks.

1. Trade-off/synergies between natural history and (water) recreation

Most parks showed a trade-off between the bundles of natural history and recreation, such as the Tankwa-Karoo and Namaqua Park. These two parks are situated in the Succulent Karoo biome, a fragile biodiversity hotspot that may see losses to biodiversity if thrilling adventurous activities such as mountain biking were to be permitted within the park.

However, some parks saw synergies, such as within the Richtersveld and the West Coast Park with large water bodies enabling cultural services from water. The community has always managed these parks, with varied longstanding activities such as fishing and water sports amid the high demands for natural history in the rich biodiversity of the region. These must however be delicately managed – to ensure that biodiversity is not sacrificed while pursuing for the continued provision of the communal services provided by water in the form of recreation to park visitors.

2. Synergies between natural history and safari experience

Most parks generated synergies between these two ecosystem bundles, which show evidence that promoting wildlife safari experiences were a means to promote natural history and encourage biodiversity conservation.

3. Trade-off between safari experience and recreation

All parks showed this trade-off, with the trade-offs being larger in parks that contained some or all of the big five (African lion, African leopard, African elephant, Black and White rhinoceros, and Cape buffalo). Realistic opportunities for activities are limited in the presence of large and dangerous wildlife, explaining the trade-off being cited by most people.

-

These qualitative measurements have strong practical applicability to the area of environmental management especially in protected areas. Park managers ought to align with the specific requests of cultural ecosystem services demanded by park-goers. For example, nature parks with naturally rich biodiversity and high demand for services of natural history should increase investment in educational and viewing resources such as species lists, bird hides, and vegetation maps; parks with greater demand for recreational activities may look to publishing promotions on equipment hire such as horse-riding, camel riding or bike tours. In interest of economic returns from park tourism, there is also little reason to introduce recreational activities into a park if park-goers appreciate it most for their safari experiences.

Taking a macro-perspective to the management of the parks in a country may also be useful. It may be most financially feasible to spread bundles cultural ecosystem services across the 19 parks equally, such that certain parks are best known for their provision of certain bundles – with the Namaqua most known for natural history and Marakele set aside for safari experiences. These would increase visitorship across all parks, as demands for different bundles have to be met in different localities.

This post forms the conclusion to the case studies on ecosystem services valuation and their practical applications to policy-making, as I would subsequently move on to further applications of an ecosystem services approach for our future: monitoring change and incentivising change.

See you next week!