The green infrastructure valuation toolkit user guide

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Building natural value for sustainable economic development: the green infrastructure valuation toolkit user guide the accessibility of the asset and so on. It can, however, provide a ballpark estimate of the level of benefits. More detailed studies are needed. A 2003 Garrod/Macmillan study for the Forestry Commission – see below - estimated the value of woodland views from properties. It focused on the number of urban fringe households with a woodland view, which was found using 1991 Census classification of wards. The willingness to pay figures generated by the study can be used together with the number of households within 450 metres of the green asset. Community cohesion Attempts at quantification appear to be limited to the number of volunteer hours committed by individuals to shared or communal green infrastructure projects and activities. Greenspace Scotland is embarking upon a two-year research programme ‘Greenspace is good – so prove it!’ funded by the Big Lottery Research Programme. Recruitment of participating groups was targeted for January 2010 – so it is possible that a potential tool may evolve through this research. forests in different landscape contexts – such as mountain, hilly/rolling, urban fringe - and found that clear preferences for woodland/forest views were really only to be found in urban fringe settings. The study estimated an annual willingness to pay of £268.79 amounting to a capitalised (note: in perpetuity) value of £7,680 per urban fringe property with a woodland view. This approach provides values significantly higher than the Eftec work. Community cohesion Very little data is currently available for monetising the economic value of green infrastructure. It does point to some evidence linking increased community cohesion to reduced levels of crime. Monetising community cohesion and promoting the social inclusion benefits that good quality green infrastructure can offer is problematic, with the evidence base largely qualitative. MONETISING Landscape/visual amenity Work by Eftec for the Department of Communities and Local Government 36 brought together 47 studies on the externalities* associated with undeveloped land. The study does not systematically isolate landscape from other benefits - such as recreation, ecology and tranquillity - for each of the land types considered, but it does have some useful values: £54,000 per hectare per year for an urban park £2,700 per hectare per year for urban fringe forestry £889 per hectare per year for urban fringe - greenbelt. These figures include recreation benefits, but explicitly exclude ‘functional’ benefits – climate control, water management and so on. A study 37 for the Forestry Commission looked at a range of ‘non-market’ benefits including recreation, landscape amenity, biodiversity, carbon sequestration, pollution absorption, water supply and quality. For landscape amenity, a survey of over 400 residents was done across England, Scotland and Wales to estimate the value of woodland views from properties and on journeys - based on willingness to pay. It explored the value of woodlands and 32
Building natural value for sustainable economic development: the green infrastructure valuation toolkit user guide TOOLS AVAILABLE IN THE CALCULATOR KEY EVIDENCE AND SOURCES Benefit valued Input data Tool basis Tool 3.1: Willingness to pay for view of urban green space [ Quantification and monetisation require further research] Market Values N/A Scientific research N/A Benefit transfer values Tool 3.2: Increase in volunteering [/ Quantification and monetisation require bespoke appraisal] Volunteering hours/organisations formed Qualitative benefit, no generally applicable monetisation tool other than monetisation of volunteer input (accepted by some funders) Urban core (public space, city park) £54,000/ha/yr Urban fringe (green belt) £889/ha/yr Urban fringe (forested land) £2,700 /ha/yr Rural (forested, amenity) £6,626 /ha/yr Natural and semi-natural land (wetlands) £6,616 ha/yr Agricultural land (extensive) £3,150 /ha/yr; Agricultural land (intensive), £103 /ha/yr Eftec (2005) £268.79 per household with a view of green space including woodland per year (2003 price base). Updating by Consumer Price Index uplift to 2010 prices, this would equal £308.03 Capitalised per household: £7,680 (2003) (in perpetuity), updated to 2010 prices £8,800. Note: Capitalised benefit over 10-year period = £2,557, over 20-year period = £4,374 The social and environmental benefits of forests in Great Britain, Kenneth G. Willis, Guy Garrod, Riccardo Scarpa, Neil Powe, Andrew Lovett, Ian J. Bateman, Nick Hanley, and Douglas C. Macmillan, 2003 33
Page 1 and 2: Building natural value for sustaina
Page 31: Building natural value for sustaina
Page 82 and 83:
Building natural value for sustaina
show all

The green infrastructure valuation toolkit user guide

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?