TEEB Manual for Cities

More documents

Recommendations

Info

The TEEB Manual for Cities: Ecosystem Services in Urban ManagementCity of Cape TownKey decision-makers were involved in the participatory process of identifying, selecting and prioritising ecosystem services for the City.Identifying and prioritising ecosystem services in Cape Town (continued)Based on the Millennium EcosystemAssessment (2005); different naturalassets, which provide ecosystemservices, were examined. This includeda participatory process with key decisionmakers focused on the identification,selection and prioritization of ecosystemservices. Personal interviews andfacilitated sessions were conductedwith invited City line function managersand senior staff, representing allfunctions related to the managementof ecosystem services in the City.The following steps were followed:a) Assessment of the relativeimportance of different naturalassets (e.g. nature reserves,wetlands, near shore environments,etc.) for the generation of ecosystemservices. This allowed a basicunderstanding of the relationshipsbetween natural assets andecosystem services flows in orderto appreciate which ones wereimportant and to prioritise underlyingassets for investment.b) Estimation of the importance ofecosystem services for users/beneficiaries. The number ofbeneficiaries, as well as estimateson the likely magnitude of value foreach of the ecosystem servicesto these beneficiaries, helped toidentify the highest ranked or mostimportant ecosystem service values.c) Assessment and qualitativeinformation of the broad linksbetween natural assets andeconomic development. Failure tolink investment in natural assets todesired developmental outcomesreduces the probability of increasedbudget allocations.d) Assessment of the City’sability to influence thevalue of ecosystem servicesthrough management.The assets and flows,which are completely outsideof the City’s control, may havehigh value but will generally beless important when motivatingfor an increased investmentfrom the City.e) Ranking of the ecosystem servicesaccording to the level of ecologicaland socio-economic risks theyface. This recognises that certainenvironments are likely to be morevulnerable to habitat loss anddegradation and are thereforefacing greater ecological risks.Source: De Wit and van Zyl 2011;De Wit et al. 2009.Further reading:● Slightly different terms might be used for ecosystem services, but the list is generally quite consistent between sources.This manual and the TEEB Reports provide a comprehensive list of ecosystem services, which is based on science and issimilar to that provided in the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA). For additional background on ecosystem servicesand their value, consult the MEA. In particular the MEA Biodiversity Synthesis Report (www.maweb.org/documents/document.354.aspx.pdf) is recommended for its brevity and specific focus (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005).●●●WRI. 2008. Ecosystem Services: A guide for decision makers. This easily accessible report frames the link betweendevelopment and ecosystem service, points out risk and opportunities and provides clear guidance for decision makers(www.wri.org/publication/ecosystem-services-a-guide-for-decision-makers).TEEB - The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity for Local and Regional Policy Makers (2010) provides morebackground information on relevant ecosystem services, especially Chapter 1 (www.teebweb.org/Portals/25/Documents/TEEB_D2_PartI-ForUpload%5B1%5D.pdf).For a comprehensive assessment of the fundamental ecological and economic principles of measuring and valuingecosystem services and biodiversity, and also showing how these can be mainstreamed into public policies, see:The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: Ecological and Economic Foundations (TEEB Foundations 2010).19
The TEEB Manual for Cities: Ecosystem Services in Urban ManagementStep 3Determine what information is needed and select assessment methodsSome valuation methods work betterfor particular ecosystem services, andnot all methods are applicable for allecosystem services. At an early stageit is important to determine whetherthe method chosen requires statisticalanalysis (including computer softwareand skilled people).Consider what information is requiredfor conducting or commissioning anassessment of the prioritised ecosystemservices. The assessment must betailor-made for each unique situation,and meet the requirements as specifiedby stakeholder consultation, in order toavoid unnecessary time and expenditure.The chosen methodology will determinewhat data and skills are needed in orderto obtain useful information. Define themethods to use by looking at the problemor policy issue in four different ways:(i)What kind of questions need tobe answered by the assessment?How do they help tackle the decisionor policy issue?(ii) What is already known aboutthe problem or policy issue?What relevant data, knowledge,experience and expertise is alreadyavailable to the team or the stakeholders?(iii) What are the constraints in timing,capacity and financial resources?(iv) Which are the ‘low hanging fruits’?Which are the questions where alittle additional input can generatenew insights important to the issue?Discuss the study design with experts inorder to ascertain whether to concentrateon a broad range of ecosystem services,or to go into more detail with a few criticalones. Determine the timeframe over whichto consider the particular problem or policyissue. When deciding what kind of informationis required, select an appropriate typeof assessment (see box below).The particular nature of each situation will inform what kind of evaluation method for ecosystemservices is required.City of LeicesterTypes of assessment to consider when deciding onthe required information:a) Qualitative assessment: describing the importanceor judging the state of the relevant ecosystemservices, as well as showing the connectivity andinterrelations between ecosystems and social andeconomic systems on a spatial scale (this may serveas a communication and awareness-raising exercise,and highlight often-ignored, but important, ecosystemservices);b) Quantitative assessment: for example, indicatingthe increases/decreases in the flow of ecosystemservices expected to result from a certain policy; orestimating the number of jobs affected by a problemthat could be solved through preserving ecosystemservices;c) Monetary valuation: calculating the monetary value ofselected ecosystem services, or the value of increasein/loss of certain services under different scenarios.Ecosystem services such as the provisioningof food and raw materials arealready valued as part of the economicsystems dealt with daily (although theymay not be seen as such!). However,most ecosystem goods and servicesdo not have market prices that areeasy to calculate. In these cases onecan look at the cost of replacing theservice, or the costs saved throughprotection offered by the ecosystemservices (e.g. wetlands mediatingflooding). These methods can beuseful when an ecosystem servicehas an artificial alternative, the costof which can be calculated or obtainedfrom existing sources.For example, in a literature reviewconducted by the City of Montréal, itwas determined that there is a 5-20%increase in the value of property thatis within 30 meters of a park. Thisensures an increase in income tax forthe city for these properties, which arealso sold faster when in close proximityto a park (Ville de Montréal 2010).When such approaches are not viableand such information does not exist,one can consider investigating localcitizen’s preferences which can beindicated through willingness to pay(WTP) for ecosystem services. WTPinvolves interviewing people about howmuch they would be willing to pay for acertain amount of a particular ecosystemservice, while this method can beuseful, it does need to be approachedwith caution. Results from a WTP studyare often inaccurate due to the difficultyof judging hypothetical situations, andit works best where services can beeasily judged, such as entrance fees toa protected area, or higher security inwater delivery.20
Page 1 and 2: NATURE|Vol 435|16 June 2005NEWS & V
Page 3 and 4: The TEEB Manual for Cities: Ecosyst
Page 23: The TEEB Manual for Cities: Ecosyst
Page 47 and 48: Other TEEB references and key studi

TEEB Manual for Cities

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?