Valuing the city’s trees- An evaluation of CAVAT and i-Tree Forest Assessments Using Public Perception of Ecosystem services Hazel Mooney ee16hm@leeds.ac.uk Student Sustainability Research Conference 2019 With thanks to: United Bank of Carbon, The Woodland Trust, University of Leeds Sustainability Service and Leeds City Council

What are ecosystem services? Benefits provided by the natural environment, to people, including regulating, provisioning, cultural and supporting services (MA, 2005) Provisioning services- goods that humans obtain from ecosystems Regulating services- benefits provided by regulatory processes Cultural services- ‘non material benefits obtained’ Supporting services- essential to the functioning of the prior 3 categories Ecosystem services provide the opportunity to largely improve quality of life (DEFRA, 2007) In the UK, 90% of people live in urban areas (Dallimer et al. , 2012) Urban trees ‘all trees within the urban realm, in public and private spaces, along linear routes, waterways and In amenity areas’ (Doick et 2019) Ecosystem services Supporting Soil protection, biodiversity, nutrient cycling Provisioning Wood, fruit, chemicals Cultural Environmental education, recreation, aesthetic Regulating Climate regulation, air pollution regulation, water regulation

Services provided by trees Arboricultural assessments across the globe have placed emphasis on the regulating and cultural services provided by trees (Nowak et al., 2009; Trees for Cities, 2018; Doick et al., 2017; Tree Council., 2008) Regulating services: Air pollution regulation Carbon sequestration and storage Avoided run-off and flood alleviation Mitigation of the Urban Heat Island effect Ecosystem services Supporting Soil protection, biodiversity, nutrient cycling Provisioning Wood, fruit, chemicals Cultural Environmental education, recreation, aesthetic Regulating Climate regulation, air pollution regulation, water regulation

Cultural services Ecosystem services Supporting Soil protection, biodiversity, nutrient cycling Provisioning Wood, fruit, chemicals Cultural Environmental education, recreation, aesthetic Regulating Climate regulation, air pollution regulation, water regulation Culture and spirituality Aesthetic value and appreciation Education Health and recreation Psychological wellbeing

Natural capital Natural capital is the Earth’s stock of natural assets including forests, minerals, land, oceans, and the flow of services we receive from those (Peedle, 2019). The purpose? To enhance and maintain the delivery of ecosystem services from the natural environment by accounting for their asset value, to aid decision making. Both i-Tree and CAVAT apply the concept of natural capital, to capture the value of the ecosystem services they assess, to the people who benefit from them

Research Aim By investigating public perception of ecosystem services provided by trees, can this inform how we assess and manage urban forests? Objectives: 1) To measure the ecosystem services provided by trees in Middleton and Leeds and identify the value of those. 2) To identify the value that trees in Middleton and Leeds provide as amenity assets 3) To evaluate the public perception of both ecosystem and amenity services provided by trees and how these are valued.

Data collection 2 survey methods used to capture ecosystem services provided by trees across the city 2 survey sites- Leeds University Campus and Middleton Park Ward Regulating services- i-Tree Eco (objective 1) Cultural services- Community Asset Valuation for Amenity Trees (CAVAT) (objective 2) Public questionnaire- investigating the public perception of services provided by trees, and the monetization of them (objective 3)

i-Tree Results Conversions using UK government values of carbon (BEIS, 2017) and social damage costs (GOV, 2017) Trees on Campus found to have higher values than Middleton Average £679 Campus, £267 Middleton Carbon sequestration values make the largest contribution Campus trees ~2x more valuable Correlation test: strongest influence on i-Tree output- DBH Total plot value Campus Middleton i-Tree £92,416 £39,541 CAVAT £944,283 £500,321

Average values for input variables of CAVAT CAVAT Results CAVAT values take into account population density- how many people are benefitting from that tree Trees on Campus found to have higher values than Middleton Average £6943 Campus, £3747 Middleton Contrasts in each of the measured variables  higher output for Campus Correlation test: no strong influence of one variable, all make equal contributions Average values for input variables of CAVAT Variable Middleton Campus DBH (cm) 19 28 Location 60 70 Structure 67 77 Health 73 97 Amenity 5 2 Life expectancy (years) 92 90

Public perceptions Study questionnaire: key questions How do the public perceive the different ecosystem services? Which services are best understood? What are the most valuable attributes of trees? What are the least valuable attributes of trees? What value to the public estimate the trees to be worth? Natural capital serves to inform decision makers How beneficial is natural capital for presenting the services as a value? Leeds City Council reported that they receive 4,500 emails per year regarding forest management, with only 55% resulting in any action (LCC, 2018) The public want to be involved in urban forest management, but do their cases conflict with the priorities of the local authority?

Questionnaire Results

Monetary values

Conclusions and recommendations How effective are the survey methods at representing the trees as they are perceived by the public? How can this information be used by local authorities? Any recommendations for management of urban forests? What opportunities are there for further research? Limitations of the study

References Hazel Mooney, email: ee16hm@leeds.ac.uk