Lessons from the NEA NERC Interdisciplinary Network for Valuing Biodiversity, Ecosystem Services & Natural Resource Use Andrew Church, University of Brighton, Coordinating Lead Author Cultural Services NEA

Non-monetary assessments (quantitative & qualitative) Monetary valuation of market & non-market goods Individual wellbeing values Collective shared wellbeing values Economic (£) Health (+/-) Shared social values ( /  ) Drivers of Change Policy & management Socio-economic Environmental Air, land, water, biodiversity Natural Resources Decisions VALUATION Ecosystem Services (Supporting, Regulating, Provisioning, Cultural) Governance Global, EU, State, Private sector and other actors Goods for people Scale, place and time sensitive VNN Conceptual Framework

Cultural services – Contributing authors on Health Goods Jules Pretty, University of Essex and William Bird, Intelligent Health. Health Values from Ecosystem Services - Coordinating Lead Author: Jules Pretty – Team from University of Essex and LSE Economic Valuation of cultural services - Susana Mourato and others at LSE Shared values for the contributions ecosystem services make to human wellbeing: Robert Fish, University of Exeter, Jacquie Burgess, University of East Anglia, Andrew Church, University of Brighton and Kerry Turner, University of East Anglia. Health in NEA

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Cultural Services defined as ‘Non-material benefits derived from ecosystems’ - Different countries and systems of knowledge – Cultural identity – Heritage values – Spiritual services – Inspiration – Aesthetic appreciation – Recreation and tourism NEA Defining ‘so-called’ cultural services – an on-going debate

NEA – Two cultural services Wild species - discussed under biodiversity Environmental settings - Domestic gardens to national landscapes Environmental settings - Distinct from ecosystems and habitats, spatially defined, a role in the satisfaction of human needs and consequent well being Five linked cultural goods contributing to well being – health, tourism and recreation, heritage, education and ecological knowledge, religious and spiritual Major knowledge gaps – the contribution of ecosystem services to health and other goods and inequalities related to goods NEA Defining ‘so-called’ cultural services - an on-going debate

Non-monetary assessments (quantitative & qualitative) Monetary valuation of market & non-market goods Individual wellbeing values Collective shared wellbeing values Economic (£) Health (+/-) Shared social values ( /  ) Drivers of Change Policy & management Socio-economic Environmental Air, land, water, biodiversity Natural Resources VALUATION Ecosystem Services (Supporting, Regulating, Provisioning, Cultural) Governance Global, EU, State, Private sector and other actors Goods for people Scale, place and time sensitive VNN Conceptual Framework

NEA Health Values – Health benefits and threat from ecosystems Direct positive effects (improvements in mental and physical health, physical activity) Indirect positive effects (facilitating activity, social engagement and behaviour change) Reduction of threats (e.g. from vectors, pollutants, noise (by purification and interception) Direct threats (e.g. from infectious agents, animals, pollutants, extremes of temperature and UV, accidents, poisonous plants, pollen) Mental and physical health +ve Ecosystems and habitats +ve -ve (Pretty et al. 2011)

NEA Health Values – Existing evidence The health and well-being benefits of contact with nature (Pretty et al. 2011) Health and well-being benefitEvidence Provides opportunities for ‘green exercise’ and associated improvements in self-esteem and/or mood Hartig et al. (1991), Ulrich et al. (1991), Hartig et al. (1996), Hartig et al. (2003), Van den Berg et al. (2003), Morita et al. 2006, Pretty et al. (2005), Hine et al. (2007), Pretty et al. 2007, Barton et al. (2009), Barton & Pretty (2010), Bowler et al. (2010). Reduces stress Parsons (1991), Ulrich et al. (1991), Lohr et al. (1996), Rubinstein (1997), Parsons et al. (1998), Hartig et al. (2003), Laumann et al. (2003), Fredrickson & Branigan (2005). Promotes ecological knowledgePilgrim et al. (2007), Pilgrim et al. (2008), Pretty (2011) Fosters social bonds Kawachi et al. (1997), Takano et al. (2002), Ward & Thompson (2002), Brugha et al. 2003, Barton et al. (2011), Pretty (2011). Reduces levels of crime and violenceKuo & Sullivan (2001a), Kuo & Sullivan (2001b) Provides outdoor classroomsKaplan & Kaplan 1989, Kahn & Kellert 2002 Delivers cognitive benefitsBerman et al. 2008, Hansen-Ketchum et al Influences behavioural choicesKuo et al. 1998a, Maas et al. 2006, Mitchell & Popham 2008, Barton et al. 2011

Mourato et al – New primary data and using existing measures A geographically referenced quota survey of 1,851 respondents on interactions between environmental settings and health. OLS regression statistically significant relations between self reported health measures of physical functioning/emotional well being and the use of the environmental settings of domestic gardens and local green spaces. NEA economic value of health goods linked to environmental settings

Mourato et al – Scenario valuation with existing data Valuation of a 1 percentage point reduction in sedentary behaviour in the UK would have upon the economic burden of three physical diseases and the one mental health condition CHD, colo-rectal cancer, stroke, depression. Valuing mortality - Value of a preventable fatality (VPF) Valuing morbidity - the willingness to pay to avoid particular health outcomes using existing measures Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALYs) – difficulties over consensus about what the monetary value of a QALY is and how to calculate it NEA economic value of health goods linked to environmental settings

Mourato et al Scenario valuation with existing data A change in natural habitats that causes a 1 percentage point reduction in sedentary behaviour - total benefit of almost £2 billion (using WTP-based values), across the three physical conditions and the mental health condition considered Value of health goods linked to some environmental setting likely to be high NEA economic value of health goods linked to environmental settings

Further research and knowledge gaps Longitudinal studies - the social and physiological processes involved in acquiring mental and physical health benefits from engagement with environmental settings and nature Understand causality between health and greenspace but is likely to be bi-directional Examine exercise habits and what proportion is a direct consequence of the provision of green spaces – created exercise Uncertainty of physical health benefits of outdoor exercise relative to indoor exercise NEA economic value of health goods linked to environmental settings

An integrated ecosystem services approach Actors, responses and an enabling environment Tier 3: Instrumental: Markets and incentives; technologies and practices; voluntary actions Tier 2: Enabling: Legislation; policies, institutions and governance; social attitudes Tier 1: Foundational: Knowledge; information Government Research institutions Businesses Individuals NGOs Local governments Land managers

Valuation – Local health, environmental management and planning Local Development Frameworks, green infrastructure, sustainability appraisal Planning Procedures: Environmental Impact Assessments Strategic Environmental Assessments Health Impact Assessments

Lessons from the NEA Defining cultural services Understanding links between health and ecosystem services Assessing the significance of shared values Tackling the knowledge gaps Taking account of interactions between health, ecosystem services and planning governance at different scales NERC Interdisciplinary Network for Valuing Biodiversity, Ecosystem Services & Natural Resource Use