1. Ecosystem Services Studies in Minnesota Jan. 9, 2013 ES 281

2. Kovacs et al. In review

3. With investment in land conservation Without investment in land conservation Kovacs et al. (in review)

4. Step 2: Run InVEST models on alternative maps

5. Step 3: Estimate return on investment Biodiversity Carbon sequestration Social cost of carbon Timber production Net returns to forestry Water purificationWillingness to pay for P RecreationHunting, fishing value/day Water yield DNR Expenditures Net present value of ES ROI =

6. The Impact of Land Use Change on Ecosystem Services, Biodiversity and Returns to Landowners: A Case Study in the State of Minnesota Polasky et al. 2011. Environmental and Resource Economics

7. Land use scenarios Use National Land Cover Database (NCLD) for 1992 to 2001 for data on actual land use change in Minnesota Alternative land use scenarios: – No agricultural expansion – No urban expansion – Agricultural expansion into highly productive soils – Forestry expansion into highly productive forest parcels – Conservation: low productivity ag land and ag land within a 100 m buffer of waterways in MN River watershed were converted to pre- settlement vegetation

8. Land use change 1992 to 2001

9. Spatial pattern of LULC change A northwest to southeast frontier of change.

10. Outputs of analysis We modeled impact of land use decisions on: – Carbon sequestration – Water quality (phosphorus): done only for the Minnesota River Basin not statewide – Conservation of terrestrial vertebrates (forest birds, grassland birds) – Value of agricultural production – Value of timber production – Value of land use in urban development

11. Change from 1992 to 2001 by scenario: carbon sequestration Assumes sequestration on public forest land that does not change land use Mg C

12. Change in phosphorus exports to mouth of Minnesota River Mg P/yr

13. Percentage change in habitat quality for grassland breeding birds

14. Percentage change in habitat quality for forest breeding birds

15. Change from 1992 to 2001 by scenario: market returns to agriculture, forestry, urban Agriculture Forestry Urban Million 1992 US $

16. Value of returns: market and non-market goods and services

17. Annual value from land use change scenarios 1992- 2001 Actual land use No ag expansion No urban expansion Ag expansion Forest expansion Conser- vation Change in total value: carbon, water quality, ag & forest production, urban using actual prices (M1992 $) $3,328$3,407$3,040$2,742$3,300$3,380 Change in returns to landowners: ag & forest production, urban using actual prices (M1992 $) $3,320$3,343$3,027$3,418$3,292$3,221 Change in total value: carbon, water quality, ag & forest production, urban using 1992 prices (M1992 $) $1,054$1,120$882$612$1,027$1,017 Change in returns to landowners: ag & forest production, urban using 1992 prices (M1992 $) $1,047$1,056$869$1,288$1,019$852

18. Total change in value Change from 1992 to 2001 by Scenario Outcome Actual Land Use No Agricultural Expansion No Urban Expansion Agricultural Expansion Forestry Expansion Conservation Change in Total Value Using Actual Prices (M 1992 $) $3,328$3,407$3,040$2,742$3,300$3,380 Polasky et al. 2011 ERE The Impact of Land-Use Change on Ecosystem Services, Biodiversity and Returns to Landowners: A Case Study in the State of Minnesota

19. Polasky et al. 2012 OxREP “Targeting one of these two objectives generates 47–70 % of the maximum score of the other objective. We also find that benefits of conservation far exceed the costs, with a return on investment of between 2 to 1 and 3 to 1 in our base-case analysis.”

20. Million $ Ecosystem Services Value Change in Total Value from 2001: HIGH Agricultural Returns