• UCSBgauchos twitter avatar
    .@UCSBWaterPolo took down UC Davis 12-9 to wrap up play at the Mountain Pacific Invite! Read about it here...… https://t.co/82L2KLmq7v
    5 hours 17 sec ago
  • UCSBgauchos twitter avatar
    UCSB Dominates Denver, Cruises to 4-0 Win in Final Non-Conference Game https://t.co/J9BVANir8N
    8 hours 35 min ago
  • UCSBgauchos twitter avatar
    https://t.co/x4fLrjlHK2 https://t.co/wXIfLYLAfW
    9 hours 1 min ago
  • UCSBgauchos twitter avatar
    RT @BigWestMSOC: FINAL: @UCSBMensSoccer close non-conf 1-0 over Portland - ⚽️ Ignacio Tellechea (69' via Noah Billingsley). #GauchoPride v…
    1 day 1 hour ago
  • UCSBgauchos twitter avatar
    Gauchos Fly Past Pilots https://t.co/zDJNUshED8
    1 day 1 hour ago
  • UCSBgauchos twitter avatar
    https://t.co/efyYsCh7IS https://t.co/DKQYH491vq
    1 day 1 hour ago
  • UCSBgauchos twitter avatar
    No. 7 UCSB Sweeps Second Day of Mountain Pacific Invitational https://t.co/fwcllGKkdm
    1 day 2 hours ago
  • UCSBgauchos twitter avatar
    Emi Petrachi (28 D), Lindsey Ruddins (24 K) help @UCSB_Volleyball roll past CSF for 2nd sweep in 24 hours! RECAP >>… https://t.co/vjxYRJ9NRn
    1 day 2 hours ago
  • UCSBgauchos twitter avatar
    https://t.co/PpqjA6vyYw https://t.co/9BQzfAiRx5
    1 day 4 hours ago
  • UCSBgauchos twitter avatar
    Tune into https://t.co/9SG2pNHirI for tonight's @UCSBMensSoccer soccer match against Portland!… https://t.co/LOSIvZ9XFd
    1 day 4 hours ago

The Value of Nature

Researchers develop a model that marries ecology and economics to determine how to protect biodiversity by managing ecosystem services
Wednesday, June 28, 2017 - 08:00
Santa Barbara, CA

Costello, Dee & Gaines.jpg

Costello, Dee & Gaines

From left: Christopher Costello, Laura Dee and Steve Gaines.

Photo Credit: 

MATT PERKO

Money may not grow on trees, but trees themselves and all that they provide have a dollar value nonetheless.

At least, that’s the view of those seeking to quantify the myriad ways humankind benefits from nature’s ecosystem services: clean air and water, food, even paper from trees. But it’s complicated.

What financial value should be ascribed to, say, plants that improve water quality or wetlands that reduce flooding and property damage from storms? Many ecology and conservation organizations advocate for making such determinations in the interest of land management. Conservation biologists, meanwhile, argue that putting a price tag on nature could weaken the protection of threatened species that have a lower dollar value.

Therein lies the core issue in the debate: To what degree will biodiversity be protected by managing for ecosystem services?

To address this question, a team of UC Santa Barbara researchers has developed a new modeling framework that blends a novel mix of ecology and economics. Their findings appear in the journal Ecology Letters.

“We sought to assess the likely consequences of growing efforts to manage for the economic benefits of ecosystems rather than protecting species for their intrinsic value,” explained co-author Steve Gaines, dean of UCSB’s Bren School of Environmental Science & Management.

Because nature is so complex, scientists rarely know the roles all species play in providing benefits to people. This uncertainty is magnified by the fact that the environment is changing. Not all species contribute to ecosystem services, yet critical ones could be lost without conservation. And scientists don’t know for sure which species are critical.

Still, conservation decisions for ecosystem services must be made today, and, as lead author Laura Dee noted, they incur financial costs. “The framework we developed balances the currents costs of protecting species with the future risk of losing ecosystem services,” said Dee, who earned her Ph.D. at UCSB and is now an assistant professor in the University of Minnesota’s Department of Fisheries, Wildlife and Conservation Biology. “In this way, we can determine the optimal number of species to protect.”

Co-author Christopher Costello, a professor at UCSB’s Bren School, said: “We found that it is always optimal to protect more species than are considered ‘economically critical.’ You can think of this as insurance: If you lose a species that is critical to providing an ecosystem service, then the losses can be substantial and irreversible.”

The team’s framework generates simple criteria for determining how much the value of the service must exceed the costs of management to financially justify protecting all species. This defines the settings whereby protecting all species is the economically optimal choice. The group examined this criterion for six different services and ecosystems, ranging from the pollination of watermelon to carbon storage along coastlines or in tropical dry forests.

In some cases, protecting all species in an ecosystem is financially motivated. In others, management solely for financial benefits may leave many species at risk.

“Our results define when managing for ecosystem services alone could leave significant biodiversity unprotected,” Dee explained. “The analysis also helps identify when additional policies such as endangered species regulation will be needed to avoid biodiversity losses.” 

Contact Info: 

Julie Cohen
(805) 893-7220
julie.cohen@ucsb.edu

Topics: