{"text_format":"1","workbook":"xlsx","n_sheets":30,"sheets":["Read Me","Version control","Databook User Terms","Index","Tab Guide","GDP Deflator","Food","Timber","Water supply","Fish","Renewable energy","Air pollutant removal","Carbon reduction","Flood regulation","Noise reduction","Temperature regulation","Recreation","Physical health","Education","Volunteering","Amenity","Biodiversity","Soil","Water quality","Landscape","Non-use values","Air pollution","Noise","Flood damage","Invasive non-native species"],"not_rendered":{"charts":0,"images":1,"macros":0,"external_links":2,"defined_names":15,"comments":0,"pivot_tables":0},"unopened":[],"bounds":{"document_bytes":16777216,"sheet_cells":100000,"rows_first":2000,"rows_last":500,"rows_between":2000,"halvings":0,"cell_chars":16384,"cell_head_chars":4096},"cells_cut":0,"cells_raw":0,"read":"whole","date_system":"1900"}

{"sheet":"Read Me","index":0,"n_rows":57,"n_cols":13,"rows_kept":57,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[[6,1,6,19],[2,1,2,19],[51,1,51,19],[34,1,35,19],[15,1,15,19],[17,1,17,19],[20,1,20,19],[16,1,16,19],[18,1,18,19],[9,1,10,19],[19,1,19,19],[21,1,21,19],[53,1,53,19],[7,1,7,19],[32,1,32,19],[38,1,39,19],[40,12,40,19],[41,12,41,19],[42,12,42,19],[43,12,43,19],[44,12,44,19],[45,12,45,19],[47,12,47,19],[48,12,48,19],[49,12,49,19],[50,12,50,19],[46,12,46,19]]}
[]
[]
[]
[]
[null,"ENCA - Services Databook"]
[null,"Version 1.2  July 2020"]
[]
[null,"The purpose of this Databook is to facilitate access to a wide, but by no means exhaustive, range of UK natural capital and environmental valuation evidence, categorised by the type of environmental service or effect.  In order to make relevant and effective use of the evidence, it assumes that users have:\n- consulted relevant sections of the ENCA Guidance \n- a basic understanding of economic valuation, economic appraisal and value transfer principles.\n- an idea of which categories may be relevant to their needs. \n\nThe Services Databook is complemented by the ENCA Assets Databook. Whilst some evidence references are common to both Databooks, there are many references that are unique to each."]
[]
[null,"IMPORTANT NOTICE \nBy using this Databook, including use of any content uploaded through it, you automatically accept and agree to the Databook User Terms (click on link below). Please read them before using the Databook.  Note that all Content is provided ‘as is’ for information purposes only and if you rely on it you do so at your own risk.  Access to Third Party Content is subject to Third Party Terms and Conditions and copyright law.  Access to the Databook is free of charge but you may have to pay to view and/or copy some Third Party Content. "]
[]
[]
[null,"This Databook includes 24 Tabs, each of which is focused upon a specific type of ecosystem service or environmental effect. Categories are clustered into five broad types, which are fully explained in the ENCA Guidance"]
[null,"1. Provisioning Ecosystem Services - tangible things that can be obtained from ecosystems that directly or indirectly supply products in the economy. Currently includes: Food, Timber, Water Supply, Fish"]
[null,"2. Abiotic services of natural capital - refer to material flows provided by nature but not dependent upon ecosystems. Currently includes: Renewable Energy"]
[null,"3. Regulating Ecosystem Services - ecological processes that regulate and reduce pollution and other adverse effects. Currently includes: Air Pollutant Removal, Carbon Sequestration, Natural Flood Regulation, Noise Mitigation, Temperature Regulation. These services are distinct from negative environmental effects such as pollution or flooding. "]
[null,"4. Cultural Ecosystem Services - refer to the non-material ways in which environmental settings benefit people through their interaction with nature. Currently includes: Enabling Recreation, Supporting Physical Health, Educational benefits and Environmental Volunteering"]
[null,"5. Aggregated or bundled services / effects - can include more than one service or a combination of use and non-use values. Currently includes: Amenity, Biodiversity, Soil Quality, Water Quality, Landscape and Non-use benefits"]
[null,"6. Negative environmental effects - these are the traditional environmental \"externalities\" which are caused by man-made sources or pressures. Currently includes: Air Pollution, Noise, Flood Damage, Invasive Non-native Species"]
[null,"See the Index Tab for a full list of categories. It shows:"]
[null,"- how the Databook classification relates to a longer list of environmental effects and their welfare effects. \n- which categories are relevant for each of the 8 different \"broad habitats\" - this matrix is only indicative but will enable users to prioritise which tabs to review."]
[null,"See the Tab Guide Tab for an explanation of the format of each tab"]
[null,"In summary each Tab includes:"]
[null,"1. Context and description of the effect, how it relates to welfare, and which broad habitats it is relevant for."]
[null,"2. Key sources for biophysical and valuation evidence and metrics"]
[null,"3. Selected biophysical and monetary values where appropriate, with explanatory notes and guidance on use"]
[null,"4. Further guidance on limitations, use in appraisal, use in natural capital accounting, overlap with other categories"]
[null,"5. For selected categories, examples of how such evidence has been applied (see also ENCA Case Studies workbook)"]
[null,"6. Full references and hyperlinks"]
[]
[null,"Use the GDP Deflator Tab",null,null,"to convert the study year prices (which are indicated in the valuation section of each Tab) into relevant base year prices e.g. 2019 or 2020. "]
[]
[]
[null,"Further guidance to users on using valuation evidence in this Databook"]
[null,"Before using any of the evidence in this Databook, please read the sections on valuation in the ENCA Guidance, and in particular be aware of basic Value Transfer principles. There is often a significant ‘margin of error’ when using values taken from previous studies in different contexts. Key factors which will affect a particular unit value in an appraisal context include (a) the current level and quality of the environmental service or good; (b) the scale and scope of any change and (c) the location and timing of the change. The more that an assessment can account for these factors, or make use of values with similar features, the more robust the valuation will be. The commentary provided against individual references aims to support relevant applications and minimize the risk of misleading use. You should cite the original source or study in your work alongside any reference to the ENCA Databook. At the very least, the valuation evidence in this Databook can be used in an indicative sense so as to help determine where to focus further appraisal effort if it is proportional to do so (e.g. it could materially affect the results of a cost-benefit analysis) or there is significant uncertainty about the trade-offs between environmental and other effects. "]
[]
[]
[null,"Approach to compiling this Databook"]
[null,"In identifying relevant content for this Databook, Defra's Environment Analysis Unit has drawn on its internal knowledge of the evidence base and the expertise of the Defra network, alongside a thorough review of existing tools and systematic reviews. These sources have been produced at different times for different purposes, but refer to many of the same studies and estimates. The selected content focuses upon evidence that has a national scope and up to date, has been generated by Government for policy relevant purposes, or is considered potentially transferable to other contexts. Notable cross-cutting sources of valuation and biophysical evidence which have been reviewed in the development of this Databook include:"]
[]
[null,null,"The Green Book: Central Government Guidance on Appraisal and Evaluation",null,null,null,null,null,null,"HM Treasury (2018)",null,null,"https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/685903/The_Green_Book.pdf"]
[null,null,"ONS and Defra UK Natural Capital Accounts",null,null,null,null,null,null,"ONS (2013 onwards)",null,null,"https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/nationalaccounts/uksectoraccounts/methodologies/naturalcapital#publications"]
[null,null,"UK National Ecosystem Assessment (esp. Chapter 22)",null,null,null,null,null,null,"UNEP, WCMC (2011, 2014)",null,null,"http://uknea.unep-wcmc.org/"]
[null,null,"25 Year Environment Plan - Evidence Annex",null,null,null,null,null,null,"HMG (2018)",null,null,"https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/673492/25-year-environment-plan-annex1.pdf"]
[null,null,"25 Year Environment Plan - Indicator Framework",null,null,null,null,null,null,"HMG (2018)",null,null,"https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/802094/25-yep-indicators-2019.pdf"]
[null,null,"Microeconomic Evidence for Benefits of Investment in the Environment (MEBIE) 2",null,null,null,null,null,null,"Natural England (2014)",null,null,"http://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/publication/6692039286587392"]
[null,null,"Environment Valuation Look-Up Tool*",null,null,null,null,null,null,"Defra (2015)",null,null,"http://sciencesearch.defra.gov.uk/Default.aspx?Menu=Menu&Module=More&Location=None&Completed=0&ProjectID=19514#Description"]
[null,null,"Environment Agency - Benefits Inventory",null,null,null,null,null,null,"Environment Agency (2018)",null,null,"internal"]
[null,null,"Woodland Valuation Tool*",null,null,null,null,null,null,"Forestry Commission (revised 2018)",null,null,"https://forestry.gov.scot/publications/sustainable-forestry/economic-research/680-woodland-valuation-tool"]
[null,null,"Environment Valuation Reference Inventory*",null,null,null,null,null,null,"Environment Canada, Defra supported",null,null,"https://www.evri.ca/"]
[null,null,"B£ST Benefits Estimation Tool - Guidance and Evidence Review",null,null,null,null,null,null,"CIRIA (with EA support, 2018/19)",null,null,"https://www.susdrain.org/resources/best.html"]
[null,"As the evidence base continues to grow, this Databook will be reviewed and kept up to date. Its format will be kept under review and subject to change to reflect user feedback. "]
[null,"* Included in ENCA Featured Tools "]
[]
[null,"Total number of sources in this Databook (including repeat references)"]
[null,{"$f":"Food!B62+Timber!B58+'Water supply'!B57+Fish!B61+'Renewable energy'!B44+'Air pollutant removal'!B72+'Carbon reduction'!B76+'Flood regulation'!B69+'Noise reduction'!B57+'Temperature regulation'!B65+Recreation!B72+'Physical health'!B63+Education!B59+Volunteering!B58+Amenity!B73+Biodiversity!B95+Soil!B83+'Water quality'!B66+Landscape!B48+'Non-use values'!B55+'Air pollution'!B66+Noise!B68+'Flood damage'!B68+'Invasive non-native species'!B44","v":245},"references"]
[null,{"$f":"Food!B42+Timber!B40+'Water supply'!B40+Fish!B36+'Renewable energy'!B31+'Air pollutant removal'!B50+'Carbon reduction'!B58+'Flood regulation'!B41+'Noise reduction'!B39+'Temperature regulation'!B44+Recreation!B44+'Physical health'!B44+Education!B40+Volunteering!B39+Amenity!B33+Biodiversity!B52+Soil!B58+'Water quality'!B38+Landscape!B30+'Non-use values'!B36+'Air pollution'!B47+Noise!B33+'Flood damage'!B46","v":176},"monetary values"]

{"sheet":"Version control","index":1,"n_rows":24,"n_cols":6,"rows_kept":24,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[]}
["ENCA Services Databook - Version Control"]
[null,"Revisions summarised here do not include minor drafting and formatting changes that are made to improve general clarity and functionality of the Databook"]
[]
[null,"Version  ","Date","Tab","Rows","Summary of revisions"]
[]
[null,"Version 1.2","2020-07-30","GDP Deflator",null,"Updated to June 2020 version"]
[null,null,null,"Air pollution","43-47","Defra Air Quality Appraisal Guidance was updated on 1 July 2020, with new damage costs reflecting changes to base data and concentration modelling. The Defra central damage cost values and references have been updated accordingly."]
[null,null,null,"Carbon reduction",42,"Updated estimate for woodland, based on ONS (2020)"]
[null,null,null,"Carbon reduction","45-46","Corrected estimates for grassland and farmland"]
[null,null,null,"Carbon reduction","44,79","Source reference added"]
[null,null,null,"Renewable energy",28,"Source (Scottish Natural Capital Accounts) updated"]
[null,null,null,"Timber","27, 36, 41","Source (ONS Woodland Accounts) updated"]
[null,null,null,"Volunteering",39,"Corrected estimate, with amended source reference"]
[]
[null,"Version 1.1","2020-02-28","Version control",null,"New tab"]
[null,null,null,"Index",null,"Hyperlinks to individual tabs corrected"]
[null,null,null,"GDP Deflator",null,"Updated to December 2019 version"]
[null,null,null,"Air pollutant removal",35,"Corrected estimate "]
[null,null,null,"Air pollutant removal",46,"Text amended"]
[null,null,null,"Air pollutant removal",47,"Contents of row deleted"]
[null,null,null,"Air pollutant removal","50-54","Corrected estimates for indicative average annual values"]
[null,null,null,"Air pollution ","55-56","Text amended"]
[]
[null,"Version 1.0","2020-01-16"]

{"sheet":"Databook User Terms","index":2,"n_rows":54,"n_cols":3,"rows_kept":54,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[]}
["ENCA Databook User Terms",null,"Return to Read Me"]
[]
[null,"Accessing and using the Databook"]
[null,"Each Defra Natural Capital Databook (“the Databook”) is compiled and managed by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (referred to as “Defra”, “we” or “us” from now on).  Users are referred to as “you” whether in their individual capacity or as agents or representatives of the organisation they work for."]
[null,"Access to the Databook is subject to:"]
[null,"(i) these Databook User terms, including the Disclaimer below; "]
[null,"(ii) GOV.UK’s terms and conditions"]
[null,"You are deemed to agree to all these terms (including all relevant conditions) to use the Databook, whether you view or upload the Databook through the home page of the Natural Capital website published on GOV.UK or access any of its content directly to a page of the Databook. "]
[null,"The Databook provides links to the home page of other websites or directly to materials from such websites (including documents, datasets and resources) that belong to or are managed by third parties, which may include government departments and agencies, service providers or other organisations (“Third Party Content”).  References to “Content” include all of the content of the Databook and any Third Party Content uploaded from other sites through the links provided,"]
[null,"We update the Databook regularly and can change or remove Content, including links to other websites and other Third Party Content, at any time without notice."]
[]
[null,"Disclaimer "]
[null,"The Databook is intended to be a convenient central repository of useful resources relating to natural capital and economic valuation.  It is for general information purposes only and you must not rely on any Content, including Third Party Content uploaded through the links provided, for specific legal or expert advice. You should get your own specialist advice before doing or refraining from doing anything on the basis of any Content."]
[null,"We do not provide any guarantee, condition or warranty as to the accuracy, reliability, suitability or completeness of any Content or accept any responsibility for the currency, security, availability, compatibility, suitability, reliability or freedom from damaging software or for any other similar qualities or features of the Databook or for the results of any actions taken in reliance on the Databook or how it is used.  "]
[null,"Nothing in the Databook represents the official position of Defra or an official statement of Defra policy.  "]
[null,"Sources and resources cited in the Databook have been selected on the basis that in our reasonable judgement they support and reflect the broad principles relating to natural capital and economic valuation set out in the Defra ENCA Guidance.  However, it is your responsibility to assess whether any values or methodologies referred to in any part of the Databook or in any Third Party Content, including the associated commentaries compiled by Defra, are appropriate for the purposes of any appraisal or analysis. "]
[null,"Inclusion of a link to Third Party Content does not imply that Defra endorses or approves its content.  In addition, you must not assume that the Databook is exhaustive, or that sources or resources that have been omitted are inappropriate for use in any appraisal or analysis. "]
[]
[null,"Restrictions on use"]
[null,"You agree to use the Databook only for lawful purposes and subject to all relevant Databook User terms.  You must also use it in a way that does not infringe the rights of anyone else, or restrict or inhibit the use and enjoyment of the Databook by anyone else."]
[null,"Downloading, uploading, copying, storing, publishing, distributing, transmitting, modifying, adapting and all other uses of Content from the Databook, including Third Party Content, must comply with all applicable laws and official published guidance governing copyright, database rights, other intellectual property rights, confidentiality and data protection worldwide. "]
[null,"Links to other websites and other restrictions on use"]
[null,"You can use the Databook to download, upload, view and otherwise use Third Party Content contained in linked websites (“Third Party Websites”) (whether accessed directly or indirectly through the Third Party Website home page) but if so you must check and comply with the terms and conditions of the particular Third Party Website or relevant pages that you are using (referred to as “Third Party Terms and Conditions”).  These may include copyright or privacy notices, restrictions on use or re-use, access or usage charges or licence conditions, and corresponding duties, whether express or implied or required by law.  If Third Party Terms and Conditions conflict with these Databook User terms the Third Party Terms and Conditions will be deemed to override these Databook User terms.  "]
[null,"Although we make every reasonable effort to select appropriate Third Party Websites or Content we do not have any control over it and, in particular, we are not responsible for: "]
[null,"·         the protection of any information you give to Third Party Websites;"]
[null,"·         your failure to comply with relevant copyright or other intellectual property right law;"]
[null,"·         any loss or damage that may come from any use or misuse of Third Party Websites, or any other websites to which they link, whether directly or indirectly."]
[null,"You should read all terms and conditions, privacy policies and end user licences that relate to Third Party Websites before you use them."]
[null,"You agree to release us from any claims or disputes that may come from using Third Party Websites."]
[null,"Copyright and attribution"]
[null,"Where Content is subject to the Open Government Licence (see below) you have a duty of attribution which requires you to acknowledge Defra as the owner or source of the information when citing or reproducing it. "]
[null,"Unless otherwise indicated, you can reproduce any Content of the Databook under the current version of the OGL, available here:"]
[null,"http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3/. "]
[null,"The commentaries in the Databook and some Third Party Content linked to the Databook are subject to Crown copyright protection "]
[null,"https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/information-management/re-using-public-sector-information/uk-government-licensing-framework/crown-copyright/"]
[null,"and can also be freely reproduced as long as you follow the terms and conditions of the OGL. "]
[null,"When reproducing Content subject to Crown copyright protection word for word (even in part and including figures and tables) please ensure you acknowledge the source. "]
[null,"Some Content is exempt from the OGL, as are departmental logos and crests, except when they form an integral part of a document or dataset:"]
[null,"Check the list of exemptions."]
[null,"If any Content is not subject to Crown copyright protection or published under the OGL, we will usually acknowledge the author or copyright holder and you must also do so."]
[null,"Adding or removing Content"]
[null,"If you are the owner or exclusive licensee of Third Party Content reproduced in or linked to the Databook, you can contact us in writing to ask for it to be removed, together with the web address (URL) of the Third Party Content and why you think it should be removed.  Subject to our verification of your authority and the conditions below, we will remove it –"]
[null,"·         to comply with data protection legislation covering the rights and freedoms of individuals"]
[null,"·         if it breaches copyright laws, contains sensitive personal data or material that may be considered obscene or defamatory"]
[null,"·         for any other reason at our discretion and, if necessary, in discussion with the department or agency responsible for it."]
[null,"We will reply to let you know whether we will remove it."]
[]
[null,"Your rights to request information under the Freedom of Information Act and the Data Protection Act are not affected."]
[]
[null,"These Databook User terms are governed by English law and enforceable in the English courts or, at our discretion, in any other courts having jurisdiction."]
[null,"Defra Natural Capital "]
[null,"Databook User terms "]
[null,"Last updated on 30 July 2020"]
[null,"© Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs 2020"]

{"sheet":"Index","index":3,"n_rows":57,"n_cols":13,"rows_kept":57,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[[1,1,1,3],[52,2,53,2],[52,5,53,5],[9,5,10,5],[11,3,12,3],[4,3,7,3],[9,3,10,3],[26,3,27,3],[18,3,20,3],[4,2,7,2],[40,5,41,5],[4,5,7,5],[26,2,27,2],[44,2,45,2],[40,2,41,2],[40,3,41,3],[40,6,41,6],[40,10,41,10],[44,8,45,8],[44,9,45,9],[44,5,45,5],[44,6,45,6],[44,10,45,10],[44,3,45,3],[52,12,53,12],[52,3,53,3],[44,11,45,11],[44,12,45,12],[44,7,45,7],[47,1,47,3],[52,6,53,6],[52,7,53,7],[52,8,53,8],[52,9,53,9],[52,10,53,10],[52,11,53,11],[40,11,41,11],[40,12,41,12],[40,8,41,8],[40,9,41,9],[40,7,41,7],[11,2,12,2],[4,10,7,10],[4,11,7,11],[4,12,7,12],[11,12,12,12],[11,5,12,5],[11,6,12,6],[11,10,12,10],[11,7,12,7],[11,8,12,8],[11,9,12,9],[11,11,12,11],[9,8,10,8],[9,9,10,9],[9,6,10,6],[9,10,10,10],[18,11,20,11],[18,7,20,7],[4,6,7,6],[4,7,7,7],[4,9,7,9],[4,8,7,8],[9,11,10,11],[18,8,20,8],[18,9,20,9],[1,5,1,12],[26,4,27,4],[9,12,10,12],[9,7,10,7],[26,10,27,10],[18,10,20,10],[18,5,20,5],[18,6,20,6],[26,8,27,8],[26,9,27,9],[26,5,27,5],[26,6,27,6],[26,11,27,11],[26,12,27,12],[26,7,27,7],[18,12,20,12]]}
["Index of Services and Effects"]
[null,"This list of environmental categories is intended to give users an overview of the wide range of potential environmental effects and benefits. It provides a pragmatic structure in which to collate relevant evidence across a vast evidence base. It is not intended to be a definitive or exhaustive typology. ",null,null,null,"Relevance to the 8 Broad Habitats "]
[null,"Environmental category","Final effect on economic output or welfare ","Databook Tab and Link","Notes","Urban","Farmland","MMH","Freshwater","Woodland","Coastal","Marine","SNG"]
[null,"Provisioning services"]
[null,"Allotments","Food","Food",null,"●","●","●",null,null,"●",null,"●"]
[null,"Crops for human food and animal feed"]
[null,"Grass biomass"]
[null,"Wild food and game"]
[null,"Timber (standing)","Timber","Timber",null,"●","●","●",null,"●"]
[null,"Water resources","Public water supply","Water supply",null,null,"●","●","●"]
[null,"Water resources","Industrial / agricultural use"]
[null,"Fish capture inc","Food","Fish",null,null,null,null,"●",null,"●","●"]
[null,"Aquaculture"]
[null,"Energy crops","Energy","Not yet included",null,null,"●"]
[null,"Pollination","Food; recreation; non-use values","Not yet included","See ENCA Assets Databook",null,"●"]
[null,"Peat extraction","Fuel; growing media","See [Soil]",null,null,"●",null,"●"]
[null,"Supporting navigation","Transport","Not yet included",null,null,null,null,"●",null,"●","●"]
[null,"Abiotic flows of natural capital"]
[null,"Hydropower","Energy","Renewable energy",null,null,"●","●","●",null,null,"●"]
[null,"Solar power","Energy"]
[null,"Wind power","Energy"]
[null,"Oil and gas","Energy","Not yet included ",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"●"]
[null,"Minerals; fossil fuels","Food; energy","Not yet included ",null,null,null,"●",null,null,null,"●"]
[null,"Regulating services"]
[null,"Air pollution removal","Health","Air pollutant removal","See also Air Pollution Tab","●","●",null,null,"●",null,null,"●"]
[null,"Carbon sequestration","Climate","Carbon reduction",null,"●","●","●",null,"●","●","●","●"]
[null,"Water regulation (fluvial)","Reduced flood damage","Flood Regulation","See also Flood Damage Tab","●","●","●","●","●","●",null,"●"]
[null,"Water regulation (surface run-off)"]
[null,"Noise mitigation","Health","Noise reduction","See also Noise Tab","●",null,null,null,"●"]
[null,"Local temperature regulation","Reduced output loss","Temperature regulation",null,"●",null,null,"●","●"]
[null,"Waste remediation","Avoided costs e.g. treatment","Not yet included ","See Water Quality Tab",null,"●","●","●",null,null,"●"]
[null,"Cultural services"]
[null,"Enabling recreation","Outdoor recreation","Recreation",null,"●","●","●","●","●","●","●","●"]
[null,"Enabling physical activity","Physical health","Physical health",null,"●","●","●","●","●","●","●","●"]
[null,"Enabling educational interactions","Educational benefits","Education",null,"●","●","●","●","●","●","●","●"]
[null,"Volunteering opportunities","Various","Volunteering",null,"●","●","●","●","●","●","●","●"]
[null,"Environmental settings for mental health","Mental health","Not yet included","Some overlap with Rec and Phys Hlth","●","●","●","●","●","●","●","●"]
[null,"Nature-based tourism","Tourism","Not yet included","See Recreation Tab",null,"●","●","●","●","●","●"]
[null,"Aggregate/bundled services "]
[null,"Local environmental amenity","Various","Amenity",null,"●","●","●","●","●","●","●","●"]
[null,"Biodiversity","Various","Biodiversity",null,"●","●","●","●","●","●","●","●"]
[null,"Marine and seabird biodiversity"]
[null,"Soil health","Various","Soil",null,"●","●","●",null,"●",null,null,"●"]
[null,"Water quality","Various","Water quality",null,"●","●","●","●","●","●"]
[null,"Landscape","Various","Landscape",null,"●","●","●","●","●","●","●","●"]
[null,"Seascape"]
[null,"Non-use values","Various","Non-use values",null,"●","●","●","●","●","●","●","●"]
[null,"Negative environmental effects"]
[null,"Air pollution ","Health, damages to assets","Air pollution","See also Air Pollution Removal Tab ","●","●",null,null,null,null,null,"●"]
[null,"Noise","Health","Noise","See also Noise Attenuation Tab ","●"]
[null,"Flood damage","Resource costs / damage / health","Flood damage","See also Flood Regulation Tab","●","●","●","●","●","●"]
[null,"Greenhouse gas emissions","Climate","See [Carbon]",null,"●","●","●"]
[null,"Disamenity","Various","See [Amenity]",null,"●",null,null,null,null,"●","●"]
[null,"Waste",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"●","●"]
[null,"Vulnerability to climate change","Various","Not yet included","Implicit in other externalities","●",null,null,"●",null,"●"]
[null,"Water pollution","Various","See [Water quality]",null,"●","●","●","●"]
[null,"Invasive non-native species ","Resource costs / damage / health","Invasive non-native species",null,"●","●","●","●","●","●","●","●"]

{"sheet":"Tab Guide","index":4,"n_rows":55,"n_cols":11,"rows_kept":55,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[[8,10,15,12],[24,3,24,6],[25,3,25,6],[29,5,29,8],[52,3,52,8],[38,5,38,8],[54,3,54,8],[42,3,42,8],[44,3,44,8],[45,3,45,8],[46,3,46,8],[48,3,48,8],[50,3,50,8],[1,1,1,3],[3,8,5,8],[40,3,40,8],[3,2,9,2],[3,3,9,6],[17,3,17,6],[19,3,19,6],[29,3,29,4],[35,3,35,4],[35,5,35,8],[22,3,22,6],[11,3,12,6],[15,2,16,2],[15,3,15,4],[32,5,32,8]]}
["Guide to each Tab"]
[null,"Each tab in this Databook follows a similar format as below. This annotated template explains the various parts of the format. Please familiarise yourself with this before consulting individual tabs. "]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Overall assessment of evidence"]
[null,null,"Context and application","Provides a brief overview of the nature and the significance of the environmental service or effect.",null,null,null,null,"Assessment of evidence base for both biophysical and valuation evidence","High","Indicates strong or established evidence with few gaps"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Medium","Indicates some evidence, but incomplete or uncertain"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Low","Indicates speculative, major gaps in evidence"]
[]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Potentially relevant to:"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Urban",null,"These are the 8 Broad Habitats used by the UK National Ecosystem Assessment to summarise land cover types across the nation. They can be broken down further but provide an initial classification to facilitate further inquiry. "]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Farmland"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Mountains, M&H"]
[null,null,"What nature provides","This is what the ecosystem does. It is particularly relevant for natural capital accounts. For negative environmental effects, this box refers to the causes of the negative effect",null,null,null,null,"Freshwaters"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Woodland"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Coastal"]
[null,null,"Other inputs",null,null,null,null,null,"Marine"]
[null,null,"(for negative environmental effects and some bundled effects, this row refers to the interventions that may reduce the negative impact)","e.g. human or produced capital",null,null,null,null,"Semi-nat grassland"]
[]
[null,null,"Final welfare benefit","This is what is valued and is relevant for appraisal purposes. There may be several types of benefit.  If there are no other inputs, then the value of the service is the same as the benefit. For \"bundled\" services, this box will refer to a range of benefits. "]
[]
[null,null,"Who benefits / is affected?","These are the broad groups who benefit from the service or are affected by the externality"]
[]
[]
[null,null,"What factors affect the level of benefit?","Summarises the key ecological, climate and socio-economic drivers affecting the level of the benefit. This row is not included in the negative environmental effects sheets. "]
[]
[null,null,"Physical metric","The relevant units will vary depending upon the environmental effect. There may be more than one relevant metric"]
[null,null,"Valuation metrics","The relevant units will vary depending upon the environmental effect. There may be more than one valuation metric"]
[]
[]
[null,null,"Key sources for biophysical evidence","Source",null,"Notes"]
[null,null,"Biophysical evidence refers to sources that quantify the extent or nature of the service or effect in physical and ecological terms (e.g. tonnes per hectare). It is often the basis for valuation in monetary terms.","A brief title or reference is given, including a hyperlink to the original source. Full references can be found at the bottom of the sheet.",null,"A brief description of why the source is relevant and what it contains"]
[]
[null,null,"Selected biophysical estimates","Source","Description of estimate","Notes"]
[null,null,"These should relate to the table above. Typically only headline metrics or figures are given. Users can consult the source directly for more data.","Brief reference only, including hyperlink","The column heading and cell will indicate the relevant metric","Brief notes on any qualifications or context that users need to be aware of"]
[]
[null,null,"Key sources for valuation","Source",null,"Notes"]
[null,null,null,"A brief title or reference is given, including a hyperlink to the original source. Full references can be found at the bottom of the sheet.",null,"A brief description of why the source is relevant and what it contains"]
[]
[null,null,"Selected values","Source","Value (20xx prices)","Notes"]
[null,null,"These are the \"go to\" sources. Typically there are several values because there are complementary but different bodies of evidence e.g. varying by habitat, or geography, or nature of the service. These details are set out in the notes column, so that users can decide what is relevant to them.","Brief reference only, including hyperlink","Values may be in unit or aggregate format - the actual metrics should be clearly stated. The column heading or cell indicates which year's prices figures are valued in. Use the GDP Deflator tab to convert to a different price year. Ranges are provided where available and appropriate.","Brief notes to aid interpretation of the values, levels of uncertainty, any qualifications or context that users should be aware of. Where several estimates come from the same source, an additional row heading provides explanationa. "]
[]
[null,null,"Limitations to valuation","Notes any general qualifications, issues and limitations with valuing this type of effect. "]
[]
[null,null,"Other sources","Notes other significant studies that users may need to be aware of, for example highlighting what uses they might serve that the key sources listed above do not"]
[]
[null,null,"Guidance on use  in appraisal","Notes any issues involved in using the values above in appraisal contexts. "]
[null,null,"Guidance on use  in natural capital accounting","Notes whether listed values may be appropriately used in natural capital accounting contexts, and any issues arising."]
[null,null,"Guidance on projecting values","Brief guidance (for appraisal and accounting contexts) on how a current annual value might trend in the future, and what the key drivers are. Note that valuation projections will be a product of projections in physical quantity as well as unit value."]
[]
[null,null,"Potential overlap with other values","Considers which services might be involved, the potential for double-counting and why"]
[]
[null,null,"Related guidance","Notes any relevant guidance that users should be aware of for this effect. "]
[]
[null,null,"Practical applications (selected tabs)","References specific practical applications or case studies that use the biophysical or valuation estimates. For a wider range of real world examples, see ENCA Case Studies  "]
[]
[null,null,"Full references and weblinks","Listed by author / producer in alphabetical order, along with hyperlinks"]

{"sheet":"GDP Deflator","index":5,"n_rows":29,"n_cols":8,"rows_kept":29,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[]}
["GDP Deflators to update historic values to current prices"]
[null,"https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/gdp-deflators-at-market-prices-and-money-gdp-june-2020-quarterly-national-accounts"]
[null,"Version","2020-06-01"]
[]
[null,"Calendar Year","Index (2019=100)","Per cent change on previous year",null,"Example"]
[null,2000,68.740300000000005,1.8561928413516029]
[null,2001,69.424300000000002,0.99504948334528287]
[null,2002,70.888900000000007,2.1096359632002111]
[null,2003,72.488299999999995,2.2562065429143185]
[null,2004,74.337699999999998,2.5513082800948608]
[null,2005,76.197900000000004,2.5023642108916553]
[null,2006,78.311700000000002,2.7740921993913186]
[null,2007,80.332899999999995,2.5809681056598097,null,238]
[null,2008,82.659800000000004,2.8965716412578271,null,{"$f":"$F$13*C14/$C$13","v":244.89384050619361},null,"Example"]
[null,2009,84.015500000000003,1.6400959111926219,null,248.91033437109832,null,"A value of £238 / hectare in 2007 prices"]
[null,2010,85.302700000000002,1.5320982437764443,null,252.72388523257598]
[null,2011,87.043499999999995,2.0407325911137546,null,257.88130392404605,null,"In real terms, this is equivalent, in 2019 prices to:"]
[null,2012,88.486999999999995,1.6583662191892563,null,262.15792035392724,null,"£238 x 100 / 80.33"]
[null,2013,90.162999999999997,1.8940635347565202,null,267.123357926827,null,"=  £296  / hectare"]
[null,2014,91.812799999999996,1.8297971451704125,null,272.01117350425545]
[null,2015,92.346599999999995,0.58140041475698312,null,273.59264759519453]
[null,2016,94.320599999999999,2.1375990020206523,null,279.4409612997913]
[null,2017,96.105699999999999,1.8925876213679724,null,284.72962634238274]
[null,2018,98.158500000000004,2.1359815286710413,null,290.81139856771017]
[null,2019,100,1.8760474131124625,null,296.26715828757585]
[null,2020,"-",2.0491464622641757,"Forecast"]
[null,2021,"-",2.008528858555124,"Forecast"]
[null,2022,"-",2.1567423639307748,"Forecast"]
[null,2023,"-",2.0678094530023117,"Forecast"]

{"sheet":"Food","index":6,"n_rows":68,"n_cols":10,"rows_kept":68,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[[67,5,67,7],[64,5,64,7],[66,5,66,7],[60,5,60,7],[66,2,66,4],[62,2,62,4],[62,5,62,7],[65,2,65,4],[65,5,65,7],[64,2,64,4],[67,2,67,4],[63,2,63,4],[63,5,63,7],[60,2,60,4],[61,2,61,4],[61,5,61,7],[1,1,7,1],[1,2,7,5],[9,2,9,5],[14,2,14,5],[16,2,16,5],[18,2,18,5],[38,4,38,7],[40,2,41,2],[28,2,31,2],[28,4,31,7],[32,4,32,7],[20,2,20,5],[21,2,21,5],[25,4,25,7],[25,2,25,3],[26,4,26,7],[26,2,26,3],[38,2,38,3],[41,4,41,7],[33,4,33,7],[36,2,36,3],[36,4,36,7],[58,2,58,7],[56,2,56,7],[50,2,50,7],[45,4,45,7],[44,4,44,7],[52,2,52,7],[53,2,53,7],[54,2,54,7],[48,2,48,7],[37,4,37,7],[43,4,43,7],[40,3,40,7],[46,4,46,7],[45,2,46,2],[42,4,42,7]]}
["Food",null,null,null,null,"Back to index"]
[null,"Why is it relevant?","Food in its various forms is produced by a range of ecosystems (fish is considered in a separate tab). In some cases, the food for human consumption is effectively the same as the ecosystem service (for example, wild fruit, angling). More often the provisioning service is a raw material (for example, crops) that is harvested and processed by humans and produced capital into added value processed food (for example, bread). The boundary between what is provided by natural capital and the contribution of other forms of capital is often a grey area. For example, crops require agricultural management; livestock depends upon grassland ecosystems.",null,null,null,null,null,"Overall assessment of evidence"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"biophysical evidence","High","Strong or established evidence with few gaps"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"valuation evidence","High","Strong or established evidence with few gaps"]
[]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Potentially relevant to:"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Urban","●"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Farmland","●"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Mountains, M&H","●"]
[null,"What nature provides","Farmland for crops, grazing; wild food; urban land for allotments. This is the provisioning service",null,null,null,null,"Freshwaters"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Woodland"]
[null,"Other inputs",null,null,null,null,null,"Coastal","●"]
[null,null,"Various human and produced capital",null,null,null,null,"Marine"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Semi-nat grassland","●"]
[null,"Final welfare benefit","Food for human consumption"]
[]
[null,"Who benefits?","Provisioning services are an input into the agricultural sector and food processing. In some cases, there is a direct link between ecosystem service and household (e.g. allotments, wild food)"]
[]
[null,"What factors affect the level of benefit?","Extent of farmland and allotments; yields and productivity; weather and climate; commodity prices. "]
[]
[null,"Physical metric","Tonnes per year; tonnes per hectare"]
[null,"Valuation metrics","Resource rent; farmland rents"]
[]
[]
[null,"Key sources of biophysical evidence","Source",null,"Notes"]
[null,null,"ONS (2019a) UK Natural Capital Accounts",null,"Provides time series of provisioning services of agricultural biomass (crops, grazing)."]
[null,null,"Agriculture in the UK",null,"Contains an extensive range of data including land use, livestock numbers, production of key commodities (for example, wheat, milk, vegetables), organic farming."]
[null,"Selected biophysical estimates","Source","Volume of flow","Notes"]
[null,null,"ONS (2019)","23.1 million tonnes arable crops","Annual flow in 2018 of food-related provisioning services from UK farmland. Horticulture includes potatoes and sugar beet. Silage is included under grazed biomass. See Agriculture in the UK for a range of annual and time-series statistics on production of various agricultural products."]
[null,null,null,"15.7 million tonnes horticultural crops"]
[null,null,null,"30.1 million tonnes grazed biomass"]
[null,null,null,"31.3 million tonnes arable feedstock"]
[null,null,"Agriculture in the UK","8.2 tonnes / hectare","Average UK wheat yield, 2013 to 17. See Agriculture in UK for other crop and livestock yield metrics."]
[null,null,"ONS (2019b)","154,000 tonnes / year","Estimated total production of food from urban allotments."]
[]
[null,"Key sources for valuation","Source",null,"Notes"]
[null,null,"ONS (2019a) UK Natural Capital Accounts",null,"Provides time series of provisioning services of agricultural biomass (crops, grazing)."]
[null,null,"Agriculture in the UK",null,"Contains an extensive range of outturn data including farm incomes, prices, agricultural accounts, trade statistics etc."]
[null,null,"Natural Environment Valuation Online",null,"Map-based interactive tool drawing on various econometric models. Provides spatially disaggregated values of agricultural production in England and Wales alongside other ecosystem services. Users can view baseline estimates of agricultural production in different regions and also change model parameters (for example, policies, prices, land use) to see the effect on food and other benefits."]
[null,"Selected values","Source","Value","Notes"]
[null,null,"Agriculture in the UK","Provides average annual market prices for a range of crops and livestock products. Indicative average unit market values for agricultural production can also be calculated by dividing the value of total output by the physical quantity (heads of livestock, tonnes of crops, hectares) - these may be more appropriate where there is a mix of products and prices (for example, vegetables, types of meat). Relevant footnotes should be read to ensure the appropriate number is used. "]
[null,{"$f":"COUNTA(D42:D47)","v":6},null,"£130 / tonne (2017 prices)","Unit value of all cereal production in 2017, calculated by dividing total value of production by volume of production (see Table 7.1). This annual value varies with the harvest and price and exchange rate movements. For example, the equivalent 2016 value is £110 / tonne (in 2016 prices) and the 2013 value is £168 / tonne (in 2013 prices)."]
[null,null,"ONS (2019a)","£4296 million (2018 prices)","Annual average Resource Rent value (2013-17) of UK agricultural biomass.  See supplementary data tables for a time series of monetary values. This method is under review."]
[null,null,"ONS (2019b)","£294 million (2017 prices)","Estimated annual monetary value of food produced in urban allotments. Note that this value includes labour and capital inputs as well as the value of the ecosystem. Methodology based on methods set out in Eftec (2017), p. 63. "]
[null,null,"Schulp et al (2013)","€11 million  (2010 prices)","Annual market value of harvested game in the UK. This was estimated as part of a European wide study, the total value of harvested game being €448 million in 2010.  The countries with the highest values of harvested game are France (€\u0080144 million), Germany (\u0080€92 million), and Spain (€\u008078 million), far greater than the UK."]
[null,null,"Defra (2019)","£195 - 243 / hectare","Average annual farmland rent 2013-17 for cereal cropping. The range reflects the various types of tenancy. These are an indicator of the contribution to agricultural output of the provisioning service of the land. See Defra (2019) for regional breakdowns. "]
[null,null,null,"£147-163 / hectare","Average annual farmland rent 2013-17 for lowland livestock grazing. The range reflects the various types of tenancy. These are an indicator of the contribution to agricultural output of the provisioning service of the land. See Defra (2019) for regional breakdowns."]
[]
[null,"Limitations to valuation","The main challenge with valuing agricultural output is the year-on-year volatility caused by weather or disease induced changes in production, and movements in international market prices and exchange rates. Therefore, it makes sense to use multi-year averages in analysis. "]
[]
[null,"Other sources","See the Farmland Tab in ENCA Assets Databook."]
[]
[null,"Guidance on use in appraisal","Multi-year averages are recommended in view of the fluctuations in food prices."]
[null,"Guidance on use in natural capital accounting","Strictly, a natural capital account should estimate the provisioning service provided by the farmland ecosystem, not the value, or income, from farming activity itself. ONS (2017, 2019a) published values are accounting values based on a residual resource rent approach. As a means of isolating the value of the ecosystem to agricultural output, the robustness of this approach is under review. Farmland rents offer an alternative but their value can be affected by non-agricultural factors such as subsidies, lifestyle factors and possible development value. This is an area of further research. Livestock is not considered an ecosystem service as it is one-step removed from the ecosystem; instead the production of grass biomass for grazing is taken as the ecosystem service. "]
[null,"Guidance on projecting values","In the absence of any significant and sustained trends in unit values, a five-year average, projected to be constant in real terms, is recommended."]
[]
[null,"Potential overlap with other values","Care needs to be taken not to confuse, or double-count between ecosystem service values that are an input to agriculture and the Gross Value Added of agricultural activity itself."]
[]
[null,"Related guidance","For accounting methods, see ONS / Defra, Principles of Natural Capital Accounting (2017)."]
[]
[null,"Full references and web links","Agriculture in the UK (2018), Defra, Annual statistics about agriculture in the United Kingdom",null,null,"https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/agriculture-in-the-united-kingdom"]
[null,{"$f":"COUNTA(C61:E83)","v":8},"Defra (2019), Farm Rents: Annual statistics about average farm rents in England 2017/18",null,null,"https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/farm-rents"]
[null,null,"Eftec et al (2017), A study to scope and develop urban natural capital accounts for the UK. Report to Defra. ",null,null,"http://randd.defra.gov.uk/Default.aspx?Menu=Menu&Module=More&Location=None&Completed=0&ProjectID=19843"]
[null,null,"Exeter University (2019), Natural Environment Valuation Online",null,null,"https://www.leep.exeter.ac.uk/nevo"]
[null,null,"ONS (2017), UK Natural Capital: ecosystem accounts for freshwater, farmland and woodland",null,null,"https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/environmentalaccounts/bulletins/uknaturalcapital/landandhabitatecosystemaccounts"]
[null,null,"ONS (2019a), UK Natural Capital Accounts 2019. Includes supplementary data tables",null,null,"https://www.ons.gov.uk/releases/uknaturalcapitalecosystemserviceaccounts1997to2017"]
[null,null,"ONS (2019b) UK Natural Capital - Urban Accounts",null,null,"https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/environmentalaccounts/bulletins/uknaturalcapital/urbanaccounts"]
[null,null,"Schulp, C. et al (2014), Wild Food in Europe: A Synthesis of Knowledge and Data of Terrestrial Wild Food as an Ecosystem Service, Ecological Economics, vol. 105, ",null,null,"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800914001980"]

{"sheet":"Timber","index":7,"n_rows":61,"n_cols":10,"rows_kept":61,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[[17,2,17,5],[58,5,58,7],[57,5,57,7],[59,5,59,7],[37,4,37,7],[57,2,57,4],[58,2,58,4],[59,2,59,4],[43,2,43,7],[37,2,37,3],[55,2,55,4],[55,5,55,7],[39,4,39,7],[40,4,40,7],[48,2,48,7],[41,4,41,7],[1,1,6,1],[1,2,6,5],[8,2,8,5],[13,2,13,5],[15,2,15,5],[19,2,19,5],[56,2,56,4],[56,5,56,7],[24,2,24,3],[24,4,24,7],[36,2,36,3],[36,4,36,7],[30,4,30,7],[26,2,26,3],[26,4,26,7],[51,2,51,7],[53,2,53,7],[28,4,28,7],[49,2,49,7],[34,2,34,3],[34,4,34,7],[60,2,60,4],[60,5,60,7],[25,2,25,3],[25,4,25,7],[20,2,20,5],[29,2,31,2],[29,4,29,7],[31,4,31,7],[45,2,45,7],[47,2,47,7],[35,2,35,3],[35,4,35,7]]}
["Timber",null,null,null,null,"Back to index"]
[null,"Why is it relevant?","Historically, raw timber has been the dominant use of UK woodlands and remains an important provisioning service supplying the UK forestry sector. According to the UK National Ecosystem Assessment, domestic timber production increased from around 4% in the 1940s to 20% of UK consumption in 2010. Raw timber has a range of final uses including furniture, building materials, fuel and paper",null,null,null,null,null,"Overall assessment of evidence"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"biophysical evidence","High","Strong or established evidence with few gaps"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"valuation evidence","High","Strong or established evidence with few gaps"]
[]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Potentially relevant to:"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Urban","●"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Farmland","●"]
[null,"What nature provides","Growth of timber. This is the provisioning service",null,null,null,null,"Mountains, M&H","●"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Freshwaters"]
[null,"Other inputs",null,null,null,null,null,"Woodland","●"]
[null,null,"Harvesting and sawing",null,null,null,null,"Coastal"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Marine"]
[null,"Final welfare benefit","Harvested timber for further processing",null,null,null,null,"Semi-nat grassland"]
[]
[null,"Who benefits?","Forestry sector is the user of the ecosystem service"]
[]
[null,"What factors affect the level of benefit?","Extent of forestry; species type and age; soil and tree health; woodland management; market prices. "]
[]
[null,"Physical metric","tonnes per year, m3 overbark"]
[null,"Valuation metrics","£ per m3"]
[]
[]
[null,"Key sources of biophysical evidence","Source",null,"Notes"]
[null,null,"Forestry Statistics",null,"A National Statistics publication. Includes a chapter and data tables on the production of timber from woodland and the primary processing of harvested wood to give basic wood products."]
[null,null,"ONS (2019) UK Natural Capital Accounts",null,"Provides time series of provisioning services of timber. Includes supplementary data tables."]
[null,null,"ONS (2020) UK Woodland Accounts ",null,"Provides a time series of both timber and woodfuel. Includes supplementary data tables."]
[null,"Selected biophysical estimates","Source","Volume","Notes"]
[null,null,"ONS (2019)","14.8 million m3 ","Total UK Timber Removals in 2018. See the accounts for other years."]
[null,null,"Forestry Statistics 2018","10.91 million green tonnes","Total UK Softwood (Roundwood) removals in 2017. "]
[null,null,null,"0.74 million green tonnes","Total UK Hardwood (Roundwood) removals in 2017. "]
[null,null,null,"2.5 million green tonnes","Total softwood and hardwood removals from English sources in 2017. This is a 25 Year Environment Plan indicator \"Volume of timber brought to market p.a. from English sources\" and is an indicator of the level of active management of woodland assets for economic productive purposes. "]
[]
[null,"Key sources for valuation","Source",null,"Notes"]
[null,null,"ONS (2019) UK Natural Capital Accounts",null,"Provides time series of provisioning services of timber"]
[null,null,"ONS (2020) UK Woodland Accounts ",null,"Provides a time series of both timber and woodfuel."]
[null,null,"Forestry Statistics, Timber Prices",null,"Includes data on UK softwood and coniferous timber prices and production. For use of market prices in analysis, 5-year averages are recommended to account for year-on-year fluctuations and changes in ecological conditions."]
[null,null,"Grown in Britain Price / Size curves",null,"Illustrative prices for British hardwoods."]
[null,"Selected values","Source","Value","Notes"]
[null,{"$f":"COUNTA(D40:D44)","v":3},"Forestry Statistics Timber Price Indices","£21.49 per m3 overbark (2016 prices)","5-year average coniferous standing sales price, range from year to March 2015 to year to March 2019. Note that the average price has risen over this time, from £18.79 in the year to March 2015, to £30.03 in the year to March 2019. The series is presented in real prices in 2016 terms as well as nominal prices. "]
[null,null,"ONS (2019)","£365 million (2018 prices)","Value of UK timber provisioning service in 2018. See the accounts and data tables for other years. According to ONS (2020), of this, £76 million is the value of felled timber used for woodfuel. "]
[null,null,"Forestry Statistics 2018","£588 million (2016 prices)","Gross Value Added by the UK forestry sector (before processing) in 2016. This value includes the ecosystem service of standing timber (valued at £241 million in 2016)."]
[]
[null,"Limitations to valuation","Nothing significant."]
[]
[null,"Other sources","Exeter University's Natural Environment Valuation Online (NEVO) web tool enables users to explore, quantify and make predictions about the benefits that are derived from existing and altered land use across England and Wales. The tool includes spatially disaggregated information on woodland and also models changes to timber production and profits under different scenarios."]
[]
[null,"Guidance on use in appraisal","Distinguish between ecosystem service (standing timber for harvest) and value-added of processing. It should also be noted that timber prices fluctuate so it may make sense to use a multi-year average in analysis e.g. the ONS Natural Capital Accounts uses a 5-year average. "]
[null,"Guidance on use in natural capital accounting","Standing (rather than harvested) timber values are appropriate for use in natural capital accounting, as this defines the contribution of the ecosystem to the processing forestry sector. In practice some of this value will represent woodland management input, but for accounting purposes all value is attributed to the ecosystem. Care should be taken in accounting, and in particular, projections of service flows, that timber provisioning yields are consistent with regulating services such as carbon sequestration and air filtration, which are based on unfelled woodland."]
[null,"Guidance on projecting values","In the absence of strong long-term trends, market prices should remain constant in real terms, based on a 5-year average. "]
[]
[null,"Potential overlap with other values","Not significant."]
[]
[null,"Related guidance","For conversion factors between different definitions and stages of timber, and glossary of terms, see the Forestry Statistics pages on the Forest Research website. For accounting methods, see ONS / Defra, Principles of Natural Capital Accounting (2017)."]
[]
[null,"Full references and weblinks","Defra (2019), Measuring environmental change: outcome indicator framework for the 25 Year Environment Plan",null,null,"https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/802094/25-yep-indicators-2019.pdf"]
[null,null,"Exeter University (2019), Natural Environment Valuation Online",null,null,"https://www.leep.exeter.ac.uk/nevo"]
[null,{"$f":"COUNTA(C56:E75)","v":6},"Forest Research, Forestry Statistics 2018",null,null,"https://www.forestresearch.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/statistics/statistics-by-topic/timber-statistics/timber-price-indices/"]
[null,null,"Grown in Britain Price / Size Curves for hardwoods",null,null,"https://www.growninbritain.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Price-Size-Curve-Data-for-British-Hardwoods-Oak.pdf "]
[null,null,"ONS (2019), UK Natural Capital Accounts 2019. ",null,null,"https://www.ons.gov.uk/releases/uknaturalcapitalecosystemserviceaccounts1997to2017"]
[null,null,"ONS (2020), UK Woodland Natural Capital Accounts. ",null,null,"https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/environmentalaccounts/bulletins/woodlandnaturalcapitalaccountsuk/2020"]

{"sheet":"Water supply","index":8,"n_rows":60,"n_cols":10,"rows_kept":60,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[[18,2,18,5],[27,4,27,7],[25,4,25,7],[35,2,35,3],[35,4,35,7],[31,4,31,7],[30,4,30,7],[32,4,32,7],[28,2,28,3],[28,4,28,7],[59,2,59,4],[59,5,59,7],[37,4,37,7],[39,4,39,7],[25,2,25,3],[27,2,27,3],[36,2,36,3],[36,4,36,7],[37,2,37,3],[26,2,26,3],[26,4,26,7],[41,4,41,7],[58,2,58,4],[58,5,58,7],[56,2,56,4],[57,2,57,4],[1,1,7,1],[1,2,7,5],[9,2,9,5],[14,2,14,5],[16,2,16,5],[39,2,40,2],[40,4,40,7],[57,5,57,7],[43,2,43,7],[45,2,45,7],[47,2,47,7],[48,2,48,7],[49,2,49,7],[51,2,51,7],[53,2,53,7],[56,5,56,7],[55,2,55,4],[55,5,55,7]]}
["Water supply",null,null,null,null,"Back to index"]
[null,"Why is it relevant?","Water is a vital resource that needs to be managed carefully to ensure that people have access to affordable and safe drinking water and sanitation. A basic challenge is to ensure that the needs of industry are met, without depleting water resources or damaging freshwater ecosystems. River flows and groundwater levels are only sustainable when they support ecology that is only slightly impacted by human activity.",null,null,null,null,null,"Overall assessment of evidence"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"biophysical evidence","High","Strong or established evidence with few gaps"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"valuation evidence","Medium","Some evidence, but incomplete or uncertain"]
[]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Potentially relevant to:"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Urban"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Farmland","●"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Mountains, M&H","●"]
[null,"What nature provides","Surface and groundwater for various uses. This is the provisioning service",null,null,null,null,"Freshwaters","●"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Woodland"]
[null,"Other inputs",null,null,null,null,null,"Coastal"]
[null,null,"Water treatment and infrastructure",null,null,null,null,"Marine"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Semi-nat grassland"]
[null,"Final welfare benefit","Industrial, agricultural and public water supply uses"]
[]
[null,"Who benefits?","Water supply, agriculture and electricity sectors are the main users of the ecosystem service"]
[]
[null,"What factors affect the level of benefit?","Availability of water / climate; treatment costs"]
[]
[null,"Physical metric","million cubic metres of water abstracted"]
[null,"Valuation metrics","£ per million litres"]
[]
[]
[null,"Key sources of biophysical evidence","Source",null,"Notes"]
[null,null,"ONS (2019) UK Natural Capital Accounts",null,"Provide estimates of the volume and value of water abstraction for the UK (excluding groundwater) over a time series. See also supplementary data tables"]
[null,null,"Defra (2019) Water abstraction statistics",null,"Covers the abstraction of water from non tidal, surface water and groundwater in England. Abstraction is the removal of water resources, permanently or temporarily, from rivers, lakes, canals, reservoirs or from underground strata. Estimates of abstraction are categorised by purpose, the main users being the electricity supply industry, public water supply and agriculture. "]
[null,null,"Water Resource Management Plans","Water Resource Management Plans","Detailed biophysical evidence on water supply and demand can be found in the statutory 5-year water management plans produced by individual water utilities."]
[null,null,"25 Year Environment Plan Indicators - Water theme",null,"Includes an indicator in development on \"water bodies achieving sustainable abstraction criteria\". "]
[null,"Selected biophysical estimates","Source","Description of estimate","Notes"]
[null,null,"ONS (2019)","6592 million cubic metres","5-year average (2013-17) of direct abstraction of raw water for public water supply in UK excluding from groundwater sources."]
[null,null,"Defra (2019) Water abstraction statistics ","10.4 billion cubic metres","Direct abstraction of water from non-tidal surface water and groundwater in England in 2017.  In 2017 19.7% of estimated total abstractions were from groundwater. "]
[null,null,"Defra (2019) Water abstraction statistics (data tables)","266 cubic metres \n/ person / year","Total abstractions per head of population in England. This compares to the OECD average of over 800, driven by many countries’ larger industrial use including power (France) or by agricultural irrigation (Spain). Cited in 25 Year Environment Plan Evidence Annex, p.31. "]
[]
[null,"Key sources for valuation","Source",null,"Notes"]
[null,null,"ONS (2019) UK Natural Capital Accounts",null,"Provides estimates of the volume and value of water abstraction for the UK over a time series."]
[null,null,"Water Resource Management Plans ",null,"Valuation evidence is publicly available from these statutory plans developed by water companies in England and Wales. These include marginal costs (known as \"average incremental social costs\") of providing extra water output which may be used as a proxy for the economic value of water resource impacts. "]
[null,null,"Willingness to Pay studies for Water Companies (ICF 2017)","Benefits to people of having water available (non-drinking) with fewer restrictions from hosepipe bans (Southern Water Customer Engagement)","Stated preference valuation studies, on a regional basis, have been commissioned by water utilities to assess the benefits of reducing supply interruptions as part of their business cases for investment (Periodic Review 2014). These are typically based on choice experiments in which those surveyed make trade-offs between water bill costs and levels of service. Some of these studies are published e.g. Southern Water, Yorkshire Water, and provide detailed unit values for individual attributes. Care should be taken to assess the robustness of the results and the relevance of their application in other contexts, using Defra's Value Transfer principles. The Consumer Council for Water (2017) commissioned ICF and Eftec to review this body of valuation research to support water companies' understanding of how these studies can be best used and applied, and to address technical challenges. "]
[null,"Selected values","Source","Value","Notes"]
[null,{"$f":"COUNTA(D40:D45)","v":3},"ONS (2019)","£2503 million (2018 prices)","5 year average \"Resource rent\" value of raw water abstraction for public water supply (2013-17). Conceptually, this represents the value of the raw material input to water utilities who then treat the water for public consumption.  See supplementary data tables for a time series of monetary values."]
[null,null,null,"£0.38 / cubic metre (2018 prices)","An indicative 5 year average unit resource rent value for water abstracted.This is estimated by dividing the average annual monetary flow over 5 years (£2503 million) by the physical flow (6592 million cubic metres). Note, however, that the robustness of the resource rent approach remains under review.  In concept this value is the return to the ecosystem not to water treatment. "]
[null,null,"Water Resource Management Plans (reported in HM Treasury Green Book 2018)","£1.5 million / million litres (2014 prices)","Social marginal cost of producing an additional 1 million litres / day for public consumption (also known as \"average incremental social costs\"). Referenced in Green Book. This can be interpreted as the typical economic cost (including environmental and social costs) of replacing a marginal mega litre of water and may be suitable for high-level assessment of the value of water resource impacts. Because regional values vary reflecting regional water scarcity, the relevant regional local WRM Plan should be consulted. Defra can advise at watereconomics@defra.gov.uk."]
[]
[null,"Limitations to valuation","See guidance below"]
[]
[null,"Other sources","A range of regional estimates of customer willingness to pay studies have been conducted by water companies to inform the statutory five-yearly price review process. These include valuations of reducing the risk of supply interruptions and other hypothetical changes to service levels. See ICF (2017) for references or search \"willingness to pay\" for respective water companies. See also the Water Quality (WQ) Tab which focuses on valuation of changes in the quality, rather than the quantity, of water. "]
[]
[null,"Guidance on use  in appraisal","The marginal value of water resources reported in the Green Book will vary according to regional demand and supply conditions (the tradability of water being limited). "]
[null,"Guidance on use  in natural capital accounting","Water Resource Management Plan estimates include production costs so do not reflect the ecosystem contribution. Resource rent methods of valuing raw water abstraction will tend to be influenced by the regulatory price regime. This will tend to overstate ecosystem service accounting values, as in theory regulatory approaches seek to avoid resource rent being captured by water companies. "]
[null,"Guidance on projecting values","Increasing future scarcity in certain regions may need to be considered in projecting values for those regions. Defra economists can advise at watereconomics@defra.gov.uk."]
[]
[null,"Potential overlap with other values","Water quantity should not be confused with water quality, although the two can be related. See Water Quality (WQ) Tab."]
[]
[null,"Related guidance","For any further guidance on using water resource values, please contact Defra water economists at watereconomics@defra.gov.uk. For accounting methods, see ONS / Defra, Principles of Natural Capital Accounting (2017)."]
[]
[null,"Full references and weblinks","Defra (2019), Measuring environmental change: outcome indicator framework for the 25 Year Environment Plan",null,null,"https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/802094/25-yep-indicators-2019.pdf"]
[null,{"$f":"COUNTA(C56:E75)","v":5},"Defra (2019), Water Abstraction Statistics: England, 2000-2017",null,null,"https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/water-abstraction-estimates"]
[null,null,"ICF for the Consumer Council for Water (2017), Improving willingness-to-pay research in the water sector",null,null,"https://www.ccwater.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Improving-willingness-to-pay-research-in-the-water-sector.pdf"]
[null,null,"ONS (2017), UK Natural Capital: ecosystem accounts for freshwater, farmland and woodland",null,null,"https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/environmentalaccounts/bulletins/uknaturalcapital/landandhabitatecosystemaccounts"]
[null,null,"ONS (2019), UK Natural Capital Accounts 2019. Includes supplementary data tables",null,null,"https://www.ons.gov.uk/releases/uknaturalcapitalecosystemserviceaccounts1997to2017"]

{"sheet":"Fish","index":9,"n_rows":68,"n_cols":10,"rows_kept":68,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[[27,4,27,7],[38,4,38,7],[64,2,64,4],[64,5,64,7],[63,2,63,4],[63,5,63,7],[57,2,57,7],[35,4,35,7],[37,4,37,7],[47,2,47,7],[49,2,49,7],[50,2,50,7],[51,2,51,7],[53,2,53,7],[55,2,55,7],[45,2,45,7],[67,2,67,4],[67,5,67,7],[62,2,62,4],[61,2,61,4],[61,5,61,7],[65,5,65,7],[65,2,65,4],[32,4,32,7],[36,4,36,7],[66,2,66,4],[66,5,66,7],[41,2,43,2],[42,4,42,7],[59,2,59,4],[59,5,59,7],[60,2,60,4],[60,5,60,7],[41,4,41,7],[43,4,43,7],[39,2,40,2],[39,4,39,7],[62,5,62,7],[40,4,40,7],[58,2,58,3],[28,4,28,7],[1,1,6,1],[1,2,6,5],[8,2,8,5],[13,2,13,5],[15,2,15,5],[24,4,24,7],[24,2,24,3],[25,2,25,3],[25,4,25,7],[17,2,17,5],[33,4,33,7],[29,4,29,7],[33,2,33,3],[32,2,32,3]]}
["Fish",null,null,null,null,"Back to index"]
[null,"Why is it relevant?","The marine environment is a major source of food for human consumption. Most fish is captured from the sea, with small amounts from freshwater and increasingly from aquaculture. The seafood sector is taken to include fish capture along with the various forms of industry processing",null,null,null,null,null,"Overall assessment of evidence"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"biophysical evidence","High","Strong or established evidence with few gaps"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"valuation evidence","Medium","Some evidence, but incomplete or uncertain"]
[]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Potentially relevant to:"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Urban"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Farmland"]
[null,"What nature provides","Fish for capture. This is the provisioning service",null,null,null,null,"Mountains, M&H"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Freshwaters","●"]
[null,"Other inputs",null,null,null,null,null,"Woodland"]
[null,null,"Capture and processing",null,null,null,null,"Coastal","●"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Marine","●"]
[null,"Final welfare benefit","Seafood for human consumption",null,null,null,null,"Semi-nat grassland"]
[]
[null,"Who benefits?","Seafood processing sector"]
[]
[null,"What factors affect the level of benefit?","habitat extent, water quality, marine food webs, nutrient availability, market prices"]
[]
[null,"Physical metric","tonnes per year / landed"]
[null,"Valuation metrics","£ per tonne"]
[]
[]
[null,"Key sources of biophysical evidence","Source",null,"Notes"]
[null,null,"Marine Management Organisation, UK Sea Fisheries statistics",null,"A National Statistics Publication. Provides a broad picture of the UK fishing industry and its operations. This publication includes data on the structure, activity and landings of the UK fleet alongside additional information on overseas trade, exploitation of stocks and the world fishing industry."]
[null,null,"Seafish",null,"Economics of the UK Fishing Fleet and Processing Sector. Detailed data on the seafood processing industry can be found in Seafish (2016a). "]
[null,"Selected biophysical estimates","Source","Estimate","Notes"]
[null,null,"ONS (2019)","1,350,000 tonnes","Marine fish capture in UK waters, average 2014 to 2016. "]
[null,null,"Sea Fisheries Statistics (2018)","724,000 tonnes","Landings of seafish (including shellfish) by UK vessels into the UK and abroad."]
[null,null,"25 Year Environment Plan indicator framework (2019)","53% of fish stocks fished at or below maximum sustainable yield","Percentage of  marine fish (quota) stocks of UK interest fished at or below levels capable of producing maximum sustainable yield. This has increased from 12% in 1990. This is an interim 25 Year Environment Plan indicator, and forms the basis for a composite indicator that tracks the sustainability of seafood, fish and aquaculture products. "]
[]
[null,"Key sources for valuation","Source",null,"Notes"]
[null,null,"UK Sea Fisheries Statistics, Average Price of landings",null,"Table 3.17 provides time-series data (in current prices) of average price of UK fish landings by all species. There are a very wide range of prices."]
[null,null,"ONS Natural Capital Accounts (various)",null,"These have used different methodologies to estimate the contribution of natural capital to the economic value of seafish sector. See references below. "]
[null,"Selected values","Source","Value","Notes"]
[null,{"$f":"COUNTA(D36:D44)","v":9},"Sea Fisheries Statistics (2018)","£980 million (2017 prices)","Annual value of landings of seafish (including shellfish) by UK vessels into the UK and abroad. This excludes fish from aquaculture. "]
[null,null,"ONS (2018)","£292 million (2015 prices)","Annual average Resource rent value (2011 to 2015) of UK caught fish - excludes aquaculture."]
[null,null,"ONS (2017)","£370 million (2015 prices)","Annual average Resource rent value (2011 to 2015) of UK caught fish - including aquaculture."]
[null,null,"ONS (2019)","£324 million (2018 prices)","Net profit of marine fish capture in UK waters in 2016. Note that this uses an experimental methodology with limitations."]
[null,null,"ONS Annual Business Survey","£989 million","GVA of UK fishing and aquaculture in 2017 (see source for further breakdown)."]
[null,null,null,"£580 million","GVA of UK fish processing in 2017."]
[null,null,"Sea Fisheries Statistics (2018), Table 3.17","£1835 / tonne","5 year (2013 to 2017) unweighted average landed price of demersal species (unadjusted for inflation) See table in source for detailed species breakdown. "]
[null,null,null,"£637 / tonne","5 year (2013 to 2017) unweighted average landed price of pelagic species (unadjusted for inflation). See table in source for detailed species breakdown. "]
[null,null,null,"£2067 / tonne","5 year (2013 to 2017) unweighted average landed price of shellfish species (unadjusted for inflation). See table in source for detailed species breakdown. "]
[]
[null,"Limitations to valuation","The main challenge with valuing fish capture or landings is the year-on-year volatility caused by fluctuations in prices and ecological conditions. Therefore it makes sense to use multi-year averages in analysis. "]
[]
[null,"Other sources","ONS Freshwater Accounts also show a small level of provisioning service of caught fish from freshwater habitats (e.g. rainbow trout, salmon). Seafish (2016b) provides an in-depth study of the UK aquaculture sector. Section 22.3.1 of the UK National Ecosystem Assessment reviews some of the key trends in fish values and offers wider economic and scientific interpretation."]
[]
[null,"Guidance on use in appraisal","It is important to be clear which value along the value-added chain is appropriate for your context: the ecosystem service (fish for capture), landed fish, or further processing. "]
[null,"Guidance on use in natural capital accounting","Resource rent (fish for capture) values are appropriate for use in natural capital accounting, as this defines the contribution of the ecosystem to the economic output (GVA) of the seafood sector. However, the data for resource rent calculations is unlikely to distinguish between species. Aquaculture is currently not considered to be an ecosystem service within the UK natural capital accounts as it relies on active management. "]
[null,"Guidance on projecting values","In the absence of any significant and sustained trends in unit values, a five-year average, projected to be constant in real terms, is recommended."]
[]
[null,"Potential overlap with other values","n/a"]
[]
[null,"Related guidance","For accounting methods, see ONS / Defra, Principles of Natural Capital Accounting (2017)."]
[]
[null,"Practical applications","See Natural Capital Committee (2015) for application to restoration of North Sea cod stocks for the UK and restoration of shellfish stocks. "]
[]
[null,"Full references and weblinks","Defra (2019), Measuring environmental change: outcome indicator framework for the 25 Year Environment Plan",null,null,"https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/802094/25-yep-indicators-2019.pdf"]
[null,{"$f":"COUNTA(C60:E84)","v":9},"Marine Management Organisation, UK Sea Fisheries Annual Statistics",null,null,"https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/uk-sea-fisheries-annual-statistics"]
[null,null,"Natural Capital Committee (2015), The Economic Case for Investment in Natural Capital in England - Marine appendix",null,null,"https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/natural-capital-committee-research-investing-in-natural-capital"]
[null,null,"ONS (2017), UK Natural Capital: ecosystem accounts for freshwater, farmland and woodland",null,null,"https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/environmentalaccounts/bulletins/uknaturalcapital/landandhabitatecosystemaccounts"]
[null,null,"ONS (2018), UK Natural Capital: ecosystem service accounts 1997-2015",null,null,"https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/environmentalaccounts/bulletins/uknaturalcapital/ecosystemserviceaccounts1997to2015#food-water-energy-and-materials-provisioning-services"]
[null,null,"ONS (2019), UK Natural Capital Accounts 2019. Includes supplementary data tables",null,null,"https://www.ons.gov.uk/releases/uknaturalcapitalecosystemserviceaccounts1997to2017"]
[null,null,"ONS Annual Business Survey, Sections A.03 and C-10.2",null,null,"https://www.ons.gov.uk/businessindustryandtrade/business/businessservices/datasets/uknonfinancialbusinesseconomyannualbusinesssurveysectionsas"]
[null,null,"Seafish (2016a), Seafood Processing Industry Report",null,null,"https://www.seafish.org/media/publications/2016_Seafood_Processing_Industry_Report.pdf"]
[null,null,"Seafish (2016b) Aquaculture in England, Wales and Northern Ireland:\nAn Analysis of the Economic Contribution and Value of the Major Sub-Sectors and the Most Important Farmed Species",null,null,"https://www.seafish.org/media/publications/FINALISED_Aquaculture_in_EWNI_FINALISED__-_Sept_2016.pdf"]

{"sheet":"Renewable energy","index":10,"n_rows":47,"n_cols":10,"rows_kept":47,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[[46,2,46,4],[46,5,46,7],[42,2,42,4],[42,5,42,7],[43,2,43,4],[43,5,43,7],[44,2,44,4],[44,5,44,7],[18,2,18,5],[36,2,36,7],[38,2,38,7],[45,2,45,4],[45,5,45,7],[26,2,26,3],[26,4,26,7],[25,2,25,3],[25,4,25,7],[27,4,27,7],[27,2,27,3],[34,2,34,7],[35,2,35,7],[30,4,30,7],[40,2,40,7],[32,2,32,7],[1,1,7,1],[1,2,7,5],[9,2,9,5],[14,2,14,5],[16,2,16,5]]}
["Renewable energy",null,null,null,null,"Back to index"]
[null,"Why is it relevant?","Natural capital is critical for the siting and production of various forms of renewable energy: onshore and offshore wind power; hydro power and bio-energy. According to the Office for National Statistics, in 2015, 9 times as much energy was produced from renewable sources than in 1997. These renewable sources (other than biomass) are not strictly produced by the functioning of  ecosystems but rather by climate and geography",null,null,null,null,null,"Overall assessment of evidence"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"biophysical evidence","High","Strong or established evidence with few gaps"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"valuation evidence","Medium","Some evidence, but incomplete or uncertain"]
[]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Potentially relevant to:"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Urban"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Farmland","●"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Mountains, M&H","●"]
[null,"What nature provides","Wind power, solar power and hydro power. For woody biomass, see the Timber tab",null,null,null,null,"Freshwaters","●"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Woodland"]
[null,"Other inputs",null,null,null,null,null,"Coastal"]
[null,null,"Energy generation infrastructure",null,null,null,null,"Marine","●"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Semi-nat grassland"]
[null,"Final welfare benefit","Renewable energy"]
[]
[null,"Who benefits?","Energy sector is the user of the ecosystem service"]
[]
[null,"What factors affect the level of benefit?","Numbers and generating capacity of sites; climatic factors; price of electricity"]
[]
[null,"Physical metric","Gigawatt hours"]
[null,"Valuation metrics","Resource rent"]
[]
[]
[null,"Key sources of biophysical and valuation evidence","Source",null,"Notes"]
[null,null,"DUKES (2018) - renewable sources of energy",null,"Presents statistics on supply, demand, and consumption for renewable sources of energy."]
[null,null,"ONS (2019) UK Natural Capital Accounts",null,"Provides time-series aggregate physical estimates for wind, solar, bioenergy and hydro energy. "]
[null,null,"ONS (2020), Scottish Natural Capital Accounts",null,"Provides time-series accounts for the supply of wind, tidal, solar and hydro energy in Scotland for electricity generation. Values are based on residual resource rent approach."]
[]
[null,"Selected values","Source","Value","Notes"]
[null,{"$f":"COUNTA(D31:D32)","v":1},"ONS (2019)","£686 million (2018 prices)","Annual resource rent of renewable energy provisioning in 2017, up from £260 million in 2013. Includes wind, hydro, tidal, solar and bioenergy.  See supplementary data tables for a time series of monetary values."]
[]
[null,"Limitations to valuation","The main challenge with valuing renewable energy is the year-on-year volatility caused by fluctuations in prices and ecological conditions. Therefore it makes sense to use multi-year averages in analysis. "]
[]
[null,"Guidance on use in appraisal","Distinguish between contribution of the ecosystem and value-added of installations etc. It should also be noted that energy prices fluctuate so it may make sense to use a multi-year average in analysis. "]
[null,"Guidance on use in natural capital accounting","Resource rent values (as used by ONS) are appropriate for use in natural capital accounting, as this defines the contribution of the natural  environment to the economic output (GVA) of the renewable energy sector. "]
[null,"Guidance on projecting values","In the absence of any significant and sustained trends in unit values, a five-year average, projected to be constant in real terms, is recommended."]
[]
[null,"Potential overlap with other values","None."]
[]
[null,"Related guidance","For accounting methods, see ONS / Defra, Principles of Natural Capital Accounting (2017). For general appraisal guidance on energy use and changes in GHG emissions, see BEIS (2019)."]
[]
[null,"Full references and weblinks","BEIS (2019), Green Book supplementary guidance: valuation of energy use and greenhouse gas emissions for appraisal",null,null,"https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/valuation-of-energy-use-and-greenhouse-gas-emissions-for-appraisal"]
[null,{"$f":"COUNTA(C43:E64)","v":5},"DUKES (2018), Digest of UK Energy Statistics: renewable sources of energy",null,null,"https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/renewable-sources-of-energy-chapter-6-digest-of-united-kingdom-energy-statistics-dukes"]
[null,null,"ONS (2017), UK Natural Capital: ecosystem accounts for freshwater, farmland and woodland",null,null,"https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/environmentalaccounts/bulletins/uknaturalcapital/landandhabitatecosystemaccounts"]
[null,null,"ONS (2019a), UK Natural Capital Accounts 2019. Includes supplementary data tables",null,null,"https://www.ons.gov.uk/releases/uknaturalcapitalecosystemserviceaccounts1997to2017"]
[null,null,"ONS (2020), Scottish Natural Capital Accounts ",null,null,"https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/environmentalaccounts/articles/scottishnaturalcapitalaccounts/2020"]

{"sheet":"Air pollutant removal","index":11,"n_rows":78,"n_cols":10,"rows_kept":78,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[[21,2,21,5],[22,2,22,5],[74,2,74,4],[76,5,76,7],[75,2,75,4],[75,5,75,7],[76,2,76,4],[74,5,74,7],[33,4,33,7],[34,4,34,7],[35,4,35,7],[36,4,36,7],[30,4,30,7],[70,2,70,4],[70,5,70,7],[73,2,73,4],[73,5,73,7],[71,2,71,4],[71,5,71,7],[72,2,72,4],[72,5,72,7],[68,2,68,7],[69,2,69,3],[60,2,60,7],[61,2,61,7],[62,2,62,7],[64,2,64,7],[43,4,43,7],[48,3,48,7],[48,2,53,2],[53,4,53,7],[54,4,54,7],[1,1,7,1],[1,2,7,5],[10,2,10,5],[15,2,15,5],[17,2,17,5],[8,2,8,5],[19,2,19,5],[26,2,26,3],[44,2,44,3],[41,2,41,3],[41,4,41,7],[26,4,26,7],[44,4,44,7],[42,4,42,7],[28,2,28,3],[28,4,28,7],[30,2,30,3],[29,2,29,3],[29,4,29,7],[32,2,36,2],[32,4,32,7],[38,4,38,7],[27,2,27,3],[27,4,27,7],[77,2,77,4],[77,5,77,7],[56,2,56,7],[58,2,58,7],[42,2,42,3],[66,2,66,7],[50,4,50,7],[52,4,52,7],[49,4,49,7],[45,4,45,7],[37,4,37,7],[51,4,51,7],[45,2,45,3],[43,2,43,3]]}
["Air pollutant removal",null,null,null,null,"Back to index"]
[null,"Why is it relevant?","Air pollution presents a major risk to human health, resulting in premature deaths and\nreduced quality of life. By improving air quality, vegetation helps to lessen these impacts on health and wellbeing. The level of the service is positively related to (a) the amount of background pollution, notably particulate pollutants; (b) the amount of vegetation; (c) the density of population potentially benefiting from reduced exposure. Because pollutants are transported, beneficiaries may be downwind of the ecosystem. Woodland is the major service provider.",null,null,null,null,null,"Overall assessment of evidence"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"biophysical evidence","Medium","Some evidence, but incomplete or uncertain"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"valuation evidence","Medium","Some evidence, but incomplete or uncertain"]
[]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Potentially relevant to:"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Urban","●"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Farmland","●"]
[null,null,"Click here for guidance on air pollution in general",null,null,null,null,"Mountains, M&H"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Semi-nat grassland","●"]
[null,"What nature provides","Removal of harmful air pollutants from the atmosphere through (a) direct deposition onto leaves and bark and (b) internal absorption of pollutants through stomatal uptake ",null,null,null,null,"Woodland","●"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Coastal"]
[null,"Other inputs",null,null,null,null,null,"Marine"]
[null,null,"none",null,null,null,null,"Freshwaters"]
[]
[null,"Final welfare benefit","The benefit is reduced health costs from lower levels of pollution exposure than would otherwise be the case"]
[]
[null,"Who benefits?","Individuals (better health outcomes), Government (in delivering health outcomes)"]
[]
[null,"What factors affect the level of benefit?","Over time and in aggregate, the benefit will be a function of background pollution, extent of vegetation and population densities. Valuation of the benefit will also depend upon the valuation of avoided ill health. "]
[]
[null,"Physical metric","Tonnes of pollutant removed; reduced exposure; reduced life years lost"]
[null,"Valuation metrics","Apply £ per life year lost. Per hectare values can be derived from aggregate values"]
[]
[]
[null,"Key sources of biophysical evidence","Source",null,"Notes"]
[null,null,"L. Jones et al (2017) for ONS",null,"The purpose of the study is to produce a natural capital account for air pollution removal by vegetation across the UK for a range of pollutants. It estimates this service by running a dynamic transport model of air pollution across the UK with and without vegetation. It also estimates pollution removal for all built-up areas in the UK to inform the UK Urban Natural Capital Account. Note that a corrected version of the original study was published in February 2019."]
[null,null,"ONS (2019) UK Natural Capital Accounts",null,"Provides updated time series of air pollution removal based on Jones et al (2017)"]
[null,null,"ONS (2018)",null,"Explores the findings from Jones et al (2017) as to how air pollution removal varies across the UK; and provides an interactive map to enable users to see how much pollution was removed from individual local and regional areas. "]
[null,null,"i-tree Eco projects ",null,"K. Rogers et al (2015) presents the outcome of an assessment of Inner and Outer London's tree cover using the i-Tree Eco tool. It provides a quantitative baseline of the air pollution removal benefits provided by trees as well as carbon storage and sequestration benefits, amenity and storm water benefits. This is supported with detailed information on the structure and composition of London’s urban forest. Other i-Tree assessments have been done for Glasgow, Southampton, Edinburgh and Cardiff. "]
[null,null,"Air Quality Expert Group (2018)",null,"Addresses the research and policy aspects of the interactions between vegetation and air pollutants in urban areas. The focus is on the ways in which existing vegetation and potential plantings influence the concentrations of pollutants to which people in urban areas are exposed. Overall, vegetation and trees in particular are regarded as beneficial for air quality, but they are not a solution to the air quality problems at a city scale. The report also summarises the ONS - Jones et al (2017) accounting estimates. "]
[null,"Selected biophysical estimates","Source","Reduction in PM2.5","Notes"]
[null,null,"Jones et al (2017)",-0.10199999999999999,"Effect of all UK vegetation on average concentrations of PM2.5. For urban vegetation, the effect is small (0.44%) reflecting its relatively small extent. However, the benefits provided by urban vegetation are disproportionally larger."]
[null,null,null,"17,500 tonnes","PM2.5 removed by UK woodland in 2015."]
[null,null,null,"700 tonnes","PM2.5 removed by urban woodland in 2015."]
[null,null,null,"2300 tonnes","PM2.5 removed by enclosed farmland in 2015."]
[null,null,null,"1000 tonnes","PM2.5 removed by semi-natural grassland in 2015."]
[null,null,"ONS (2019)","1.299 million tonnes","All air pollutants removed by all habitats in 2017. Around 90% of this is O3. PM2.5 however is by far the most damaging pollutant."]
[null,null,"i-tree London (2015)","153 tonnes","PM2.5 removed by 8.4 million trees in Greater London. Estimates for other pollutants are also provided."]
[]
[null,"Key sources for valuation","Source",null,"Notes"]
[null,null,"L. Jones et al (2017) for ONS",null,"Estimates avoided health costs (mainly life years lost) from reduced concentrations of air pollutants attributable to UK vegetation. Note that this is a corrected version published February 2019."]
[null,null,"ONS (2018)",null,"Builds on Jones et al (2017) to explore how air pollution removal varies across the UK. Provides an interactive map to enable users to estimate the volume and value of pollution removed by vegetation from any selected region in 2015. Values are estimated as avoided health damage costs per resident, but because of the dynamic spatial nature of the model in some cases is possible that residents of one region may benefit from pollution absorbed in neighbouring regions."]
[null,null,"CEH and Eftec (2019)",null,"An alternative interactive mapping tool to ONS (2018) developed by the authors of Jones et al (2017). Through additional modelling, the tool includes estimates of PM2.5 removal per hectare of woodland in each local authority in the UK with estimated value of the health benefits. Note that values are given in terms of 100-year asset values, rather than annual values. The two must not be confused as they are an order of magnitude different. "]
[null,null,"i-tree Eco projects ",null,"This approach is simpler than the ONS method in that it applies social damage costs directly to tonnes of pollution removed, rather than valuing the health benefits of a change in exposure as set out in the logic chain above.  Jones et al (2017) provides a comparative assessment for London of its method with i-tree estimates; this demonstrates that the two methods provide broadly consistent physical estimates, although the i-tree method generates values 30% greater, partly reflecting the simpler valuation method and the fact that the survey-based i-tree method is likely to capture more tree cover. "]
[null,null,"Defra air quality impact pathway valuation guidance",null,"Provides the methodology and inputs used to derive the Defra social damage cost values. This includes inputs of the willingness to pay valuation estimates of valuing life years affected by air pollution. Jones et al (2017) makes use of previous updates of this guidance."]
[]
[null,"Selected values","Source","Value","Notes"]
[null,null,"Jones et al (2017) for ONS","Indicative average values for air pollution removal in 2015 for different habitats calculated from aggregate UK values. Similar values are reported in Temple and Eftec (2019) evidence review on landscape values for the Department for Transport (see Landscape Tab). Note that the values here are based on the corrected version of Jones et al (2017) published in February 2019."]
[null,{"$f":"COUNTA(D50:D58)","v":6},null,"£ 771 / hectare (2012 prices)","Indicative average annual value for air pollution removal by urban woodland - calculated by dividing UK value for urban woodland (Table 21) by the modelled area of urban woodland (97,600 hectares, from Table 16). "]
[null,null,null,"£245 / hectare (2012 prices)","Indicative average annual value for air pollution removal by rural woodland - calculated by netting off UK urban woodland value (£75 million) from UK woodland total (£759 million) and dividing by UK area of non-urban woodland (2.79 million hectares, from Tables 7 and 16)."]
[null,null,null,"£149 / hectare (2012 prices)","Indicative average annual value for air pollution removal by urban grassland - calculated by dividing value for urban grassland in Table 21 (£61.3 million) by area of urban grassland  (0.412 million hectares) in Table 16. "]
[null,null,null,"£14 / hectare (2012 prices)","Indicative average annual value for air pollution removal by enclosed farmland - calculated by dividing UK enclosed farmland value Table 13 (£172 million) by UK enclosed farmland area (12.55 million hectares) in Table 7."]
[null,null,null,"£26 / hectare (2012 prices)","Indicative average annual value for air pollution removal by coastal margins - calculated by dividing UK coastal margins value in Table 13 (£1.1 million) by UK coastal margins area (44,500 hectares) in Table 7."]
[null,null,"ONS (2019)","£1.3 billion (2018 prices)","Estimate of UK avoided health costs in 2017 from pollution removal by UK vegetation, based on Jones et al (2017) and using Defra's updated damage cost valuations in 2019 (see Air Pollution tab). No habitat breakdowns are given.  Asset values are also provided based on pollution projections but also population and income growth. "]
[]
[null,"Limitations to valuation","At very localised scales (for example street level) as the Air Quality Expert Group (2018) points out, it is very difficult to do robust modelling of this service. The local effects of vegetation on air quality depends upon species composition and can even be negative. ONS (2018) provide indicative values at local authority level based on a national dynamic meteorological model but is not able to model localised effects. "]
[]
[null,"Other sources","Various individual studies and site-specific research have been undertaken around the world and are reported in an Evidence Note by Forest Research (2010) and in Natural England's MEBIE 2 (2014) report."]
[]
[null,"Guidance on use in appraisal","Use will tend to relate to a change in extent of a broad habitat. Jones et al (2017) values are based on a counterfactual of neutral land surface; where appraisal is about land use change, the difference between per hectare values will be appropriate to avoid overstating. "]
[null,"Guidance on use in natural capital accounting","Appropriate for use in natural capital accounting. See ONS Guidance. "]
[null,"Guidance on projecting values","Align with projections in the ONS Accounts, which involve modelling for 2030 and income growth. This is consistent with Defra air quality damage cost guidance which recommends uplift of 2% annually in real terms future changes to air pollutants. "]
[]
[null,"Potential overlap with other values","Some potential for double counting if combined with hedonic amenity values."]
[]
[null,"Related guidance","Defra air quality guidance."]
[]
[null,"Practical applications","Jones et al (2017) aggregate broad habitat values have been used in the ONS UK Natural Capital Accounts and in various sub-national Natural Capital Accounts. See ENCA Case Studies."]
[]
[null,"Full references and weblinks","Air Quality Expert Group (2018), Report - Impacts of Vegetation on Urban Air Pollution",null,null,"https://uk-air.defra.gov.uk/library/reports?report_id=966"]
[null,{"$f":"COUNTA(C71:E93)","v":8},"CEH and Eftec (2019), Pollution Removal by vegetation - mapping tool",null,null,"https://shiny-apps.ceh.ac.uk/pollutionremoval/"]
[null,null,"Forest Research (2010), Improving Air Quality - Benefits of Green Infrastructure Evidence Note",null,null,"https://www.forestresearch.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/urban-regeneration-and-greenspace-partnership/urban-regeneration-and-greenspace-partnership-resources/evidence-notes/"]
[null,null,"i tree London (2015): Rogers, K. et al (2015), Valuing London's Urban Forest: results of the London i-Tree Eco Project",null,null,"https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/valuing_londons_urban_forest_i-tree_report_final.pdf"]
[null,null,"Jones, L. et al (2017), Developing Estimates for the Valuation of Air Pollution Removal in Ecosystem Accounts. Final report for Office of National Statistics, held in NERC Open Access Research Archive (corrected version, February 2019)",null,null,"http://nora.nerc.ac.uk/id/eprint/524081/"]
[null,null,"MEBIE2 (2014), Microeconomic Evidence for Benefits of Investment in the Environment. Natural England Report ",null,null,"http://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/publication/6692039286587392"]
[null,null,"ONS (2018), UK air pollution removal: how much pollution does vegetation remove in your area?",null,null,"https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/environmentalaccounts/articles/ukairpollutionremovalhowmuchpollutiondoesvegetationremoveinyourarea/2018-07-30"]
[null,null,"ONS (2019), UK Natural Capital Accounts 2019. Includes supplementary data tables",null,null,"https://www.ons.gov.uk/releases/uknaturalcapitalecosystemserviceaccounts1997to2017"]

{"sheet":"Carbon reduction","index":12,"n_rows":92,"n_cols":10,"rows_kept":92,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[[78,2,78,4],[78,5,78,7],[18,2,18,5],[41,4,41,7],[91,2,91,4],[91,5,91,7],[45,4,45,7],[44,4,44,7],[49,4,49,7],[89,5,89,7],[87,2,87,4],[88,2,88,4],[88,5,88,7],[75,2,75,4],[79,2,79,4],[79,5,79,7],[76,5,76,7],[80,2,80,4],[80,5,80,7],[43,2,48,2],[43,3,43,7],[48,4,48,7],[47,4,47,7],[46,4,46,7],[75,5,75,7],[64,2,64,7],[65,2,65,7],[66,2,66,7],[68,2,68,7],[74,2,74,4],[74,5,74,7],[76,2,76,4],[72,2,72,7],[57,4,57,7],[1,1,7,1],[1,2,7,5],[9,2,9,5],[14,2,14,5],[16,2,16,5],[26,2,26,3],[25,2,25,3],[25,4,25,7],[31,4,31,7],[26,4,26,7],[30,4,30,7],[29,4,29,7],[29,2,29,3],[28,4,28,7],[31,2,31,3],[27,2,27,3],[27,4,27,7],[28,2,28,3],[30,2,30,3],[33,2,33,3],[33,4,33,7],[60,2,60,7],[62,2,62,7],[36,4,36,7],[56,2,56,7],[35,2,39,2],[35,3,35,7],[53,4,53,7],[52,2,52,3],[52,4,52,7],[37,4,37,7],[38,4,38,7],[39,4,39,7],[53,2,53,3],[42,4,42,7],[89,2,89,4],[86,2,86,4],[86,5,86,7],[83,2,83,4],[83,5,83,7],[84,2,84,4],[84,5,84,7],[85,2,85,4],[85,5,85,7],[32,2,32,3],[32,4,32,7],[77,2,77,4],[77,5,77,7],[90,5,90,7],[54,2,54,3],[54,4,54,7],[90,2,90,4],[58,4,58,7],[70,2,70,7],[73,2,73,3],[81,2,81,4],[81,5,81,7],[82,2,82,4],[82,5,82,7],[87,5,87,7]]}
["Carbon reduction",null,null,null,null,"Back to index"]
[null,"Why is it relevant?","A natural function of ecosystems is to sequester carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and store it. This varies between broad habitats. Any change in land-use, restoration or enhancement of ecosystems has a measurable effect on the quantity of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Tree planting will lead to increased sequestration, reducing GHGs emissions in the atmosphere.  Degraded habitats such as upland peat emit carbon dioxide, and their restoration will reduce the level of emissions",null,null,null,null,null,"Overall assessment of evidence"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"biophysical evidence","High - Med","Strong or established evidence with few gaps"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"valuation evidence","High","Strong or established evidence with few gaps"]
[]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Potentially relevant to:"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Urban","●"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Farmland","●"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Mountains, M&H","●"]
[null,"What nature provides","Sequestration and storage of carbon dioxide by growing vegetation, soils and sediments",null,null,null,null,"Freshwaters"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Woodland","●"]
[null,"Other inputs",null,null,null,null,null,"Coastal","●"]
[null,null,"n/a",null,null,null,null,"Marine","●"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Semi-nat grassland","●"]
[null,"Final welfare benefit","In the context of valuation, the benefit is the contribution to meeting national GHG targets to avert damaging climate change. The final benefits of mitigating climate change (involving extreme weather events) are far broader, benefits to health, productivity, infrastructure, at home and abroad"]
[]
[null,"Who benefits?","Government (as a public good on behalf of households); businesses and individuals who demand carbon offsets"]
[]
[null,"What factors affect the level of benefit?","Growth and condition of vegetation, species and age composition"]
[]
[null,"Physical metric","Tonnes Carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2 eq) sequestered per hectare"]
[null,"Valuation metric","£ per tonne CO2 eq"]
[]
[]
[null,"Key sources of biophysical evidence","Source",null,"Notes"]
[null,null,"ONS Natural Capital Accounts",null,"Provides estimates of carbon sequestration flows within \"habitat accounts\" and individual \"scoping studies\". The study by AECOM (2015) to develop ecosystem accounts for protected areas involved a wide-ranging literature review including carbon sequestration factors by broad habitat which are reproduced below. \n\nThe latest UK Natural Capital Accounts (ONS 2019) publication includes aggregate annual estimates of net sequestration by forest land, grassland, wetlands and cropland based on the UK National Atmospheric Emissions Inventory which reports current and future projections of carbon removal from the Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry (LULUCF) sector. These are also given a monetary valuation. "]
[null,null,"Natural England (2012)",null,"The project collates information and identifies evidence gaps on carbon stocks in vegetation and soils for important terrestrial, coastal and marine habitats in England. It reviews the evidence of the impacts of management decisions and condition of carbon stores and sources. It provides very detailed sets of carbon storage, sequestration and emission factors, based on the literature, for a wide range of categories of habitats. "]
[null,null,"Woodland Carbon Code look-up tables",null,"For site-specific calculation of woodland sequestration rates and emissions factors. These tables are based on Forest Research carbon models (see Forest Research link at bottom of page) which are used for UK forestry GHG inventory UN reporting, and are the most authoritative for forest carbon accounting. "]
[null,null,"Natural Environment Valuation Online",null,"Exeter University's Natural Environment Valuation Online web tool enables users to explore, quantify and make predictions about the benefits that are derived from existing and altered land use across England and Wales. The tool includes spatially disaggregated information on forest carbon sequestration and agricultural emissions and how these might change under different scenarios. It does not include carbon sequestration from saltmarsh. "]
[null,null,"i-tree Eco projects ",null,"The London Urban Forest report (K. Rogers et al (2015)) presents the outcome of an assessment of Inner and Outer London's tree cover using the i-Tree Eco tool. It provides a quantitative baseline of the carbon storage and sequestration benefits provided by different tree species as well as air filtration,  amenity and stormwater benefits. This is supported with detailed information on the structure and composition of London’s urban forest. Other i-Tree assessments have been done for Glasgow, Southampton, Edinburgh and Cardiff. "]
[null,null,"Ostle et al (2009) ",null,"A scientific literature review that explores the role of land use and land use change as a determinant of the soil's ability to sequester and store carbon in the UK. Provides estimates of potential change in soil carbon storage arising from changes in land use e.g. between arable, grassland, forestry, moorland, wetland. "]
[null,null,"Peatland Code degraded peatland emission factors",null,"These metrics were developed by Carbon Crichton Centre (2015) for Defra. It enables one to quantify the per hectare GHG benefits of peatland restoration, by subtracting the difference between the pre-restoration emissions factor and the anticipated post-restoration factor (see table below). These have been developed for project level application, but this approach can be generalised in use for wider appraisal of peatland restoration, where a judgement can be made as to the degree of restoration expected from an intervention. "]
[null,null,"CEH (2017), Emissions Inventory for UK Peatlands",null,"Research to develop and implement a new method for reporting GHG emissions from peatlands in the UK’s emissions inventory. Builds on the UK Peatland Code Emissions Factors to provide more comprehensive breakdown of peatland land use types and conditions (including lowland land use types) which are consistent with the Peatland Code factors listed below. It collates consistent spatial information on peat extent and condition from each of the four UK administrations, as well as the most peat-rich Crown Dependencies and Overseas Territories (Isle of Man and Falkland Islands respectively). These data were used to assess the overall extent and condition of UK peatlands; to estimate change in condition over the period from 1990 to 2013; to implement the first UK-wide inventory of peatland GHG emissions over this period; and to project future peat-derived GHG emissions through to 2050 based on a set of five illustrative scenarios. In total, the UK’s peatlands are estimated to be emitting approximately 23.1 million tonnes of CO2eq per year of GHG emissions."]
[null,null,"RSPB (2017)",null,"To inform their development of a Natural Capital Account for their Nature Reserves, the RSPB conducted a review of scientific literature regarding carbon stocks and greenhouse gas fluxes from a range of semi-natural habitats. The data is included in the annexes of the final report."]
[null,"Selected biophysical estimates","Source","Emissions of carbon dioxide equivalent / year","Notes"]
[null,null,"Peatland Code Field Protocol (2017)","Blanket bog emissions factors. By subtracting the difference between the pre-restoration emissions factor and the anticipated post-restoration factor, an estimate can be derived of the benefit to climate regulation of the project or intervention (e.g. revegetating and re-wetting peatland from eroded condition to a far less degraded condition would give an improvement of 21.3 tCO2e /ha /year.)  Note that the improvement will not be immediate and this would need to be estimated.  For more specific land use type emission factors, including lowland emission factors, see  CEH (2017), p. 39. "]
[null,null,null,"23.8 tonnes / hectare","Emissions from \"actively eroding\" or continuous bare peat"]
[null,null,null,"4.5 tonnes / hectare","Emissions from \"drained\" peat - within 30m of an active artificial drain or gully drain"]
[null,null,null,"2.5 tonnes / hectare","Emissions from \"degraded peat\" with evidence of bare patches and limited sphagnum"]
[null,null,null,"1.1 tonnes / hectare","Emissions under \"near natural\" condition - with sphagnum dominant and only very limited bare patches. Note that pristine peat, which can sequester rather than emit carbon, is rare in Britain and such a condition is not considered achievable by restoration. "]
[null,null,"Source","Carbon dioxide equivalent sequestered / year","Notes"]
[null,null,"ONS (2020) Natural Capital Accounts","5.69 tonnes / hectare","Crude average for woodland - National average sequestration rate calculated from national woodland area (3.19 million hectares) and average aggregate sequestration (18.16 million tonnes CO2) in the accounts. In practice, sequestration rates in woodlands will vary greatly according to species, site conditions, regional climate, management regimes, and their life cycle. Sequestration rates are much higher during vigorous growth periods and tail off as trees get older. For more precise, site-based sequestration factors, see Woodland Carbon Code Look-Up tables. For carbon stock estimates, see appraisal guidance notes below. "]
[null,null,"ONS (2019, 2020)","18.16 million tonnes","2013-17 average of carbon sequestered by UK woodland"]
[null,null,"AECOM (2015)","These metrics should be regarded as indicative, based on a literature review by AECOM to develop natural capital accounts for designated areas. Apart from saltmarsh, all values are sourced from Christie et al (2011)"]
[null,null,null,"0.4 tonnes / hectare","semi-natural grassland"]
[null,null,null,"0.1 tonnes / hectare","enclosed farmland (cropland)"]
[null,null,null,"0.7 tonnes / hectare","upland and lowland bog, fen and marsh"]
[null,null,null,"0.7 tonnes / hectare","heather grassland and montane habitats"]
[null,null,null,"5.2 tonnes / hectare","Saltmarsh. See also ONS (2016) scoping study on coastal margins for other sub-habitats."]
[null,null,"Natural England (2012)","0.2 - 2 tonnes / hectare","Seagrass"]
[]
[null,"Key sources for valuation","Source",null,"Notes"]
[null,null,"BEIS non-trade price of carbon",null,"BEIS publish a full table of non-traded prices with a range of low, central and high estimates and projected to 2110. "]
[null,null,"Natural Environment Valuation Online (NEVO)",null,"This new spatially disaggregated tool by the University of Exeter includes carbon sequestration of different habitats as one of the services mapped, modelled and valued. Baseline values can be explored along with modelling the effect of land use changes. The carbon sequestration service is valued using the BEIS non-traded carbon prices."]
[null,null,"Luisetti et al (2019)",null,"Assesses and values losses of carbon storage in saltmarsh, seagrass and shelf sea sediments under different scenarios."]
[null,"Selected values","Source","Value","Notes"]
[null,null,"The carbon sequestration / emission factors above can be multiplied by the relevant year's non-traded carbon price to give indicative per hectare values of carbon sequestration. BEIS publish a full table of traded and non-traded prices with sensitivity ranges to 2100. For example, the central non-traded price of CO2eq for 2019 in 2018 prices is £68 / tonne CO2eq."]
[null,{"$f":"COUNTA(D58:D62)+1","v":3},"ONS (2019)","£1168 million (2018 prices)","2013-17 average annual value of carbon sequestration by UK woodland. "]
[null,null,"Forestry Commission  (2017)","£3-15 / tonne CO2e","Range of woodland carbon prices that landowners can expect to receive in the UK from the sale of woodland carbon credits"]
[]
[null,"Limitations to valuation","The voluntary carbon market, including for woodland carbon, is still a fledgling market and there is very limited data on prices at which carbon is voluntarily traded. In any case, such prices would not be considered appropriate for inclusion in social cost benefit analysis. "]
[]
[null,"Other sources","i-tree gives storage and sequestration for different cities. B£ST uses US tree benefits estimate to give detailed per tree c-seq values. Forestry Commission's Woodland Carbon Code (listed in biophysical sources above) provides a calculator and look-up tables through which to carry out a prediction of carbon sequestration for a woodland project. The non-trade price, or social cost, of carbon is used in many ecosystem service and habitat valuations in the literature. Some of these can be found in the individual tabs in the ENCA Assets Databook. See also the EVRI database (in ENCA Featured Tools) "]
[]
[null,"Guidance on projecting values","Projection carbon sequestration rates will depend upon land use change and the condition of the habitat (for example, the age and species of trees). See for example the Land Use and Land Use-Change and Forestry (LULUCF) Sector in the UK Greenhouse Gas Inventory, which provides projections of carbon sink and emission flows. BEIS' non-traded carbon prices are projected up to 2100. "]
[null,"Guidance on use  in appraisal","BEIS values to be used rather than fledgling market values. A key issue is estimating the time period it would take to achieve the sequestering of carbon or reduction in carbon emissions e.g. restoring the condition of peatland. This would need to be factored into any appraisal and subject to discounting. \n\nWhere woodland is removed as part of a development project, there will be a loss not only of future sequestration but also previously sequestered and stored carbon. According to Forest Research, tree carbon in above and below ground biomass (i.e. excluding soil carbon and litter) totalled 869 million tonnes CO2 equivalent in 2015, giving a UK average woodland carbon store of 275 tonnes per hectare. This is not to be confused with sequestration rates, which are an annual flow. "]
[null,"Guidance on use  in natural capital accounting","In strict ecosystem accounting terms, the service to be accounted for is the flow of carbon sequestration that enters long-term storage rather than the accrued stock of carbon, which is a stock not a flow. Carbon storage is relevant for the condition account. Similarly, accounts would not include negative flows from say degraded peatland; however, the condition of such peatland would be accounted for in the condition account. Whilst the BEIS non-traded prices are typically used to represent social benefit within appraisal contexts, they can also represent an upper bound for exchange values (on the basis that this is the price Government is, at the margin, prepared to pay to reduce carbon emissions). The treatment of carbon remains a subject of discussion as international standards on ecosystem accounts are developed. "]
[]
[null,"Potential overlap with other values","Minimal"]
[]
[null,"Related guidance","See the Woodland Carbon Code pages for more specific calculation of sequestration rates by species, spacing and age.  For quantifying the benefits of peatland restoration in a verifiable way, see the UK Peatland Code. "]
[]
[null,"Case studies with links ","The degraded peatland GHG emission factors are used in the UK Peatland Code. The Peatland Code was developed with Defra support to enable the approximate quantification of carbon sequestration / loss for different categories of peatland condition, from pristine to highly degraded. There are various case studies of projects buying woodland carbon through the Forestry Commission's Woodland Carbon Code. "]
[]
[null,"Full references and weblinks","AECOM (2015), Developing ecosystem accounts for protected areas in England and Scotland - Technical Appendix (section 11). Report to Defra and the Scottish Government.",null,null,"http://randd.defra.gov.uk/Default.aspx?Menu=Menu&Module=More&Location=None&ProjectID=19271&FromSearch=Y&Publisher=1&SearchText=wc1107&SortString=ProjectCode&SortOrder=Asc&Paging=10#Description"]
[null,{"$f":"COUNTA(C75:E102)","v":18},"BEIS (2019), Green Book supplementary guidance: valuation of energy use and greenhouse gas emissions for appraisal (See Data Tables)",null,null,"https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/valuation-of-energy-use-and-greenhouse-gas-emissions-for-appraisal"]
[null,null,"Carbon Crichton Centre (2015), Developing Peatland Carbon Metrics and Financial Modelling to Inform the Pilot Phase UK Peatland Code. Report to Defra",null,null,"http://sciencesearch.defra.gov.uk/Default.aspx?Menu=Menu&Module=More&Location=None&Completed=0&ProjectID=19063"]
[null,null,"Centre for Ecology and Hydrology (2017), Implementation of an Emissions Inventory for UK Peatlands. Report to BEIS.",null,null,"https://uk-air.defra.gov.uk/assets/documents/reports/cat07/1904111135_UK_peatland_GHG_emissions.pdf"]
[null,null,"Christie, M et al (2011) Economic valuation of the Benefits of Ecosystem Services delivered by the UK Biodiversity Action Plan. Report for Defra. ",null,null,"http://sciencesearch.defra.gov.uk/Default.aspx?Menu=Menu&Module=More&Location=None&ProjectID=17272&FromSearch=Y&Publisher=1&SearchText=ne0112&SortString=ProjectCode&SortOrder=Asc&Paging=10#Description"]
[null,null,"Exeter University (2019), Natural Environment Valuation Online",null,null,"https://www.leep.exeter.ac.uk/nevo"]
[null,null,"Forest Research, Carbon Accounting ",null,null,"https://www.forestresearch.gov.uk/research/forestry-and-climate-change-mitigation/carbon-accounting/"]
[null,null,"Forest Research, Forest Carbon Stock",null,null,"https://www.forestresearch.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/statistics/forestry-statistics/forestry-statistics-2018/uk-forests-and-climate-change/forest-carbon-stock/"]
[null,null,"Luisetti, T. et al (2019), Quantifying and valuing carbon flows and stores in coastal and shelf ecosystems in the UK. Ecosystem Services (Vol. 35)",null,null,"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212041618300536"]
[null,null,"Natural England (2012), Alonso, I., K. Weston, et al. Carbon storage by habitat: Review of the evidence of the impact of management decisions and condition of carbon stores and sources.",null,null,"http://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/publication/1412347"]
[null,null,"ONS (2020), UK Woodland Natural Capital Accounts. ",null,null,"https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/environmentalaccounts/bulletins/woodlandnaturalcapitalaccountsuk/2020"]
[null,null,"ONS (2019), UK Natural Capital Accounts 2019. Includes supplementary data tables",null,null,"https://www.ons.gov.uk/releases/uknaturalcapitalecosystemserviceaccounts1997to2017"]
[null,null,"Ostle et al (2009), N.J. Ostle, P.E. Levy, C.D. Evans, P. Smith. 2009. UK land use and soil carbon sequestration. Land Use Policy. 26, Supplement 1, S274-S283.",null,null,"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264837709000945"]
[null,null,"Rogers, K. et al (2015), Valuing London's Urban Forest: results of the London i-Tree Eco Project",null,null,"https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/valuing_londons_urban_forest_i-tree_report_final.pdf"]
[null,null,"RSPB (2017), Accounting for Nature: a Natural Capital Account for RSPB's estate in England - Annex 7",null,null,"https://www.rspb.org.uk/globalassets/downloads/documents/positions/economics/annexes-to-accounting-for-nature---a-natural-capital-account-for-the-rspbs-estate-in-england.pdf"]
[null,null,"UK Peatland Code",null,null,"http://www.iucn-uk-peatlandprogramme.org/peatland-code/resources"]
[null,null,"Woodland Carbon Code",null,null,"https://www.woodlandcarboncode.org.uk/buy-carbon/a-buyers-guide-to-woodland-carbon-units"]
[null,null,"Woodland Carbon Code Calculator and Look-Up Tables",null,null,"https://woodlandcarboncode.org.uk/standard-and-guidance/3-carbon-sequestration/3-3-project-carbon-sequestration"]

{"sheet":"Flood regulation","index":13,"n_rows":77,"n_cols":10,"rows_kept":77,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[[49,4,49,7],[37,2,37,3],[28,2,28,3],[36,2,36,3],[36,4,36,7],[37,4,37,7],[28,4,28,7],[44,4,44,7],[38,4,38,7],[46,4,46,7],[47,4,47,7],[48,4,48,7],[41,4,41,7],[42,4,42,7],[38,2,38,3],[40,2,43,2],[1,1,7,1],[1,2,7,5],[10,2,10,5],[15,2,15,5],[17,2,17,5],[8,2,8,5],[25,2,25,3],[26,2,26,3],[35,2,35,3],[35,4,35,7],[25,4,25,7],[64,2,64,7],[54,2,54,7],[56,2,56,7],[19,2,19,5],[27,2,27,3],[21,2,21,5],[26,4,26,7],[30,2,32,2],[30,4,30,7],[31,4,31,7],[32,4,32,7],[27,4,27,7],[40,4,40,7],[45,2,49,2],[45,3,45,7],[43,4,43,7],[73,2,73,4],[68,2,68,4],[68,5,68,7],[69,2,69,4],[69,5,69,7],[72,2,72,4],[72,5,72,7],[73,5,73,7],[70,5,70,7],[70,2,70,4],[71,2,71,4],[71,5,71,7],[22,2,22,5],[76,2,76,4],[76,5,76,7],[67,2,67,4],[67,5,67,7],[75,2,75,4],[75,5,75,7],[52,2,52,7],[65,2,65,3],[57,2,57,7],[58,2,58,7],[60,2,60,7],[62,2,62,7],[50,4,50,7],[74,2,74,4],[74,5,74,7]]}
["Flood Regulation",null,null,null,null,"Back to index"]
[null,"Why is it relevant?","Some habitats can offer better flood risk management options than other.  For example, relative to bare soil or managed grassland, woodland reduces fluvial flooding risk to downstream populations by reducing rainfall flows entering rivers. It does this through canopy interception, higher infiltration and water storage in soils, impeding water flows and reducing siltation. This ecosystem service also applies in urban areas, where vegetation can reduce surface water flooding from heavy rainfall, with benefits to sewerage capacity. Coastal flood risk, which will be increasing with future climate change, is reduced by coastal margin habitats such as saltmarsh. The valuation of potential flood damage itself (for which engineering solutions are typically deployed) can be found in the Floods Tab of this Databook.",null,null,null,null,null,"Overall assessment of evidence"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"biophysical evidence","Medium","Some evidence, but incomplete or uncertain"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"valuation evidence","Low","Speculative, major gaps in evidence"]
[]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Potentially relevant to:"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Urban","●"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Farmland","●"]
[null,null,"Click here for guidance on flood damages"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Mountains, M&H","●"]
[null,"What nature provides","Regulating water flow by vegetation retaining water and releasing it slowly, or absorbing wave energy",null,null,null,null,"Freshwaters","●"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Woodland","●"]
[null,"Other inputs",null,null,null,null,null,"Coastal","●"]
[null,null,"n/a",null,null,null,null,"Marine"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Semi-nat grassland","●"]
[null,"Final welfare benefit","Reduced flood damage to downstream or coastal settlments as a result of reduced magnitude / frequency of flood / storm events; and / or lower sewer capacity or water storage costs"]
[]
[null,"Who benefits?","Downstream or coastal households and businesses; water companies; insurance companies"]
[]
[null,"Factors affecting the benefit","Area of woodland in flood risk catchments; species type; propensity to flood; population densities or costs of flood water storage."]
[]
[null,"Physical metric","Cubic metres of water stored not entering the river (or sewer) system; A more robust metric of the benefit would be numbers of properties at higher level of protection. "]
[null,"Valuation metrics","Reduced property damages (£ / property); savings in water storage costs (£ / m3); £ / hectare"]
[]
[null,"Key sources of biophysical evidence","Source",null,"Notes"]
[null,null,"Forest Research, Valuing Flood regulation services (2018)",null,"Novel methodology developed to provide indicative national estimates of water regulation services of woodland to inform natural capital accounts. Based on modelling to estimate the potential volume of flood water avoided by woodland ecosystems in \"flood risk catchments\", compared to grass cover. Provides spatial breakdown by country and by public / private forest."]
[null,null,"Southwell Case Study (2017)",null,"Ground-breaking project that provides a robust assessment of the impact of woodland creation in a Nottinghamshire catchment on water flows and flood damages and compares these and wider benefits with the costs. "]
[null,null,"Working with Natural Processes (2017)",null,"A major synthesis of the evidence base for the Environment Agency on natural flood management for a range of habitats and contexts (see its Evidence Directory). Includes numerous case studies. "]
[null,null,"i-tree Eco projects ",null,"For example, the London Urban Forest report (K. Rogers et al (2015)) presents the outcome of an assessment of Inner and Outer London's tree cover using the i-Tree Eco tool. It provides, inter alia, a quantitative baseline of the volume savings in surface water run-off by the city's tree cover. Other i-Tree assessments have been done for Glasgow, Southampton, Edinburgh and Cardiff. "]
[null,"Selected biophysical estimates","Source","Description of estimate","Notes"]
[null,null,"Forest Research (2018)","10.5 m3 / hectare","Annual average flood water storage (loss) due to woodland canopy interception in GB. Country breakdowns are available. "]
[null,null,null,"165 m3 / hectare","Annual average flood water storage (loss) due to woodland soil water storage capacity in GB. Country breakdowns are available. "]
[null,null,null,"520 m3 / hectare","Annual average flood water storage (loss) due to hydraulic roughness of woodland in floodplain areas. Country breakdowns are available. "]
[]
[null,"Key sources for valuation","Source",null,"Notes"]
[null,null,"Forest Research, Valuing Flood regulation services (2018)",null,"Adopts a replacement-cost (rather than damage cost) approach to valuing the flood regulation service of woodland by applying annualised average capital and operating costs of flood reservoir storage that would be required in the absence of the ecosystem service. Provides spatial breakdown by country and by public / private forest. The estimates are experimental and indicative. "]
[null,null,"Working with Natural Processes Evidence Directory (2017)",null,"Includes various benefit-cost ratios of flood reduction schemes involving natural processes (such as leaky dams and river restoration schemes). "]
[null,null,"Natural England MEBIE (2014) ",null,"The section on \"Freshwater flood risk management\" summarises findings from a wide range of studies at home and abroad, including within urban areas. See also the section on \"Coastal flood risk management\" for various examples. "]
[null,null,"i-tree Eco projects ",null,"The value of reduced stormwater run-off from urban trees. The values are based on US sewerage costs and it is unclear how relevant these are for UK contexts.  "]
[null,"Selected values","Source","Annual value","Notes"]
[null,{"$f":"COUNTA(D41:D51)","v":11},"Forest Research (2018)","£218 million (2018 prices)","Aggregate GB lower-bound value of woodland providing benefits of reduced flood risk, based on avoided replacement costs of flood water storage. The estimates are experimental. See study for various breakdowns of this total. "]
[null,null,null,"£89 / hectare (2018 prices)","Average value for GB woodland providing flood water storage service. See study for country breakdown and public / private forest breakdown. For example, England's woodland has a higher average per hectare value of £139.6m / 1.21 m ha = £115/ha. The estimates are experimental. "]
[null,null,null,"£221 / hectare (2018 prices)","Average value of avoided flood water storage costs by floodplain woodland because of its hydraulic roughness. This is based on 155,351 hectares of floodplain woodland across GB within Flood Zone 2 areas as defined by the Environment Agency. The estimates are experimental. "]
[null,null,null,"£0.42 / m3 (2018 prices)","Central estimate of the average annual costs of reservoir floodwater storage. The range is from £0.10 to £1.19 /m3 per year. These \"replacement costs\" can be considered a lower bound of the benefit if it can be assumed that such expenditure would be deemed value for money by the flooding authorities within flood risk catchments in terms of avoided flood damage costs. This can be compared to the catchment-scale results in the Pickering catchment which computed a central estimate of £1.20/m3 for the annual value of additional flood storage in terms of avoided damage to property (see p.15)"]
[null,null,"Southwell case study (2017)","£250 / hectare","Approximate average annual benefit in terms of reduced flood damages (not avoided replacement cost) from 150 hectares of woodland planting in the Southwell catchment in Nottinghamshire (see section 5.4). Estimated per hectare values decreased as further areas were planted to cover 310 hectares total as this involved extending tree planting to sites where trees were less effective at flood alleviation. This value - which is substantially greater than the national cost-based estimates in Forest Research (2018) - is specific to the Southwell catchment so would need a close reading of the methodology and serious justification before using in other contexts. Price year is unclear but can be assumed as 2016 prices. "]
[null,null,"Morris and Camino (2011)","These UK NEA (Ch. 22) estimates are based on a value transfer function informed by evidence of wetlands across Europe and applied to UK sites. Inland wetlands refer mainly to peat bogs (also marshland); coastal wetlands refer to saltmarsh and intertidal mudflats. All are annual values in 2010 prices. "]
[null,null,null,"£ 608 / hectare","Average value of flood control and storm buffering by inland wetlands."]
[null,null,null,"£ 407 / hectare","Value of an additional hectare of flood control and storm buffering by inland wetlands"]
[null,null,null,"£ 3730 / hectare","Average value of flood control and storm buffering by coastal wetlands"]
[null,null,null,"£ 2498 / hectare","Value of an additional hectare of flood control and storm buffering by coastal wetlands"]
[null,null,"JNCC and CEFAS (2019)","£2116 / metre of seawall (2017 prices)","Annual replacement cost of seawall protection (taken from Environment Agency's \"unit cost database\" of fluvial defence options). This would represent a lower bound value of coastal flood protection by saltmarsh, if it can be confidently assumed that without the saltmarsh, man-made defences would indeed be installed. This appears to be a strong assumption and unlikely to hold in coastal areas which have little economic activity or population. In the initial UK marine and coastal account by JNCC and Cefas, the linear extent of UK saltmarshes given protection is estimated at 2642 km (based on a minimum protection width of 200m assumed for all 52,832 hectares). Applying the unit replacement cost to saltmarsh coastal protection gives an aggregate annual benefit of £5.59 billion as a first approximation. A similar, cruder calculation is made in the ONS (2016) Scoping Study for Coastal margins. "]
[]
[null,"Limitations to valuation","Forest Research (2018) sets out a number of limits to its methodology, virtually all of which suggest that its estimation is partial. Hydrological modelling is essential for any estimation of the service provided. In general, flood reduction benefits from this regulating service will vary spatially; in the case of urban stormwater reduced run-off, it is highly localised and dependent upon catchment characteristics. Efforts to improve knowledge of drainage and sewerage challenges are ongoing. "]
[]
[null,"Other sources","A study by Ricardo for ONS (2016) reviews some of the evidence and possible approaches to a national methodology. The recommendations from this work led to the ground-breaking Forest Research (2018) study. For more detail on the benefits of vegetation on reducing surface water run-off, see CIRIA's B£ST Tool. "]
[]
[null,"Guidance on use  in appraisal","Selected values are more relevant for high level scoping & strategies than detailed / scheme level appraisals. Appropriate value transfer of site specific studies may be possible. Replacement costs represent a lower bound of the welfare effects of woodland's flood regulating service, where the reduced / increased damages to property from creation / loss of woodland would exceed the costs.  Ideally, damage costs increased / avoided to property (see Flood Risk Tab) would represent the full welfare effect of a change in this service, but this approach is more complex and requires data on catchment hydrology and numbers of properties affected (as in the Southwell case study). Replacement costs provide a simpler method. Newly created woodland is considered not to provide a water regulation service within the first 10 years. The national estimates only apply to affected woodland within a flood risk catchment (97% of English Woodland in the FR Study).  They do not apply to urban woodland. "]
[null,"Guidance on use  in natural capital accounting","Water regulation service providing fluvial and surface flood reduction benefits are appropriate for accounting, on condition that produced capital inputs are netted off from any benefit. Replacement cost approach is consistent with national accounts exchange value concept i.e. it is assumed that the replacement costs would be incurred by public or private sector if the woodland did not exist. Values which include physical and human costs may be more difficult to justify as an exchange value, although this is the subject of ongoing  discussion in the context of UN SEEA revision. "]
[null,"Guidance on projecting values","Climate change and increasing rainfall at certain times is likely to increase the value of the service over time, but this is difficult to model. Avoided storage costs will be affected by a number of factors but unless there is strong trend evidence, a flatlining is recommended. The Southwell research covers a 100-year period and can usefully be consulted. See also general guidance on flood risk appraisal regarding future profiling of reduced damages. "]
[]
[null,"Potential overlap with other values","None. Flood risk benefits (such as at Southwell) are typically associated with a range of other additional ecosystem service benefits. "]
[]
[null,"Related guidance","Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk Appraisal Guidance"]
[]
[null,"Practical applications","The Southwell study provides an in-depth cost-benefit analysis of the flood and other benefits of woodland planting in a vulnerable catchment. See also the Pickering catchment case study in Working with Natural Processes. In their national natural capital account, RSPB (2017) give an example of managed realignment at its Medmerry site, which saves recurring coastal protection expenditure of £300,000 per annum, while also providing compensatory habitat for wildlife. This project has estimated benefits of over £90m, compared with project costs of £28m. Natural flood management approaches which can deliver multiple benefits are being demonstrated in a number of flood and catchment management schemes, including examples in North Yorkshire, Somerset and Derbyshire and on the Humber and Severn estuaries, reported in Working with Natural Processes (2017). "]
[]
[]
[null,"Full references and weblinks","CIRIA (2015, 2019), B£ST - Benefits Estimation Tool - Valuing the benefits of blue-green infrastructure",null,null,"https://www.susdrain.org/resources/best.html"]
[null,{"$f":"COUNTA(C68:E87)","v":10},"Environment Agency (2017), Working with natural processes ",null,null,"https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/681411/Working_with_natural_processes_evidence_directory.pdf"]
[null,null,"Forest Research (2018), Valuing flood regulation services of existing forest cover to inform natural capital accounts. ",null,null,"https://www.forestresearch.gov.uk/research/valuing-flood-regulation-services-existing-forest-cover-inform-natural-capital-accounts/"]
[null,null,"JNCC and CEFAS (2019), Initial natural capital accounts for the UK marine and coastal environment.  Report for Defra. ",null,null,"http://randd.defra.gov.uk/Default.aspx?Menu=Menu&Module=More&Location=None&ProjectID=20240&FromSearch=Y&Publisher=1&SearchText=ME5116&SortString=ProjectCode&SortOrder=Asc&Paging=10#Description"]
[null,null,"Morris, J. and Camino, M. (2011),  Economic assessment of Freshwater, Wetland and Floodplain Ecosystem Services. UK National Ecosystem Assessment Working Paper",null,null,"http://uknea.unep-wcmc.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=lVLEq%2bxAI%2bQ%3d&tabid=82"]
[null,null,"Natural England MEBIE (2014), Microeconomic Evidence for the Benefits of Investment in the Environment. ",null,null,"http://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/publication/6692039286587392"]
[null,null,"ONS (2016), Scoping UK coastal ecosystem accounts",null,null,"https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/environmentalaccounts/methodologies/scopingukcoastalmarginecosystemaccounts"]
[null,null,"Ricardo for ONS (2016), Valuing flood-regulation services for inclusion in the UK ecosystem accounts. ",null,null,"https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/nationalaccounts/uksectoraccounts/methodologies/naturalcapital#publications"]
[null,null,"RSPB (2017), Accounting for Nature: A Natural Capital Account of the RSPB’s estate in England.",null,null,"https://www.rspb.org.uk/globalassets/downloads/documents/positions/economics/accounting-for-nature.pdf"]
[null,null,"Southwell case study (2017), Flood management and woodland creation - Southwell case study: hydrological modelling and economic appraisal report. By JBA Consulting for Forestry Commission",null,null,"https://forestry.gov.scot/publications/584-flood-management-and-woodland-creation-southwell-case-study"]

{"sheet":"Noise reduction","index":14,"n_rows":62,"n_cols":10,"rows_kept":62,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[[54,2,54,3],[43,2,43,7],[45,2,45,7],[46,2,46,7],[47,2,47,7],[49,2,49,7],[34,2,34,3],[34,4,34,7],[36,2,36,3],[36,4,36,7],[53,2,53,7],[19,2,19,5],[61,2,61,4],[61,5,61,7],[60,2,60,4],[38,4,38,7],[39,4,39,7],[55,2,55,4],[55,5,55,7],[56,2,56,4],[56,5,56,7],[57,2,57,4],[51,2,51,7],[41,2,41,7],[57,5,57,7],[58,2,58,4],[58,5,58,7],[60,5,60,7],[21,2,21,5],[22,2,22,5],[26,4,26,7],[25,4,25,7],[26,2,26,3],[25,2,25,3],[29,4,29,7],[30,4,30,7],[35,2,35,3],[35,4,35,7],[27,2,27,3],[27,4,27,7],[59,2,59,4],[59,5,59,7],[31,4,31,7],[1,1,7,1],[1,2,7,5],[10,2,10,5],[15,2,15,5],[17,2,17,5],[8,2,8,5]]}
["Noise reduction by vegetation",null,null,null,null,"Back to index"]
[null,"Why is it relevant?","Noise pollution is associated with adverse health outcomes through lack of sleep and disturbance. According to the World Health Organisation it is the second largest environmental health risk in Western Europe. Vegetation can protect against noise pollution by acting as a physical buffer between the source of the noise and those living nearby. This is particularly relevant in urban areas. Noise regulation by vegetation is highly spatially specific and is dependent upon sufficient height, depth, permeability and of vegetation to absorb noise. There has been no systematic attempt to value this service until the development of UK urban accounts by ONS and Defra.  ",null,null,null,null,null,"Overall assessment of evidence"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"biophysical evidence","Low","Speculative, major gaps in evidence"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"valuation evidence","Medium","Some evidence, but incomplete or uncertain"]
[]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Potentially relevant to:"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Urban","●"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Farmland"]
[null,null,"Click here for guidance on noise pollution in general",null,null,null,null,"Mountains, M&H"]
[]
[null,"What nature provides","Absorption / deflection of sound by vegetation",null,null,null,null,"Freshwaters"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Woodland","●"]
[null,"Other inputs",null,null,null,null,null,"Coastal"]
[null,null,"n/a",null,null,null,null,"Marine"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Semi-nat grassland"]
[null,"Final welfare benefit","Reduced noise disturbance giving wellbeing and productivity benefits"]
[]
[null,"Who benefits?","Households living near vegetation that provides the service"]
[]
[null,"What factors affect the level of benefit?","Density and type of vegetation; proximity to sources of noise and potential beneficiaries; value of  avoided damage costs "]
[]
[null,"Physical metrics","Reduction in decibels; Numbers of households benefiting from reduced noise"]
[null,"Valuation metrics","Aggregate valuation metrics only currently available"]
[]
[null,"Key sources of biophysical evidence","Source",null,"Notes"]
[null,null,"Eftec and CEH (2018), Extending Noise Regulation Estimates",null,"Develops options for national estimates of noise regulating services within urban areas, for inclusion in the UK Urban Natural Capital Account. It builds on initial spatial analysis in Greater Manchester in Eftec (2017), but is unable to replicate that methodology owing to land cover data limitations, and a much more conservative approach to noise reduction than in Eftec et al (2017) is adopted. The section on noise regulation services in Eftec (2017) reviews relevant literature and methods, but the Greater Manchester results in Eftec (2017) are superseded by this Extension study. "]
[null,null,"ONS (2019), UK Urban Natural Capital Accounts",null,"Summarises results of Eftec and CEH (2018), using the most conservative methodology, with a country and noise band breakdown"]
[null,null,"EU, HOSANNA (2013)",null,"An EU multi-year (2009 to 2013) research project which stands for \"Holistic and sustainable abatement of noise by optimized combinations of natural and artificial means\". The project aimed to develop a toolbox for reducing road and rail traffic noise in outdoor environments by the optimal use of vegetation, soil, other natural materials and recycled materials in combination with artificial elements. A summary of noise reduction metrics for many different types of vegetation methods is provided at the end of the brochure report \"Novel solutions for quieter and greener cities\".  The research informed the Eftec and CEH (2018) methodology."]
[null,"Selected biophysical estimates","Source","Noise reduction","Notes"]
[null,null,"ONS (2018)","167,000 buildings","Number of UK buildings (within noise bands above 60 dBA) benefiting from road noise mitigation of at least 1 decibel by urban vegetation in 2017. Urban vegetation refers to woodlands over 200m2.  This estimate reflects very cautious assumptions regarding the area and extent of noise that is mitigated by vegetation - see the Addendum in Eftec and CEH (2018). It is therefore very much a lower bound. This is an area of further research. "]
[null,null,"Eftec and CEH (2018)","167,000 - 8,288,000 buildings","Range of estimates for UK buildings benefiting from road noise mitigation by urban vegetation in 2017 under four different approaches. The range reflects (a)  two different approaches to estimating the relevant extent of urban woodland vegetation that may perform the service, and (b) amended assumptions regarding the extent of urban area that benefits from 2dB noise mitigation following test-bed noise modelling (see the Addendum in the report). The report recommends that the cautious end of the range is the more appropriate with further research required to develop more robust and refined estimates. Any estimates should be used with caution."]
[null,null,"EU, HOSANNA (2013)","Up to 6 dB(A) at a distance of 50 m for a 15-m-deep tree belt; up to 10 dB(A) for a 30-m-deep belt","Noise reduction from tree belts near urban roads and highways; borders of parks near urban roads. "]
[]
[null,"Key sources for valuation","Source",null,"Notes"]
[null,null,"ONS (2019), UK Urban Natural Capital Accounts",null,"Summarises results of Eftec and CEH (2018), using the most conservative methodology, with a country and noise band breakdown."]
[null,null,"Eftec and CEH (2018), Extending Noise Regulation Estimates",null,"Develops national monetary estimates of reduced damage costs from noise regulating services within urban areas, for inclusion in the UK Urban Natural Capital Account. It builds on initial spatial analysis in Greater Manchester in Eftec (2017), but is unable to replicate that methodology owing to land cover data limitations; a more conservative approach to noise reduction than in Eftec (2017) is adopted. Four sets of results are presented, with the lowest value recommended for initial use in UK Urban Natural Capital Accounts. "]
[null,null,"Defra marginal damage costs of noise",null,"Sets out marginal annual values for changes in total road, rail and aircraft noise exposure (as summarised in the Green Book). These values can be added for changes of more than one decibel and should be multiplied by the number of years and households to which they apply.  These are used in ONS (2018) to generate monetary values for the 167,000 households benefiting from the service. See Noise Tab. "]
[null,"Selected values","Source","Value","Notes"]
[null,{"$f":"COUNTA(D39:D49)","v":2},"ONS (2019)","£ 14.4 million (2017 prices)","Lower-bound value of the health benefits to individuals living in UK buildings (within noise bands above 60 dBA) benefiting from road noise mitigation of at least 1 decibel by urban vegetation in 2017. Based on use of OS Master Map to identify relevant vegetation. Corresponds to 167,000 buildings benefiting from the service, and uses Defra's marginal damage costs of noise. The report recognises that this is likely to understate the extent of the service. "]
[null,null,"Eftec and CEH (2018)","£ 41 million (2017 prices)","Alternative valuation (not included in ONS (2018) based on extrapolated fine-grain results for Greater Manchester to the UK, rather than use of the OS Master Map which is available for all of GB (which gives a value of £14m as above). This value corresponds to 467,000 buildings benefiting from the service, and uses Defra's marginal damage costs of noise. Because of the uncertainties around extrapolation, this estimate was considered less appropriate for inclusion in the UK Urban Natural Capital Account than the OS Master Map method. But both estimates are provisional and further work is needed. "]
[]
[null,"Limitations to valuation","Although the method developed by Eftec and CEH (2018) for Defra and ONS is innovative, it is not a full modelling approach and by necessity it differs from conventional noise modelling approaches which use resource-intensive very sophisticated models. Experimental modelling approaches were used on a small test-area in Manchester in order to validate the national method. These were inconclusive but suggested that the lower bound estimates were more appropriate. This is an area of further research. Other literature on noise reduction by vegetation is very context and location- specific "]
[]
[null,"Other sources","Various other location specific studies can be found in the literature. For example, Ghosh and Fern (2017) find road traffic noise reductions of up to 11 dB(A) from 5 metres of moderate to dense planting, and explore other variables affecting noise reduction. See also examples in MEBIE2. "]
[]
[null,"Guidance on use  in appraisal","It should be demonstrated that any addition to or loss of vegetation meets the conditions for a change in the service to be relevant i.e. of sufficient depth and height and proximity to households. The value of a change will depend upon how many households are affected. "]
[null,"Guidance on use  in natural capital accounting","Appropriate for use in natural capital accounting. See ONS Principles of Natural Capital Accounting for general guidance. "]
[null,"Guidance on projecting values","Align with projections in the ONS Accounts. Health valuations should be increased with real income growth as with air filtration (assume 2%). "]
[]
[null,"Potential overlap with other values","The benefits of noise regulation may potentially be captured within hedonic estimates of the premium that property owners pay to live close to green space which are associated with tranquility. On the other hand, the noise regulation service will still be relevant in relatively \"noisy\" areas where the absence of vegetation would mean even greater noise exposure, and it should be noted that the marginal health costs increase at higher noise exposure levels. See also Amenity Tab. Care also needs to be taken in extracting the impact of noise on health from other impacts on health that may occur at the same time due to being in more natural areas. "]
[]
[null,"Related guidance","See also Defra Noise guidance and values for noise pollution. "]
[]
[null,"Practical applications","Various studies in the literature involve real examples of methods of noise mitigation by vegetation. "]
[]
[null,"Full references and weblinks","Defra marginal noise damage costs and guidance",null,null,"https://www.gov.uk/guidance/noise-pollution-economic-analysis"]
[null,{"$f":"COUNTA(C56:E77)","v":7},"Eftec and CEH (2018), Scoping UK Urban Natural Capital Accounts - Extending Noise Regulation Estimates. Report for Defra. ",null,null,"http://randd.defra.gov.uk/Default.aspx?Menu=Menu&Module=More&Location=None&ProjectID=20027&FromSearch=Y&Publisher=1&SearchText=urban"]
[null,null,"Eftec et al (2017), Scoping UK Urban Natural Capital Accounts. Report for Defra.  ",null,null,"http://randd.defra.gov.uk/Default.aspx?Menu=Menu&Module=More&Location=None&Completed=0&ProjectID=19843"]
[null,null,"Ghosh and Fern (2017) Urban cities and road traffic noise: reduction through vegetation, Applied Acoustics vol. 120. ",null,null,"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0003682X17300270"]
[null,null,"EU, HOSANNA (2013), Novel solutions for quieter and greener cities. Final Workshop Brochure of the HOSANNA project - HOlistic and Sustainable Abatement of Noise by optimized combinations of Natural and Artificial means.",null,null,"http://www.greener-cities.eu/"]
[null,null,"MEBIE 2 (2014), Microeconomic Evidence for Benefits of Investment in the Environment. Natural England Report. ",null,null,"http://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/publication/6692039286587392"]
[null,null,"ONS (2019) UK Natural Capital - Urban Accounts",null,null,"https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/environmentalaccounts/bulletins/uknaturalcapital/urbanaccounts"]

{"sheet":"Temperature regulation","index":15,"n_rows":71,"n_cols":10,"rows_kept":71,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[[68,5,68,7],[68,2,68,4],[18,2,18,5],[70,2,70,4],[70,5,70,7],[69,2,69,4],[69,5,69,7],[45,4,45,7],[55,2,55,7],[57,2,57,7],[59,2,59,7],[66,2,66,4],[66,5,66,7],[67,2,67,4],[67,5,67,7],[63,2,63,4],[39,4,39,7],[40,2,40,3],[25,4,25,7],[29,2,30,2],[30,4,30,7],[29,4,29,7],[27,4,27,7],[26,2,26,3],[26,4,26,7],[33,4,33,7],[32,2,36,2],[32,3,32,7],[1,1,7,1],[1,2,7,5],[9,2,9,5],[14,2,14,5],[16,2,16,5],[20,2,20,5],[54,2,54,7],[31,4,31,7],[47,4,47,7],[43,4,43,7],[44,4,44,7],[46,4,46,7],[40,4,40,7],[27,2,27,3],[45,2,46,2],[21,2,21,5],[24,4,24,7],[25,2,25,3],[49,2,49,7],[24,2,24,3],[39,2,39,3],[42,2,44,2],[42,3,42,7],[65,2,65,4],[65,5,65,7],[51,2,51,7],[53,2,53,7],[61,2,61,7],[62,2,62,3],[64,5,64,7],[63,5,63,7],[64,2,64,4]]}
["Temperature regulation in urban areas",null,null,null,null,"Back to index"]
[null,"Why is it relevant?","Urban economic activity can be significantly impacted by hot summer termperatures, exacerbated by the urban heat island effect that is caused by human activities. Woodland, grassland, gardens and open waters in urban areas marginally reduce air temperature and so reduce these heat-related costs. Consequently, the creation or loss of urban vegetation will marginally affect this service. Temperature regulation will become more significant in future as climate change is expected to lead to hotter summers and more frequent heatwaves. ",null,null,null,null,null,"Overall assessment of evidence"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"biophysical evidence","Medium","Some evidence, but incomplete or uncertain"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"valuation evidence","Low","Speculative, major gaps in evidence"]
[]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Potentially relevant to:"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Urban","●"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Farmland"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Mountains, M&H"]
[null,"What nature provides","Reduction in air temperature from vegetation by greenspace and bluespace",null,null,null,null,"Freshwaters","●"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Woodland","●"]
[null,"Other inputs",null,null,null,null,null,"Coastal"]
[null,null,"n/a",null,null,null,null,"Marine"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Semi-nat grassland"]
[null,"Final welfare benefit"," A more equable climate, reducing labour productivity losses and air conditioning costs"]
[]
[null,"Who benefits?","Businesses (primary); households"]
[]
[null,"What factors affect the level of benefit?","Frequency of hot days; extent of trees / vegetation and blue space; condition of vegetation; extent and type of economic activity affected by hot weather (and proximity to green and blue space)"]
[]
[null,"Physical metric","Reduction in degrees celsius, relevant for a certain number of hot days only"]
[null,"Valuation metrics","GVA (avoided losses); savings in energy costs;  reduced premature deaths"]
[]
[null,"Key sources of biophysical evidence","Source",null,"Notes"]
[null,null,"ONS (2019), UK Urban Natural Capital Accounts",null,"Summarises results of Eftec et al (2018), with city region breakdown."]
[null,null,"Eftec et al (2018), Extending Temperature regulation estimates",null,"Contains average estimates of temperature migitation by land cover and relevant numbers of \"hot days\" for 11 City Regions across GB for inclusion within initial UK urban natural capital accounts. This builds on initial exploratory work in the wider urban natural capital accounts scoping study by Eftec et al (2017) which reviewed the relevant literature. The extension study also includes a review of evidence on the cooling effects of blue space and gardens. Feeds in to ONS (2018)"]
[null,null,"Forestry Commission (2019)",null,"Research Note draws together scientific evidence from a programme by Forest Research  work (see references below) to outline the causes of urban heat islands and the characteristics affecting the level of the service. Because of timing, it does not reference the Eftec and ONS work to quantify and value, but its findings are consistent with that. It also references Moss et al (2019) (see below), which explores different ways of quantifying and valuing the service. "]
[null,null,"i-tree Eco projects ",null,"i-Tree has used US climate as baseline for US based projects, so more work needs to be done to build a UK baseline. But, the underlying theory should be there."]
[null,"Selected biophysical estimates","Source","temperature reduction ","Notes"]
[null,null,"Eftec et al (2017) ","3.5o celsius ","Cooling effect of urban woodland.  Used in accounting calculations - based on systematic / meta reviews in the literature "]
[null,null,null,"0.95o celsius ","Cooling effect of urban parks. Used in accounting calculations - based on systematic / meta reviews in the literature. "]
[null,null,"Forestry Commission (2019)","Between 2 and 8 o celsius","Informed selection and strategic placement of trees and green infrastructure can cool the air by between 2 ºC and 8 ºC, reducing heat-related stress and premature human deaths during high-temperature events. The Research Note identifies the key local factors affecting the extent of the reduction and explores how this temperature reduction might be valued using avoided mortality costs. "]
[null,null,"ONS (2019)","Aggregated cooling effect of green and blues space across City regions. These estimates are subject to additional uncertainty as they assume that cooling effects of green and blue space are evenly spread across the region rather than the result of a spatial model (such as that used for air pollution removal)."]
[null,null,null,"0.72o celsius ","Aggregated cooling effect of green and blue space across the London region"]
[null,null,null,"0.75o celsius ","Aggregated cooling effect of green and blue space across the Manchester region"]
[null,null,null,"0.88o celsius ","Aggregated cooling effect of green and blue space across the Edinburgh region"]
[null,null,null,"0.69o celsius ","Aggregated cooling effect of green and blue space across the West of England region"]
[]
[null,"Key sources for valuation","Source",null,"Notes"]
[null,null,"ONS (2019), UK Urban Natural Capital Accounts",null,"Summarises results of Eftec et al (2018), including City region breakdown. "]
[null,null,"Eftec et al (2018), Extending Temperature regulation estimates",null,"Develops estimates of the benefits of reduced temperatures from urban vegetation and water bodies during \"hot days\" by making use of a productivity loss function by Costa et al (2016), which estimates labour productivity losses (relative to full work intensity) affected under the different hot day temperature bands for each city. Estimates are net of adaptation and behaviour change measures. Results feed in to ONS (2018)"]
[null,"Selected values","Source","Value","Notes"]
[null,null,"ONS (2019)","Valuation estimates for urban cooling in ONS (2019) and Eftec et al (2018) are considered to have low confidence owing to the uncertain nature of the regional biophysical estimates and the productivity loss functions. But they indicate the relative orders of magnitude and represent a groundbreaking attempt to derive a scalable methodology "]
[null,{"$f":"COUNTA(D44:D53)","v":5},null,"£244 million (2017 prices)","Total  value of urban cooling service in 2017 in UK city regions. The London City Region accounts for £203 million of this total. "]
["`",null,null,"£166 million (2017 prices)","Total value of urban cooling service annual average 2012-16. This is taken from the 2018 edition of the ONS urban natural capital account, as it was not included in the 2019 edition. The equivalent 5-year average for London City Region is £140 million. Asset values based on 5 year averages are provided in the 2019 edition. "]
[null,null,"Eftec et al (2018)","£51.1 million (2016 prices)","Value of urban cooling service by woodland in London City Region annual average 2012-16. An average  value for London woodland can also be calculated by dividing this total by the extent of woodland (above and below 3 hectares in the extent account) within the city region i.e. £51.1m / 8857 hectares = £5576 / hectare. The corresponding average value for other city regions will be one or two orders of magnitude lower. For example, for Greater Manchester city region, the average woodland value is £ 312 / hectare; and that for Edinburgh is £18 / hectare. These differences reflect cooler climates and smaller economies than London's."]
[null,null,null,"£4.1 million (2016 prices)","Total value of urban cooling service for Manchester City Region annual average, 2012-16."]
[null,null,"Moss et al (2019)","£0.05 per hour per tree (2017 prices)","Annual value per London tree in terms of avoided modelled air conditioning costs from evapotranspiration rates. The values per tree in case studies in Edinburgh and Wrexham are £0.03 and £0.04 per hour per tree respectively, the differences reflecting tree leaf cover, species etc.  It is unclear how many hours / days such a unit value should apply to over the summer period.  The study illustrates an annual  value of £405 million for London based on 8 hours a day over 4 summer months, but this would appear a significant overstatement of the service. Equally it is recognised that savings based on cost comparisons with air-conditioning units is limited since they are intended to cool air in enclosed buildings, not open air environments. A separate modelling approach shows that the cooling effect of trees for Inner London results in a 3.1% saving in annual energy consumption, equivalent to £5.09 million."]
[]
[null,"Limitations to valuation","The ONS / Eftec figures are broadbrush, stylized estimates by the main city regions; they do not account for cooling effects in non-city region urban areas. Nor do they account for localised cooling effects which would require spatially disaggregated modelling, in particular along river corridors and street trees. The benefits of tree shading, including of street trees, are not included. Benefits in terms of  reductions in heatwave-induced mortality and morbidity effects are also not included. See Eftec et al (2018) for a detailed list of caveats and limitations. "]
[]
[null,"Other sources","Most of the relevant studies can be found within literature reviews within the Eftec (2017, 2018) and Forestry Commission (2013, 2019) studies."]
[]
[null,"Guidance on projecting values","The Eftec / ONS estimates would be projected to increase over time with an increasing number of hot days projected, together with GDP growth. See Eftec et al (2018). The 2018 Urban Natural Capital Account does not give projections and asset values - subsequent updates will. "]
[null,"Guidance on use  in appraisal","Values must be used in accordance with the relevant city region, because there are major differences because of the meteorological variations across the UK and the size of output affected.  Per hectare values may only be appropriate for a reasonable scale of land-use change; for very localised gains or loss in green or blue space, average output losses may be very inaccurate."]
[null,"Guidance on use  in natural capital accounting","The published City Region estimates can provide the basis for more localised accounting. "]
[]
[null,"Potential overlap with other values","Not significant"]
[]
[null,"Related guidance","n/a"]
[]
[null,"Practical applications","Various studies in the literature involve real examples of methods of temperature regulation by vegetation. "]
[]
[null,"Full references and weblinks","Bowler, D et al  (2010), Urban greening to cool towns and cities: A systematic review of the empirical evidence. Landscape Urban Planning, 97(3).",null,null,"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169204610001234"]
[null,{"$f":"COUNTA(C64:E86)","v":8},"Costa, H. et al (2016), Climate change, heat stress and labour productivity: A cost methodology for city economies. Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment Working Paper No.248. ",null,null,"http://www.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/publication/climate-change-heat-stress-and-labour-productivity-a-cost-methodology-for-city-economies/"]
[null,null,"Eftec et al (2017), Scoping UK Urban Natural Capital Accounts. Report for Defra.  ",null,null,"http://randd.defra.gov.uk/Default.aspx?Menu=Menu&Module=More&Location=None&Completed=0&ProjectID=19843"]
[null,null,"Eftec et al (2018), Scoping UK Urban Natural Capital Accounts - Extending Temperature Regulation Estimates. Report for Defra. ",null,null,"http://randd.defra.gov.uk/Default.aspx?Menu=Menu&Module=More&Location=None&ProjectID=20065&FromSearch=Y&Publisher=1&SearchText=urban"]
[null,null,"Forestry Commission (2019), The role of urban trees and greenspaces in reducing urban temperatures - Research Note.",null,null,"https://www.forestresearch.gov.uk/research/role-urban-trees-and-greenspaces-reducing-urban-air-temperatures/"]
[null,null,"Forest Research, The role of urban trees and greenspaces in urban climate regulation. Lists a number of research outputs on this topic, including Forestry Commission (2019). ",null,null,"https://www.forestresearch.gov.uk/research/urban-trees-and-greenspace-in-a-changing-climate/the-role-of-urban-trees-and-greenspaces-in-urban-climate-regulation/"]
[null,null,"Moss et al (2019), Influence of evaporative cooling by urban forests on cooling demand in cities. Urban Forestry and Greening Vol. 37",null,null,"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1618866717304661?via%3Dihub#sec0035"]
[null,null,"ONS (2019) UK Natural Capital - Urban Accounts",null,null,"https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/environmentalaccounts/bulletins/uknaturalcapital/urbanaccounts"]

{"sheet":"Recreation","index":16,"n_rows":84,"n_cols":10,"rows_kept":84,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[[39,2,39,3],[39,4,39,7],[73,2,73,4],[73,5,73,7],[21,2,21,5],[53,4,53,7],[42,2,46,2],[42,3,42,7],[40,4,40,7],[43,4,43,7],[54,4,54,7],[49,4,49,7],[50,4,50,7],[51,4,51,7],[52,4,52,7],[47,3,47,7],[20,2,20,5],[77,5,77,7],[66,2,66,7],[68,2,68,7],[58,2,58,7],[62,2,62,7],[64,2,64,7],[61,2,61,7],[74,2,74,4],[74,5,74,7],[76,2,76,4],[76,5,76,7],[60,2,60,7],[40,2,40,3],[36,4,36,7],[56,2,56,7],[47,2,53,2],[46,4,46,7],[81,2,81,4],[81,5,81,7],[78,2,78,4],[78,5,78,7],[80,2,80,4],[83,2,83,4],[83,5,83,7],[70,5,70,7],[70,2,70,4],[82,2,82,4],[82,5,82,7],[71,2,71,4],[71,5,71,7],[79,2,79,4],[79,5,79,7],[75,2,75,4],[75,5,75,7],[72,2,72,4],[72,5,72,7],[77,2,77,4],[80,5,80,7],[37,4,37,7],[28,2,28,3],[31,4,31,7],[48,4,48,7],[27,2,27,3],[27,4,27,7],[38,2,38,3],[38,4,38,7],[28,4,28,7],[35,2,35,3],[35,4,35,7],[37,2,37,3],[32,4,32,7],[45,4,45,7],[30,4,30,7],[44,4,44,7],[18,2,18,5],[1,1,7,1],[1,2,7,5],[9,2,9,5],[14,2,14,5],[16,2,16,5],[24,4,24,7],[25,2,25,3],[25,4,25,7],[24,2,24,3],[26,2,26,3],[26,4,26,7]]}
["Enabling recreation",null,null,null,null,"Back to index"]
[null,"Why is it relevant?","The recreational value of green spaces is significant. This value reflects both the natural setting and the facilities on offer at the site and often has a strong non-market element.  It varies with the type and quality of habitat, location, local population density and the availability of substitute recreational opportunities. Recreational values can be affected directly by enhancements in green spaces, or adversely if they are affected by new developments or infrastructure. The wider tourism and outdoor leisure sector is also dependent upon nature to varying degrees.",null,null,null,null,null,"Overall assessment of evidence"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"biophysical evidence","High","Strong or established evidence with few gaps"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"valuation evidence","High","Strong or established evidence with few gaps"]
[]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Potentially relevant to:"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Urban","●"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Farmland","●"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Mountains, M&H","●"]
[null,"What nature provides","Environmental settings for recreational use",null,null,null,null,"Freshwaters","●"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Woodland","●"]
[null,"Other inputs",null,null,null,null,null,"Coastal","●"]
[null,null,"Transport, visitor facilities, paths etc",null,null,null,null,"Marine","●"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Semi-nat grassland","●"]
[null,"Final welfare benefit","Use values to individuals visiting recreational sites"]
[]
[null,"Who benefits?","Those visiting sites; recreation and tourism related businesses"]
[]
[null,"What factors affect the level of benefit?","Population proximity to, and the condition, chacteristics and size / number of, recreational sites. Cultural preferences."]
[]
[null,"Physical metric","Numbers of visits / visitors / hours spent  p.a."]
[null,"Valuation metric","£ per visit. £ / hectare may be relevant for larger areas of land being valued"]
[]
[null,"Key sources of biophysical evidence","Source",null,"Notes"]
[null,null,"Monitor of Engagement with the Natural Environment",null,"MENE - Annual survey for Natural England since 2009 of around 46,000 adults each year. Data on people’s experiences of nature in England, including time spent on day visits to the natural environment, time spent in private and communal gardens, watching nature programmes on television and undertaking pro-environmental activities such as recycling. MENE data is a critical component both of the ORVal Tool (see below), which estimates visitation rates for any publically accessible site;  and the ONS Natural Capital Accounting estimates, which focus upon actual flows of visitors and their time spent in the natural environment. "]
[null,null,"Outdoor Recreation Valuation Tool (ORVal, 2018)",null,"Referenced in HM Treasury Green Book. Random utlity / travel cost model of recreational demand for all sites in England and Wales, generating probabilistic predictions of visitor numbers for any publically accessible outdoor recreation park, path or beach. Takes account of scarcity of sites and substitution possibilities, as well as travel distances to sites and their attributes. Useful for baseline initial assessment; accounting; multiple sites. This should be seen as a first approximation in the absence of site-specific data on visitor numbers. ORVal can also estimate how predicted visits would change when a site is altered, and can model visits and newly created visits from new sites. "]
[null,null,"ONS (2019a), UK Natural Capital Accounts",null,"Provides time series of recreational hours spent in the various broad habitats for the UK, using the various recreation surveys in England, Scotland and Wales. "]
[null,null,"Visit England - GB Day Visits Survey",null,"Statistics on the volume, value and trip characteristics of tourism day visits in Britain. The survey was launched in 2011 and uses an online methodology, with weekly interviews and an annual sample of c. 35,000 adults, to provide a detailed understanding of tourism day trips. See Eftec et al (2019) below. "]
[null,null,"Forestry Statistics",null,"Includes MENE survey data on woodlands and visit statistics from other surveys, including country breakdowns."]
[null,"Selected biophysical estimates","Source","Number of visits / year","Notes"]
[null,null,"ONS (2019a)","4900 million","Visits to all natural spaces in 2017, based on surveys for England (MENE), Scotland and Wales. Extrapolated from GB to UK based on population. "]
[null,null,"ONS (2019b)","2525 million","Visits to urban green spaces in 2017. Based on MENE survey in England and extrapolated to the UK, based on population-grossing. "]
[null,null,"Forestry Statistics","447 million","Visits to woodland in England in 2015 to 2016 (based on MENE)"]
[]
[null,"Key sources for valuation","Source",null,"Notes"]
[null,null,"ORVal (2018)",null,"As above. Useful for baseline initial assessment; accounting; multiple sites. Its results should be seen as a first approximation in the absence of site-specific data. Recommended for use by the Green Book. "]
[null,null,"Natural Environment Valuation Online",null,"Exeter University's Natural Environment Valuation Online web tool enables users to explore, quantify and make predictions about the benefits that are derived from existing and altered land use across England and Wales, including future projections. The tool includes spatially disaggregated information on recreational visits and values based on ORVal but applied to a grid square area rather than on a site basis."]
[null,null,"Sen et al (2014)",null,"Meta study of nature-based recreation. Estimates of the use values of recreational day visits (with travel time not exceeding 60 minutes), which differ according to habitat type (see below), based on a meta-analysis. These values can be used in situations where ORVal cannot be used to estimate values, or where there is robust pre-existing data on visitor numbers or changes."]
[null,null,"ONS (2019) UK Natural Capital Accounts",null,"Provides aggregate and time-series estimates of the monetary flow of recreational services for the UK and for broad habitats. These are based on travel expenditure and admission fees in order to measure their \"exchange values\". Also includes the recreational value embedded in local property prices (see Amenity Tab)"]
[null,null,"Eftec et al (2019)",null,"Research for Defra and ONS which develops a transparent and repeatable method for estimating nature's contribution to the output of UK Tourism and Outdoor Leisure sectors for inclusion in the UK Natural Capital Accounts. Relies on simplifying logical assumptions and judgments to estimate nature's contribution by activity. Includes a variety of preliminary estimates, for example, the ecosystem contribution to UK Gross Value Added through tourism and outdoor leisure activities is estimated at £10.5 billion annually. Some of this will overlap with ONS (2019) estimates of recreational benefits. The study adopts principles of natural capital accounting and aims to disaggregate the results in different ways: between natural and other forms capital; across different types ecosystems (e.g. broad habitats, land cover types); and by spatial location. Uses existing data from GB Travel Survey, GB Day Visits Survey and the International Passenger Survey. Recommends adjustments to primary data collection to assist future development of the account. "]
[null,null,"Christie et al (2006)",null,"Research for the Forestry Commission - uses stated preference methods to derive willingness to pay values from a range of specific forest recreation groups (cyclists, horseriders, nature watchers, general users) for various scenarios and forest attributes,based on surveys in 7 major forests across Britain. The unit values are higher than the ORVal and Sen value because they reflect more specialised and specific preferences, and perhaps major forests, so only use these if they best correspond to the policy good in question based on value transfer principles. See, for example, Eftec's Value Transfer case study (2010) for Defra on Bedgebury Forest improvements."]
[null,"Selected values","Source","Value per visit","Notes"]
[null,null,"ORVal (2018)","ORVal can be used where the location of sites is known. The following values are basic averages drawn from the filtering facility in ORVal to identify indicative values per visit. All are in 2016 prices. "]
[null,{"$f":"COUNTA(D44:D55)","v":12},null,3.1,"Farmland, woodland - average values per visit in England based on aggregate site selection of the relevant land covers in ORVal."]
[null,null,null,3.06,"Average value per visit for all greenspace sites in England within urban built up areas, based on aggregate selection of relevant land covers in ORVal."]
[null,null,null,3.64,"Average value per visit for sites with moors, heaths, country parks in England based on aggregate selection of relevant land covers in ORVal."]
[null,null,null,4.62,"Average value per visit for all coastal and beach sites in England based on aggregate selection of relevant land covers in ORVal."]
[null,null,"Sen et al (2014)","Estimates of the per visit use values of recreational day visits (with travel time not exceeding 60 minutes), based on a meta-analysis. These values can be used in situations where ORVal cannot be used to estimate values, or where there is robust pre-existing data on visitor numbers or changes. All values in 2010 prices."]
[null,null,null,5.36,"Urban Fringe Farmlands"]
[null,null,null,5.03,"Mountains, Moors and Heathland"]
[null,null,null,3.96,"Woodland and Forests"]
[null,null,null,3.34,"Marine and Coastal"]
[null,null,null,1.82,"Freshwater and floodplains"]
[null,null,null,1.54,"Grasslands"]
[null,null,"ONS (2019a)","£1.60 (2017)","Average per visit spend on travel and admission to UK outdoor recreational sites. Based on travel expenditure to recreational sites and admission fees (totalling £7.84 billion in 2017), excludes consumer surplus and is therefore not a welfare value, unlike ORVal and Sen et al (2014). It attempts to proxy an \"exchange\" or accounting value i.e. the value that would notionally be paid if a market existed. The unit estimates are relatively low because they do not currently attribute any value to \"free\" trips made locally that do not incur any  transport or admission costs, although such trips are included in total visits. ONS estimate that 75% of all visits in the MENE survey do not incur expenditure. Method is currently under review. For appraisal purposes, ORVal or Sen et al (2014) are preferred. "]
[]
[null,"Limitations to valuation","ORVal and Sen et al (2014) only cover day visits and exclude under 16 age group. Also, the predictive power of estimating visit numbers to individual sites with distinctive or unique features may be limited (for example, Kielder Forest bordering Scotland reports relatively few visits in ORVal whereas actual visitor counts reveal much higher numbers), or for more micro interventions such as path quality, toilets or signage at individual sites.  A tool like ORVal, which is based on existing preferences and choices, is not readily geared to assessing targeted interventions to increase participation of under-represented visitor groups within the population. "]
[]
[null,"Other sources","Various studies exist of recreational values within a specific habitat or context, for example angling, or coastal. Such studies can be accessed via other tools and studies listed in the ENCA Asset Databook. Local studies may have specific detailed data on visitor numbers, which can be used in conjunction with unit values. \n\nAn innovative study for Fields in Trust (2018) uses both contingent valuation and subjective wellbeing valuation methods to generate willingness to pay estimates of individuals for local parks which go beyond recreational value to include subjective wellbeing, health and non-use values. The authors acknowledge that the relatively very high wellbeing valuation estimates are subject to potential methodological biases."]
[]
[null,"Guidance on projecting values","Unit values can reasonably be projected to increase over time in real terms. In the ONS natural capital accounts, future flow projections used for asset valuation incorporate population projections and unit value increased based on 2% increase in income per year (declining to 1.5% after 30 years and 1% after 75 years) and an income elasticity of 0.5 (based on limited evidence), so that unit values rise by 1% for the first 30 years, declining to 0.75% after 30 years, etc). More work is being conducted in this area. "]
[null,"Guidance on use  in appraisal","ORVal enables appraisal of changes to sites in terms of visits and value. It distinguishes \"newly created\" visits whilst the valuation results in ORVal for an amended or created site will represent the full welfare change to the whole population. This is because \"displaced\" visits (where a new site draws visits away from an existing site) still represent a welfare benefit to those individuals who have switched visits (for example, because a new site now requires less travel time or cost to visit).  Outside of ORVal, estimating the change in visitor numbers is often the most important consideration in estimating how recreational values can change, as this can be multiplied by the baseline unit value. In these cases, care should be taken to assess the potential for substitution between sites when new recreational opportunities are created, as failure to do so could result in a significant overestimate. "]
[null,"Guidance on use  in natural capital accounting","It is important to be clear whether an account is seeking to include consumer surplus (welfare value) or exclude consumer surplus (exchange value). "]
[]
[null,"Potential overlap with other values","Recreation is often implicated in bundled values such as water quality, landscape or amenity. Recreational value is an active use value and, depending upon the type of activity, will overlap with or mask less tangible values such as community cohesion and education and learning about nature. Recreational values will include private physical and mental health benefits to the individual, but may not include wider savings to the health service. Recreational values may be associated with non-use / bequest values but are conceptually distinct, as recreation is an active use value. These links are explored in Fields in Trust (2018).\n\nEftec et al (2019) consider the potential overlap between tourism-based accounts and ONS (2019) recreational estimates and their respective data sources, but further work is needed on this. A key distinction between tourism and recreation is that tourism involves overnight stays and includes foreign tourists, whereas recreation estimates are confined to day visits and generally include shorter trips. "]
[]
[null,"Related guidance","See ENCA Featured Tools - ORVal; ONS and Defra (2017), Principles of Natural Capital Accounting"]
[]
[null,"Practical applications","ORVal is being variously used in local appraisal and accounting exercises to assess recreational value. The ORVal website contains applications the creation of Doorstep Greens and the South West Coast Path. Monetising the value of increased recreational activity was a key feature in the business case for the creation of the Canal and River Trust (see Defra 2012). A retrospective case study can be found in Defra's Value Transfer Case Study (2010) on Bedgebury Forest. "]
[]
[null,"Full references and weblinks","Christie et al (2006),  Valuing Forest Recreation Activities: Final Phase 2 report, Report to the Forestry Commission",null,null,"https://forestry.gov.scot/publications/597-valuing-forest-recreation-activities-2006-final-phase-2-report"]
[null,{"$f":"COUNTA(C71:E95)","v":14},"Defra (2010), Valuing Environmental Impacts: Practical Guidelines for the Use of Value Transfer in Policy and Project Appraisal - Case Study 1: Valuing Improvements in Facilities at a Forest Recreation Site. Produced by eftec. ",null,null,"https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/182369/vt-case-study1.pdf"]
[null,null,"Defra (2012), Impact Assessment for moving inland waterways into a new charity in England and Wales",null,null,"http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukia/2012/13/pdfs/ukia_20120013_en.pdf"]
[null,null,"Eftec et al (2019), The ecosystem contribution to tourism and outdoor leisure. Report for Defra",null,null,"http://randd.defra.gov.uk/Default.aspx?Menu=Menu&Module=More&Location=None&ProjectID=20245&FromSearch=Y&Publisher=1&SearchText=tourism&SortString=ProjectCode&SortOrder=Asc&Paging=10#Description"]
[null,null,"Exeter University (2016, 2018), Outdoor Recreation Valuation Tool",null,null,"https://www.leep.exeter.ac.uk/orval/"]
[null,null,"Exeter University (2019), Natural Environment Valuation Online",null,null,"https://www.leep.exeter.ac.uk/nevo"]
[null,null,"Fields in Trust (2018), Revaluing parks and green spaces: measuring their economic and wellbeing value to individuals",null,null,"http://www.fieldsintrust.org/Upload/file/research/Revaluing-Parks-and-Green-Spaces-Report.pdf"]
[null,null,"Natural England, Monitor of Engagement with the Natural Environment",null,null,"https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/monitor-of-engagement-with-the-natural-environment-survey-purpose-and-results"]
[null,null,"ONS (2017), UK Natural Capital: ecosystem accounts for freshwater, farmland and woodland",null,null,"https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/environmentalaccounts/bulletins/uknaturalcapital/landandhabitatecosystemaccounts"]
[null,null,"ONS (2019a), UK Natural Capital Accounts 2019. Includes supplementary data tables",null,null,"https://www.ons.gov.uk/releases/uknaturalcapitalecosystemserviceaccounts1997to2017"]
[null,null,"ONS (2019b) UK Natural Capital - Urban Accounts",null,null,"https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/environmentalaccounts/bulletins/uknaturalcapital/urbanaccounts"]
[null,null,"ONS and Defra (2017), Principles of Natural Capital Accounting",null,null,"https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/environmentalaccounts/methodologies/principlesofnaturalcapitalaccounting"]
[null,null,"Sen, A. et al (2014), Economic Assessment of the Recreational Value of Ecosystems: Methodological Development and National and Local Application. Environmental and Resource Economics 57 ",null,null,"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10640-013-9666-7"]
[null,null,"Visit England - GB Day Visits Survey",null,null,"https://www.visitbritain.org/gb-day-visits-survey-latest-results"]

{"sheet":"Physical health","index":17,"n_rows":74,"n_cols":10,"rows_kept":74,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[[57,2,57,7],[44,4,44,7],[46,4,46,7],[40,4,40,7],[43,4,43,7],[53,2,53,7],[54,2,54,7],[55,2,55,7],[49,2,49,7],[51,2,51,7],[41,4,41,7],[24,2,24,3],[29,2,29,3],[24,4,24,7],[29,4,29,7],[18,2,18,5],[28,2,28,3],[26,2,26,3],[20,2,20,5],[21,2,21,5],[1,1,7,1],[1,2,7,5],[9,2,9,5],[14,2,14,5],[16,2,16,5],[73,2,73,4],[73,5,73,7],[67,2,67,4],[67,5,67,7],[61,2,61,4],[61,5,61,7],[63,2,63,4],[63,5,63,7],[64,2,64,4],[64,5,64,7],[72,2,72,4],[72,5,72,7],[70,2,70,4],[70,5,70,7],[71,2,71,4],[71,5,71,7],[68,2,68,4],[68,5,68,7],[69,2,69,4],[69,5,69,7],[35,8,35,9],[59,2,59,7],[62,2,62,4],[62,5,62,7],[65,2,65,4],[65,5,65,7],[66,2,66,4],[66,5,66,7],[41,2,41,3],[47,4,47,7],[40,2,40,3],[39,2,39,3],[39,4,39,7],[25,2,25,3],[25,4,25,7],[26,4,26,7],[27,4,27,7],[33,4,33,7],[28,4,28,7],[27,2,27,3],[36,4,36,7],[35,4,35,7],[31,4,31,7],[32,4,32,7]]}
["Supporting physical health",null,null,null,null,"Back to index"]
[null,"Why is it relevant?","Inadequate physical activity is associated with higher risk of obesity, coronary heart disease, diabetes, stroke, some cancers and mental ill health - all of which impose a large cost burden on society. Natural environments offer settings and opportunities for informal physical activity which enable many individuals to achieve recommended guidelines for weekly physical activity. With this logic, health physical benefits provided by nature can be given an indicative monetary value. Whilst it cannot be assumed that the loss of a green space would lead to the loss of all physical activity supported by that green space, it is clear that natural environments are a major provider of a service that supports physical health outcomes.",null,null,null,null,null,"Overall assessment of evidence"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"biophysical evidence","Medium","Some evidence, but incomplete or uncertain"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"valuation evidence","Medium","Some evidence, but incomplete or uncertain"]
[]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Potentially relevant to:"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Urban","●"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Farmland","●"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Mountains, M&H","●"]
[null,"What nature provides","Environmental settings for physical activity",null,null,null,null,"Freshwaters","●"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Woodland","●"]
[null,"Other inputs",null,null,null,null,null,"Coastal","●"]
[null,null,"Visitor facilities, paths etc",null,null,null,null,"Marine","●"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Semi-nat grassland","●"]
[null,"Final welfare benefit","Health sector cost savings; reduced morbidity; increased economic output"]
[]
[null,"Who benefits?","Government; individuals; businesses"]
[]
[null,"What factors affect the level of benefit?","Numbers of physically active visitors to nature (in turn depending upon recreational visits); valuation of improved quality of life. "]
[]
[null,"Physical metric","Number of \"active\" visitors / visits to nature; \"Quality Adjusted Life Years\" (QALY) attributable to physical activity in natural environments. A QALY is a measure of the state of health of a person or group in which the benefits, in terms of length of life, are adjusted to reflect the quality of life. Thus one QALY is equal to one year of life in perfect health."]
[null,"Valuation metric","£ per \"active\" visit / aggregate values"]
[]
[null,"Key sources of biophysical evidence","Source",null,"Notes"]
[null,null,"M. White et al (2016)",null,"Seminal analysis for England which uses several years of Monitoring Engagement with the Natural Environment (MENE) visitor survey data to identify those visitors who undertake physical activity in the natural environment which contributes (fully or in part) to meet Chief Medical Officer physical activity guidelines of adequate intensity (i.e. at least 150 minutes of moderately intensive activity - one way to achieve this is to do 30 minutes' activity at least 5 days a week). 30 minutes a week of moderate-intense physical activity, if undertaken 52 weeks a year, would be associated with 0.010677 QALYs per year based on previous studies by the University of York cited in the article. "]
[null,null,"Eftec et al (2017) for Defra",null,"Applies the White et al (2016) methodology to all UK urban areas as defined in the scoping account. This is the basis for the physical health estimates in ONS'  Urban Natural Capital Accounts (2019)"]
[null,null,"ONS (2019), UK Urban Natural Capital Accounts",null,"Provides estimates of \"active\" visitors to green and blue spaces within the urban accounting boundary. This is taken from Eftec et al (2017)"]
[null,null,"ORVal Tool",null,"Estimates of site visits in ORVal can be used as the basis for a first approximation of the proportion of visits (see below) which generate physical health benefits. "]
[null,null,"WHO, Health Economic Assessment Tool (HEAT)",null,"An online tool that can estimate in monetary terms the reduction in mortality as a consequence of specified amounts of cycling or walking. "]
[null,null,"Defra and University of Exeter (2016)",null,"A wide-ranging survey of the scientific evidence around health and the natural environment"]
[null,"Selected biophysical estimates","Source","Number of visitors getting a health benefit","Notes"]
[null,null,"M. White et al (2016)","3.2 million \"active visitors\" /year","To all natural environment sites in England  -  visitors who use the natural environment wholly or in part to meet weekly activity guidelines as described above. These are likely to be a lower bound to the service, as there will be regular visitors that don't meet the full weekly activity guidelines but still get a physical health benefit by partially meeting the guidelines (For example, see Natural England (2016) below.)"]
[null,null,"ONS (2019)","2.1 million \"active visitors\" / year","UK estimate for urban natural sites only - 2015 figure. These are visitors who use the natural environment in whole or part to meet weekly activity guidelines as described above. The estimate is taken from Eftec et al (2017) and provides 74,000 Quality Adjusted Life Years, based on the White et al (2016) methodology."]
[null,null,"Natural England (2016)","4.7 million \"regular walkers\" / year","Estimate for all green space sites in England, based on 2009-13 MENE data, in which 11.4% of MENE respondents reported walking in a greenspace at least twice in the past week. This share is applied to the 2010 English population (41.4 million) on the basis that the sample is broadly representative of the wider English population. This is part of an exploratory study that examines the people most likely to reduce their exercise levels as a result of a decline in greenspace quality and accessibility. The study estimates that of these 4.7 million, around  700,000 people (15%) would be unlikely to substitute their current level of greenspace exercise for exercise elsewhere should the quality or quantity of greenspace radically decline. The health benefits for this group of people are then valued using the HEAT tool. "]
[null,null,"Source","Number of active visits generating a health benefit","Notes"]
[null,null,"Defra calculation based on M. White et al (2016)","533 million \"active visits\" / year","2009-14 average, England only; covers all natural habitats and based on MENE data. This total represents 18.8% of all annual recreational visits based on 2009-14 annual average of 2829 million visits. Calculated using Table 4 of M. White et al (2016) by multiplying number of weekly \"active visits\" with \"active visitors\" for each level of activity (1,2,3,4 and 5 or more visits per week) and scaling up to annual visits.  \n\nLimited only to active visitors to nature who meet weekly guidelines for physical activity (which may include activity outside natural sites). This represents a lower bound estimate because it excludes active visits by individuals who do not meet weekly activity guidelines. In White et al (2016), 1,229 million visits were active in some way. According to the MENE data, around half of visits to the natural environment are motivated by health reasons. "]
[null,null,"Defra calculation based on Eftec et al (2017) and ONS (2019)","462 million \"active visits\" / year","For urban natural recreation sites across the UK in 2017. This represents 18.3 % of a total of 2525 million urban recreational visits in 2017 reported in ONS (2019). Calculated using Table 4.11 of Eftec et al (2017), pro-rated to 2017 recreation figures in ONS (2019) and then multiplying number of weekly \"active visits\" to urban sites by \"active visitors\" for each level of activity (1,2,3,4 and 5 or more visits per week) and scaling up to annual visits and from England to the UK.   \n\nLimited only to active visitors to nature who meet weekly guidelines for physical activity (which may include activity outside natural sites).  This represents a lower bound estimate because it excludes active visits by individuals who do not meet weekly activity guidelines (according to the MENE data, around half of visits to the natural environment are motivated by health reasons)."]
[]
[null,"Key sources for valuation","Source",null,"Notes"]
[null,null,"ONS (2019), UK Urban Natural Capital Accounts",null,"Makes use of the White et al (2016) and Eftec et al (2017) methodology to derive estimates of active visitors / visits. Applies HM Treasury Green Book valuation for each QALY generated. Further iterations of the account will include both exchange and welfare values. "]
[null,null,"K. Claxton et al (2015)",null,"Assesses the opportunity costs of healthcare in the NHS and other healthcare systems, in order to derive a threshold for the cost of health outcomes that is more generally applicable than the National Institute of Clinical Excellence cost-effective benchmarks for new drugs. "]
[null,null,"WHO, Health Economic Assessment Tool (HEAT)",null,"For interventions that increase the distance or frequency that people walk or cycle, a tool that estimates the monetary health benefits in terms of reduced mortality. Note that HEAT uses a \"Value of Statistical LIfe\" based on a review of estimates by the OECD."]
[null,"Selected values","Source","Health outcome values (2018 prices)","Notes"]
[null,{"$f":"COUNTA(D44:D54)","v":5},"HM Treasury Green Book","£60,000 per Quality Adjusted Life Year","This represents the welfare benefit of securing an additional QALY, based on willingness to pay studies. Referenced in Green Book but is under review."]
[null,null,"Claxton et al (2015)","£15,000 threshold to buy one  Quality Adjusted Life Year ","Concludes that £13,000 of NHS resources adds one QALY to the lives of NHS patients (2008 values). Based on this research, Department of Health economists advise use of an indicative threshold rounded to £15,000 (base year assumed as 2018) to assess the cost-effectiveness of buying health outcomes, and is preferred to previously published National Institute of Clinical Excellence thresholds (of £20,000 per QALY used by White et al (2016) and Eftec (2017)). This value can be considered an average cost or exchange value as distinct from the \"full\" welfare benefit of one QALY of £60,000 stated in the Green Book. "]
[null,null,"Source","Value per visit (2018 prices)","Notes"]
[null,null,"Based on White et al (2016) and ONS (2019)","£3.07 / active visit - exchange value","This indicative average value is calculated by: taking the aggregate valuation of QALYs supported by urban recreational sites using the Claxton et al (2015) cost threshold per QALY of £15,000 (i.e. 74,000 QALYs x £15,000 = £1.11 bn p.a.) and dividing this by the total number of health-giving visits in UK urban areas (462 million - see physical estimates above). \n\nThis value would be additional to recreational values as there are two distinct beneficiaries: the public health service and the private individual."]
[null,null,"Based on White et al (2016) and ONS (2019)","£12.29 / active visit - welfare value","This indicative average value is calculated by: taking the aggregate valuation of QALYs supported by urban recreational sites using Green Book QALY valuation of £60,000 (i.e. 74,000 QALYs x £60,000 = £4.45 bn p.a.) and dividing this by the total number of health-giving visits in UK urban areas (462 million - see physical estimates above). \n\nThis value is unlikely to be additional to recreational values because both values are based on the direct welfare of the individual. According to the MENE data, around half of visits to the natural environment are motivated by health reasons, which would suggest that the health and recreational benefits to an individual are indivisible. "]
[]
[null,"Limitations to valuation","The main challenge in valuing physical health changes associated with nature is robustly quantifying the relationship between new or improved environmental features and any change in activity levels. It is also important to be clear on the counterfactual and additionallity (see below)."]
[]
[null,"Other sources / approaches","There are a range of other approaches to valuing and measuring health benefits of greenspace. White et al (2017) analyse the relationship between different types of visits to the natural environment and different types of wellbeing.  Eftec et al (2017) also consider an avoided medical and economic costs based on the costs of treating five diseases that are linked to that inactivity. This may be more relevant at local level with data on local inactivity rates; such values are likely to be significant underestimates. Fields in Trust (2018) also estimate a partial lower-bound health value from local park visits on the basis of avoided GP visits, giving an annual value of £111m. Papathanasopoulou (2016) uses the Health Survey for England to estimate 24,853 QALYs provided by physical activities in aquatic environments in England. Sport England have developed the MOVES tool, which measures and values health improvements created by physical activity (based on lower risk of seven long term conditions) by comparing groups that engage in physical activity with the same group as if they had not taken part. This tool is used in the Natural England (2016) study. "]
[]
[null,"Guidance on projecting values","Defra air quality damage cost guidance recommends uplift of 2% per year for future changes to air quality on the basis of health effects. This is consistent with Green Book recommendation that future health values should be discounted by 1.5% p.a. rather than 3.5%, which implies that such values rise by 2% per year in line with projected real incomes. "]
[null,"Guidance on use  in appraisal","Avoid confusing \"visitors\" and \"visits\" - the latter will typically be a much higher number than the former, so be clear which it is you want to measure. The full value of a QALY (£60,000) should be used for welfare analysis as set out in Green Book, although this value is under review. The challenge is identifying how many additional QALYs arise as a result of an intervention, whether from a new site, or changes to existing sites. Not all visits created from an intervention will be additional (because of substitution between sites) and not all additional visits will generate a physical health benefit.  For new sites, the average share of additional visits to sites that generate a health benefit (18-19% as above) would offer a first conservative approximation of the new \"active\" visits that generate a health benefit - and then the unit values set out above might be applied. However, the specific context of the intervention should be properly considered to see if this is a plausible assumption, and sensitivity analysis should be used to test the effect of changing assumptions. "]
[null,"Guidance on use  in natural capital accounting","An exchange value would be based on what the NHS spends to deliver a single QALY on average - advised by DH economists as around £15,000 based on analysis by Claxton et al (2015). This (averted) cost is significantly less than the estimated benefit of a QALY in the Green Book of £60,000. Note that QALY values are under review. "]
[]
[null,"Potential overlap with other values","Use of avoided health costs will not overlap with recreational values as they reflect different beneficiaries. Use of welfare QALYs would potentially overlap with any recreational welfare values that have been estimated, becuase both accrue to the same beneficiary. There is also potential for overlap between mental health values and physical health values, although this will depend upon how mental health is valued. See, for example, the Amenity Tab. "]
[]
[null,"Related guidance"]
[]
[null,"Full references and weblinks","Claxton, K. et al (2015), Methods for the estimation of the NICE cost effectiveness threshold. Health Technology Assessment;19 (14)",null,null,"https://www.york.ac.uk/che/research/teehta/thresholds/"]
[null,{"$f":"COUNTA(C62:E85)","v":13},"Defra and University of Exeter (2017), Evidence Statement on the links between natural environments and human health",null,null,"http://sciencesearch.defra.gov.uk/Default.aspx?Menu=Menu&Module=More&Location=None&Completed=0&ProjectID=19511"]
[null,null,"Eftec et al (2017), Scoping UK Urban Natural Capital Accounts. Report for Defra.  ",null,null,"http://randd.defra.gov.uk/Default.aspx?Menu=Menu&Module=More&Location=None&Completed=0&ProjectID=19843"]
[null,null,"Fields in Trust (2018), Revaluing parks and green spaces: measuring their economic and wellbeing value to individuals",null,null,"http://www.fieldsintrust.org/Upload/file/research/Revaluing-Parks-and-Green-Spaces-Report.pdf"]
[null,null,"Health Economic Assessment Tool (HEAT) for walking and cycling. World Health Organization, Europe.",null,null,"http://www.euro.who.int/en/health-topics/environment-and-health/Transport-and-health/activities/guidance-and-tools/health-economic-assessment-tool-heat-for-cycling-and-walking"]
[null,null,"Natural England (2016), Investigating the potential increase in health costs due to a decline in access to greenspace: an exploratory study.",null,null,"http://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/publication/6213889835401216"]
[null,null,"Natural England, Monitor of Engagement with the Natural Environment",null,null,"https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/monitor-of-engagement-with-the-natural-environment-survey-purpose-and-results"]
[null,null,"ONS (2019) UK Natural Capital - Urban Accounts",null,null,"https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/environmentalaccounts/bulletins/uknaturalcapital/urbanaccounts"]
[null,null,"ORVal (2016, 2018), University of Exeter, Outdoor Recreation Valuation Tool",null,null,"https://www.leep.exeter.ac.uk/orval/"]
[null,null,"Papathanasopoulou, E. et al (2016),  Valuing the health benefits of physical activities in the marine environment and their importance for marine spatial planning. Marine Policy 63 ",null,null,"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308597X15002936"]
[null,null,"Sport England (2016)",null,null,"https://www.sportengland.org/our-work/health-and-inactivity/what-is-moves/"]
[null,null,"White, M. et al (2016), Recreational physical activity in natural environments and implications for health: A population based cross-sectional study in England. Preventive Medicine 91 383–388",null,null,"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0091743516302298"]
[null,null,"White, M. et al (2017), Natural environments and subjective wellbeing: Different types of exposure are associated with different aspects of wellbeing, Health and Place Vol.44",null,null,"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S135382921730223X"]

{"sheet":"Education","index":18,"n_rows":66,"n_cols":10,"rows_kept":66,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[[20,2,20,5],[64,2,64,4],[64,5,64,7],[60,2,60,4],[60,5,60,7],[26,4,26,7],[27,4,27,7],[28,2,28,3],[28,4,28,7],[30,4,30,7],[30,2,31,2],[31,4,31,7],[37,2,37,3],[37,4,37,7],[32,4,32,7],[33,4,33,7],[65,2,65,4],[65,5,65,7],[58,2,58,4],[58,5,58,7],[62,2,62,4],[62,5,62,7],[63,2,63,4],[63,5,63,7],[59,2,59,4],[59,5,59,7],[61,2,61,4],[61,5,61,7],[57,2,57,3],[44,2,44,7],[39,4,39,7],[40,4,40,7],[48,2,48,7],[49,2,49,7],[56,2,56,7],[50,2,50,7],[52,2,52,7],[54,2,54,7],[42,4,42,7],[1,1,7,1],[1,2,7,5],[10,2,10,5],[16,2,16,5],[18,2,18,5],[26,2,26,3],[27,2,27,3],[36,2,36,3],[36,4,36,7],[46,2,46,7],[41,4,41,7]]}
["Educational benefits of the environment",null,null,null,null,"Back to index"]
[null,"Why is it relevant?","Engaging with nature can lead to increased environmental knowledge and general learning experiences, supporting learning and attainment. The service can operate in different contexts, for example from pre-school and primary school children and special needs groups through to secondary school pupils, undergraduates and research students. Two aspects of the service are noted in the UK National Ecosystem Assessment: (i) embodied ecological knowledge from studying environmental sciences; (ii) nature-related school trips outside the classroom.",null,null,null,null,null,"Overall assessment of evidence"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"biophysical evidence","Medium","Some evidence, but incomplete or uncertain"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"valuation evidence","Low","Speculative, major gaps in evidence"]
[]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Potentially relevant to:"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Urban","●"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Farmland","●"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Mountains, M&H","●"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Semi-nat grassland","●"]
[null,"What nature provides","Environmental settings of varying habitats, which inform and support educational activities and learning experiences",null,null,null,null,"Woodland","●"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Coastal","●"]
[null,"Other inputs",null,null,null,null,null,"Marine","●"]
[null,null,"Transport, teaching staff, ",null,null,null,null,"Freshwaters","●"]
[null,null,"research equipment, facilities"]
[]
[null,"Final welfare benefit","Increased environmental knowledge and educational attainment"]
[]
[null,"Who benefits?","Children and students engaged in the learning"]
[]
[null,"What factors affect the level of benefit?","Proximity to, and relevant quality and characteristics of sites. Preferences of educational institutions for interaction with nature."]
[]
[null,"Physical metric","Numbers of visits; hours spent doing nature-related educational activity"]
[null,"Valuation metrics","£ per visit"]
[]
[null,"Key sources of biophysical evidence","Source",null,"Notes"]
[null,null,"ONS (2017), UK Natural Capital Accounts",null,"Visits to freshwater and farming environments"]
[null,null,"Monitor of Engagement with the Natural Environment",null,"Two-year pilot (as part of Natural England's annual survey)  to develop measures for children's engagement with nature. Includes various percentage statistics of school children visits. For example, in an average month, 8% of all school-aged children (6-15) visited a natural environment with their schools. "]
[null,null,"Natural England Evidence Briefing (2016)",null,"This synthesis briefing developed by the University of Exeter focuses on the impacts of learning in natural environments and the impacts of natural environments on learning processes and outcomes. The evidence reported is largely qualitative. "]
[null,"Selected biophysical estimates","Source","Description of estimate","Notes"]
[null,null,"ONS (2017)","263,000 farm visits on average 2013-15 in England ","These are educational and care farming visits which are facilitated through Natural England's Educational Access Programme. The accounts provide a time series. "]
[null,null,null,"61,000 wetland visits on average 2012-14","These are sourced from the Wildfowl and Wetland Trust, the data reporting school group visits across 10 wetland centres each year. The accounts provide a time series. "]
[null,null,"Natural England (2018)","37,000 educational visits to Natural England managed national nature reserves in 2017/18","Natural England's terrestrial nature reserves reported in the account represent 45% of the total area of National Nature reserves in England."]
[null,null,"Natural England (2012)","1.29 million visits in 2010","Annexed report by Eftec includes indicative national estimate of school visits, aggregated from formal and informal data from Wildlife Trusts, Wetland Trusts, RSPB, Natural England and National Trust. "]
[]
[null,"Key sources for valuation","Source",null,"Notes"]
[null,null,"Mourato et al (2010)",null,"Develops different approaches for two different aspects of educational benefits related to nature (i) ecological knowledge as an input into educational qualifications with enhanced lifetime earnings; (ii) a resource cost-based approach to investment in ecological knowledge outside the classroom by a case study of nearly 2000 school trips to 51 RSPB nature reserves around the UK. "]
[null,null,"Natural England (2012)",null,"Reviews a range of social and economic benefits. Includes as an annex a separate report on economic valuation by eftec \"Assessing the Benefits of Learning Outside the Classroom in Natural\nEnvironments\" which references the Mourato (2010) research. "]
[null,"Selected values","Source","Value","Notes"]
[null,{"$f":"COUNTA(D40:D52)","v":4},"Mourato et al (2010)","£2.1 billion / year (2010 prices)","Present value of environmental knowledge embodied in Geography and Science A-level and GCSE subjects, for 2009-10 students, based on future additional earning potential. This is relative to no qualifications (where it is assumed only the minimum wage would be earned over a lifetime, and those with qualifications earn a wage rate 15-22% higher than this) rather than relative to other forms of education. The environmental component of the \"added value\", based on the curriculum, is assumed to be 15% for Geography and 25% for Biology. The estimate can be interpreted as an annual value on the basis that each year brings a new cohort of qualifying students. The £2.1 billion estimate is based on 487,000 GCSE candidates and 82,000 A-Level candidates in 2010."]
[null,null,"Mourato et al (2010)","£16.46 to £25.59 / pupil trip 2010 prices) giving a mean of £21.03","Indicative average cost of an additional nature-based school trip per pupil as an \"investment\" in ecological knowledge. The unit values per trip are inferred by dividing the total cost range of £851,364 - £1,323,683 by the estimated number of children (51,724) attending the visits.  Total costs cover vehicle costs and entry fees (paid for by parents) and the cost of travel and waiting times. It is considered that the benefits would be at least as great as these costs. "]
[null,null,"ONS (2017)","£7.85 /  farmland visit","Average calculation dividing monetary flow average for 2013-15 (£2.07 million) by the physical flow average for 2013-15 (0.263 million). ONS calculates the monetary value of educational visits to farmland using two teachers' wages as a proxy for trip costs. Assume 2015 prices. "]
[null,null,"Natural England (2017)","£2.08 - £6.90 /  visit","Table C.6.1 on p. 64 lists a range of accounting prices for admission to national nature reserves for educational visits with and without Natural England staff input. An average value of £3.31 is used in the Natural England (2018) account of its National Nature Reserves. Price year is unclear. "]
[]
[null,"Limitations to valuation","Valuations based on educational attainments face a number of uncertainties in relation to: the ecological component of various disciplines, labour market participation rates, how the value of ecological education varies across primary, secondary and tertiary education, and how these values change over time. The counterfactual is also important: the value of ecological knowledge is relative to no qualifications rather than other qualifications. It would be incorrect to ascribe welfare gains based on more candidates switching from other subjects to environmental-based subjects. Cost-based approaches to nature-based school trips face data limitations regarding the number, length and cost of trips, and the ecological component of those trips. There is no comprehensive database of nature-based school trips, their destination and origins. "]
[]
[null,"Other sources","Natural England (2006) looks at the value of knowledge of geodiversity by comparing the value of access to different geological sites both with and without the provision of educational material. At Wren’s Nest National Nature Reserve, access to the whole site with educational material was valued at £21.26 per household per year compared to £7.83 per household per year without the provision of educational material.  This highlights the significant value of understanding of the natural environment and geological features, although this value will naturally vary according to the specific nature of the site in question. "]
[]
[null,"Guidance on use  in appraisal","See guidance on limitations above. An intervention which is expected to create additional nature-based educational trips should be valued as part of the overall benefits of the intervention, although care should be taken to assess whether the type of trip appraised is similar in nature to those in Mourato (2010). The unit values above would represent a minimum benefit; the costs of delivering additional educational trips from the perspective of the site (e.g. staff and materials) would be counted as an additional cost. "]
[null,"Guidance on use  in natural capital accounting","See use of accounting estimates in ONS (2017) for farmland and Natural England (2017) and (2018). The Mourato (2010) unit values can provide a basis for  upper-bound accounting estimates although strictly speaking, the focus in natural capital accounting is to identify the contribution of the ecosystem to the benefit, whereas a travel and time cost-based approach is seen as a proxy. Also care should be taken not to double-count learning benefits with wider recreational or health benefits, which should be accounted for separately. It should be clearly explained whether the valuation method calculates a welfare value or represents an exchange value based on expenditure. The Mourato (2010) analysis  is in the latter category. "]
[null,"Guidance on projecting values","The key variable is likely to be the additional number of visits being projected over time. Other variables can be assumed to be flatlined."]
[]
[null,"Potential overlap with other values","Care should be taken to avoid double-counting with health and recreational values, which also depend upon outdoor visits to the natural environment. "]
[]
[null,"Related guidance","n/a"]
[]
[null,"Practical applications","See Natural England (2017) and (2018). The Mourato (2010) estimates are used to support corporate natural capital account of Three Hagges Wood Meadow in Yorkshire (Eftec 2015), with the delivery costs to the estate deducted in order to derive minimum net benefits supplied by the estate."]
[null,"Full references and weblinks"]
[null,{"$f":"COUNTA(C59:E75)","v":8},"Eftec (2015), Assessing the Natural Capital of Three Hagges Wood-Meadow",null,null,"https://www.woodmeadowtrust.org.uk/learn/resources"]
[null,null,"Mourato, S. et al (2010), Economic analysis of cultural services: UK NEA Economic Analysis Report",null,null,"http://uknea.unep-wcmc.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=COKihFXhPpc%3d&tabid=82"]
[null,null,"Natural England (2006), The social and economic value of the UK's geodiversity ",null,null,"http://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/publication/62015"]
[null,null,"Natural England (2012), Learning in the natural environment: a review of the social and economic benefits and barriers",null,null,"http://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/publication/1321181"]
[null,null,"Natural England (2016), Monitor of Engagement with the Natural Environment: a pilot to develop an indicator of visits to the natural environment by children: results from years 1 and 2 (March 2013 to February 2015)",null,null,"https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/498944/mene-childrens-report-years-1-2.pdf"]
[null,null,"Natural England (2017), Is Corporate Natural Capital Accounting appropriate for monitoring nature reserves? An assessment for National Nature Reserves managed by Natural England",null,null,"http://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/publication/5727968978010112"]
[null,null,"Natural England (2018), Accounting for national nature reserves: a natural capital account of the National Nature Reserves manged by Natural England",null,null,"http://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/publication/4535403835293696"]
[null,null,"ONS (2017), UK Natural Capital: ecosystem accounts for freshwater, farmland and woodland",null,null,"https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/environmentalaccounts/bulletins/uknaturalcapital/landandhabitatecosystemaccounts"]

{"sheet":"Volunteering","index":19,"n_rows":65,"n_cols":10,"rows_kept":65,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[[57,2,57,4],[57,5,57,7],[55,2,55,4],[55,5,55,7],[27,2,27,3],[27,4,27,7],[32,4,32,7],[38,4,38,7],[30,4,30,7],[36,2,36,3],[36,4,36,7],[35,2,35,3],[35,4,35,7],[56,2,56,4],[56,5,56,7],[58,2,58,4],[58,5,58,7],[63,5,63,7],[64,2,64,4],[64,5,64,7],[60,2,60,4],[60,5,60,7],[62,2,62,4],[62,5,62,7],[59,2,59,4],[59,5,59,7],[61,2,61,4],[61,5,61,7],[22,2,22,5],[1,1,7,1],[1,2,7,5],[9,2,9,5],[16,2,16,5],[18,2,18,5],[20,2,20,5],[23,2,23,5],[28,2,28,7],[31,4,31,7],[63,2,63,4],[26,2,26,3],[26,4,26,7],[39,4,39,7],[41,2,41,7],[43,2,43,7],[45,2,45,7],[46,2,46,7],[47,2,47,7],[49,2,49,7],[51,2,51,7],[53,2,53,7],[54,2,54,3]]}
["Environmental volunteering",null,null,null,null,"Back to index"]
[null,"Why is it relevant?","An important aspect of volunteering is the benefits to society of volunteering opportunities, such as exercise, social contacts, training, preparing people for employment. These benefits are particularly relevant because environmental interventions, particularly by the third sector, may involve or even rely on input by volunteers. Data on volunteer input and information on the benefits of providing opportunities for volunteers can help secure funding from donors.",null,null,null,null,null,"Overall assessment of evidence"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"biophysical evidence","Medium","Some evidence, but incomplete or uncertain"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"valuation evidence","Low","Speculative, major gaps in evidence"]
[]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Potentially relevant to:"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Urban","●"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Farmland","●"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Mountains, M&H","●"]
[null,"What nature provides","Settings / opportunities for people to engage in voluntary conservation-type activities ",null,null,null,null,"Semi-nat grassland","●"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Woodland","●"]
[null,"Other inputs",null,null,null,null,null,"Coastal","●"]
[null,null,"Human input to facilitate, train; equipment etc",null,null,null,null,"Marine","●"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Freshwaters","●"]
[]
[]
[null,"Final welfare benefits","Range of use benefits, for example, exercise, health, training, community cohesion to volunteers which can be assumed to be at least as equal as the opportunity costs of their time. The conservation organisation will benefit from avoided paid-labour costs to produce the same output as that of the voluntary activity."]
[]
[null,"Who benefits?","Volunteers, conservation organisations"]
[]
[null,"What factors affect the level of benefit?","The benefits are determined by the preferences and opportunities for volunteer labour, as well as by the travel costs and opportunity costs of time that potential volunteers face.  "]
[]
[null,"Physical metric","Volunteer days / hours"]
[null,"Valuation metrics","£ / volunteer day or hour"]
[]
[null,"Key sources for biophysical evidence","Source",null,"Notes"]
[null,null,"25 Year Environment Plan Indicators - Engagement theme",null,"Includes an indicator in development to track the extent of social action for the environment such as environmental volunteering, conservation work and donations to environmental organisations. Includes an interim indicator indexing volunteer time spent on the natural environment in England, 2000-2016 provided by JNCC as part of the UK Biodiversity Indicators."]
[null,null,"UK Biodiversity Indicators",null,"Indicator \"A2 - Taking action for nature: volunteer time spent in conservation\" presents an index of the number of hours worked by volunteers for 13 UK conservation charities and public bodies including the National Parks. "]
[]
[null,"Selected biophysical estimates","Source","Description of estimate","Notes"]
[null,null,"Forest Enterprise England (2019) ","182,000 volunteering hours in 2017/18","Reported in Forest Enterprise England's account of the public forest estate in England"]
[null,null,"Natural England (2019)","150,000 volunteering hours in 2017/18","Reported in Natural England's account of its managed national nature reserves in England. "]
[null,null,"RSPB (2017)","3500 volunteers per year","Reported in RSPB's natural capital account of its estate"]
[]
[null,"Key sources for valuation","Source",null,"Notes"]
[null,null,"The Volunteer Investment and Value Audit (2011)",null,"Tested and practical method for estimating the impact of input by volunteers in financial terms only. It includes the costs associated with having volunteers and the value of volunteers’ inputs (in terms of equivalent paid work). "]
[null,null,"Department for Work and Pensions and Cabinet Office (2013)",null,"Internal research by Government economists to estimate the value of volunteering using the wellbeing valuation technique from the participant’s perspective, and exploring how the value changes for different groups. This assesses the benefits to volunteers rather than the equivalent financial benefit to the organisation.  "]
[null,"Selected values","Source","Value","Notes"]
[null,{"$f":"COUNTA(D39:D49)","v":2},"ONS (2013)","£13.09 / volunteer hour (2019 prices)","Replacement cost of an average formal volunteer hour, based on a methodology to value unpaid voluntary activity in the Household Satellite Accounts. This value is an estimate of what the same activity would cost if it was being provided by a paid person, in the market. ONS estimate a national value of frequent volunteer activity at £22.9 billion based on 2.12 billion frequent volunteer hours in 2012/13 i.e. £11.27/hour. We uprate this to an annual 2019 value using the Average Weekly (regular) Earnings Index (£11.27 x 170.4/146.7=£13.09).  Ideally, these replacement costs would reflect the level of skill of the voluntary activity. This methodology is used by Natural England (2019), which calculates a slightly lower hourly rate from ONS (2013) by incorrectly including non-frequent volunteer activity in the calculation. "]
[null,null,"Dept for Work and Pensions (2013)","£13,500 / volunteer per year (2011 prices)","Estimate of the monetary equivalent of the wellbeing derived from frequent volunteering, using subjective valuation techniques. This approach was developed as an alternative to the opportunity cost approach and  replacement cost approach. Note that this should not necessarily be seen as an amount that people would be willing to pay to partake in voluntary work. Also note that this is an average value which would clearly increase or decrease for different groups across society. "]
[]
[null,"Limitations to valuation","See notes below on guidance in use in appraisal and accounting. "]
[]
[null,"Other sources","A study (Rogerson et al 2017) for the UK's Wildlife Trusts measures the direct physical health and mental wellbeing effects on volunteers involved with a Wildlife Trust initiatives / projects, using a simple method that could be scaled up to use across the UK’s Wildlife Trusts. It does not include any economic valuation."]
[]
[null,"Guidance on use  in appraisal","An increase in conservation volunteering can be reasonably assumed to represent a free resource to the conservation organisation once recruitment and training costs are accounted for. This net resource benefit should not be double-counted with the outputs or benefits which that resource contributes to, such as ecosystem service benefits produced by the voluntary activity. It is reasonable to assume that the private benefits of volunteering exceed opportunity and other private costs, otherwise people would not volunteer. In principle, there are further spillover benefits of volunteering (health benefits, as with recreation; and social capital type benefits) which are relevant even if difficult to value."]
[null,"Guidance on use  in accounting","The treatment of volunteering in ecosystem accounting is yet to be addressed in the development of international guidance and there are few examples in practice. Conceptually, the challenge is identifying the contribution of the ecosystem / natural asset to the benefit of volunteering. An alternative but untested interpretation is to interpret volunteering as a revealed proxy indicator of a non-use value in which the act of volunteering reveals a willingness to sacrifice time to \"give something back\" to nature.  In corporate natural capital accounting, the opportunity costs of volunteer input are not incurred by the accounting organisation, but may be included as a \"cost met by others\" - see Natural England (2019). Costs of recruiting and training volunteers would be included under staff costs of the organisation, whereas the benefits of the voluntary activity are captured within the various other benefits on the balance sheet. The private benefits to the volunteer can be reasonably assumed to be at least the opportunity cost of their time (as measured crudely by replacement costs). In the Natural England account, volunteer replacement costs and benefits are equal and so balance out, with the effects of the volunteering implicit in the rest of the benefits side of the account."]
[null,"Guidance on projecting values","Flatline is recommended unless there is strong evidence-based expectation that volunteer numbers are on an increasing trend over time (for example, if a new environmental charity is created)."]
[]
[null,"Potential overlap with other values","Minimal, but care should be taken to avoid double-counting with recreation visits and values"]
[]
[null,"Related guidance","n/a"]
[]
[null,"Practical applications","Natural England (2019). Increases in and valuation of volunteering opportunities were a feature of the business case for the creation of the Canal and River Trust (see Defra 2012)."]
[]
[null,"Full references and weblinks","25 Year Environment Plan indicators (2019), Measuring environmental change: outcome indicator framework for the 25 Year Environment Plan",null,null,"https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/802094/25-yep-indicators-2019.pdf"]
[null,null,"Defra (2012), Impact Assessment for moving inland waterways into a new charity in England and Wales",null,null,"http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukia/2012/13/pdfs/ukia_20120013_en.pdf"]
[null,{"$f":"COUNTA(C56:E66)","v":10},"Department for Work and Pensions and Cabinet Office (2013), Wellbeing and Civil Society: Estimating the value of volunteering using subjective wellbeing data",null,null,"https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/wellbeing-and-civil-society-estimating-the-value-of-volunteering-using-subjective-wellbeing-data-wp112"]
[null,null,"Forest Enterprise England (2019), Natural Capital Account 2017-18",null,null,"https://www.forestryengland.uk/article/natural-capital-accounts"]
[null,null,"Institute of Volunteering Research - K. Gaskin (2011), The Volunteer Investment and Value Audit",null,null,"https://www.bl.uk/britishlibrary/~/media/bl/global/social-welfare/pdfs/non-secure/v/i/v/viva-the-volunteer-investment-and-value-audit-18.pdf"]
[null,null,"Natural England (2019), Accounting for national nature reserves: a natural capital account of the National Nature Reserves managed by Natural England",null,null,"http://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/publication/4535403835293696"]
[null,null,"Office for National Statistics (2013), Household Satellite Accounts - Valuing Voluntary Activity in the UK",null,null,"https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20160107021131/http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/wellbeing/household-satellite-accounts/valuing-voluntary-activity-in-the-uk/art--valuing-voluntary-activity-in-the-uk.html"]
[null,null,"Rogerson, M. et al (2017), The health and wellbeing impacts of volunteering with The Wildlife Trusts. Report for the Wildlife Trusts.",null,null,"https://www.wildlifetrusts.org/sites/default/files/2018-05/r3_the_health_and_wellbeing_impacts_of_volunteering_with_the_wildlife_trusts_-_university_of_essex_report_3_0.pdf"]
[null,null,"RSPB (2017), Accounting for Nature: A Natural Capital Account of the RSPB’s estate in England. ",null,null,"https://www.rspb.org.uk/globalassets/downloads/documents/positions/economics/accounting-for-nature.pdf?utm_source=accountingfornature&utm_medium=shorturl"]
[null,null,"UK Biodiversity Indicators, ",null,null,"http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/page-4253"]

{"sheet":"Amenity","index":20,"n_rows":92,"n_cols":10,"rows_kept":92,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[[90,2,90,4],[90,5,90,7],[91,2,91,4],[91,5,91,7],[35,4,35,7],[88,2,88,4],[88,5,88,7],[73,5,73,7],[55,4,55,7],[72,2,72,4],[83,2,83,4],[74,5,74,7],[75,5,75,7],[78,5,78,7],[77,2,77,4],[77,5,77,7],[17,2,17,5],[89,2,89,4],[89,5,89,7],[26,4,26,7],[28,4,28,7],[84,2,84,4],[84,5,84,7],[46,2,50,2],[46,3,46,7],[47,4,47,7],[48,4,48,7],[49,4,49,7],[50,4,50,7],[37,2,41,2],[26,2,26,3],[27,2,27,3],[27,4,27,7],[69,2,69,7],[70,2,70,3],[63,2,63,7],[59,2,59,7],[61,2,61,7],[32,4,32,7],[36,4,36,7],[67,2,67,7],[57,2,57,7],[65,2,65,7],[33,4,33,7],[34,4,34,7],[37,3,37,7],[32,2,36,2],[40,4,40,7],[38,4,38,7],[39,4,39,7],[43,4,43,7],[42,2,43,2],[41,4,41,7],[42,4,42,7],[28,2,28,3],[29,2,29,3],[29,4,29,7],[30,2,30,3],[30,4,30,7],[19,2,19,5],[20,2,20,5],[25,2,25,3],[25,4,25,7],[22,2,22,7],[1,1,7,1],[1,2,7,5],[9,2,9,5],[14,2,14,5],[16,2,16,5],[86,2,86,4],[86,5,86,7],[44,2,45,2],[44,4,44,7],[45,4,45,7],[52,4,52,7],[85,2,85,4],[85,5,85,7],[71,2,71,4],[71,5,71,7],[79,5,79,7],[80,5,80,7],[78,2,78,4],[81,2,81,4],[79,2,79,4],[87,2,87,4],[87,5,87,7],[82,5,82,7],[83,5,83,7],[53,4,53,7],[62,2,62,7],[54,4,54,7],[73,2,73,4],[81,5,81,7],[76,2,76,4],[76,5,76,7],[72,5,72,7],[82,2,82,4],[74,2,74,4],[75,2,75,4],[80,2,80,4]]}
["Local environmental amenity and disamenity ",null,null,null,null,"Back to index"]
[null,"Why is it relevant?","\"Amenity\" loosely refers to a bundle of cultural services that arise from being close to natural assets, including aesthetic and visual benefits, tranquility, and recreational opportunities. Conversely, activities such as waste disposal and quarrying impose local social costs such as noise, congestion, dust, odours and visual intrusion. These can undermine public enjoyment of an area and generate adverse health impacts. Land contaminated from past industrial activity and pollution can also result in costs to society. In surveys people consistently identify local environmental factors as being one of the most important factors in their wellbeing. Interventions that address these \"disamenities\" can generate benefits to residents, visitors and businesses. The bundle of amenity or disamenity effects is often captured in local residential property prices, which can be uncovered by hedonic valuation methods. These methods model property prices as a function of various observable characteristics such as property type, socioeconomic variables and locational and amenity factors. Using variation of property prices across these different characteristics, it is possible to estimate the willingness to pay for specific characteristics such as local envirnomental amenity. ",null,null,null,null,null,"Overall assessment of evidence"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"biophysical evidence","n/a"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"valuation evidence","Medium","Some evidence, but incomplete or uncertain"]
[]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Potentially relevant to:"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Urban","●"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Farmland","●"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Mountains, M&H","●"]
[null,"What nature provides","Local environmental settings for everyday living.",null,null,null,null,"Freshwaters","●"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Woodland","●"]
[null,"Other inputs",null,null,null,null,null,"Coastal","●"]
[null,null,"n/a",null,null,null,null,"Marine","●"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Semi-nat grassland","●"]
[null,"Range of final benefits","Aesthetic and visual benefits, the option value of local recreation, perceived mental or physical health benefits from better quality natural assets. These are often captured within the value of local property prices. "]
[]
[null,"Who benefits?","Local residents, passers-by and local workers and businesses"]
[null,"What factors affect the level of benefit?","Proximity of population to source of amenity or disamenity. Characteristics and condition of nearby sites. "]
[]
[null,"Physical metric","Numbers of households or properties within a certain proximity to the cause of the amenity or disamenity value"]
[null,"Valuation metrics","Typically, local amenity values are measured by their influence on local property prices; or £ / person or household / year"]
[]
[null,"Key sources of biophysical evidence and estimates","See sources below"]
[]
[null,"Key sources for valuation","Source",null,"Notes"]
[null,null,"Gibbons (2014)",null,"Commissioned for the UK National Ecosystem Assesment, this study produces estimates of the value of local environmental amenities associated with different habitats in terms of the impact on property prices, using a large nationwide dataset of housing transactions over a 13-year period. These include proximity to habitats, designated areas, domestic gardens and other natural amenities. It includes an introduction on the hedonic property pricing approach. "]
[null,null,"ONS (2019a)",null,"Uses the hedonic pricing method to model different characteristics of house prices based on the Ordnance Survey Greenspace map and a dataset that includes information on over one million properties sold in Great Britain between 2009 and 2016. The aggregate results are reported in the UK Natural Capital Account 2019 (ONS 2019b). A less detailed and technical article is also available at ONS (2019c)."]
[null,null,"GLA Economics (2010)",null,"Analyses impacts of green space (along with other factors) on house prices in London, using hedonic modelling. "]
[null,null,"Cambridge Econometrics for Defra (2003)",null,"Estimates disamenity costs of landfill across Great Britain"]
[null,null,"Defra (2012)",null,"Estimates benefits of remediating contaminated sites in selected areas. It identified statistically significant differences in local property prices from remediation in three separate case study sites."]
[null,null,"Defra Local Environmental Quality Valuation Guidance (2013)",null,"Guidance on monetary values for a range of local-scale environmental quality factors (e.g. litter, street trees, dog-fouling, fly-tipping, odours, graffiti, etc) for appraisal, and includes indicative monetary estimates. It draws out the key findings from research commissioned from Leeds University (2011). "]
[null,"Selected values - amenity","Source","Value","Notes"]
[null,{"$f":"COUNTA(D33:D56)-3","v":21},"ONS (2019a)","Average 1.2% price premium in 2016 for houses within 500 metres of publically accessible green and blue spaces","This represents additional value of £2814 per property based on average 2016 property prices (but expressed in 2018 prices). It is equivalent to an annual rental value of £102 based on ONS methods, although this average is very simplistic. ONS provide disaggregated values for a large number of Travel To Work Areas, ranging from small or negative values to premiums over 2%, the highest values being for Newcastle (2.55%) and Bath (3.71%). Full table and results are provided in ONS (2019a). A time series from 2009 to 2016 is also included. According to ONS (2019c), there are also variations between house types: values of flats within 500 metres of green space increase only by 0.6%, compared to around 1.4% for terraced houses and 1.9% for detached houses."]
[null,null,null,"1.1 - 2.8% average price premium for houses within 100 metres of publically accessible green space in 2016","Range relates to the area of publically accessible green space accessible within 100 metres. The high estimate relates to areas of 50 hectares, the low estimate relates to areas of 2.5 hectares. The average premium for areas of 15 hectares is 1.8%. "]
[null,null,null,"0.6 - 2.2% average price premium for houses within 500 metres of publically accessible green space in 2016","Range relates to the area of publically accessible green space accessible within 500 metres. The high estimate relates to areas of 50 hectares, the low estimate relates to areas of 2.5 hectares. The average premium for areas of 15 hectares is 1.2%. "]
[null,null,null,"0.9 - 1.9 % average price premium for houses within 100 metres of blue space in 2016","Range relates to the area of inland rivers, lakes, ponds and canals within 100 metres. The high estimate relates to areas of 3 hectares, the low estimate relates to areas of 0.2 hectares."]
[null,null,null,"Average 2% price premium for houses with a view over green or blue space","This is in addition to the value of proximity set out above. This represents additional value on average of £5369 per property that has a view over green or blue space. 6.7% of properties in the sample (equivalent to 1.6 million properties) have a view over green or blue space. "]
[null,null,"Gibbons (2014)","These are average England capital values that represent the additional benefit of a 1% increase in the specific land use type within a 1km grid square of the property, that is 1 hectare increase within a square km.  Other land types are included in the modelling but results are not all statistically significant. Regional variations around these England averages are also provided in Table 3 of the paper. To estimate amenity benefits, information is needed on the number of properties in an area, average property prices and what land type is being lost and what is being gained (for example, creation of 1 hectare of broadleaf woodland from farmland would indicate a net benefit of £376 - £115 = £261 per property - although this guidance is not explicit in the study).  Long run annualised figures can be obtained by multiplying these present values by the discount rate"]
[null,null,null,"0.36% increase in house prices per 1 hectare increase in freshwater within 1km grid square","In relation to average 2008 house prices, this represents £694 per property. "]
[null,null,null,"0.06% increase in house prices per 1 hectare increase in enclosed farmland within 1km grid square","In relation to average 2008 house prices, this represents £115 per property. "]
[null,null,null,"0.12% increase in house prices per 1 hectare increase in coniferous woodland within 1km grid square","In relation to average 2008 house prices, this represents £232 per property. "]
[null,null,null,"0.19% increase in house prices per one hectare increase in broadleaf woodland within 1km grid square","In relation to average 2008 house prices, this represents £376 per property. "]
[null,null,"GLA Economics (2010)","Each hectare of park space in Greater London within 1km of housing increases house prices by 0.08% on average. ","Relevant for small parks. This is broadly consistent with the more comprehensive and regionally disaggregated ONS (2019a) analysis. Quality attributes are not accounted for in the estimate.  It is reasonable to scale the 0.08% premium in proportion to the size of the park. ","Each hectare of park space within 1km of housing increases house prices by 0.08% on average. Additionally the presence of a regional or metropolitan park within 600 metres adds between 1.9% and 2.9% to total house value.","Each hectare of park space within 1km of housing increases house prices by 0.08% on average. Additionally the presence of a regional or metropolitan park within 600 metres adds between 1.9% and 2.9% to total house value.","Each hectare of park space within 1km of housing increases house prices by 0.08% on average. Additionally the presence of a regional or metropolitan park within 600 metres adds between 1.9% and 2.9% to total house value."]
[null,null,null,"The presence of a regional or metropolitan park within 600 metres of housing adds between 1.9% and 2.9% to total house value.","Relevant for larger parks. This is broadly consistent with the more comprehensive and regionally disaggregated ONS (2019a) analysis. Quality attributes are not accounted for in the estimate. "]
[null,null,"Mourato et al (2010) for the UK National Ecosystem Assessment","£135 - 452 / person / year for views of green space from home (2010 prices) ","Health value in terms of quality of life change from a view of green space from home (compared to no view). Valuation based on Quality Adjusted Life Years but including only quality of life (i.e. rather than life expectancy changes), value ranging from £6,414 to £21,519. The estimates are very tentative but broadly consistent with ONS (2019a) findings on valuing views of green and blue space when the latter are converted to an annual basis. "]
[null,null,null,"£171 - 575 / person / year for use of own garden (2010 prices) ","Health value in terms of quality of life change from increasing use of own garden (from less than weekly to weekly or more).  Valuation based on Quality Adjusted Life Years but including only quality of life (i.e. rather than life expectancy changes) value ranging from £6,414 to £21,519. Indicative only. "]
[null,null,"Morris and Camino (2011)","These UK NEA (Ch. 22) estimates are based on a value transfer function informed by evidence of wetlands across Europe and applied to UK sites. Inland wetlands refer mainly to peat bogs (also marshland); coastal wetlands refer to saltmarsh and intertidal mudflats. All are annual values in 2010 prices. "]
[null,null,null,"£339 / hectare","Average amenity and aesthetic value provided by inland wetlands."]
[null,null,null,"£227 / hectare","Amenity and aesthetic Value of an additional hectare provided by inland wetlands"]
[null,null,null,"£ 2080 / hectare","Average amenity and aesthetic value provided by coastal wetlands."]
[null,null,null,"£1394 / hectare","Amenity and aesthetic Value of an additional hectare provided by coastal wetlands"]
[null,"Selected values - disamenity","Source","Value","Notes"]
[null,null,"Gibbons (2015)","£14 million cost for households within 4km of wind farms, which equates to around 3.5% of house value on average. 2010 prices. ","Local disamenity of wind farm developments in England and Wales, focussing on their visual environmental impacts. Housing sales prices are used to reveal local preferences for views of wind farm developments"]
[null,null,"Cambridge Econometrics for Defra (2003)","7% reduction in property prices within 0.25 miles of a landfill site","Impacts are differentiated between properties greater or less than 0.25 miles away from the site. To aggregate values, an estimate of the number and value of properties within relevant distance bands from the disamenity site is needed to determine the total value of these properties."]
[null,null,"Ham et al (2013)","average 2.6% lower property prices within 3km of a landfill site in Birmingham","The range of values is driven by the distance of the property from the disamenity site. To aggregate values, an estimate of the number and value of properties within relevant distance bands from the disamenity site is needed to determine the total value of these properties."]
[null,null,"Eftec (2002) for Defra","£6 to £11 / household / year (2002 prices)","Public willingness to pay for avoiding the presence of beach litter and dog mess on beaches (from a baseline of \"some\" litter) using a choice experiment method. This equates to £144 million per year for England and Wales. The estimates are very old so should be treated with caution. "]
[]
[null,"Limitations to valuation","Hedonic valuation methods that estimate property price effects of amenity or disamenity will tend to aggregate a number of specific benefits / costs associated with the local environment. Therefore it is not readily possible to identify what it is specifically about the source of amenity or disamenity which is driving the welfare effect. "]
[]
[null,"Other sources","A range of indicative per hectare \"amenity\" values for different land types (rural, semi-natural, agricultural, urban fringe, urban core etc) are included in existing Department for Transport (2016) and MHCLG Appraisal Guidance (2016). The values are associated with recreation, landscape, ecology and tranquillity.  These values draw on very old studies (prior to 2002, when the values were first published by the then Office for the Deputy Prime Minister) and do not readily align with more recent valuation evidence set out in this Databook. Further work and interdepartmental discussion is needed to consider whether it is appropriate for such values to continue to be recommended for use in appraisal. \n\nFor evidence on the effects of green infrastructure on business rents, see the MEBIE Evidence Review (Natural England, 2014) and the Corporate Natural Capital Account for the London Borough of Barnet (Eftec, 2016).\n\nValuation evidence on the indirect costs of litter was reviewed by Eunomia (2014) for Keep Britain Tidy, and includes a range of categories of financial and welfare costs. "]
[]
[null,"Guidance on use  in appraisal","Property value effects reflect capitalised rather than annual changes in value, so appropriate adjustments may need to be made for annual values, for example by applying rental-house price ratios (see for example ONS (2019b). Importantly, hedonic valuation evidence will often be locally conditioned and so judgement is required in terms of how relevant site-specific evidence is to another spatial context. More generally, changes in amenity value will depend on many factors including local circumstances, population density and the environmental change in question. Therefore, care needs to be taken in using or transferring values from existing studies (see Value Transfer Principles), and judgement is required in terms of how relevant site-specific evidence is to another spatial context. "]
[null,"Guidance on use  in natural capital accounting","Amenity values that are reflected in property prices are likely to include values that may be explicitly measured and valued, such as actual recreational use or health values. According to the ONS / Defra Principles of Natural Capital Accounting (2017), where urban greenspace amenity values are estimated from property prices using hedonic approaches, double-counting can be avoided if it is assumed that the hedonic values already capture the value gained from \"free\" trips that involve walking or cycling to local recreational sites.  See also guidance notes below on potential overlap with other values. "]
[null,"Guidance on projecting values","Although house prices tend to grow in real terms over time, the ONS (2019a) analysis shows the absolute level of the premium to be flat in real terms, and projecting this forward would be a prudent approach. A less conservative approach would be to project a constant percentage price premium, so that the absolute value increases if real house prices increase."]
[]
[null,"Potential overlap with other values","Amenity value measured through hedonic analysis will potentially capture some of the other categories of benefits to those property owners. For example, a houseowner may have a preference to live close to park because of the ease of recreational access as well as the everyday views it offers of greenspace, which in turn may support mental health. Hedonic pricing analyses are unable to disaggregate the bundle of benefits that householders \"buy\", and unable to disentangle the reasons why householders prefer to live close to natural amenities. So care should be taken not to double count. For example, in the Natural Capital Account for Greater London (2018), in which property price uplift represents the majority of total monetised value, the possibility of double-counting park value is addressed by subtracting estimates of health value from the value estimated in property price uplift. This addresses the concern that residents may already take into account health benefits in their valuation of housing; this conservative approach to avoid double-counting may in fact lead to an underestimate. Some values, such as air filtration or temperature regulation, which are estimated at a broader spatial scale (see relevant tabs), may not in practice have any significant  overlap with local amenity values reflected in property price uplift. The key principle is only to combine amenity with other values if you can be confident in explaining how they are additional, and this judgement can only be made on the basis of understanding the scope and method of how each value has been estimated. "]
[]
[null,"Related guidance","ONS and Defra (2017), Principles of Natural Capital Accounting"]
[]
[null,"Practical applications","Property price uplift from proximity to greenspace is the largest single benefit category in the Greater London Authority (2017) natural capital account. Defra's (2019) consultation impact assessment on a Deposit Return Scheme for plastic drink containers makes use of the University of Leeds (2011) valuation of local disamenity factors to monetise the scheme's amenity benefit in terms of reduced volume of bottle litter. "]
[]
[null,"Full references and weblinks","Amec for Defra (2012), Options for a strategy for the economic appraisal of benefits of contaminated land remediation ",null,null,"http://randd.defra.gov.uk/Default.aspx?Menu=Menu&Module=More&Location=None&ProjectID=17468&FromSearch=Y&Publisher=1&SearchText=contaminated&GridPage=3&SortString=ProjectCode&SortOrder=Asc&Paging=10"]
[null,{"$f":"COUNTA(C72:E101)","v":21},"Cambridge Econometrics, in association with EFTEC and WRc (2003), A Study to Estimate the Disamenity Costs of Landfill in Great Britain, Report for Defra",null,null,"http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20130402151656/http:/archive.defra.gov.uk/environment/waste/strategy/legislation/landfill/documents/landfill_disamenity.pdf"]
[null,null,"Defra (2019), Introducing a Deposit Return Scheme on beverage containers - Consultation Stage Impact Assessment",null,null,"https://consult.defra.gov.uk/environment/introducing-a-deposit-return-scheme/supporting_documents/depositreturnconsultia.pdf"]
[null,null,"Department for Communities and Local Government (2016), The DCLG Appraisal Guide",null,null,"https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/576427/161129_Appraisal_Guidance.pdf"]
[null,null,"Department for Transport (2016), Value for Money Supplementary Guidance on Landscape",null,null,"https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/627487/value-for-money-supplementary-guidance-on-landscape.pdf"]
[null,null,"Eftec and John Sheaffe Associates (2016), London Borough of Barnet Corporate Natural Capital Account",null,null,"https://www.eftec.co.uk/index.php/project/%20%09london-borough-barnet-corporate-natural-capital-account"]
[null,null,"Eftec for Defra (2002), Valuation of Benefits to England and Wales of a Revised Bathing Water Quality Directive",null,null,"https://ukbeachmanagementforum.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/defra-beach-user-study-2002.pdf"]
[null,null,"Eunomia (2014), Exploring the Indirect Costs of Litter in England. Report to Keep Britain Tidy. ",null,null,"https://kenniswijzerzwerfafval.nl/sites/default/files/media/Eunomia%20-%20Exploring%20the%20indirect%20cost%20of%20litter%20in%20England.pdf"]
[null,null,"Gibbons, S. et al (2014) The amenity value of English nature: a hedonic price approach. Environmental and Resource Economics, 57 (2) ",null,null,"http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/49375/1/__lse.ac.uk_storage_LIBRARY_Secondary_libfile_shared_repository_Content_Mourato%2C%20S_Mourato_amenity_%20value_English_Mourato_amenity_value_english_2014.pdf"]
[null,null,"Gibbons, S. (2015), Gone with the wind: Valuing the visual impacts of wind turbines through house prices. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Vol. 72. ",null,null,"http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/62880/"]
[null,null,"GLA Economics (2010), Valuing housing and green spaces: Understanding local amenities, the built environment and house prices in London. Working Paper 42. ",null,null,"https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/gla_migrate_files_destination/GLAE-wp-42.pdf"]
[null,null,"Greater London Authority (2017), Natural Capital Accounts for public greenspace in London",null,null,"https://www.london.gov.uk/what-we-do/environment/parks-green-spaces-and-biodiversity/green-infrastructure/natural-capital-account-london"]
[null,null,"Ham et al (2013). The valuation of landfill disamenities in Birmingham. Ecological Economics, 85, 116-129.",null,null,"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800912003680"]
[null,null,"Leeds University for Defra (2011), Estimating the value of a range of local environmental factors",null,null,"http://randd.defra.gov.uk/Default.aspx?Menu=Menu&Module=More&Location=None&ProjectID=17599"]
[null,null,"Morris, J. and Camino, M. (2011),  Economic assessment of Freshwater, Wetland and Floodplain Ecosystem Services. UK National Ecosystem Assessment Working Paper",null,null,"http://uknea.unep-wcmc.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=lVLEq%2bxAI%2bQ%3d&tabid=82"]
[null,null,"Mourato, S. et al (2010), Economic analysis of cultural services: UK NEA Economic Analysis Report",null,null,"http://uknea.unep-wcmc.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=COKihFXhPpc%3d&tabid=82"]
[null,null,"Natural England (2014), Microeconomic Evidence for Benefits of Investment in the Environment 2 (MEBIE 2)",null,null,"http://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/publication/6692039286587392"]
[null,null,"ONS (2019a), Valuing green spaces in urban areas: a hedonic price approach using machine learning techniques.This is the full technical report.",null,null,"https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/environmentalaccounts/articles/valuinggreenspacesinurbanareas/ahedonicpriceapproachusingmachinelearningtechniques"]
[null,null,"ONS (2019b), UK Natural Capital Accounts 2019. ",null,null,"https://www.ons.gov.uk/releases/uknaturalcapitalecosystemserviceaccounts1997to2017"]
[null,"`","ONS (2019c), Urban green spaces raise nearby house prices by an average of £2,500 ",null,null,"https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/environmentalaccounts/articles/urbangreenspacesraisenearbyhousepricesbyanaverageof2500/2019-10-14"]
[null,null,"ONS and Defra (2017), Principles of Natural Capital Accounting",null,null,"https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/environmentalaccounts/methodologies/principlesofnaturalcapitalaccounting"]

{"sheet":"Biodiversity","index":21,"n_rows":118,"n_cols":10,"rows_kept":118,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[[116,2,116,4],[111,5,111,7],[114,5,114,7],[116,5,116,7],[113,2,113,4],[100,2,100,4],[100,5,100,7],[103,2,103,4],[99,2,99,4],[99,5,99,7],[104,2,104,4],[115,2,115,4],[115,5,115,7],[111,2,111,4],[114,2,114,4],[105,2,105,4],[105,5,105,7],[101,2,101,4],[104,5,104,7],[110,2,110,4],[108,2,108,4],[106,5,106,7],[108,5,108,7],[110,5,110,7],[117,2,117,4],[117,5,117,7],[109,5,109,7],[113,5,113,7],[107,2,107,4],[107,5,107,7],[49,2,49,3],[36,2,36,3],[36,4,36,7],[106,2,106,4],[98,2,98,4],[98,5,98,7],[49,4,49,7],[55,2,56,2],[48,4,48,7],[48,2,48,3],[51,2,54,2],[112,2,112,4],[112,5,112,7],[109,2,109,4],[102,2,102,4],[103,5,103,7],[101,5,101,7],[102,5,102,7],[1,1,7,1],[1,2,7,5],[19,2,19,5],[21,2,21,5],[26,2,26,5],[9,2,14,5],[39,4,39,7],[40,4,40,7],[39,2,39,3],[34,2,34,3],[34,4,34,7],[35,2,35,3],[35,4,35,7],[40,2,40,3],[29,2,29,3],[29,4,29,7],[32,4,32,7],[23,2,23,5],[59,14,59,17],[47,4,47,7],[30,2,30,3],[30,4,30,7],[31,2,31,3],[31,4,31,7],[43,2,43,7],[46,2,46,3],[46,4,46,7],[47,2,47,3],[41,2,41,3],[41,4,41,7],[42,2,42,3],[42,4,42,7],[51,4,51,7],[56,4,56,7],[57,3,57,7],[38,2,38,3],[38,4,38,7],[55,4,55,7],[52,4,52,7],[53,4,53,7],[37,2,37,3],[37,4,37,7],[93,2,93,4],[93,5,93,7],[83,2,83,7],[85,2,85,7],[63,3,63,7],[97,5,97,7],[94,2,94,4],[60,4,60,7],[61,4,61,7],[92,2,92,3],[96,5,96,7],[97,2,97,4],[68,4,77,7],[96,2,96,4],[66,4,66,7],[64,4,64,7],[65,4,65,7],[63,2,66,2],[81,2,81,7],[94,5,94,7],[95,2,95,4],[95,5,95,7],[54,4,54,7],[91,2,91,7],[79,2,79,7],[67,2,77,2],[62,4,62,7],[67,4,67,7],[57,2,61,2],[89,2,89,7],[87,2,87,7],[84,2,84,7],[58,4,58,7],[59,4,59,7]]}
["Biodiversity",null,null,null,null,"Back to index"]
[null,"Why is it relevant?","Nature's diversity, commonly referred to as 'biodiversity', is the variety of life on Earth. It includes all species (animals, plants, fungi etc) and the natural systems and habitats that support them. Biodiversity can be thought of as a core component of natural capital that supports the provision of environmental goods and services to people. It generates both use and non-use values, including insurance and resilience values. Biodiversity will underpin or be associated with many other ecosytem services and their benefits. Because of biodiversity's widespread significance, effects on it are essential to include when considering impacts and interventions that concern the environment. ",null,null,null,null,null,"Overall assessment of evidence"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"biophysical evidence","Medium","Some evidence, but incomplete or uncertain"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"valuation evidence","Medium","Some evidence, but incomplete or uncertain"]
[]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Potentially relevant to:"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Urban","●"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Farmland","●"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Mountains, M&H","●"]
[null,"What nature provides","Biodiversity has been defined by the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) as “the variability among living organisms from all sources including, inter alia, terrestrial, marine and other aquatic ecosystems and the ecological complexes of which they are part, this includes diversity within species, between species and ecosystems”. As such, biodiversity underpins all ecosystems and the services that they provide. ",null,null,null,null,"Freshwaters","●"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Woodland","●"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Coastal","●"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Marine","●"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Semi-nat grassland","●"]
[]
[]
[null,"Other inputs"]
[null,null,"Management that conserves and supports biodiversity, species reintroduction, and (on land only) creation of habitats"]
[]
[null,"Range of final benefits","Biodiversity underpins, to varying degrees, all ecosystem services. Species (micro-organisms, fungi, plants etc) underpin all services that provide inputs to production (for example, food, timber) and services that regulate the environment (such as maintaining water quality). They also directly contribute to people's interactions with the environment (for example, nature watching) and can improve the level and stability of ecosystem services. For these reasons, to avoid double-counting, biodiversity should only be valued where it directly affects human wellbeing and where it is additional to other benefits. "]
[]
[null,"Who benefits?","This will vary depending on the nature of the benefit. "]
[]
[null,"What factors affect the level of benefit?","Wider environmental pressures (climate change, pollution, invasive species etc); species and habitat types, extent, abundance and connectivity; conservation and land management activities."]
[]
[null,"Physical metric","Specific to the indicator(s) used"]
[null,"Valuation metrics","Typically estimated per hectare or per household. "]
[]
[null,"Key sources for biophysical evidence - national","Source",null,"Notes"]
[null,null,"25 Year Environment Plan Indicators - Wildlife theme",null,"Includes a number of developed or intended indicators related to the status, extent, condition and connectivity of habitats and abundance of species. These draw upon the other sources listed here. "]
[null,null,"UK Biodiversity Indicators",null,"Indicators of progress in meeting the goals and 'Aichi targets' agreed in 2010 by signatories (including the UK) to the Convention on Biological Diversity. They include data, for the UK, on populations of insects, animals, birds and fish; the area of threatened habitats; and area of land under environmental management schemes.All of the 2018 Biodiversity Indicators for the UK are available on the Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC) website jncc.gov.uk"]
[null,null,"Defra, England's Biodiversity Indicators",null,"Indicators of progress for long-term domestic and international commitments to reduce biodiversity loss. They include data (for England) on populations of insects, animals, birds and fish; the area of threatened habitats; and area of land under environmental management schemes. "]
[null,null,"Natural Environment Valuation Online",null,"Exeter University's Natural Environment Valuation Online web tool enables users to explore, quantify and make predictions about the benefits that are derived from existing and altered land use across England and Wales. The tool includes spatially disaggregated information on species abundance (based on JNCC's 100 priority species) and how this might change under different scenarios. NEVO does not work in Internet Explorer. "]
[null,"Key sources for biophysical evidence - local and regional","Source",null,"Notes"]
[null,null,"Priority Habitat Inventory ",null,"Provides mapped data on type and extent of Priority Habitats. Useable at a range of scales from national to local. This informs the 25 Year Environment Plan Indicator D1 - Quantity, Quality and Connectivity of Habitats."]
[null,null,"CEH Land Cover Map 2015",null,"Provides mapped data on extent and type of habitats. Useable at a range of scales from national to local. Covers all habitats in England but at a broader habitat type than Priority Habitat Inventory. Based on remote sensing, 83% accuracy. "]
[null,null,"Site of Special Scientific Interest Condition Data ",null,"Provides data on condition and quality of designated biodiversity features of SSSIs. Site level data available. This is relevant to 25 Year Plan Environment Indicator D2 - Extent and Condition of Protected Sites."]
[null,null,"Marine Protected Area (MPA) Condition Data ",null,"Provides data on condition and quality of designated biodiversity features of MPAs. Site level data available. This is relevant to 25 Year Environment Plan Indicator D2 - Extent and Condition of Protected Sites."]
[null,null,"Natural England Natural Capital Indicators",null,"Identifies indicators for measuring change in natural capital and provides detail of data sources and the scale at which the data are available. Identifies numerous data sets for measuring biophysical attributes for \"maintaining nursery populations and habitats\", which is what describes biodiversity within the framework that is used. "]
[null,null,"The Wetland Bird Survey",null,"Monitors non-breeding waterbirds in the UK, since 1965. Relevant to 25 Year Environment Plan Indicators D4 / D6 - Relative abundance and / or distribution of widespread and priority species; D5 - Conservation Status of our native species. "]
[null,null,"The Breeding Bird Survey",null,"Produced by the British Trust for Ornothology, RSPB and JNCC, the Survey monitors population changes of UK’s common breeding birds, since 1994. Relevant to 25 Year Environment Plan Indicators D4 / D6 - Relative abundance and / or distribution of widespread and priority species; D5 - Conservation Status of our native species. "]
[null,null,"National Biodiversity Network ",null,"Contains over 219 million species records. Includes a database of wildlife recording schemes."]
[null,null,"UK Butterfly Monitoring Scheme ",null,"Butterfly population annual data from a wide-scale programme of site-based monitoring and sampling in randomly selected 1km squares."]
[null,"Biophysical estimates","The datasets above provide numerous quantitative estimates and statistical indicators of a wide range of biodversity data. "]
[]
[null,"Key sources for valuation","Source",null,"Notes"]
[null,null,"Christie et al (2011) for Defra",null,"Estimates the willingness to pay of changes in biodiversity and associated ecosystem services that are expected to result from the delivery of the UK Biodiversity Action Plan (UK BAP) over the period 2010 - 2020. Uses choice experiments and a weighted matrix to apportion values for ecosystem servies to a range of habitats depending upon the importance of each habitat to those services. The methodology is reliant on key assumptions that have not been validated because the necessary evidence was not available.  This study is relevant for overall biodiversity spend. "]
[null,null,"Christie and Rayment (2012)",null,"The Christie et al. (2011) choice experiment methodology is further applied in relation to ecosystem service benefits supported by biodiversity in the context of Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs). In England, Sites of Special Scientific Interest are designated to conserve the best examples of the UK's species, habitats, geological and physiogeographical places. Benefit categories include: nature's gifts, water regulation, climate regulation, research and education, sense of experience, charismatic and non-charismatic species. The methodology is reliant on key assumptions that have not been validated because the necessary evidence was not available.  The original report for Defra is GHK (2011). This study is relevant for protected sites. "]
[null,null,"Boatman et al (2010)",null,"The objective of this contingent valuation survey was to estimate the benefits of the former Environmental Stewardship Scheme in England for use in a cost-benefit analysis. The Scheme comprised an element open to all land managers that provided a basic level of environmental benefit, and on land of greater environmental value, an element that provided a higher level of environmental management. "]
[null,null,"Morris and Camino (2011)",null,"Analysis produced for the UK National Ecosystem Assessment of the various services produced by inland and coastal wetlands, including values for biodiversity. The estimates are based on a value transfer function informed by evidence of wetlands across Europe and applied to UK sites. The values are tabulated in Chapter 22 of The UK National Ecosystem Assessment Technical Report (2011). See other tabs for valuation estimates for other goods. "]
[null,"Selected values","Source","Values","Notes"]
[null,{"$f":"COUNTA(D52:D78)-3","v":24},"Christie and Rayment (2012)","£43 / household / year (2010 prices)","Average willingness to pay to attain the ecosystem service benefits associated with the Maintain funding scenario for SSSI conservation activities in England and Wales (relative to a decline in condition in a \"Remove funding\" scenario). "]
[null,null,null,"£35 / household / year (2010 prices)","Average willingness to pay to attain the ecosystem service benefits associated with the \"Increase funding\" scenario for SSSI conservation activities in England and Wales (relative to condition in the \"Maintain funding\" scenario)"]
[null,null,null,"£956 million / year (2010 prices)","Aggregate benefit in terms of public willingness to pay to secure the levels of services and benefits currently delivered by SSSI conservation activities in England and Wales (relative to a decline in condition in a \"Remove funding\" scenario). See study for country and habitat breakdown. The authors note that these values are nearly 9 times the £111m costs associated with managing the sites in England and Wales."]
[null,null,null,"£769 million / year (2010 prices)","Additional public willingness to pay to secure the benefits that would be delivered by SSSIs in England and Wales if they were all in \"favourable\" condition and able to deliver a full range of services. See study for country and habitat breakdown, including per hectare values by habitat. The baseline benefit-cost ratio of [£956m / £111m = 8.6] can only be indicative of the ratio of benefit to costs that would apply to an improvement in condition. "]
[null,null,"Boatman et al (2010)","£26 / household / year (2009 prices)","Annual mean willingness to pay (95% confidence range of £23 - 29) for the wildlife and landscape benefits of the agri-environment Environmental Stewardship scheme in England "]
[null,null,null,"£818 million / year (2009 prices)","Aggregate average benefit for full anticipated Environmental Stewardship scheme uptake in 2013. This is associated with a Benefit-Cost ratio for the scheme (where benefits exclude carbon and only focus on wildlife and landscape) of 1.8 (range of 1.15 to 2.69). Including carbon benefits gives higher benefits. Medium to high confidence. See the report for other variants. "]
[null,null,"Morris and Camino (2011)","These UK NEA estimates are based on a value transfer function informed by evidence of wetlands across Europe and applied to UK sites. Inland wetlands refer mainly to peat bogs (also marshland); coastal wetlands refer to saltmarsh and intertidal mudflats. All values are relative to wetlands that do not offer significant biodiversity habitat. All are annual values in 2010 prices. "]
[null,null,null,"£ 454 / hectare","Average value of good quality biodiversity habitat in inland wetlands "]
[null,null,null,"£ 304 / hectare","Marginal value of additional hectare of good quality biodiversity habitat in inland wetlands "]
[null,null,null,"£ 2786 / hectare","Average value of good quality biodiversity habitat in coastal wetlands"]
[null,null,null,"£ 1866 / hectare","Marginal value of additional hectare of good quality biodiversity habitat in coastal wetlands"]
[null,null,"Willis et al (2003) for Forestry Commission","£386 million (2002 prices)","Partial estimate of the aggregate value for biodiversity across GB, based on a subset of woodland types (ancient and semi-natural woodland, new broadleaf, and re-planting / restructuring), together with regional breakdown. Ancient and semi-natural woodland accounts for £316m of this total. The approach only assigns a biodiversity value to just over 0.5 million hectares of woodland in total, leaving almost 2.2 million hectares (upland conifers) with no assigned biodiversity value (but see next entry). This suggests the value is a lower bound. In view of the age and method of these values, Forestry Commission are actively considering a new approach to valuing forest biodiversity, and have updated the Willis et al estimates (see below). "]
[null,null,"Defra and Forestry Commission calculations based on Willis et al (2003)","Forestry Commission economists have updated the Willis et al (2003) estimates of biodiversity non-use values with updated areas of relevant woodland and to 2015 prices. The area of woodland in scope is reckoned as 1.03 million hectares, consisting of ancient and semi-natural woodland, new broadleaf planting and conifer restocking / replanting. The updated aggregate GB value is £788m (2015 prices), giving an average value of £767 / ha. However, there are wide variations around this as below. Yet all estimates should be treated with much caution in view of the age and methods of the original study. "]
[null,null,null,"£1564 / hectare","Average non-use biodiversity value of ancient and semi-natural woodland, based on Willis et al (2003) willingness to pay estimates. "]
[null,null,null,"£588 / hectare","Average non-use biodiversity value of newly planted broadleaf, based on Willis et al (2003) willingness to pay estimates. "]
[null,null,null,"£149 - 297 / hectare","Average non-use biodiversity value of restructuring conifers (low) and general restocking (high), based on Willis et al (2003) willingness to pay estimates. "]
[null,null,"Christie et al (2011)","£746 million per year (2010 prices)","Additional UK benefits in terms of improved ecosystem services of improved habitat condition arising from fully implementing UK Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) - the \"increased spend scenario\". These benefits would be in addition to the \"current spend scenario\" i.e. the value of the ecosystem services directly attributed to UK BAP conservation activities across the UK as a whole which were estimated to between £1.26 and £1.47 billion per year. Estimates based on stated preference methods. "]
[null,null,null,"All values below (2010 prices) are average UK willingness to pay for enhancements to \"charismatic and non-charismatic species\", and \"sense of place\", associated with a significant improvement in habitat condition as a result of full implementation of UK Biodiversity Action Plans. They represent only a partial value of improving biodiversity and habitats .","These values are based on full implementation of Biodiversity Action Plans over and above current spending scenarios as at 2010. Other benefits within the aggregate estimates not included here are commercial food, wild food, climate regulation and water regulation. Benefits are for a mix of regional and national beneficiaries. These per hectare values have been calculated by combining the willingness to pay values for species numbers (charismatic and non-charismatic) and habitat condition (\"sense of place\") for each habitat (Table 30 in the report) and dividing these totals by the UK areas of those habitats (Table 2). Minor habitats and values are not reported here. The values for blanket bog restoration have been used in research for the Natural Capital Committee (2015) and Natural England (2012). These values have many caveats: they are based on choice experiments and expert weighting of services rather than biophysical modelling; they do not distinguish between improving different degrees of degradation, neglect geographical variation in valuations driven by beneficiaries' characteristics (e.g. population size, demographics, preferences). They do not assume increasing returns to scale of benefits to biodiversity that might be expected from improved connectivity of habitat, nor allow for decreasing returns to scale of biodiversity values as more biodiversity is conserved. Other methodological caveats are noted in the Report. Nevertheless they can provide a crude and conservative lower bound measure of the benefit of improved biodiversity and habitat condition, as noted and used in research for the NCC (2015). "]
[null,null,null,"£84 / hectare lowland heathland"]
[null,null,null,"£75 /hectare coastal floodplain habitat"]
[null,null,null,"£72 /hectare native woodland habitat"]
[null,null,null,"£70 /hectare upland heath"]
[null,null,null,"£55 /hectare hedgerows"]
[null,null,null,"£53 /hectare blanket bog"]
[null,null,null,"£34 /hectare purple moorland grass"]
[null,null,null,"£8 /hectare improved grassland"]
[null,null,null,"£4 /hectare arable field margins"]
[]
[null,"Limitations to valuation","Understanding of the quantitative links between biodiversity and ecosystem services is generally poor due to a lack of evidence (Norris et al, 2011). The impacts of interventions on biodiversity are usually partially captured in the economic value of the impacts on other benefits (e.g. provisioning services, recreation) but commonly are not valued separately. Estimates of the economic value of the impact on biodiversity tend to be derived using stated preference methods (choice experiments and contingent valuation), but such methods are susceptible to various methodological biases. For these reasons, Bateman et al (2014) adopt an alternative to valuing biodiversity directly in its integrated model of UK land use. It employs a ‘constraint’ of achieving a specific level of biodiversity (no loss in wild bird species diversity) in an application to identify optimal locations for planting woodland in the UK (in terms of the benefits to society). "]
[]
[null,"Other sources","See also Tab on Non-Use values. \n\nChristie et al (2006), originally research for Defra, uses stated preference methods to estimate and compare the value of biological diversity on farmland in the arable region of Cambridgeshire and the livestock region of Northumberland within the context of agri-environment policy and habitat re-creation. These regions are affected by decreasing levels of biodiversity from encroachment of housing developments. These values were used in the Natural Capital Committee research, alongside the Boatman (2010) estimates, to estimate the benefits of investing in the natural capital of lowland farmland.\n\nRayment (2019) quantifies the maintenance and restoration costs required for meeting potential environmental land management priorities that deliver multiple objectives for biodiversity, landscape and other ecosystem services. It provides reasonable and up to date sources for the per hectare costs of habitat maintenance, creation and restoration for different habitat types. \n\nEftec (2015) for Defra - considers the challenging issue of valuing biodiversity in the policy appraisal and cost-benefit analysis context; and the extent to which \"look-up\" values might be included for biodiversity. The paper is a supplementary report as part of the development of an environmental valuation \"look-up\" tool.\n\nBolt et al (2016) outlines why biodiversity can be hidden or missed in natural capital assessments and ways of making its importance clearer and more visible. \n\nIn 2012 Natural England and Defra developed a simple framework for assessing (and quantifying) differences in the distinctiveness of habitats and their condition. The metric was developed to measure biodiversity losses and compensation for offsets, but may be useful for other applications. It is being updated and refined in Defra and Natural England (2018) as the \"Defra Biodiversity Metric\"\n\nMwebaze (2018) Estimates the public’s willingness to pay (WTP) for a theoretical bee protection policy in the UK. The mean WTP to support the bee protection policy was approximately £43 per household per year. However, it appears that the survey sample, based on visitors to the Great Yorkshire show, is subject to selection bias with respect to average age and income, as the authors note. The research was funded by Defra. "]
[]
[null,"Guidance on use in appraisal","It is essential that the important roles of biodiversity in underpinning nature's benefits to people are acknowledged in appraisal, and that impacts on biodiversity are described if not quantified. It is good practice to employ non-economic perspectives to reflect the many contributions that biodiversity makes to people. The resilience and insurance values of biodiversity (e.g. in relation to future extreme weather events) should also be considered. In economic appraisal, impacts on biodiversity are not usually valued separately from impacts on other ecosystem services, but are integral to them, although they should be flagged as impacts in their own right (see Green Book 4-Step Process in ENCA Guidance Setion 3). Transferring estimates from existing literature to new contexts can be very problematic and misleading if the original studies are not properly understood (see Defra's Value Transfer guidelines), and for significant expected impacts, bespoke primary valuation studies are recommended. An alternative approach to employing estimates of impacts on value in appraisal is to identify least cost options of achieving minimum targets for biodiversity. For further information see Eftec (2015). "]
[null,"Guidance on use in accounting","Although aspects of biodiversity (for example, wildlife and/or game; or active principles for pharmaceutical products) can be viewed as services, current UN statistical guidance, followed by ONS, is that in general the value of species biodiversity will be captured via the value of the ecosystem services that each ecosystem asset produces. Biodiversity is primarily seen as a characteristic of ecosystem assets and an indicator of condition, and so should figure prominently in the condition account or asset register. See also Bolt et al (2016) and the Natural England (2017) assessment of natural capital accounting for nature reserves."]
[null,"Guidance on projecting values","If biodiversity is declining or under threat, the potential impacts of this on goods and services in future needs to be taken into account, although this is challenging. For further information see Eftec (2015). Jacobsen and Hanley (2009), using meta analyses of international studies, estimate the income elasticity of WTP for biodiversity conservation with respect to GDP per capita to be +0.38, with the general conclusion being that the elasticity lies between 0 and 1 i.e. WTP increases over time with economic growth but at a slower rate. They conclude that \"Benefits in present value terms can thus be expected to rise over time, independently of any scarcity-induced increase in values.\""]
[]
[null,"Potential overlap with other values","Because biodiversity plays various roles in ecosystems' processes, it contributes to the value of all ecosystem goods and services. Usually, the value of impacts on biodiversity are not estimated separately, which avoids counting its value twice ('double counting') but as a result impacts on biodiversity are only partially valued. Where some form of biodiversity valuation is added to another environmental benefit, it is essential that what is being valued as biodiversity is demonstrated to provide a distinct and additional benefit. Further information can be found in the Tab on Non-use Values. "]
[]
[null,"Related guidance","See ENCA Featured Tools - Biodiversity Metric"]
[]
[null,"Practical applications","The Boatman (2010) values formed the basis of the Government's appraisal in 2014 of an expanded agri-environment scheme in England. See Defra (2014)\n\nThe Christie et al (2011) and Christie and Rayment (2012) values have been variously used in value transfer. Natural England (2012) takes the Christie et al (2011) ecosystem service values (net of carbon) as an initial valuation for the ecosystem services provided under different land use and management interventions and compares these with the potential costs. Jones et al (2018) adapt the Christie and Rayment (2012) willingess to pay estimates for SSSI non-charismatic species as part of assessing the biodiversity benefits of reduced nitrogen emissions - see Air Pollution Tab. The Christie et al (2011) estimates have also been used as part of cost-benefit analysis for peatland restoration by Eftec for the Natural Capital Committee (2015)\n\nRSPB (2017) suggests ways in which the importance of biodiversity can be made more visible in a natural capital account."]
[]
[null,"Full references and weblinks","Bateman, I. et al (2014), Work Package Report 3: Economic value of ecosystem services. In UK National Ecosystem Assessment Follow-on. ",null,null,"http://uknea.unep-wcmc.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=1n4oolhlksY%3d&tabid=82"]
[null,{"$f":"COUNTA(C94:E119)","v":25},"Boatman, N. et al (2010) Estimating the wildlife and landscape benefits of Environmental Stewardship. Report for Defra. ",null,null,"http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/tna/20111108234249/http:/archive.defra.gov.uk/evidence/economics/foodfarm/reports/documents/estimatingthewildlife.pdf"]
[null,null,"Bolt, K. et al (2016), Biodiversity at the heart of accounting for natural capital: the key to credibility. Cambridge Conservation Initiative.  ",null,null,"https://naturalcapitalcoalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/CCI-Natural-Capital-Paper-July-2016-low-res.pdf"]
[null,null,"Bredahl Jacobsen J. and Hanley N. (2009) Are there income effects on global willingness to pay for biodiversity conservation? Environmental and Resource Economics, 43.",null,null,"https://www.researchgate.net/publication/226383331_Are_There_Income_Effects_on_Global_Willingness_to_Pay_for_Biodiversity_Conservation"]
[null,null,"Christie, M and Rayment, M (2012). An economic assessment of the ecosystem service benefits derived from the SSSI biodiversity conservation policy in England and Wales. Ecosystem Services, 1(1).",null,null,"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212041612000095"]
[null,null,"Christie, M et al (2006), Valuing the Diversity of Biodiversity, Ecological Economics, Vol. 58",null,null,"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800905003149#sec3"]
[null,null,"Christie, M et al (2011) Economic valuation of the Benefits of Ecosystem Services delivered by the UK Biodiversity Action Plan. Report for Defra. ",null,null,"http://sciencesearch.defra.gov.uk/Default.aspx?Menu=Menu&Module=More&Location=None&ProjectID=17272&FromSearch=Y&Publisher=1&SearchText=ne0112&SortString=ProjectCode&SortOrder=Asc&Paging=10#Description"]
[null,null,"Defra (2014), The Rural Development Programme for England, 2014 to 2020: Final Impact Assessment",null,null,"https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/319445/rdpe-ia-201406.pdf"]
[null,null,"Defra (2018) England Biodiversity indicators - Biodiversity 2020: A strategy for England’s wildlife and ecosystem services: Indicators",null,null,"https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/england-biodiversity-indicators"]
[null,null,"Defra (2019), Measuring environmental change: outcome indicator framework for the 25 Year Environment Plan",null,null,"https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/802094/25-yep-indicators-2019.pdf"]
[null,null,"Defra / JNCC, UK Biodiversity indicators 2018",null,null,"http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/page-4229"]
[null,null,"Eftec (2015). Valuing Biodiversity. Discussion paper for Defra. ",null,null,"http://sciencesearch.defra.gov.uk/Default.aspx?Menu=Menu&Module=More&Location=None&ProjectID=19514&FromSearch=Y&Publisher=1&SearchText=VALUING BIODIVERSITY&SortString=ProjectCode&SortOrder=Asc&Paging=10#Description"]
[null,null,"GHK Consulting et al (2011) Benefits of Sites of Special Scientific Interest. Report to Defra. ",null,null,"http://randd.defra.gov.uk/Default.aspx?Menu=Menu&Module=More&Location=None&Completed=1&ProjectID=17005"]
[null,null,"Jacobsen B. and Hanley N. (2009), Are there income effects on global willingness to pay for biodiversity conservation? Environmental and Resource Economics, Vol. 43.",null,null,"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10640-008-9226-8"]
[null,null,"Jones, L. et al (2018), Valuing Improvements in Biodiversity Due to Controls on Atmospheric Nitrogen Pollution, Ecological Economics Vol. 152. ",null,null,"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800917317032"]
[null,null,"Morris, J. and Camino, M. (2011), Economic assessment of Freshwater, Wetland and Floodplain Ecosystem Services. UK National Ecosystem Assessment Working Paper",null,null,"http://uknea.unep-wcmc.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=lVLEq%2bxAI%2bQ%3d&tabid=82"]
[null,null,"Mwebaze, P. et al (2018) Measuring public perception and preferences for ecosystem services: A case study of bee pollination in the UK. Land Use Policy Vol. 71",null,null,"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264837717304192"]
[null,null,"Natural Capital Committee (2015), The economic case for investment in natural capital in England",null,null,"https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/natural-capital-committee-research-investing-in-natural-capital"]
[null,null,"Natural England (2012), Valuing land-use and management changes in the Keighley and Watersheddles catchment",null,null,"http://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/publication/1287625"]
[null,null,"Natural England (2017), Is Corporate Natural Capital Accounting appropriate for monitoring nature reserves? An assessment for National Nature Reserves managed by Natural England ",null,null,"http://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/publication/5727968978010112"]
[null,null,"Natural England and Defra (2018), Defra Biodiversity Metric - Introduction to the proposed updated metric",null,null,"http://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/publication/6020204538888192"]
[null,null,"Norris, K. et al (2011). UK National Ecosystem Assessment Technical Report: Ch. 4 - Biodiversity in the Context of Ecosystem Services",null,null,"http://uknea.unep-wcmc.org/Resources/tabid/82/Default.aspx"]
[null,null,"Rayment, M. (2019), Paying for public goods from land management: How much will it cost and how might we pay? Report to RSPB, National Trust and the Wildlife Trusts",null,null,"https://www.wildlifetrusts.org/sites/default/files/2019-09/Paying%20for%20public%20goods%20final%20report.pdf"]
[null,null,"RSPB (2017), Accounting for Nature: A Natural Capital Account of the RSPB’s estate in England",null,null,"https://www.rspb.org.uk/globalassets/downloads/documents/positions/economics/accounting-for-nature.pdf?utm_source=accountingfornature&utm_medium=shorturl"]
[null,null,"Wills K. et al (2003), The Social and Environmental Benefits of Forests in Great Britain - Main Report. Report to Forestry Commission",null,null,"https://forestry.gov.scot/publications/sustainable-forestry/economic-research/665-the-social-and-environmental-benefits-of-forests-in-great-britain-main-report"]

{"sheet":"Soil","index":22,"n_rows":90,"n_cols":10,"rows_kept":90,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[[89,2,89,4],[89,5,89,7],[23,2,23,5],[82,2,82,4],[82,5,82,7],[87,2,87,4],[87,5,87,7],[83,2,83,4],[83,5,83,7],[46,2,50,2],[46,3,46,7],[47,4,47,7],[48,4,48,7],[49,4,49,7],[50,4,50,7],[25,2,25,5],[30,4,30,7],[31,4,31,7],[31,2,31,3],[35,2,35,3],[35,4,35,7],[34,2,34,3],[34,4,34,7],[32,4,32,7],[88,2,88,4],[88,5,88,7],[86,2,86,4],[86,5,86,7],[84,2,84,4],[84,5,84,7],[85,2,85,4],[85,5,85,7],[1,1,12,1],[1,2,12,5],[14,2,14,5],[19,2,19,5],[21,2,21,5],[26,2,26,5],[32,2,32,3],[45,4,45,7],[37,4,37,7],[54,2,54,3],[54,4,54,7],[37,2,37,3],[38,2,38,3],[38,4,38,7],[36,2,36,3],[36,4,36,7],[33,2,33,3],[33,4,33,7],[29,2,29,3],[29,4,29,7],[30,2,30,3],[44,4,44,7],[43,4,43,7],[42,4,42,7],[40,2,40,7],[41,2,45,2],[41,4,41,7],[73,2,73,7],[75,2,75,7],[67,2,67,7],[61,4,61,7],[57,4,57,7],[58,4,58,7],[59,4,59,7],[72,2,72,7],[81,2,81,4],[81,5,81,7],[65,4,65,7],[62,4,62,7],[53,2,53,3],[53,4,53,7],[56,2,65,2],[63,4,63,7],[56,4,56,7],[60,4,60,7],[64,4,64,7],[77,2,77,7],[79,2,79,7],[80,2,80,3],[69,2,69,7],[71,2,71,7]]}
["Soil health and degradation",null,null,null,null,"Back to index"]
[null,"Why is it relevant?","Soil is essential to life on earth and a core component of natural capital. Healthy soil  is a complex finite living resource which performs multiple functions including storage of carbon and regulation of greenhouse gases, infiltration and transport of water, controlling flood risk, nutrient and waste cycling and provision of food, timber and other materials. Soil organic matter plays a major part in the complex functioning of all soils.  The UK has over 700 soil types which underpin and explain its diverse landscapes and farming systems. Organic or peat soils make up 11% of England’s total land area, over 70% of which are drained or in poor condition, creating a source of greenhouse gas emissions and reducing peat's ability to store and purify water.  An estimated 1 million hectares of soils in England and Wales are at risk of erosion from wind or water (HM Govt (2018)). Another 3.9 million hectares of soils  are estimated to be at risk of soil compaction.  Soil erosion puts pressure on water bodies through increased sediment runoff, nitrate and phosphorous pollution. Offsite impacts of soil erosion include loss of carbon from soils to the atmosphere, dredging costs, costs to remove eroded material from drinking water, rivers, and lakes. Soil compaction changes the ability of soil to store and release water having an impact on flooding. Soil is also disturbed, damaged or \"sealed\" by urban development.",null,null,null,null,null,"Overall assessment of evidence"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"biophysical evidence","Medium","Some evidence, but incomplete or uncertain"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"valuation evidence","Medium","Some evidence, but incomplete or uncertain"]
[]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Potentially relevant to:"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Urban","●"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Farmland","●"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Mountains, M&H","●"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Freshwaters"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Woodland","●"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Coastal"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Marine"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Semi-nat grassland","●"]
[null,"What nature provides / causes of poor soil","Uncontaminated and undegraded soil. The main causes of and risks to soil health are: compaction, caused by mechanised operations or unsuitable grazing; excessive cultivation or drainage leading to loss of carbon, especially in peaty soils; erosion by wind and water caused by both the above and lack of vegetative cover and not matching crop to soil suitability; loss of organic matter; and sealing by urban and infrastructure development."]
[]
[null,"Interventions"]
[null,null,"Appropriate soil management, land use change"]
[]
[null,"Range of final benefits","Reduced GHG emissions, reduced water treatment costs, reduced flood risk, crop yield or quality gains, biodiversity gains."]
[]
[null,"Who benefits from improved soil health?","Society, water companies, households, farmers and other land users and managers  - depending upon the type of benefit."]
[]
[null,"What factors affect the level of benefit?","See above: 'What nature provides' and 'Interventions'"]
[]
[null,"Physical metric","specific to the indicator used"]
[null,"Valuation metrics","per hectare or aggregate values"]
[]
[null,"Key sources of biophysical evidence","Source",null,"Notes"]
[null,null,"25 Year Environment Plan Indicators - Natural Resources theme",null,"Different suites of indicators have been proposed to assess soil health, these include: soil properties such as acidity, organic matter content; soil structure; ability of soil to store or transport water; biological community present in the soil; and vegetation cover. A composite measure of soil health is being developed as part of the 25 Year Environment Plan Indicators Framework which underpins the multiple functions of soils in food production, runoff and erosion and carbon sequestration. "]
[null,null,"UK Soil Observatory",null,"The UK Soil Observatory is an online archive of UK soils data from nine research bodies. It provides easy and free access to fully described datasets allowing everyone to work with the latest UK soil research outputs. The hub provides a simplified soils dataset covering England and Wales (providing a general introduction on variations between soil types, and how soils affect the environment and landscape) which was created from the far more detailed national soil map held by the National Soil Resources Institute at Cranfield University (see LandIS). The UK Soil Observatory also hosts the World Reference Base map for England and Wales (derived from the national soil map) which shows the locations of 13 distinct reference soil groups recognised in England and Wales."]
[null,null,"Land Information System (LandIS)",null,"LandIS, the “Land Information System”, operated by Cranfield University, is designed to contain soil and soil-related information for England and Wales including spatial mapping of soils at a variety of scales, as well as corresponding soil property and agro-climatological data. LandIS is the largest system of its kind in Europe and is recognised by UK Government as the definitive source of national soils information. Arrangements for access to soil data are governed by an agreement between Cranfield University and Defra acting on behalf of the Crown. "]
[null,null,"Land Use Change Statistics",null,"Can be used as contextual and surrogate data for changes in soil natural capital stock and condition.  E.g amount of land being developed; change in land use from agriculture to forest.  For example: live land use table P361 "]
[null,null,"ONS (2019), UK Natural Capital - Peatlands",null,"A cross-cutting natural capital account which brings together key quantitative information on the extent, condition and services provided by UK peatlands, although generally lacks time series data."]
[null,null,"Natural England - Agricultural Land Classification (ALC) ",null,"Maps and associated data on food production potential, soil and soil protection. Used to indicate productive (biomass) potential of land.  Mapping and data available at a range of scales from national to local.  Graded from 1 (Excellent) to 5 (Very poor), based on long term biophysical characteristics  to indicate the inherent potential of the land/soils. Maps can be accessed via www.magic.gov.uk "]
[null,null,"Graves et al (2015)",null,"Uses an ecosystem services framework and soil mapping to assess the physical extent and economic costs of soil degradation in England and Wales. This article was based on commissioned research by Defra (2011)."]
[null,null,"Peatland Code Metrics (2015)",null,"Defra research that provides standard GHG emissions factors for blanket bog peatland in different states of condition to inform protocols under the UK Peatland Code."]
[null,null,"Valuing Nature report (2018)  ",null,"Synthesis report that takes a natural capital approach to soil. Covers carbon and yield losses, water quality degradation and flood risk."]
[null,null,"CEH for Defra (2017)",null,"Multi-year and multi-site Defra science project which provides the first complete set of carbon and GHG budgets for lowland peatlands in England and Wales."]
[null,null,"Source","Description of estimate","Notes"]
[null,"Selected biophysical estimates","Please also consult the datasets above as appropriate"]
[null,null,"Cranfield University for Defra (2011)","2.92 million tonnes","Aggregate annual estimate of soil erosion in England and Wales - from an estimated area of 1,022,459 hectares undergoing erosion in any one year"]
[null,null,null,"0.21 tonnes / hectare","Average annual national erosion rate over the total land area"]
[null,null,null,"2.9 tonnes / hectare","Average annual erosion rate in areas most at risk of erosion"]
[null,null,null,"3.859 million hectares","Total area in England and Wales liable to soil compaction"]
[null,null,null,"5.261 million tonnes","The total estimated carbon lost from the soil each year in England and Wales. Much of this will be from clay and peat soils."]
[null,null,"Peatland Code Field Protocol (2017)","By subtracting the difference between the pre-restoration emissions factor and the anticipated post-restoration factor, an estimate can be derived of the benefit to climate regulation of the project or intervention. For example, revegetating and re-wetting 1 hectare of peatland in order to improve it from \"eroding\" to \"degraded\" condition would reduce emissions by 21.3t CO2/yr, which if valued at a non-traded price for 2019 of £67/tonne CO2 would give a benefit of £1427/hectare. Increases in other benefits or services may be additionally valued. Note that the improvement will not be immediate and this would need to be estimated.  "]
[null,null,null,"23.8 tonnes CO2e / hectare","Annual emissions from \"actively eroding\" or continuous bare peat"]
[null,null,null,"4.5 tonnes CO2e / hectare","Annual emissions from \"drained\" peat - within 30m of an active artificial drain or gully drain"]
[null,null,null,"2.5 tonnes CO2e / hectare","Annual emissions from \"degraded peat\" with evidence of bare patches and limited sphagnum"]
[null,null,null,"1.1 tonnes CO2e / hectare","Annual emissions under \"near natural\" condition - with sphagnum dominant and only very limited bare patches. Note that pristine peat, which can sequester rather than emit carbon, is rare in Britain and such a condition is not considered achievable by restoration. "]
[]
[null,"Key sources for valuation","Source",null,"Notes"]
[null,null,"Graves et al (2015)",null,"The study estimates costs by ecosystem service and type of degradation, and distinguishes between costs on-site and off-site from the source of the degradation. It is based on research by Cranfield University (2011) for Defra"]
[null,null,"ONS (2019), UK Natural Capital - Peatlands",null,"Cross-cutting natural capital account which assesses and values the following services / benefits: water abstraction, peat extraction, food, timber, wind power, public research and recreation."]
[null,"Selected values","Source","Annual value","Notes"]
[null,null,"Cranfield University for Defra (2011)","All values below are in 2009 prices, and for England and Wales","The higher estimates of the ranges below partly reflect a more comprehensive and integrated treatment of degradation costs, explicitly considering the spatially distributed vulnerability of soils to major types of degradation under given land uses, as well as a more complete assessment of the costs of degradation once they occur. Per hectare values may be estimated by comparing aggregate values for individual categories with the relevant areas affected. "]
[null,{"$f":"COUNTA(D58:D67)","v":9},null,"£30-50 million","Agricultural production loss from soil erosion "]
[null,null,null,"£180-220 million","Agricultural production loss from soil compaction"]
[null,null,null,"£50-80 million","Increased flood risk from soil erosion "]
[null,null,null,"£120-200 million","Increased flood risk from soil compaction "]
[null,null,null,"£25-40 million","Water quality loss from soil erosion"]
[null,null,null,"£5-10 million","Water quality loss from soil compaction"]
[null,null,null,"£20-30 million","Diffuse contamination costs"]
[null,null,null,"£360-700 million","GHG emissions from loss of soil organic content"]
[null,null,null,"£80-120 million","GHG emissions from soil erosion and compaction"]
[]
[null,"Limitations to valuation","As essentially a natural capital asset, valuing positive or negative changes to soil health, as in Graves et al (2015) is only likely to capture partially the value of the range of services and benefits that the asset provides. In addition, many effects will be highly localised. For example, the effects on cultural ecosystem services could be considerable in locations where, for example, soil related loss of water quality in rivers compromises recreational interests,where erosion affects the value to people of landscapes, habitats and biodiversity, and where historically important artefacts are damaged. For further discussion of valuation challenges for soil, see Oshadhi et al (2013). "]
[]
[null,"Other sources","n/a"]
[]
[null,"Guidance on use  in appraisal","Care should be taken not to double-count with other benefits. In using any evidence in this tab, it is crucial to be clear about the type, location and change to soil quality that is being assessed. "]
[null,"Guidance on use  in natural capital accounting","In ecosystem accounting, soil quality is categorised as an indicator of ecosystem condition, which provides the basis for the flow of ecosystem services. It is not itself an ecosystem service flow. Robinson et al (2017) develop an accounting framework for European soils within the context of the UN System of Environmental and Economic Accounts. "]
[null,"Guidance on projecting values","The benefits of restoring peatland will not happen immediately, given the process of ecological restoration. Evidence-based assumptions should be considered in the projection and profile of benefits and discounting."]
[]
[null,"Potential overlap with other values","Soil is a cross-cutting natural asset that underpins all other land covers and captures a range of benefits, although Graves et al (2015) clarifies some of these. Care should be taken not to double-count with other bundled benefits such as water quality. In using any evidence in this tab, it is crucial to be clear about the type, location and change to soil quality that is being assessed. "]
[]
[null,"Related guidance","Further sources on peatland and soil can be found in the Assets Library under the Enclosed Farmland and Mountains, Moors and Heathland tabs"]
[]
[null,"Practical applications","The degraded peatland GHG emission factors are used in the UK Peatland Code. The Peatland Code was developed with Defra support to enable the approximate quantification of carbon sequestration / loss for different categories of peatland condition, from pristine to highly degraded. "]
[]
[null,"Full references and weblinks","25 Year Environment Plan indicators (2019), Measuring environmental change: outcome indicator framework for the 25 Year Environment Plan",null,null,"https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/802094/25-yep-indicators-2019.pdf"]
[null,{"$f":"COUNTA(C82:E101)","v":9},"CEH for Defra (2017), Lowland peatland systems in England and Wales – evaluating greenhouse gas fluxes and carbon balances. Report for Defra. ",null,null,"http://sciencesearch.defra.gov.uk/Default.aspx?Menu=Menu&Module=More&Location=None&Completed=0&ProjectID=17584"]
[null,null,"Cranfield University (2011), The Total Costs of Soil Degradation in England and Wales. Research for Defra. \nThe research was subsequently published as: Graves, A. et al (2015), The Total Costs of Soil Degradation in England and Wales, Ecological Economics, vol. 119",null,null,"http://sciencesearch.defra.gov.uk/Default.aspx?Menu=Menu&Module=More&Location=None&Completed=0&ProjectID=16992"]
[null,null,"HM Government (2018), A Green Future: Our 25 Year Plan to Improve the Environment Annex 1: Supplementary evidence report (pp. 52-53)",null,null,"https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/673492/25-year-environment-plan-annex1.pdf"]
[null,null,"ONS (2019), UK Natural Capital - Peatlands",null,null,"https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/environmentalaccounts/bulletins/uknaturalcapitalforpeatlands/naturalcapitalaccounts#ecosystem-services"]
[null,null,"Oshadhi et al (2013), Looking at soils through the natural capital and ecosystem service lens ",null,null,"http://digitallibrary.landcareresearch.co.nz/cdm/search/field/identi/searchterm/urn:ISBN:978-0-478-34743-2"]
[null,null,"Robinson, D. et al (2017), Soil natural capital in europe; a framework for state and change assessment, Scientific Reports, vol. 7",null,null,"https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-06819-3"]
[null,null,"UK Peatland Code",null,null,"https://www.iucn-uk-peatlandprogramme.org/funding-finance/peatland-code"]
[null,null,"Valuing Nature Programme (2018), Natural Capital Synthesis Report: Soil natural capital valuation in agri-food businesses",null,null,"https://valuing-nature.net/SoilNC"]

{"sheet":"Water quality","index":23,"n_rows":72,"n_cols":10,"rows_kept":72,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[[40,3,40,7],[43,4,43,7],[42,4,42,7],[41,4,41,7],[40,2,43,2],[25,2,25,3],[32,2,32,3],[32,4,32,7],[39,4,39,7],[25,4,25,7],[26,2,26,3],[26,4,26,7],[33,2,33,3],[33,4,33,7],[37,4,37,7],[38,4,38,7],[36,2,39,2],[36,3,36,7],[27,4,27,7],[29,2,29,7],[44,2,48,2],[44,3,44,7],[45,4,45,7],[46,4,46,7],[47,4,47,7],[48,4,48,7],[65,2,65,4],[65,5,65,7],[50,2,50,7],[62,2,62,7],[63,2,63,3],[52,2,52,7],[54,2,54,7],[55,2,55,7],[56,2,56,7],[58,2,58,7],[60,2,60,7],[64,2,64,4],[64,5,64,7],[1,1,8,1],[1,2,8,5],[17,2,17,5],[19,2,19,5],[10,2,11,5],[70,2,70,4],[70,5,70,7],[71,2,71,4],[71,5,71,7],[66,2,66,4],[66,5,66,7],[69,2,69,4],[69,5,69,7],[68,2,68,4],[68,5,68,7],[67,2,67,4],[67,5,67,7]]}
["Water quality ",null,null,null,null,"Back to index"]
[null,"Why is it relevant?","Nature provides clean water, but there are no pristine freshwater ecosystems in England, reflecting significant pollution and alteration of many water bodies in past centuries. The biological and chemical classification of rivers improved significantly between 1990 and 2008 as point source pollution reduced, but improvements since have been limited. Poor water quality is both a result of a variety of drivers (e.g. from agriculture, housing, industry, transport) and a cause of multiple costs in welfare terms.",null,null,null,null,null,"Overall assessment of evidence"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"biophysical evidence","Medium","Some evidence, but incomplete or uncertain"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"valuation evidence","Medium","Some evidence, but incomplete or uncertain"]
[]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Potentially relevant to:"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Urban","●"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Farmland","●"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Mountains, M&H","●"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Freshwaters","●"]
[null,"Causes of poor water quality","Physical modifications; waste water; run-off from agricultural chemicals and sediment pollution from towns, cities and transport; and invasive non-native species. ",null,null,null,null,"Woodland","●"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Coastal","●"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Marine"]
[null,"Interventions",null,null,null,null,null,"Semi-nat grassland"]
[null,null,"for example, regulations, incentives, behavioural change"]
[]
[]
[null,"Range of final benefits of improved water quality","Recreational benefits for anglers, rowers, other users of riparian habitat (e.g. walkers, bird watchers), more general local amenity benefits, as well as lower costs of water treatment; non-use values"]
[]
[null,"Who benefits?","Recreational users, riparian property owners, water companies"]
[]
[null,"Physical metric","specific to the indicator used"]
[null,"Valuation metrics","£ / km; aggregate values"]
[]
[null,"Key sources of biophysical evidence","Source",null,"Notes"]
[null,null,"Water Framework Directive",null,"Includes data on Good Ecological Status. Requirements for protected sites for favourable condition of biodiversity can be more stringent than WFD good status. Available at a water body level."]
[null,null,"25 Year Environment Plan Indicators - Water theme",null,"Includes a number of developed or intended indicators related to water quality and the water environment. These include pollution loads and incidents, WFD assessments and condition of bathing waters. See ENCA Assets Databook - Freshwaters tab"]
[null,null,"Natural Environment Valuation Online",null,"Exeter University's Natural Environment Valuation Online web tool enables users to explore, quantify and make predictions about the benefits that are derived from existing and altered land use across England and Wales. The tool includes spatially disaggregated estimates of water quality indicators (by river catchments and sub-catchments) and how these might change under different scenarios."]
[]
[null,"Selected biophysical estimates","Please consult the datasets above as appropriate"]
[]
[null,"Key sources for valuation","Source",null,"Notes"]
[null,null,"National Water Environment Benefits Survey (2007, 2013)",null,"Major primary valuation survey, updated in 2013, to develop average values across river basins and catchments for the benefits of investing in measures to improve water bodies (Rivers, lakes, canals and coastal waters) as part of the EU Water Framework Directive. The updated NWEBS values were acknowledged by Defra and Environment Agency as providing the best and most practical way to use the currently available evidence on monetary values for non-market benefits for implementation of the Directive. Values per km are provided for all catchments of changes in quality from bad to poor, poor to moderate, and moderate to good. Low, central and high estimates are provided. "]
[null,null,"Defra - Farmscoper Decision Support Tool",null,"Farmscoper is a decision support tool commissioned by Defra and developed by ADAS that allows the assessment of the cost and effectiveness of mitigation methods against multiple pollutants and multiple target, and identify the mitigation methods that provide multiple benefits. Provides default values for environmental benefit per unit pollutant emission reduced by on-farm mitigation methods. Benefits cover drinking water quality, fishing, bathing water quality and reduced eutrophication."]
[]
[null,"Selected values","Source","Value","Notes"]
[null,null,"National Water Environment Benefits Survey","NWEBS values recreation, amenity and non-use values, so it does not include improvements to provisioning and regulating services as a result of measures. Water quality benefits will also vary spatially. For example, for river basins with higher population densities, benefits in NWEBS are above the national averages. All are annual values in 2012 prices. See link for specific catchment values. "]
[null,{"$f":"COUNTA(D38:D49)","v":12},null,"£17,400 per km","National average for improving water quality in all water bodies, from bad to poor."]
[null,null,null,"£20,100 per km","National average for improving water quality in all water bodies, from poor to moderate"]
[null,null,null,"£23,300 per km","National average for improving water quality in all water bodies, from moderate to good"]
[null,null,"Farmscoper","The Farmscoper / ADAS values for nitrate, phosphorus and sediment are taken from Chadwick et al (2006) research for Defra and expressed in 2013 prices. Chadwick et al estimate the economic damage from water pollutants across a range of ecosystem goods and services (e.g. drinking water quality, fishing, bathing water quality and eutrophication) and isolate the contribution of agriculture. These unit values are relevant where the focus is on particular pollutants rather than overall water quality (as in NWEBS), where the focus is on changes in pollutant concentrations. ADAS also note the uncertainty around these values, and that such simple costings per unit of pollution reduced assumes that all reductions are equally beneficial, whereas reductions in relatively pristine waters may not be as beneficial as the same reductions in more polluted waters."]
[null,null,null,"£0.69 - £1.26","annual value of reducing a kilogram of nitrate in water from agricultural sources"]
[null,null,null,"£26.66 - £33.34","annual value of reducing a kilogram of phosphorus in water from agricultural sources"]
[null,null,null,"£0.30 - £0.49","annual value of reducing a kilogram of sediment in water from agricultural sources"]
[null,null,"Morris and Camino (2011)","These UK NEA (Ch. 22) estimates are based on a value transfer function informed by evidence of wetlands across Europe and applied to UK sites. Inland wetlands refer mainly to peat bogs (also marshland); coastal wetlands refer to saltmarsh and intertidal mudflats. All are annual values in 2010 prices. "]
[null,null,null,"£ 436 / hectare","Average water quality benefits provided by inland wetlands."]
[null,null,null,"£ 292 / hectare","Marginal water quality benefits provided by an additional hectare of inland wetlands"]
[null,null,null,"£ 2676 / hectare","Average water quality benefits provided by coastal wetlands."]
[null,null,null,"£ 1793 / hectare","Marginal water quality benefits provided by an additional hectare of coastal wetlands"]
[]
[null,"Limitations to valuation","The water environment is particularly complex and there are significant uncertainties regarding the effectiveness of measures to improve water quality. These considerations should be taken into account, as in Environment Agency (2015) in using valuation estimates. Sensitivity analysis is essential. "]
[]
[null,"Other sources","Pretty et al (2003) assess the aggregate economic costs of freshwater eutrophication, based on identifying a number of different cost categories. Some of these are not necessarily welfare-based (e.g. tourism revenue loss) and other aspects (e.g. recreation) may be out of date. Additional drinking water treatment costs are the largest single categories, along with recreational values. "]
[]
[null,"Guidance on use  in appraisal","See notes above for individual sources. For more detailed guidance on water appraisal, see Environment Agency (2013)"]
[null,"Guidance on use in natural capital accounting","Water quality describes the condition of the natural capital asset - supporting a range of services - rather than a specific service. So the values above would not be appropriate for use in ecosystem service accounts; rather water quality indicators should be included in the asset condition account. Regulating services which improve water quality such as nutrient removal are in theory appropriate for accounting. However, this is a conceptually complex area which is currently under international discussion in the context of the UN SEEA. "]
[null,"Guidance on projecting values","Unit values can reasonably be projected to increase over time in real terms, so as to be broadly consistent with health and recreational values which increase over time in real terms. "]
[]
[null,"Potential overlap with other values","When using water quality values, it is important to be clear what benefits and services they are including. Depending upon the intervention, it may be possible to combine with other benefits, such as provisioning or regulating services. "]
[]
[null,"Related guidance","Environment Agency's Water Appraisal Guidance (2013) has been developed to assist the assessment of benefits for economic appraisal of measures which affect the water environment. This can be used for River Basin Management Planning and other disciplines where relevant. "]
[]
[null,"Practical applications","The Environment Agency (2015) carried out a spatially disaggregated nationwide assessment in 2015 of the value of measures to improve the quality of water bodies and rivers to good status in England using the National Water Environment Benefits Survey. \n\nEnvironment Agency have also developed a spreadsheet based natural capital calculator which estimates the value placed by the public on improvements to waterbodies such as rivers and lakes. It has been used by organisations to determine the size of an enforcement undertaking offer to the Environment Agency (to improve the environment instead of paying a fine) after being involved in a pollution incident that impacted water quality."]
[]
[null,"Full references and weblinks","25 Year Enviornment Plan Indicators (2019), Measuring environmental change: outcome indicator framework for the 25 Year Environment Plan",null,null,"https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/802094/25-yep-indicators-2019.pdf"]
[null,{"$f":"COUNTA(C65:E85)","v":8},"Environment Agency (2013), Water Appraisal Guidance - Assessing Costs and Benefits for River Basin Management Planning",null,null,"http://www.ecrr.org/Portals/27/Publications/Water%20Appraisal%20Guidance.pdf"]
[null,null,"Environment Agency (2015), Update to the River Basin Management Plans for England's Water Environment - Final Impact Assessment",null,null,"https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/500583/Impact_assessment_update_to_the_RBMPs_for_England_s_water_environment__2015_.pdf"]
[null,null,"Environment Agency, Natural Capital Calculator ",null,null,"https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/water-pollution-natural-capital-calculator"]
[null,null,"Farmscoper for Defra (2013), Developing the Farmscoper Decision Support Tool - Extension",null,null,"http://randd.defra.gov.uk/Default.aspx?Module=More&Location=None&ProjectID=18702"]
[null,null,"Morris, J. and Camino, M. (2011),  Economic assessment of Freshwater, Wetland and Floodplain Ecosystem Services. UK National Ecosystem Assessment Working Paper",null,null,"http://uknea.unep-wcmc.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=lVLEq%2bxAI%2bQ%3d&tabid=82"]
[null,null,"National Water Environment Benefit Survey (2013), Updating the National Water Environment Benefit Survey values: summary of the peer review",null,null,"https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/updating-the-national-water-environment-benefit-survey-values-summary-of-the-peer-review"]
[null,null,"Pretty, J. et al (2003), Environmental costs of freshwater eutrophication in England and Wales, Environmental Science & Technology 37",null,null,"https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es020793k#"]

{"sheet":"Landscape","index":24,"n_rows":59,"n_cols":10,"rows_kept":59,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[[58,2,58,4],[58,5,58,7],[24,4,24,7],[26,2,26,7],[34,2,34,7],[36,2,36,7],[37,2,37,7],[38,2,38,7],[40,2,40,7],[42,2,42,7],[32,2,32,7],[24,2,24,3],[47,2,47,4],[47,5,47,7],[57,2,57,4],[57,5,57,7],[1,1,7,1],[1,2,7,5],[9,2,9,5],[14,2,14,5],[16,2,16,5],[18,2,18,5],[46,2,46,4],[46,5,46,7],[30,4,30,7],[29,4,29,7],[43,2,43,7],[44,2,44,7],[25,2,25,3],[25,4,25,7],[56,2,56,4],[56,5,56,7],[50,2,50,4],[50,5,50,7],[52,5,52,7],[55,2,55,4],[55,5,55,7],[53,2,53,4],[52,2,52,4],[53,5,53,7],[51,2,51,4],[51,5,51,7],[48,2,48,4],[48,5,48,7],[54,2,54,4],[54,5,54,7],[49,2,49,4],[49,5,49,7]]}
["Landscape",null,null,null,null,"Back to index"]
[null,"Why is it relevant?","Landscape provides the setting for people’s day-to-day lives. It does not only refer to special or designated landscapes or the countryside. All the elements that are referred to as natural capital, together with socio-cultural aspects, come together and shape the varied landscapes within England.  In terms of economic valuation landscape can be seen as a bundled good providing a range of benefits. However, valuation methods are generally unable to assess landscape \"character\" which must be done qualitatively. “Landscape” is closely associated with the more specific cultural service categories of “environmental settings”, but here the focus is more on wider landscapes that give rise to a range of cultural and aesthetic and visual amenity benefits. ",null,null,null,null,null,"Overall assessment of evidence"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"biophysical evidence","Medium","Some evidence, but incomplete or uncertain"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"valuation evidence","Low","Speculative, major gaps in evidence"]
[]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Potentially relevant to:"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Urban","●"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Farmland","●"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Mountains, M&H","●"]
[null,"What nature provides","Biotic and abiotic components underpinning landscapes",null,null,null,null,"Freshwaters","●"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Woodland","●"]
[null,"Other inputs",null,null,null,null,null,"Coastal","●"]
[null,null,"Man-made features and historical associations",null,null,null,null,"Marine","●"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Semi-nat grassland","●"]
[null,"Final welfare benefit","In the context of appraisal of environmental impacts, landscape benefits can relate to opportunities for recreational activities including nature viewing (e.g. bird watching), hiking, and the opportunities to experience views, sounds and scents. Includes visual amenity as well as cultural heritage. "]
[]
[null,"Who benefits?","Visitors, walkers, local property owners, local businesses etc"]
[]
[null,"What factors affect the level of benefit?","Extent, quality and distinctiveness of landscape. Intrusions of one sort or another (e.g. energy installations, transport infrastructure) on landscapes will tend to have an adverse effect on benefits and character. "]
[]
[null,"Physical metric","This will depend upon context"]
[null,"Valuation metrics","No standard metrics, will depend upon context and method"]
[]
[null,"Key sources of biophysical evidence","Source",null,"Notes"]
[null,null,"National Character Area Profiles (2014)",null,"Produced by Natural England to provide data and qualitative information on landscape for local decision-making. The regional character area profile documents explain how to access and use environmental evidence and information about places. National Character Areas divide England into 159 distinct areas, each shaped by a unique combination of landscape, biodiversity, geodiversity, history, and cultural and economic activity. Their boundaries follow natural lines in the landscape rather than administrative boundaries. As well as in-depth qualitative descriptions, each profile includes quantitative data on designated sites and areas, soil classifications, agriculture and woodland, public access and tranquility and intrusion scores. "]
[null,null,"25 Year Environment Plan Indicators - Natural Resources and Engagement theme",null,"Includes intended composite indicators related to changes in landscape character and its effects; and to the condition of heritage features of Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) and scheduled monuments. "]
[null,"Biophysical estimates","The National Character Area profiles provide a wide range of quantitative and statistical data for each area.  "]
[]
[null,"Selected values","Source","Value","Notes"]
[null,{"$f":"COUNTA(D30:D40)","v":2},"Willis et al (2003) for Forestry Commission","£150 million (2002 prices) ","Indicative annual GB value for wooded landscapes in different contexts e.g.  it is the value of seeing some woodland in the urban fringe rather than viewing this landscape without woodland. Different marginal landscape values exist for non-urban periphery woodland views, i.e. woodland in other landscape contexts, and for different woodland configurations in the landscape in terms of woodland shape and species mix. Aggregation is based on average per household willingness to pay values of £269 / year  for households with a woodland landscape view on the urban fringe, and £226 / year for household for views of urban fringe broadleaved woodland on journeys. Views of woodland in other landscape settings were either very small or statistically insignificant."]
[null,null,"Gibbons (2015)","£14 million for households within 4km of wind farms, which equates to around 3.5% of house value on average (2010 prices)","Local disamenity of wind farm developments in England and Wales, focussing on their visual environmental impacts. Housing sales prices are used to reveal local preferences for views of wind farm developments"]
[]
[null,"Limitations to valuation","The main challenge is disentangling different types of value, such as separating out landscape effects from impacts effects on biodiversity, and whether the whole landscape is being valued or specific components within it. Areas with ecological designations, for example Sites of Special Scientific Interest, often have signficant landscape value. A good review of the issues can be found in Swanwick et al (2007) in the context of agricultural landscapes. In view of the complex character of landscape, including its cultural and historical dimensions that go beyond simply \"scenic quality\", any economic valuation based on individual preferences should be considered partial. Hence the need for qualitative character assessments. "]
[]
[null,"Other sources","Temple and Eftec (2019) review various monetary and quantitative approaches to valuing landscape in the context of reviewing transport appraisal. The Gibbons et al (2014) study in the Amenity Tab estimates property change values for a 1% increase in a specific land type within 1km grid squares of property.  Ridding et al (2018) assesses landscape characteristics at different spatial and visual scales for different types of cultural engagement; a key finding is that areas that are accessible, near to urban centres, with larger views, and a high diversity of protected habitats, are important for the delivery of cultural ecosystem services, as are woodland and historic associations. A review for Defra (2014) of the economic contribution of protected landscapes in England (Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty and National Parks) focuses less on landscape per se and more on the economic activity generated by those designated areas. Other studies on wind farms, onshore and offshore, are referenced in the ENCA Assets Databook under the relevant habitat categories. "]
[]
[null,"Guidance on use  in appraisal","In order to assess the likely impacts of interventions (new development, changes in land management etc.)  on the landscape the baseline needs to be understood, and a Landscape Character Assessment will inform that baseline. See Natural England and Defra (2014).   Although landscape character and scenic qualities are related, the impacts of interventions on them are assessed separately. Landscape value may be informed by both landscape qualities (including natural capital) and scenic qualities.  The value(s) of landscapes, and their component parts can be ascertained qualitatively with reference to, for example: \na. Designations, which may be national (e.g. National Park, Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, Site of Special Scientific Interest) or local (refer to the Local Plan);\nb. Their distinctive character and sense of place;\nc. Valued attributes, such as topography, perceptual qualities, AONB / National Park special qualities;\nd. Community values;\ne. Recreational value - the more people use and enjoy the site, the greater its value – particularly if they do not have alternatives. Exeter University's ORVal tool provides a first approximation of these values in welfare terms. \n\nTownscape Character Assessment and Seascape Character Assessment are both based on the original Landscape Character Assessment methodology."]
[null,"Guidance on use  in natural capital accounting","Landscape value will generally be represented by, or inform, specific ecosystem flows such as enabling recreational activity."]
[null,"Guidance on projecting values","Refer to individual benefit categories"]
[]
[null,"Potential overlap with other values","Since landscape incorporates values for recreation, ecological value, aesthetic values and cultural heritage, care is needed in order not to double-count impacts. \"Amenity\" benefits are closely associated with \"landscape\", however \"amenity\" tends to have a more localised meaning (see Amenity Tab), whereas landscape often refers to a larger spatial scale. "]
[]
[null,"Related guidance","Landscape character assessment (LCA) is the process of identifying and describing variation in character of the landscape. LCA documents identify and explain the unique combination of elements and features that make landscapes distinctive by mapping and describing character types and areas. They also show how the landscape is perceived, experienced and valued by people. See Natural England and Defra Guidance (2014) on Landscape and Seascape Character Assessment. \n\nTownscape Character Assessment is further explained by the Landscape Institute (2018)\n\nDepartment for Transport Transport Analysis Guidance (2019) includes a chapter on appraising landscape effects using a non-monetary approach. This approach is under review. "]
[null,null,"Further guidance on landscape assessment is provided by the Landscape Institute"]
[null,null,"\nTownscape Character Assessment is further explained on the Landscape Institute website \n"]
[]
[null,"Full references and weblinks","25 Year Environment Plan indicators (2019), Measuring environmental change: outcome indicator framework for the 25 Year Environment Plan",null,null,"https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/802094/25-yep-indicators-2019.pdf"]
[null,{"$f":"COUNTA(C47:E75)","v":13},"Cumulus et al (2014), The Economic Contribution of Protected Landscapes. Report for Defra.",null,null,"https://landscapesforlife.org.uk/application/files/9315/5552/1970/Economic-Contribution-of-Protected-Landscapes-Final-Report-28-3-14.pdf"]
[null,null,"Department for Transport (2019), Transport Analysis Guidance Unit A3 - Environmental Impact Appraisal: Section 6",null,null,"https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/tag-unit-a3-environmental-impact-appraisal"]
[null,null,"Exeter University (2016, 2018), Outdoor Recreation Valuation Tool",null,null,"https://www.leep.exeter.ac.uk/orval/"]
[null,null,"Gibbons, S. (2015), Gone with the wind: Valuing the visual impacts of wind turbines through house prices. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Vol. 72. ",null,null,"http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/62880/"]
[null,null,"Landscape Institute (2018), Townscape Character Assessment: Technical Information Note ",null,null,"https://www.landscapeinstitute.org/technical-resource/townscape/"]
[null,null,"National Character Area Profiles",null,null,"https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-character-area-profiles-data-for-local-decision-making"]
[null,null,"Natural England (2014), An Approach to Landscape Character Assessment. ",null,null,"https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/691184/landscape-character-assessment.pdf"]
[null,null,"Natural England and Defra (2014), Landscape and seascape character assessments - How to carry out and use landscape and seascape character assessments.",null,null,"https://www.gov.uk/guidance/landscape-and-seascape-character-assessments"]
[null,null,"Ridding, L. et al (2018), The importance of landscape characteristics for the delivery of cultural ecosystem services, Journal of Environmental Management, vol. 206",null,null,"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301479717311416"]
[null,null,"Swanwick, C. et al (2007), Scoping study on agricultural landscape valuation. Report for Defra. ",null,null,"http://sciencesearch.defra.gov.uk/Default.aspx?Menu=Menu&Module=More&Location=None&Completed=0&ProjectID=15043"]
[null,null,"Temple and Eftec (2019), Valuation of Landscape Impacts of Transport Interventions & Mitigations Using an Ecosystem Services Approach. Report for Department for Transport. (Scroll down page for Main Report and Annex.)",null,null,"https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/transport-modelling-and-appraisal"]
[null,null,"Wills K. et al (2003), The Social and Environmental Benefits of Forests in Great Britain - Main Report. Report to Forestry Commission",null,null,"https://forestry.gov.scot/publications/sustainable-forestry/economic-research/665-the-social-and-environmental-benefits-of-forests-in-great-britain-main-report"]

{"sheet":"Non-use values","index":25,"n_rows":59,"n_cols":10,"rows_kept":59,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[[23,2,23,5],[1,1,10,1],[13,2,13,5],[19,2,19,5],[21,2,21,5],[1,2,10,5],[26,2,26,5],[29,2,29,7],[25,2,25,5],[34,4,34,7],[33,4,33,7],[28,2,28,7],[30,2,30,7],[35,4,35,7],[34,2,35,2],[41,2,41,7],[43,2,43,7],[44,2,44,7],[36,2,37,2],[36,4,37,7],[45,2,45,7],[47,2,47,7],[49,2,49,7],[51,2,51,7],[39,2,39,7],[53,5,53,7],[54,5,54,7],[53,2,53,4],[54,2,54,4],[57,2,57,4],[55,2,55,4],[55,5,55,7],[58,2,58,4],[58,5,58,7],[57,5,57,7],[56,2,56,4],[56,5,56,7]]}
["Non-use values",null,null,null,null,"Back to index"]
[null,"Why is it relevant?","Non-use values arise from the benefit of individuals knowing that an aspect of the environment exists and is being, or will be, maintained. They are particularly relevant to aspects of the environment for which people express strong preferences, or are considered particularly distinctive, such as charismatic species, special habitats, landscapes and heritage.  They can be relevant at a range of spatial scales, from local through to international. Non-use values can be linked to ethical concerns and altruistic preferences, although these may be difficult to distinguish from self-interest. Non-use values are often combined with \"use\" values in estimates from stated preference techniques (see notes below).  ",null,null,null,null,null,"Overall assessment of evidence"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"biophysical evidence","n/a"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"valuation evidence","Low","Speculative, major gaps in evidence"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Potentially relevant to:"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Urban","●"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Farmland","●"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Mountains, M&H","●"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Freshwaters","●"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Woodland","●"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Coastal","●"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Marine","●"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Semi-nat grassland","●"]
[null,"What nature provides","Species, ecosystems, landscapes, environmental settings - all of which can provide non-use as well as use values. "]
[]
[null,"Other inputs"]
[null,null,"Management that maintains or enhances the environment, species reintroduction, and creation of habitats."]
[]
[]
[null,"Range of final benefits"," There are three types of non-use value, all of which pertain to individuals, and which can overlap: \n(i) Existence value: the satisfaction of knowing that something (e.g. an ecosystem) continues to exist; (ii) Bequest value: the benefit of knowing that an ecosystem will be passed on to future generations so that they will have the opportunity to enjoy it; (iii) Altruistic value: the satisfaction gained from ensuring that an aspect of the environment is available to others in the current generation."]
[]
[null,"Who benefits?","It is individuals (households) who gain non-use value. Such individuals may also be members of environmental charities. "]
[]
[null,"What factors affect the level of benefit?","See 'What nature provides', above. Cultural preferences and income are factors, although it is important to be clear what type of non-use value is being considered. "]
[]
[null,"Physical metric","Non-use values are usually estimated for the specific environmental impact of an intervention (e.g. area of habitat conserved or increase in population of a specific species). "]
[null,"Valuation metrics","Non-use values are usually estimates of individuals' willingness to pay for the benefits of a specific intervention or existence of an asset."]
[]
[null,"Key sources for biophysical evidence","Source"]
[null,null,"See other relevant Tabs e.g. Biodiversity, Landscape."]
[null,"Key sources for valuation","For sources other than those below, see other relevant Tabs e.g. Biodiversity, and the ENCA Assets Databook for specific habitats. Note that valuation studies using stated preference techniques (contingent valuation or choice experiments) often include non-use alongside use values. "]
[]
[null,"Selected values","Source","Values","Notes"]
[null,null,"Mourato et al (2010)","£97 million (2009 prices)","Total legacy income earned by environmental charities in the year 2008/9. This represents a simple and observable market indicator and exchange value of environmental non-use values. It provides a very partial lower bound estimate of non-use values. Such estimates capture only the element of non-use values that is reflected in the legacy market place at the time of death. It is a pure non-use value in the sense that donors will not experience the benefits of the conservation work supported by the legacies, but they only capture one aspect of non-use value. Such legacies represent 7% of all charitable legacies and between 21% and 44% of the total fundraising income of the five largest charities. The report speculates that per hectare values could be calculated if it is assumed that donors intend their legacy income to be spent wholly on the area of countryside managed by each charity. For example, on this basis, one hectare of RSPB nature reserve would have a legacy-based (and thus partial) non-use value of £190 for 2008/9. Whilst these are one-off values from the perspective of donors, repeat legacies each years may be reasonably intepreted on an aggregate basis as an annual flow of revealed non-use values. Mourato et al provide some trend data prior to 2008/9, which show growth in legacies over time.   "]
[null,null,"Plymouth Marine Laboratory (2019) for Defra","£49.10 / household / year (2018 prices)","Marginal willingness to pay for an increase from 35% to 50% in the proportion of the seabed in the East Marine Plan area that has been restored to a natural condition. The authors advise against scaling up this regional value to a national value. Therefore this can be conservatively applied as a lower bound to a national scale. The study also provides a value for an increase to 75%."]
[null,{"$f":"COUNTA(D34:D45)","v":5},null,"- £36.85 / household / year (2018 prices)","(Negative) Marginal willingness to pay for a decrease from 66% to 40% in the proportion of seabirds with a healthy population size (negative value indicates a welfare loss). The study also provides a positive willingness to pay value of £ 25.31 / household / year for an increase from 66% to 75%."]
[null,null,"McVittie and Moran (2008) ","£940 - 1510 million / year         (2008 prices)","Aggregate (range based on median / mean) and median per household willingness to pay by English households for a UK network of Marine Conservation Zones (MCZs) that will \"halt loss of biodiversity\". See study for other country breakdowns and attributes. MCZs conserve nationally important marine wildlife, habitats, geology and geomorphology. Within the study the \"halt biodiversity loss\" option is considered as the most appropriate measure of non-use value. Values were derived using stated preference techniques (contingent valuation and a choice experiment) and are estimated with low to medium confidence. The value is for a hypothetical network because details of the network were not available at the time of the study. "]
[null,null,null,"£43 / household / year       (2008 prices)"]
[]
[null,"Limitations to valuation","There is no ideal way of measuring economic non-use values, because the behaviours and / or motivations relating to them are not easily observed. For this reason, non-use values, whether for existing assets or impacts of interventions are usually estimated using stated preference techniques, such as contingent valuation and choice experiments. However, there are challenges in using such techniques and problems can arise when survey respondents have little experience or understanding of the impact that they are being asked to consider. An additional challenge concerns the boundary between use and non-use values. For interventions in the UK that are not in remote locations, estimates of the value of impact using stated preference techniques are likely to combine use values and non-use values (discussed further below). Legacies are partial non-use values as stated above, and further research is needed to estimate the magnitude of the non-use values that are not reflected in the market. Very little is known about charitable bequests in the UK, as consistent data sources are not freely available. Finally, non-use values should not be confused with the non-economic concept of \"intrinsic value\" which postulates that nature has objective value, irrespective of whether humans benefit from it, and which lies outside the bounds of economic estimation. This is explained further in UK National Ecosystem Assessment (2011), pp. 19 and 1074."]
[]
[null,"Other sources"]
[]
[null,"Guidance on use  in appraisal","Because of the difficulties in obtaining valid estimates, it is important that impacts on non-use values as well as other values that are not economic are described in appraisal. An alternative to using economic values is to employ safe minimum standards in analyses to help ensure sustainable management of biodiversity (Bateman and others, 2011). "]
[null,"Guidance on use  in accounting","Non-use values are not easily captured within accounting, and this is an area of ongoing research. See also guidance in Volunteering Tab. "]
[null,"Guidance on projecting values","If the environment is not being managed sustainably now, or may not managed sustainably in future, it is important that this is noted, as it will impact on values that are not economic and is likely to impact on non-use values."]
[]
[null,"Potential overlap with other values","In the results of stated preference studies (contingent valuation and choice experiments) for interventions in the UK  that are not in remote areas, non-use values of the impact are usually combined with use values. This is because there is a possibility that survey respondents will use and therefore value ecosystem services that are impacted by the intervention. For combinations of remote locations and ecosystem services that survey respondents are unlikely to use, certain survey questions may be employed to establish whether the estimates are only non-use values. For examples, see Borger et al (2014). Bespoke studies that use both revealed and stated preference techniques and are designed with the necessary careful attention may be employed to provide separate estimates of use and non-use values for the impacts of a specific intervention (see Ferrini et al, 2008). "]
[]
[null,"Related guidance","n/a"]
[]
[null,"Practical applications","The McVittie and Moran (2008) research was used to inform Defra's high-level  Impact Assessment of the costs and benefits of implementing Marine Conservation Zones. "]
[]
[null,"Full references and weblinks","Börger, T et al (2014), Valuing conservation benefits of an offshore marine protected area. Ecological Economics, vol. 108.",null,null,"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800914003164"]
[null,{"$f":"COUNTA(C54:E70)","v":6},"Ferrini, S. et al (2008), Valuing spatially dispersed environmental goods: A joint revealed and stated preference model to consistently separate use and non-use values. CSERGE Working Paper.",null,null,"https://www.econstor.eu/obitstream/10419/48798/1/591256223.pdf"]
[null,null,"McVittie, A and Moran, D (2008) Determining monetary values for use and non-use goods and services: marine biodiversity - primary valuation. Report for Defra. ",null,null,"http://randd.defra.gov.uk/Default.aspx?Menu=Menu&Module=More&Location=None&ProjectID=15690&FromSearch=Y&Publisher=1&SearchText=WC0605&SortString=ProjectCode&SortOrder=Asc&Paging=10#Description"]
[null,null,"Mourato, S. et al (2010), Economic analysis of cultural services: UK NEA Economic Analysis Report",null,null,"http://uknea.unep-wcmc.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=COKihFXhPpc%3d&tabid=82"]
[null,null,"Plymouth Marine Laboratory et al (2019), Monetary valuation of subtidal sediments in England’s Marine Plan Areas: Application of the natural capital approach in the marine environment - Phase 2 Report. Research for Defra. ",null,null,"http://randd.defra.gov.uk/Default.aspx?Menu=Menu&Module=More&Location=None&ProjectID=20026&FromSearch=Y&Publisher=1&SearchText=ME5115&SortString=ProjectCode&SortOrder=Asc&Paging=10#Description"]
[null,null,"UK National Ecosystem Assessment - Technical Report (2011)",null,null,"http://uknea.unep-wcmc.org/Resources/tabid/82/Default.aspx"]

{"sheet":"Air pollution","index":26,"n_rows":74,"n_cols":10,"rows_kept":74,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[[73,2,73,4],[73,5,73,7],[37,4,37,7],[64,2,64,4],[64,5,64,7],[62,2,62,7],[63,2,63,3],[45,4,45,7],[46,4,46,7],[58,2,58,7],[39,4,39,7],[44,4,44,7],[72,2,72,4],[72,5,72,7],[71,2,71,4],[71,5,71,7],[67,2,67,4],[66,2,66,4],[66,5,66,7],[67,5,67,7],[26,4,26,7],[27,2,27,3],[30,2,30,3],[41,2,46,2],[41,3,41,7],[28,4,28,7],[28,2,28,3],[33,2,33,7],[38,2,38,3],[38,4,38,7],[36,4,36,7],[29,4,29,7],[65,2,65,4],[65,5,65,7],[56,2,56,7],[42,4,42,7],[43,4,43,7],[1,1,7,1],[11,2,11,5],[17,2,17,5],[19,2,19,5],[1,2,8,5],[9,2,9,5],[21,2,21,5],[22,2,22,5],[26,2,26,3],[36,2,36,3],[60,2,60,7],[50,2,50,7],[47,2,48,2],[47,4,48,7],[52,2,52,7],[54,2,54,7],[55,2,55,7],[29,2,29,3],[30,4,30,7],[27,4,27,7],[39,2,39,3],[37,2,37,3],[70,2,70,4],[68,2,68,4],[68,5,68,7],[70,5,70,7],[69,2,69,4],[69,5,69,7]]}
["Air pollution",null,null,null,null,"Back to index"]
[null,"Why is it relevant?","There is clear evidence that exposure to air pollution can have significant effects on health (mortality and morbidity), quality of life, economic activity and the functioning of ecosystems. The Committee on the Medical Effects of Air Pollutants advised in 2018 that the mortality burden of the air pollution mixture (based on both PM2.5 and NO2) in the UK is equivalent to between 28,000 and 36,000 deaths. Public Health England estimate that the cost of air pollutants PM2.5 and NO2 in England to health and social care services could reach £5.3 billion by 2035. Although some pollutants can be produced from ecosystems, air pollution is primarily an externality arising from specific forms of human economic activity. ",null,null,null,null,null,"Overall assessment of evidence"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"biophysical evidence","High","Strong or established evidence with few gaps"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"valuation evidence","Med - High","Some evidence, but incomplete or dated"]
[]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Potentially relevant to:"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Urban","●"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Farmland","●"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Mountains, M&H"]
[null,null,"Read guidance on air pollution removal by vegetation",null,null,null,null,"Freshwaters"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Woodland"]
[null,"Causes of air pollution","Industrial emissions; Farming activity (not to be confused with farmland as an ecosystem)",null,null,null,null,"Coastal"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Marine"]
[null,"Interventions",null,null,null,null,null,"Semi-nat grassland"]
[null,null,"for example, regulations, incentives, behavioural change"]
[]
[]
[null,"Final welfare effects of reducing air pollution","Reductions in health damages, productivity losses, damages to the built and natural environment"]
[]
[null,"Who is affected?","Individuals, businesses via the pathways above"]
[]
[null,"Physical metrics","Change in tonnes of pollutant; change in pollutant concentration; change in exposure; change in life years lost"]
[null,"Valuation metrics","£ / tonne or  £ / life year lost or £ / µg / m3","Apply £ / life year lost. Per hectare values can be derived from aggregate values","Apply £ / life year lost. Per hectare values can be derived from aggregate values","Apply £ / life year lost. Per hectare values can be derived from aggregate values"]
[]
[]
[null,"Key sources of biophysical evidence","Source",null,"Notes"]
[null,null,"National Atmospheric Emissions Inventory",null,"Estimates annual pollutant emissions from 1970 to the most current publication year for the majority of pollutants. Produces annual reports. The website is maintained by Ricardo Energy & Environment for the UK Government."]
[null,null,"25 Year Environment Plan Indicators - Air theme",null,"Includes a number of developed or intended indicators related to emissions or concentrations of air pollutants that cause damage to human health and to ecosystems. "]
[null,null,"Ricardo (2019) for Defra",null,"Estimates from concentration of various pollutants and impact on habitat via provisioning services, cultural servcies and regulating services. Draws on Jones et al (2014)."]
[null,null,"BEIS - Final UK GHG Statiistics",null,"Statistics by sector of greenhouse gas emissions (including agriculture) going back to 1990. "]
[null,null,"CEH - Annual Exceedance report",null,"Indicates how far above air pollution benchmarks sensitive habitats are and also provides analysis for national habitats as well as protected sites. Ammonia concentration, nitrogen deposition and acid deposition covered. Updated regularly. "]
[]
[null,"Selected biophysical estimates","Source","Description of estimate","Notes"]
[null,null,"Please consult the datasets above as appropriate"]
[]
[null,"Key sources for valuation","Source",null,"Notes"]
[null,null,"Defra (2020a), Damage Costs Guidance",null,"Provides the full list of damage costs used to assess national policies, programmes and projects by location and source. The values are presented in £ per tonne of emission change. Damage costs are a simple way to value changes in air pollution. They estimate the cost to society of a change in emissions of different pollutants. Damage costs are provided by pollutant, source and location. This is appropriate for small air quality impacts (below £50 million) provided the proposal does not affect areas likely to breach legally binding air quality limits."]
[null,null,"Defra (2020b), Impact Pathway Guidance",null,"This guidance provides an overview of the impact pathway methodology, which is the central methodology for valuing changes in air quality. It values the air quality effects of proposed decisions by estimating how changes in the ambient concentrations of air pollutants affect a range of health and environmental outcomes."]
[null,null,"Ricardo (2019) for Defra",null,"Estimates from concentration of various pollutants and impact on habitat via provisioning services, cultural servcies and regulating services. Draws heavily on Jones et al (2014)."]
[null,null,"Ricardo-AEA (2014) for Defra",null,"Develops methods for assessing the damage of air pollution on worker productivty. This feeds in to Defra (2020b) guidance. Provides estimates of the loss to GDP in 2012."]
[null,"Selected values","Source","Value","Notes"]
[null,null,"Defra (2020a)","National average damage cost values for air quality appraisal - central values. These are in 2017 prices and are a subset of the overall set of damage cost values, which can be found in the guidance document, along with low and high damage cost ranges. "]
[null,null,null,"£6,385 / tonne NOx","Central annual damage (benefit) of (reduced) nitrogen oxides"]
[null,null,null,"£13,026 / tonne SO2","Central annual damage (benefit) of (reduced) suphur dioxide"]
[null,null,null,"£7,923 / tonne NH3","Central annual damage (benefit) of (reduced) ammonia emissions to atmosphere. No specific source is given but is relevant to the impact from on-farm mitigation methods. An older damage cost value was used in the Farmscoper model (see Water Quality Tab)."]
[null,null,null,"£102 / tonne VOC","Central annual damage (benefit) of (reduced) volatile organic compounds"]
[null,{"$f":"COUNTA(D43:D49)","v":7},null,"£73,403 / tonne PM2.5","Central annual damage (benefit) of (reduced) particular matter"]
[null,null,"L. Jones et al (2014)","£414 / tonne of NH3","Central annual damage costs (benefit) of (reduced) atmospheric nitrogen pollution on biodiversity. The main habitats affected are heathlands and acid grasslands.  These are incorporated into the Defra damage costs values above (along with health and other damages), so are not additive. Estimates are calculated on a spatial habitat basis making use of Christie et al (2011) non-use values for \"appreciation of biodiversity\" (see Biodiversity Tab). Values are in 2014 prices. "]
[null,null,null,"£103 / tonne of NO2"]
[]
[null,"Limitations to valuation","There remain many unquantified uncertainties surrounding the impact pathways approach, hence the low and high ranges in the damage costs guidance. See Defra (2020b) which discusses the various analytical issues and uncertainties. "]
[]
[null,"Other sources","Adopting a similar methodology to Jones et al (2014a), Jones et al (2012) provide a partial estimate of the annual net benefits to six ecosystem services from a 13% reduction in atmospheric nitrogen between 1987 and 2005. The estimated annual benefit is £66 million in 2001 prices. Costs to carbon sequestration and timber and livestock are outweighed by benefits to recreational fishing and especially biodiversity appreciation, the latter drawing on the stated preference studies by Christie et al (2011) (see Biodiversity Tab)."]
[]
[null,"Guidance on use  in appraisal","HM Treasury Green Book outlines two approaches to valuation, based on Defra (2020a) Air Quality appraisal guidance:\n\n1. if impacts are likely to be less than £50 million and do not affect compliance with legal limits then a “damage cost” approach is appropriate. This involves multiplying emissions changes by pre-calculated unit costs. This is often used to value the consequences of changes in pollution e.g. on health, crops and buildings. Damage costs are a relatively simple way to value changes in air pollution, as full modelling can be resource intensive. Damage costs are estimates of the societal cost of a change in emissions of different pollutants. This approach is appropriate for small air quality impacts (below £50 million) provided the proposal does not affect areas likely to breach legal air quality limits. Where proposals do breach legal limits, abatement measures must also be included. Damage costs are calculated per year. Full guidance and the latest damage cost estimates are available from Defra (2020a).\n\n2. if impacts are greater than £50 million or are particularly localised then the “impact pathway” approach should be considered (Defra 2020b). This involves bespoke modelling specific to the intervention. The damage costs are derived using the impact pathway approach."]
[null,"Guidance on use  in natural capital accounting","As noted in the sources above, air pollution damage costs include an element of damage to ecosystems, but they should not be included in an ecosystem service account. This is because an ecosystem service account focuses on the services that ecosystems positively provide. Only the ecosystem service of air pollutant removal by vegetation is appropriate for inclusion within ecosystem service flow accounts (see Air Pollutant Removal Tab). Damage costs are instead used in appraisals where there is a direct change in air pollutant emissions. "]
[null,"Guidance on projecting values","Defra (2020a) recommends that damage costs are uplifted by 2% each year in real terms in line with average GDP growth. This reflects the assumption that willingness to pay for health outcomes will rise in line with GDP. This is equivalent to the discount rate for heatlh effects being set at 1.5% as set out in the Green Book (p. 103)."]
[]
[null,"Potential overlap with other values","Air pollution effects may well be captured in hedonic house price analysis, depending upon how this is modelled. It is also important to distinguish the direct effects of an intervention on air quality (e.g. a change in transport emissions) from the indirect effect via a change in vegetation (where the ecosystem service of air pollutant removal is affected). The direct and indirect effects should both be considered. "]
[]
[null,"Related guidance","n/a"]
[]
[null,"Practical applications","Damage costs are used to assess air quality impacts of a policy. An example of this is in Defra's Air Quality Plan for Nitrogen Oxide (2017) and subsequent local authority plans detailing how they will reduce NO2 within their areas. For example Leeds City Council and Birmingham City Council have published business cases for the implementation of clean air zones using damage costs to help the decision around the preferred option by presenting the impact on health of NO2 changes. A non-transport example of damage costs use is the Impact Assessment (Defra 2018) of the health impacts of domestic fuel combustion in order to improve the country’s air quality from PM and SO2. "]
[]
[null,"Full references and weblinks","25 Year Environment Plan indicators (2019), Measuring environmental change: outcome indicator framework for the 25 Year Environment Plan",null,null,"https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/802094/25-yep-indicators-2019.pdf"]
[null,{"$f":"COUNTA(C65:E90)","v":10},"Centre for Ecology and Hydrology (2017), Trends Report 2017: Trends in critical load and critical level exceedances in the UK. Report to Defra",null,null,"https://uk-air.defra.gov.uk/assets/documents/reports/cat07/1802190916_Trends_Report_2017_Final_Version.pdf"]
[null,null,"Defra (2020a), Air quality appraisal: damage cost guidance ",null,null,"https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/assess-the-impact-of-air-quality/air-quality-appraisal-damage-cost-guidance"]
[null,null,"Defra (2020b), Air quality appraisal: impact pathways approach",null,null,"https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/air-quality-impact-pathway-guidance"]
[null,null,"Defra (2018) Impact Assessment - Proposed regulation of the sales, distribution and marketing of house coal and wet wood and limits on sulphur content of smokeless fuels",null,null,"https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/733368/domestic-burning-consultation-ia.pdf"]
[null,null,"Defra (2017) Air Quality Plan for Nitrogen Oxide (NO2) in UK ",null,null,"https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/air-quality-plan-for-nitrogen-dioxide-no2-in-uk-2017"]
[null,null,"Jones, L et al (2012), Using the Ecosystems Services Approach to Value Air Quality. Research for Defra. \nThe research was subsequently published as Jones, L et al (2014), A review and application of the evidence for nitrogen impacts on ecosystem services, Ecosystem Services, vol. 7",null,null,"http://randd.defra.gov.uk/Default.aspx?Menu=Menu&Module=More&Location=None&ProjectID=17637&FromSearch=Y&Publisher=1&SearchText=0117&GridPage=2&SortString=ProjectCode&SortOrder=Asc&Paging=10#Description"]
[null,null,"Jones. L et al (2014), Assessment of the Impacts of Air Pollution on Ecosystem Services – Gap Filling and Research Recommendations. Research for Defra. \nThe research was subsequently published as Jones, L et al (2018), Valuing Improvements in Biodiversity Due to Controls on Atmospheric Nitrogen Pollution, Ecological Economics, vol. 152",null,null,"http://randd.defra.gov.uk/Default.aspx?Menu=Menu&Module=More&Location=None&ProjectID=18679&FromSearch=Y&Publisher=1&SearchText=827&SortString=ProjectCode&SortOrder=Asc&Paging=10#Description"]
[null,null,"Ricardo (2019), Air Quality Damage Cost Update 2019. Report for Defra. ",null,null,"https://uk-air.defra.gov.uk/assets/documents/reports/cat09/1902271109_Damage_cost_update_2018_FINAL_Issue_2_publication.pdf"]
[null,null,"Ricardo AEA (2014), Valuing the impacts of air quality on productivity. Report for Defra. ",null,null,"https://uk-air.defra.gov.uk/assets/documents/reports/cat19/1511251135_140610_Valuing_the_impacts_of_air_quality_on_productivity_Final_Report_3_0.pdf"]

{"sheet":"Noise","index":27,"n_rows":70,"n_cols":10,"rows_kept":70,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[[20,2,20,5],[21,2,21,5],[68,2,68,4],[68,5,68,7],[32,3,32,7],[33,3,33,4],[42,3,42,4],[32,2,50,2],[30,4,30,7],[31,3,31,7],[66,2,66,4],[66,5,66,7],[26,2,26,3],[26,4,26,7],[67,2,67,4],[67,5,67,7],[69,2,69,4],[69,5,69,7],[64,2,64,7],[65,2,65,3],[54,2,54,7],[56,2,56,7],[57,2,57,7],[58,2,58,7],[60,2,60,7],[62,2,62,7],[52,2,52,7],[25,2,25,3],[29,2,29,3],[29,4,29,7],[30,2,30,3],[25,4,25,7],[1,1,7,1],[1,2,7,5],[10,2,10,5],[16,2,16,5],[18,2,18,5],[8,2,8,5]]}
["Noise",null,null,null,null,"Back to index"]
[null,"Why is it relevant?","Noise is defined as any unwanted sound. The World Health Organisation identifies noise as one of the top environmental risks to physical and mental health and well-being, with a substantial burden in Europe. There is increasing evidence that long-term exposure to high noise levels is associated with illnesses like heart attacks and strokes. It is important that the impacts on noise are fully considered in decision making for any policy, programme or project.",null,null,null,null,null,"Overall assessment of evidence"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"biophysical evidence","High","Strong or established evidence with few gaps"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"valuation evidence","High","Strong or established evidence with few gaps"]
[]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Potentially relevant to:"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Urban","●"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Farmland"]
[null,null,"Click here for guidance on noise reduction by vegetation",null,null,null,null,"Mountains, M&H"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Freshwaters"]
[null,"Causes of noise pollution","Transport and industry",null,null,null,null,"Woodland"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Coastal"]
[null,"Interventions",null,null,null,null,null,"Marine"]
[null,null,"for example, regulations, incentives, behavioural change",null,null,null,null,"Semi-nat grassland"]
[]
[]
[null,"Final welfare effects of reducing noise pollution","Reductions in disamenity, health damages, productivity losses, environmental damage"]
[]
[null,"Who is affected?","Individuals, businesses via the pathways above"]
[]
[null,"Physical metric","Change in decibels (dBA); numbers of households affected"]
[null,"Valuation metrics","£ per household per dBA change"]
[]
[]
[null,"Key sources of biophysical evidence","Source",null,"Notes"]
[null,null,"National Noise Exposure Data",null,"Data showing the estimated number of people in England exposed to road traffic, railway and industrial noise. These data come from the strategic noise mapping undertaken in 2017 to meet the requirements of the Environmental Noise Directive (Directive 2002/49/EC) and the Environmental Noise (England) Regulations 2006 (as amended)."]
[null,null,"25 Year Environment Plan Indicators - Biosecurity, Chemicals and Noise theme",null,"Proposes to develop an indicator on \"exposure to transport noise\". The indicator will show the estimated number of people exposed to noise levels (in 5dB bands) from the most significant road, rail and air sources."]
[]
[null,"Key sources for valuation","Source",null,"Notes"]
[null,null,"Defra Noise Valuation Guidance",null,"Defra guidance describes the methodology to value the effects of changes in noise exposure on sleep disturbance, annoyance, hypertension and related diseases. Estimates are provided for road, rail and aircraft exposure. It also includes a transport noise modelling tool which calculates the marginal costs associated with increases in road, rail and aviation noise. "]
[null,null,"Defra (2014)",null,"Detailed report provides an update to the Defra environmental noise appraisal method. It details current understanding of the links between environmental noise and various effects including sleep disturbance, annoyance, hypertension and related diseases. It also includes some commentary on productivity and the value of quiet areas, drawing on recent research. The report presents recommended methods to assess these impacts to support policy, programme and project appraisal. The full list of marginal damage values is contained in the annex. "]
[null,"Selected values","Source","Notes"]
[null,{"$f":"COUNTA(D35:D59)","v":17},"Defra Noise Valuation Guidance","These are central marginal annual values per household for changes in total road, rail and aircraft noise exposure at different noise levels, based on the amenity (annoyance) and health impacts of noise. They show that the marginal damage of noise (and so the marginal benefit of reducing noise) is greater at higher noise levels. Owing to space constraints only a limited number of values are shown here. For a full set of values by decibel level see Defra Noise Guidance. These values can be added for changes of more than one decibel and should be multiplied by the number of years and households to which they apply. All are in 2014 prices. The central values are based on the value of a Quality Adjusted Life Year of £60,000"]
[null,null,null,"Change in noise metric by decibel (dBA) - day time per household",null,"Total Road (including sleep disturbance)","Total Rail (excluding sleep disturbance)","Total Aircraft (excluding sleep disturbance)"]
[null,null,null,45,46,11.28,3.9,15.61]
[null,null,null,50,51,18.89,12.46,38.71]
[null,null,null,55,56,51.22,16.98,49.01]
[null,null,null,60,61,74.69,28.85,63.29]
[null,null,null,65,66,103.96,46.34,79.819999999999993]
[null,null,null,70,71,137.41999999999999,67.83,96.98]
[null,null,null,75,76,175.04,93.31,114.75]
[null,null,null,80,81,195.03,103.27,124.71]
[null,null,null,"Change in noise metric by decibel (dBA) - night time per household",null,"Total Road","Total Rail ","Total aircraft"]
[null,null,null,45,46,29.2,13.59,37.93]
[null,null,null,50,51,43.55,20.92,52.24]
[null,null,null,55,56,57.91,28.25,66.56]
[null,null,null,60,61,72.260000000000005,35.590000000000003,80.08]
[null,null,null,65,66,86.62,42.92,95.19]
[null,null,null,70,71,86.62,42.92,95.19]
[null,null,null,75,76,86.62,42.92,95.19]
[null,null,null,80,81,86.62,42.92,95.19]
[]
[null,"Limitations to valuation","The tables show an estimated value that corresponds to a change in the noise level. These values may not be suitable to use if:\n• a decision is likely to have a substantial effect on noise\n• the change in noise levels is going to affect the outcome of a decision\nIn these cases, a more detailed assessment may be justified."]
[]
[null,"Other sources","Further background to the marginal noise damage values is set out in Defra (2014). This includes a detailed summary of research to value quiet areas, including how these might be defined and valued and scaled up nationally."]
[]
[null,"Guidance on use in appraisal","See above"]
[null,"Guidance on use in natural capital accounting","Noise should not be included in an ecosystem service account. However, the role of vegetation in reducing noise may be. See Noise Reduction Tab. Ambient noise may affect the condition of some natural assets and so may be relevant for the condition account. "]
[null,"Guidance on projecting values","Following air quality guidance, damage costs should be uplifted by 2% each year in real terms in line with average GDP growth. This reflects the assumption that  willingness to pay for health outcomes will rise in line with GDP. This is equivalent to the discount rate for heatlh effects being set at 1.5% as set out in the Green Book (p. 103)."]
[]
[null,"Potential overlap with other values","The noise damage costs capture amenity (annoyance) and health impacts. Noise effects may separately be captured within hedonic amenity value estimates, so the two categories should not be added together. Defra research on quiet areas (reported in Defra (2014)) will also capture some recreational benefits of quiet green spaces. "]
[]
[null,"Related guidance","See also noise-related guidance in the Department for Transport (2019) Transport Analysis Guidance - Environmental Impacts which makes use of Defra Guidance above."]
[]
[null,"Practical applications","Noise impacts are often included within transport appraisals. Published examples include the appraisal work for High Speed 2, the assessment of Heathrow expansion and the Road Investment Strategy. "]
[]
[null,"Full references and weblinks","25 Year Environment Plan indicators (2019), Measuring environmental change: outcome indicator framework for the 25 Year Environment Plan",null,null,"https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/802094/25-yep-indicators-2019.pdf"]
[null,{"$f":"COUNTA(C67:E85)","v":4},"Defra (2014) Environmental Noise: Valuing impacts on: sleep disturbance, annoyance, hypertension, productivity and quiet - A report informed by: the Interdepartmental Group on Costs and Benefits Noise Subject Group",null,null,"https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/380852/environmental-noise-valuing-imapcts-PB14227.pdf"]
[null,null,"Defra Noise Valuation Guidance (2014), Noise Pollution - Economic Analysis",null,null,"https://www.gov.uk/guidance/noise-pollution-economic-analysis"]
[null,null,"Department for Transport (2019), TAG Unit A3 - Environmental Impact Appraisal: Section 2",null,null,"https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/tag-unit-a3-environmental-impact-appraisal"]

{"sheet":"Flood damage","index":28,"n_rows":78,"n_cols":10,"rows_kept":78,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[[73,2,73,4],[73,5,73,7],[71,2,71,4],[71,5,71,7],[29,2,29,7],[33,4,34,7],[30,2,32,2],[34,2,34,3],[35,2,35,3],[35,4,35,7],[36,2,36,3],[36,4,36,7],[31,4,31,7],[32,4,32,7],[33,2,33,3],[52,2,52,7],[77,2,77,4],[77,5,77,7],[68,2,68,4],[68,5,68,7],[75,2,75,4],[75,5,75,7],[70,2,70,4],[70,5,70,7],[74,2,74,4],[74,5,74,7],[72,2,72,4],[72,5,72,7],[76,2,76,4],[69,2,69,4],[69,5,69,7],[76,5,76,7],[38,4,38,7],[44,4,44,7],[42,2,42,3],[42,4,42,7],[49,4,49,7],[46,4,46,7],[38,2,38,3],[41,2,41,3],[41,4,41,7],[37,2,37,3],[37,4,37,7],[1,1,12,1],[1,2,12,5],[15,2,15,5],[20,2,20,5],[22,2,22,5],[24,2,24,5],[25,2,25,5],[13,2,13,5],[30,4,30,7],[67,2,67,4],[67,5,67,7],[45,2,48,2],[66,2,66,4],[66,5,66,7],[65,2,65,3],[54,2,54,7],[56,2,56,7],[57,2,57,7],[58,2,58,7],[50,4,50,7],[64,2,64,7],[45,4,45,7],[47,4,48,7],[60,2,60,7],[62,2,62,7]]}
["Flood damage",null,null,null,null,"Back to index"]
[null,"Why is it relevant?","Flooding and coastal erosion can lead to social costs, including harm to people and damage to property, infrastructure and the environment. The economic cost of the 2015-16 winter floods in Northern England is estimated at £1.6 billion.  This Tab focuses upon the relatively well established guidance and evidence around avoiding or reducing the flood damages which are the object of flood and coastal defence schemes and risk management. The focus of interventions is to optimise government spend on the reduction of flood and coastal erosion risk. As with other negative externalities, the aim of intervention is to generate net welfare benefit by reducing the externality. See also the Tab on the ecosystem service of Flood Regulation, which provides an ongoing benefit in terms of reduced baseline flood risk, and can also offer solutions to reducing flood risk through enhanced \"natural flood management\" approaches. \n\nIf you are completing an appraisal for draw down of Flood Defence Grant in Aid you will need to follow the detailed appraisal guidance developed by Defra and the Environment Agency: Flood and Coastal Defence Risk Management - Appraisal Guidance.",null,null,null,null,null,"Overall assessment of evidence"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"biophysical evidence","Medium","Some evidence, but incomplete or uncertain"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"valuation evidence","High","Strong or established evidence with few gaps"]
[]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Potentially relevant to:"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Urban","●"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Farmland","●"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Mountains, M&H"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Freshwaters","●"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Woodland","●"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Coastal","●"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Marine"]
[null,null,"Click here for guidance on flood water regulation",null,null,null,null,"Semi-nat grassland"]
[]
[null,"Causes of changing flood and coastal risk","Sea-level rise and extreme weather events; development on floodplains; degraded ecosystems and land-use change; inadequate drainage capacity in urban areas"]
[]
[null,"Interventions"]
[null,null,"for example, flood risk management projects and strategies"]
[]
[null,"Final welfare effects of reducing flood risk","There are many benefits to property, people and the environment from managing flood risk.  These include: reductions in damage to property and infrastructure; avoided loss of agricultural production; avoided emergency resource costs; health benefits"]
[]
[null,"Who is affected?","Households, businesses, public sector savings"]
[]
[null,"Physical metric","Extent and depth of flooding to receptors (notably property); numbers of properties protected; numbers of people affected; persons experiencing medical impacts (e.g. post-traumatic stress scale; general heatlh questionnaire)"]
[null,"Valuation metrics","Reduced property damages (£ / property);  £ / household"]
[]
[]
[null,"Key sources of biophysical evidence","Source",null,"Notes"]
[null,null,"This list includes the principal flood risk maps published by the Environment Agency. In addition the Agency and other Flood Risk Management authorities commission local bespoke hydrodynamic models, which are not open source, to inform flood risk across a range of probabilities to test options for economic appraisals and to inform design. "]
[null,null,"Flood Map for Planning (Rivers and Sea)","Areas Benefiting from Defences","The Flood Map for Planning (Rivers and Sea) includes several layers of information, one of which is areas benefiting from defences. This dataset shows those areas that benefit from the presence of defences in a 1 in 100 (1%) chance of flooding each year from rivers; or 1 in 200 (0.5 %) chance of flooding each year from the sea. If the defences were not there, these areas would flood in a 1 in 100 (1%)/ 1 in 200 (0.5 %) or larger flooding incident. "]
[null,null,null,"Flood Zone 3","This Flood Map for Planning dataset covers Flood Zone 3. It is the Agency's best estimate of the areas of land at risk of flooding, when the presence of flood defences are ignored and covers land with a 1 in 100 (1%) or greater chance of flooding each year from Rivers; or with a 1 in 200 (0.5%) or greater chance of flooding each year from the Sea."]
[null,null,null,"Flood Zone 2","This Flood Map for Planning dataset covers Flood Zone 2 and should not be used without Flood Zone 3. It is the Agency's best estimate of the areas of land at risk of flooding, when the presence of flood defences are ignored and covers land between Zone 3 and the extent of the flooding from rivers or the sea with a 1 in 1000 (0.1%) chance of flooding each year. This dataset also includes those areas defined in Zone 3."]
[null,null,"Risk of Flooding from Surface Water Extent: 1 percent annual chance",null,"GIS layer showing the extent of flooding from surface water that could result from a flood with a 1% and 0.1% chance of happening in any given year. The flood depth is grouped into 6 bands. This dataset is one output of the Agency's Risk of Flooding from Surface Water mapping, previously known as the updated Flood Map for Surface Water. This dataset is not suitable for identifying whether an individual property will flood. "]
[null,null,"Risk of Flooding from Surface Water Extent: 0.1 percent annual chance"]
[null,null,"Risk of Flooding from Reservoirs - Maximum Flood Extent",null,"Data layer showing a combined reservoir flood map for 2,092 Large Raised Reservoirs. It is a simplified version of the outline Reservoir Flood Map Outline (Extent) as shown on the Environment Agency website. Simplified in this context refers to the fact that unlike the detailed product, individual reservoir flood map extents are not shown separately, and one merged outline shows the maximum flood extent for all reservoir flooding scenarios together."]
[null,null,"Groundwater Flooding Susceptibility",null,"Shows the degree to which areas of England, Scotland and Wales are susceptible to groundwater flooding on the basis of geological and hydrogeological conditions. It does not show the likelihood of groundwater flooding occurring, i.e. it is a hazard not risk-based dataset. "]
[null,null,"25 Year Environment Plan Indicators - Resilience theme",null,"Includes intended indicators related to measuring the disruption of, and resilience  to, flooding and coastal erosion. "]
[null,null,"Public Health England (2017)",null,"First report of survey evidence to investigate the medium and longer term impact of flooding on health and wellbeing among affected communities, to help inform preventive and follow up actions and to reduce harm from future floods. The survey will be repeated with the same participants on an annual basis for some years, in order to better understand the duration of impacts of flooding on health and wellbeing."]
[]
[null,"Key sources for valuation","Source",null,"Notes"]
[null,null,"Green Book (2018)",null,"Summarises generic weighted annual average damage costs (see below)"]
[null,null,"Multi-Coloured Manual ",null,"Representative per-event flood damage figures are available in the \"Multi-Coloured Manual\" for a range of property types, regions and flood depths, which can be combined with estimates of flood probability to generate estimated Annual Average Damages. The Manual is updated by the Flood Hazard Research Centre at Middlesex University, with support from Defra and the Environment Agency. It includes methods and values for range of flood cost categories. Formal and specialist hydraulic modelling of location-specific impacts on flood damages would be appropriate for major projects."]
[null,"Selected values","Source","Value","Notes"]
[null,null,"Environment Agency (2018a)","£1.6 bn (2016 prices)","Best estimate of the economic cost of the 2015/16 winter floods in England. Unlike appraisal evidence, this is a retrospective assessment of costs actually incurred. 54% of the total costs are attributable to residential properties and businesses, but there are also various other cost categories affecting transport and other public services."]
[null,{"$f":"COUNTA(D45:D58)","v":7},"Green Book (2018)","£7,000 - £10,000","Typical damage per property, for a flood event  of less than 0.1 metres in depth"]
[null,null,null,"£37,000 - £42,000","Typical damage per property, for a flood event in excess of 1.2 metres in depth"]
[null,null,null,"National WAAD value per otherwise-unprotected property avoiding significant flooding: £5,054 p.a.  (2017 prices)","To estimate the changing risk of flooding and coastal erosion over time, risk is generally measured in terms of changes to Annual Average Damages. This is the probability-weighted resource cost of flood damage to property and infrastructure, plus adverse health impacts and the resource costs of disruption. Generic national Weighted Annual Average Damage (WAAD) estimates are available for broader-scale, high-level scoping analysis. These are national average, per property, annual damage estimates and have been developed for residential properties across flood events with different probabilities and levels of flood warning service. For further data, see the online Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk Management Handbook and Data for Economic Appraisal 2017. \n\nThese high-level values are only suitable use at high strategic programme or project appraisal.  When completing appraisals for submission for Flood Defence Grant-in-Aid Funds values in the Multi-Coloured Manual should be used. "]
[null,null,null,"National WAAD value per property with existing protection against a “1 in 200 chance” (0.5% annual probability) and a flood warning service of more than 8 hours – £39 per property, p.a. (2017 prices)"]
[null,null,"Environment Agency (2015)","9 to 1","Average benefit to cost ratio of flood defence capital investment schemes over the 2010 Spending Review period"]
[null,null,"Defra - Environment Agency (2004)","£200 / household / year  (2002 prices) ","Mean Willingness to Pay (WTP) to avoid the health impacts associated with flooding by respondents who had experienced flooding. The study recommends that this value be taken as representing the benefits of reduced health impacts as a consequence of a significant reduction in the risk of flooding. A WTP value of £150/ household / year was also derived from respondents who were at risk of, but not actually experienced, flooding. On the grounds that those that had been flooded had a better appreciation of what it means to be flooded, the higher value was taken forward. As for the health impacts, the WTP values provided by flooded respondents were associated with a wide range of factors but income and extent of long-term psychological effects (i.e. stress) were the most important influencing factors. In view of the age of the study, confidence is relatively low. "]
[]
[null,"Limitations to valuation","Estimating Annual Average Damages for large scale flood and coastal erosion requires complex hydraulic modelling to estimate the probability and severity of flooding and / or coastal erosion, and its likely impact on people and assets in a defined spatial area. The values above are more suitable for broader, high-level, scoping analysis and not suitable for seeking Flood Defence Grant-in-Aid funding. "]
[]
[null,"Other sources","See also the Flood Reg Tab which includes studies that use natural approaches to reducing flood risk, in some cases linked with standard flood risk models. "]
[]
[null,"Guidance on use  in appraisal","Please refer to Environment Agency (2010) "]
[null,"Guidance on use  in natural capital accounting","Natural capital accounts should only include the flood risk reduction benefits provided by natural assets. Existing hard-engineered flood defence schemes represent investments of produced capital and so are not appropriate for inclusion in natural capital accounts, although they may be accounted for under other kinds of asset register or accounting systems. "]
[null,"Guidance on projecting values","Flood Defence Grant-in-Aid Guidance states that only properties buit prior to 2012 can be included in appraisal. Population growth and inflation is also excluded. The main changing trend is climate change which must be included in all appraisals, in both increasing probability of flood events (which are assumed to be random so that it is not possible to predict when they will occur) and their severity. This increases damages significantly over the 100 year appraisal period, and the benefit is the expected value of the reduction in flood losses each year over the life of the scheme, expressed as average annual benefits and discounted over the life of the scheme to give a present value. See also supplementary flood risk appraisal guidance on adapting to climate change. "]
[]
[null,"Potential overlap with other values","The potential for double-counting of impacts of flood defence schemes is addressed in various places in the Environment Agency's FCERM Appraisal Guidance. "]
[]
[null,"Related guidance","If you are completing an appraisal for draw down of Flood Defence Grant in Aid you will need to follow the detailed appraisal guidance developed by Defra and the Environment Agency: Flood and Coastal Defence Risk Management - Appraisal Guidance(2010). Separately, Defra (2014) has commissioned the production of guidance or \"toolkit\" for local partners to assess the local economic and output effects of flood and coastal risk management risk schemes. "]
[]
[null,"Practical applications","Summary reports of aggregate benefits can be found in Environment Agency management reports, for example: Managing flood and coastal erosion risks in England, 2011-17 (2018b). Investment appraisals are generally not open source. Case studies of flood risk schemes involving natural flood management approaches (see Flood Reg Tab) are collated in Working with Natural Processes (2017)"]
[]
[null,"Full references and weblinks","25 Year Environment Plan indicators (2019), Measuring environmental change: outcome indicator framework for the 25 Year Environment Plan",null,null,"https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/802094/25-yep-indicators-2019.pdf"]
[null,{"$f":"COUNTA(C67:E84)","v":12},"Defra (2014), Flood and coastal erosion risk management and the local economy - Toolkit. Report by Frontier Economics",null,null,"http://randd.defra.gov.uk/Default.aspx?Menu=Menu&Module=More&Location=None&ProjectID=18690&FromSearch=Y&Publisher=1&SearchText=FD2662&SortString=ProjectCode&SortOrder=Asc&Paging=10#Description"]
[null,null,"Defra / Environment Agency (2004), The Appraisal of Human-related Intangible Impacts of Flooding (Lead Contractor - RPA)",null,null,"http://bfw.ac.at/crue_documents/pjr_274_226.pdf"]
[null,null,"Environment Agency (2010), Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk Management: Appraisal Guidance",null,null,"https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/flood-and-coastal-erosion-risk-management-appraisal-guidance"]
[null,null,"Environment Agency (2015), Flood and coastal erosion risk management outcome measures",null,null,"https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/flood-and-coastal-erosion-risk-management-outcome-measures"]
[null,null,"Environment Agency (2017), Working with natural processes",null,null,"https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/681411/Working_with_natural_processes_evidence_directory.pdf"]
[null,null,"Environment Agency (2018a), Estimating the Economic Costs of the Winter Floods 2015 to 2016",null,null,"https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/floods-of-winter-2015-to-2016-estimating-the-costs"]
[null,null,"Environment Agency (2018b), Managing flood and coastal erosion risks in England, 2011 to 2017",null,null,"https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/flood-and-coastal-risk-management-national-report"]
[null,null,"Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk Management Handbook and Data for Economic Appraisal",null,null,"https://www.mcm-online.co.uk/handbook/"]
[null,null,"HM Treasury Green Book: Central Government Guidance on Appraisal and Evaluation (2018), pp. 66-7.",null,null,"https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-green-book-appraisal-and-evaluation-in-central-governent"]
[null,null,"Multi-Coloured Manual (2013) Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk Management - A Manual for Economic Appraisal (2013, with Handbook updates) produced by the Flood Hazard Research Centre at Middlesex University.",null,null,"https://www.mcm-online.co.uk/"]
[null,null,"Public Health England (2017), The English National Study for Flooding and Health: First year report - Briefing for policy makers and practitioners",null,null,"https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/597846/NSFH_briefing_for_policymakers_and_practitioners.pdf"]

{"sheet":"Invasive non-native species","index":29,"n_rows":50,"n_cols":10,"rows_kept":50,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[[30,4,30,7],[47,2,47,4],[47,5,47,7],[30,2,30,3],[19,2,19,5],[25,4,25,7],[44,2,44,4],[44,5,44,7],[46,5,46,7],[46,2,46,4],[29,2,29,3],[29,4,29,7],[45,5,45,7],[45,2,45,4],[42,2,42,4],[32,2,32,3],[34,2,34,7],[32,4,32,7],[31,2,31,3],[31,4,31,7],[49,2,49,4],[42,5,42,7],[49,5,49,7],[36,2,36,7],[48,2,48,4],[48,5,48,7],[41,2,41,3],[38,2,38,7],[39,2,39,7],[43,2,43,4],[43,5,43,7],[1,1,7,1],[1,2,7,5],[9,2,9,5],[15,2,15,5],[17,2,17,5],[12,2,12,3],[24,4,24,7],[24,2,24,3],[28,2,28,3],[28,4,28,7],[25,2,25,3]]}
["Invasive non-native species",null,null,null,null,"Back to index"]
[null,"Why is it relevant?","Invasive non-native species whose introduction or spread threatens biological diversity or has other unforeseen impacts. They are a result of deliberate or accidental human action. Species can be plants, fish or animals. They have significant impacts on the health of ecosystems and native spcies as well as economic damage, such as damage to buildings and loss of crops and productivity. The CABI report by Williams et al (2010) found the annual economic impact of invasive non-native species to the British economy to be £1.7 billion covering market-based and financial costs of controlling them. ",null,null,null,null,null,"Overall assessment of evidence"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"biophysical evidence","Medium","Some evidence, but incomplete or uncertain"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"valuation evidence","Low","Speculative, major gaps in evidence"]
[]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Potentially relevant to:"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Urban","●"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Farmland","●"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Mountains, M&H","●"]
[null,"Causes of INNS presence","Human actions such as travel, international trade or deliberate introduction",null,null,null,null,"Freshwaters","●"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Woodland","●"]
[null,"Interventions",null,null,null,null,null,"Coastal","●"]
[null,null,"For example, prevention, control and eradication measures, such as equipment, labour",null,null,null,null,"Marine","●"]
[null,null,"such as equipment, labour etc",null,null,null,null,"Semi-nat grassland","●"]
[]
[null,"Final welfare effects of reducing INNS ","Loss of biodiversity, productivity losses, disamenity, health damages"]
[]
[null,"Who is affected?","Native plants and animals, individuals, businesses"]
[]
[null,"Physical metric","n/a"]
[null,"Valuation metrics","Value of avoided damage through INNS control"]
[]
[]
[null,"Key sources for biophysical evidence","Source",null,"Notes"]
[null,null,"25 Year Environment Plan Indicators -  Biosecurity, Chemicals, and Noise theme",null,"Includes indicators for the abatement and distribution of invasive non-native species"]
[null,null,"Defra, England's Biodiversity Indicators",null,"Biodiversity pressure indicator for invasive non-native species showing trends in the number of established non-native species in Great Britain. This indicator shows the change in number of invasive non-native species established across 10% or more of the land area or coastline of Great Britain.\n\nFurther development is required to compare these data against a predicted trend."]
[]
[null,"Key sources for valuation","Source",null,"Notes"]
[null,null,"Defra (2019)",null,"Scoping study for applying a natural capital approach to the cost of invasive non-native species including a literature review of existing evidence. Identifies knowledge gaps in terms of non-market and indirect costs as well as willingness to pay for control. "]
[null,null,"Hanley and Roberts (2019)",null,"Study outlining methods for estimating the economic costs of invasive species to allow management programmes to be assessed effectively. It also discusses non-market valuation approaches, particularly to capture public preferences for controls, while highlighing the limitations of such methods.  "]
[null,null,"Hill et al (2019)",null,"Ash dieback is believed to have spread to Britain from continental Europe both through wind and imported plants. The paper estimates the full economic cost of ash dieback tree disease including clean-up costs, replacement cots, and lost ecosystem service values. It estimates the total economic cost of ash dieback in Britain to be £14.8 billion over 100 years, with over half of this cost (£7.6 billion) expected to occur within the next 10 years. \n\nThe largest components of this cost represent ecosystem service loss driven partly by poor regeneration of other tree species.  However, proactive management through tree planting could reduce the overall cost by £2.5 billion and prove highly cost-effective. Clean up costs and replacement costs make up one third of the total cost. \n\nThe report is accompanied by a workbook with details of the calculations, assumptions and data sources. The user is able to alter input data to explore the effects of uncertainties in the analysis. Wide confidence intervals are provided, where the lower bounds are much closer to the estimates than the upper bounds suggesting that the costs are not likely to be that much lower than predicted but they could still be higher. All data sources for specific factors are fully referenced in the workbook and supplemental references."]
[null,null,"Williams et al (2010) ",null,"Estimates the total annual cost of invasive non-native species (based on direct market costs) to the British economy at approximately £1.7 billion. It also provides a breakdown by sector and country (p.189), with £1.3 billion in England, £0.25 billion in Scotland, and £0.13 billion in Wales. This is considered a conservative figure as it does not include indirect costs which can be significant. "]
[null,null,"Oreska and Aldridge (2011) ",null,"A survey-based approach to generate economic cost estimates for non-native freshwater invasive species in Great Britain. UK wide direct management costs for freshwater invasive species are estimated at £26.5 million a year. Cost estimates are highest for Canadian pondweed and zebra mussel.  "]
[]
[null,"Limitations to valuation","Consideration of the net benefit should account for the costs of control, and should also subtract the potential benefits of invasive species (e.g. cultural values)."]
[]
[null,"Other sources","Epanchin-Niell (2017) provides a discussion on the importance of policy design and resource allocation for effective invasive species management, with a particular focus on forest invasions. "]
[]
[null,"Guidance on use in appraisal","Literature has focused on direct control, prevention and maintenance costs using market prices. Indirect costs can be significant however these are harder to calculate due to their context specific nature. The economic values for invasive non-native species are typically used at a high level to demonstrate rationale for intervention and investment in control measures, rather than being used in appraisal/cost benefit analysis to inform individual decisions. This is because the economic evidence is  not sufficiently robust and / or lacks the specificity and transferability to be used in this way. "]
[null,"Guidance on use in natural capital accounting","Invasive non-native species will affect the condition of ecosystem assets in a natural capital account and should be accounted for as a pressure. The sectors most impacted by invasive non-native species are agriculture, recreation, nature conservation and forestry. These correspond well with the UK’s current ONS National Natural Capital Accounts."]
[]
[]
[null,"Full references and weblinks","25 Year Enviornment Plan indicators (2019), Measuring environmental change: outcome indicator framework for the 25 Year Environment Plan.",null,null,"https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/802094/25-yep-indicators-2019.pdf"]
[null,{"$f":"COUNTA(C43:E60)","v":8},"Defra (2018) England Biodiversity indicators - Biodiversity 2020: A strategy for England’s wildlife and ecosystem services: Indicators",null,null,"https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/england-biodiversity-indicators"]
[null,null,"Defra (2019), Scoping study: ecosystem services and natural capital costs of invasive non-native species in the UK. ",null,null,"http://randd.defra.gov.uk/Default.aspx?Menu=Menu&Module=More&Location=None&ProjectID=20315&FromSearch=Y&Publisher=1&SearchText=BE0162&SortString=ProjectCode&SortOrder=Asc&Paging=10%20-%20Description"]
[null,null,"Epanchin-Niell, R.S (2017). Economics of invasive species policy and management. Biological Invasions, Vol 19.",null,null,"https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2Fs10530-017-1406-4.pdf"]
[null,null,"Hanley, N., Roberts, M. (2019), The economic benefits of invasive species management. People and Nature Vol. 1.",null,null,"https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/pan3.31"]
[null,null,"Hill, L et all (2019), The £15 billion cost of ash dieback in Britain, Current Biology, Vol. 29.",null,null,"https://www.cell.com/current-biology/pdf/S0960-9822(19)30331-8.pdf"]
[null,null,"Oreska, M.P.J., Aldridge, D.C. (2011), Estimating the financial costs of freshwater invasive species in Great Britain: a standardized approach to invasive species costing. Biological Invasions, Vol. 13.",null,null,"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10530-010-9807-7"]
[null,null,"Williams, F et al (2010). The economic cost of invasive non-native species on Great Britain. CABI.",null,null,"https://www.cabi.org/VetMedResource/FullTextPDF/2012/20123122024.pdf"]