posted on 2015-03-10, 10:55authored byK. S.-H. Peh, A. Balmford, R. H. Field, A. Lamb, J. C. Birch, R. B. Bradbury, C. Brown, S. H. M. Butchart, M. Lester, Ross Morrison, I. Sedgwick, C. Soans, A. J. Stattersfield, P. A. Stroh, R. D. Swetnam, D. H. L. Thomas, M. Walpole, S. Warrington, F. M. R. Hughes
Restoration of degraded land is recognized by the international community as
an important way of enhancing both biodiversity and ecosystem services, but
more information is needed about its costs and benefits. In Cambridgeshire,
U.K., a long-term initiative to convert drained, intensively farmed arable land
to a wetland habitat mosaic is driven by a desire both to prevent biodiversity
loss from the nationally important Wicken Fen National Nature Reserve (Wicken
Fen NNR) and to increase the provision of ecosystem services. We evaluated
the changes in ecosystem service delivery resulting from this land
conversion, using a new Toolkit for Ecosystem Service Site-based Assessment
(TESSA) to estimate biophysical and monetary values of ecosystem services provided
by the restored wetland mosaic compared with the former arable land.
Overall results suggest that restoration is associated with a net gain to society as
a whole of $199 ha ^-1 y ^-1, for a one-off investment in restoration of
$2320 ha ^-1. Restoration has led to an estimated loss of arable production of
$2040 ha ^-1 y ^-1 , but estimated gains of $671 ha ^-1 y ^-1 in nature-based recreation,
$120 ha ^-1 y ^-1 from grazing, $48 ha ^-1 y ^-1 from flood protection, and a reduction
in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions worth an estimated $72 ha ^-1 y ^-1.
Management costs have also declined by an estimated $1325 ha ^-1 y ^-1. Despite
uncertainties associated with all measured values and the conservative assumptions
used, we conclude that there was a substantial gain to society as a whole
from this land-use conversion. The beneficiaries also changed from local arable
farmers under arable production to graziers, countryside users from towns and
villages, and the global community, under restoration. We emphasize that the
values reported here are not necessarily transferable to other sites.
Funding
This research was funded by the Cambridge
Conservation Initiative Collaborative Fund
and Arcadia (Research grant no.
PFPA.GAAB), a U.K. Government Darwin
Initiative grant (18-005) to BirdLife
International, UNEP-WCMC, Anglia Ruskin
University, RSPB, and an AXA Postdoctoral
Fellowship (to KSHP at University of
Cambridge).
History
Citation
Ecology and Evolution 2014; 20(4): 3875– 3886
Version
VoR (Version of Record)
Published in
Ecology and Evolution 2014; 20(4): 3875– 3886
Publisher
Wiley Open Access, European Society for Evolutionary Biology (ESEB), Society for the Study of Evolution (SSE)