Challenges in using valuation in ecosystem-based management in a marine context: the case of UK Marine Protected Area designation - Ocean Sustainability in the 21st Century - page 236

Consider one potential service that is marine-specific but not included in Beaumont et
al . ( 2006 ) : marine water extracted for industrial use, an example being water for cooling
power stations. This is not a form of consumptive use unlike, for instance, fresh water used
inirrigation. Althoughitislikely thattherewouldbeasubstantial costtoindustryandsoci-
etywerewaterforcoolingnottobeavailable,itisdifficulttoconceiveofareal-worldman-
agement measure that would reduce the provisioning of this ecosystem service. As such,
if we compare BAU versus with-measure, this particular service does not affect the com-
parison and thus in economic assessment terms (for marginal analysis) this service is not
critical. If, however, we wish to articulate some total value of ecosystem service benefits
provided by the marine ecosystem then it would be relevant.
One ecosystem service that is omitted from Hussain et al . ( 2010 ) is 'maintenance of
genetic diversity' (TEEB, 2010 ) . Historically, the total economic value (TEV) typology
dominated the environmental economics discourse (Edwards-Jones et al ., 2000 ) . The map-
ping of TEV to the TEEB ( 2010 ) classification is discussed in de Groot et al . ( 2012 )
and is beyond the scope of this chapter. But a significant exclusion (TEV versus MA/
TEEB) is what is termed non-use or existence values, i.e. biodiversity conservation for its
own sake irrespective of whether the resource is experienced in any form by humans. Al-
though 'maintenance of genetic diversity' is unto itself anthropocentric and thus does not
equate with existence value, there are associations between them. Evidence was collected
in McVittie and Moran ( 2010 ) as to the value of these non-use values for the MCZ study
and these are discussed below.
The third column in Table 7.2 sets out the estimates for the total value for service
provisioning by UK marine and coastal waters in 2007 (the study year), for seven of the
eleven services for which any estimate was available. Given the requirement in the BAU
versus MCZ-adoption comparison for our need for a marginal value, why is service provi-
sion expressed in aggregate (total) terms? The answer to this question is simply because no
alternative data points were available. It is also extremely likely that other economic policy
appraisals applying the ecosystem approach would also only have data points expressed
in aggregate, and so the approach (or a modification thereof) developed in Hussain et al .