{"text_format":"1","workbook":"xlsx","n_sheets":32,"sheets":["Read Me","User Terms","Index","What's new","Green Book","Tab Guide","GDP Deflator","Food","Timber","Fish","Water supply","Renewable energy","Air pollution removal","Carbon reduction","Flood regulation","Noise reduction","Temperature regulation","Recreation","Physical health","Mental 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":19,"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":39,"n_cols":5,"rows_kept":39,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[[41,1,41,19],[7,1,7,19],[32,1,32,19],[38,1,39,19],[6,1,6,19],[2,1,2,19],[34,1,35,19],[15,1,15,19],[17,1,17,19],[20,1,20,19],[16,1,16,19],[18,1,18,19],[9,1,9,19],[19,1,19,19],[21,1,21,19],[10,1,10,4]]}
[]
[]
[]
[]
[null,"ENCA - Services Databook"]
[null,"Version 3.2 January 2025"]
[]
[null,"This Databook aims is to improve access to a wide, but not exhaustive, range of UK natural capital evidence, categorised by type of environmental service or effect. \nTo make relevant and effective use of the evidence, you should first 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 your needs. \nThis Databook is complemented by the ENCA Assets Databook. Some evidence references are common to both Databooks, but many references 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,"Read Databook User Terms here"]
[]
[null,"This Databook includes 25 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 e.g. food, timber, fish"]
[null,"2. Abiotic flows of natural capital - material flows provided by nature but not dependent upon ecosystems e.g. renewable energy"]
[null,"3. Regulating Ecosystem Services - ecological processes that regulate and reduce various adverse effects e.g. pollution removal, flood regulation. These services are distinct from negative environmental effects such as pollution or flooding. "]
[null,"4. Cultural Ecosystem Services - non-material ways in which environmental settings benefit people through their interaction with nature e.g. nature-based recreation"]
[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 - traditional environmental \"externalities\" which are caused by man-made sources or pressures e.g. air pollution, noise"]
[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 and welfare effects. \n- the relevance of each category to 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"]
[null,"The Green Book Tab ",null,null,"shows how this Databook builds on the estimates provided in Annex 1 of the Green Book"]
[]
[]
[null,"Using valuation evidence in this Databook"]
[null,"Read Section 2 of the ENCA Guidance, in particular 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 Science and Analysis Division 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. 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. "]

{"sheet":"User Terms","index":1,"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":2,"n_rows":58,"n_cols":13,"rows_kept":58,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[[1,5,1,12],[26,4,27,4],[11,12,12,12],[11,7,12,7],[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],[11,8,12,8],[11,9,12,9],[11,6,12,6],[11,10,12,10],[18,11,20,11],[18,7,20,7],[11,11,12,11],[18,8,20,8],[18,9,20,9],[9,2,10,2],[4,10,7,10],[4,11,7,11],[4,12,7,12],[9,12,10,12],[9,5,10,5],[9,6,10,6],[9,10,10,10],[9,7,10,7],[9,8,10,8],[9,9,10,9],[9,11,10,11],[4,6,7,6],[4,7,7,7],[4,9,7,9],[4,8,7,8],[41,11,42,11],[41,12,42,12],[41,8,42,8],[41,9,42,9],[41,7,42,7],[45,3,46,3],[53,12,54,12],[53,3,54,3],[45,11,46,11],[45,12,46,12],[45,7,46,7],[48,1,48,3],[53,6,54,6],[53,7,54,7],[53,8,54,8],[53,9,54,9],[53,10,54,10],[53,11,54,11],[41,6,42,6],[41,10,42,10],[45,8,46,8],[45,9,46,9],[45,5,46,5],[45,6,46,6],[45,10,46,10],[1,1,1,3],[53,2,54,2],[53,5,54,5],[11,5,12,5],[9,3,10,3],[4,3,7,3],[11,3,12,3],[26,3,27,3],[18,3,20,3],[4,2,7,2],[41,5,42,5],[4,5,7,5],[26,2,27,2],[45,2,46,2],[41,2,42,2],[41,3,42,3]]}
["Index of environmental categories and Databook tabs"]
[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,"Fish capture inc","Food","Fish",null,null,null,null,"●",null,"●","●"]
[null,"Aquaculture"]
[null,"Water resources","Public water supply","Water supply",null,null,"●","●","●"]
[null,"Water resources","Industrial / agricultural use"]
[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 pollution removal","See also Air Pollution Tab","●","●",null,null,"●",null,null,"●"]
[null,"Carbon sequestration and storage","Climate","Carbon reduction",null,"●","●","●",null,"●","●","●","●"]
[null,"Water flow regulation (fluvial)","Reduced flood damage","Flood Regulation","See also Flood Damage Tab","●","●","●","●","●","●",null,"●"]
[null,"Water flow 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,"Water purification","Avoided treatment costs","Not yet included ","See Water Quality Tab",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,"Environmental settings for mental health","Mental health","Mental health","Some overlap with Rec and Phys Hlth","●","●","●","●","●","●","●","●"]
[null,"Enabling educational interactions","Educational benefits","Education",null,"●","●","●","●","●","●","●","●"]
[null,"Volunteering opportunities","Various","Volunteering",null,"●","●","●","●","●","●","●","●"]
[null,"Nature-based tourism","Tourism","See [Recreation]",null,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":"What's new","index":3,"n_rows":41,"n_cols":9,"rows_kept":41,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[[1,2,1,7],[5,4,5,8],[2,2,2,8]]}
[null,"What's new in ENCA Services Databook 3.2 (January 2025)?"]
[null,null,"This version of the ENCA Services Databook includes a number of revisions of version 3.1 (May 2024): \n- updates of existing sources of values and evidence (for example, ONS Natural Capital Accounts; alignment with 2024 Green Book);\n- inclusion of new sources of evidence judged to be appropriate;\n- removal of sources considered obsolete or superseded;\n- refinement of advice on approaches to valuing biodiversity"]
[null,null,"The table summarises new or updated content across the Databook. * indicates where changes have been made within each of the Tabs compared to version 3.1. Each Tab flags where sources or accompanying guidance have been revised or updated (labelled as \"Updated\" against each relevant Row of each Tab) or newly added (labelled as \"New\"). Sources from previous versions that have been removed are not indicated."]
[]
[null,null,null,"Databook Tab and link","Bio-physical sources","Selected bio-physical estimates","Valuation sources","Selected values","Guidance notes and other sources"]
[null,null,null,"GDP Deflator","Updated to December 2024"]
[null,null,null,"Food","*","*","*","*"]
[null,null,null,"Timber","*","*","*","*"]
[null,null,null,"Fish","*","*","*","*"]
[null,null,null,"Water supply","*","*","*","*"]
[null,null,null,"Renewable energy","*",null,null,"*"]
[null,null,null,"Air pollution removal","*","*","*","*"]
[null,null,null,"Carbon reduction",null,null,null,"*"]
[null,null,null,"Flood regulation"]
[null,null,null,"Noise reduction",null,null,null,"*"]
[null,null,null,"Temperature regulation",null,null,null,"*"]
[null,null,null,"Recreation","*","*","*","*"]
[null,null,null,"Physical health",null,"*",null,"*"]
[null,null,null,"Mental health ",null,null,"*"]
[null,null,null,"Education"]
[null,null,null,"Volunteering","*"]
[null,null,null,"Amenity",null,null,null,"*","*"]
[null,null,null,"Biodiversity",null,null,"*","*","*"]
[null,null,null,"Soil",null,null,null,"*"]
[null,null,null,"Water quality"]
[null,null,null,"Landscape","*"]
[null,null,null,"Non-use values"]
[null,null,null,"Air pollution"]
[null,null,null,"Noise","*"]
[null,null,null,"Flood damage"]
[null,null,null,"Invasive species"]
[]
[null,"Past versions of this Databook",null,null,"Summary of revisions"]
[null,"Version",3.1,"2024-05-16","Updates to GDP Deflator, new sources, updates and removals of sources"]
[null,"Version",3,"2023-07-11","Updates to GDP Deflator, new sources, updates and removals of sources"]
[null,"Version",2.1,"2021-10-11","Carbon Reduction tab updated to include BEIS (2021) updated carbon values"]
[null,"Version",2,"2020-08-06","Mental Health added; Updates to GDP Deflator, new sources, updates and removals of sources"]
[null,"Version",1.2,"2020-07-30","Updates to GDP Deflator, Timber, Renewable Energy, Carbon Reduction, Volunteering, Air Pollution"]
[null,null,null,null,"Inclusion of User Terms"]
[null,"Version",1.1000000000000001,"2020-02-28","Updates and corrections to Air Pollutant Removal Tab"]
[null,"Version ",1,"2020-01-22","First version"]

{"sheet":"Green Book","index":4,"n_rows":20,"n_cols":10,"rows_kept":20,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[[1,1,1,4],[4,9,5,9],[11,9,13,9]]}
["From Green Book values to the ENCA Services Databook"]
[null,"Annex 1 of the 2022 Green Book includes the following table summarising value ranges for some environmental effects. These are reproduced below but in most cases see the relevant Tabs in this Databook for more up to date estimates. The ranges below are not confidence intervals but relate to the effect of context specific factors that affect valuation, such as location. To understand and identify relevant valuation estimates from these ranges, consult the relevant Tab for more guidance.  Note that this Databook includes a wider range of effects than in Green Book. As and when the Green Book gets updated, this table will be updated to maintain a clear line of sight between Green Book and this Databook."]
[null,null,null,null,null,"Estimates from the 2022 Green Book are all annual values expressed in 2020/21 prices"]
[null,null,"Values for","Description","Low","Central","High",null,"Notes and updates in ENCA","See relevant Databook Tab for further values and guidance"]
[null,null,"Air pollution ","National average damage cost values - NOx",681.28754483746513,7119.5105953964239,26954.901978561182,"per tonne of pollutant","These have now been updated - see Tab. A range of other values are published reflecting different sources and locations. ","Air pollution"]
[null,null,"Air pollution ","National average damage cost values - PM2.5",17715.706239570616,81847.053443051482,253473.53282338311,"per tonne of pollutant","These have now been updated - see Tab. A range of other values are published reflecting different sources and locations. "]
[null,null,"Air pollution removal by vegetation","Welfare / health benefit of reduced air pollution from vegetation",16.908744352850373,null,931.18870686054561,"per hectare (various land covers)","These have now been updated - see Tab. A range of other values are published reflecting different land covers and locations. ","Air pollutant removal"]
[null,null,"Noise damage","marginal change in road noise levels",13.116450437588083,null,226.78203269883014,"per 1 decibel change","Values vary with baseline noise level, source of noise, and whether the noise is day or night. This Databook reports original source in 2014 prices. ","Noise"]
[null,null,"Noise reduction by vegetation","Average noise damage costs avoided for households benefiting from road noise mitigation by urban woodland",null,96.146894221306951,null,"per household ","Relevant for when urban woodland might be lost (or created, after sufficient growth) which is located between traffic and population, but is highly spatially specific. Valuation makes use of the noise damage costs and experimental spatial modelling done for the UK Natural Capital Accounts. Updated to 2023 prices in this Databook.","Noise reduction"]
[null,null,"Nature-based recreation","welfare value of outdoor recreation sites",47.684283037164747,null,120066.7540074362,"per hectare (various land covers)","Very wide range of values reflecting whether a site is urban / rural, substitution possibilities, land cover, the type and size of site, and whether it represents a marginal addition to or reduction of an existing site, or is an average for a whole site. Where the spatial region of recreation site creation or loss is known, the ORVal tool can be used to provide spatially bespoke estimates.  This Databook reports original source estimates in 2016 prices.","Recreation"]
[null,null,"Physical health","indicative health savings / benefits from every physically active visit to greenspace",3.3560789372691393,null,14.34,"per marginal physically active visit to greenspace","Lower value based on avoided cost of delivering a QALY; higher value represents a welfare value based on the value of a QALY. Additionality of visits is a key issue. Updated to 2024 prices in this Databook.","Physical health"]
[null,null,"Local amenity","average additional value per property within 100-500m of accessible green or blue space",1538.1117474715568,3076.2234949431136,9471.357626221441,"per property (capital value)","Values based on ONS hedonic modelling of property price data. This has been revised in 2024. Revised estimates - see Tab","Amenity"]
[null,null,"Visual amenity","average price premium for a property with a view over green or blue space",null,6164.4720284236737,null,"per property (capital value)","Values based on ONS house price modelling and may be additive to the distance-based values, since only 7% of properties in the original model were estimated to have a view. Estimates in this Databook expressed in original 2018 prices."]
[null,null,"Disamenity","welfare loss from significant litter accumulation in residential areas",20.299358236531155,null,76.122593386991838,"per household","Range reflects disamenity values in commercial (low value) and residential (high) areas. Other scenario values are available. Estimates in this Databook expressed in original 2020 prices."]
[null,null,"Water availability","industry average incremental social cost of providing extra water supply",null,5700000,null,"mega litre per day (present value lifetime cost)","industry average present value lifetime cost of providing a million litres per day. Can be interpreted as the typical economic cost of replacing a marginal mega litre of water i.e. water resource impacts. Regional variation can be significant.","Water supply"]
[null,null,"Water quality","improvement in water quality status ",22000,25400,29500,"per km","Range reflects different changes in water quality ","Water quality"]
[null,null,"Flood damage","typical damage per property from a flood event",8000,null,45000,"per property ","Range reflects flooding at different water depths ","Flood damage"]
[null,null,"Flood regulation","Avoided water storage costs from woodland water storage in flood catchments",97.293493621157467,null,241.59395607051462,"per hectare (woodland)","Higher values relate only to floodplain woodland. All values now  updated - see Tab. ","Flood Regulation"]
[null,null,"Peatland","carbon reduction value of restoring eroded peatland",497.3342767950133,null,5296.6100478668914,"per hectare","Values vary with changes in peatland condition, based on the central BEIS carbon value. The underlying emissions factors have now been updated - see Tab","Carbon reduction"]
[null,null,"Soil erosion","average indicative cost of soil erosion (production, water quality, flood risk)",130.45844845800664,null,211.21844036058218,"per hectare of average erosion","Based on losses in water quality, agricultural yields and increased flood risk. Excludes GHG emissions. An indicative average per hectare cost of soil erosion is derived by dividing aggregate externality estimates by the total estimated area under soil erosion. Updated to 2024 prices in this Databook.","Soil"]

{"sheet":"Tab Guide","index":5,"n_rows":55,"n_cols":11,"rows_kept":55,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[[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],[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],[8,10,15,12],[24,3,24,6],[25,3,25,6],[29,5,29,8],[52,3,52,8],[38,5,38,8]]}
["Guide to each Tab"]
[null,"Each tab in this Databook follows a similar format as below. This annotated template explains the various parts."]
[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","What is valued and 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","Relevant units will vary depending upon the environmental effect. May be more than one metric"]
[null,null,"Valuation metrics","Relevant units will vary depending upon the environmental effect. May be more than one 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. Where a source has been updated or changed, this is flagged.","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. Where a source has been updated or changed, this is flagged.","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,"Where a source has been updated or changed, this is flagged.","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. Where a source has been updated or changed, this is flagged.","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,"Applications and case studies (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":6,"n_rows":30,"n_cols":10,"rows_kept":30,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[]}
[null,"GDP Deflators to update historic values to current prices"]
[null,"GDP deflators at market prices, and money GDP December 2024 (Quarterly National Accounts) - GOV.UK"]
[null,"Version published",null,"2025-01-08"]
[null,"check for updates at",null,"GDP deflators at market prices, and money GDP - GOV.UK"]
[null,"Calendar Year","Index (2023 = 100)","Per cent change on previous year",null,"Example of rebased values"]
[null,2000,57.1843,1.1241657618402576]
[null,2001,58.048299999999998,1.5109042167168214]
[null,2002,59.275799999999997,2.1146183436896502]
[null,2003,60.6907,2.3869774849095298]
[null,2004,62.261499999999998,2.5882054416904046]
[null,2005,64.092699999999994,2.9411434032267061]
[null,2006,65.884600000000006,2.795794216814103]
[null,2007,67.3643,2.2458966131690774,null,238]
[null,2008,69.691400000000002,3.4545003807654817,null,{"$f":"$F$13*C14/$C$13","v":246.22171090622189},null,"Example"]
[null,2009,70.998599999999996,1.8756977188003034,null,250.84008592088094,null,"A value of £238 / hectare in 2007 prices"]
[null,2010,72.125200000000007,1.586791852233721,null,{"$f":"$F$13*C16/$C$13","v":254.82039596640954}]
[null,2011,73.709999999999994,2.1972902674793096,null,260.4195397265317,null,"Expressed in 2024 prices, this is equivalent to:"]
[null,2012,74.846299999999999,1.5415818749152159,null,264.43412014969351,null,"£238 x 102.8 / 67.3"]
[null,2013,76.424000000000007,2.1079198303723863,null,270.00817940659965,null,"=  £363  / hectare"]
[null,2014,77.431700000000006,1.3185648487386159,null,273.56841234897416]
[null,2015,77.943200000000004,0.66058216466898956,null,275.37555648911967]
[null,2016,79.471699999999998,1.9610434264951835,null,280.77579073782402,null,"Deflator Calculator","example"]
[null,2017,80.947400000000002,1.8568874203018222,null,285.9894810752877,null,"Original value",238,"Enter chosen value"]
[null,2018,82.502899999999997,1.9216182360396936,null,291.48510709678573,null,"Original year",2007,"Select from drop-down list"]
[null,2019,84.261600000000001,2.1316826438828267,null,297.69864453427112,null,"Base year prices",2024,"Select from drop-down list"]
[null,2020,88.639499999999998,5.1956051154974467,null,313.1658905384603,null,"Value in base year prices ",{"$f":"I23*VLOOKUP(I25,B6:C30,2,0)/VLOOKUP(I24,B6:C30,2,0)","v":363.26600291252191},"Calculated value"]
[null,2021,88.513999999999996,-0.1415847336684011,null,312.72249544640113]
[null,2022,93.323499999999996,5.4336037237047243,null,329.71459660383908]
[null,2023,100,7.1541465975879657,null,353.30286219852354]
[null,2024,{"$f":"C29*(1+D30%)","v":102.82},2.82,"forecast",363.26600291252191]

{"sheet":"Food","index":7,"n_rows":83,"n_cols":10,"rows_kept":83,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[[81,2,81,4],[81,5,81,7],[70,2,70,7],[68,2,68,7],[66,2,66,7],[71,2,71,3],[77,2,77,4],[77,5,77,7],[73,2,73,4],[75,2,75,4],[75,5,75,7],[73,5,73,7],[18,2,18,5],[43,4,43,7],[45,2,46,2],[28,2,30,2],[28,4,30,7],[31,4,31,7],[20,2,20,5],[21,2,21,5],[40,4,40,7],[24,4,24,7],[24,2,24,3],[25,4,25,7],[35,4,35,7],[45,3,45,7],[41,4,41,7],[42,2,42,3],[49,4,49,7],[25,2,25,3],[43,2,43,3],[40,2,40,3],[41,2,41,3],[48,4,48,7],[47,4,47,7],[26,2,26,3],[26,4,26,7],[37,4,37,7],[33,4,33,7],[34,4,34,7],[36,4,36,7],[32,2,36,2],[32,3,32,7],[46,4,46,7],[50,4,50,7],[62,2,62,7],[63,2,63,7],[64,2,64,7],[55,4,55,7],[53,4,53,7],[54,4,54,7],[51,2,56,2],[51,3,51,7],[56,4,56,7],[58,2,58,7],[60,2,60,7],[1,1,7,1],[1,2,7,5],[9,2,9,5],[14,2,14,5],[16,2,16,5],[42,4,42,7],[82,5,82,7],[79,5,79,7],[72,5,72,7],[79,2,79,4],[80,2,80,4],[80,5,80,7],[82,2,82,4],[78,2,78,4],[78,5,78,7],[72,2,72,4],[76,2,76,4],[76,5,76,7],[74,2,74,4],[74,5,74,7],[52,4,52,7]]}
["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). Food production in turn depends upon the supporting ecosystem services of pollination and soil health. The boundary between what is provided by natural assets 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; pollinators; 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 (2024) UK Natural Capital Accounts",null,"Provides time series of provisioning services of agricultural biomass (crops, grazing). See also ONS (2024) for England only accounts",null,null,null,"Updated"]
[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,null,"Defra, 25 Year Environment Plan Outcome Indicators - Natural Resources theme",null,"Includes indicators on inputs, area, production and productivity of agriculture"]
[null,"Selected biophysical estimates","Source","Volume of flow","Notes"]
[null,null,"ONS (2024)","21.7 million tonnes cereal crops","Annual flow in 2023 of food-related provisioning services from UK farmland. 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,"Updated"]
[null,null,null,"27.8 million tonnes grazed biomass",null,null,null,null,"Updated"]
[null,null,null,"31.1 million tonnes arable feedstock",null,null,null,null,"Updated"]
[null,null,"Agriculture in the UK","8.1 tonnes / hectare","Average UK wheat yield, 2017-2023. See Agriculture in UK for other crop yield estimates. ",null,null,null,"Updated"]
[null,null,"Environment Agency","Average livestock yield central estimates reported in the Agency's Natural Capital Register and Accounting Tool (see Featured Tools) and its supplementary flood risk management guidance on environmental valuation. Note that livestock yields do not represent an ecosystem service but a yield from produced capital, the ecosystem service being the biomass that they graze on. Original source is the John Nix Pocketbook for Farm Management 2021."]
[null,null,null,"16,800 litres / hectare / year","Dairy cow yield"]
[null,null,null,"562 kg / hectare / year","Beef yield"]
[null,null,null,"486 kg / hectare / year","Upland sheep yield "]
[null,null,null,"400 / kg / hectare / year","Lowland sheep yield "]
[null,null,"ONS (2023)","109,295 tonnes / year","Estimated total production of food from urban allotments in England in 2021"]
[]
[null,"Key sources for valuation","Source",null,"Notes"]
[null,null,"ONS (2024) UK Natural Capital Accounts",null,"Provides time series of provisioning services of agricultural biomass (crops, grazing). Includes England values",null,null,null,"Updated"]
[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,"Defra, Farm Business Survey",null,"Provides information on the financial, physical and environmental performance of farm businesses in England to inform and evaluate policy decisions. Survey results typically give comparisons between groups of businesses, for example between regions or between types of farm. Includes information on farm incomes and productivity. "]
[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(D47:D57)","v":11},null,"£202 / tonne (2023 prices)","Unit value of all cereal production in 2023 (provisional), 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 2020 value is £145 / tonne (in 2020 prices)",null,null,null,"Updated"]
[null,null,"ONS (2024)","£7160 million (2023 prices)","Annual average Resource Rent value (2018-22) of UK agricultural biomass (crops and grazing biomass).  This method is under review.",null,null,null,"Updated"]
[null,null,"ONS (2023)","£274.1  million (2021 prices)","Estimated annual monetary value of food produced in urban allotments in England. Note that this value includes labour and capital inputs as well as the value of the ecosystem."]
[null,null,"Defra (2019)","£615 million (2015 prices)","Lower bound estimate of dependency of UK crop production on pollinators"]
[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 (2025)","Average annual farmland rent 2020/21 - 2023/24 for various farm types (all expressed in real terms, 2023/24 prices). Figures are for March to February years, with the most recent year shown ending February 2024. The range reflects the various types of tenancy (Full Agricultural Tenancies, Farm Business Tenancies, seasonal agreements and informal agreements), averaged over 2020/21-2023/24. These are an indicator of the contribution to agricultural output of the provisioning service of the land. See Defra (2025) for regional and other farm type breakdowns. ",null,null,null,null,"Updated"]
[null,null,null,"£180 - 268 / hectare ","Average annual farmland rent for cereal cropping. "]
[null,null,null,"£210 - 376 / hectare ","Average annual farmland rent for general cropping. "]
[null,null,null,"£236 - 329 / hectare","Average annual farmland rent  for dairy farms. "]
[null,null,null,"£64 - 141 / hectare","Average annual farmland rent for Least Favoured Areas grazing livestock farms. "]
[null,null,null,"£128-205 / hectare ","Average annual farmland rent for lowland livestock grazing. "]
[]
[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 for valuation","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 (as reported in farm accounts). ONS (2023) 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. Crops are  measured as the ecosystem service for arable land but of course will involve some human input so this will be an overstatement of the actual ecosystem contribution. ONS are also currently exploring the contribution of pollinators to agricultural production. "]
[null,"Guidance on projecting values","In the absence of any significant and sustained trends in unit values (international commodity market projections may be relevant), 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 (2023) Natural Capital Accounts methodology guide"]
[]
[null,"Applications and case studies","There are a variety of case studies that include the natural capital considerations of food. See ENCA Case Study VN6 which inludes discussion on valuing improvements to food production and environmental quality, and ENCA Case Study CR1 for an example of  being included in Natural capital accounts. "]
[]
[null,"Full references and web links","Agriculture in the UK,  Defra, Annual statistics about agriculture in the United Kingdom. Includes dataset",null,null,"https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/agriculture-in-the-united-kingdom"]
[null,{"$f":"COUNTA(C73:E98)","v":11},"Defra, Farm Business Survey",null,null,"https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/farm-business-survey"]
[null,null,"Defra, Outcome Indicator Framework for the 25 Year Environment Plan",null,null,"https://oifdata.defra.gov.uk/"]
[null,null,"Defra (2019), Management and drivers of change of pollinating insects and pollination services. National Pollinator Strategy - evidence statements and summariy of evidence",null,null,"https://sciencesearch.defra.gov.uk/ProjectDetails?ProjectID=20277"]
[null,null,"Defra (2025), Farm Rents: Annual statistics about average farm rents in England 2023/24. Includes Farm Business Survey Rent Dataset",null,null,"https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/farm-rents",null,null,"Updated"]
[null,null,"Environment Agency (2023), FCERM supplementary appraisal guidance - Environment and Historic Environment Outcomes Valuation. Look-up tables",null,null,"https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/environment-and-historic-environment-outcomes-valuation-guidance"]
[null,null,"Exeter University (2019), Natural Environment Valuation Online",null,null,"https://www.leep.exeter.ac.uk/nevo"]
[null,null,"ONS (2023) UK Natural Capital - Urban Accounts",null,null,"https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/environmentalaccounts/bulletins/urbannaturalcapitalaccountsuk/2023"]
[null,null,"ONS (2024), UK Natural Capital Accounts 2024. Includes supplementary data tables",null,null,"https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/environmentalaccounts/bulletins/uknaturalcapitalaccounts/2024",null,null,"Updated"]
[null,null,"ONS (2024), UK Natural Capital Accounts 2024: methodology guide",null,null,"https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/environmentalaccounts/methodologies/uknaturalcapitalaccountsmethodologyguide2024",null,null,"Updated"]
[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":8,"n_rows":62,"n_cols":10,"rows_kept":62,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[[60,2,60,4],[60,5,60,7],[53,2,53,7],[54,2,54,3],[56,2,56,4],[56,5,56,7],[59,5,59,7],[58,5,58,7],[58,2,58,4],[59,2,59,4],[57,2,57,4],[57,5,57,7],[61,2,61,4],[61,5,61,7],[55,2,55,4],[55,5,55,7],[20,2,20,5],[28,4,28,7],[30,4,30,7],[23,2,23,3],[23,4,23,7],[24,2,24,3],[24,4,24,7],[25,2,25,3],[25,4,25,7],[47,2,47,7],[33,2,33,3],[49,2,49,7],[19,2,19,5],[17,2,17,5],[35,4,35,7],[35,2,35,3],[37,4,37,7],[27,4,27,7],[28,2,29,2],[1,1,6,1],[1,2,6,5],[8,2,8,5],[13,2,13,5],[15,2,15,5],[51,2,51,7],[34,2,34,3],[34,4,34,7],[29,4,29,7],[33,4,33,7],[38,4,38,7],[46,2,46,7],[39,4,39,7],[43,2,43,7],[45,2,45,7],[41,2,41,7]]}
["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 (2024) UK Woodland Accounts ",null,"Provides a time series of both timber and woodfuel to 2023. Includes supplementary data tables. Provides country breakdown. ",null,null,null,"Updated"]
[null,null,"Defra, 25 Year Environment Plan Outcome Indicators - Natural Resources theme",null,"Includes indicators on the perecentage of annual tree growth that is harvested and on volume of English timber brought to market"]
[null,"Selected biophysical estimates","Source","Volume","Notes"]
[null,null,"ONS (2024)","12.08 million m3 ","Total UK Timber Removals in 2023 (including Woodfuel). See the accounts for other years. ",null,null,null,"Updated"]
[null,null,"Forestry Statistics 2024","9.1 million green tonnes","Total UK Softwood (Roundwood) removals in 2023",null,null,null,"Updated"]
[null,null,null,"0.8 million green tonnes","Total UK Hardwood (Roundwood) removals in 2023",null,null,null,"Updated"]
[null,null,"Forestry Commission 2024","2.58 million green tonnes","Total softwood and hardwood removals from English sources in 2023. This is a 25 Year Environment Plan Outcome 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,null,null,"Updated"]
[]
[null,"Key sources for valuation","Source",null,"Notes"]
[null,null,"ONS (2024) UK Woodland Accounts ",null,"Provides a time series of both timber and woodfuel to 2022. See also ONS (2024) which includes values for timber and woodfuel",null,null,null,"Updated"]
[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(D38:D42)","v":3},"Forestry Statistics Timber Price Indices","£32.0 per m3 overbark (2021 prices)","5-year average coniferous standing sales price, range from year to September 2020 to September 2024. Note that the average price has risen over this time, from £26.87 in the year to September 2020, to £28.99 in the year to September 2024 (all in 2021 prices; nominal prices are also given)",null,null,null,"Updated"]
[null,null,"ONS (2024)","£290 million (2023 prices)","Value of UK timber provisioning service in 2023 excluding woodfuel. Woodfuel provisioning amounted to £90million in 2023. (see Tables 8 and 9 of detailed summary data).",null,null,null,"Updated"]
[null,null,"Forestry Statistics 2024","£681 million (2022 prices)","Gross Value Added by the UK forestry sector (before processing) in 2022. This value effectively includes the timber provisioning service ",null,null,null,"Updated"]
[]
[null,"Limitations to valuation","Nothing significant."]
[]
[null,"Other sources for valuation","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. Where new woodland is created, the growth of timber over time will need to be taken into account. "]
[]
[null,"Potential overlap with other values","Not significant. But care needs to be taken not to confuse, or double-count between ecosystem service values that are an input to the forestry sector and the Gross Value Added of the forestry sector itself."]
[]
[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 methodology guide that accompanies ONS (2022)"]
[]
[null,"Applications and case studies","See ENCA Case Study VN8 for an overview of the value of timber production, including the market valuation and comparison with non-market values. "]
[]
[null,"Full references and weblinks","Defra, Outcome Indicator Framework for the 25 Year Environment Plan",null,null,"https://oifdata.defra.gov.uk/"]
[null,{"$f":"COUNTA(C56:E75)","v":7},"Exeter University (2019), Natural Environment Valuation Online",null,null,"https://www.leep.exeter.ac.uk/nevo"]
[null,null,"Forestry Commission (2024), Key Performance Indicators: Report for 2023-24",null,null,"https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/forestry-commission-key-performance-indicators-report-for-2023-24",null,null,"New "]
[null,null,"Forest Research, Forestry Statistics 2024",null,null,"https://www.forestresearch.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/statistics/forestry-statistics/forestry-statistics-2024/2024-8-finance-prices/",null,null,"Updated"]
[null,null,"Grown in Britain, Price / Size Curves for hardwoods (datasheets)",null,null,"https://www.growninbritain.org/downloads/"]
[null,null,"ONS (2024), UK Natural Capital Accounts 2024. Includes supplementary data tables",null,null,"https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/environmentalaccounts/bulletins/uknaturalcapitalaccounts/2024",null,null,"Updated"]
[null,null,"ONS (2024), UK Woodland Natural Capital Accounts. ",null,null,"https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/environmentalaccounts/bulletins/woodlandnaturalcapitalaccountsuk/2024",null,null,"Updated"]

{"sheet":"Fish","index":9,"n_rows":67,"n_cols":10,"rows_kept":67,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[[65,2,65,4],[65,5,65,7],[27,4,27,7],[52,2,52,7],[42,2,42,7],[58,2,58,4],[58,5,58,7],[64,2,64,4],[64,5,64,7],[35,4,35,7],[59,2,59,4],[59,5,59,7],[54,2,54,7],[34,4,34,7],[44,2,44,7],[46,2,46,7],[66,2,66,4],[66,5,66,7],[32,4,32,7],[28,4,28,7],[32,2,32,3],[31,2,31,3],[31,4,31,7],[61,2,61,4],[60,2,60,4],[60,5,60,7],[48,2,48,7],[50,2,50,7],[36,2,37,2],[36,4,36,7],[37,4,37,7],[55,2,55,3],[1,1,6,1],[1,2,6,5],[8,2,8,5],[13,2,13,5],[15,2,15,5],[63,2,63,4],[63,5,63,7],[38,2,40,2],[39,4,39,7],[56,2,56,4],[56,5,56,7],[57,2,57,4],[57,5,57,7],[38,4,38,7],[40,4,40,7],[62,2,62,4],[62,5,62,7],[61,5,61,7],[47,2,47,7],[23,4,23,7],[23,2,23,3],[26,4,26,7],[17,2,17,5],[24,2,24,3],[24,4,24,7]]}
["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","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","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 statistics and 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,"ONS (2024) UK Natural Capital Accounts",null,"Physical and monetary flows of the value of fish capture, including breakdown of species and sustainable stocks. Valuations are calculated by multiplying annual net profit per tonne (landed weight) by tonnes of fish captured (live weight) for a specific species. Relies on a range of external sources with various issues. For more detail see ONS (2024) methodology note and detailed summary dataset. Includes England estimates.",null,null,null,"Updated"]
[null,"Selected biophysical estimates","Source","Estimate","Notes"]
[null,null,"ONS (2024)","1.18 million tonnes","Marine fish capture in mainland UK waters, average 2018 to 2022. Excludes aquaculture as this is viewed as a produced rather than natural asset.",null,null,null,"Updated"]
[null,null,"Sea Fisheries Statistics (2023)","719,200 tonnes","Landings of seafish (including shellfish) by UK vessels into the UK and abroad.",null,null,null,"Updated"]
[null,null,"25 Year Environment Plan outcome indicators","49% of fish stocks fished at or below maximum sustainable yield","Percentage of  marine fish (quota) stocks of UK interest known to be fished at or below levels capable of producing maximum sustainable yield i.e. sustainably, in 2020. This has increased from 9% in 1990. This is an interim 25 Year Environment Plan Outcome indicator, and forms the basis for a composite indicator that tracks the sustainability of seafood, fish and aquaculture products. ",null,null,null,"Updated"]
[]
[null,"Key sources for valuation","Source",null,"Notes"]
[null,null,"UK Sea Fisheries Statistics, Average Price of landings",null,"Table 2.16 in the dataset provides time-series data (in current prices) of average price of UK fish landings by UK vessels for all species. There are a very wide range of prices."]
[null,null,"ONS (2024) UK Natural Capital Accounts",null,"Physical and monetary flows of the value of fish capture, including breakdown of species and sustainable stocks. Valuations are calculated by multiplying annual net profit per tonne (landed weight) by tonnes of fish captured (live weight) for a specific species. Relies on a range of external sources with various issues. For more detail see ONS (2024) methodology note and detailed summary dataset. Includes England estimates.",null,null,null,"Updated"]
[null,"Selected values","Source","Value","Notes"]
[null,{"$f":"COUNTA(D35:D41)","v":7},"Sea Fisheries Statistics","£1.1 billion (2023 prices)","Annual value of landings of seafish (including shellfish) by UK vessels into the UK and abroad. This excludes fish from aquaculture. ",null,null,null,"Updated"]
[null,null,"ONS (2024)","£191 million (2023 prices)","Net profit of marine fish capture in UK waters 2018-22 average. Dividing this by five-year physical tonnage above (1.18 million tonnes) gives an average unit net profit of marine capture of £162 / tonne. See ONS (2024) methodology note for data sources and limitations",null,null,null,"Updated"]
[null,null,"ONS Annual Business Survey","£1037 million","GVA of UK fishing (£466m) and aquaculture (£571m) in 2022. See source for further breakdowns."]
[null,null,null,"£781 million","GVA of UK fish processing in 2022."]
[null,null,"Sea Fisheries Statistics, Table 2.16","£2223 / tonne","5 year (2019 to 2023) unweighted average landed price of demersal species (unadjusted for inflation) See table in source for detailed species breakdown. ",null,null,null,"Updated"]
[null,null,null,"£853 / tonne","5 year (2019 to 2023) unweighted average landed price of pelagic species (unadjusted for inflation). See table in source for detailed species breakdown. ",null,null,null,"Updated"]
[null,null,null,"£2671 / tonne","5 year (2019 to 2023) unweighted average landed price of shellfish species (unadjusted for inflation). See table in source for detailed species breakdown. ",null,null,null,"Updated"]
[]
[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 for valuation","ONS Freshwater Accounts also show a small level of provisioning service of caught fish from freshwater habitats (e.g. rainbow trout, salmon). Seafish (2022) reports on the economics of the UK fishing fleet; Seafish (2019) gives data on labour and employment in the processing industry; Seafish (2016) provides an in-depth study of the UK aquaculture sector. "]
[]
[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. See ONS (2023) methodology note on how fish capture is valued. Aquaculture, or farmed fish, are not considered an ecosystem service within the UK natural capital accounts as it relies on active management and is viewed as a produced asset and not a natural asset."]
[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. ONS (2023) project sustainable stocks for 100 years, unsustainable stocks for only 25 years. "]
[]
[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 the fishing industry and the Gross Value Added of the fishing sector itself."]
[]
[null,"Related guidance","n/a"]
[]
[null,"Applications and case studies","See Natural Capital Committee (2015) for application to restoration of North Sea cod stocks for the UK and restoration of shellfish stocks. See ENCA Case Study VN4 for a marine strategy utilising an ecosystem services approach."]
[]
[null,"Full references and weblinks","Defra, Outcome Indicator Framework for the 25 Year Environment Plan",null,null,"https://oifdata.defra.gov.uk/"]
[null,{"$f":"COUNTA(C57:E81)","v":11},"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 (2024), UK Natural Capital Accounts 2024. Includes supplementary data tables",null,null,"https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/environmentalaccounts/bulletins/uknaturalcapitalaccounts/2024",null,null,"Updated"]
[null,null,"ONS (2024), UK Natural Capital Accounts 2024: methodology guide",null,null,"https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/environmentalaccounts/methodologies/uknaturalcapitalaccountsmethodologyguide2024",null,null,"Updated"]
[null,null,"ONS Annual Business Survey, Sections A03 and C10.2",null,null,"https://www.ons.gov.uk/businessindustryandtrade/business/businessservices/datasets/uknonfinancialbusinesseconomyannualbusinesssurveysectionsas",null,null,"Updated"]
[null,null,"Seafish (2016) Aquaculture in England, Wales and Northern Ireland: An Analysis of the Economic Contribution and Value of the Major Sub-Sectors and the Most Important Farmed Species",null,null,"https://www.seafish.org/document?id=4382b7aa-ffce-448b-850d-46a8f7959115",null,null,"Updated"]
[null,null,"Seafish (2019), Labour and Employment in UK Seafood Processing 2019",null,null,"https://www.seafish.org/document/?id=16687d65-6e8c-488d-ac3f-f592f9fe9253"]
[null,null,"Seafish (2024), Economics of the UK Fishing Fleet 2023",null,null,"https://www.seafish.org/document/?id=1c3071b9-23e4-4073-a9af-da5ea0547215",null,null,"Updated"]
[null,null,"Seafish Fleet Enquiry Tool",null,null,"https://public.tableau.com/app/profile/seafish/viz/FleetEnquiryTool/1Overview"]
[null,null,"Seafish Processing Enquiry Tool",null,null,"https://public.tableau.com/app/profile/seafish/viz/ProcessingEnquiryTool/Overview",null,null,"Updated"]

{"sheet":"Water supply","index":10,"n_rows":62,"n_cols":10,"rows_kept":62,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[[61,2,61,4],[61,5,61,7],[57,2,57,4],[57,5,57,7],[40,4,40,7],[46,2,46,7],[47,2,47,7],[48,2,48,7],[50,2,50,7],[52,2,52,7],[54,2,54,7],[55,2,55,3],[56,2,56,4],[56,5,56,7],[58,2,58,4],[58,5,58,7],[1,1,6,1],[1,2,6,5],[8,2,8,5],[14,2,14,5],[16,2,16,5],[34,2,34,3],[34,4,34,7],[35,2,35,3],[25,2,25,3],[25,4,25,7],[60,2,60,4],[60,5,60,7],[35,4,35,7],[37,4,37,7],[59,2,59,4],[37,2,38,2],[38,4,38,7],[59,5,59,7],[42,2,42,7],[44,2,44,7],[39,4,39,7],[18,2,18,5],[26,4,26,7],[24,4,24,7],[33,2,33,3],[33,4,33,7],[30,4,30,7],[29,4,29,7],[27,2,27,3],[27,4,27,7],[24,2,24,3],[26,2,26,3]]}
["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. ",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","Surface and groundwater for various uses. This is the provisioning service",null,null,null,null,"Mountains, M&H","●"]
[null,null,null,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 (2024) 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. Includes accounts broken down by each country. ",null,null,null,"Updated"]
[null,null,"Defra, 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,"Defra, 25 Year Environment Plan Outcome Indicators - Water theme",null,"Includes an indicator on \"water bodies achieving sustainable abstraction criteria\". See also resource theme for water efficiency"]
[null,"Selected biophysical estimates","Source","Description of estimate","Notes"]
[null,null,"ONS (2024)","6633 million cubic metres","5-year average (2018-22) of direct abstraction of raw water for public water supply in UK excluding from groundwater sources. Country breakdowns are available. ",null,null,null,"Updated"]
[null,null,"Defra (2023), Water abstraction statistics ","10.4 billion cubic metres","Direct abstraction of water from non-tidal surface water and groundwater in England in 2018.  In 2018 20% of estimated total abstractions were from groundwater. "]
[]
[null,"Key sources for valuation","Source",null,"Notes"]
[null,null,"ONS (2024) UK Natural Capital Accounts",null,"Provides estimates of the volume and value of water abstraction for the UK over a time series. Includes accounts broken down by each country.",null,null,null,"Updated"]
[null,null,"Water Resource Management Plans","Water Resource Management Plans","Valuation evidence is publicly available from these statutory plans developed by water companies in England and Wales. These inculde present value lifetime costs (the discounted total of costs incurred over the life of the project) of providing incremental 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(D38:D41)","v":4},"ONS (2024)","£4884 million (2023 prices)","5 year average \"Resource rent\" value of raw water abstraction for public water supply (2018-22). Conceptually, this represents the value of the raw material input to water utilities who then treat the water for public consumption. However, the ONS acknowledge in its methodology guide that as calculated the value does include an element of processing value.  See supplementary data tables for a time series of monetary values.",null,null,null,"Updated"]
[null,null,null,"£0.74 / cubic metre (2023 prices)","An indicative 5 year average (2018-22) unit resource rent value for water abstracted for public water supply. Estimated by dividing the average annual monetary flow (£4884 million) by the physical flow (6632 million cubic metres) over that period. 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,null,"Updated"]
[null,null,"Environment Agency (2023)","£1.45 / cubic metre (2017 prices)","Value of water abstraction for other industries. Replacement cost valuation taken from EA's groundwater appraisal guidance used alongside the ONS value above in its Natural Capital Register and Accounting Tool and Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk Management supplementary guidance on environmental valuation impacts. The range around this central estimate is £0.25 - £2.65 (2017 prices)"]
[null,null,"Water Resource Management Plans (reported in HM Treasury Green Book 2020)","£5.7 million / megalitres (2020/21 prices)","Industry average present value lifetime cost of providing a million litres (a mega litre) per day included in the most recent Management Plans.Can be interpreted as the typical economic cost of replacing a marginal mega litre of water and may be suitable for high-level assessment of the value of water resource impacts. However regional variation can be significant, because options to augment resources are constrained to varying degrees, in part reflecting wider water scarcity. Care should therefore be taken in using these figures. For significant interventions, the relevant local Water Resource Management Plan should be consulted Defra can advise - contact EnvironmentAnalysis@defra.gov.uk"]
[]
[null,"Limitations to valuation","The appraisal context is crucial to applying the right kind of valuation. "]
[]
[null,"Other sources for valuation","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 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 environmentanalysis@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 Tab."]
[]
[null,"Related guidance","For any further guidance on using water resource values, please contact environmentanalysis@defra.gov.uk. For accounting methods, see ONS (2022) methodology guide. "]
[]
[null,"Applications and case studies","ENCA Case Studies AL6 and  AL8 provide information regarding the natural capital considerations of water supply during infastructure developments and improvements."]
[]
[null,"Full references and weblinks","Defra, Water Abstraction Statistics: England, 2000-2018",null,null,"https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/water-abstraction-estimates"]
[null,{"$f":"COUNTA(C56:E77)","v":6},"Defra, Outcome Indicator Framework for the 25 Year Environment Plan",null,null,"https://oifdata.defra.gov.uk/"]
[null,null,"Environment Agency (2023), Environment and Historic Environment Outcomes Valuation - Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk Management supplemetnary appraisal guidance. Look-up tables",null,null,"https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/environment-and-historic-environment-outcomes-valuation-guidance"]
[null,null,"ICF for the Consumer Council for Water (2017), Improving willingness-to-pay research in the water sector",null,null,"https://www.ccw.org.uk/app/uploads/2017/07/Improving-willingness-to-pay-research-in-the-water-sector.pdf"]
[null,null,"ONS (2024), UK Natural Capital Accounts 2024. Includes supplementary data tables",null,null,"https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/environmentalaccounts/bulletins/uknaturalcapitalaccounts/2024",null,null,"Updated"]
[null,null,"ONS (2024), UK Natural Capital Accounts 2024: methodology guide",null,null,"https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/environmentalaccounts/methodologies/uknaturalcapitalaccountsmethodologyguide2024",null,null,"Updated"]

{"sheet":"Renewable energy","index":11,"n_rows":44,"n_cols":10,"rows_kept":44,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[[1,1,7,1],[1,2,7,5],[9,2,9,5],[14,2,14,5],[16,2,16,5],[18,2,18,5],[34,2,34,7],[36,2,36,7],[42,2,42,4],[42,5,42,7],[25,2,25,3],[25,4,25,7],[24,2,24,3],[24,4,24,7],[32,2,32,7],[33,2,33,7],[28,4,28,7],[38,2,38,7],[30,2,30,7],[43,2,43,4],[43,5,43,7],[40,2,40,4],[40,5,40,7],[41,2,41,4],[41,5,41,7]]}
["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, solar and bio-energy. According to the Office for National Statistics, renewable generation in physical terms increased seven-fold between 2010 and 2020. Note that 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 (2024) - Renewable sources of energy",null,"Presents statistics on supply, demand, and consumption for renewable sources of energy.",null,null,null,"Updated"]
[null,null,"ONS (2024) UK Natural Capital Accounts",null,"Provides time-series aggregate physical estimates for wind, solar, tidal and hydro energy. Includes accounts broken down by each country. Values are based on residual resource rent approach.",null,null,null,"Updated"]
[]
[null,"Selected values","Source","Value","Notes"]
[null,{"$f":"COUNTA(D29)","v":1},"ONS (2024)","£2180 million (2023 prices)","Annual resource rent of renewable electricity provisioning in 2022, up from £210 million in 2010. Includes wind, hydro, tidal, solar and bioenergy. Note that annual values are volatile being affected by weather and climate (e.g. 2022 value is significantly lower than in 2020) as well as capacity and demand. See supplementary data tables for a time series of monetary values.",null,null,null,"Updated"]
[]
[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","Renewable energy installations can affect amenity and other ecosystem service values. See Amenity Tab in this Databook and relevant Broad Habitat Tabs in the ENCA Assets Databook."]
[]
[null,"Related guidance","For accounting methods, see ONS (2023) methodology guide. For general appraisal guidance on energy use and changes in GHG emissions, see BEIS (2021)."]
[]
[null,"Full references and weblinks","BEIS (2021), Valuation of greenhouse gas emissions: for policy appraisal and evaluation",null,null,"https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/valuing-greenhouse-gas-emissions-in-policy-appraisal/valuation-of-greenhouse-gas-emissions-for-policy-appraisal-and-evaluation"]
[null,{"$f":"COUNTA(C41:E60)","v":4},"DUKES (2024), 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,"Updated"]
[null,null,"ONS (2024), UK Natural Capital Accounts 2024. Includes supplementary data tables",null,null,"https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/environmentalaccounts/bulletins/uknaturalcapitalaccounts/2024",null,null,"Updated"]
[null,null,"ONS (2024), UK Natural Capital Accounts 2024: methodology guide",null,null,"https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/environmentalaccounts/methodologies/uknaturalcapitalaccountsmethodologyguide2024",null,null,"Updated"]

{"sheet":"Air pollution removal","index":12,"n_rows":68,"n_cols":10,"rows_kept":68,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[[66,5,66,7],[65,5,65,7],[31,4,31,7],[30,4,30,7],[67,2,67,4],[67,5,67,7],[48,2,48,7],[50,2,50,7],[58,2,58,7],[60,2,60,7],[64,2,64,4],[53,2,53,7],[54,2,54,7],[56,2,56,7],[64,5,64,7],[63,5,63,7],[63,2,63,4],[66,2,66,4],[29,4,29,7],[21,2,21,5],[22,2,22,5],[26,2,26,3],[26,4,26,7],[41,4,41,7],[42,4,42,7],[65,2,65,4],[44,4,44,7],[62,2,62,4],[62,5,62,7],[36,4,36,7],[36,2,36,3],[39,3,39,7],[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],[25,2,25,3],[35,2,35,3],[34,2,34,3],[34,4,34,7],[25,4,25,7],[35,4,35,7],[27,2,27,3],[27,4,27,7],[39,2,45,2],[45,4,45,7],[46,4,46,7],[52,2,52,7],[40,4,40,7],[43,4,43,7]]}
["Air pollution 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 removing some of this pollution, vegetation helps to lessen these impacts on health and wellbeing. The level of the service is related to (a) atmopsheric pollution concentrations, notably particulate pollutants; (b) the type, amount and location 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,"Jones et al (2017) for ONS",null,"Original modelling study to produce a natural capital account for air pollution removal by vegetation across the UK and for urban areas for a range of pollutants. Estimates this service by running a dynamic transport model of air pollution across the UK with and without vegetation. A corrected version of the original study was published in February 2019 (see link). The model was updated in 2022 for ONS (2022), so these results are now largely superseded. "]
[null,null,"ONS (2024) UK Natural Capital Accounts",null,"Provides updated time series of air pollution removal based on updated modelling by the UK Centre for Ecology and Hydrology (see Jones et al (2017)). Estimates produced for 2007,2015 and 2019, then scaled to 2030 based on the previous modelling. The UK Accounts \"detailed summary\" dataset includes spatial breakdown of estimates for all Local Authority areas in the UK. ",null,null,null,"Updated"]
[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 original 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 in 2015. For urban vegetation, the effect is small (0.44%) reflecting its relatively small extent. However, the benefits provided by urban vegetation are disproportionally larger. Note that the pollution reduction effect declines over time due to long term trends in background pollution: the projected reduction in 2030 is modelled as -8.3%.although the underlying data for this calculation has been superseded by ONS (2024), comparable relative changes in concentrations have not been published, so these are retained for context and illustration of relative impacts. "]
[null,null,"ONS (2024)","19,125 tonnes","PM2.5 removed by all UK broad habitats in 2023. Prevented life years lost from this PM2.5 exposure is estimated at 40,970 years in 2023. UK Coniferous and Broadleaved Woodland combined removed 14,781 tonnes of PM2.5. Other values can be filtered from the ONS dataset.",null,null,null,"Updated"]
[null,null,"ONS (2024)","1.37 million tonnes","All air pollutants removed by all habitats in 2023. 90% of this is O3. PM2.5 however is by far the most damaging pollutant.",null,null,null,"Updated"]
[]
[null,"Key sources for valuation","Source",null,"Notes"]
[null,null,"ONS (2024) UK Natural Capital Accounts",null,"Accompanying detailed dataset (Tab 11) gives local authority breakdown of pollution removal estimates and values, enabling filtering by region, habitat and pollutant. Estimates avoided health costs (mainly life years lost) from reduced concentrations of air pollutants attributable to UK vegetation. Estimates produced by UK CEH to update Jones et al (2017) for ONS. ",null,null,null,"Updated"]
[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) and ONS (2023) make use of previous updates of this guidance."]
[]
[null,"Selected values","Source","Value","Notes"]
[null,null,"ONS (2024)","Indicative average values for air pollution removal in 2023 for different habitats calculated from aggregate UK values, based on UK CEH update to Jones et al (2017) for ONS with spatial breakdown detailed by ONS in accompanying detailed dataset (Table 11). All estimates relative to bare soil counterfactual. Areas are taken from UK CEH Land Cover Map included in the same dataset.  Explicit updated estimates for 2030 are not provided by ONS, but were pro-rata'd based on the original modelled trends. See guidance below on projecting trends. ",null,null,null,null,"Updated"]
[null,null,null,"£399 / hectare (2023 prices)","Average annual value for air pollution removal by UK woodland - calculated by dividing the UK value for broadleaf and coniferous woodland (£1269 million) by the 2023 area of woodland (3.18 million hectares). Although a breakdown could be made between broadleaf woodland (£1.01 million / 1.71 million hectares = £589 / hectare) and coniferous woodland (£259 million / 1.47 million hectares = £177 / hectare)  the differences in these values reflect their location in terms of concentrations and populations as much as species (e.g. conifer plantations in remote areas will offer a lower service than broadleaf woodlands near to urban areas) so an average value is more appropriate. Country specific calculations can be derived from the same dataset e.g. for England the average value = £1082 m / 1.294 million hectares = £836 / hectare ",null,null,null,"Updated"]
[null,null,null,"£ 5762 / hectare (2023 prices)","Average annual value for air pollution removal by UK urban trees - calculated by dividing UK value for urban trees (£559 million) by the area of urban trees (97,000 hectares). Country specific calculations can be derived from the same dataset e.g. for England the average value = £537 m / 78,000 hectares = £6891 / hectare",null,null,null,"Updated"]
[null,null,null,"£587 / hectare (2023 prices)","Average annual value for air pollution removal by UK urban grassland - calculated by dividing UK value for urban grassland (£242 million) by area (412,000 hectares). Country specific calculations can be derived from the same dataset e.g. for England the average value = £235 m / 345,000 hectares = £681 / hectare",null,null,null,"Updated"]
[null,null,null,"£35 / hectare (2023 prices)","Average annual value for air pollution removal by UK enclosed farmland - calculated by dividing UK value for enclosed farmland (£431 million) by area (12.43 million hectares). Country specific calculations can be derived from the same dataset e.g. for England the average value = £392 m / 8.64 million hectares = £45 / hectare",null,null,null,"Updated"]
[null,null,null,"£18 / hectare (2023 prices)","Average annual value for air pollution removal by UK semi-natural grassland - calculated by dividing UK coastal margins value (£44 million) by relevant area (2.48 million hectares). Country specific calculations can be derived from the same dataset e.g. for England the average value = £33 m / 0.642 million hectares = £51 / hectare",null,null,null,"Updated"]
[null,null,null,"£152 / hectare (2023 prices)","Average annual value for air pollution removal by UK coastal margins - calculated by dividing UK coastal margins value (£16.4 million) by relevant area (108,000 hectares). Country specific calculations can be derived from the same dataset e.g. for England the average value is £15.3 m / 70,000 hectares = £218 / hectare",null,null,null,"Updated"]
[null,null,"ONS (2024)","£2.60 billion (2023 prices)","Estimate of UK avoided health damages (on a willingness to pay basis) in 2023 from pollution removal by UK vegetation, updating the modelling of Jones et al (2017) and using Defra's updated damage cost valuations in 2019 (see Air Pollution tab). Asset values are also provided based on pollution projections but also population and income growth to 2030 and flatlining thereafter up to 100 years. ",null,null,null,"Updated"]
[]
[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. The values above are based on relatively old willingness to pay estimates of avoided morbidity and mortality and which could be better aligned in future with a QALY valuation approach."]
[]
[null,"Other sources for valuation","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. Forest Research's i-tree eco projects assess the benefits of trees in various cities, including the benefit of air pollution removal based on damage costs per tonne"]
[]
[null,"Guidance on use in appraisal","Use will tend to relate to a change in extent of a broad habitat. ONS (2023) values are based on a counterfactual of bare soil. Where appraisal is about land use change, the difference between per hectare values will be appropriate to avoid overstating. For example, a change from farmland to woodland will not give the full woodland air pollution removal benefit, but only the increase on the farmland service."]
[null,"Guidance on use in natural capital accounting","Appropriate for use in natural capital accounting. See ONS Guidance. "]
[null,"Guidance on projecting values","There are several considerations which need to be factored in:\n\n1. In an appraisal context, benefits from woodland creation will not be immediate - young trees will absorb less pollution than the average woodland in Jones et al (2017) - so reasonable evidence-based assumptions should be made about the timescale over which these values will be fully realised. \n\n2. Assuming no change in woodland, the pollution reduction value of vegetation declines over time because of a decline in background pollution. ONS state that the value of air pollution removal over time is projected to fall by CEH to 2030, reflecting baseline declines in background pollution. However, detailed projections of annual and physical values have not been published by ONS. Instead, reasonable assumptions and sensitivity analysis should be used to reflect this uncertainty.  In the original Jones et al (2017) study, values for 2030 were around 50% lower than the 2015 estimates but the decline in unit values over time appear much more muted than this, judging by the ratio of asset value to 2020 values.\n\n3. ONS Accounts involve modelling for population growth to 2030, flatlining thereafter, following Jones et al (2017). Following Defra air quality damage cost guidance future health effects should be discounted at 1.5% rather than 3.5% to reflect the assumption that willingness to pay for health outcomes will rise in line with GDP. "]
[]
[null,"Potential overlap with other values","Some potential for double counting if combined with hedonic amenity values."]
[]
[null,"Related guidance","Defra air quality guidance covers the valuation of changes in air pollution, whatever the source. See Air Quality Tab. "]
[]
[null,"Applications and case studies","Jones et al (2017) aggregate broad habitat values for this service have been used in various sub-national Natural Capital Accounts (see ENCA Case Studies). See also the various i-tree eco studies by Forest Research"]
[]
[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,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,"Forest Research, i-Tree Eco projects",null,null,"https://www.forestresearch.gov.uk/research/i-tree-eco/i-tree-eco-projects-completed/"]
[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 (2024), UK Natural Capital Accounts 2024. Includes detailed summary dataset of air pollution removal estimates",null,null,"https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/environmentalaccounts/bulletins/uknaturalcapitalaccounts/2024",null,null,"Updated"]

{"sheet":"Carbon reduction","index":13,"n_rows":102,"n_cols":10,"rows_kept":102,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[[32,4,32,7],[75,2,75,7],[82,2,82,4],[79,2,79,7],[32,2,32,3],[37,3,37,7],[36,2,48,2],[34,2,34,3],[53,4,53,7],[59,2,59,3],[55,4,55,7],[34,4,34,7],[33,4,33,7],[33,2,33,3],[58,4,58,7],[50,4,50,7],[60,2,60,3],[60,4,60,7],[64,4,64,7],[59,4,59,7],[58,2,58,3],[31,2,31,3],[31,4,31,7],[54,4,54,7],[99,2,99,4],[77,2,77,7],[80,2,80,3],[90,2,90,4],[90,5,90,7],[91,2,91,4],[91,5,91,7],[98,2,98,4],[97,2,97,4],[97,5,97,7],[92,2,92,4],[92,5,92,7],[85,2,85,4],[71,2,71,7],[72,2,72,7],[69,2,69,7],[88,2,88,4],[88,5,88,7],[87,2,87,4],[83,2,83,4],[89,2,89,4],[89,5,89,7],[38,4,38,7],[45,4,45,7],[46,4,46,7],[47,4,47,7],[48,4,48,7],[44,3,44,7],[41,4,41,7],[43,4,43,7],[40,4,40,7],[39,4,39,7],[42,4,42,7],[85,5,85,7],[63,4,63,7],[62,2,62,7],[65,4,65,7],[29,4,29,7],[36,3,36,7],[100,2,100,4],[100,5,100,7],[98,5,98,7],[81,2,81,4],[86,2,86,4],[86,5,86,7],[82,5,82,7],[81,5,81,7],[73,2,73,7],[96,2,96,4],[96,5,96,7],[93,2,93,4],[93,5,93,7],[94,2,94,4],[94,5,94,7],[99,5,99,7],[83,5,83,7],[87,5,87,7],[84,5,84,7],[95,2,95,4],[95,5,95,7],[84,2,84,4],[101,5,101,7],[101,2,101,4],[1,1,7,1],[1,2,7,5],[9,2,9,5],[14,2,14,5],[16,2,16,5],[18,2,18,5],[52,4,52,7],[49,4,49,7],[67,2,67,7],[25,2,25,3],[24,2,24,3],[24,4,24,7],[30,4,30,7],[25,4,25,7],[27,2,27,3],[27,4,27,7],[28,2,28,3],[28,4,28,7],[26,2,26,3],[26,4,26,7],[30,2,30,3],[29,2,29,3]]}
["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 for example will lead to increased sequestration, reducing GHGs emissions in the atmosphere.  Degraded habitats such as peatland emit carbon dioxide, and their restoration will improve their carbon storage and 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 etc) are far broader and uncertain, but include 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\" (e.g. woodland, semi-natural habitats) and \"natural capital monetary estimates\". "]
[null,null,"Natural England (2021)",null,"Collates and summarises available evidence on the carbon storage and sequestration rates of different semi-natural habitat, in relation to their condition and management, with an indication of the range of values and the degree of confidence we can place in them, and identifies evidence gaps. It provides very detailed sets of carbon storage, sequestration and emission factors, based on the literature, for terrestrial, coastal and marine habitats, and the freshwater systems that connect them, in order to quantify their relative benefits for carbon management. This report updates and expands previous work by Natural England on ‘Carbon storage by habitat’ published in 2012. "]
[null,null,"Forest Research (2022)",null,"Quantifying the carbon cycle for different types of woodlands. The analysis assesses the influence of different species, site and management factors, including the eventual use of harvested wood, on the potential net CO2 uptake and GHG emissions, at the scale of an individual forest stand (i.e. in terms of quantities of carbon per hectare), and for notional woodland creation programmes of 1 hectare per year for 1 year and over 10 and 25 years.Gives comparative figures for annualised carbon sequestration by 1 hectare of woodland type over the period 2022-2100."]
[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,"CEH (2017), Emissions Inventory for UK Peatlands",null,"A method for reporting GHG emissions from peatlands in the UK’s emissions inventory. Builds on the original UK Peatland Code Emissions Factors from 2015 (themselves updated in 2023, see below) to provide more comprehensive breakdown of peatland land use types and conditions (including lowland land use types) - see Table 4.1. 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. Some of the estimates are included in Natural England (2021). The final emissions factors have been updated in Evans et al (2023) to inform a new version of the Peatland Code (see below)."]
[null,null,"Evans et al (2023)",null,"Reviews and updates 2015 Peatland Code emissions factors to align with the UK Peatland Emissions Inventory (CEH 2017). Updates all Tier 2 peat condition categories included in the Inventory, and incorporates new UK datasets, as well as international data from climatically analogous regions. "]
[null,null,"Peatland Code peatland emission factors 2023",null,"The UK Peatland Code has set out a range of emissions factors by condition category for projects to determine carbon benefits from a restoration project to be validated and verified by the Code. Emissions factors were originally developed in 2015 and have been updated in 2023 by Evans et al (2023) for Defra. See table below. These are used 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. These are taken from "]
[null,null,"CEFAS (2021)",null,"Extensive literature review of blue carbon storage and accumulation rates for waters that are the responsibility of the Secretary of State. "]
[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,"City projects provide a quantitative baseline of the carbon storage and sequestration benefits provided by different tree species as well as air filtration,  amenity and stormwater benefits. Other i-Tree assessments include London, 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,"Selected biophysical estimates","Source","Emissions of carbon dioxide equivalent / year","Notes"]
[null,null,"Peatland Code Field Protocol (2023)","Emissions factors contained in the Peatland Code for assessing pre-restoration and post-restoration condition of peat for blanket bog, raised bog and fens, drawing on Evans et al (2023). 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 peatland from actively eroding condition to a far less degraded condition would give an improvement of 14.3 tCO2e /ha /year. This can then be multiplied by the BEIS (2021) carbon values below.  Note that the improvement will not be immediate and this would need to be estimated.  See Field Protocol and Evans et al (2023) for all emission factors, with fuller descriptions with pictures. "]
[null,null,null,"Emissions factors for blanket and raised bogs"]
[null,null,null,"17.72 tonnes / hectare","Emissions from \"actively eroding\" or bare peat"]
[null,null,null,"3.42 tonnes / hectare","Emissions from \"revegetated peat\" - any formally bare peat no longer extensive nor continuous"]
[null,null,null,"3.32 tonnes / hectare","Emissions from \"drained\" peat - within 30m of an active artificial drain"]
[null,null,null,"2.51 tonnes / hectare","Emissions from \"modified / degraded peat\" with evidence of bare patches and limited sphagnum"]
[null,null,null,"0.32 tonnes / hectare","Emissions from \"rewetted modified bog\" - within 30m of rewetted drainage or partly covered by sphagnum "]
[null,null,null,"0.32 tonnes / hectare","Emissions from near natural peat, dominated by sphagnum and with little or no bare peat. 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,null,"Indicative emission factors for fens"]
[null,null,null,"37.17 tonnes / hectare","Emissions from drained cropland fen, vegetated with a conventional crop, with minimum peat depth of 45 cm"]
[null,null,null,"22.00 tonnes / hectare","Emissions from intensively drained and managed grassland fens"]
[null,null,null,"15.88 tonnes / hectare","Emissions from extensively drained and managed grassland fens"]
[null,null,null,"3.31 tonnes / hectare","Emissions from (deliberately) \"rewetted fen\" "]
[null,null,"Natural England (2021)","32.9 tonnes / hectare","Emissions from arable agriculture on deep peat soils"]
[null,null,"CEH (2017)","23.1 million tonnes","Total estimated UK GHG peatlands emissions of CO2eq per year. These emissions are sufficient to convert the UK LULUCF inventory as a whole from a net GHG sink into a net GHG source."]
[null,null,"Source","Carbon dioxide equivalent sequestered / year","Notes"]
[null,null,"ONS (2024) UK Woodland Accounts","6.2 tonnes / hectare","Crude overall sequestration rate average implied by the woodland accounts - National average sequestration rate calculated from national woodland area (3.19 million hectares average 2017-21) and aggregate sequestration combining \"forest land\" and \"harvested wood products\" (19.88 million tonnes CO2e average 2017-21). If \"harvested wood products\" is excluded, the average 5-year carbon sequestration rate is 5.6 tonnes / hectare. England and Scotland averages can be calculated from the accompanying dataset. In practice, 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 (2021)","6.7 tonnes / hectare","National average of broadleaved woodland carbon sequestration calculated from national broadleaved area  (1.5 million hectares) and five-year (2014-18) aggregate sequestration (10.1 million tonnes CO2)"]
[null,null,"Natural England (2021)","5.2 tonnes / hectare","Saltmarsh. Includes other coastal sub-habitats"]
[null,null,"CEFAS (2021)","3.06 tonnes / hectare","Intertidal mud sediments - average carbon accumulation (converted from 83.5 grams of carbon / m2). See Table 2 on page 10 for other averages e.g. 4.99 tonnes / hectare for saltmarsh"]
[]
[null,"Key sources for valuation","Source",null,"Notes"]
[null,null,"DESNZ / BEIS (2021) carbon values",null,"Sets out a revised approach to valuing greenhouse gas emissions in policy appraisal, following a cross-government review in 2020-21. This update has been made to reflect the latest evidence, targets and wider context. A literature review by Vivid Economics helped inform the review. A full table of values with low, central and high estiamtes is provided up to 2050. "]
[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 2019 BEIS / DESNZ non-traded carbon prices, which are now replaced by BEIS (2021)"]
[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 carbon value to give indicative per hectare values of carbon sequestration. DESNZ / BEIS (2021) publishes a full table of low, central and high carbon value estimates from 2020 to 2050. For example, the central value of CO2eq for 2025 in 2020 prices is £260 / tonne CO2eq (with a low-high range of £130-£390 / tonne). ",null,null,null,null,null,"Updated"]
[null,null,"Defra calculations","£664 - 4313 / hectare (2024 prices)","Carbon reduction value of restoring one hectare of eroded peatland based on Peatland Code emission factors above and central BEIS carbon value for 2025 of £260 / tonne CO2eq and uprated to 2024 prices. Low value based on a 2.2 tCO2e /ha emissions saving (restoring from \"modified\" to \"rewetted\" status); high value based on a 14.3 tonne / hectare emissions saving (restoring from \"actively eroding\" to \"revegetated\").",null,null,null,"Updated"]
[null,{"$f":"COUNTA(D65:D66)","v":2},"ONS (2024)","£5054 million (2023 prices)","2018-22 average annual value of carbon sequestration by UK woodland, using updated DESNZ / BEIS carbon values",null,null,null,"Updated"]
[null,null,"UK Woodland Carbon Code","£23.30 / Woodland Carbon Unit (2023 prices)","Volume Weighted Average Price per Pending Issuance Unit in Real Terms for 2023. This has increased from £11.01 in 2020. Unit price range is from £10 to £50+ per unit. A Woodland Carbon Unit is a tonne of CO2e which has been sequestered in a Woodland Carbon Code verified woodland. Volume Weighted Average is the ratio of the value of credits traded to the total volume traded during a given timeframe ([price x volume summed over all transactions] / total volume).",null,null,null,"Updated"]
[]
[null,"Limitations to valuation","The voluntary carbon market, including for woodland carbon, is still a fledgling market and there is limited data on prices at which carbon is voluntarily traded. In any case, such prices would not be appropriate for inclusion in social cost benefit analysis. "]
[]
[null,"Other sources for valuation","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 social cost of carbon, or carbon values, 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. "]
[]
[null,"Guidance on use  in appraisal","DESNZ / BEIS (2021) 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, or planting young woodland. 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 Forestry Statistics (2022), tree carbon in above and below ground biomass (i.e. excluding soil carbon and litter and dead wood) totalled 916 million tonnes CO2 equivalent in 2020, giving a UK average woodland carbon store of around 280 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, as set out in SEEA Ecosystem Accounting (2021), there are two parts to the service: carbon (and other greenhouse gas) retention within ecosystems and the ability of ecosystems to remove carbon from the atmosphere (sequestration). At present with the UK accounts, where only positive service flows are reported, the focus is on carbon sequestration that enters long-term storage rather than on the accrued stock of carbon, with the quantity of carbon stored included as an indicator within the condition account. Inclusion of the service of carbon retention would enable greenhouse gas emissions from say degraded peatland to be reflected in a declining retention service. Further guidance will be provided in forthcoming ONS / Defra Principles of Natural Capital Accounting.  Whilst the DESNZ / BEIS (2021) carbon values 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). "]
[null,"Guidance on projecting values","Projecting 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. To obtain unit carbon values post-2050, DESNZ / BEIS (2021) advise applying a real annual growth rate of 1.5% starting at the most recently published value for 2050."]
[]
[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,"Applications and case studies","The degraded peatland GHG emission factors are used in the UK Peatland Code (ENCA Case Study FN1). 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 Woodland Carbon Code (ENCA Case Study FN2)."]
[]
[null,"Full references and weblinks","DESNZ / BEIS (2021), Valuation of greenhouse gas emissions: for policy appraisal and evaluation",null,null,"https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/valuing-greenhouse-gas-emissions-in-policy-appraisal/valuation-of-greenhouse-gas-emissions-for-policy-appraisal-and-evaluation"]
[null,{"$f":"COUNTA(C82:E110)","v":21},"Carbon Crichton Centre (2015), Developing Peatland Carbon Metrics and Financial Modelling to Inform the Pilot Phase UK Peatland Code. Report to Defra",null,null,"https://www.iucn-uk-peatlandprogramme.org/sites/default/files/2021-12/Defra%2013239%20Peatland%20Code%20metrics%20Final%20report%202015.pdf"]
[null,null,"CEFAS (2021), Blue Carbon stocks and accumulation analysis for Secretary \nof State region",null,null,"https://randd.defra.gov.uk/ProjectDetails?ProjectId=20754"]
[null,null,"Centre for Ecology and Hydrology (2017), Implementation of an Emissions Inventory for UK Peatlands. Report to BEIS.",null,null,"https://naei.beis.gov.uk/reports/reports?report_id=980"]
[null,null,"Evans, C et al (2023), Aligning the Peatland Code with the UK Peatland Inventory",null,null,"https://sciencesearch.defra.gov.uk/ProjectDetails?ProjectId=21088"]
[null,null,"Exeter University (2019), Natural Environment Valuation Online",null,null,"https://www.leep.exeter.ac.uk/nevo"]
[null,null,"Forest Research (2022), Quantifying the sustainable forestry carbon cycle",null,null,"https://www.forestresearch.gov.uk/publications/quantifying-the-sustainable-forestry-carbon-cycle-report-download-page/"]
[null,null,"Forest Research, i-Tree Eco projects",null,null,"https://www.forestresearch.gov.uk/research/i-tree-eco/i-tree-eco-projects-completed/"]
[null,null,"Forestry Commission (2023), The benefits of woodland creation: woods and carbon factsheet",null,null,"https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-benefits-of-woodland-creation-woods-and-carbon"]
[null,null,"Forest Research, Forestry Statistics 2024 - chapter 4 - Carbon",null,null,"https://www.forestresearch.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/statistics/forestry-statistics/forestry-statistics-2024/2024-4-carbon/",null,null,"Updated"]
[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 (2021), Carbon storage and sequestration by habitat: a review of the evidence (second edition)",null,null,"http://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/publication/5419124441481216"]
[null,null,"ONS (2021), UK Semi-natural habitat Natural Capital Accounts",null,null,"https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/environmentalaccounts/bulletins/seminaturalhabitatnaturalcapitalaccountsuk/2021"]
[null,null,"ONS (2024), UK Woodland Natural Capital Accounts. ",null,null,"https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/environmentalaccounts/bulletins/woodlandnaturalcapitalaccountsuk/2024",null,null,"Updated"]
[null,null,"ONS (2024), UK Natural Capital Accounts 2024. Includes supplementary data tables",null,null,"https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/environmentalaccounts/bulletins/uknaturalcapitalaccounts/2024",null,null,"Updated"]
[null,null,"ONS (2024), UK Natural Capital Accounts 2024: methodology guide",null,null,"https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/environmentalaccounts/methodologies/uknaturalcapitalaccountsmethodologyguide2024",null,null,"Updated"]
[null,null,"Ostle et al (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,"UK Peatland Code v 2.0",null,null,"https://www.iucn-uk-peatlandprogramme.org/peatland-code-0"]
[null,null,"Woodland Carbon Code",null,null,"https://woodlandcarboncode.org.uk/",null,null,"Updated"]
[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"]
[null,null,"Woodland Carbon Code - UK Carbon Prices",null,null,"https://woodlandcarboncode.org.uk/uk-land-carbon-registry/uk-carbon-prices"]

{"sheet":"Flood regulation","index":14,"n_rows":96,"n_cols":10,"rows_kept":96,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[[80,2,80,4],[80,5,80,7],[85,5,85,7],[86,2,86,4],[86,5,86,7],[93,5,93,7],[83,2,83,4],[83,5,83,7],[88,2,88,4],[88,5,88,7],[85,2,85,4],[90,2,90,4],[90,5,90,7],[91,5,91,7],[89,2,89,4],[89,5,89,7],[92,2,92,4],[92,5,92,7],[22,2,22,5],[95,2,95,4],[95,5,95,7],[81,2,81,4],[81,5,81,7],[94,2,94,4],[94,5,94,7],[65,2,65,7],[70,2,70,7],[71,2,71,7],[73,2,73,7],[75,2,75,7],[93,2,93,4],[38,2,38,3],[38,4,38,7],[91,2,91,4],[19,2,19,5],[28,2,28,3],[21,2,21,5],[27,4,27,7],[31,2,33,2],[31,4,31,7],[32,4,32,7],[33,4,33,7],[28,4,28,7],[25,2,25,3],[27,2,27,3],[25,4,25,7],[29,2,29,3],[29,4,29,7],[26,4,26,7],[26,2,26,3],[1,1,7,1],[1,2,7,5],[10,2,10,5],[15,2,15,5],[17,2,17,5],[8,2,8,5],[34,4,34,7],[82,2,82,4],[82,5,82,7],[84,2,84,4],[84,5,84,7],[63,4,63,7],[61,4,61,7],[62,4,62,7],[47,4,47,7],[77,2,77,7],[67,2,67,7],[69,2,69,7],[39,2,39,3],[55,4,55,7],[41,4,41,7],[60,4,60,7],[59,2,63,2],[59,3,59,7],[40,2,40,3],[40,4,40,7],[41,2,41,3],[56,4,56,7],[57,4,57,7],[48,10,48,15],[58,4,58,7],[56,2,58,2],[39,4,39,7],[48,4,48,7],[35,4,35,7],[87,2,87,4],[87,5,87,7],[54,10,54,15],[49,3,49,7],[49,2,54,2],[51,4,51,7],[44,4,44,7],[43,2,48,2],[43,3,43,7],[45,4,45,7],[46,4,46,7],[50,4,50,7],[52,4,52,7],[53,4,53,7],[54,4,54,7]]}
["Flood Regulation",null,null,null,null,"Back to index"]
[null,"Why is it relevant?","Some habitats can offer a flood risk management service.  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 contexts, where vegetation can reduce surface water flooding from heavy rainfall, with benefits to sewerage capacity. Coastal flood risk, set to increase in future with climate change, is reduced by coastal margin habitats such as saltmarsh. The valuation of reducing potential flood damage itself (for which engineering solutions are typically deployed) can be found in the Flood Damage 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,"Mountains, M&H","●"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Freshwaters","●"]
[null,"What nature provides","Regulating water flow by vegetation retaining water and releasing it slowly, or absorbing wave energy",null,null,null,null,"Woodland","●"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Coastal","●"]
[null,"Other inputs",null,null,null,null,null,"Marine"]
[null,null,"n/a",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,"Broadmeadow et al (2023), Valuation of flood regulation services",null,"Novel methodology developed in 2018 and revised in 2023 to provide indicative national estimates of water regulation services of GB 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\". Provides spatial breakdown by country and by public / private forest, and includes trees outside woodland. 98% of English woodland is assessed to be within flood risk catchments"]
[null,null,"Fitch et al (2022), Flood regulation services",null,"Study builds on the modelling by Broadmeadow et al (2023) to estimate the flood water storage provided by vegetation within flood risk catchments compared to bare soil over a run of ten years for broadleaf, conifers, crops, grassland and shrubland. Shares the same modelling approach as Forest Research (2023) but with some methodological differences reflecting the multi-habitat and multi-year approach. Whereas Broadmeadow et al (2023) aims to answer the question \"If a storm happens at any time in GB, what is the flood regulation service would you expect?\", Fitch et al address a more accounting-based question: \"what flood regulation service did that land cover actually provide in each year over ten years?\" A summary table is annexed that compares and contrasts the two methodologies and results. "]
[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",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,"Fitch et al (2022)","642 m3 / hectare","10 year average flood storage volume (canopy interception + soil storage) for all GB Broadleaf Woodland relative to bare soil"]
[null,null,null,"728 m3 / hectare","10 year average flood storage volume (canopy interception + soil storage) for all GB Conifer Woodland relative to bare soil"]
[null,null,null,"307 m3 / hectare","10 year average flood storage volume (canopy interception + soil storage) for all GB Shrubland relative to bare soil. Similar to Grass (298). Crop volume is 511 m/3 but more uncertain and potentially overestimated"]
[null,null,"ONS (2022)","57,443 hectares","Experimental methodology. Total area of land in England and Wales provisionally estimated to receive flood protection from saltmarshes in 2019. This includes 174,000 urban and suburban properties in England which may be considered to benefit from saltmarsh flood protection. Other land cover estimates are provided. "]
[null,null,"Fairchild et al (2021)","34.5% reduction in average flood extent from presence of saltmarsh in an estuary","Modelling which underpins ONS (2022). Using numerical hydrodynamic models within eight contextually diverse estuaries across Wales, simulates storms of varying intensity and coupling flood predictions to damage evaluation. Saltmarshes reduced flooding across all studied estuaries and particularly for the largest – 100-year storms, for which they mitigated average flood extents by 35% and cost damages by 37%. With the central estimate risk bands, this means that a medium risk area’s chance of flooding would increase from 1 in 65 years to 1 in 43 years if saltmarsh was not present. This is just one way to understand the flood mitigation benefit of saltmarsh, alternatively one could assume risk levels are unchanged, but the area flooded is reduced 34.5%. "]
[]
[null,"Key sources for valuation","Source",null,"Notes"]
[null,null,"Broadmeadow et al (2023), Valuation of flood regulation services",null,"Adopts a replacement-cost (rather than damage cost) approach to valuing the flood regulation service of woodland by applying annualised average 100-year 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 valuation estimates remain experimental and indicative. "]
[null,null,"Fitch et al (2022), Flood regulation services",null,"Companion study to Broadmeadow et al, using same replacement cost approach, but covers non woodland vegetation and models based on actual rainfall for water storage calculation."]
[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,"i-tree Eco projects ",null,"The value of reduced stormwater run-off from urban trees. The values are based on mitigation of standardised cost of removing, treating and disposing of used water by regional water companies of around £1.32 - £1.34 cubic metre (see for example the i-tree Eco Southampton full report) "]
[null,"Selected values","Source","Annual value","Notes"]
[null,null,"Broadmeadow et al (2023)","Annualised replacement cost values for flood water storage for different land covers within flood risk catchment zones, based on a 10-year average. Two £ / hectare values are given: the lower value is compared to a baseline of managed grassland, the higher value is compared to a baseline of bare soil (see Fitch et al below). Care is needed when applying such values to be clear which counterfactual is relevant. For example, planting woodland on farmland, it would be more appropriate to use the managed grass counterfactual rather than bare soil counterfactual. All are in 2021 prices. Although the hydrological modelling has been improved since the original study in 2018, the valuation method remains indicative. This is because replacement costs assume all woodland in flood risk catchments is providing a sufficient flood regulation benefit that without the water storage greater damage costs downstream would be incurred. "]
[null,{"$f":"COUNTA(D46:D64)","v":19},null,"£420 and £843 million p.a. ","Aggregate GB value of woodland. ONS (2024) report the higher end estimates for the four countries of the UK"]
[null,null,null,"£133 / hectare and £268 / hectare ","Average value for GB woodland providing flood water storage service. See study for country breakdown and public / private forest breakdown. For example, England's woodland has higher average per hectare values of £161 / hectare (compared to managed grass) and £322 / hectare (compared to bare soil) "]
[null,null,null,"£122 / hectare and £278 / hectare ","Average GB value for Trees Outside Woodland providing flood water storage service. The England average is £141 / hectare (compared to managed grass) and £308 / hectare (compared to bare soil) "]
[null,null,null,"£244 / hectare","Average value of avoided flood water storage costs by floodplain woodland because of its hydraulic roughness. This is based on 117,063 hectares of floodplain woodland across GB within Flood Zone 2 areas as defined by the Environment Agency. "]
[null,null,null,"£0.47 / m3 (2021 prices)","Central estimate of the average annualised costs of reservoir floodwater storage. The range is from £0.11 to £1.32 /m3 per year. These \"replacement costs\" can be considered a lower bound of the benefit if it can be assumed that such expenditure would be deemed value for money by the flooding authorities within flood risk catchments in terms of avoided flood damage costs. "]
[null,null,"Fitch et al (2022)","Annualised replacement cost values for flood water storage for different land covers within flood risk catchment zones, to a baseline of bare soil, based on average water storage modelled for 2006-15. NB - these are not equally robust - \"Overall, the authors have less confidence in the numbers produced for crop, with greatest confidence in those produced for woodland and grass\" (p.22). All are in 2021 prices."]
[null,{"$f":"COUNTA(D51:D68)","v":14},null,"£302 / hectare ","Broadleaf woodland"]
[null,null,null,"£342 / hectare","Conifer woodland"]
[null,null,null,"£240 / hectare","Crops (winter wheat) - note  modelling is likely to overestimate crop water storage (p. 22)"]
[null,null,null,"£140 / hectare","Grass"]
[null,null,null,"£144 / hectare","Shrubland (heather)"]
[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,"ONS (2022)","£27-38 / hectare (2019 prices)","Estimated value in 2019 for saltmarsh that provides flood protection for arable land or grassland in England. See bulletin for breakdown"]
[null,null,null,"£4298 / hectare (2019 prices)","Estimated value in 2019 for saltmarsh that provides flood protection for 86,890 suburban properties in England"]
[null,null,null,"£9438 / hectare (2019 prices)","Estimated value in 2019 for saltmarsh that provides flood protection for 87,723 urban properties in England"]
[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,"Limitations to valuation","Broadmeadow et al and Fitch et al set out a number of limits to their methodology. Hydrological modelling is essential for any estimation of the service provided. In general, flood reduction benefits from this regulating service will vary spatially and be largely determined by the number of properties protected; 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 for valuation","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 Broadmeadow et al (2018, 2023) modelling. For more detail on the benefits of vegetation on reducing surface water run-off, see CIRIA's B£ST Tool. \n\nA systematic review by CEH (2017) on the direct effect of trees on river flooding in catchments finds broad support for the conclusion that increasing the amount of tree cover results in decreasing flood peak, and vice versa. This finding is clear for model-based outputs, but with more mixed results for observation-based statements.\n\nDefra (2021) reviews a range of tools available that calculate the costs and benefits of Natural Flood Management "]
[]
[null,"Guidance on use  in appraisal","Selected values are more relevant for high level assessment than detailed / scheme level appraisals. Appropriate value transfer of site specific studies may be possible. Be clear what the counterfactual is for the value being used - it would not be appropriate to use a bare soil counterfactual when applied for example to a change of land use from farmland to woodland. Replacement costs in theory 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. However, replacement cost methods can tend to overstate values if replacement would not in practice be economically justified.  Ideally, damage costs increased / avoided to property (see Flood Damage 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 Broadmeadow et al Study).  "]
[null,"Guidance on use  in natural capital accounting","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. Bare soil is the relevant counterfactual for valuing the service, as applied in the UK Natural Capital Accounts. Comparison of different valuation approaches can be instructive. See also Mental Health Tab. "]
[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","Environment Agency (2010) Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk Appraisal Guidance"]
[]
[null,"Applications and case studies","Environment Agency (2022) evaluates £15 million investment in 60 pilots that made up the NFM Programme 2017-21. The pilots explored a variety of catchment and community scale activities to help reduce flood and coastal erosion risk. The Southwell study (this is also ENCA Case Study VL1) 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 (also ENCA Case Study AL2). In their national natural capital account, RSPB (2017) (ENCA Case Study CN4) 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). See ENCA Case Study FR4 for a natural flood management online auction."]
[]
[]
[null,"Full references and weblinks","Broadmeadow, S. et al (2023), Revised valuation of flood regulation services of existing forest cover to inform natural capital accounts",null,null,"https://www.forestresearch.gov.uk/publications/revised-valuation-of-flood-regulation-services-of-existing-forest-cover/"]
[null,null,"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(C82:E106)","v":15},"CEH (2017), Do trees in UK relevant river catchments influence fluvial flood peaks? A systematic review ",null,null,"http://nora.nerc.ac.uk/id/eprint/517804/"]
[null,null,"Defra (2021), Preliminary study - Natural Flood Management cost and benefit tools and variables",null,null,"https://randd.defra.gov.uk/ProjectDetails?ProjectId=20446"]
[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, 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 (2022), Natural flood management: evaluation report",null,null,"https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/natural-flood-management-programme-evaluation-report"]
[null,null,"Fairchild, T. et al (2021) Coastal wetlands mitigate storm flooding and associated costs in estuaries",null,null,"https://www.researchgate.net/publication/350134573_Coastal_wetlands_mitigate_storm_flooding_and_associated_costs_in_estuaries"]
[null,null,"Fitch, A. et al (2022), Developing a natural capital account for flood regulation services provided by UK vegetation. [In link, scroll down project document list]",null,null,"https://randd.defra.gov.uk/ProjectDetails?ProjectId=20501"]
[null,null,"Forest Research, i-Tree Eco projects",null,null,"https://www.forestresearch.gov.uk/research/i-tree-eco/i-tree-eco-projects-completed/"]
[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,"ONS (2022), Saltmarsh flood mitigation in England and Wales",null,null,"https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/environmentalaccounts/bulletins/saltmarshfloodmitigationinenglandandwalesnaturalcapital/2022"]
[null,null,"ONS (2024), UK Woodland Natural Capital Accounts. ",null,null,"https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/environmentalaccounts/bulletins/woodlandnaturalcapitalaccountsuk/2024",null,null,"New"]
[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":15,"n_rows":65,"n_cols":10,"rows_kept":65,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[[21,2,21,5],[1,1,7,1],[1,2,7,5],[10,2,10,5],[15,2,15,5],[17,2,17,5],[8,2,8,5],[60,5,60,7],[62,5,62,7],[22,2,22,5],[26,4,26,7],[25,4,25,7],[26,2,26,3],[25,2,25,3],[61,2,61,4],[61,5,61,7],[32,4,32,7],[30,4,30,7],[31,4,31,7],[36,2,36,3],[36,4,36,7],[28,2,28,3],[28,4,28,7],[37,4,37,7],[54,2,54,7],[19,2,19,5],[63,2,63,4],[63,5,63,7],[62,2,62,4],[39,4,39,7],[56,2,56,4],[56,5,56,7],[58,2,58,4],[58,5,58,7],[59,2,59,4],[52,2,52,7],[42,2,42,7],[59,5,59,7],[60,2,60,4],[64,2,64,4],[64,5,64,7],[57,2,57,4],[57,5,57,7],[27,2,27,3],[27,4,27,7],[40,4,40,7],[55,2,55,3],[44,2,44,7],[46,2,46,7],[47,2,47,7],[48,2,48,7],[50,2,50,7],[35,2,35,3],[35,4,35,7],[37,2,37,3]]}
["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 attenuate noise. Systematic valuation requires spatial modelling, which is now being explored with the development of UK urban natural capital accounts.",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,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Freshwaters"]
[null,"What nature provides","Absorption / deflection of sound by vegetation",null,null,null,null,"Woodland","●"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Coastal"]
[null,"Other inputs",null,null,null,null,null,"Marine"]
[null,null,"n/a",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 (2023), 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. See supplementary data tables (Table 9). "]
[null,null,"Jones et al (2023) for Defra",null,"Referenced in ONS (2023), tests a new and more robust methodology to improve upon the methods set out in Eftec and CEH (2018) and ONS (2023) for Greater Manchester with the potential to scale up to GB. This approach has yet to be adopted in the ONS accounts"]
[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 (2023)","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 2020, and flat-lined for other years in the absence of further modelling. 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 (see Jones et al 2023). "]
[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 (see Jones et al (2023)). 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 (2023), 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. See supplementary data tables (Table 9). "]
[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. See also Jones et al (2023) which tests a more robust method for Greater Manchester and compares results to the previous methods. "]
[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(D40:D41)","v":2},"ONS (2024)","£ 20 million (2023 prices)","Experimental 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 2023. Based on use of OS Master Map to identify relevant vegetation. Estimates are based on 2014 modelling and projected forwards each year in the absence of a more robust  methodology. Corresponds to 167,000 buildings benefiting from the service, and uses Defra's marginal damage costs of noise. Jones et al (2023) adopt a more sophisticated modelling approach for Greater Manchester which estimates avoided damage costs of £1.9m for that area. ",null,null,null,"Updated "]
[null,null,"Defra calculation","£120 / household (2023 prices)","Calculated by dividing the £20 million avoided damage costs above by 167,000 households. Relevant for when urban woodland might be lost (or created, after sufficient growth) which is located between traffic and population. Should be treated as provisional and experimental",null,null,null,"Updated"]
[]
[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 sophisticated resource-intensive models. Jones et al (2023) identifies a more sophisticated way forward using a small test-area in Manchester. Most other literature on noise reduction by vegetation is very context and location- specific. "]
[]
[null,"Other sources for valuation","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 damage costs guidance with values for noise pollution. "]
[]
[null,"Applications and case studies","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,null,"Jones, L. et al (2023), Development of approaches to refine and aid interpretation of UK Natural Capital Accounts - Improving estimates of noise mitigation",null,null,"https://randd.defra.gov.uk/ProjectDetails?ProjectId=20501"]
[null,{"$f":"COUNTA(C57:E79)","v":9},"Eftec and CEH (2018), Scoping UK Urban Natural Capital Accounts - Extending Noise Regulation Estimates. Report for Defra. ",null,null,"https://randd.defra.gov.uk/ProjectDetails?ProjectId=20027"]
[null,null,"Eftec et al (2017), Scoping UK Urban Natural Capital Accounts. Report for Defra.  ",null,null,"https://randd.defra.gov.uk/ProjectDetails?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,"https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/234306/reporting"]
[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 (2023) UK Natural Capital - Urban Accounts",null,null,"https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/environmentalaccounts/bulletins/urbannaturalcapitalaccountsuk/2023"]
[null,null,"ONS (2024), UK Natural Capital Accounts 2024. ",null,null,"https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/environmentalaccounts/bulletins/uknaturalcapitalaccounts/2024",null,null,"Updated"]

{"sheet":"Temperature regulation","index":16,"n_rows":73,"n_cols":10,"rows_kept":73,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[[72,2,72,4],[72,5,72,7],[71,2,71,4],[71,5,71,7],[64,2,64,4],[64,5,64,7],[67,5,67,7],[67,2,67,4],[70,5,70,7],[70,2,70,4],[50,2,50,7],[54,2,54,7],[60,2,60,7],[61,2,61,3],[63,5,63,7],[62,5,62,7],[63,2,63,4],[52,2,52,7],[31,4,31,7],[46,4,46,7],[44,4,44,7],[41,4,41,7],[36,4,36,7],[48,2,48,7],[39,2,39,3],[33,4,33,7],[32,2,36,2],[32,3,32,7],[43,2,43,7],[40,2,40,3],[40,4,40,7],[1,1,7,1],[1,2,7,5],[9,2,9,5],[14,2,14,5],[16,2,16,5],[20,2,20,5],[27,2,27,3],[21,2,21,5],[25,4,25,7],[24,2,24,3],[25,2,25,3],[24,4,24,7],[29,2,30,2],[30,4,30,7],[29,4,29,7],[27,4,27,7],[26,2,26,3],[26,4,26,7],[18,2,18,5],[69,2,69,4],[69,5,69,7],[68,2,68,4],[68,5,68,7],[45,4,45,7],[53,2,53,7],[56,2,56,7],[58,2,58,7],[65,2,65,4],[65,5,65,7],[66,2,66,4],[66,5,66,7],[62,2,62,4],[39,4,39,7],[41,2,41,3]]}
["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 temperatures, exacerbated by the urban heat island effect that is caused by hard surfaces and human activities. ONS (2024) estimate the 2020 heatwave to have reduced GVA in Great Britain by £5.3 billion, with annual losses since 1998 averaging £1.2 bn. 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 affect the amount of this service. Temperature regulation will become more significant in future as climate change is expected to lead to hotter summers and more frequent heatwaves. ONS refer to this service as \"urban heat regulating\".",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,"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 (2023)"]
[null,null,"ONS (2023), UK Urban Natural Capital Accounts",null,"Updates Eftec et al (2018) methodology and includes dataset of temperature reduction by city region"]
[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 work. 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 (2023)","Aggregated cooling effect of green and blues space across City regions. These experimental 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 W of England region"]
[]
[null,"Key sources for valuation","Source",null,"Notes"]
[null,null,"ONS (2023), UK Urban Natural Capital Accounts",null,"Summarises results of Eftec et al (2018), including City region breakdown. Includes 2016-2021 values for the UK. See Supplementary Data Tables (Table 9). "]
[null,null,"ONS (2024) UK Natural Capital Accounts",null,"Updates 2024 Accounts to include 2023 values. Data tables allow for city region breakdown and give historic time series. ",null,null,null,"Updated"]
[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 (2023)"]
[null,"Selected values","Source","Value","Notes"]
[null,null,"Valuation estimates for urban cooling in ONS (2023) 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. Note that they will move around between years because the estimates are driven by the number of hot days each year, which will vary significantly. "]
[null,{"$f":"COUNTA(D45:D47)","v":3},"ONS (2024)","£504 million (2023 prices)","Total  value of urban cooling service annual five year average 2019-23 in UK city regions. Value peaked in 2022 at £820m, when there were a large number of hot days. The London City Region accounts for around 73% of the UK total (£368m 2019-23 average). ",null,null,null,"Updated"]
[null,null,"Eftec et al (2018)","£5576 / hectare (2016 prices)","Average urban cooling value of a hectare of London woodland based on annual average 2012-16 (excluding other sources of cooling) of £51.1m divided by 8857 hectares (see accompanying spreadsheet in Eftec et al (2018). 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 cooling value = £1.5m / 4795 hectares = £ 312 / hectare; and that for Edinburgh is £18 / hectare. These differences reflect cooler climates and smaller economies than London's.\n\nIn ONS (2024), the 2019-23 annual average for all regions is significantly higher in real terms than that for 2012-16 (reflecting a much higher number of hot days in recent years), in the case of London by a factor of 2.75. Therefore it is reasonable to scale up, in real terms, the 2012-16 per hectare estimates for London woodland on a pro-rata basis by a factor of 2.75 i.e. to £15,334 / hectare in 2016 prices. ",null,null,null,"Updated"]
[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 for valuation","Most of the relevant studies can be found within literature reviews within the Eftec (2017, 2018) and Forestry Commission (2019) studies.\n\nONS (2024) develops granular estimates by local authority and industry of GVA losses from hot days from 1998 to 2021, averaging £1.2 billion but highly variable reflecting annual variation (from £5.3 billion loss in 2020 to £0.1 billion in 2007-8). These will inform future updates of the value of the ecosystem service of urban heat regulation in the UK natural capital accounts"]
[]
[null,"Guidance on use  in appraisal","Multi-year average values are recommended owing to significant annual variation in the ONS estimates. 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,"Guidance on projecting values","The Eftec / ONS estimates, which are mainly based on GVA losses for days over 28 degrees, would be projected to increase over time with an increasing number of hot days projected, together with GDP growth. See Eftec et al (2018) and ONS (2023) Urban methodology guide. "]
[]
[null,"Potential overlap with other values","Not significant"]
[]
[null,"Related guidance","n/a"]
[]
[null,"Applications and case studies","Various studies in the literature involve real examples of methods of temperature regulation by vegetation. Temperature regulation is included in a number of natural capital accounts (see ENCA Case Studies)"]
[]
[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(C63:E87)","v":11},"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,"https://randd.defra.gov.uk/ProjectDetails?ProjectId=19843"]
[null,null,"Eftec et al (2018), Scoping UK Urban Natural Capital Accounts - Extending Temperature Regulation Estimates. Report for Defra. ",null,null,"https://randd.defra.gov.uk/ProjectDetails?ProjectId=20065"]
[null,null,"Forestry Commission (2019), The role of urban trees and greenspaces in reducing urban air temperatures - Research Note.",null,null,"https://www.forestresearch.gov.uk/publications/the-role-of-urban-trees-and-greenspaces-in-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, J. 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 (2023) UK Natural Capital - Urban Accounts",null,null,"https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/environmentalaccounts/bulletins/urbannaturalcapitalaccountsuk/2023"]
[null,null,"ONS (2023) UK Urban natural capital accounts methodology guide",null,null,"https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/environmentalaccounts/methodologies/urbannaturalcapitalaccountsmethodologyguideuk"]
[null,null,"ONS (2024), UK Natural Capital Accounts 2024. Includes supplementary data tables",null,null,"https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/environmentalaccounts/bulletins/uknaturalcapitalaccounts/2024",null,null,"Updated"]
[null,null,"ONS (2024), Impact of hot days on productivity in Great Britain",null,null,"https://www.ons.gov.uk/methodology/methodologicalpublications/generalmethodology/onsworkingpaperseries/impactofhotdaysonproductivityingreatbritainmethodology"]

{"sheet":"Recreation","index":17,"n_rows":118,"n_cols":10,"rows_kept":118,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[[93,2,93,7],[95,2,95,7],[79,4,79,7],[88,2,88,7],[117,2,117,4],[115,2,115,4],[117,5,117,7],[109,2,109,4],[113,5,113,7],[114,2,114,4],[115,5,115,7],[110,5,110,7],[113,2,113,4],[114,5,114,7],[112,2,112,4],[109,5,109,7],[116,2,116,4],[116,5,116,7],[111,2,111,4],[112,5,112,7],[110,2,110,4],[111,5,111,7],[100,5,100,7],[104,2,104,4],[105,5,105,7],[100,2,100,4],[81,4,81,7],[103,2,103,4],[78,4,78,7],[87,2,87,7],[73,4,73,7],[83,2,83,7],[85,2,85,7],[89,2,89,7],[98,2,98,4],[99,5,99,7],[97,2,97,4],[97,5,97,7],[99,2,99,4],[98,5,98,7],[80,4,80,7],[101,2,101,4],[56,2,73,2],[58,4,58,7],[59,4,59,7],[61,4,61,7],[91,2,91,7],[1,1,7,1],[1,2,7,5],[9,2,9,5],[14,2,14,5],[16,2,16,5],[24,4,24,7],[54,4,54,7],[34,4,34,7],[53,4,53,7],[18,2,18,5],[25,4,25,7],[28,2,28,3],[28,4,28,7],[25,2,25,3],[30,2,30,3],[30,4,30,7],[24,2,24,3],[31,2,31,3],[31,4,31,7],[20,2,20,5],[32,4,32,7],[42,2,42,3],[26,2,26,3],[21,2,21,5],[55,4,55,7],[75,4,75,7],[76,4,76,7],[60,4,60,7],[70,4,70,7],[48,4,48,7],[45,4,45,7],[68,4,68,7],[66,4,66,7],[67,4,67,7],[56,3,56,7],[65,4,65,7],[29,2,29,3],[29,4,29,7],[43,2,43,3],[77,4,77,7],[48,2,48,3],[26,4,26,7],[35,4,35,7],[72,4,72,7],[45,2,45,3],[43,4,43,7],[36,4,36,7],[27,2,27,3],[27,4,27,7],[39,4,39,7],[37,2,39,2],[37,4,37,7],[38,4,38,7],[46,2,46,3],[46,4,46,7],[71,4,71,7],[42,4,42,7],[62,3,62,7],[63,4,63,7],[64,4,64,7],[32,2,32,3],[44,2,44,3],[69,3,69,7],[57,4,57,7],[108,2,108,4],[104,5,104,7],[106,2,106,4],[107,5,107,7],[101,5,101,7],[102,2,102,4],[102,5,102,7],[105,2,105,4],[106,5,106,7],[103,5,103,7],[107,2,107,4],[108,5,108,7],[51,2,55,2],[51,3,51,7],[47,4,47,7],[52,4,52,7],[74,3,74,7],[47,2,47,3],[44,4,44,7],[74,2,80,2]]}
["Enabling recreation",null,null,null,null,"Back to index"]
[null,"Why is it relevant?","The recreational value of nature significant. The collective welfare value of all parks, paths and beaches in England and Wales is estimated at £25 billion per year (see below). This value reflects both the natural setting and the facilities on offer at the site and often has a strong non-market element.  Typical values vary massively according to the location, type and quality of habitat,  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 - these can also include physical and mental health benefits"]
[]
[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; provision of facilities and maintenance; nature of activities undertaken; diversity of land covers at sites; factors affecting propensity of different demographic groups to visit sites."]
[]
[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. GVA / expenditure metrics can also be relevant for longer trips which involve expenditure"]
[]
[null,"Key sources of biophysical evidence","Source",null,"Notes"]
[null,null,"People and Nature Survey",null,"The People and Nature Survey (PANS) for England succeeds and builds on the Monitor of Engagement with the Natural Environment (MENE) survey which ran from 2009 to 2019. It gathers evidence and trend data through an online survey relating to people’s enjoyment, access, understanding of and attitudes to the natural environment, and its contributions to wellbeing. Covers a range of spatial scales and socio-economic groupings. Data contributes to Natural England’s delivery of statutory duties, informs Defra policy and natural capital accounting, and contributes to the 25 Year Environment Plan Outcome Indicator Framework (Natural Beauty and Engagement Theme)"]
[null,null,"Monitor of Engagement with the Natural Environment",null,"Predecessor to PANS - Annual survey for Natural England from 2009-19 of around 46,000 adults each year. Data used for 25 Year Environment Plan indicators, the ORVal Tool (see below), and ONS Natural Capital Accounts"]
[null,null,"25 Year Environment Plan Outcome Indicators - Engagement theme",null,"Includes indicators on access to, and frequency of visits to, green space"]
[null,null,"Defra, Access to green space (2024)",null,"Experimental statistics which describe the percentage of households that are within different walking distances of different types of green space for small neighbourhoods in England. Because of the wide variety of ways in which distance to green might be reasonably calculated (in particular thresholds of distance to and size of green space), seven different scenarios are presented, building on Natural England's Accessible Greenspace Standards. Previous Natural England analysis using those standards (and included in the 25 Year Environment Plan Outcome Indicators) was based on straight line distances between households and green spaces. These new statistics calculate the distance to green space for every household in England measured along a network of walkable streets and paths. ",null,null,null,"New"]
[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. 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. A new version of ORVal is in development for 2025. "]
[null,null,"ORVal Insights (2022)",null,"In-depth analysis of the ORVal model, econometrically estimating the drivers of recreational demand, both site characteristics and people characteristics, and so going beyond descriptive statistics that reflect many variables. Includes national visit estimates by land cover and site type; and estimates the effect on visitation of climate change. "]
[null,null,"ONS (2024) UK Natural Capital Accounts",null,"Datasets provide time series and habitat and country breakdown of recreational and tourism - numbers of visits, hours spent, distance travelled",null,null,null,"Updated"]
[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. "]
[null,null,"Forestry Statistics (2023)",null,"Statistics on the number and profile of visits to all woodlands from household surveys"]
[null,"Selected biophysical estimates","Source","Number of visits / year","Notes"]
[null,null,"ONS (2024)","5016 million","2020-22 average annual number of nature-based recreation and tourism visits in UK, compared to 3518 million in 2011.",null,null,null,"Updated"]
[null,null,"ONS (2024)","2036 million","2020-22 average annual visits to urban green spaces in UK. ",null,null,null,"Updated"]
[null,null,"Forestry Statistics"," 504 million","Visits to woodland in England, 2-year average 2021-23 (based on PaNS)",null,null,null,"Updated"]
[null,null,"Defra (2024)",0.78,"Percentage of households in England with access to an accessible green spaces of at least 2 hectares within 1 km of home",null,null,null,"New"]
[null,null,null,0.53,"Percentage of households in England with access to an accessible green spaces of at least 10 hectares within 1 km of home (\"Neighbourhood standard\")",null,null,null,"New"]
[null,null,null,0.12,"Percentage of households in England with access to an accessible green spaces of at least 0.5 hectares (ha) within 200 metres of home (\"Doorstep standard\")",null,null,null,"New"]
[]
[null,"Key sources for valuation","Source",null,"Notes"]
[null,null,"ORVal (2018)",null,"As above. Useful for baseline initial assessment; accounting; multiple sites; estimating the value of new sites, either individually or multiplied across a region (heat map function). Its results should be seen as a first approximation in the absence of site-specific data. Recommended for use by the Green Book. A new version of ORVal is in development for 2025. "]
[null,null,"ORVal Insights (2022)",null,"In-depth analysis of the 2018 ORVal model, including how welfare value varies with site and demographic characteristics, and diversity of land covers on site. Comprehensive set of national averaged estimates (England and Wales) of total, marginal and per hectare values by site type, size and landcover; and also values by region."]
[null,null,"Natural Environment Valuation Online",null,"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. 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 (2024) UK Natural Capital Accounts",null,"Provides aggregate and time-series estimates of the monetary flow of nature-based tourism and recreational services for the UK and for broad habitats. These are based on expenditure incurred to travel and to and access sites (fuel costs, parking fees, relevant admission fees etc) as a simple measure of their \"exchange values\". Based on travel and recreational survey data from across the UK. See ONS (2021) for the detailed methodology. Also includes estimates for the recreational value embedded in local property prices (see Amenity Tab)",null,null,null,"Updated"]
[null,null,"Christie et al (2006)",null,"Stated preference methods use to derive willingness to pay values for 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,null,"Environment Agency (2018)",null,"Nationally relevant  willingness to pay estimates for various changes in the quality of recreational fishing sites in England. Improving the quality of fishing sites as measured by 3 key attributes (fish abundance, fish size and fish diversity) is predicted to lead to an increase in the number of trips made to the site, both from anglers switching away from existing alternative sites and making new or additional visits."]
[]
[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 recreational welfare values are basic averages drawn from the filtering facility in the tool to identify indicative values per visit. All are in 2016 prices. "]
[null,{"$f":"COUNTA(D53:D82)","v":30},null,"£3.10 per trip","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 per trip","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 per trip","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 per trip","Average value per visit for all coastal and beach sites in England based on aggregate selection of relevant land covers in ORVal."]
[null,null,"\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nORVal Insights (2022)","All values in 2016 prices. The recreational welfare values below are a selection of those tabulated in Report 5 of the research"]
[null,null,null,"£25.2 billion per year","Combined welfare value of all outdoor recreation sites in England and Wales – if all were taken away / closed simultaneously. See Table 5.3 of the Report. In 2022 prices, this becomes £29.7 billion."]
[null,null,null,"£8.8 billion per year","Aggregate welfare value of all outdoor recreation sites in England and Wales if they are added up one by one / individually removed, allowing for substitution site by site (see Table 5.3). This is how the ORVal (2018) tool values each site - by how much welfare is lost in total to individuals by losing the possibility of visiting that site. Allowing substitution in the absence of each site gives a much lower total value than valuing them collectively as above, because as each site is removed, the model has around 70% of visits lost to that site switching to other sites. "]
[null,null,null,"£2.54 billion per year","National welfare value of all paths in England and Wales if they are individually removed, allowing for substitution site by site. This represents 29% of the national value. Estimate based on Table 5.5 in the Report"]
[null,null,null,"£0.93 billion per year","National welfare value of all beaches in England and Wales, allowing for substitution site by site. Taken from Table 5.9. "]
[null,null,null,"£533 per person per year","Average welfare value to each person in England and Wales from visiting outdoor sites, each taking an average 57 visits a year. Regional values vary between £745 per person in South West England (taking 77 visits on average) and £318 per person in London (taking 36 visits on average). Regional differences reflect different preferences as well as availability of recreational sites in the model. "]
[null,null,null,"Estimates of the average recreational welfare value of different types of sites. All values are based allowing for substitution in the absence of the whole site (consistent with the £8.8 billion estimate above). This is identified in the ORVal report as the \"marginal (lose each site)\" value metric as distinct from \"total (lose all)\" estimate and \"exchange values\" estimate (which applies an accounting concept). The differences between different types of valuation are explained in section 3 of Report 5. If the site or location is known, the functionality of the ORval tool should be used (for example, using the \"Create site\" option; including its \"Heatmap\" function which enables the user to create a grid of 25 possible locations around a specified location, which allows a localised average value to be estimated). Various other valuation metrics not included here can be found in Report 5 of the research. The Tables cited also indicate estimates of visitation that correspond with the valuation. All values in 2016 prices. "]
[null,null,null,"£105,574 / hectare / year","Small open green space less than 2 hectares. Taken from Table 5.7. This scale of value would tend to be appropriate to small green spaces in highly urbanised areas, or where there are limited alternative sites in the area. This is the estimate included in the 2022 Green Book summary values table (Table 3, Annex 1) expressed in 2020/21 prices (£120,067) as the high end of the range. This demonstrates how varied recreational values can be. "]
[null,null,null,"£26,108 / hectare / year","Local parks of 2 - 10 hectares in size. Taken from Table 5.7"]
[null,null,null,"£4902 / hectare / year","Parks of 40 - 200 hectares in size. Taken from Table 5.7"]
[null,null,null,"£29,563 / hectare / year","Churchyard and cemeteries. Taken from Table 5.11"]
[null,null,null,"£2054 / hectare / year","Average welfare value of a woodland site. Taken from Table 5.11"]
[null,null,null,"£1.1 million / beach / year","Average welfare value of a beach. Beach sizes are not in the data, so values are reported as per site. Taken from Tables 5.10 and 5.11"]
[null,null,null,"Estimates of the average value of adding or subtracting a land cover to / from an existing land cover. Whereas the estimates above are based on the value lost / gained from removal / creation of an entire site (e.g. a new woodland), these estimates are based on removing (or adding)  a hectare of land cover from a larger site. This naturally gives stronger subsitution possibilities than valuation of whole sites as above and therefore lower marginal values (see for example woodland). See section 6 of Report 5 which includes other land covers not listed here. The differences between rural and urban sites are large.  If the site or location is known, the functionality of the ORval tool should be used (for example, using the \"Alter site\" option). All selected values taken from Table 5.14. All values in 2016 prices."]
[null,null,null,"£392 - £11,038 / hectare / year","Value of a hectare of woodland as part of a larger recreational site. The low value is for a rural site and the higher value for an urban site. The average value for all sites is £1001 / hectare / year"]
[null,null,null,"£4697 - £57,344 / hectare / year","Value of a hectare of wetlands as part of a larger recreational site. The low value is for a rural site and the higher value for an urban site. The average value for all sites is £6327 / hectare / year"]
[null,null,null,"£42 - £6510 / hectare / year","Value of a hectare of managed grass as part of a larger site. The low value is for a rural site and the higher value for an urban site. The average value for all sites is £544 / hectare / year. The rural value of £42 / hectare / year is the estimate included in the 2022 Green Book summary values table (Table 3, Annex 1) expressed in 2020/21 prices (£48) as the low end of the range. This demonstrates how varied recreational values can be. "]
[null,null,null,"£2512 - £17,298 / hectare / year","Value of a hectare of freshwater (defined as a 25 metre water margin for riverside and lakeside recreation sites) as part of a larger recreational site. The low value is for a rural site and the higher value for an urban site. The average value for all sites is £4345 / hectare / year"]
[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. Older and less sophisticated than ORVal. These values can be used as a complement or sensitivity to those of ORVal above, where there is robust pre-existing data on visitor numbers or changes. All values in 2010 prices."]
[null,null,null,"£5.36 / trip","Urban Fringe Farmlands"]
[null,null,null,"£5.03 / trip","Mountains, Moors and Heathland"]
[null,null,null,"£3.34 / trip","Woodland and Forests"]
[null,null,null,"£3.96 / trip","Marine and Coastal"]
[null,null,null,"£1.82 / trip","Freshwater and floodplains"]
[null,null,null,"£1.54 / trip","Grasslands"]
[null,null,"ONS (2024)","£2.38 / trip (2023 prices)","Average per visit spend in 2023 on travel and admission to UK nature-based tourist and recreation sites (dividing total flow value of £11.45 billion by 4814 million visits in 2022). Values vary by habitat, ranging from £1.37 for freshwater, wetlands, and floodplains to £3.81 for \"other\" habitats. They also vary by year. Although these are similar to the ORVal and Sen values, they measure actual travel and admission spend and so exclude consumer surplus and are not a full welfare measure. The rationale for this method is a simple proxy for an \"exchange\" or accounting value or price to make use of the ecosystem service of recreational settings. See ONS (2021) for the original methodology. Unlike ORVal or Sen however, these values include trips made to tourist sites rather than just day trips and which may contain a higher element of \"added value\" (e.g. admission to formal gardens). But they do not attribute any value to \"free\" trips made locally that do not incur any transport or admission costs, this element of value is reflected in local property prices. See Amenity tab. ",null,null,null,"Updated"]
[]
[null,"Limitations to valuation","ORVal and Sen et al (2014) include only day visits and exclude the under-16 age group. In ORVal, the predictive power of estimating visit numbers to individual sites with distinctive or unique features may be limited, and is unable to value amenity improvements at individual sites such as path quality, toilets or signage. Site-based visitor counts may be more robust. 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 (see for example Natural England (2019)) The value of recreational preferences is also embedded in property prices (see \"Potential overlap\" notes below) which are not currently included in ORVal. See Amenity Tab. "]
[]
[null,"Other sources for valuation","Various studies exist of recreational values within a specific habitat or context, for example angling (cited above), waterways, or coastal. Such studies can be accessed in the relevant broad habitat tabs of the ENCA Asset Databook under \"Selected Valuation Tools and Evidence\". 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.\n\nNatural assets can often have cultural heritage features that enhance their recreational value. Values for different types of heritage assets can be found in Historic England's Heritage and the Economy (2023, \"Wellbeing Economy\") and DCMS' Culture and Heritage Capital Evidence Bank"]
[]
[null,"Guidance on use  in appraisal","ORVal enables appraisal of changes to sites in terms of visits and value. It distinguishes \"newly created\" visits from total visits generated to the new or altered site. The valuation results in ORVal for an amended or created site will represent the full welfare change to the whole population for both newly created and \"switched\" visits. This is because \"switched\" or 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). See ONS and Defra (2017) and SEEA (2022) which cover the conceptual options around accounting for recreation.  ORVal Insights (2022) Report 5 estimates and compares both welfare and exchange values, the latter being smaller than the former. The exchange values reported in ORVal Insights (2022) are novel and experimental based on modelling rather than observed annual flows. "]
[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). \n\nIn the context of appraisal, growth in visitor numbers over time from an intervention would need to be justified relative to the counterfactual baseline. "]
[]
[null,"Potential overlap with other values","Recreation is often implicated in bundled, cross-cutting 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. See Physical health and Mental health Tabs. 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\nTravel cost methods such as ORVal may not pick up all the recreational value of local sites. This is because individuals invest money through their rent or home purchase to improve access to outdoor recreation sites. Roughly speaking it only picks up the \"variable cost\" of accessing greenspace and not the \"fixed cost\" - a bit like buying membership to a football club that enables you to buy cheaper tickets to the matches you wish to attend (advice kindly provided by the creator of the ORVal model). "]
[]
[null,"Related guidance","Physical health, Mental health and Amenity Tabs\nENCA Featured Tools - ORVal"]
[]
[null,"Applications and case studies","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 Defra (2012) business case for the creation of the Canal and River Trust, making up 80% of the monetised benefits (ENCA Case Study VN5). A retrospective case study can be found in Defra's Value Transfer Case Study (2010) on Bedgebury Forest (ENCA Case Study VL8). ORVal is also used in Defra (2022) Impact Assessments for Environment Act targets (woodland and biodiversity - ENCA Case Study VN9). Natural England's (2019) baseline assessment of the England Coast Path (ENCA Case Study AN5) is based on a bespoke visitor and travel cost survey and estimates the economic welfare, health and economic expenditure impacts of coastal path walking. "]
[]
[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,null,"Department for Culture, Media and Sport, Rapid Evidence Assessment: Culture and Heritage Valuation Studies",null,null,"https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/rapid-evidence-assessment-culture-and-heritage-valuation-studies"]
[null,null,"Defra, Outcome Indicator Framework for the 25 Year Environment Plan",null,null,"https://oifdata.defra.gov.uk/"]
[null,{"$f":"COUNTA(C98:E129)","v":21},"Defra (2010), 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,"Defra (2022), Environment Act Targets - Final Impact Assessments",null,null,"https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukia/2022?stage=Final&department=Department%20for%20Environment%2C%20Food%20and%20Rural%20Affairs"]
[null,null,"Environment Agency (2018), A survey of freshwater angling in England: Phase 2: non-market values associated with angling",null,null,"https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1028361/A_survey_of_freshwater_angling_in_England_-_phase_2_report.pdf"]
[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,"Exeter University (2022), The ORVal Insights Project - Analysing the value of nature-based recreation in England and Wales using the ORVal Model. Report for Defra",null,null,"https://randd.defra.gov.uk/ProjectDetails?ProjectId=20399"]
[null,null,"Fields in Trust (2018), Revaluing parks and green spaces: measuring their economic and wellbeing value to individuals",null,null,"https://fieldsintrust.org/content/files/Revaluing-Parks-and-Green-Spaces-Report.pdf"]
[null,null,"Forest Research (2024), Forestry Statistics, Social Chapter. ",null,null,"https://www.forestresearch.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/statistics/forestry-statistics/forestry-statistics-2024/2024-6-social/",null,null,"Updated"]
[null,null,"Historic England (2023), Heritage and the economy",null,null,"https://historicengland.org.uk/research/heritage-counts/heritage-and-economy/"]
[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,"Natural England, The economic and health impacts of walking on English coastal paths: a baseline study for future evaluation (2019)",null,null,"http://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/publication/6476962745024512?category=50007"]
[null,null,"Natural England, People and Nature Survey",null,null,"https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/people-and-nature-survey-for-england"]
[null,null,"ONS (2021), UK Natural Capital - Tourism and Outdoor Leisure Accounts",null,null,"https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/environmentalaccounts/bulletins/tourismandoutdoorleisureaccountsnaturalcapitaluk/2021"]
[null,null,"ONS (2024), UK Natural Capital Accounts 2024. See supplementary data tables",null,null,"https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/environmentalaccounts/bulletins/uknaturalcapitalaccounts/2024",null,null,"Updated"]
[null,null,"ONS and Defra (2017), Principles of Natural Capital Accounting",null,null,"https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/environmentalaccounts/methodologies/principlesofnaturalcapitalaccounting"]
[null,null,"SEEA (2022), Monetary valuation of ecosystem services and assets for ecosystem accounting",null,null,"https://seea.un.org/content/monetary-valuation-ecosystem-services-and-assets-ecosystem-accounting"]
[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"]

{"sheet":"Physical health","index":18,"n_rows":82,"n_cols":10,"rows_kept":82,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[[68,2,68,4],[68,5,68,7],[74,2,74,4],[74,5,74,7],[34,8,34,9],[57,2,57,7],[38,2,38,3],[38,4,38,7],[71,2,71,4],[71,5,71,7],[70,2,70,4],[64,2,64,4],[69,2,69,4],[69,5,69,7],[65,2,65,4],[65,5,65,7],[79,2,79,4],[79,5,79,7],[67,2,67,4],[67,5,67,7],[39,2,39,3],[45,4,45,7],[41,4,41,7],[53,2,53,7],[51,2,51,7],[52,2,52,7],[63,5,63,7],[61,2,61,4],[61,5,61,7],[63,2,63,4],[55,2,55,7],[70,5,70,7],[1,1,7,1],[1,2,7,5],[9,2,9,5],[14,2,14,5],[16,2,16,5],[18,2,18,5],[27,2,27,3],[20,2,20,5],[21,2,21,5],[26,4,26,7],[27,4,27,7],[26,2,26,3],[25,2,25,3],[25,4,25,7],[24,2,24,3],[28,2,28,3],[24,4,24,7],[28,4,28,7],[59,2,59,7],[47,2,47,7],[30,4,30,7],[32,4,32,7],[33,4,33,7],[31,4,31,7],[37,2,37,3],[37,4,37,7],[34,4,34,7],[39,4,39,7],[42,4,42,7],[49,2,49,7],[44,4,44,7],[81,2,81,4],[81,5,81,7],[72,2,72,4],[72,5,72,7],[80,2,80,4],[80,5,80,7],[77,2,77,4],[77,5,77,7],[78,2,78,4],[78,5,78,7],[73,2,73,4],[73,5,73,7],[75,2,75,4],[75,5,75,7],[76,2,76,4],[76,5,76,7],[66,2,66,4],[66,5,66,7],[64,5,64,7],[62,2,62,4],[62,5,62,7]]}
["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. By this logic, physical health 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 or in 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,"ONS (2022), Health benefits",null,"Sets out two methods to value health benefits from nature, the first being an update and extension of the Eftec et al (2017) to estimate the number of people receiving health benefits from physical activity outdoors in nature."]
[null,null,"ORVal Tool",null,"Estimates of site visits, or \"newly created\" visits from newly created sites, 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,"Natural England (2020) ",null,"Rapid evidence review by Exeter University of the scientific evidence around the health and wellbeing benefits of green infrastructure. This directly informed the Public Health England (2020) review of access to greenspace."]
[null,"Selected biophysical estimates","Source","Number of visitors / visits getting a health benefit","Notes"]
[null,null,"ONS (2022)",0.157,"Share of the English population gaining physical health benefits from (average 2017-19) outdoor exercise. UK average is 16.5%. These are \"active visitors” who use the natural environment wholly or in part to meet weekly activity guidelines (30 minutes of moderate-intense physical activity, five times a week). Higher value in 2020 (19.8%) distorted by lockdowns. Note that this is the % of people who gain health benefits from outdoor exercise, not the % of visits to green space which give a physical health benefit (this is because one visitor may make several visits). The ONS no longer takes forward this methodology for natural capital accounts, so there is no more recent update. "]
[null,null,"ONS (2024)",0.35499999999999998,"Percentage of the English population gaining general self-reported health benefits from exposure to nature (average 2020-22) of more than 120 minutes per week. This amounted to 16 million people in England in 2022. Percentage of population calculated using ONS data on England population. The benefits will be broader than just physical health (see Mental Health tab)",null,null,null,"Updated"]
[null,null,"White et al (2016)","0.010677 QALY per individual per year","Analysing Health Survey for England data, Beale et al (2007) estimate that 30 minutes a week of moderate-intense physical activity, if undertaken 52 weeks a year, would be associated with 0.010677 QALYs per individual, per year. The additional QALYs gained are assumed to be linear over time – five qualifying sessions would result in a QALY increase of 0.053384. The additional QALYs gained represent the improvement to an individual’s health through regular exercise. If an “active visitor” stated they had visited nature once in the last week, they would be assigned a QALY score of 0.010677. This would scale linearly, with two visits to nature being worth 0.021354, and so on, up to five visits a week. This metric was used in White et al (2016), Eftec et al (2017) and ONS (2022) "]
[null,null,"ONS (2022)","8.35 million \"active visitors\" / year","2015-19 average of the number of people in the UK who gained health benefits from outdoor exercise in the natural environment (all habitats). These were people responding to surveys who did 30 minutes of moderate to intense physical activity, five times a week. The health benefits they gained from outdoor recreation depends on the number of those five sessions that took place in nature. Based on original methodology by Eftec et al (2017). ONS no longer takes forward this methodology for natural capital accounts, so there is no more recent update. "]
[null,null,"Defra calculation based on M. White et al (2016)","18.8% of all annual recreational visits to nature supporting individuals meeting physical activity guidelines","2009-14 average; covers all natural habitats in England only and based on MENE data. This total represents 533 million visits by individuals using visits to nature to meet physical activity guidelines wholly or in part, out of a 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 share of visits (18.8%) represents a lower bound estimate because it excludes active visits by individuals who do not meet weekly activity guidelines but which may still confer a health benefit. White et al. (2016) estimate that for 2009-14, 1229 million out of 2829 million visits (43.4%) were ‘active’ in some way, where an ‘active visit’ is defined as including those who only partially met recommended physical activity guidelines during weekly visits. This proportion would represent an upper bound estimate. 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 (2022), Health benefits",null,"Makes use of White et al (2016) and Eftec et al (2017) to estimate the number of people receiving health benefits from physical activity outdoors in nature. "]
[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 ","Notes"]
[null,{"$f":"COUNTA(D42:D46)-1","v":4},"HM Treasury Green Book","£70,000 per Quality Adjusted Life Year (2020/21 prices)","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 (2018 prices)","Concludes that £12,936 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 (2018 prices) 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 \"replacement cost\" value can be considered an average cost or exchange value as distinct from the \"full\" welfare benefit of one QALY of £70,000 stated in the Green Book. "]
[null,null,"Source","Value per visit (2024 prices)","Notes"]
[null,null,"Defra calculation based on White et al (2016) and Claxton et al (2015)","£3.83 / active visit each week - exchange value","Indicative average value based on the estimate of a gain of 0.010677 QALYs from one active visit every week per year, and applying the cost-based QALY of £15,000 = £160 / year for 52 active visits (2018 prices). Dividing by 52 to get the value of a single active visit = £3.07. This is then inflated to 2024 prices. This assumes that the active visit occurs once a week for 52 weeks a year i.e. 52 visits per year. Also assumes a linear relationship between acitivity levels and health benefits e.g. reaching half of physical activity guidelines has half of the benefits. This value would be additional to recreational values as there are two distinct beneficiaries: the public health service gets the health saving benefit and the private individual gets the recreational benefit. See guidance on appraisal notes below for combining this unit value with an increase in visits.",null,null,null,"Updated"]
[null,null,"Defra calculation based on White et al (2016) and HMT (2022)","£16.63 / active visit each week - welfare value","Indicative average value based on the estimate of a gain of 0.010677 QALYs from one active visit every week per year, and applying the welfare-based Green Book QALY of £70,000 (2020/21 prices)  = £747 /year for 52 active visits. Dividing by 52 to get the value of a single active visit = £14.34. This is then inflated to 2024 prices (for simplicity inflated from the calendar year 2020 rather than the slightly later but very similar index for the financial year 2020/21; in any case, the QALY value is itself indicative only). Assumes that the active visit occurs once a week for 52 weeks a year. \n\nThis value is unlikely to be wholly 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. This suggests some overlap between pereceived health and recreational benefits to an individual i.e. health benefits are at least partly \"internalised\". It is possible that the longer term welfare benefits to the individual may not be factored in and so may be additional to the immediate welfare benefits of recreation, but cautious assumptions are recommended (see guidance below). ",null,null,null,"Updated"]
[]
[null,"Limitations to valuation","Valuing health benefits involves multiple implicit or explicit assumptions or steps, including: measuring visitation or changes to visitation; identifying what share of visits generate a physical health benefit; how activity levels are affected by the location, quantity and quality of green space; comparison with the counterfactual; converting physical activity into a measurable health metric (such as quality adjusted life years) and converting health metrics into a monetary value, either based on willingness to pay or avoided costs. For these reasons, sensitivity analysis and transparency of method is recommended. "]
[]
[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) 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 Natural England (2016) which estimated from MENE data 4.7 million \"regular walkers\" to green space (at least twice a week), of which around 15% would be unlikely to substitute their current level of greenspace exercise for exercise elsewhere should the quality or quantity of greenspace radically decline. Uses the HEAT tool to value the health benefits for this group of people.\n\nLovell et al (2020) caution that:  \"As of yet there does not appear to be an applicable set of robust health and wellbeing metrics [for assessing and monitoring the health benefits of green infrastructure] ready to be tested. A process of synthesis and prioritisation and then testing and refinement would help identify sets of need/provision and impact/outcome metrics for the key benefit categories at different spatial scales and in different contexts.\""]
[]
[null,"Guidance on use  in appraisal","Avoid confusing \"visitors\" and \"visits\" - the latter, expressed as annual visits, will typically be a magnitude higher than the former, so be clear which it is you want to measure. The full value of a QALY (£70,000) should be used for welfare analysis as set out in Green Book, although this value is under review. But it should not be combined with recreational welfare benefits. Public health cost savings (e.g. Claxton et al above) can reasonably be combined with private recreational benefits. \n\nThe challenge is identifying how many additional \"active\" visits, and therefore, 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. ORVal (see also Recreation Tab) can estimate \"newly created visits\" from hypothetical site creation i.e. net of substitution from existing to new sites. For new sites, the average share of additional visits to sites that can be expected to 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. White et al estimate that around 43% of visits are active (but include people who do not meet weekly physical activity guidelines), so this might provide an upper bound. However, even additional visits that are \"active\" can only be assumed to generate a health benefit if the alternative to visiting green space is inactivity (for example, if a jogger or dog walker switches from walking or running around streets to exercise around a newly opened local park, there would be no obvious new health benefit), so cautious assumptions are advised.  The specific context of the intervention should be properly considered to inform a plausible assumption, and sensitivity analysis should be used to test the effect of alternative 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 - £15,000 (2018 prices) above. This (averted) cost is significantly less than the estimated benefit of a QALY in the Green Book of £70,000. Note that QALY values are under review. "]
[null,"Guidance on projecting values","Welfare-based health values should be uprated with income. 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. Where avoided replacement cost values are used, this logic does not readily apply and therefore a flat-line in real terms of unit values would seem appropriate. The physical numbers benefiting may increase over time, for example through population growth. In the context of appraisal, such growth would need to be relative to the counterfactual baseline. "]
[]
[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, because both accrue to the same beneficiary, although there is an argument that longer term health welfare benefits may not be internalised by an individual's present decision, and therefore in part additive. \n\nThere is potential for overlap between mental health values and physical health values, although this will depend upon how mental health is valued. The ONS estimates based on 120 minutes of exposure to green space relates to self-reported \"general health\". See also the Amenity Tab. "]
[]
[null,"Related guidance","Green space also has a mediating impact on mental health and there is some evidence of mental health having an impact on physical health outcomes. See Mental Health Tab."]
[]
[null,"Applications and case studies","Natural England's (2019) baseline assessment of the England Coast Path (ENCA Case Study AN5) estimates the health benefits from users of the Path spending more time in nature doing physical activity. This benefit was calculated using HEAT (cited above) and it provides estimates of the QALY's saved due to changes in the type and amount of physical activity. This methodology is being used to evaluate the creation of more Coastal paths. Potential physical health benefits are monetised as part of Defra (2022) Biodiversity Targets Impact Assessment. \n\nNatural capital accounts for London, Manchester and Birmingham all estimate physical health benefits (ENCA Case Studies CR2, CR4, CR6)"]
[]
[null,"Full references and weblinks","Beale, S et al (2007). An Economic Analysis of Environmental Interventions That Promote Physical Activity. University of York: York Health Economics Consortium",null,null,"as referenced in White et al (2016)"]
[null,null,"Claxton, K. et al (2015), Methods for the estimation of the NICE cost effectiveness threshold. Health Technology Assessment;19 (14)",null,null,"https://www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk/hta/hta19140/#/abstract",null,null,"Updated"]
[null,null,"Defra, Outcome Indicator Framework for the 25 Year Environment Plan",null,null,"https://oifdata.defra.gov.uk/"]
[null,null,"Defra (2022), The Environment Act - Terrestrial Biodiversity Targets - Final Impact Assessment",null,null,"https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukia/2022/101/pdfs/ukia_20220101_en.pdf"]
[null,null,"Eftec et al (2017), Scoping UK Urban Natural Capital Accounts. Report for Defra.  ",null,null,"https://randd.defra.gov.uk/ProjectDetails?ProjectId=19843"]
[null,null,"Fields in Trust (2018), Revaluing parks and green spaces: measuring their economic and wellbeing value to individuals",null,null,"https://fieldsintrust.org/content/files/Revaluing-Parks-and-Green-Spaces-Report.pdf",null,null,"Updated"]
[null,null,"Health Economic Assessment Tool (HEAT) for walking and cycling. World Health Organization, Europe.",null,null,"https://www.who.int/europe/tools-and-toolkits/health-economic-assessment-tool-for-walking-and-cycling#:~:text=The%20Health%20Economic%20Assessment%20Tool%20%28HEAT%29%20for%20walking,in%20terms%20of%20associated%20health%20and%20economic%20impacts."]
[null,null,"HM Treasury, Green Book: appraisal and evaluation in central government (2022)",null,null,"https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-green-book-appraisal-and-evaluation-in-central-government"]
[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 (2019), The economic and health impacts of walking on English coastal paths: a baseline study for future evaluation",null,null,"http://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/publication/6476962745024512?category=50007"]
[null,null,"Natural England (2020), A rapid scoping review of health and wellbeing evidence  for the Green Infrastructure Standards. Report by Exeter University for Natural England, Public Health England, MHCLG and Defra",null,null,"http://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/publication/4799558023643136"]
[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 (2022), Health benefits from UK Natural Capital ",null,null,"https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/environmentalaccounts/bulletins/healthbenefitsfromrecreationnaturalcapitaluk/2022"]
[null,null,"ONS (2024), UK Natural Capital Accounts 2024",null,null,"https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/environmentalaccounts/bulletins/uknaturalcapitalaccounts/2024",null,null,"Updated"]
[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,{"$f":"COUNTA(C63:E92)","v":20},"Public Health England (2020), Improving access to greenspace: a new review for 2020",null,null,"https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/904439/Improving_access_to_greenspace_2020_review.pdf"]
[null,null,"Sport England (2016), MOVES tool",null,null,"https://www.sportengland.org/guidance-and-support/measuring-impact?section=moves"]
[null,null,"University of Exeter and Defra (2018), Health and the natural environment: A review of evidence, policy, practice and opportunities for the future. Includes research briefing and evidence statement",null,null,"https://sciencesearch.defra.gov.uk/ProjectDetails?ProjectId=19511"]
[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":"Mental health","index":19,"n_rows":83,"n_cols":10,"rows_kept":83,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[[38,2,38,3],[38,4,38,7],[37,2,37,3],[37,4,37,7],[80,2,80,4],[80,5,80,7],[72,5,72,7],[72,2,72,4],[68,2,68,4],[68,5,68,7],[73,2,73,4],[73,5,73,7],[41,4,41,7],[42,4,42,7],[44,4,44,7],[65,2,65,4],[65,5,65,7],[57,2,57,7],[20,2,20,5],[21,2,21,5],[39,2,39,3],[39,4,39,7],[29,2,29,3],[29,4,29,7],[36,2,36,3],[36,4,36,7],[32,4,32,7],[32,2,32,3],[33,2,33,3],[33,4,33,7],[30,2,30,3],[30,4,30,7],[31,2,31,3],[31,4,31,7],[18,2,18,5],[1,1,7,1],[1,2,7,5],[9,2,9,5],[14,2,14,5],[16,2,16,5],[59,2,59,7],[47,4,47,7],[45,4,45,7],[49,2,49,7],[51,2,51,7],[53,2,53,7],[82,2,82,4],[82,5,82,7],[69,2,69,4],[69,5,69,7],[79,2,79,4],[79,5,79,7],[78,2,78,4],[78,5,78,7],[77,2,77,4],[77,5,77,7],[74,2,74,4],[74,5,74,7],[70,2,70,4],[70,5,70,7],[43,4,43,7],[75,2,75,4],[75,5,75,7],[76,2,76,4],[76,5,76,7],[46,4,46,7],[63,5,63,7],[64,2,64,4],[64,5,64,7],[67,2,67,4],[67,5,67,7],[66,2,66,4],[61,2,61,7],[54,2,54,7],[55,2,55,7],[63,2,63,4],[66,5,66,7],[81,2,81,4],[81,5,81,7],[71,2,71,4],[71,5,71,7]]}
["Supporting mental health",null,null,null,null,"Back to index"]
[null,"Why is it relevant?","The costs of mental health are substantial and rising. According to NHS England (2016), 1 in 4 adults experiences a diagnosable mental health problem in any given year and the economic and social cost was estimated at £119 billion in 2018/19.  A person's access and utilisation of green space has been shown to have strong associations with their mental health. Mental health in turn affects people's productivity, life-satisfaction and physical health. Green space can affect mental health through its mental restorative properties and through increased opportunities for other activities in green space. As with other services, valuation involves two stages. Firstly, quantifying the causal impact of the natural environment on the benefit, and secondly, applying a valuation methodology to the impact. Both stages are in their infancy but given the importance of the benefit, even indicative estimates or first approximations can be very instructive.",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","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","Environmental setting for mental restoration",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","Health sector cost savings; reduced morbidity; increased wellbeing; increased economic output"]
[]
[null,"Who benefits?","Individuals; NHS; Businesses; Society"]
[]
[null,"What factors affect the level of benefit?","Size, quality, & type of the space, proximity of green space to home, and time spent in green space."]
[]
[null,"Physical metric","The definition of the outcome variable of interest (mental health) is not consistent across literature, but it generally fits into two broad categories (i) the incidence of mental ill-health in a population (i.e. rates of depression, anxiety, etc); or (ii) the overall mental wellbeing of a population (a population’s life satisfaction or happiness). The greater challenge is to identify a causal relationship of these variables with extent, proximity to or use of green space. "]
[null,"Valuation metric","Aggregated total £ from all individuals living near / having exposure to green space, value per hectare of green space, value per unit of tree, value per individual over a year, etc.\n\nFollowing on from the two types of mental health outcomes, Forest Research (2020) set out three distinct approaches for measuring and valuing the impact that green space has on mental health: \n1. Quality Adjusted Life Year (QALY) metrics gained from green space (which can be converted into a monetary value)\n2. measuring the avoided costs from decreased incidence of mental ill-health. \n3. the mental wellbeing of the population, measured through subjective wellbeing scores and valuation. \n\nThese approaches are elaborated in the table below. Each of these approaches is valid depending upon what the valuation is being used for and whether it is being used in conjunction with other ENCA valuations. "]
[]
[null,"Approaches to valuing mental health","Approach","Summary and relevance","Relative scale of estimate","Quantification","Valuation","Double counting"]
[null,null,"Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALY)","Suited to estimating the effect of green space exposure on the incidence and severity of mental ill health, particularly targeted groups / areas. Although note that ONS (2024) use QALYs to estimate benefits of exposure to green space across the population. ","Limited. Improvement in mental health of people in good mental health not included.","A QALY is a metric used throughout UK healthcare so will allow comparisons of interventions. The QALY value takes duration of the impact into account. The metric is more robust than the Wellbeing approach, although, it is more difficult to quantify impacts using QALY's than other approaches.","QALY values are used across government. See selected values below. ","Potential for double counting with recreation and physical health estimates. Likely lower recreation double counting than the wellbeing approach."]
[null,null,"Avoided Cost","Likely to be the hardest to consistently measure as it will vary depending on the context. There is the potential for lots of work to be done in this space.","Relatively low. Only considers the monetary impact and not the negative externality that low mental health has on an individual.","The quantification of the avoided cost can vary, (GP visits, NHS spend, productivity losses) depending on the context. Calculating the causal impact of the avoided cost approach will probably provide the smallest values and most robust values. As by its nature the avoided cost approach uses market values, there are likely to be significant unquantified externalities. Note that ONS (2024) use an avoided-cost approach for exposure to green space. ","After estimating the causal impact of green space on the variable of interest the valuation uses market values or cost savings. ","Likely to be no or very small double counting."]
[null,null,"Subjective wellbeing","Focuses on the wellbeing (life satisfaction / happiness) of everyone in an area. It includes benefits to people who do not suffer mental illness but derive mental health benefits from green space. More appropriate when there is likely to be a small benefit to a large number of people. This approach is a relatively easy method of quantifying the impact of the natural environment on mental health as it simply relies upon surveying people’s life satisfaction or wellbeing. ","Relatively high. Quantifies improvement to whole population.","Life Satisfaction & other well-known wellbeing surveys. These surveys are easy to administer, but the subjective elements of the approach is a limitation. Care should be taken to examine the duration and size of the impact on individuals. If people become 'used' to new green space then the value of the green space could decrease over time. It is important to state the estimated duration of impacts to ensure that the benefits are not over/under-stated. ","See HM Treasury (2021) Subjective Wellbeing Valuation Guidance below.\n\nMethod for monetisation currently only based on life satisfaction, but methods may develop in the future for affective and eudaimonic measures.","Potential double counting with recreation and physical health"]
[]
[null,"Key sources of biophysical evidence","Source",null,"Notes"]
[null,null,"White et al (2019)",null,"Wellbeing Approach - White et al. (2019) provides a first attempt to ascertain the impact that spending time in nature has on an individual's wellbeing. The paper identifies a threshold of 120 minutes after which the likelihood of reporting good health and wellbeing significantly increases. This impact is sustained whilst controlling for occupation, the deprivation of the local area, and if a respondent has a long lasting illness or disability. Whilst this paper is an important first step to measuring the impact of nature on wellbeing, more research needs to be done to confidently measure the significance of the causal impact."]
[null,null,"ONS (2022), Health benefits",null,"This builds on White et al (2019) to estimate the health benefits gained from exposure to nature by analysing 10 years of data from the MENE survey. Statistical analysis was used to estimate the impact that spending 120 minutes or more in nature had on respondents' self-reported general health. A range of other factors that could affect health were accounted for. The survey had 20,000 participants. Within these, the 6,000 respondents that spent 120 minutes or more in nature reported higher self-reported general health relative to similar respondents who did not. The average value of these benefits was then applied to all recreational survey respondents that met the criteria of spending 120 or more minutes in nature, each week. Improvements to respondents' general health are likely to partially include both mental health benefits, and physical health benefits gained through exercise. This method is used in the aggregate UK natural capital account based on new UK survey data availability (ONS 2024)"]
[null,null,"25 Year Environment Plan Outcome Indicators - Engagement theme",null,"Includes an interim indicator (G7) that presents baseline data on self-reported mental and physical health benefits of nature from the People and Nature Survey for adults. "]
[null,null,"Bratman et al. (2019)",null,"Provides an accessible and thorough introduction to the evidence linking natural capital with mental health. Covers the links between: engagement with the natural environment and increased psychological wellbeing; increased engagement with the natural environment and decreases in the risk factors and the burden of mental illness. "]
[null,null,"Taylor et al. (2015)",null,"Avoided Cost Approach - Estimates the association between increased street tree density in London and Antidepressant prescriptions. A 1 unit increase in the tree density per km of street is associated with 1.18 fewer antidepressant prescriptions per 1000 people. Estimated using data from 31 London Boroughs. A similar approach was used in Leipzig Germany by Marselle et al., 2020 which used individual level data to examine the association between street tree density close to people's homes and their likelihood of being prescribed antidepressants. There was no significant impact found overall. But people in a low socioeconomic group were less likely to be prescribed antidepressants if there was a higher density of trees within 100m of their home. "]
[]
[null,"Key sources for valuation","Source",null,"Notes"]
[null,null,"HM Treasury (2021) Subjective Wellbeing Guidance",null,"Provides thorough guidance of how to take a Wellbeing Approach. Provides estimates for the value of an improvement of 1 point on a 1-10 point Life Satisfaction scale."]
[null,null,"ONS (2022), Health benefits",null,"Builds on White et al (2019) to estimate the health benefits gained from exposure to nature by analysing 10 years of data from the MENE survey (see above) and values on a QALY cost-avoided basis. This method is used in the aggregate UK natural capital account based on new UK survey data availability (ONS 2024)."]
[null,null,"ONS (2024) UK Natural Capital Accounts",null,"Datasets provide time series and habitat and country breakdown of numbers benefiting from 120 minutes of exposure to green space per week as set out in ONS (2022) methodology. ",null,null,null,"Updated"]
[null,null,"M. White et al (2013)",null,"For the subjective wellbeing approach - Draws on 18 years of panel data from over 10,000 participants to explore the self-reported psychological health of individuals over time and the relationship between urban green space, wellbeing and mental distress. Findings suggest that people are happier when living in urban areas with greater amounts of green space. Provides an estimate for the impact that green space has on life satisfaction (1- not satisfied at all, 7 – completely satisfied): a one percentage point increase in green space is associated with a 0.002 increase in per person life satisfaction in the LSOA. The impact on the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ) score (0 – very low mental distress, 12 – very high mental distress) was -0.0043 points for every one percentage point increase in green space."]
[null,"Selected values","Source","Health outcome values","Notes"]
[null,{"$f":"COUNTA(D42:D46)-1","v":4},"HM Treasury Green Book","£70,000 per Quality Adjusted Life Year (2020/21 prices)","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 (2018 prices)","Concludes that £12,936 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 - see Physical health Tab). This value can be considered an average cost or exchange value as distinct from the \"full\" welfare benefit of one QALY of £70,000 stated in the Green Book. "]
[null,null,"ONS (2022)","0.01995 QALY per individual per year","Econometrically modelled estimate by ONS of the mean average of the difference in QALY values for survey respondents that were sufficiently exposed to nature. This value indicates the estimated health benefit gained from being in nature for 120 minutes or more, every week, for a year, per person. On avoided costs basis, this equates approximately to £300 (2018 prices) per person using the cost of NHS resources required to add one QALY to the lives of NHS patients (Claxton et al, 2015)."]
[null,null,"Wellbeing Guidance - HMT Green Book","£13,000 per one point change on the life satisfaction scale (2019 prices)","The wellbeing guidance provides an equation to convert different wellbeing scales to a 10-point scale. A one-point change in life satisfaction on the 1-10 scale for a year is equivalent to an income gain of £13,000. If the impact only lasts for 6 months then the value would be £13,000*0.5 = £6,500. This value is taken from the average of two point estimates derived from separate theoretical underpinnings (one based on converting life satisfaction scores into income equivalence and one based on the use of QALY values), and based on linear interpolation, so can only be seen as indicative. See Wellbeing guidance annex for more detail on the methodology. "]
[null,null,"Based on HMT and White et al (2013)","£41 per person per year (2019 prices)","As the value per person per year of a 1 percentage point increase in a local area's green space coverage. Defra calculation based on Green Book Wellbeing Appraisal Guidance and from White et al (2013). This is done by converting a 0.002-point increase on the 1-7 Life Satisfaction scale in White et. al (2013) to the 1-10 Life Satisfaction scale and using the value of £13,000 per person per year from the wellbeing guidance i.e. 0.002 x (11/7) x £13,000 = £41. \nThis value would be appropriate as a marginal increase in the amount of green space, i.e. going from 50% coverage to 51% coverage. "]
[null,null,"Forest Research (2021)","£185 million per year (2020 prices)","Annual mental health benefits associated with visits to the UK’s woodlands.\nCountry-level values based on population size are £141 million for England, £26 million for Scotland, £13 million for Wales and £6 million for Northern Ireland. Evidence of the number of regular visitors to woodlands, and the prevalence of mental health conditions in the general population, used to estimate the numbers of cases of depression and anxiety that may be reduced. Avoided costs based upon the average annual costs to society of living with depression or anxiety. These comprise costs associated with treatment, including visits to GPs, drug prescriptions, inpatient care and social services. They also include employment-related costs based on estimates of the number of working days lost due to mental health issues. "]
[null,null,"Centre for Mental Health (2020)","£119 billion spent on mental health problems in England (2018/19)","This includes health and social care, output losses, and human costs. The output losses are likely to be an underestimation as they do not account for presenteeism, whereby someone goes to work but functions at lowered capacity due to mental ill-health."]
[]
[null,"Limitations to valuation","See approaches section above. Identifying and measuring the causal impact of green space on mental health is technically very challenging. If using any of the values above, you must be explicit in the assumptions, explaining what exactly is being valued, and what is the population in question."]
[]
[null,"Other sources / approaches","Forest Research (2020) is a good starting point to review the current literature on the topic of mental health valuation. This paper surveys the key methodological approaches that can be taken, the difficulties associated with each approach, and references studies which have valued green space.  Alcock et al. (2014) discusses and provides evidence surrounding the response in mental wellbeing longer term resulting from moving to an area with more green space. "]
[]
[null,"Guidance on use in appraisal","Please clearly state the assumptions underpinning the analysis. Focus on explaining the logic chains behind the impacts and describing the uncertainties around estimates. The logic chains should highlight what the population of interest is. The uncertainties in appraisal point to the need for strong post-intervention evaluation plans to develop and strengthen the evidence base."]
[null,"Guidance on use  in natural capital accounting","Be cautious when using an avoided cost approach. Some Natural Capital Accounts attribute a reduced mental health care burden in an area to the existence of green space in that area as a direct proportion of the GHQ 12 point scale. This merges the avoided cost and wellbeing approach, and assumes that points on the GHQ scale are directly attributed to Mental Illness. This is problematic as the evidence on cost of treatment and rating on the GHQ scale is not available and it is unlikely to be linear. See Greater London Authority (2017) for an example of this."]
[null,"Guidance on projecting values","The Green Book recommendation is that that future health values should be discounted by 1.5% p.a. rather than 3.5%. "]
[]
[null,"Potential overlap with other values","See \"approaches\" section above. Potentially some overlap with recreation, physical health and volunteering - see guidance in those Tabs. "]
[]
[null,"Related guidance","See also Recreation, Physical health and Amenity Tabs. For the mental health costs of flood events, see Flood damage Tab. "]
[]
[null,"Applications and case studies","Marselle et al (2020) and Taylor et al (2015) attempt to assess how the coverage of street trees affect anti-depressant descriptions. \n\nNot all interventions show the expected result, Thompson et al (2019) use a QALY approach to evaluate the impact of a Woods In and Around Towns (WIAT) programme and found no significant impacts. However, Willis et al (2015) estimated the impact of a Green Social Prescribing programme in Scotland aimed at individuals with moderate to severe mental health conditions, using data from two years and 150 patients. They estimate that the cost per QALY delivered was £8600. This is cost-effective as it falls below the NICE Guidelines of £20,000-£30,000 per QALY, and is lower than Claxton et al's average delivery cost per QALY of £15,000. Despite these benefits there are some methodological issues, including significantly different impacts from the programme in each year, and a small sample size.\n\nIn a different context, mental health costs of flood events have been estimated for inclusion in appraisal - see Flood damage Tab"]
[]
[null,"Full references and weblinks","Alcock, I. et al (2014), Longitudinal Effects on Mental Health of Moving to Greener and Less Green Urban Areas. Environmental Science & Technology, 48(2), pp.1247-1255.",null,null,"https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24320055/"]
[null,{"$f":"COUNTA(C64:E91)","v":20},"Bratman, G. et al (2019), Nature and mental health: An ecosystem service perspective. Science Advances, vol. 5",null,null,"https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/5/7/eaax0903?utm_source=miragenews&utm_medium=miragenews&utm_campaign=news"]
[null,null,"Centre for Mental Health (2020), \"A spending review for wellbeing\"",null,null,"https://www.centreformentalhealth.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/CentreforMentalHealth_SpendingReviewForWellbeing.pdf"]
[null,null,"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,null,"Forest Research (2020), Scoping Study on Valuing Mental Health Benefits of Forests",null,null,"https://www.forestresearch.gov.uk/research/valuing-mental-health-benefits-of-forests/"]
[null,null,"Forest Research (2021), Valuing the mental health benefits of woodlands",null,null,"https://www.forestresearch.gov.uk/publications/valuing-the-mental-health-benefits-of-woodlands/"]
[null,null,"Greater London Authority (2017), Natural capital accounts for public green space in London Report by Vivid Economics.",null,null,"https://www.london.gov.uk/what-we-do/environment/parks-green-spaces-and-biodiversity/green-infrastructure/natural-capital-account-london"]
[null,null,"HM Treasury, Green Book: appraisal and evaluation in central government (2022)",null,null,"https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-green-book-appraisal-and-evaluation-in-central-government"]
[null,null,"HM Treasury, Green Book Supplementary Guidance: Wellbeing",null,null,"https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/green-book-supplementary-guidance-wellbeing"]
[null,null,"Marselle, M et al (2020), Urban street tree biodiversity and antidepressant prescriptions. Scientific Reports, 10(1).",null,null,"https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-79924-5#Sec2"]
[null,null,"Natural England (2020), A rapid scoping review of health and wellbeing evidence  for the Green Infrastructure Standards. Report by Exeter University for Natural England, Public Health England, MHCLG and Defra",null,null,"http://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/publication/4799558023643136"]
[null,null,"NHS England (2016), Five Year Forward View for Mental Health; A report from the independent Mental Health Taskforce to the NHS in England",null,null,"https://www.england.nhs.uk/mental-health/taskforce/"]
[null,null,"ONS (2022), Health benefits from UK Natural Capital ",null,null,"https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/environmentalaccounts/bulletins/healthbenefitsfromrecreationnaturalcapitaluk/2022"]
[null,null,"ONS (2024), UK Natural Capital Accounts 2024",null,null,"https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/environmentalaccounts/bulletins/uknaturalcapitalaccounts/2024",null,null,"Updated"]
[null,null,"Rogerson M., Barton J., Bragg R., and Pretty J. (2019) \"The health and wellbeing impacts of volunteering with 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,"Taylor, M. et al (2015), Research note: Urban street tree density and antidepressant prescription rates—A cross-sectional study in London, Landscape and Urban Planning, vol. 136.",null,null,"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169204614002941"]
[null,null,"Ward Thompson, C et al (2019), Health impacts of environmental and social interventions designed to increase deprived communities’ access to urban woodlands: a mixed-methods study, Public Health Research",null,null,"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK535742/"]
[null,null,"White, M. et al (2019) Spending at least 120 minutes a week in nature is associated with good health and wellbeing. Scientific Reports volume 9, Article number: 7730",null,null,"https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-44097-3"]
[null,null,"White, M et al (2013), Would You Be Happier Living in a Greener Urban Area? A Fixed-Effects Analysis of Panel Data. Psychological Science",null,null,"https://www.ecehh.org/research/urban-green-space/"]
[null,null,"Willis, K., Crabtree, B., Osman, L. and Cathrine, K., 2015. Green space and health benefits: a QALY and CEA of a mental health programme. Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy",null,null,"https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/21606544.2015.1058195"]

{"sheet":"Education","index":20,"n_rows":75,"n_cols":10,"rows_kept":75,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[[24,2,24,5],[69,2,69,4],[69,5,69,7],[21,2,21,5],[23,2,23,5],[63,2,63,4],[63,5,63,7],[28,2,28,3],[39,2,39,3],[39,4,39,7],[50,2,50,7],[44,4,44,7],[28,4,28,7],[45,4,45,7],[40,2,40,3],[40,4,40,7],[1,1,7,1],[1,2,7,5],[17,2,17,5],[19,2,19,5],[10,2,11,5],[48,2,48,7],[46,4,46,7],[60,2,60,7],[62,2,62,4],[64,5,64,7],[61,2,61,3],[52,2,52,7],[27,2,27,3],[27,4,27,7],[54,2,54,7],[56,2,56,7],[58,2,58,7],[53,2,53,7],[29,2,29,3],[29,4,29,7],[35,4,35,7],[36,4,36,7],[30,2,30,3],[30,4,30,7],[33,4,33,7],[33,2,34,2],[34,4,34,7],[43,4,43,7],[74,2,74,4],[74,5,74,7],[73,2,73,4],[73,5,73,7],[68,2,68,4],[68,5,68,7],[72,2,72,4],[72,5,72,7],[71,5,71,7],[71,2,71,4],[70,2,70,4],[70,5,70,7],[66,2,66,4],[66,5,66,7],[65,2,65,4],[62,5,62,7],[67,2,67,4],[67,5,67,7],[64,2,64,4],[65,5,65,7]]}
["Supporting education",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. Benefits arise through (i) nature-related school trips outside the classroom; (ii) embodied ecological knowledge from studying environmental sciences; (iii) increased productivity and ability to concentrate in the classroom through exposure to and engagement with nature. Quantitative evidence on these benefits is limited but developing. ",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,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Marine","●"]
[null,"Other inputs",null,null,null,null,null,"Freshwaters","●"]
[null,null,"Transport, teaching staff, "]
[null,null,"research equipment, facilities"]
[]
[null,"Range of final benefits","Improved wellbeing, educational attainment, human capital"]
[]
[null,"Who benefits?","Children and young people engaged in the learning"]
[]
[null,"What factors affect the level of benefit?","Proximity to, and relevant quality and characteristics of sites, and time spent at site. Resources and preferences of educational institutions for interaction with nature (including natural environments within a school site)"]
[]
[null,"Physical metric","Numbers of visits; hours spent in green space; improvements in school due to higher quality local natural environment"]
[null,"Valuation metrics","£ per visit / hour spent in green space, £ value of educational improvements on earnings/wellbeing"]
[]
[null,"Key sources of biophysical evidence","Source",null,"Notes"]
[null,null,"ONS (2017), UK Natural Capital Accounts",null,"Visits to freshwater and farming environments. See also ONS (2020) for discussion of educational sources related to woodland environments (more recent ONS Woodland Accounts do not include these)"]
[null,null,"People and Nature Survey for England: Child Data Pilot",null,"The People and Nature Survey for England: Children's Survey include a range of questions that try and determine the number of school trips to nature children take. The data distinguishes between school visits to various different natural habitats and approximately how far the child travelled to reach the site."]
[null,null,"Natural England Health & Wellbeing Evidence (2020)",null,"Section 7 provides an overview of the current bio-physical evidence in the area of Education and the Environment. There is not yet an attempt to value the improvements to Children's educational outcomes. "]
[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), Learning in the Natural Environment",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 Environments\" which references the Mourato (2010) research. "]
[]
[null,"Selected values","Source","Value","Notes"]
[null,null,"Mourato et al (2010)","£16.46 to £25.59 / pupil trip giving a mean of £21.03 (2010 prices)","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 (2015 prices)","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,{"$f":"COUNTA(D44:D47)","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,"Limitations to valuation","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. The cost-based approach is likely to provide lower-bound estimates of the benefit of educational trips. Schools are budget constrained, and charged with maximising childhood development, therefore will not waste money on an educational trip to an environmental setting, unless the benefit of it outweighed the oppurtunity cost.\n\nValuations based on educational attainments (as in Mourato et al 2010) 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. "]
[]
[null,"Other sources for valuation","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. Similar findings were also found at the Jurassic Coast World Heritage Site where access with extensive interpretative material was valued at £62.35 per household per year compared to a value of £23.69 per household per year without 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. \n\nNatural England (2022) estimates the potential social impact of 'learning outside the classroom in natural environments' (LINE) in primary school settings in England. A Social Return on Investment (SROI) ratio is estimated between £2.87 and £4.70 for every £1 invested, involving a wide range of sources attempting to link qualitative benefits to monetised values (e.g. truancy reduction, pupil wellbeing) in a \"value map\" calculator, along with some indicative assumptions for deadweight, displacement and attribution. Should be treated as tentative, because it involves a wide range of assumptions and sources, and further investigated to check consistency with Green Book methods and principles. \n\nSee also Education Endowment Foundation (2020) for impacts of adventure learning in wild settings and at schools on non-cognitive skills and attainment, which suggests there were positive impacts of adventure learning on students' non-cognitive skills. However, the emergence of Covid-19 pandemic may have limited the results. \n\nVanaken & Danckaerts (2018) conduct a systematic Review of the impact of green space on a variety of mental health measures. Evidence suggests that inattention and hyperactivity is benefited by access to green space and that this should be considered in future policy planning due to the ease of improving these factors."]
[]
[null,"Guidance on use in appraisal","See guidance on limitations above. An intervention which is expected to create additional nature-based educational trips could 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. \n\nIn general, assessing the effect of green space on educational outcomes / childhood development in appraisal, it is recommended that valuation is only presented as indicative alongside non-monetiseable benefits as currently valuation evidence is not sufficiently robust to include."]
[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.\n\nIf including an estimate of the impact of green space on future educational attainment be cautious that the effect may diminish over time back towards the baseline."]
[]
[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,"Applications and case studies","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.\nENCA Case study CL6 is an example of valuing the educational value to people of the North Yorkshire Moors (alongside other cultural benefits)."]
[]
[null,"Full references and weblinks","Education Endowment Foundation (2020), Adventure Learning (2019/20 Trial)",null,null,"https://educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk/projects-and-evaluation/projects/adventure-learning/"]
[null,null,"Eftec (2015), Assessing the Natural Capital of Three Hagges Wood-Meadow",null,null,"https://www.woodmeadowtrust.org.uk/learn/resources"]
[null,{"$f":"COUNTA(C64:E82)","v":12},"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 (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 managed by Natural England",null,null,"http://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/publication/4535403835293696"]
[null,null,"Natural England (2020), A rapid scoping review of health and wellbeing evidence for the Green Infrastructure Standards. Report by Exeter University for Natural England, Public Health England, MHCLG and Defra",null,null,"http://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/publication/4799558023643136"]
[null,null,"Natural England (2022), Social and economic benefits of learning in natural environments",null,null,"https://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/publication/6632322404450304"]
[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 (2020), UK Woodland Natural Capital Accounts. ",null,null,"https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/environmentalaccounts/bulletins/woodlandnaturalcapitalaccountsuk/2020"]
[null,null,"Vanaken, G. J. and Danckaerts, M. (2018), Impact of Green Space Exposure on Children's and Adolescents' Mental Health: A Systematic Review",null,null,"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6313536/"]
[null,null,"National Foundation for Educational Research and King’s College London (2004) A review of Research on Outdoor Learning",null,null,"https://www.informalscience.org/sites/default/files/Review%20of%20research%20on%20outdoor%20learning.pdf"]

{"sheet":"Volunteering","index":21,"n_rows":70,"n_cols":10,"rows_kept":70,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[[59,5,59,7],[23,2,23,5],[27,2,27,7],[30,4,30,7],[68,2,68,4],[26,2,26,3],[26,4,26,7],[38,4,38,7],[40,2,40,7],[42,2,42,7],[44,2,44,7],[45,2,45,7],[46,2,46,7],[48,2,48,7],[50,2,50,7],[31,4,31,7],[37,4,37,7],[29,4,29,7],[35,2,35,3],[35,4,35,7],[34,2,34,3],[34,4,34,7],[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],[68,5,68,7],[57,2,57,4],[57,5,57,7],[64,2,64,4],[64,5,64,7],[67,2,67,4],[67,5,67,7],[63,2,63,4],[63,5,63,7],[65,2,65,4],[65,5,65,7],[58,2,58,4],[58,5,58,7],[66,2,66,4],[66,5,66,7],[59,2,59,4],[69,2,69,4],[69,5,69,7],[62,2,62,4],[62,5,62,7],[52,2,52,7],[53,2,53,3],[60,2,60,4],[60,5,60,7],[56,2,56,4],[56,5,56,7],[54,2,54,4],[54,5,54,7],[55,2,55,4],[55,5,55,7],[61,2,61,4],[61,5,61,7]]}
["Environmental volunteering",null,null,null,null,"Back to index"]
[null,"Why is it relevant?","Environmental volunteering opportunities support a range of private and social benefits such as exercise, social contacts, training, preparing people for employment. These benefits are particularly relevant where environmental interventions involving 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 to volunteers, for example, exercise, health, training, community cohesion, 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 frequency / days / hours"]
[null,"Valuation metrics","£ / volunteer day or hour"]
[]
[null,"Key sources for biophysical evidence","Source",null,"Notes"]
[null,null,"25 Year Environment Plan Outcome Indicators - Engagement theme",null,"Includes an interim indicator (G5) which measures taking social action for the environment across various dimensions. The three components of the indicator are: volunteer time spent on activities of benefit to the natural environment in England, 2000-2021, drawn from the UK Biodiversity Indicators ",null,null,null,"Updated"]
[]
[null,"Selected biophysical estimates","Source","Description of estimate","Notes"]
[null,null,"Forest Enterprise England (2023) ","102,000 volunteering hours in 2021/22","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,"HM Treasury (2021) Subjective Wellbeing Guidance",null,"Provides estimates (£13,000) for the value of an improvement of 1 point on a 1-10 point wellbeing scale that is maintained across a year."]
[null,"Selected values","Source","Value","Notes"]
[null,{"$f":"COUNTA(D38:D39)","v":2},"ONS (2017)","£14.79 / volunteer hour (2022 prices)","Replacement cost of an average formal volunteer hour (for frequent volunteers i.e. at least once a month), 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 £23.3 billion based on 1.99 billion frequent volunteer hours in 2015 i.e. £11.72 / hour. We uprate this to an annual 2022 value using the Average Weekly (regular) Earnings Index (£11.72 x 192.7 /152.7 = £14.79).  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 an earlier ONS publication (2013) by incorrectly including non-frequent volunteer activity in the calculation. "]
[null,null,"HM Treasury (2021) Subjective Wellbeing Guidance","£911 / volunteer per year (2020 prices)","Value of volunteering at least once a year to a volunteer's wellbeing. It is sourced from Lawton et al (2021) which uses data from the British Household Panel Survey and Understanding Society datasets to estimate the causal change in an individual's wellbeing from volunteering. \n\nIt is possible to use the coefficients from Lawton et al (2021) and the guidance in Annex 2 of the Wellbeing Guidance on the monetisation of life satisfaction to estimate the wellbeing benefits using standard values for the improvement in life satisfaction. This is calculated as 0.034*(11/7)*£13,000 = £695 and is the improvement in wellbeing on the 7 point scale converted into an impact on the 10 point scale and finally multiplied by the value of a 1-point increase on the 10 point scale.\n\nUsing Lawton et al (2021) it is possible to disaggregate the impact of volunteering at different frequencies and for different segments of the population. For example, people who volunteer at least once a week their wellbeing benefits are estimated as £1,941 per year, at least once a month as £1,593, and at least several times a year as £776."]
[]
[null,"Limitations to valuation","The most robust valuation method for the valuation of volunteering is an opportunity cost approach, an hour of volunteering must be worth at least an hour of a volunteer's time plus any transport costs associated. This is likely to be an underestimation of the full benefit of volunteering as it will not include the wider benefits to the volunteer or society.\nThe replacement cost approach assumes that volunteer hours and paid hours can be substituted for one another, and that it is possible to value the work done by the volunteer. \nThe replacement cost and wellbeing approach assume no difference between types of volunteering. There is limited empirical evidence on whether volunteering in or for nature has more or less value than volunteering in other contexts. \nThe wellbeing approach requires estimates for the duration and the size of the benefit to the volunteer which varies based on how much volunteering a person does. Evidence suggests that the wellbeing benefits to the volunteer only arise after volunteering \"several times in a year\" (What Works Wellbeing Centre, 2020)."]
[]
[null,"Other sources for valuation","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. For a general study of environmental volunteering of young people, see Defra (2019). \n\nAn alternative approach to valuing the net welfare benefits of nature-based volunteering would be to make use of unit (per visit) welfare values from ORVal (see below). "]
[]
[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 spill over benefits of volunteering (health benefits, as with recreation; and social capital type benefits) which are relevant even if difficult to value. Unit per visit values from ORVal (see Recreation Tab) could provide a lower bound proxy for this additional welfare (i.e. private benefits over and above personally incurred travel and time costs), if it can be reasonably assumed that the volunteering activity and venue displays similar features to a recreational visit / site.\n\nThe relative skill of the voluntary effort should also be assessed. Conservation volunteering can be either relatively unskilled (e.g. manual maintenance work) or relatively skilled (e.g. species monitoring). JNCC (2018) use a rate of £20 / hour to value volunteering effort for biodiversity monitoring, using HLF guidelines. "]
[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 for 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 / output 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. ORVal values might be applied to estimate private voluntary benefits, assuming that volunteer numbers are additional to overall visitor numbers."]
[null,"Guidance on projecting values","Flatline is recommended unless there is a strong evidence-based expectation that volunteer numbers are on an increasing trend over time (for example, if a new environmental charity is created, although even here they may be a risk of volunteer displacement from elsewhere). Although the interim 25 Year Environment Plan Outcome Indicator on volunteering shows a slightly rising trend in volunteering for the natural environment, there is also evidence to suggest from the Forestry England Natural Capital Accounts and the ONS Community Life Survey that aggregate volunteering effort has been declining. "]
[]
[null,"Potential overlap with other values","There are potentially significant overlaps between Mental Health and Volunteering where a subjective wellbeing approach is taken for both. If using a subjective wellbeing approach for one service, using an avoided cost or replacement cost approach for the other will ensure minimal if no double counting. Similarly, care should be taken to avoid double-counting with recreation visits and values."]
[]
[null,"Related guidance","The What Works Wellbeing Centre has released a research report on the impact of volunteering on people's wellbeing, including time spent and type of activities."]
[]
[null,"Applications and case studies","The value of volunteering was included in a business case for the creation of the Canal & River Trust (ENCA Case study VN5). Case Studies CL6 (North Yorkshire Moors) and CN4 (RSPB natural capital account) also include the value of volunteering. JNCC (2018) estimate the time value of voluntary biodiversity monitoring to be over 20 times the programme budget for structured surveillance schemes."]
[]
[null,"Full references and weblinks","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(C55:E74)","v":16},"Defra (2019), Research to understand environmental volunteering amongst young people",null,null,"http://randd.defra.gov.uk/Default.aspx?Menu=Menu&Module=More&Location=None&ProjectID=20053"]
[null,null,"Defra, Outcome Indicator Framework for the 25 Year Environment Plan",null,null,"https://oifdata.defra.gov.uk/"]
[null,null,"Defra / JNCC, UK Biodiversity indicators 2022",null,null,"https://jncc.gov.uk/our-work/ukbi-a2-conservation-volunteering/"]
[null,null,"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,"JNCC (2018), The value of JNCC’s terrestrial evidence programme",null,null,"https://data.jncc.gov.uk/data/819af873-5b9c-424a-9c0f-c73aec2e181f/JNCC18-01-Terrestrial-evidence-review-part1.pdf"]
[null,null,"Lawton, R et al (2021) Does Volunteering Make Us Happier, or Are Happier People More Likely to Volunteer? Addressing the Problem of Reverse Causality When Estimating the Wellbeing Impacts of Volunteering. J Happiness Studies 22, 599–624 ",null,null,"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10902-020-00242-8"]
[null,null,"Forest Enterprise England (2023), Natural Capital Account 2021-22",null,null,"https://www.forestryengland.uk/article/natural-capital-accounts"]
[null,null,"HM Treasury, Green Book Supplementary Guidance: Wellbeing",null,null,"https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/green-book-supplementary-guidance-wellbeing"]
[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,"ONS (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,"ONS (2017), Changes in the value and division of unpaid volunteering in the UK: 2000 to 2015",null,null,"https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/nationalaccounts/satelliteaccounts/articles/changesinthevalueanddivisionofunpaidcareworkintheuk/2015#time-and-participation-in-formal-volunteering-in-the-uk-between-2000-and-2015"]
[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,"What Works Wellbeing Centre (2020), The Impacts of Volunteering on the Subjective Wellbeing of Volunteers: A Rapid Evidence Assessment",null,null,"https://whatworkswellbeing.org/resources/volunteer-wellbeing-what-works-and-who-benefits/"]

{"sheet":"Amenity","index":22,"n_rows":106,"n_cols":10,"rows_kept":106,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[[32,4,32,7],[46,2,47,2],[46,4,46,7],[33,4,33,7],[36,4,36,7],[56,4,56,7],[54,2,56,2],[29,2,29,3],[29,4,29,7],[47,4,47,7],[38,2,42,2],[38,3,38,7],[37,4,37,7],[50,4,50,7],[51,4,51,7],[52,4,52,7],[40,4,40,7],[39,4,39,7],[41,4,41,7],[54,3,54,7],[55,4,55,7],[42,4,42,7],[43,4,43,7],[61,4,61,7],[70,2,70,7],[92,5,92,7],[89,2,89,4],[94,2,94,4],[91,2,91,4],[86,5,86,7],[80,5,80,7],[86,2,86,4],[93,2,93,4],[93,5,93,7],[82,5,82,7],[73,2,73,7],[63,4,63,7],[62,4,62,7],[71,2,71,7],[65,2,65,7],[77,2,77,7],[78,2,78,3],[84,2,84,4],[84,5,84,7],[1,1,7,1],[1,2,7,5],[9,2,9,5],[14,2,14,5],[16,2,16,5],[33,2,33,3],[34,2,34,3],[34,4,34,7],[19,2,19,5],[20,2,20,5],[30,2,30,3],[30,4,30,7],[17,2,17,5],[23,2,23,3],[23,4,23,7],[31,2,31,3],[31,4,31,7],[24,2,24,3],[24,4,24,7],[25,2,25,3],[25,4,25,7],[32,2,32,3],[28,2,28,3],[28,4,28,7],[101,5,101,7],[100,2,100,4],[100,5,100,7],[79,2,79,4],[79,5,79,7],[85,2,85,4],[92,2,92,4],[99,5,99,7],[83,2,83,4],[83,5,83,7],[81,2,81,4],[95,2,95,4],[101,2,101,4],[96,5,96,7],[90,2,90,4],[90,5,90,7],[97,2,97,4],[97,5,97,7],[91,5,91,7],[98,2,98,4],[98,5,98,7],[60,4,60,7],[45,4,45,7],[44,4,44,7],[48,2,52,2],[48,3,48,7],[49,4,49,7],[57,4,57,7],[58,4,58,7],[59,4,59,7],[57,2,59,2],[44,2,45,2],[105,2,105,4],[105,5,105,7],[67,2,67,7],[69,2,69,7],[103,2,103,4],[103,5,103,7],[81,5,81,7],[80,2,80,4],[96,2,96,4],[85,5,85,7],[89,5,89,7],[87,2,87,4],[87,5,87,7],[75,2,75,7],[94,5,94,7],[82,2,82,4],[88,2,88,4],[88,5,88,7],[104,5,104,7],[99,2,99,4],[102,2,102,4],[104,2,104,4],[102,5,102,7],[95,5,95,7]]}
["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 to people 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.  Land contaminated or blighted from past industrial activity and pollution can also result in costs to society, undermining enjoyment of an area, affecting business and generating adverse health impacts. Litter and fly-tipping are other common examples of \"disamenity\". Interventions that address these disamenities can generate benefits to residents, visitors and businesses, both in terms of removing negative effects and potentially also replacing them with new greenspace or natural amenity with positive value. The bundle of amenity and / or disamenity effects is often captured in local residential property prices, which can be uncovered by hedonic valuation methods. ",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,"including interventions to improve amenity",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 (waste and disamenity)","Source",null,"Notes"]
[null,null,"Fly tipping incidents and actions taken in England",null,"Statistics on the number of fly tipping incidents and actions taken in England reported by local councils. "]
[null,null,"Local Authority waste management","WasteDataFlow - Local Authority waste management / Waste collection and recycling England data 2017-18","Statistical data covering collection and recycling of waste based on a quarterly survey from local authorities."]
[null,null,"Local Authority collected waste statistics","Local Authority Collected Waste Statistics - Local Authority data / Table 3: Selected Waste Indicators 2010/11 - 2017/18","Datasets containing annual statistics for local authority collected waste in England."]
[]
[null,"Key sources for valuation","Source",null,"Notes"]
[null,null,"ONS (2024)",null,"Uses the hedonic pricing method to estimate the effect of proximity to public green space on house prices, based on data from the Valuation Office Agency, HM Land Registry and Ordnance Survey.The aggregate results including a time series to 2022 are reported in the annual UK Natural Capital Accounts and updated to 2023 prices. ",null,null,null,"Updated"]
[null,null,"Homes England (2023a)",null,"Study and accompanying tool provide evidence and valuation for the effects on local households of the removal of disamenity. The study looks at the benefit to local households of the removal of disamenity caused by undeveloped brownfield land and the amenity value created by the inclusion of specific features, such as facilities for local communities and space for nature. The Excel tool and guidance has been produced to enable these benefits to be captured as part of project BCRs. "]
[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. Now rather dated. "]
[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,"Eftec (2020) for Defra",null,"Estimates benefits of reducing litter disamenity, and specifically on (i) aggregate benefit of litter reduction likely to arise from a drinks container deposit return scheme, (ii) how sensitive benefits are to local attributes, namely, location, composition and accumulation of litter; and how benefits vary with scale of reduction. Uses contingent valuation and choice experiment techniques to derive valuation estimates.  "]
[null,null,"Cambridge Econometrics for Defra (2003)",null,"Estimates disamenity costs of landfill across Great Britain"]
[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). Some of these findings will have been superseded and developed further by Eftec (2020)."]
[null,"Selected values - amenity","Source","Value","Notes"]
[null,null,"ONS (2024)","Average 2.8% value added to house prices from public and private nature in 2023","This represents additional value of £8600 per property. See the detailed summary tables (Table 16) for breakdowns by property type, region and greenspace type (public or private), as well as a time series from 2003 to 2022. Estimates relate to urban properties only, defined as built-up areas with a population of 5000 or greater.  Figures for the UK, Scotland, and Northern Ireland are estimated using property transaction data between 2011 and 2022 in England and Wales. This modelling largely supersedes the original hedonic analysis by ONS (2019)",null,null,null,"Updated"]
[null,null,"ONS (2019)","Average 2% price premium for houses with a view over green or blue space","Although superseded by ONS (2024), ONS' original hedonic modelling included a value of visual amenity in addition to the value of proximity. This represents additional value on average of £5369 per property in 2018 prices that has a view over green or blue space. 6.7% of properties in the sample used in the modelling (equivalent to 1.6 million properties) have a view over green or blue space. "]
[null,null,"Gibbons (2014)","These are average England property uplift (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,"Gibbons et al (2021)","3.4% price premium for living within 100m of a canal","Localised price premium driven by canal-side properties with a direct outlook or immediate access, around 5% before the 2008 recession, falling to 3.4% by 2016. These locations have a higher proportion of new-build sales, suggesting they attract developers. Estimates that canals generate land value uplift of £0.8-0.9 billion in England and Wales."]
[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 (2023) 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 (2023) 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 (2019) 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,"Homes England (2023a)","Section 8 of the study provides values and guidance that could be used for a basic appraisal. Outlines 4 steps to arrive at per household values: 1) determine general local disamenity values, which depend on the % local brownfield redeveloped by the intervention; 2) add site characteristic values for previous use and condition; 3) add site characteristic values for site size and distance to household; 4) add values for additional features.  All values are estimated at a household level, so they need to be multiplied by the number of households affected for aggregate estimates."]
[null,null,null,"£133 / household / year","Average value of removing the disamenity from brownfield sites independent of the site characteristics. This represents the individual household marginal willingness to pay or the level of benefit of the avoided disamenity. The average value reflects a general preference for improving the quality of place and does not vary by the characteristics of the site such as size and distance (these effects are captured separately and added on). \n\nTo get household local disamenity removal value, £133 should be multiplied by the proportion of the total extent of brownfield that the redeveloped site accounts for. For example, if the intervention redevelops 10 hectares out of a total 100 hectares of a local brownfield site, then the value per household would be £13.30 per year (=£133*(10/100)). This is step 1 out of the 4 steps outlined in the guidance. Refer to the guidance outlined in section 8 and the accompanying tool to apply the steps correctly."]
[null,null,null,"£27 - £97 / household / year","Range for values of adding additional recreational features, from £27 / household / year for cycle paths to £97 for green open space. This represents household willingness to pay or the benefit to local communities from provision of additional features. There are estimates for a total of  9 types of additional development features, including  wildlife space, sports pitch and children's play area. Inclusion of values for additional features is step 4 outlined in the guidance. "]
[null,null,"Eftec (2020) for Defra","£75 / household / year - economic welfare loss from significant accumulation of litter in residential areas (2020 prices)","Disamenity value for significant litter accumulation in residential areas.The choice experiment results show how variables such as context and location of litter can affect national level benefits from reducing litter. Lower disamenity values for significant accumulations of litter in the water environment and recreation areas at (approximately) £61 and £55 per household per year, respectively. Disamenity values for significant litter accumulation in business areas are £20-30 per household per year. These results are consistent with different ‘uses’ of these location types by households.   "]
[null,null,null,"£0.66 / household / year","Value of a one percentage point reduction in litter up to 40% reduction (£0.34 - £0.97 confidence interval)"]
[null,null,null,"£0.49 / household / year","Value of a one percentage point reduction in litter beyond 40% reduction (£0.17 - £0.81 confidence interval). This demonstrates decreasing marginal benefits from larger reductions in litter. "]
[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) to avoid beach litter","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","Stated preference methods are subject to various potential biases, although the specific and known nature of litter (as in Eftec 2020) limits these. 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 for valuation","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 DLUHC Appraisal Guidance (2023), adjusted to 2022 prices. 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 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.\n\nAmec (2012) for Defra 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.  \n\nEunomia (2021) estimate a range of costs of waste crime, including that of fly-tipping (£392 million per year), but not in terms of loss of amenity. "]
[]
[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 (2024). 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. It is possible to convert hedonic values into a per hectare value if number of persons per residence and population per hectare is known."]
[null,"Guidance on use  in natural capital accounting","Negative amenity values (e.g. from litter or blight) would not normally feature within a natural capital flow account, but they could be captured in the condition of, for example, urban green spaces as affecting the quality of the asset - so that improvements in amenity may lead to increased visitation, which would be captured within a flow account. \n\nProperty value effects reflect capitalised rather than annual changes in value, so appropriate adjustments may need to be made to derive monetary flow (e.g. annual) values, for example by applying rental-house price ratios (see for example ONS (2024).\n\nAccording to the ONS / Defra Principles of Natural Capital Accounting (2017), where urban greenspace amenity values are estimated from property prices using hedonic approaches, these can be added to recreation values where the latter are only based on travel expenditure, and where it is assumed that the hedonic values already capture the value gained from \"free\" trips that involve walking or cycling to local recreational sites. The two are added together in ONS (2023). In the Natural Capital Account for Greater London (2018), recreational values from ORVal are combined with hedonic values, but estimates of health value are subtracted 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. "]
[null,"Guidance on projecting values","Although house prices tend to grow in real terms over time, the ONS (2024) estimates show the absolute level of the annual aggregate premium, and its annual equivalent, to be on a downward trend since 2013 in real terms, but with a spike in 2022. Projecting a 5-year average 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. Gibbons et al (2021) shows that the price premium on canalside properties fell after the financial crash of 2008.",null,null,null,null,null,"Updated"]
[]
[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, but this is complex. Hedonic values represent a sort of fixed cost to accessing local green space, which could be interpreted as additional to values generated by a travel cost based method (such as ORVal) which is based on the variable costs of actually visiting -  like buying a football club membership that enables you to buy tickets at a cheaper price to the matches you wish to attend (personal communication from Professor Brett Day, creator of ORVal).\n\nSo a houseowner with a strong preference to live close to green space may be because of the ease of recreational access. But there may be other reasons, such as everyday views it offers of greenspace, and perceptions that it may improve 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. 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. \n\nHomes England (2023b) estimates the potential wider benefits of new housing-led regeneration projects (which may include green space provision or enhancements) beyond the development site itself, specifically to existing residents living within surrounding communities. This uses a hedonic pricing methodology applied to a sample of previous Homes England projects, and estimates uplift factors, ranging from 0% to over 3%, that can be applied to the housing capital stock value in a given impact area in order to estimate the potential scale of placemaking effects. Of course these values pertain to the overall housing-led regeneration scheme, which may or may not include elements of green infrastructure and amenity - see case studies in the report. It notes that these \"placemaking\" values will overlap with the amenity values from Homes England (2023a) where a project both involves the redevelopment of a brownfield site and has clear placemaking and regeneration objectives.\n \nThe 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,null,null,null,null,"Updated"]
[]
[null,"Related guidance","See Recreation, Physical health and Mental health Tabs."]
[]
[null,"Applications and case studies","Property price uplift from proximity to greenspace is the largest single benefit category in the Greater London Authority (2017) natural capital account (ENCA Case Study CR6). \n\nDefra's (2019a) 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. Eftec (2020) results formed a core component of the second consultation phase Impact Assessment for the proposed Deposit Return Scheme (Defra 2021). Defra (2019a) final impact assessment of biodiversity net gain made use of ONS hedonic natural capital accounting values to capture a bundle of local amenity benefits from enhanced biodiversity. "]
[]
[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(C80:E114)","v":27},"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 (2019a), 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,"Defra (2019b), Biodiversity net gain and local nature recovery strategies - Final Impact Assessment",null,null,"https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/839610/net-gain-ia.pdf"]
[null,null,"Defra (2021), Introducing a Deposit Return Scheme on beverage containers - Second Consultation Stage Impact Assessment",null,null,"https://consult.defra.gov.uk/environment/consultation-on-introducing-a-drs/supporting_documents/Impact%20Assessment.pdf"]
[null,null,"Department for Leveling Up, Housing and Communities (2023), DLUHC Appraisal Guide",null,null,"https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/dluhc-appraisal-guide/dluhc-appraisal-guide"]
[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://barnet.moderngov.co.uk/documents/s40941/Appendix%202%20Natural%20Capital%20Account%20for%20Barnet.pdf"]
[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,"Eftec for Defra (2020), Amenity Value Benefits of a Deposit Return Scheme for Drinks Containers",null,null,"https://randd.defra.gov.uk/ProjectDetails?ProjectID=20652&FromSearch=Y&Publisher=1&SearchText=eq0126&SortString=ProjectCode&SortOrder=Asc&Paging=10#Description"]
[null,null,"Eunomia (2014), Exploring the Indirect Costs of Litter in England. Report to Keep Britain Tidy. ",null,null,"https://www.keepbritaintidy.org/sites/default/files/resources/KBT_Exploring-the-indirect-costs-of-litter-in-England-summary_2014.pdf"]
[null,null,"Eunomia (2021) for the Environmental Services Association, Counting the cost of UK waste crime",null,null,"https://archiveesauk.org/application/files/3716/2694/1872/ESA_Cost_of_Waste_Crime.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,"Gibbons, S et al (2021), Valuing the environmental benefits of canals and canal restoration using house prices. Land Economics, Vol. 97. ",null,null,"https://www.researchgate.net/publication/355465502_Valuing_the_Environmental_Benefits_of_Canals_and_Canal_Restoration_Using_House_Prices"]
[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,"Homes England (2023a), Brownfield Development Values",null,null,"https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/brownfield-development-values"]
[null,null,"Homes England (2023b), Measuring the placemaking impacts of housing-led regeneration",null,null,"https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/measuring-the-placemaking-impacts-of-housing-led-regeneration",null,null,"New"]
[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 ",null,null,"http://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/publication/6692039286587392"]
[null,null,"ONS (2019), Valuing green spaces in urban areas: a hedonic price approach using machine learning techniques.",null,null,"https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/environmentalaccounts/articles/valuinggreenspacesinurbanareas/ahedonicpriceapproachusingmachinelearningtechniques"]
[null,null,"ONS (2024), UK Natural Capital Accounts 2024. See supplementary data tables",null,null,"https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/environmentalaccounts/bulletins/uknaturalcapitalaccounts/2024",null,null,"Updated"]
[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":23,"n_rows":141,"n_cols":10,"rows_kept":141,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[[126,2,126,4],[126,5,126,7],[128,2,128,4],[128,5,128,7],[48,2,48,3],[48,4,48,7],[55,2,68,2],[63,4,63,7],[56,4,56,7],[57,4,57,7],[60,4,60,7],[55,3,55,7],[62,4,62,7],[61,3,61,7],[64,3,64,7],[65,4,65,7],[68,4,68,7],[66,4,66,7],[67,4,67,7],[112,2,112,4],[78,4,78,7],[79,4,79,7],[110,2,110,3],[114,5,114,7],[47,2,47,7],[49,4,49,7],[49,2,49,3],[125,2,125,4],[125,5,125,7],[121,2,121,4],[121,5,121,7],[120,2,120,4],[120,5,120,7],[72,4,72,7],[109,2,109,7],[97,2,97,7],[85,2,95,2],[80,4,80,7],[85,4,85,7],[75,2,79,2],[107,2,107,7],[105,2,105,7],[102,2,102,7],[76,4,76,7],[77,4,77,7],[103,2,103,7],[81,3,81,7],[115,5,115,7],[115,2,115,4],[86,4,95,7],[114,2,114,4],[84,4,84,7],[82,4,82,7],[83,4,83,7],[81,2,84,2],[101,2,101,7],[112,5,112,7],[113,2,113,4],[113,5,113,7],[111,2,111,4],[111,5,111,7],[99,2,99,7],[77,14,77,17],[51,4,51,7],[30,2,30,3],[30,4,30,7],[31,2,31,3],[31,4,31,7],[44,2,44,7],[50,2,50,3],[50,4,50,7],[51,2,51,3],[42,2,42,3],[42,4,42,7],[43,2,43,3],[43,4,43,7],[69,4,69,7],[74,4,74,7],[75,3,75,7],[39,2,39,3],[39,4,39,7],[73,4,73,7],[70,4,70,7],[71,4,71,7],[38,2,38,3],[38,4,38,7],[1,1,7,1],[1,2,7,5],[19,2,19,5],[21,2,21,5],[26,2,26,5],[9,2,14,5],[40,4,40,7],[41,4,41,7],[40,2,40,3],[35,2,35,3],[35,4,35,7],[36,2,36,3],[36,4,36,7],[41,2,41,3],[29,2,29,3],[29,4,29,7],[32,4,32,7],[23,2,23,5],[33,2,33,3],[33,4,33,7],[32,2,32,3],[25,2,25,5],[124,5,124,7],[140,2,140,4],[140,5,140,7],[132,5,132,7],[136,5,136,7],[130,2,130,4],[130,5,130,7],[53,2,53,3],[37,2,37,3],[37,4,37,7],[129,2,129,4],[116,2,116,4],[116,5,116,7],[53,4,53,7],[73,2,74,2],[52,4,52,7],[52,2,52,3],[69,2,72,2],[135,2,135,4],[135,5,135,7],[132,2,132,4],[122,2,122,4],[119,5,119,7],[122,5,122,7],[139,2,139,4],[134,5,134,7],[137,5,137,7],[139,5,139,7],[136,2,136,4],[118,2,118,4],[118,5,118,7],[117,2,117,4],[117,5,117,7],[123,2,123,4],[138,2,138,4],[138,5,138,7],[134,2,134,4],[137,2,137,4],[127,2,127,4],[127,5,127,7],[119,2,119,4],[123,5,123,7],[133,2,133,4],[131,2,131,4],[129,5,129,7],[131,5,131,7],[133,5,133,7],[124,2,124,4]]}
["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. Following the Environment Act 2021, national biodiversity targets and the introduction of mandatory Biodiversity Net Gain make its consideration in appraisal particularly important. The Environment Act also places a statutory duty on public authorities to consider how they can enhance biodiversity through their actions. ",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 / interventions"]
[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) support 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 resilience 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. Various policies or projects can impact biodiversity, such as those which: \n- affect land / water management and use, such as building development, habitat fragmentation\n- affect wildlife control or management, such as trade in wildlife. \n- introduce or remove living or non-living elements from habitats, such as pesticide pollution, or restriction of water supply\n- cause or inhibit disturbance of ecosystems, such as transport, tourism and other activities."]
[]
[null,"Physical metric","Biodiversity may be assessed by measurement of species, or habitat, or through a dedicated metric (\"units of biodiversity\"). There are also many biodiversity indicators (see below). "]
[null,"Valuation metric / approaches","Because of the conceptual and methodological complexities involved, there is no definitive way to value changes in biodiversity.  There are three broad approaches, which can be complementary (see also \"Guidance on use in appraisal\" below):\n\n1) Direct economic valuation of some final welfare effects of specific biodiversity changes may be possible, such as pollination, amenity, non-use values (see \"selected values\" below) - typically estimated per household or per hectare, often valued using stated preference approaches. However, these are likely to be partial or subject to significant methodological challenges, and studies are increasingly old. \n\n2) Value biodiversity indirectly through changes within broad habitats.  Gains or losses in biodiversity may be broadly captured within changes to the various ecosystem services provided by these habitats (as set out in the other tabs of this Databook). This method may be particularly relevant where a policy's objective is a gain in biodiversity, or the impact on biodiversity is a result of land use change. However, this will not capture all aspects of biodiversity or non-use values. The ENCA Assets Databook provides service benefits by broad habitat type.\n\n3a) Using a target and cost-based approach. Here biodiversity is considered so crucial that it becomes a strategic constraint. By incorporating \"no net loss\" in biodiversity (or percentage gain in biodiversity) as a one of the strategic goals/ critical success factors for a policy intervention or project, options to achieve this constraint are then fully costed as a form of \"replacement cost\". This assumes the benefits of biodiversity are maintained compared to the counterfactual if the habitat on which they are associated with is appropriately replaced (e.g. as measured by an appropriate biodiversity metric such as Natural England (2024). 3b) Including additional ecosystem service effects in the target and cost-based approach. The target and cost based approach can be further enhanced to ensure that a wider set of co-benefits from habitat creation are optimised by incorporating measurable ecosystem service flows (e.g. carbon, nutrient mitigation, recreation etc) in appraisal alongside the costs of achieving the target. Additional benefits here effectively reduce the cost of meeting the biodiversity constraint or target. Even where biodiversity is not a constraint, these replacement cost based methods can be used when valuing the impact of a residual loss in biodiversity. "]
[]
[null,"Key sources for biophysical evidence - national","Source",null,"Notes"]
[null,null,"25 Year Environment Plan Outcome 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. "]
[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,null,"Natural England Open Data Geoportal (for Protected areas data)",null,"Provides free and open access to Natural England's spatial datasets including all protected area datasets such as Ancient Woodland, Nature Reserves, SSSIs, Special Protection Areas, Special Areas of Conservation and Ramsar sites"]
[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 Maps - 2015, 2017-2021",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, LCM 2015 has 83% accuracy. LCMs 2020 and 2021 provide more detail than before, as a high-resolution 10m product is available."]
[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,"The older studies are of diminishing value for practical application and should be used with extra caution."]
[null,null,"Eftec (2022)",null,"Applies a stated preference discrete choice methodology (sample of 5000 respondents) to estimate the economic value of species recovery actions in terms of households' willingness to pay (WTP) for improved species recovery outcomes in England. Commissioned to inform Defra's analysis of national targets for species recovery (see Defra (2022)). The results include transferable values for use in project- and site-level analyses that will inform the delivery of species recovery actions. The value of national level species recovery scenarios varies with the amount of habitat improved and the species recovery levels (see for example Tables 5.4 and 5.5), but generally household WTP values are significant. WTP for species recovery is subject to diminishing marginal benefit for many habitats (see Table 5.5). Provides estimates for national and local level analyses. Report accompanied by a tool developed in Excel that estimates both household level and aggregate benefits for species recovery actions and outcomes (measured in terms of hectares improved for wild species presence). ",null,null,null,"New"]
[null,null,"Eftec (2021)",null,"Includes estimates of the costs of biodiversity net gain offsets, which can inform a replacement cost approach to valuation. The logic here is that the biodiversity credits directly represent the social cost that society is willing to pay to avert biodiversity loss, and therefore a lower bound of the societal benefits provided by that biodiversity which in the absence of a net gain requirement would be lost. The Evidence Annex includes estimates of supply costs of habitat creation / maintenance over 30 years with a wide variation by habitat. The final summary report draws on this to estimate an average market price of £20-25,000 per biodiversity unit (but no habitat breakdown is given).  These estimates reflect 30 years of maintenance / monitoring, in which case a 30 year appraisal period is appropriate.  "]
[null,null,"Christie et al (2011)",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(D56:D91)-3","v":33},"Eftec (2022)","Household WTP for species recovery by improving an area of existing habitat (2022 prices) - selected habitats. See Table 5.4 in the Report for all habitats and confidence intervals and Table 5.5 for diminishing marginal benefit values. Higher values are for scarcer habitats and preferences reflect both absolute extent of habitats and the relative change in the area improved. ",null,null,null,null,"New"]
[null,null,null,"£ 7.94 / 1000 hectares","Lowland fens"]
[null,null,null,"£ 7.87 / 1000 hectares","Lowaland hay meadows"]
[null,null,null,"£ 6.28 / 1000 hectares","Rivers"]
[null,null,null,"£1.68 / 1000 hectares","Wood pasture and parkland"]
[null,null,null,"£ 0.75 / 1000 hectares","Blanket bog"]
[null,null,null,"The study develops a national level policy analysis of the household welfare benefits of meeting national policy targets for species recovery. This comprises the benefit from the extent of improvement in wild species presence (minimal - low - moderate - high) and the amount of habitat improved. All 2022 prices. See Table 6.1",null,null,null,null,"New"]
[null,null,null,"£0.69 / household / year","National average household WTP for 1000 hectares of improved habitat nationally. Other habitat specific values are given"]
[null,null,null,"£230 - £310 / household / year ","Welfare benefit of illustrative national policy scenario based on above values of improving 100,000 hectares across habitats, with 30% of that area changing from minimal to low wild species presence, and 40% changing from moderate to full wild species presence). Improvements roughly in proportion to current habitat extents. Higher value applies habitat-specific weights which reflect stronger preferences for certain habitats. "]
[null,null,null,"The study also provides \"transferable values\" on a 100 hectare unit basis for smaller localised species recovery projects that represent a marginal one-step change (minimal to low, or moderate to high) within a broader species recovery programme. All 2022 prices. See Table 6.4 for the full range of transferable values and guidance as to how these values might be spatially aggregated. Not to be used for national-level analysis. ",null,null,null,null,"New"]
[null,null,null,"£0.76 / household / year","[for a one-step change in wild species presence in] Coastal sand dunes"]
[null,null,null,"£0.87 / household / year","Lowland fens"]
[null,null,null,"£0.17 / household / year","Wood pasture and parkland"]
[null,null,null,"£0.05 / household / year","Arable land"]
[null,{"$f":"COUNTA(D70:D96)-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. The values are now very old.  "]
[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. The values are now very old. "]
[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. The values are now very old so should be used with extreme caution. "]
[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 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","Because of its complexity and cross-cutting importance, biodiversity valuation is typically incomplete. Eftec (2019) summarise the various challenges around biodiversity valuation in particular limited understanding of the dependency of current and future ecosystem services on biodiversity.  See next box on \"Guidance on use in appraisal\".\n\nOn the other hand, WTP values for biodiversity risk an element of double-counting with other benefits (see below under \"Potential overlap with other values\").\n\nWhere proportionate, it is good practice to employ non-economic perspectives to assess the full range of impacts of changes in biodiversity"]
[]
[null,"Guidance on use in appraisal","Impacts on biodiversity should be described first and if at all possible quantified. It is important to establish a baseline for biodiversity, which can be done on a site basis by the Natural England (2024) Biodiversity Metric, and also to consider any trends that would lead to a loss or change in biodiversity in the absence of any intervention. \n\n1) Direct valuation - Aspects of biodiversity value such as pollination, amenity and non-use values may potentially be valued directly, but care needs to be taken to attribute effect to cause. Understanding the quantitative links between biodiversity and ecosystem services is generally poor due to a lack of evidence (Norris et al, 2011). 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. \n\n2) Indirect valuation - The impacts of interventions on biodiversity can be partially captured in the economic value of the impacts on other benefits (e.g. provisioning services, recreation) but are often not valued separately. The approach is (i) estimate the change in habitats associated with the change in biodiversity, then (ii) value the changes in ecosystem services associated with those habitat changes. This might be relevant where the objective is a net gain in biodiversity, as measured by a habitat-based biodiversity metric. This approach to valuing biodiversity effects would still be a partial estimate. Additional to these would be genuine “non-use” values associated with biodiversity such as species diversity. The resilience and insurance values of biodiversity (e.g. in relation to future extreme weather events) should also be considered. Always be mindful of double counting biodiversity with other ecosystem service values.  \n\n3) Cost-based and constraint-based valuation\nBecause of the complexities of valuation, rather than directly valuing the benefits, an alternative approach (developed in concept by an HMT convened expert group following the Dasgupta Review) is to include biodiversity in appraisal as a constraint e.g. all options must not reduce a measurable level of biodiversity or must increase it by a minimum %. Bateman et al (2014) adopt this alternative approach in an integrated model of UK land use, where they employ a ‘constraint’ of no loss in wild bird species diversity in an application to identify socially optimal locations for planting woodland in the UK. This approach is consistent with the requirement under the Environment Act 2021 to ensuring measurable biodiversity net gain from developments under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Specific ecosystem service values can be included in options to identify the most cost-effective way of meeting the biodiversity constraint or target. For example, if all options must increase biodiversity by some net %, the co-benefits from habitat creation in terms of measurable ecosystem service flows (e.g. carbon, nutrient mitigation, recreation etc), can be included in appraisal alongside the costs of achieving the target, relative to the baseline. Additional benefits here effectively reduce the cost of meeting the biodiversity constraint or target. \n\nWhere a potential net loss of biodiversity from an intervention is unlikely to be avoided or offset in practice, it should still be accounted for in appraisal as a genuine social cost. Valuation should be based on the methods above. If this is not possible, valuation should be based on the replacement cost of replacing or offsetting the biodiversity loss, such as the cost of habitat restoration or market-based biodiversity credit (such as the Biodiversity Metric). This would provide a lower bound to the loss of value so other aspects of biodiversity’s value should be considered when possible. This \"shadow price\" approach could also be a lower bound estimate of the benefits of a biodiversity enhancement project where the cost of that enhancement is known (in a similar way to comparing the actual costs of a carbon abatement project with the target-derived shadow price of carbon).        ",null,null,null,null,null,"Updated"]
[]
[null,"Other sources for valuation","Where biodiversity may be lost from an intervention and sufficient detail is known about expected site-based loss, Natural England's Statutory biodiversity metric tools and guides (2024) may provide the basis for quantification of the expected loss and valuation via a replacement cost approach, making use of traded prices for biodiversity units. See ENCA Featured Tools. Eftec (2021) estimated average market prices of £20-25,000 per biodiversity unit based on the costs of supplying and maintaining those biodiversity units over a 30 year period. They found a wide range of costs for managind different habitats to increase biodiversity units. Following the introduction of Biodiversity Net Gain in February 2024, the Biodiversity Net Gain Unit market is rapidly evolving and traded prices are beginning to be published in market reports by unit suppliers and platforms, for example Biodiversity Units UK (October 2024) reports average prices of units across different regions and habitats covering 46 habitat banks. \n\nTo support the traded market, Defra (2023) publishes statutory biodiversity credit prices which are “based on the cost to create, maintain and monitor different habitat types. There is also a mark-up to prevent statutory credit prices undercutting the off-site market\" and are under regular review. They are not really shadow prices for changes in biodiversity. \n \nDefra's Biodiversity Targets Impact Assessment (2022) makes use of Eftec (2022) primary valuation research into the benefits of species recovery to inform its cost-benefit analysis.\n\nEftec (2019) for Forestry Commission reference notable empirical studies that value forest biodiversity. \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\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. \n\nSee also Tab on Non-Use values. ",null,null,null,null,null,"Updated"]
[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 (2019). 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, particularly from stated preference studies 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. Otherwise there can be double-counting to the extent that stated preference values for biodiversity improvement include an element of use value. For example, Eftec (2022) state: \"The main risk of overlap lies in combining the study results with separate valuations for cultural services that also relate to direct contributions to welfare, particularly where both use and non-use motivations are relevant ... Whilst the values should be additive in policy analyses and appraisals to indirect contributions of biodiversity to welfare through provisioning and regulating services, there is likely to be overlap (i.e. risk of double-counting) with valuations for cultural services such as recreation, and general amenity and landscape type benefits associated with the natural environment\"\n\nFurther information can be found in the Tab on Non-use Values. ",null,null,null,null,null,"Updated"]
[]
[null,"Related guidance","See ENCA Featured Tools - Biodiversity Metric"]
[]
[null,"Applications and case studies","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) and ENCA Case Study VN6.\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.\n\nICF and Eftec (2021) assess the potential costs and benefits associated with the achievement of England’s biodiversity ambition as set out through potential statutory targets for terrestrial biodiversity in the Environment Bill. Defra's Final Biodiversity Targets Impact Assessment (2022) makes use of this and Eftec (2022) to inform its cost-benefit analysis. "]
[]
[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(C112:E142)","v":30},"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,"https://sciencesearch.defra.gov.uk/ProjectDetails?ProjectId=17272"]
[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 (2022), The Environment Act - Terrestrial Biodiversity Targets - Final Impact Assessment",null,null,"https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukia/2022/101/pdfs/ukia_20220101_en.pdf"]
[null,null,"Defra (2023), Statutory biodiversity credit prices",null,null,"https://www.gov.uk/guidance/statutory-biodiversity-credit-prices"]
[null,null,"Defra, Outcome Indicator Framework for the 25 Year Environment Plan",null,null,"https://oifdata.defra.gov.uk/"]
[null,null,"Eftec (2015). Valuing Biodiversity. Discussion paper for Defra. ",null,null,"https://sciencesearch.defra.gov.uk/ProjectDetails?ProjectId=19514"]
[null,null,"Eftec (2019), Feasibility study for the valuation of forest biodiversity. Report for Forestry Commission",null,null,"https://forestry.gov.scot/publications/736-feasibility-study-for-the-valuation-of-forest-biodiversity"]
[null,null,"Eftec (2021), Biodiversity net gain: market analysis study. Report for Defra",null,null,"https://randd.defra.gov.uk/ProjectDetails?ProjectID=20608"]
[null,null,"Eftec (2022), Valuing the Benefits of Species Recovery. Report for Defra",null,null,"https://sciencesearch.defra.gov.uk/ProjectDetails?ProjectId=21642",null,null,"New"]
[null,null,"GHK Consulting et al (2011) Benefits of Sites of Special Scientific Interest. Report to Defra. ",null,null,"https://sciencesearch.defra.gov.uk/ProjectDetails?ProjectId=17005"]
[null,null,"ICF and Eftec (2021), Costs and Benefits of England's Biodiversity Ambition, Report to Defra",null,null,"https://sciencesearch.defra.gov.uk/ProjectDetails?ProjectId=21641",null,null,"New"]
[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 (2024), Statutory biodiversity metric tools and guides",null,null,"https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/statutory-biodiversity-metric-tools-and-guides "]
[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.nienvironmentlink.org/site/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/accounting-for-nature.pdf"]
[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":24,"n_rows":87,"n_cols":10,"rows_kept":87,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[[81,2,81,4],[81,5,81,7],[82,2,82,4],[82,5,82,7],[59,4,59,7],[60,4,60,7],[62,4,62,7],[78,2,78,4],[78,5,78,7],[61,3,61,7],[80,2,80,4],[80,5,80,7],[74,2,74,7],[76,2,76,7],[66,2,66,7],[68,2,68,7],[48,2,48,3],[48,4,48,7],[51,2,62,2],[58,4,58,7],[51,4,51,7],[55,4,55,7],[70,2,70,7],[72,2,72,7],[64,2,64,7],[56,4,56,7],[52,4,52,7],[53,4,53,7],[54,4,54,7],[69,2,69,7],[57,4,57,7],[43,4,43,7],[42,4,42,7],[41,4,41,7],[39,2,39,7],[40,2,44,2],[40,4,40,7],[29,2,29,3],[29,4,29,7],[30,2,30,3],[34,2,34,3],[34,4,34,7],[32,4,32,7],[33,2,33,3],[33,4,33,7],[83,2,83,4],[83,5,83,7],[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],[44,4,44,7],[37,4,37,7],[49,2,49,3],[49,4,49,7],[37,2,37,3],[36,2,36,3],[36,4,36,7],[45,3,45,7],[86,2,86,4],[86,5,86,7],[23,2,23,5],[79,2,79,4],[79,5,79,7],[25,2,25,5],[30,4,30,7],[31,4,31,7],[31,2,31,3],[35,2,35,3],[35,4,35,7],[85,2,85,4],[85,5,85,7],[84,2,84,4],[84,5,84,7]]}
["Soil health and degradation",null,null,null,null,"Back to index"]
[null,"Why is it relevant?","Soil is a cross-cutting natural asset underpinning terrestrial broad habitats (see ENCA Assets Databook) and supporting various ecosystem services. Healthy soil is a complex finite living resource which performs multiple functions including storage of carbon, infiltration and transport of water, nutrient and waste cycling and supporting 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. 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 Outcome Indicators - Natural Resources theme",null,"A composite measure of soil health is being developed as part of the 25 Year Environment Plan Outcome Indicators Framework which underpins the multiple functions of soils in food production, runoff and erosion and carbon sequestration. More work is being done to define exactly what the indicator will include but it could include physical properties (such as a measure of soil structure), chemical properties (such as soil carbon, nutrients and pH), bare ground / soil and a measure of soil biological activity. This indicator is not limited to agricultural soils. It notes that further development of statistically and scientifically robust national monitoring programmes may be needed to provide data for this indicator."]
[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 (2022), Habitat extent and condition accounts",null,"Collates various soil indicators across different broad habitats as part of an accounting format with data points from 1978-2007"]
[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 https://data.gov.uk/dataset/952421ec-da63-4569-817d-4d6399df40a1/provisional-agricultural-land-classification-alc"]
[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 peatland emission factors 2023",null,"The UK Peatland Code has set out a range of emissions factors by condition category for projects to determine carbon benefits from a restoration project to be validated and verified by the Code. Emissions factors were originally developed in 2015 and have been updated in 2023 by Evans et al (2023) for Defra. See Carbon Reduction Tab. These are used 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,"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,"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 peatland emission factors 2023","See Peatland Code emissions factors in Carbon Reduction Tab"]
[]
[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. The account will be updated when new peatland data comes on stream in 2025. As it is cross cutting habitat peatland services cannot be derived from the more recent aggregate UK accounts produced by ONS (although peatland water values are directly derived from the UK values based on areas of upland that are peat, which are estimated to account for 70% of drinking water as a whole)."]
[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(D53:D64)","v":11},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. Note that these are based on older HMG carbon values, of around £51 / tonne CO2e for 2009. See BEIS (2021) for carbon values based on the Net Zero target. "]
[null,null,null,"£80-120 million","GHG emissions from soil erosion and compaction. Note that these are based on older HMG carbon values, of around £51 / tonne CO2e for 2009. See BEIS (2021) for carbon values based on the Net Zero target. "]
[null,null,null,"Average cost of soil erosion based on flood risk, production loss and water quality loss, 2024 prices "]
[null,null,null,"£149 - £241 / hectare","Defra Calculation - Based on aggregate values above for soil erosion of £105m - £170m in 2009 prices, then inflated to 2024 values, and averaged across 1.022 million hectares (see physical estimates above). Range reflects uncertainty of externality estimates. Excludes GHG losses. ",null,null,null,"Updated"]
[]
[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 for valuation","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. See ONS (2022)."]
[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 Carbon Reduction Tab and in the ENCA Assets Databook under the Enclosed Farmland and Mountains, Moors and Heathland Tabs"]
[]
[null,"Applications and case studies","The degraded peatland GHG emission factors are used in the UK Peatland Code (ENCA Case Study FN1). 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","BEIS (2021), Valuation of greenhouse gas emissions: for policy appraisal and evaluation",null,null,"https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/valuing-greenhouse-gas-emissions-in-policy-appraisal/valuation-of-greenhouse-gas-emissions-for-policy-appraisal-and-evaluation"]
[null,{"$f":"COUNTA(C79:E98)","v":9},"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,"https://sciencesearch.defra.gov.uk/ProjectDetails?ProjectId=16992"]
[null,null,"Defra, Outcome Indicator Framework for the 25 Year Environment Plan",null,null,"https://oifdata.defra.gov.uk/"]
[null,null,"Evans, C et al (2023), Aligning the Peatland Code with the UK Peatland Inventory",null,null,"https://sciencesearch.defra.gov.uk/ProjectDetails?ProjectId=21088"]
[null,null,"ONS (2019), UK peatland account",null,null,"https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/environmentalaccounts/bulletins/uknaturalcapitalforpeatlands/naturalcapitalaccounts#ecosystem-services"]
[null,null,"ONS (2022), UK habitat and extent condition accounts",null,null,"https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/environmentalaccounts/bulletins/habitatextentandconditionnaturalcapitaluk/2022"]
[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,"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":25,"n_rows":80,"n_cols":10,"rows_kept":80,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[[35,2,35,3],[35,4,35,7],[79,2,79,4],[79,5,79,7],[71,2,71,4],[71,5,71,7],[77,2,77,4],[77,5,77,7],[75,2,75,4],[75,5,75,7],[74,2,74,4],[74,5,74,7],[72,5,72,7],[76,2,76,4],[76,5,76,7],[72,2,72,4],[52,2,52,7],[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],[1,1,8,1],[1,2,8,5],[18,2,18,5],[20,2,20,5],[10,2,12,5],[67,5,67,7],[66,2,66,4],[66,5,66,7],[78,2,78,4],[78,5,78,7],[70,2,70,4],[70,5,70,7],[69,2,69,4],[69,5,69,7],[67,2,67,4],[68,5,68,7],[68,2,68,4],[73,2,73,4],[73,5,73,7],[26,2,26,3],[33,2,33,3],[33,4,33,7],[41,4,41,7],[26,4,26,7],[27,2,27,3],[27,4,27,7],[34,2,34,3],[34,4,34,7],[39,4,39,7],[40,4,40,7],[38,2,41,2],[38,3,38,7],[28,4,28,7],[30,2,30,7],[28,2,28,3],[42,3,42,7],[45,4,45,7],[44,4,44,7],[43,4,43,7],[42,2,45,2],[46,2,50,2],[46,3,46,7],[47,4,47,7],[48,4,48,7],[49,4,49,7],[50,4,50,7]]}
["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.  Water pollution can result from significant discharges in one location or from diffuse pollution over a wide area from multiple sources. A wide range of human activities can significantly affect the quality of surface waters (lakes, rivers and streams), ground water (underground water, frequently abstracted for human use) and coastal waters. 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; excessive water abstraction; combined sewer overflows; run-off from agricultural chemicals and sediment pollution from towns and cities; pollutant run-off from road transport; industrial discharges; 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,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Semi-nat grassland"]
[null,"Interventions"]
[null,null,"investments, regulations, incentives, behavioural change"]
[]
[]
[null,"Range of final benefits of improved water quality","Recreational benefits for anglers, boaters, other users of riparian habitat (e.g. walkers, bird watchers), more general local amenity benefits; lower costs of water treatment; non-use values"]
[]
[null,"Who benefits?","Recreational users, local residents, 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 Classification Status",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. See database at https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/data/wise-wfd-4 "]
[null,null,"25 Year Environment Plan Outcome Indicators - Water theme",null,"Includes a number of final and interim indicators related to water quality and the water environment. These include pollution loads and incidents, WFD assessments and condition of bathing waters. See also 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. New research is in hand to update these values. "]
[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 targets, 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. The tool (version 4) is free to download from https://www.adas.uk/Service/farmscoper"]
[null,null,"Environment Agency (2018)",null,"Nationally relevant  willingness to pay estimates for various changes in the quality of recreational fishing sites in England. Some of the variables are directly related to water quality, including improvements to fish size and abundance, and the absence of visible pollution. Improving the quality of fishing sites as measured by 3 key attributes (fish abundance, fish size and fish diversity) is predicted to lead to an increase in the number of trips made to the site, both from anglers switching away from existing alternative sites and making new or additional visits."]
[]
[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. See link for specific catchment values. Values are per year. Note values are in 2021 prices, updated from the original figures not just for inflation but also population growth, and presented as 3 significant figures as in the 2022 Green Book."]
[null,{"$f":"COUNTA(D40:D51)-2","v":10},null,"£22,000 per km","National average for improving water quality in all water bodies, from bad to poor."]
[null,null,null,"£25,400 per km","National average for improving water quality in all water bodies, from poor to moderate"]
[null,null,null,"£29,500 per km","National average for improving water quality in all water bodies, from moderate to good"]
[null,null,"Farmscoper","The Farmscoper / ADAS estimated values for nitrate, phosphorus and sediment originally based on Chadwick et al (2006) for Defra research and expressed in 2021 prices in version 5 of the Farmscoper tool. 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. Low / high ranges from version 4 of the tool are indicated in proportionate terms (no ranges are given in version 5)"]
[null,null,null,1.17,"annual value of reducing a kilogram of nitrate in water from agricultural sources. For low / high estimates, the original study gave a range of approximately + / - 30% around the central estimate. "]
[null,null,null,39.76,"annual value of reducing a kilogram of phosphorus in water from agricultural sources. For low / high estimates, the original study gave a range of approximately + / - 20% around the central estimate. "]
[null,null,null,0.47,"annual value of reducing a kilogram of sediment in water from agricultural sources. For low / high estimates, the original study gave a range of approximately + / - 25% around the central estimate."]
[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 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. \n\nEstimating water quality benefits from reductions in specific pollutants from say agriculture is particularly challenging. The damage caused by an extra unit of pollutant in a watercourse will vary significantly depending on the amount of water in the watercourse, the existing concentration of pollutants, the extent to which humans or wildlife use the watercourse and a large number of other factors. These factors will vary spatially, temporally and even within different points of the same watercourse at the same time. In particular, due to the existence of tipping points and non-linear relationships between the level of pollution and the damage caused the pollution, it is likely that an additional unit of pollutant added to an already heavily polluted watercourse will have a larger impact than in a watercourse that has small concentrations of pollution. Sensitivity analysis is therefore essential. Switching analysis can also be instructive in identifying the minimum reduction in pollution that would be needed for estimated benefits to exceed costs. "]
[]
[null,"Other sources for valuation","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 is the largest single category, followed by recreational values. \n\nValuation evidence on the costs of pesticide pollution is limited and dated. Chadwick et al for Defra (2006) reports annual pesticide removal costs of £ 99-131 million by water companies (of which 89% estimated from agricultural sources) based on pre 2006 data. This is an area for further research.  "]
[]
[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 but are at an experimental modelling stage - see Eftec and CEH (2022). "]
[null,"Guidance on projecting values","Unit values can reasonably be projected to increase over time in real terms and with population growth, 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 which benefits and services they are including or represent. 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,"Applications and case studies","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 (ENCA Case Study VN3) which was updated and improved in Environment Agency (2022). Defra (2022) used a range of valuation to assess benefits of meeting water quality targets. ENCA Case Study VR8 shows the benefits in monetary terms of nitrogen and phosphorous removal by coastal and marine habitats from the Solent, amounting to savings in replacement costs of £1.1 billion. \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","Chadwick, D. et al for Defra (2006), Benefits and Pollution Swapping: Cross-cutting issues for Catchment Sensitive Farming Policy",null,null,"https://sciencesearch.defra.gov.uk/ProjectDetails?ProjectId=13653"]
[null,{"$f":"COUNTA(C67:E93)","v":14},"Defra, Outcome Indicator Framework for the 25 Year Environment Plan",null,null,"https://oifdata.defra.gov.uk/"]
[null,{"$f":"COUNTA(C68:E94)","v":13},"Defra (2022), Environment Act Water Targets - Final Impact Assessment",null,null,"https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukia/2023/16/pdfs/ukia_20230016_en.pdf"]
[null,null,"Eftec and CEH for Defra (2022), Measuring and valuing the ecosystem contribution to water quality in the UK",null,null,"https://randd.defra.gov.uk/ProjectDetails?ProjectId=20926"]
[null,null,"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 (2018), A survey of freshwater angling in England: Phase 2: non-market values associated with angling",null,null,"https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6176bcfd8fa8f52983494969/A_survey_of_freshwater_angling_in_England_-_phase_2_report.pdf"]
[null,null,"Environment Agency (2022), Investment requirements for England’s river basin management plans - the costs and benefits of meeting environmental objectives.",null,null,"https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/investment-requirements-for-englands-river-basin-management-plans"]
[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,"https://randd.defra.gov.uk/ProjectDetails?ProjectId=18702"]
[null,null,"Farmscoper Tool",null,null,"https://www.adas.uk/Service/farmscoper"]
[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":26,"n_rows":66,"n_cols":10,"rows_kept":66,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[[51,2,51,4],[51,5,51,7],[28,2,28,7],[54,2,54,4],[54,5,54,7],[55,2,55,4],[55,5,55,7],[61,2,61,4],[61,5,61,7],[56,2,56,4],[56,5,56,7],[57,2,57,4],[57,5,57,7],[58,2,58,4],[58,5,58,7],[60,5,60,7],[62,2,62,4],[62,5,62,7],[60,2,60,4],[59,2,59,4],[59,5,59,7],[18,2,18,5],[53,2,53,4],[53,5,53,7],[33,4,33,7],[32,4,32,7],[46,2,46,7],[47,2,47,7],[25,2,25,3],[25,4,25,7],[49,2,49,7],[50,2,50,3],[52,2,52,4],[52,5,52,7],[30,2,31,2],[30,4,30,7],[31,4,31,7],[1,1,7,1],[1,2,7,5],[9,2,9,5],[14,2,14,5],[16,2,16,5],[65,2,65,4],[65,5,65,7],[24,4,24,7],[26,2,26,7],[37,2,37,7],[39,2,39,7],[40,2,40,7],[41,2,41,7],[43,2,43,7],[45,2,45,7],[35,2,35,7],[24,2,24,3],[64,2,64,4],[64,5,64,7],[63,2,63,4],[63,5,63,7]]}
["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 social, economic, cultural and historic 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,"Range of final benefits","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 (2024)",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. Information contained within each profile includes: facts, data and interactive maps; a description of the landscape, including its key characteristics and how the area has changed over time; an overview of the NCA’s natural capital (the benefits of the area to society); statements of environmental opportunity – setting out how the landscape could be managed for the future"]
[null,null,"25 Year Environment Plan Outcome Indicators - Natural Beauty and Engagement theme",null,"Includes an interim composite indicator related to changes in landscape and waterscape character and its effects. The indicator includes 3 key components: changes in landscape characteristics in National Character Areas across all of England; the influence of agri-environment schemes in conserving and enhancing landscape character in England ; and, spatial changes in visual and experiential landscape character in England, overall and by key attributes of character. Aspects include field patterns and boundaries, traditional farm buildings, semi-natural habitats, agricultural land use, dark skies, historic features and woodland/tree cover. A separate indicator measures condition of heritage features including designated geological Sites of Special Scientific Interest and Scheduled Monuments. ",null,null,null,"Updated"]
[null,"Biophysical estimates","The National Character Area profiles provide a wide range of quantitative and statistical data for each area.  "]
[]
[null,"Key sources for valuation","As noted above, landscape as a distinct concept representing a bundle of goods is difficult to value in economic terms.  Studies below are partial and old. See other relevant Tabs e.g. Biodiversity, and the ENCA Assets Databook for specific habitats. "]
[null,"Selected values","Source","Value","Notes"]
[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). Medium to high confidence. See the report for other variants. "]
[null,{"$f":"COUNTA(D33:D43)","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. 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 per 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 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. These can complement more practical ecosytem service-based valuations.  \n\nNHS England has undertaken some experimental modelling (not published) of how crowd-sourced measurements of scenic quality of local places might explain geographical variation in hospital admissions, and their associated costs. A key challenge with this kind of modelling is that where scenicness is a statistically significant variable it may be proxying other socio-economic effects (or other recreation and amenity values) not adequately captured by other variables in the model."]
[]
[null,"Other sources for valuation","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. \n\nSee also Christie et al (2011), with detailed estimates in the Biodiversity Tab for valuation of \"sense of place\" associated with habitat condition. \n\nA 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. More recently research by Frontier for Defra (2021) on the drivers of rural productivity growth found that productivity growth in the services and tourism sectors was (amongst other factors such as accessibility and connectivity) positively associated with being in a National Park or Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.\n\nOther studies on wind farms, onshore and offshore, are referenced in the ENCA Assets Databook under the relevant habitat categories. \n\nDepartment for Culture, Media and Sport (2021) includes some historic landscape-related valuation studies. "]
[]
[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. Aspects of landscape could also in principle feature in the extent and condition accounts. "]
[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's Transport Analysis Guidance on environmental appraisal (2021) includes a chapter on appraising landscape effects using a non-monetary approach.  "]
[null,null,"Further guidance on landscape assessment is provided by the Landscape Institute"]
[null,null,"Townscape Character Assessment is further explained on the Landscape Institute website "]
[]
[null,"Applications and case studies","ENCA Case Study VN6 estimates the benefits to landscape and wildlife from investing in agri-environment schemes, with an estimated Benefit-Cost Ratio of 1.8, valued through other ecosystem services. "]
[]
[null,"Full references and weblinks","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,{"$f":"COUNTA(C52:E67)","v":15},"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,"https://sciencesearch.defra.gov.uk/ProjectDetails?ProjectId=17272"]
[null,null,"Defra, Outcome Indicator Framework for the 25 Year Environment Plan",null,null,"https://oifdata.defra.gov.uk/"]
[null,null,"Department for Culture, Media and Sport (2021), Rapid evidence assessment: culture and heritage valuation studies",null,null,"https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/rapid-evidence-assessment-culture-and-heritage-valuation-studies"]
[null,null,"Department for Transport (2021), 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,"Frontier Economics for Defra (2021), Drivers of rural firm productivity growth",null,null,"https://randd.defra.gov.uk/ProjectDetails?ProjectId=20079"]
[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 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,"https://randd.defra.gov.uk/ProjectDetails?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":27,"n_rows":60,"n_cols":10,"rows_kept":60,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[[59,2,59,4],[59,5,59,7],[57,5,57,7],[56,2,56,4],[56,5,56,7],[58,2,58,4],[58,5,58,7],[51,5,51,7],[53,5,53,7],[51,2,51,4],[53,2,53,4],[57,2,57,4],[55,2,55,4],[55,5,55,7],[54,2,54,4],[54,5,54,7],[52,2,52,4],[52,5,52,7],[43,2,43,7],[45,2,45,7],[47,2,47,7],[49,2,49,7],[37,2,37,7],[33,4,33,7],[32,2,33,2],[39,2,39,7],[41,2,41,7],[42,2,42,7],[34,2,35,2],[34,4,35,7],[24,2,24,5],[27,2,27,7],[23,2,23,5],[32,4,32,7],[31,4,31,7],[26,2,26,7],[28,2,28,7],[21,2,21,5],[1,1,9,1],[12,2,12,5],[17,2,17,5],[19,2,19,5],[1,2,9,5]]}
["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 to which people respond with 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 reflect ethical concerns, although these may be difficult to distinguish from self-interest. They may also be closely related to use or option values. 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,"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 / interventions"]
[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 / hectare 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(D32:D36)","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 metaphysical 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 - but may well underpin revealed \"non-use values\" in the economic sense. See UK National Ecosystem Assessment (2011), pp. 19 and 1074."]
[]
[null,"Other sources for valuation","For sources other than those above, 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.\n\nNatural assets can often have cultural heritage features (and vice versa) that confer non-use values. Values for different types of heritage assets can be found in Historic England's Heritage and the Economy (section 6) and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport's Culture and Heritage Capital Evidence Bank"]
[]
[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 some concept of safe or minimum standards in analyses to help ensure sustainable management of biodiversity (for example all options must ensure no net loss of biodiversity (Bateman and others, 2011). "]
[null,"Guidance on use  in accounting","Non-use values do not sit easily within an accounting framework. According to the UN System of Environmental Economic Accounting -Ecosystem Accounting (section 6.3.4), \"Unlike flows of ecosystem services, there is no direct or indirect interaction with the environment associated with non-use values.  Consequently, while non-use values require that ecosystems exist and may be associated with flows of environmental knowledge or information, it is not considered, from an accounting perspective, that a transaction has taken place consistent with [the accounting framework].\" Instead, SEEA recommends recording these flows separately as \"ecosystem and species appreciation\" to allow compilers to record data that can be directly associated with non-use values such as certain species indicators. Estimates of non-use values in monetary terms may also be presented as \"complementary valuations\" described in section 12 of SEEA EA.\n\nSee 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,"Applications and case studies","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,null,"Department for Culture, Media and Sport (2021), Rapid Evidence Assessment: Culture and Heritage Valuation Studies",null,null,"https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/rapid-evidence-assessment-culture-and-heritage-valuation-studies"]
[null,{"$f":"COUNTA(C52:E71)","v":9},"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,"Historic England, Heritage and the economy - heritage valuation techniques - key heritage valuation studies",null,null,"https://historicengland.org.uk/research/heritage-counts/heritage-and-economy/heritage-valuation/"]
[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,"https://randd.defra.gov.uk/ProjectDetails?ProjectId=15690"]
[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,"https://randd.defra.gov.uk/ProjectDetails?ProjectId=20026"]
["`",null,"UK National Ecosystem Assessment - Technical Report (2011)",null,null,"http://uknea.unep-wcmc.org/Resources/tabid/82/Default.aspx"]
[null,null,"UN System of Environmental Economic Accounting - Ecosystem Accounting (2021)",null,null,"https://seea.un.org/ecosystem-accounting"]

{"sheet":"Air pollution","index":28,"n_rows":72,"n_cols":10,"rows_kept":72,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[[52,2,52,7],[28,2,28,3],[29,4,29,7],[27,4,27,7],[36,2,36,3],[27,2,27,3],[29,2,29,3],[32,2,32,7],[35,4,35,7],[28,4,28,7],[36,4,36,7],[39,4,39,7],[40,4,40,7],[38,2,43,2],[38,3,38,7],[41,4,41,7],[1,1,7,1],[18,2,18,5],[20,2,20,5],[1,2,8,5],[9,2,9,5],[22,2,22,5],[23,2,23,5],[26,2,26,3],[35,2,35,3],[26,4,26,7],[64,2,64,4],[64,5,64,7],[69,5,69,7],[69,2,69,4],[70,2,70,4],[70,5,70,7],[68,2,68,4],[68,5,68,7],[67,2,67,4],[67,5,67,7],[65,2,65,4],[65,5,65,7],[66,2,66,4],[66,5,66,7],[47,2,47,7],[44,2,45,2],[44,4,45,7],[49,2,49,7],[51,2,51,7],[71,2,71,4],[71,5,71,7],[11,2,12,5],[62,2,62,4],[62,5,62,7],[63,2,63,4],[63,5,63,7],[59,2,59,7],[60,2,60,3],[42,4,42,7],[43,4,43,7],[55,2,55,7],[61,2,61,4],[61,5,61,7],[53,2,53,7],[57,2,57,7]]}
["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 UK Health Security Agency estimates that the burden of long-term exposure to air pollution in 2019 in the UK was an effect equivalent to 29,000 to 43,000 deaths for adults aged 30 and over. 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 natural sources, 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","Emissions from industry, transport, residential; 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,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Semi-nat grassland"]
[null,"Interventions"]
[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, ecosystems 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,"Defra 25 Year Environment Plan Outcome Indicators - Air theme",null,"Includes a number of developed indicators related to emissions or concentrations of air pollutants that cause damage to human health and to ecosystems. "]
[null,null,"Defra, Air quality statistics",null,"Concentrations of major air pollutants in the UK  from 1987 to the most current publication year"]
[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. "]
[]
[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 (2023a), Damage Costs Guidance",null,"Damage costs are a set of impact values, measured per tonne of emission by pollutant, which are derived using the more detailed Impact Pathway Approach.  Damage costs are a simple way to value changes in air pollution where impacts are less than £50 million. They estimate the cost to society of a change in emissions of different pollutants. Damage costs are provided by pollutant, source and location. Combine them with emission change forecasts to provide an approximate valuation of the aggregate impacts of a policy. Includes cost calculator toolkit updated to 2023. "]
[null,null,"Defra (2023b), Impact Pathway Approach",null,"This guidance provides an overview of the impact pathway methodology, which is the central methodology for valuing changes in air quality, where air quality is the main objective of the policy or the impact is more than £50 million. It values the air quality effects of proposed decisions where they are \"localised\" - by estimating how changes in the ambient concentrations of air pollutants affect public health, the natural environment and productivity. Includes damage valuation of various pollutants on ecosystem services and guidance on valuation of productivity impacts."]
[null,"Selected values","Source","Value","Notes"]
[null,null,"Defra (2023a)","National average damage cost values for air quality appraisal - central values. These are in 2022 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,"£8,148 / tonne Nox","Central annual damage (benefit) of (reduced) nitrogen oxides"]
[null,null,null,"£16,616 / tonne SO2","Central annual damage (benefit) of (reduced) suphur dioxide"]
[null,null,null,"£9,667 / 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,"£172 / tonne VOC","Central annual damage (benefit) of (reduced) volatile organic compounds"]
[null,{"$f":"COUNTA(D40:D46)","v":7},null,"£74,769 / 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. Values are in 2014 prices. 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). "]
[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 (2023b) which discusses the various analytical issues and uncertainties. "]
[]
[null,"Other sources for valuation","n/a"]
[]
[null,"Guidance on use  in appraisal","See Defra (2023a) and (2023b). HM Treasury Green Book (2022) outlines various approaches to valuation, based on Defra 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, described further below. This is often used to value \nthe consequences of changes in pollution e.g. on health, crops and buildings. \n2. if impacts are greater than £50 million then the “impact pathway” approach should be considered. This involves bespoke modelling specific to the intervention. \n3. for policies likely to result in a breach of any legal limits,  factor in appropriate abatement (and the associated costs) to ensure emissions are below legal limits, and then appraise the health costs accordingly (using impact pathway or damage costs 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, whereas air pollution would be accounted as a pressure (which may in turn affect ecosystem service delivery). 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 (2023) following Green Book states that future health effects should be discounted at 1.5% rather than 3.5% to reflect the assumption that willingness to pay for health outcomes will rise in line with GDP. "]
[]
[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,"Applications and case studies","Damage costs are used to assess air quality impacts of a policy. See for example Defra (2022) Impact Assessment on Air Quality targets. An earlier example 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 2019) 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","Centre for Ecology and Hydrology (2021), Trends Report 2021: Trends in critical load and critical level exceedances in the UK",null,null,"https://uk-air.defra.gov.uk/library/reports?report_id=1020"]
[null,{"$f":"COUNTA(C64:E88)","v":9},"Defra, Air Quality Statistics",null,null,"https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/air-quality-statistics"]
[null,null,"Defra, Outcome Indicator Framework for the 25 Year Environment Plan",null,null,"https://oifdata.defra.gov.uk/"]
[null,{"$f":"COUNTA(C62:E87)","v":11},"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,"Defra (2019) 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://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukdsi/2020/9780348210194/impacts"]
[null,null,"Defra (2022), Environment Act Targets Impact Analysis: Air Quality ",null,null,"https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukia/2023/19/pdfs/ukia_20230019_en.pdf"]
[null,null,"Defra (2023), Assess the impact of air quality - techniques that analysts, consultants and academics can use to assess the effect of air quality on human health and the environment. Includes damage cost guidance and impact pathway approach. ",null,null,"https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/assess-the-impact-of-air-quality"]
[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,"https://randd.defra.gov.uk/ProjectDetails?ProjectId=18679"]
[null,null,"Public Health England (2018) Estimation of costs to the NHS and social care due to the health impacts of air pollution: summary report",null,null,"https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/708855/Estimation_of_costs_to_the_NHS_and_social_care_due_to_the_health_impacts_of_air_pollution_-_summary_report.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"]
[null,null,"UK Health Security Agency (2022), Chemical Hazards and Poisons Report: Reducing health harms associated with air pollution, Issue 28.",null,null,"https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1083447/CHaPR_AQ_Special_Edition_2206116.pdf"]

{"sheet":"Noise","index":29,"n_rows":70,"n_cols":10,"rows_kept":70,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[[1,1,7,1],[1,2,7,5],[10,2,10,5],[16,2,16,5],[18,2,18,5],[8,2,8,5],[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],[54,2,54,7],[56,2,56,7],[57,2,57,7],[58,2,58,7],[60,2,60,7],[67,2,67,4],[67,5,67,7],[69,2,69,4],[69,5,69,7],[64,2,64,7],[65,2,65,3],[24,2,24,3],[24,4,24,7],[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]]}
["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","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,"Click here for guidance on noise reduction by vegetation",null,null,null,null,"Freshwaters"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Woodland"]
[null,"Causes of noise pollution","Transport and industry",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 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,"Strategic Noise Mapping",null,"Strategic noise map data that gives a snapshot of the estimated noise from major road and rail sources across England in 2017. The data was developed as part of implementing the Environmental Noise Directive. It provides summary maps for major road and rail sources and provides links to the detailed Geographic Information Systems (GIS) noise datasets."]
[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 Outcome Indicators - Biosecurity, Chemicals and Noise theme",null,"Includes an interim indicator on \"exposure to transport noise\". The indicator will show the estimated number of people exposed to noise levels (in 5 decibel bands) from the most significant road, rail and air sources. The model for producing this data is in development. Prototype development began in 2021, focussing initially on a small-scale geographical pilot to refine technical approach before subsequent expansion to full-scale national level modelling.",null,null,null,"Updated"]
[]
[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)-1","v":16},"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. The central values are based on the value of a Quality Adjusted Life Year of £60,000. All are in 2014 prices. "]
[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 for valuation","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 Green Book guidance, future noise damage costs should be discounted at 1.5%. this is equivalent to a real terms uplift of 2% each year at 3.5% discount rate. This reflects the assumption that  willingness to pay for health outcomes will rise in line with GDP. "]
[]
[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 (2021) Transport Analysis Guidance - Environmental Impacts which makes use of Defra Guidance above."]
[]
[null,"Applications and case studies","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","Defra, Outcome Indicator Framework for the 25 Year Environment Plan",null,null,"https://oifdata.defra.gov.uk/"]
[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 (2021), Transport Analysis Guidance 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":30,"n_rows":78,"n_cols":10,"rows_kept":78,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[[73,2,73,4],[73,5,73,7],[36,2,36,3],[36,4,36,7],[37,4,37,7],[43,4,43,7],[41,2,41,3],[41,4,41,7],[45,4,45,7],[37,2,37,3],[40,2,40,3],[40,4,40,7],[44,2,48,2],[44,4,44,7],[72,2,72,4],[72,5,72,7],[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],[29,4,29,7],[35,2,35,3],[35,4,35,7],[30,4,30,7],[31,4,31,7],[32,2,32,3],[28,2,28,7],[32,4,33,7],[29,2,31,2],[33,2,33,3],[34,2,34,3],[34,4,34,7],[77,2,77,4],[77,5,77,7],[76,2,76,4],[76,5,76,7],[75,2,75,4],[75,5,75,7],[74,2,74,4],[74,5,74,7],[70,2,70,4],[70,5,70,7],[53,2,53,7],[67,2,67,4],[67,5,67,7],[66,2,66,3],[55,2,55,7],[57,2,57,7],[58,2,58,7],[59,2,59,7],[71,2,71,4],[71,5,71,7],[69,2,69,4],[69,5,69,7],[46,3,46,7],[47,4,47,7],[68,2,68,4],[68,5,68,7],[48,4,48,7],[49,2,51,2],[49,4,51,7],[65,2,65,7],[61,2,61,7],[63,2,63,7]]}
["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, however flood schemes can also bring natural capital benefits. 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 Environment Agency's  Flood and Coastal Erosion 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","Development on floodplains, or in areas vulnerable to surface water flooding; sea-level rise and extreme weather events; 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,"Defra, 25 Year Environment Plan Outcome Indicators - Resilience theme",null,"Includes indicators in development for 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,"HM Treasury Green Book (2024)",null,"Summarises generic Weighted Annual Average Damage estimates (see below)"]
[null,null,"Multi-Coloured Manual ",null,"Includes methods and values for a range of flood cost categories. Representative per-event flood damage figures 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."]
[null,"Selected values","Source","Value","Notes"]
[null,null,"Environment Agency (2018)","£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(D44:D52)","v":9},"Green Book (2024)","£8,000 - £11,000 (2020/21 prices)","Typical damage per property, for a flood event of less than 0.1 metres in depth"]
[null,null,null,"£40,000 - £45,000 (2020/21 prices)","Typical damage per property, for a flood event in excess of 1.2 metres in depth"]
[null,null,null,"To estimate the changing risk of flooding over time, risk is generally measured in terms of changes to Annual Average Damages (AAD). This is the probability-weighted resource cost of flood damage to property and infrastructure, plus adverse health impacts and the resource costs of disruption. Estimating AADs for large scale flood issues requires complex hydraulic modelling to estimate the probability and severity of flooding, and its likely impact on people and assets in a defined spatial area. 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 and non-residential properties across flood events with different probabilities and levels of flood warning service. These high-level values are only suitable for use at high strategic programme or early stage project appraisal. Erosion damages are generally measured by the market value of lost assets discounted from their expected year of loss.  For both flood and coastal erosion schemes, benefits are mainly measured by damages avoided.  When completing appraisals for submission for Flood Defence Grant-in-Aid Funds values in the Multi-Coloured Manual should be used."]
[null,null,null,"£42 per property per annum (2020/21 prices)","National WAAD estimate for a property with existing protection against a “1 in 200 chance” (0.5% annual probability) and a flood warning service of more than 8 hours"]
[null,null,null,"£5,444 per property per annum (2020/21 prices)","National WAAD estimate for a property with no flood protection and no flood-warning service. This would be a property at very high risk (with a probability of being flooded once every 13 years with a flood depth of at least 1.2 meters). "]
[null,null,"Defra et al (2020)","£1878 per adult per event, 0-30 cm","New research to inform appraisal guidance on the mental health costs of flooding. Mental health costs vary depending on the depth of flooding above the internal floor (e.g. for a flood event up to 30cm above internal floor, the mental health cost is £1878 per adult in the affected household). Assumes 2 years of effects for each flood, based on 2018 prices. For sensitivity analysis, use ranges of -14% to +159% to represent higher and lower estimates. The average number of adults per property is 1.85.  These costs can be multiplied by flooding probability assumptions to calculate an expected damage cost.  See Defra / Environment Agency (2020) guidance for correct application in appraisal. This also includes a mental health cost of erosion (£9546 per adult). "]
[null,null,null,"£3028 per adult per event, 30-100 cm"]
[null,null,null,"£4136 per adult per event, 100+ cm"]
[]
[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 for valuation","See also the Flood regulation 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","See Environment Agency, FCERM Appraisal Guidance"]
[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 built 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 Erosion Risk Management - Appraisal Guidance (2021). \n\nWhere FCERM projects include potential effects on natural capital and heritage, see Environment Agency' (2023), which draws heavily on ENCA guidance "]
[]
[null,"Applications and case studies","Environment Agency's Flood and coastal erosion risk management annual reports include assessment of benefits and case studies.  Investment appraisals are generally not open source. Case studies of flood risk schemes involving natural flood management approaches (see Flood regulation Tab) are collated in Working with Natural Processes (2017). See also ENCA Case Studies e.g. VR9."]
[]
[null,"Full references and weblinks","Defra, Outcome Indicator Framework for the 25 Year Environment Plan",null,null,"https://oifdata.defra.gov.uk/"]
[null,null,"Defra, Environment Agency, Welsh Government and Natural Resource Wales (2020), A method for monetising the mental health costs of flooding",null,null,"https://www.gov.uk/flood-and-coastal-erosion-risk-management-research-reports/a-method-for-monetising-the-mental-health-costs-of-flooding"]
[null,null,"Environment Agency, Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk Management: Appraisal Guidance",null,null,"https://www.gov.uk/guidance/fcerm-appraisal-guidance"]
[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 (2018), 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 (2021a), Mental health costs of flooding and erosion",null,null,"https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/mental-health-costs-of-flooding-and-erosion"]
[null,null,"Environment Agency (2023), Environment and Historic Environment Outcomes Valuation - Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk Management supplementary appraisal guidance. Look-up tables",null,null,"https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/environment-and-historic-environment-outcomes-valuation-guidance"]
[null,null,"Environment Agency, Flood and coastal erosion risk management annual reports",null,null,"https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/flood-and-coastal-risk-management-national-report"]
[null,null,"Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk Management Handbook 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 (2022), p.79",null,null,"https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-green-book-appraisal-and-evaluation-in-central-governent"]
[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":31,"n_rows":60,"n_cols":10,"rows_kept":60,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[[19,2,19,5],[42,2,42,7],[44,2,44,7],[46,2,46,7],[29,2,29,3],[29,4,29,7],[31,2,31,3],[30,4,30,7],[23,4,23,7],[23,2,23,3],[24,2,24,3],[34,2,34,7],[24,4,24,7],[27,2,27,3],[27,4,27,7],[58,2,58,4],[58,5,58,7],[51,2,51,4],[51,5,51,7],[54,5,54,7],[54,2,54,4],[52,5,52,7],[52,2,52,4],[53,5,53,7],[53,2,53,4],[1,1,7,1],[1,2,7,5],[9,2,9,5],[15,2,15,5],[17,2,17,5],[12,2,12,3],[59,2,59,4],[48,5,48,7],[59,5,59,7],[36,2,36,7],[56,2,56,4],[56,5,56,7],[47,2,47,3],[38,2,38,7],[39,2,39,7],[50,2,50,4],[50,5,50,7],[55,2,55,4],[55,5,55,7],[40,2,40,7],[57,2,57,4],[57,5,57,7],[49,2,49,4],[49,5,49,7],[48,2,48,4],[28,2,28,3],[28,4,28,7],[30,2,30,3],[32,2,32,3],[32,4,32,7],[31,4,31,7]]}
["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 annual economic impact of invasive non-native species to the British economy has been estimated at £1.7 billion. ",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 ","Reduction in biodiversity loss, productivity loss, 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 Outcome Indicators - Biosecurity, Chemicals and Noise theme",null,"Includes interim 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,"Eschen al (2023)",null,"Updates Williams et al. (2010) estimates of total annual costs (based on direct market costs) of invasive non-native species to Great Britain, now also extended to Northern Ireland. Estimated costs are updated for sectors where new information is available and inflation factor is applied to the remaining sectors and species. Estimated annual cost to the UK economy is approximately £4bn, of which £3bn in England. Overall, the study finds a 45% increase in comparable costs since 2010. The newly established and widely distributed and highly impactful ash dieback is now one of the most costly diseases caused by an invasive non-native species (see also Hill et al 2019)."]
[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 highlighting 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 costs, 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 10 years. 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. The 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."]
[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,null,"Watkiss et al (2019)",null,"Case study cost benefit analyses for the Third UK Climate Change Risk Assessment of the risks from four major pests and pathogens (Phytophthora ramorum, Ash dieback, Dothistroma Red needle blight and Septora, a winter wheat yellowing fungus) and the benefits of further action.  Although this would require additional Government action in terms of monitoring, surveillance and co-ordinating early response action, it projects that the economic benefits of doing so are high compared with the costs (at least 10:1). Given reasonable assumptions on the spread of these four diseases, they estimate the additional damage costs (2018 constant prices, discounted) from climate change by 2050 to be increasing by £67.5 million for Phytophthora ramorum, £178 to £596 million for Ash dieback, £300 million for Dothistroma and decreasing by £83 to 245 million for Septoria."]
[]
[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 for valuation","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. \n\nCuthbert et al (2021) examine the monetary costs of biological invasions in the UK using a global synthesis of reported invasion costs. Invasive alien species have cost the UK economy between £5.4 – £13.7 billion in reported losses and expenses since 1976"]
[]
[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,"Guidance on projecting values","As with Watkiss et al (2019), the costs of invasive species are likely to rise over time with climate change, but this will vary by pathogen and species. See UK Climate Change Risk Assessment, Technical Report chapter 3.3. "]
[]
[null,"Potential overlap with other values","Damage cost estimates from invasive non-native species typically combine both ecosystem service loss and resource costs of one kind or another. They should therefore not be combined with values from other categories in this Databook. "]
[]
[null,"Related guidance","n/a"]
[]
[null,"Applications and case studies","Invasive non-native species are included as a risk in New Anglia's assessment of the environmental risks and opportunities facing the local area's economic (ENCA Case Study AR1) "]
[]
[null,"Full references and weblinks","Cuthbert, R. et al (2021), Economic costs of biological invasions in the United Kingdom, NeoBiota Vol. 67",null,null,"https://pureadmin.qub.ac.uk/ws/portalfiles/portal/248243508/NB_article_59743_en_1.pdf"]
[null,null,"Defra, Outcome Indicator Framework for the 25 Year Environment Plan",null,null,"https://oifdata.defra.gov.uk/"]
[null,{"$f":"COUNTA(C49:E70)","v":12},"Defra (2023) England Biodiversity indicators - Biodiversity 2023: 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,"https://randd.defra.gov.uk/ProjectDetails?ProjectId=20315"]
[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,"Eschen, R., Kadzamira, M., Stutz, S. et al (2023). An updated assessment of the direct costs of invasive non-native species to the United Kingdom. Biological Invasions, Vol 25.",null,null,"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10530-023-03107-2"]
[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,"UK Climate Risk Independent Assessment - Technical Report ",null,null,"https://www.ukclimaterisk.org/publications/technical-report-ccra3-ia/"]
[null,null,"Watkiss et al (2019), Impacts of climate change on meeting Government outcomes in England. For UK Climate Change Committee ",null,null,"https://www.theccc.org.uk/publication/impacts-of-climate-change-on-meeting-government-outcomes-in-england-paul-watkiss-associates/"]
[null,null,"Williams, F et al (2010). The economic cost of invasive non-native species on Great Britain. CABI.",null,null,"http://www.mari-odu.org/academics/2018s_adaptation/commons/library/Williams_etal_2010.pdf"]