ECOSYSTEM SERVICES Towards integrated marine infrastructure project - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

▶
ecosystem services
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

ECOSYSTEM SERVICES Towards integrated marine infrastructure project - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Mar 26, 2023 36 likes •636 views

ECOSYSTEM SERVICES Towards integrated marine infrastructure project assessment Annelies Boerema, Katrien Van der Biest, Patrick Meire University of Antwerp Commissioned by: Master & PhD & post doc Environmental science ~Ecosystem

slide-1
SLIDE 1

ECOSYSTEM SERVICES

Towards integrated marine infrastructure project assessment

Annelies Boerema, Katrien Van der Biest, Patrick Meire University of Antwerp

Commissioned by:

slide-2
SLIDE 2

Master & PhD & post‐doc Environmental science ~Ecosystem services ~Environmental economics

slide-3
SLIDE 3

Master Business engineering Economy Master & PhD & post‐doc Environmental science ~Ecosystem services ~Environmental economics

slide-4
SLIDE 4

Master Business engineering Economy Master & PhD & post‐doc Environmental science ~Ecosystem services ~Environmental economics Research group Ecosystem management Biology

slide-5
SLIDE 5

Master Business engineering Economy Master & PhD & post‐doc Environmental science ~Ecosystem services ~Environmental economics Research group Ecosystem management Biology

slide-6
SLIDE 6

Dredging and marine infrastructure projects

slide-7
SLIDE 7

Dredging and marine infrastructure projects

1 Western Scheldt container terminal, Netherlands Usable land, port capacity

slide-8
SLIDE 8

Dredging and marine infrastructure projects

2 Botany Bay expansion, Australia Usable land, port capacity

slide-9
SLIDE 9

Dredging and marine infrastructure projects

3 Construction of protective dunes Sand Engine, Netherlands

slide-10
SLIDE 10

Dredging and marine infrastructure projects

4 C‐power windfarm, Belgium Energy production

slide-11
SLIDE 11

Dredging and marine infrastructure projects

5 Flood control area, Belgium Flood prevention

slide-12
SLIDE 12

Open water Bay Seagrass Beach Tidal wetland Quay wall Hard substrate

slide-13
SLIDE 13

Project approach

Demonstrate how the concept of ecosystem services can contribute to more integrated assessment of marine infrastructure project

slide-14
SLIDE 14

Ecosystem services

“The benefits that humans derive from nature”

slide-15
SLIDE 15

Ecosystem services

“The benefits that humans derive from nature”

Human wellbeing Society ‐ Economy Nature Ecosystems and biodiversity

slide-16
SLIDE 16

Ecosystem services

“The benefits that humans derive from nature”

Human wellbeing Society ‐ Economy

Biophysical structure or process Function Benefit(s) Value for society Ecosystem service

Nature Ecosystems and biodiversity

slide-17
SLIDE 17

ES Food production: fish

slide-18
SLIDE 18

ES Food production: fish

Nature: ecosystems and biodiversity Data:

  • fish stock per area (ton)
  • fish productivity per area (ton/y)

‐ amount of fish available: open water, sea floor (crab, shrimp, flatfish, …), hard substrata in the sea, estuary, harbor (oyster, mussel, …) ‐ Important factors: amount of food available for fish to feed on, biomass production, water quality, nursery function and biodiversity

slide-19
SLIDE 19

ES Food production: fish

Nature: ecosystems and biodiversity Data:

  • fish stock per area (ton)
  • fish productivity per area (ton/y)

‐ amount of fish available: open water, sea floor (crab, shrimp, flatfish, …), hard substrata in the sea, estuary, harbor (oyster, mussel, …) ‐ Important factors: amount of food available for fish to feed on, biomass production, water quality, nursery function and biodiversity

Benefit to society Data:

  • fish catch (ton/y)
  • fish consumption (ton/y)
  • nutrition (kCal/ton, kJ/ton)
slide-20
SLIDE 20

ES Water quality regulation

slide-21
SLIDE 21

ES Water quality regulation

Nature: ecosystems and biodiversity Data:

  • Capacity of habitat types to

remove nutrients from the water

  • kg N (or P) removed/ha/y

‐ Denitrification: biological processes that result in permanent removal of nutrients from an ecosystems ‐ Nutrient cycling: transfer of primary production to higher trophic levels ‐ Nutrient burial: burial through sedimentation of

  • rganic material (especially in estuaries)
slide-22
SLIDE 22

ES Water quality regulation

Nature: ecosystems and biodiversity Data:

  • Capacity of habitat types to

remove nutrients from the water

  • kg N (or P) removed/ha/y

‐ Denitrification: biological processes that result in permanent removal of nutrients from an ecosystems ‐ Nutrient cycling: transfer of primary production to higher trophic levels ‐ Nutrient burial: burial through sedimentation of

  • rganic material (especially in estuaries)

Benefit to society Data:

  • €/kg N (or P) removed: shadow

cost avoided cost for society to replace nitrogen

removal by technical measures to reach the water quality standard ‐ when it prevents leakage of nitrogen to ground‐ and surface water reserves ‐ when it removes excessive nitrogen from water reserves

slide-23
SLIDE 23

ES Recreation

slide-24
SLIDE 24

ES Recreation

Nature: ecosystems and biodiversity Data:

  • Area with recreation opportunities

per habitat type

‐ Accessible areas ‐ Attractive areas

slide-25
SLIDE 25

ES Recreation

Nature: ecosystems and biodiversity Data:

  • Area with recreation opportunities

per habitat type

‐ Accessible areas ‐ Attractive areas

Benefit to society Data:

  • Number of visitors to an area
  • Added value to visit a specific area
  • Money spent during a visit

‐ Recreation and tourism ‐ Health effects

slide-26
SLIDE 26

ES assessment

PROJECT

Step 1 Habitat changes (before vs after)

slide-27
SLIDE 27

ES assessment

PROJECT

Step 1 Habitat changes (before vs after) Step 2 ES delivery per habitat type

slide-28
SLIDE 28

ES assessment

PROJECT

Step 1 Habitat changes (before vs after) Step 2 ES delivery per habitat type Step 3 Local context, underlying processes

slide-29
SLIDE 29

ES assessment

PROJECT

Step 1 Habitat changes (before vs after) Step 2 ES delivery per habitat type Step 3 Local context, underlying processes Step 4 Qualitative, quantitative and monetary

slide-30
SLIDE 30

Scope: illustration of the approach

ES assessment

slide-31
SLIDE 31

Scope: illustration of the approach

e.g. to add environmental aspects into a traditional CBA

ES assessment

slide-32
SLIDE 32

Scope: illustration of the approach

e.g. to add environmental aspects into a traditional CBA

5 case studies: ‐ Examples of the approach ‐ Based on available data ‐ Focus is not on the accuracy of data

ES assessment

slide-33
SLIDE 33

Case 1: New container terminal

Port Botany Expansion, Sydney, Australia

  • 2011
  • 60 hectares of reclaimed terminal land
  • construction of 1.85 km of shipping wharves

with deep water berths

slide-34
SLIDE 34

Case 1: New container terminal

Port Botany Expansion, Sydney, Australia

  • 2011
  • 60 hectares of reclaimed terminal land
  • construction of 1.85 km of shipping wharves

with deep water berths

  • Penrhyn Estuary Habitat enhancement
  • Foreshore beach development
slide-35
SLIDE 35

Habitat & land use changes (before vs after)

Bay: ‐60 ha

Intertidal sand and mudflats: +8.3 ha

Saltmarsh: +2 ha Mangrove: ‐1 ha Seagrass: +6 ha Shrub: ‐11 ha Rock rubble: +2 ha Quay: +1850m

&Foreshore beach development &Penrhyn Estuary Habitat enhancement

Port Botany Expansion Case 1: new container terminal

slide-36
SLIDE 36

Results ES assessment

Case 1: new container terminal

&Foreshore beach development &Penrhyn Estuary Habitat enhancement

Port Botany Expansion Opportunities for transportation Fish production Qualitative, quantitative and/or monetary assessment Climate regulation Water quality regulation Air quality regualtion Sedimentation /erosion regulation Recreation Biodiversity

+8,000 TEUs/y port capacity Increase nursery area Capacity: ‐56 tonC/y ‐12,320 €/y Capacity: ‐2,223 kgN/y +120 kgP/y ‐82,277 €/y Capacity: ‐312 kgPM10/y ‐18,848 €/y Capacity: +3350 m³ /y Enhanced with the recreation plan Positive impact on shorebirds is expected

slide-37
SLIDE 37

Results ES assessment

Case 1: new container terminal

&Foreshore beach development &Penrhyn Estuary Habitat enhancement

Opportunities for transportation Fish production Port Botany Expansion Water quality regulation Air quality regualtion Sedimentation /erosion regulation Recreation Biodiversity

+8,000 TEUs/y port capacity Increase nursery area Capacity: ‐2,223 kgN/y +120 kgP/y ‐82,277 €/y Capacity: ‐312 kgPM10/y ‐18,848 €/y Capacity: +3350 m³ /y Enhanced with the recreation plan Positive impact on shorebirds is expected

Qualitative, quantitative and/or monetary assessment

Habitat ha C sequestration (tonC/ha/y)

  • Mon. value

Lagoon, bay ‐59 0.068 220 €/tonC Seagrass +6 1.38 Mangroves ‐1 0.83 – 3 Intertidal flat +8.3 0.5 ‐ 2.5 Marsh +2 0.5 ‐ 2.5 Rock rubble +1.9 Shrubland ‐11.1 6.8 Capacity: ‐56 tonC/y ‐12,320 €/y

Climate regulation

slide-38
SLIDE 38

Results ES assessment

Case 1: new container terminal

&Foreshore beach development &Penrhyn Estuary Habitat enhancement

Port Botany Expansion Opportunities for transportation Fish production Qualitative, quantitative and/or monetary assessment Climate regulation Water quality regulation Sedimentation /erosion regulation Recreation Biodiversity

+8,000 TEUs/y port capacity Increase nursery area Capacity: ‐56 tonC/y ‐12,320 €/y Capacity: ‐2,223 kgN/y +120 kgP/y ‐82,277 €/y Capacity: +3350 m³ /y Enhanced with the recreation plan Positive impact on shorebirds is expected Habitat ha Fine dust capture Mon. value Lagoon, bay ‐59 54 €/kg Seagrass +6 Mangroves ‐1 ‐44‐88 kgPM10/y Intertidal flat +8.3 Marsh +2 36‐72 kgPM10/y Rock rubble +1.9 Shrubland ‐11.1 ‐200‐400 kgPM10/y Capacity: ‐312 kgPM10/y ‐18,848 €/y

Air quality regualtion

slide-39
SLIDE 39

Full ES assessment

Case 1: new container terminal

&Foreshore beach development &Penrhyn Estuary Habitat enhancement

Port Botany Expansion Water transportation, port capacity Recreation Biodiversity (birds, fish)

slide-40
SLIDE 40

Full ES assessment

Case 1: new container terminal

&Foreshore beach development &Penrhyn Estuary Habitat enhancement

Port Botany Expansion Water transportation, port capacity Recreation Biodiversity (birds, fish)

ES assessment ‐> integral benefits

  • Habitat compensation not

sufficient to compensate all negative effects of the new terminal e.g. climate regulation, water quality regulation, air quality regulation

slide-41
SLIDE 41

Case 2: Flood control area

Polders of Kruibeke, Scheldt estuary, Belgium

  • Flood control area: water storage area
  • + nature development

Combined plan: 1. Wet meadows 2. Alderbrook forest 3. Tidal wetland combined with wet meadows 4. Tidal wetland

slide-42
SLIDE 42

Habitat & land use changes (before vs after)

Case 2: flood control area ‐600 ha +150 ha +200 ha

Cropland Alder brook forest Tidal wetland Wet meadows

+237 ha

slide-43
SLIDE 43

Results ES assessment

Case 2: flood control area Qualitative, quantitative and/or monetary assessment Flood protection Fish production Livestock grazing Climate regulation Water quality regulation Recreation Sediment /erosion regulation Biodiversity Wood production Air quality regulation

Nursery habitat Sediment burial in tidal wetland Walking and cycling trails Biodiversity of wetlands, meadows, forest

Food: crops

Capacity: ‐74.635 ton CO2/y ‐175.715 €/y Capacity: +40 ton N/y +0.5 ton P/y 1.632.549 €/y 237 ha 132.658 €/y +640 m³ /y 14.555 €/y Capacity: +21 tonPM10/y 1.130.324 €/y 600 ha 100 million € ‐600 ha 1.100.734 €/y

slide-44
SLIDE 44

Results ES assessment

Case 2: flood control area Qualitative, quantitative and/or monetary assessment Flood protection Fish production Climate regulation Water quality regulation Recreation Sediment /erosion regulation Biodiversity Wood production Air quality regulation

Nursery habitat Sediment burial in tidal wetland Walking and cycling trails Biodiversity of wetlands, meadows, forest

Food: crops

Capacity: ‐74.635 ton CO2/y ‐175.715 €/y Capacity: +40 ton N/y +0.5 ton P/y 1.632.549 €/y +640 m³ /y 14.555 €/y Capacity: +21 tonPM10/y 1.130.324 €/y 600 ha 100 million € ‐600 ha 1.100.734 €/y Area for livestock grazing: ha Wet meadows, marshes, dikes Potential productivity: €/ha/y Depends on land use and biophysical suitability:

  • Natural grassland with extensive grazing

(with given soil texture and ground water depth) 560 €/ha/y

237 ha 132.658 €/y

Livestock grazing

slide-45
SLIDE 45

Results ES assessment

Case 2: flood control area Qualitative, quantitative and/or monetary assessment Flood protection Fish production Livestock grazing Climate regulation Recreation Sediment /erosion regulation Biodiversity Wood production Air quality regulation

Nursery habitat Sediment burial in tidal wetland Walking and cycling trails Biodiversity of wetlands, meadows, forest

Food: crops

Capacity: ‐74.635 ton CO2/y ‐175.715 €/y 237 ha 132.658 €/y +640 m³ /y 14.555 €/y Capacity: +21 tonPM10/y 1.130.324 €/y 600 ha 100 million € ‐600 ha 1.100.734 €/y

Water quality regulation

Habitat ha Denitrification

  • Mon. value

Cropland ‐600 ‐35 kgN/ha/y 40 €/kgN Wet meadows 237 13 kgN/ha/y Alder brook forest 150 9 kgN/ha/y Tidal wetland 200 140‐200 kgN/ha/y Habitat ha N‐burial

  • Mon. value

Tidal wetland 200 15‐250 kgN/ha/y 40 €/kgN Habitat ha P‐burial

  • Mon. Value

Tidal wetland 200 1‐40 kgP/ha/y 55 €/kgP Capacity: +40 ton N/y +0.5 ton P/y 1.632.549 €/y

slide-46
SLIDE 46

Results ES assessment

Case 2: flood control area Qualitative, quantitative and/or monetary assessment 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 Cropland Wet meadows Alderbrook forest Tidal wetland €/ha/y

Ecosystem services value

A B C D

! Average values ! Limited number of ES ! Only ES with monetary value

slide-47
SLIDE 47

Full ES assessment

Case 2: flood control area Flood prevention Habitat for birds Tidal marsh for estuarine functions

slide-48
SLIDE 48

Full ES assessment

Case 2: flood control area Flood prevention Habitat for birds Tidal marsh for estuarine functions

ES assessment ‐> integral benefits

  • Positive for more ES

e.g. air quality regulation, water quality regulation, livestock grazing, recreation

  • But, also negative side effect

Loss food production crops, GHG emissions

slide-49
SLIDE 49

CBA with ES assessment

Case 2: flood control area

slide-50
SLIDE 50

CBA with ES assessment

Case 2: flood control area Without ES benefits €

‐200.000.000 ‐100.000.000 100.000.000 200.000.000 Costs Benefits Sum Costs Benefits Sum Without project With project Investment Maintenance (100y) Food (100y) Flood (100y) Sum

Food Flood safety

slide-51
SLIDE 51

CBA with ES assessment

Case 2: flood control area Without ES benefits €

‐200.000.000 ‐100.000.000 100.000.000 200.000.000 Costs Benefits Sum Costs Benefits Sum Without project With project Investment Maintenance (100y) Food (100y) Flood (100y) Sum

+additional ES benefits €

‐200.000.000 ‐100.000.000 100.000.000 200.000.000 Costs Benefits Sum Costs Benefits Sum Without project With project Investment Maintenance (100y) Food (100y) Flood (100y) Additional ES benefits (100y) Sum

Food Flood safety

slide-52
SLIDE 52

CBA with ES assessment

Case 2: flood control area Without ES benefits €

‐200.000.000 ‐100.000.000 100.000.000 200.000.000 Costs Benefits Sum Costs Benefits Sum Without project With project Investment Maintenance (100y) Food (100y) Flood (100y) Sum

+additional ES benefits €

‐200.000.000 ‐100.000.000 100.000.000 200.000.000 Costs Benefits Sum Costs Benefits Sum Without project With project Investment Maintenance (100y) Food (100y) Flood (100y) Additional ES benefits (100y) Sum

Food Flood safety

slide-53
SLIDE 53

Provisioning Regulating Cultural Category Ecosystem services Habitat type Fish production Agricultural production Wood production Water production for potable water Water provisioning for transportation Climate regulation Water quality regulation Air quality regulation Flood protection Sedimentation and erosion regul. Recreation Heritage Cognitive development, Heritage Biodiversity Offshore Shallow, soft substrate Open water Shore Foreshore Beach Lagoon, bay Sea grass Mangroves Estuary Subtidal deep habitat Subtidal shallow habitat Bare tidal flat Low tidal marsh High tidal marsh Hard substrate Artificial reefs at all depth Terrestrial Dunes Dune lake Cropland Grassland Forest Wetland

Project

Changes in ecosystems, habitats, land use Effects on the delivery

  • f ecosystem services

Benefits (or negative effects) to society

SUMMARY

Habitats and ES assessed in the 5 case studies Ecosystem services, biodiversity

H A B I T A T (See report p.10)

slide-54
SLIDE 54

Messages

ES assessment for marine projects 1. Qualitative assessment: inventory of habitat changes and changes in ES delivery (+ or -)

– Exploratory tool: negative effects? create benefits? – Make potential consequences explicit – Identify relevant stakeholders

slide-55
SLIDE 55

Messages

ES assessment for marine projects 2. Quantitative assessment: calculation of changes & Monetary values

– Tool to compare the impact of project alternatives, scenarios – Input for CBA including environmental benefits / costs

  • Recognize the broad societal relevance
  • f the environment in which you operate
slide-56
SLIDE 56

Messages

Remarks

 Desktop study: examples with available data

  • Future applications: look to relevant data for your case

(monitoring, stakeholders)  Example for end phase of the projects (Not: construction phase)  ES assessment ≠ Environmental Impact Assessment  ES assessment ≠ full CBA

SCOPE: Illustration of the approach

slide-57
SLIDE 57

Messages

Recommendation

 ES assessment in an early project stage  Allows for modification of the project

  • to generate added value
  • to avoid destruction that is impossible to mitigate

 Create support from different stakeholders from the start

slide-58
SLIDE 58

Questions?

slide-59
SLIDE 59

PDF full report

http://www.iadc‐dredging.com

Terra et Aqua 141 (2015)

slide-60
SLIDE 60

University of Antwerp

  • Prof. Patrick Meire
  • Dr. Annelies Boerema
  • Katrien Van der Biest

Contact: patrick.meire@uantwerpen.be annelies.boerema@uantwerpen.be

Thank you for your attention

IADC

  • René Kolman

Contact: kolman@iadc-dredging.com