The monetary value of 16 services protected by the Australian National Biosecurity System: Spatially explicit estimates and vulnerability to incursions

•The Australian biosecurity systems protect numerous assets from numerous threats.•We estimate the value of 16 different services associated with those assets at > $250b p.a.•More than half of those values are ‘non-market’ (some cultural and regulating services)•Incursions will reduce values maki...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Ecosystem services 2023-04, Vol.60, p.101509, Article 101509
Hauptverfasser: Stoeckl, Natalie, Dodd, Aaron, Kompas, Tom
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:•The Australian biosecurity systems protect numerous assets from numerous threats.•We estimate the value of 16 different services associated with those assets at > $250b p.a.•More than half of those values are ‘non-market’ (some cultural and regulating services)•Incursions will reduce values making regions Vulnerable to incursions (loss of values)•Spatial heterogeneity in assets and values generates heterogenous Vulnerabilities. Biosecurity systems protect numerous assets, distributed differentially across space. Focusing on Australia’s 56 natural resource management regions, we generate spatially explicit estimates of the current value of 16 different services generated by assets that are protected by the biosecurity system (hereafter values). Benefit transfer functions are used to generate some values; others are derived from observable market data. Across all regions and services, we estimate an aggregate value of approximately $250b p.a. Nearly 90% of those values are ecosystem service values, associated with Australia’s Natural Capital and more than one-half are services not normally bought or sold in the marketplace (e.g., a subset of cultural and most regulating services). We use insights from the literature, in conjunction with our values, to estimate the potential losses that (a) weeds and (b) invertebrates, could inflict in different regions – hereafter, vulnerabilities (potential $ losses per hectare p.a.). Urban areas are generally more vulnerable than remote areas, and many regions are more vulnerable to invertebrates than weeds, but weed vulnerabilities dominate in several of the large, remote, NRMs across the north, in the ‘outback’ and in the west. Our values can be used to assess the vulnerability of natural capital, and other capitals, to a wide range of other threats and are thus of potential use in numerous policy settings. Our generic approach to considering impacts at large geographic scale (using values and then assessing vulnerabilities) is one that is useful and transferrable to other settings across the world.
ISSN:2212-0416
2212-0416
DOI:10.1016/j.ecoser.2023.101509