Journal of Environmental Management 327 (2023) 116272

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Environmental Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jenvman

Does local Natural Capital Accounting deliver useful policy and

management information? A case study of Dartmoor and Exmoor
National Parks
Michela Faccioli a, b, *, Sara Zonneveld b, c, Charles R. Tyler c, Brett Day b
a
School of International Studies & Department of Economics and Management, University of Trento, via Inama 5, 38122, Trento, Italy
b
Land, Environment, Economics and Policy (LEEP) Institute, Economics Department, Business School, University of Exeter (UK) Xfi Building, Rennes Drive, EX4 4PU,
Exeter, UK
c
College of Life and Environmental Sciences, Biosciences, University of Exeter, Geoffrey Pope Building, Stocker Road, EX4 4QD, Exeter, UK

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

JEL classification: Natural capital accounting provides a systematic framework through which to quantify the benefits of natural
M48 assets. National-scale applications have demonstrated the feasibility of developing such accounts and their value
Government Policy and Regulation as a tool to support environmental policy and management decisions. Building on that success, there have been
Q51
increasing calls for sub-national organisations (for example, protected area authorities and water companies) to
Valuation of Environmental Effects
Q56
develop their own natural capital accounts. As we document in this paper, recent efforts by local organisations in
Environment and Development the UK to produce such accounts have tended to rely on a set of ‘standard practice’ methods, many borrowed
Environment and Trade directly from national natural capital accounting exercises. In this paper, we review those methods and apply
Sustainability them in producing natural capital accounts for two UK National Parks. Working with the National Park Au­
Environmental Accounts and Accounting thorities, we critically assess the usefulness of those accounts to inform local land management. On account of
Environmental Equity data gaps and significant sensitivity to methodological assumptions, our research shows that these local accounts
Population Growth are considered of limited practical use for land management decision making at a local scale. Through specific
Keywords: illustrative examples, we show that natural capital accounts for local decision-making can be improved through:
Environmental accounts the inclusion of fit-for-purpose data and valuation methods, the consideration of uncertainties, and the incor­
Local scale
poration of ecological information and spatial aspects. We also highlight the need for the development of both
‘Standard practice’
standardised guidelines and readily-available tools to quantify and value ecosystem services.
Critical assessment
Environmental policy and management
National parks

1. Introduction
Natural capital – the habitats and ecosystems that underpin our
natural environment – provides numerous goods and services (e.g. food,
timber, clean air and water, recreational opportunities, etc.) that are of
great value to society (Guerry et al., 2015; Costanza et al., 2017). In­
formation on the values of these ecosystem services is, however, not
readily available because most are not exchanged in markets and do not
command a price that signals their economic importance. The absence of
estimates of the economic importance of most ecosystem services im­
plies that the value of nature to society is routinely underestimated in
decision- and policy-making (Hanley and Barbier, 2009). In turn, the
social welfare benefits of preserving nature are largely overlooked and
the social costs of exploiting natural resources are insufficiently
considered (Atkinson et al., 2018).
The costs of environmental degradation and the benefits of envi­
ronmental protection can be made more visible by developing natural
capital accounts. Natural capital accounts record changes in the extent
and condition of natural assets over time and measure the resulting
variation in the flow of ecosystem services they provide. This allows for
the valuation of the costs of environmental losses and the benefits of
environmental conservation or enhancement (Dickie and Neupauer,

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: michela.faccioli-1@unitn.it (M. Faccioli), zonneveldsara@gmail.com (S. Zonneveld), c.r.tyler@exeter.ac.uk (C.R. Tyler), brett.day@exeter.ac.uk
(B. Day).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.116272
Received 2 October 2021; Received in revised form 30 April 2022; Accepted 11 September 2022
Available online 12 December 2022
0301-4797/© 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
M. Faccioli et al.
2019), frequently quantified in monetary terms to enable comparison
with other market costs and benefits (Boyd et al., 2018).
Within the field of natural capital accounting, initiatives to date have
focused primarily on the development of national scale accounts. The
United Nations (through the System of Environmental Economic Ac­
counting, SEEA; UN, 2014a, 2014b) and the World Bank (through the
Wealth Accounting and the Valuation of Ecosystem Services partner­
ship, WAVES1) have created a suite of international standards and rules
for the design of natural capital accounts and, following these standards,
numerous countries (e.g. the UK, the Netherlands, China, Costa Rica)
have built their own nationwide natural capital accounts (Bright et al.,
2019; Hein et al., 2020; Horlings et al., 2020). More recently (e.g.
through the Natural Capital Protocol initiative; Natural Capital Coali­
tion, 2016), natural capital accounting has also been promoted at local
scale – at the level of businesses, NGOs or governmental departments
who own and/or manage environmental assets at sub-national or
organisational scale (Agarwala et al., 2014). This is important as these
local and regional businesses and organisations play a crucial role in the
management and preservation of natural resources and hence in the
delivery of ecosystem services.2
Natural capital accounting at local or organisational level can fulfil
many purposes. For example, it can “document an organisation’s owner­
ship, liability and assets related to natural capital” (Provins et al., 2015)
and it can help balance competing priorities and identify opportunities
to enhance ecosystem functioning. It can also promote awareness about
the importance of natural capital and the interdependencies between the
environment and people. Offering a systematic framework to monitor
and assess changes in natural capital over time, natural capital accounts
can also help identify trade-offs between different land uses and/or
ecosystem services. These tools can also be used to provide evidence
regarding the importance and value of given natural assets or ecosystem
services that might be used to influence policy and funding decisions
(Bright et al., 2019).
Developing natural capital accounts at the local scale has been
particularly encouraged in the UK for protected areas, such as National
Parks, because these organisations own or manage significant habitats,
and thus are key in achieving national or international conservation
goals (Brown et al., 2016; Natural Capital Committee, 2018 3). So far
only a small number of natural capital accounting studies have been
conducted for protected areas, most of them in the UK (e.g. White et al.,
2015; Sunderland et al., 2019) with a few other examples in other
countries (e.g. UNEP-WCMC, 2016; Franzese et al., 2017; Vassallo et al.,
2017; Paoli et al., 2018; Sutton et al., 2019).
Many protected area management organisations (including National
Park Authorities and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty partnerships),
however, struggle with the task of producing natural capital accounts.
This is mainly due to a lack of both resources and clear methodological
guidance to quantify the environmental assets that these organisations
own or manage and value the ecosystem services that these assets pro­
vide. In most cases, local natural capital accounting efforts (e.g. White
et al., 2015) have adapted existing methods, primarily developed for
accounting at international and national scale; for example, methods
suggested in the SEEA Central Framework and the SEEA Experimental
Ecosystem Accounting (SEEA EEA). Despite the growing number of local
1
https://www.wavespartnership.org/en/natural-capital-accounting.
2
An illustrative example of this is water companies in the UK who are
increasingly requested to incorporate natural capital accounting in their busi­
ness plans to ensure that organisational activities deliver environmental im­
provements that benefit society (Ofwat, 2019).
3
In its 2018 annual report, the Natural Capital Committee stated that “Eng­
land’s National Parks contain very significant natural capital, and their powers and
duties should be extended to support the objectives of the 25 Year Environment Plan
… Where practical, each National Park should quantify and value the main natural
capital assets in its area”.
2
Journal of Environmental Management 327 (2023) 116272
scale applications, however, to date little attention has been devoted to
understanding the extent to which these approaches are appropriate at a
local scale (Natural Capital Committee, 2019; Dickie and Neupauer,
2019; Barker, 2019).
Methods used for national natural capital accounting may, in fact,
not be appropriate or even feasible at the local scale. Difficulties may
arise immediately due to the lack of suitable data, expertise and/or re­
sources to comprehensively monitor natural capital and ecosystem ser­
vice flows. Scaled-down for local accounting applications, these
approaches may deliver only superficial, even highly-misleading as­
sessments if location-specific issues are overlooked. As a result, local
natural capital accounting assessments following international or na­
tional guidelines and methods may be inaccurate, incomplete or biased.
To address the above research gaps, in this paper we critically assess
the advantages and limitations of the methodologies currently used in
local natural capital accounting. To achieve this, we:
• review recent natural capital accounting efforts, scoping and pilot
case studies developed with, or for, organisations which are heavily
involved in the conservation or management of the environment.
• replicate the approaches of the reviewed studies and produce natural
capital accounts for two UK National Parks: Dartmoor and Exmoor,
located in southwest England.
• then test the sensitivity of the accounts to the use of different data
sources and methodologies, and
• draw conclusions regarding the informativeness of the accounts for
management purposes, by highlighting ways in which the overall
accuracy and usefulness of the accounts may be improved.
2. Methodology
2.1. Natural capital accounting in theory
Natural capital accounting finds its origins in the natural capital
approach - a way of thinking about nature as a production system that
provides humans with flows of valuable goods and services
(Özdemiroğlu, 2019). The core focus of the natural capital approach has
been in the field of project and policy appraisal. For clarity, we here
explain the key differences between natural capital appraisal and nat­
ural capital accounting. In a natural capital appraisal setting, the task is
to evaluate the environmental impacts of a project or policy; or, in the
language of the natural capital approach, to identify the impacts of the
policy or project on natural capital and evaluate the changes in flows of
ecosystem services that arise as a consequence. This appraisal frame­
work progresses in four core steps:
1. Establish the changes in the extent and condition of the natural
capital assets or stocks (i.e. the living and non-living components of
the natural environment) that could be associated with or have
resulted from a given environmental policy (Barbier, 2019).
2. Map the pathways through which changes in natural capital result in
changes in the flows of ecosystem goods and services (Dickie and
Neupauer, 2019).
3. Estimate the economic surplus generated by the identified changes in
the provision of ecosystem goods and services.
4. Use the information obtained from steps 1 to 3 to inform decision-
making, e.g. to design policies and management practices to
enhance natural capital and maximise the delivery of ecosystem
goods and services.
There are two key things to note about this natural capital approach
to project and policy appraisal. First, the fact that the approach concerns
itself with ‘changes’; that is to say, appraisal is about understanding how
some particular (or anticipated) change in natural capital arising from
the policy or project influences the flows of environmental goods and
services enjoyed by society. Second, this approach is essentially an
M. Faccioli et al.
extension of social cost-benefit analysis and follows the long-established
rules of that appraisal method. For our purposes, the most important of
those is that changes arising from an intervention are evaluated in terms
of their impact on ‘economic surplus’.4 Accordingly, the natural capital
approach to appraisal proceeds through first quantifying changes in
flows of ecosystem services in biophysical units and metrics (e.g. tonnes
of CO2 sequestered by trees), and then converting those into measures of
economic surplus, usually through the application of techniques of non-
market valuation (for an overview, see Champ et al., 2003). This
approach allows decision makers to assess the relative merits of a pro­
posed policy or project through presenting a comprehensive measure of
the associated environmental benefits and costs.
While derived from the same fundamental idea (that natural capital
delivers value to society), natural capital accounting uses a methodology
distinct from social cost-benefit analysis. Natural capital accounts were
originally conceived to expand the boundaries of the System of National
Accounts (SNA) to provide a more complete picture of the economic
wealth of nations. In the SNA the value of a nation’s capital stock is
evaluated by first establishing the quantity of each different type of stock
(e.g. buildings, the machinery used in factories, infrastructure like
highways and ports, etc.) and then valuing those quantities at their
market prices.5 Roughly speaking, the purpose is to provide a snapshot
of the state of a nation’s current stock of capital, valuing that stock at
market prices. Efforts to extend the SNA to include natural capital stocks
(for example, the SEEA EEA) have sought to adhere to the same core
accounting rules. A challenge here is to establish market prices for
natural capitals that are not traded in markets. This challenge has been
met by the development of methods to estimate per unit ‘exchange
values’; that is to say, an estimate of the payments that might change
hands if natural capital were freely traded on a market (Obst et al., 2016;
Barton et al., 2019a; Fenichel and Hashida, 2019).
Accordingly, natural capital accounting differs from natural capital
appraisal in two fundamental ways:
• First, natural capital accounting examines the value flow from the
current stock and not, as is the case with appraisal, with some policy-
driven change in the levels of stocks.
• Second, it values natural capital using estimates of exchange values
and not, as in the case with appraisal, using estimates of economic
surplus.6
Natural capital accounts, therefore, provide a very different form of
informational input to decision makers and are essentially a monitoring
tool, as summarised in the Enabling a Natural Capital Approach (ENCA)
guidance (Defra, 2021). When compiled at temporal intervals, they
provide a means through which decision-makers can observe the accu­
mulated impact of management decisions on natural capital stocks over
time. In addition, natural capital accounts provide a way to understand
4 Often a “one-size-fits-all” approach, as arises from the application of
Put simply, economic surplus is a monetary measure of the benefits that
individuals derive, in this case, from flows of ecosystem services. Economic
surplus is measured as the difference between the maximum amount that an
individual would pay for that service (their willingness to pay) and the amount
that they have to pay for it (for a market good, this would be its market price).
5
More formally the SNA uses what it terms ‘exchange values’, or estimates of
the money changing hands in the trading of a good or service in an ‘arm’s
length’ transaction. The SNA generally takes market prices as exchange values
with a few exceptions particularly where market prices are difficult to observe.
In those cases, exchange values may be estimated using alternative methods
such as replacement costs, value transfer, etc. (Obst et al., 2016).
6 counts at the scale of protected areas and, for this purpose, we consider
To be clear, the measure of value provided by market prices (or exchange
values) and that provided by economic surplus are quite different things, as
explained in footnotes 4 and 5. The economic surplus measure of value,
therefore, may bear little or no resemblance to the price measure of value;
economic surplus may be high when prices are low, it may be low when prices
are high or any other combination.
3
Journal of Environmental Management 327 (2023) 116272
the relative magnitude of the value generated by the different natural
capital stocks and how natural capital (and the related flow of goods and
services) varies over time.
Natural capital accounts consist of a series of interconnected and
structured accounts, including non-monetary (physical) stock (or asset)
accounts, non-monetary (physical) ecosystem service (or flow) accounts,
and monetary accounts (ONS, 2017). Typically, the development of a
natural capital account begins with the categorisation of natural capital
stocks, often using land cover classes as a proxy for different stocks.
Where possible, information on the condition of the natural capital
stocks can also be included, since this may affect the capacity of natural
capital to deliver ecosystem services. Biophysical information on the
extent and condition of natural capital stocks is usually summarised in
non-monetary stock or asset accounts. Non-monetary flow or service
accounts record information on the flow of ecosystem goods and services
provided by the identified stock of natural capital over a certain time
period (typically one year). Monetary accounts record information
about the value (in monetary terms) of the benefits provided by
ecosystem services over time. Two types of monetary accounts can be
produced: flow accounts, focusing on the value of the ecosystem services
provided by natural capital, typically over the period of one year; and
stock accounts, focusing on the value of natural capital stocks, measured
as the net present value of the flow of ecosystem goods and services that
are expected to be provided by that stock over its asset life.
2.2. Local natural capital accounting in practice
Only recently have efforts been made to develop natural capital ac­
counts at the local level. In the UK, those initiatives have progressively
settled on a common set of approaches that have become ‘standard
practice’. In general, these ‘standard practices’ are approaches adapted
from those used in national-scale accounting exercises. The purpose of
this paper is to examine those practices and assess the degree to which
they deliver outputs that appropriately capture the accounting value of
natural capital at a local scale and deliver information that meets the
expectations of the organisations and land managers being tasked with
producing those accounts.
Our assessment of the ‘standard practice’ approaches (see Section
3.1) indicates that these tend to rely on the use of simplified method­
ologies and readily available datasets on natural assets (e.g. national
land cover datasets) and ecosystem services (e.g. literature on carbon
storage by habitat type). Valuation is invariably achieved through
multiplication by simple per unit values. Moreover, the unit values used
are often derived from studies measuring economic surplus rather than
exchange values (Dickie and Neupauer, 2019). This “value × quantity”
multiplicative approach has some clear strengths. It greatly simplifies
the process of developing natural capital accounts and, by relying on
readily available data, minimises the informational resources needed for
accounting purposes. However, there are some key limitations and dif­
ficulties that need to be considered.
the ‘standard practices’, is neither appropriate nor generalizable, as
natural capital assets have different characteristics and the ecosystem
service flows they deliver depend critically on their specific spatial and
ecological context. In addition, whilst potentially appropriate for a
national-scale assessment, readily available datasets may not provide
the level of detail needed to suitably inform management decisions at
local scales.
This paper aims to critically assess the advantages and limitations of
applying ‘standard practice’ approaches to develop natural capital ac­
Dartmoor and Exmoor National Parks in the UK as case studies.
2.3. The case study areas: Dartmoor and Exmoor National Parks
Dartmoor and Exmoor National Parks, two of fifteen National Parks
M. Faccioli et al.
within the UK, are located in the South West of England. Both National
Parks were designated in the 1950s to promote the conservation and
enhancement of natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage, as well as
to offer opportunities to the public to understand and enjoy the Parks’
special qualities.
Dartmoor and Exmoor are diverse environments, characterised by a
mosaic of natural and anthropogenically-modified landscapes, subject to
numerous human-induced pressures including: agriculture, urbanisa­
tion, population growth and climate change. Both National Parks
encompass a variety of different land covers and host a diverse array of
native wildlife species. The parks include (semi-)natural ancient wood­
lands and Rhos pasture (species-rich, marshy habitat with rushes and
purple moor-grass) and they have cultural heritage landscapes, con­
sisting of a variety of historic settlements, buildings and archaeological
features. As such, both Dartmoor and Exmoor National Parks provide a
variety of ecosystem services of value to people and society – including
recreational opportunities, water supply and carbon sequestration.
The two National Parks, however, also differ in specific character­
istics. Exmoor features a long stretch of coastline with a gentle undu­
lating landscape. Dartmoor, in contrast, is land-locked and has a
somewhat harsher landscape with less woodland. Its characteristic fea­
tures include extensive upland peat bogs, granite outcrops (or Tors) and
extensive Bronze Age archaeological remains.
2.4. Producing local natural capital accounts and assessing their
usefulness
To critically assess the advantages and limitations of applying
‘standard practice’ approaches to develop natural capital accounts at the
scale of protected areas, we followed a series of steps, summarised in
Fig. 1.
The first step consisted of holding a structured group discussion (in a
workshop setting) with key senior staff members from both National
Park Authorities to identify their expectations regarding the use of
natural capital accounts to inform decision-making. Discussions, which
took place in January 2019, were structured around a list of common
aspirations regarding the usefulness of natural capital accounting (along
the lines mentioned in the Introduction) and specific management am­
bitions, as informed by the National Park Authorities’ Management
Plans (i.e. Dartmoor National Park State of the Park Report, 2017; and
Exmoor National Park State of the Park Report, 20177). The purpose of
this first step was to allow a subsequent assessment of whether the
Fig. 1. Summary of the key methodological steps followed.
7
Available at: https://www.yourdartmoor.org/__data/assets/pdf_file/0021
/81462/State-of-the-Park-2017-WEB.pdf and https://www.exmoor-nationalp
ark.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0026/243629/State-of-the-Park-summary-f
or-Partnership-Plan-consultation.pdf respectively).
4
Journal of Environmental Management 327 (2023) 116272
produced natural capital accounts could meet the initial stakeholder
aspirations regarding the usefulness of these tools.
The second step involved the review of UK applications of local
natural capital accounting (listed in Appendix A1) and the identification
of the ‘standard practice’ approaches used in those studies. The aim of
this step was to understand which methodologies, datasets and quanti­
tative estimates are generally used for local-scale natural capital ac­
counting and could be applied to our case study areas. In particular, we
collected information on: 1) the natural capital stocks and underpinning
datasets for stock quantification (i.e. in most cases, stock classes were
identified based on publicly available land cover datasets, such as the
Land Cover Map (LCM) data, compiled by the Centre for Ecology and
Hydrology (CEH) in the UK)8; 2) the ecosystem goods and service flows
typically considered and the data used to quantify these flows; and 3) the
valuation methodology and values used. In several cases, multiple
methods were available to quantify the ecosystem services and values. In
such instances, the most plausible and practical approaches were
selected, based on the robustness of scientific information (well-estab­
lished evidence based on ecological and environmental economics’
literature), local relevance (i.e. applicability to Dartmoor and Exmoor
habitats) and feasibility (e.g. the underpinning data being publicly
available).
The third step involved the gathering of the necessary data on nat­
ural capital assets, ecosystem goods and services and valuation esti­
mates, in order to replicate the ‘standard practice’ approaches for our
case study areas. The selected approaches and datasets used in our
project, as well as in the source scoping studies, are reported in Tables 1
and 2. Information on natural capital stocks was obtained from the CEH
LCM data. Additionally, for Dartmoor, these data were complemented,
as requested by the National Park Authority, with local information
owned by the National Park Authority on ecologically-relevant habitats
(i.e. Rhos pasture and Dry Grassland). We summarise the main steps
taken to collect and adjust these data in Appendix A2.
Following ‘standard practice’ methodologies, step four involved
using all collected data to produce natural capital flow accounts for
Dartmoor and Exmoor National Parks’ for the year 2015.9
Step five focused on assessing some of the limitations of, and po­
tential improvements to, the ‘standard practice’ local natural capital
accounting approach employed to produce the accounts. We conducted
several tests to establish the sensitivity of the account to alternative
approaches for quantifying natural assets, flows of ecosystem services
and values (based on the reviewed scoping studies, the academic liter­
ature or alternative available datasets).
The final step, step six, consisted of critically assessing the usefulness
of natural capital accounts for the management of the National Parks.
The draft accounts were presented to the Chief Executives and other key
staff of Dartmoor and Exmoor National Park Authorities, and the merits
and limitations of the produced accounts were discussed in a workshop
setting. The discussion was focused on understanding whether the pro­
duced natural capital accounts met the initial aspirations (identified in
step 1).
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Case study replication of ‘standard practice’ natural capital
accounting
Following the methodology outlined in step 2 of Fig. 1, we identified
8
The CEH Land Cover Map data are satellite-derived data on the UK land
cover classes (from grassland, woodland, fresh water to urban and sub-urban
build-up areas). These data are available from: https://www.ceh.ac.uk/ukceh
-land-cover-maps.
9
2015 was selected because it represented the most recent year (at the time
of the project) for which Land Cover Map data were released for the UK.
 M. Faccioli et al.
Table 1
List of approaches used to quantify the flows of ecosystem services provided by natural assets (based on the review of ‘standard practice’ approaches).
Ecosystem Quantification Approach Comments Reviewed Alternatives available from
good/service report(s) reviewed reports?
using this
approach

Recreation Number of visitors/hectare/year.
(outdoor Obtained from Dartmoor and Exmoor reports using
visits) the same approach as in the reviewed natural
capital accounting studies.
STEAM visitor models* were used to obtain estimates
of visitors. Visitor surveys were used to extract the
proportion of visits related to the natural
environment.
*For Dartmoor, we used information on visitor numbers D Yes (Monitor of Engagement
obtained from the ORVal model (calibrated for Dartmoor with the Natural Environment
National Park in a previous project) as these estimates (MENE) data)
were deemed more reliable. To extract environment-
related visitor numbers for Dartmoor and Exmoor, we
applied a figure from Exmoor visitor survey showing that
85% of visitors have “landscape/scenery” as primary
reason for their trip. Similar data was not available for
Dartmoor. Resulting estimate of visitors interested in
nature/hectare/year are 69 for Dartmoor and 18 for
Exmoor.

Wild food – Defra report on protected areas (White et al., 2015 Whilst in theory replicable, this approach requires data D No
(D)) used data on number of game/deer extracted in on game and deer numbers extracted within the National
each protected area Park boundaries each year. Such information was not
available.

Carbon Tonnes of CO2/CO2e sequestered/ha/year. Carbon sequestration rates based on published studies Estimates of carbon sequestration were obtained from All Yes (Different rates of carbon
sequestration Broadleaved woodland: 10.71 of sequestration of different habitat types the report of the RSPB (2017) (R), which provides sequestration available,
Coniferous woodland: 17.51 information on sequestration rates based on a considering different
Open water: -5.4 comprehensive literature review across a wide range of greenhouse gases, vegetation
Bog: NA habitat types. Sequestration rates for bogs are unknown, types, etc.)
Heather grassland: 1.61 as sequestration is highly dependent on bog condition,
Heather: 3.45 for which information was unavailable. Data on
5

Improved grassland: NA improved grassland was unavailable from the reviewed

Acid/calcareous grassland: 1.61 reports. Data on littoral sediment was unavailable from
Fen/Marsh/Swamp: 3.91 the RSPB study and estimates from the ONS coastal
Species-rich dry grassland: 1.61 margin scoping study (O) were used instead.
Rhos pasture/neutral grassland: 1.55
Arable: -18.65
Saltmarsh: 4.2
Supralittoral sediment: 1.14

Timber m3 of overbark harvested/year/ha Timber production was estimated by dividing total UK – D,E No
Broadleaved woodland: 0.5 production of softwood and hardwood (Forestry
Coniferous woodland: 7.4 Commission data) by total UK area of coniferous and

Journal of Environmental Management 327 (2023) 116272

broadleaved woodland.

Livestock Numbers of livestock.
Not available from reviewed reports, but obtained
for the National Parks from Defra data
Data on number of livestock was obtained from Defra
surveys. Livestock yield information was obtained
from other sources to provide estimate of annual
production of livestock. More details available upon
request from the authors.
Whilst livestock numbers could be obtained from Defra D No
surveys for Dartmoor and Exmoor, information on
livestock yield could not be located. Therefore, only
“total livestock numbers” within the National Park could
be estimated. This does not take into account that some
animals take multiple years to mature, and some animals
are used only as breeding stock and not sold. The
estimates provided for Dartmoor and Exmoor therefore
represent the total livestock in the park, not an annual
value flow, and estimates are therefore inflated.

Crops Tonnes of yield/ha/year for various crop types Obtained from Defra agricultural datasets Regional yield data were available for oats, oilseed rape, D,N No
oats: 6 (“Agriculture in the United Kingdom”, “Cereal spring barley, winter barley, wheat. For those crops,
oilseed rape: 3.7 production survey” and “oilseed rape survey”) figures for the southwest of the UK were used.
spring barley: 5.5

(continued on next page)

 M. Faccioli et al.
Table 1 (continued )
Ecosystem Quantification Approach Comments Reviewed Alternatives available from
good/service report(s) reviewed reports?
using this
approach

winter barley: 7.1

wheat: 8.1
linseed: 1.5
sugar beet: 60.7
Peas & beans: 2.4
Potatoes (early): 15
Potatoes (main crop): 33

Drinking water – In the Defra study for protected areas (White et al.,
2015 (D)), data were used on annual m3 of freshwater
extracted from surface and ground within the area of
interest.
Estimates of water extraction volumes in the National D No
Parks could not be obtained within the timeframe of this
project. However, the approach outlined here could be
replicated easily for the National Parks should extraction
data become available.

Air quality kg of absorbed PM10/ha/year The ONS scoping study on air quality (O) shows Pollutants other than PM10 could also be considered. O Yes (alternative estimates
purification Woodland: 11.91 pollutants captured by broad UK habitat type. The available for other pollutants)
Bog: NA estimates (per hectare) displayed here were obtained
Heather grassland: 0.64 by dividing figures on total pollution by the extent of
Heather: 0.42 each UK habitat type.
Improved grassland: 0.24
Semi-natural grassland: 0.46
Arable: 0.27
Coastal margins: 0.67
6

Minerals – Generally not considered by the reviewed natural capital – No

accounting studies

Plants and – Generally not considered by the reviewed natural capital – No

seeds accounting studies

Wildlife – No current developed methodology for incorporating – No

wildlife into natural capital accounts

Pollination Proportion of crop production (and agricultural Using worldwide coefficients of pollinator For oilseed rape and peas, pollinator dependencies could N No
value) dependent on pollinators dependence not be quantified as these depend on a variety of factors.
Beans: 0.25 Pollinator dependence was reported in a Nene Valley
Linseed: 0.05 study (N), but not all crops of interest were included.

Journal of Environmental Management 327 (2023) 116272

Oats, Barley, Wheat, Sugar Beet and Potatoes are all not
pollinator dependent.

Flood – No methodology for quantifying links between assets A woodland study by Eftec (E) quantified the amount of – No
protection and levels of flood protection woodland positioned in/upstream from flood risk zones.
An ONS study (O) on coastal areas provided an estimate
for wetland flood protection, but no data based on which
to estimate extent of flood protective wetlands in Exmoor
(our only case study area with coastline).

Volunteering Number of volunteer hours per year. Data on the number of hours of volunteering work For Dartmoor and Exmoor, obtained from in-house data R No
Obtained from Dartmoor and Exmoor National within the area of interest
Parks’ reports using the same approach as in the
reviewed natural capital accounting studies.

Notes: D = Defra natural capital accounting study for protected areas (White et al., 2015); R = accounts for RSPB estates (RSPB, 2017); E = Eftec woodland natural capital account for the UK (Cryle et al., 2015); N = Nene
Valley report (Rouquette, 2016); O = ONS studies (air quality, valuing flood regulation and valuing coastal areas) (Jones et al., 2017; Smithers et al., 2016; Ricardo Energy and Environment, 2016; ONS, 2016).
 M. Faccioli et al.
Table 2
List of the economic valuation assumptions employed (based on the review of current approaches).
Ecosystem Value (2015£) Valuation Approach Comment Reviewed Alternatives available?
good/service report(s) using
this approach

Recreation Woodlands: £3.61/visit Meta-analysis of valuation The values per visit were taken from Sen et al. (2014). all No
(outdoor River, lake or canal: £1.96/visit studies That study is a meta-analysis based on approximately 300
visits) Mountains, moors, heathlands: £5.43/visit estimates of the value of recreational visits to different
Semi-natural grassland: £1.67/visit habitats. Reviewed studies drew on a mix of stated and
Enclosed farmland: £1.67/visit revealed preference studies providing willingness to pay
Coastal: £4.28/visit information.

Wild food – – Wild food, game and fish were not included in the natural D No
capital accounts developed for Dartmoor and Exmoor due
to insufficient information being available on the
quantification of this ecosystem good/service.

Carbon £62.39/tonne of CO2e sequestered Abatement cost approach The value of carbon sequestration is based on DECC non- all No
sequestration traded carbon prices (central estimate) for 2015. This is a
standard approach employed by the reviewed reports.

Timber £14.74/m3 standing hardwood Literature review
£14.07/m3 overbark softwood Resource rent, approximated
by using the UK Forestry
Commission sale prices of
harvested timber
For softwood timber production, standing price per cubic D Yes (less conservative estimates
meter of overbark (or stumpage price) is used (Forestry E available)
Commission data). In the absence of equivalent prices for
hardwood, information was extracted from a review of
the literature

Livestock Dairy cows: £1021.44/cow Resource rent approach (farm The Defra report (D) used market prices for livestock and D Yes (Defra market-based prices,
7

Finishing cattle: £157.36/head gross margins based on then applied resource rent ratios to estimate the resource with resource rent ratios, could be
Calves (<1 year): £94.23/head Redman, 2017) rents for livestock. We opted for using a more readily used as alternative estimates)
Breeding pig: £24.23/pig applicable but equivalent approach based on farm gross
Breeding ewe: £31.10/ewe margins (which, similar to resource rents, are calculated
Lamb (<1 year): £2.83/ewe by subtracting variable costs from market prices).
Poultry: £0.45/head

Crops Wheat (milling, winter): £80.09/tonne
Wheat (feed, winter): £81.98/tonne
Barley (malting, winter): £81.98/tonne
Barley (feed, winter): £71.61/tonne
Spring barley: £94.61/tonne
Oats (winter): £78.21/tonne
Resource rent approach (farm
gross margins based on John
Nix Pocketbook for Farm
management 2018)
The Defra report (D) used market prices for crops and D Yes (Defra market-based prices,
then applied some resource rent ratios to estimate the with resource rent ratios, could be
resource rents. We opted for using a more readily used as alternative estimates)
applicable but equivalent approach based on farm gross
margins (which, similar to resource rents, are calculated
by subtracting variable costs from market prices).

Journal of Environmental Management 327 (2023) 116272

Oil seed rape (average price, winter): £178.09/tonne
Linseed (spring): £219.55/tonne
Sugar beet (average price): £9.42/tonne
Field peas (marrowfats): £111.19/tonne
Field beans (winter): £102.71/tonne
Field beans (spring): £103.65/tonne
Potatoes (early potatoes): £97.06/tonne
Potatoes (maincrop potatoes, based on all potatoes): £63.13/tonne

Drinking water 0.15/m3 of abstracted water Resource rent approach The values provided by the abstraction of drinking water D Yes (alternative estimates available
for public use are calculated by subtracting human input in the Defra report, assuming long-
from the market price of water (set by Ofwat). run marginal costs, abstraction
license costs or benefit transfer
estimates)

(continued on next page)

 M. Faccioli et al.
Table 2 (continued )
Ecosystem Value (2015£) Valuation Approach Comment Reviewed Alternatives available?
good/service report(s) using
this approach

Air quality £16.23/kg of PM10 absorbed Damage cost avoided Information on the value of air quality improvement is D Yes (alternative estimates available
purification estimated by considering the health benefits (in terms of for other pollutants based on the
damage avoided) resulting from lower concentrations of ONS scoping study on air quality)
PM10 in the air. The figure of £15,041/tonne of PM10
absorbed (2010 prices) was derived from the
Interdepartmental Group on Costs and Benefits (IGCB)
report and refers specifically to rural areas.

Minerals – – Generally not considered by the reviewed natural capital – No

accounting studies

Plants and – – Generally not considered by the reviewed natural capital – No

seeds accounting studies

Wildlife – – No appropriate information available on the monetary – No

value of wildlife preservation

Volunteering £7.31/hour of volunteering (lower bound) Costs avoided Heritage Lottery Fund value of work per hour for R No
unskilled workers

Pollination Pollinator dependencies rates: Pollinator dependency Pollinator-dependency coefficients are applied to the N No
oilseed rape: mixed response farm gross margins calculated for agriculture (crop) to
field beans: 0.25 determine the value of crop production attributable to the
linseed: 0.05 existence of pollinators (the value that, in the absence of
apples (dessert apples): 0.45 pollinators, would be lost).
apples (culinary apples): 0.28
pears: 0.09
8

plums: 0.08
cherries: 0.04
oats: 0
barley: 0
wheat: 0
sugar beet: 0
peas: mixed response
potatoes: 0

Flood Reducing flood risks in woodlands: Replacement cost approach Estimates of avoided expenditures on flood-related O No
protection Lower bound: £22.48/ha defenses due to reduced flood risks
Upper bound: £27.18/ha

Journal of Environmental Management 327 (2023) 116272

For coastal areas: Avoided costs Average costs avoided – savings (per km) from not D No
Lower bound: £1679.18/meter needing to replace coastal margin habitats with man-
Upper bound: £1740.95/meter made sea walls due to lower flood risks
For saltmarshes: Avoided costs Cost savings in seawall investments that would otherwise O No
£1.775/meter of saltmarsh (year unknown) be incurred in the absence of flood protection services
provided by saltmarshes

Notes: D = Defra natural capital account for protected areas (White et al., 2015); R = accounts for RSPB estate (RSPB, 2017); E = Eftec woodland NCA for the UK (Cryle et al., 2015); N = Nene Valley report (Rouquette,
2016); O = ONS scoping studies (valuing flood regulation, valuing coastal areas, air quality) (Smithers et al., 2016; Ricardo Energy & Environment 2016; ONS, 2016).
M. Faccioli et al. Journal of Environmental Management 327 (2023) 116272

Table 3
(a) Natural capital flow account for Exmoor National Park for 2015 (in thousands £2015). (b) Natural capital flow account for Dartmoor
National Park for 2015 (in thousands £2015).

(a) (b)

Note: Each column reports the benefits calculated for the different ecosystem goods and services and each row summarises the values
provided by the different natural capital asset classes. Aggregate total values (in light blue) are also reported. In the bottom row, the total
values for each ecosystem service is reported and in the right-hand column the total values for each natural capital stock are summarised.
Boxes marked in orange indicate situations where the ecosystem service could only be partially quantified and valued (e.g. for some but not
all habitat sub-types). Red boxes with a cross (X) indicate those cases where ecosystem services could not be quantified and valued suc­
cessfully (e.g. due to data gaps). Grey boxes refer to those ecosystem services that are not quantified and valued because they are not provided
by the habitat in question. The ecosystem services are organised into two groups depending on whether they provide “private” benefits
(obtained by individuals or organisations) or “public” benefits (delivered to the wider society). Note that volunteering benefits are classified
as ‘private’ only because the ‘standard practice’ methodology tends to focus only on the private benefits (i.e. labour costs saved) rather than
also on the public benefits (i.e. mental health benefits for volunteers). For the reader of the printed version of this article, please refer to the
online manuscript for a colour version of the Tables.

a selection of the most plausible, scientifically-robust and locally-
relevant ‘standard practice’ approaches (summarised in Tables 1 and
2) employed in local natural capital accounts in similar settings to our
case study areas. We then applied these approaches to produce a natural
capital flow account for the year 2015 for Dartmoor and Exmoor Na­
tional Parks. The full results of the accounts are reported in Appendix A3
(for Exmoor) and Appendix A4 (for Dartmoor). Table 3 reports a sum­
mary of the estimated values of the ecosystem goods and services pro­
vided by the different natural capital stocks on Dartmoor and Exmoor
National Parks, with a colour-coded indication of the completeness of
the accounts (green indicates completeness, while orange and red
respectively signal partially or completely missing information).
Table 3 shows that following ‘standard practice’ accounting ap­
proaches leads to substantial knowledge gaps for a number of goods and
services of interest. These gaps refer to, for example, game hunting,
drinking water, biodiversity and flood protection, mostly due to a lack of
information on the quantity (flow) of these ecosystem goods and ser­
vices and/or their monetised value.
The account results show that Dartmoor and Exmoor National Parks
provide a mixture of both market benefits and non-market benefits10.
Despite non-market benefits exceeding market benefits in both areas,
the ‘standard practice’ methodology fully or partially overlooks many
10
The differentiation between market and non-market goods is not common
in ‘standard practice’ natural capital accounts but, as discussed in Dickie and
Neupauer (2019), this classification can be useful when the flow of goods and
services provided by the environment are both private and public, such that
conclusions can be drawn regarding the magnitude and relevance of the ben­
efits that accrue to individual stakeholders versus the wider society.
non-market benefits (e.g. biodiversity, cultural heritage, etc.), which
represent a major component of the natural capital value of both Na­
tional Parks. In section 3.2 we explore further some of the gaps and
limitations of the ‘standard practice’ approach to natural capital ac­
counting, using a range of examples to illustrate key issues.
3.2. Limitations and sensitivity of the accounts to alternative quantity and
value estimates
In this section, we discuss some of the limitations of producing
‘standard practice’ natural capital accounts, in relation to the mea­
surement of stock extent and the quantification and valuation of
ecosystem service flows. Using specific examples, we test the sensitivity
of the accounts to alternative methodologies and suggest potential im­
provements in the ‘standard practice’ approaches to overcome some of
the identified shortcomings.
3.2.1. Measuring stock extent
Any natural capital account requires data on the extent (amount) of
the different types of natural capital that can be found within the area of
interest. In nearly all applications that we reviewed, the practice has
been to quantify the extent of the natural capital assets in terms of units
of habitat or land use area. Given that locally-collected data are often
limited, we found that a standard approach has been to rely on national,
often satellite-derived, land cover data, such as the UK LCM data (CEH,
2017). Using such national scale data, however, is subject to several
limitations as described in more detail below.
a. Level of detail

9
M. Faccioli et al.
Fig. 2. Example of habitat misclassification for the case of broadleaved woodland on Exmoor. Indicates detected broadleaved woodlands in 2007, indicates
coniferous woodlands in 2007, indicates detected broadleaved woodlands in 2015 and indicates detected coniferous woodland in 2015. For the reader of the
printed version of this article, please refer to the online manuscript for a colour version of the Figure.
In the CEH LCM data, habitats are categorised into relatively broad
classes, meaning that certain ecosystem types which have local rele­
vance from an ecological or management perspective are overlooked.
For Dartmoor and Exmoor, for example, this is the case of ancient
woodland and Rhos pasture. To gather information on the extent and
condition of these habitats, local datasets are therefore needed to com­
plement the LCM data. However, these local data are often available
only for small geographical areas and are collected infrequently, thus
limiting their usefulness, given that natural capital accounts require data
that cover the entire area of interest over multiple (ideally regular) time
periods.
b. Classification accuracy
The identification of natural capital stocks at local spatial resolution
from national mapping data may also reveal issues with classification
accuracy. We illustrate this problem of misclassification for open
moorland habitat on Exmoor. When cross-referencing the 2015 LCM
data with local data and site-specific knowledge from local experts
(National Park Authority ecology staff), it emerged that open moors
(heather) are often erroneously classified as acid grassland. Thus, we re-
classified all acid grassland as heather and repeated the quantification
and valuation of the ecosystem services associated with these two hab­
itats. This re-classification led to an increase in the total natural capital
account value by 13.54% (i.e. from £22.9 million to £26.0 million) (see
Appendix A5 for more details on the specific changes in ecosystem
services and the associated values following the re-classification). This
example illustrates that habitat classification inaccuracies can substan­
tially affect the valuation estimates reported in natural capital accounts.
To limit issues with misclassification of natural capital assets, fine-scale
and site-wide data on land cover (split into habitat categories of man­
agement relevance) need to be collected.
c. Repeatability issues
The usefulness of natural capital accounts arises largely from their
ability to identify changes in natural capital and the value this delivers
over time. As such, data on changes in natural capital stocks, ecosystem
goods/services and values need to be collected over time, using a
repeatable and consistent methodology. At the time of the project, LCM
data were available for multiple years (1990, 2000, 2007 and 2015).
However, due to changes in the protocol of satellite data imagery clas­
sification and modelling, that data series does not always offer a
consistent tool with which to detect variations in natural capital at fine
scales. To illustrate this issue, we measured broadleaved woodland on
Exmoor, using LCM 2007 versus 2015 data, and found substantial dif­
ferences. In 2007 5,764 ha of broadleaved woodland extent were
measured on Exmoor, whilst in 2015 this figure was 7,821 ha (i.e. an
increase of 35.69%). Consultation with the National Park Authority
suggested that such changes had not taken place on the ground. A case
10
Journal of Environmental Management 327 (2023) 116272
study woodland site on Exmoor was selected to illustrate the issue of
classification differences between data years. As shown in Fig. 2, a visual
comparison with publicly available satellite imagery (Google Earth,
image A) indicates that, for the area of interest, LCM 2007 data better
classify broadleaved woodlands (purple dots in image B) than LCM 2015
data (orange dots in image C). As image C shows, LCM 2015 data tend to
erroneously categorise other habitats (e.g. heather) as broadleaved
woodland.
Of course, if natural capital stocks are not measured in an accurate
and repeatable way, natural capital accounts may be subject to sub­
stantial error. An immediate and significant implication of these results
is that the design and management relevance of local natural capital
accounts requires the development of a targeted programme of repeated
habitat extent and quality monitoring at fine spatial resolution. Such
data are currently not readily available in the UK.
3.2.2. Measuring flows of ecosystem goods and services
The measures reported in natural capital accounts do not only
depend on the accurate classification of natural capital stocks, but also
on the identification and measurement of the ecosystem goods and
services those stocks support. In this section, we examine several com­
plexities arising in measuring those service flows and explore the asso­
ciated implications in terms of the completeness and/or reliability of
natural capital accounts.
a. Missing data
Missing data is a major problem when building local natural capital
accounts. Suitable ecological data to quantify certain ecosystem services
(i.e. minerals, plants and seeds; wildlife) are often not available from the
literature or publicly-accessible datasets. Wildlife is particularly chal­
lenging, not only because of limited data availability for many species’
groups, but also because of the existence of a wide range of different
metrics that are used as a measure of biodiversity (e.g. diversity versus
abundance of specific species). Data gaps are also common for
ecosystem services which are highly context-specific, such as recrea­
tional game shooting and drinking water provision, given that suitable
local data are often not readily available. Although data could be
collected ad hoc to enable the incorporation of these ecosystem services
into natural capital accounting, certain ecosystem services will still
remain difficult to quantify due to limited availability of generalizable
data or tools. For example, the modelling of flood risk regulation ser­
vices would require location-specific data, such as local land use, hy­
drological, geomorphological and wider ecological information.
b. Alternative assumptions and spatial heterogeneity
In many cases, the reviewed ‘standard practice’ approaches consider
different datasets and underpinning methodologies to quantify the flow
of ecosystem services provided by different habitats. Therefore, the
M. Faccioli et al.
Table 4
Implications of using local vs. national data to quantify and value crop production on Dartmoor.
Crop type Total production (tonnes)
‘Standard Practice’
Wheat 7,804
spring barley 1,168
winter barley 1,519
oilseed rape 1,287
sugar beet 3,109
Totals 14,887
Table 5
Using different approaches to value the recreational benefits of Dartmoor and
Exmoor National Parks.
Sen et al. (2014) ORVal model
Dartmoor National Park £15,516,528 £20,260,274
Exmoor National Park £2,762,899 £8,023,928
choice of data and methodology will affect the resulting account esti­
mates. We show how our account results can be affected by the selection
of alternative metrics by focusing on the example of carbon sequestra­
tion. Multiple approaches and datasets are available to quantify the
tonnes of carbon sequestered per hectare of habitat (RSPB, 2017; Rou­
quette, 2016; White et al., 2015; Cryle et al., 2015), such as different
assumptions regarding the types of emissions considered (CO2 or CO2e -
CO2 equivalent) and the rate of sequestration, which can produce very
large differences in the carbon sequestration benefits. For example, as
we illustrate in more detail in Appendix A6, carbon sequestration ben­
efits of woodlands on Exmoor can range from £2.3 million to £5.3
million for 2015, depending on the estimates of carbon sequestration
rates considered.
In addition, acknowledging that ecosystem goods and services are
heterogeneously distributed across the landscape, local and context-
specific data can offer an improved alternative to generic national
data for the measurement of ecosystem goods and services. To make this
point (and discuss the associated implications), we present an illustra­
tive example where we compare the quantity and value of crop pro­
duction using different approaches. To estimate crop yields and values
for England, a frequently used approach in the reviewed studies relies on
national data on agricultural land use and national averages of land
allocation by crop type. Such an approach is, however, not necessarily
accurate for local analyses, due to the existence of regional variation in
crop distribution. Spatially-specific information on agricultural pro­
duction therefore represents an improvement and is, for example, pro­
vided by the NEVO (the Natural Environment Valuation Online) tool.11
NEVO is a map-based decision support tool which, among other func­
tionalities, predicts farming activity and profits on a 2 km grid using
data from the Farm Business Survey12 and the June Agricultural Census
data.13
To illustrate the implications of using alternative assumptions,
Table 4 compares the total crop production on Dartmoor and the asso­
ciated values, using the ‘standard practice’ approach (based on national
averages) and the approach used in NEVO (based on spatially-specific
models). More details are provided in Appendix A7. Given that the
two approaches consider different crops, we only focus on those that are
11
https://www.leep.exeter.ac.uk/nevo.
12
https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/farm-business-survey.
13
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/structure-of-the-ag
ricultural-industry-in-england-and-the-uk-at-june
11
Journal of Environmental Management 327 (2023) 116272
Value (£2015)
NEVO ‘Standard Practice’ NEVO
4,719 £1,555,106 £940,310
1,608 £208,782 £287,580
1,333 £271,686 £238,310
1,365 £457,778 £485,515
0 £100,393 £0
9,025 £2,593,745 £1,951,715
included in both (i.e. wheat, spring barley, winter barley, oilseed rape
and sugar beet, as outlined in Table 4). Depending on the approach
considered for crop quantification, different yield levels are estimated
(columns 2 and 3 from left to right), leading to major differences also in
the estimated value of crop production (columns 4 and 5). Using the
spatially-explicit estimates, based on NEVO, provides around a 40%
lower crop production levels and 25% lower crop production values.
Differences are especially significant for wheat production, mainly
because land allocated to this crop on Dartmoor is likely lower than the
national average. Considering spatially-specific information therefore is
essential to provide accurate and reliable, and therefore management-
relevant, information on crop production.
c. Incomplete ecological information
When estimating the flow of ecosystem services produced by a given
habitat, a wide range of ecologically complex, but nonetheless crucial,
factors are often entirely overlooked. One example is ecosystem condi­
tion, which determines the amount of ecosystem services that can be
produced by a given natural capital stock. For instance, considering
peat, its condition determines whether it may sequester carbon (when in
good condition) or emit carbon (when in poor condition; Leifeld et al.,
2019). In the absence of such information, no climate regulation services
can be estimated for these habitats. Other relevant ecological factors
that have also often been ignored by ‘standard practice’ approaches to
natural capital accounting are the type of soil (Obst, 2015) and the level
of precipitation, which are both important to measure, for example, the
total amount of drinking water that can be supplied by a given area.14
d. Accounting for aspects related to temporal dynamics
When building natural capital accounts, temporal aspects can also be
important and should be taken into consideration. The amount of
ecosystem service flows and benefits can vary over time not only due to
variations in the stock of natural capital, but also because of other fac­
tors, such as a change in the number of beneficiaries and users of the
good. For example, it is likely that the total number of visitors to a given
area increases over time due to e.g. population growth, which can lead
to an increase in the total recreation benefits provided, even when the
habitat extent (natural capital assets) and per unit value estimates of a
visit are kept the same. Ignoring that the flow of ecosystem services can
change over time, as occurs in most of the reviewed ‘standard practice’
accounts, may misrepresent the actual quantification of the ecosystem
services and related benefits. Information on habitat extent and per-unit
value, and the quantification of the ecosystem service flows, need to be
reviewed and updated over time.
3.2.3. Measuring the value of ecosystem goods and services
The ‘standard practice’ methodology gives relatively little
14
https://www.bennettinstitute.cam.ac.uk/blog/water-and-natural-capital/.
M. Faccioli et al.
consideration to a series of factors that can substantially influence the
values that people derive from the environment. In the following sub-
sections, we discuss some of these factors and we use examples to
illustrate the implications of ignoring or misrepresenting them when
developing natural capital accounts.
a. Missing economic values
The reviewed natural capital accounts often fail to, or are unable to,
value a variety of ecosystem goods and services that provide important
benefits to people. One example is the value of biodiversity; despite
widespread support for the inclusion of biodiversity into natural capital
accounts, this remains a major challenge, mostly due to insufficient data
availability and/or the lack of ‘off-the-shelf’ valuation methods to
measure the value provided by biodiversity (Mace, 2019). Other ex­
amples of values often missing from natural capital accounts include the
benefits associated with the existence of beautiful and unique/diverse
landscapes, as well as the appreciation of cultural heritage – which can
improve the recreational experience for visitors and the quality of life for
the residents of an area. These benefits could be valued, for example,
using revealed preference methods (such as travel cost or hedonic price
methods). However, implementing such approaches is not without
challenges, given the requirements for large amounts of data, sophisti­
cated modelling approaches and tailored valuation methods (Lindhjem
et al., 2015).
Given that wildlife, scenery and cultural heritage are central aspects
in the management and decision-making around land in protected nat­
ural areas and National Parks, more efforts need to be made in the future
to develop accessible valuation tools and methods to enable organisa­
tions to incorporate these ecosystem services and their values into nat­
ural capital accounts.
b. Partially-missing economic values
In the reviewed natural capital accounting studies, the value esti­
mates considered sometimes only give a partial quantification of the
benefits that the environment provides to people. This is the case, for
instance, of the value of flood risk regulation. When included in the
accounts, the value of avoided flooding events is generally calculated as
the flood-related infrastructure costs avoided in the presence of lower
flood risks (Smithers et al., 2016). Such values, however, represent an
under-estimate, as they do not consider the benefits of, for example,
avoiding threats to life and mental health distress associated with
flooding events. A similar argument applies also to the benefits of vol­
unteering. These are often assumed to be equal to the savings in labour
costs by an organisation when tasks are carried out by volunteers for free
rather than by employees. This is a substantial underestimation of the
actual benefits of volunteering, as the mental and physical health ben­
efits of spending time outdoors are entirely overlooked with this
approach (Fujiwara et al., 2013).
c. Alternative valuation methods
The literature provides some guidance regarding which economic
valuation methods are preferred for natural capital accounting purposes
(see Section 2.1). However, little direction is given concerning which
methods within those suggested are best to use (see Horlings et al., 2020
for a discussion in relation to e.g. the valuation of crop provision). In this
section we demonstrate that different valuation approaches can lead to
different value estimates for use as input in natural capital accounting.
To illustrate this point, we focus on the value of outdoor recreation
visits.
12
Journal of Environmental Management 327 (2023) 116272
In the reviewed natural capital accounts at local scale, the ‘standard
practice’ to valuing recreation has relied on the results of the Sen et al.
(2014) paper – which combines a trip generation function (estimated
starting from the Monitor of Engagement with the Natural Environment
(MENE) survey data) and a value per trip function (based on a
meta-analysis of approximately 300 valuation studies). An alternative
approach to the valuation of outdoor recreation is offered by the Out­
door Recreation Valuation (ORVal) Tool15 (Day and Smith, 2017, 2018).
ORVal is based on a sophisticated travel cost model (using land cover
data and visitation information from the MENE survey) that estimates
the welfare value of a recreational day visit to different greenspaces in
England and Wales.
To illustrate the implications of using different valuation approaches,
we calculated and compared (Table 5) the total yearly recreational
benefits provided by Dartmoor and Exmoor National Parks using the
value estimates produced by Sen et al. (2014) and the alternative ORVal
model. From this comparison, it emerges that the two valuation ap­
proaches produce very different total recreational value estimates.
To offer another example, we also estimated and compared the
recreational values per habitat type using the Sen et al. (2014) and
ORVal models. Despite both approaches controlling for habitat-specific
differences in their underlying models (alongside a range of other
important determinants such as a location’s characteristics, travel dis­
tance, the visitor’s characteristics, etc.), differences in the underlying
assumptions and methodologies also mean that the values estimated
differ. As summarised in Table 6, the Sen et al. (2014) model tends to
provide higher values (compared to ORVal) for visits to e.g. mountain,
moor and heathland habitats and lower values for visits to e.g. fresh­
water ecosystems.
While the choice of the specific valuation method can yield very
different benefit estimates, currently, there is no clear way for those
undertaking natural capital accounting to know which of the many
alternative valuation methodologies should be employed. Clear guid­
ance is therefore needed from the expert academic community as to
which methods should be applied in different circumstances.
d. Exchange values vs. economic surplus values
Perhaps an even more profound challenge to the compiler of a local
natural capital account is the choice of which type of value to use in the
valuation process. Both the Sen et al. (2014) and ORVal estimates are
Table 6
Value per visit per habitat: comparing the ‘standard practice’ with alternative
approaches.
Sen et al. (2014) (£2015) ORVal model (£2015)
Woodlands £ 3.61 £ 2.99
River, lake or canal 1.96 £ 3.67
£
Mountains, moors heathlands £ 5.44 £ 4.55
Semi-natural grassland (Sen) £ 1.67
Natural grassland (ORVal) £ 3.42
Managed grassland (ORVal) £ 2.78
Enclosed farmland (Sen) £ 1.67
Agriculture (ORVal) £2.78
Graveyards and cemeteries £ 3.36
Allotments £6.24
Note: there are some differences between the habitats considered in Sen et al.
(2014) and ORVal. For example, Sen et al. (2014) consider semi-natural grass­
land, while ORVal includes natural and managed grassland. Similarly, Sen et al.
(2014) considers enclosed farmland, while ORVal focuses on agricultural land.
Finally, ORVal provides information on recreational values from visits to
graveyards/cemeteries and allotments, which are instead not explicitly consid­
ered in Sen et al. (2014).
15
Available at: https://www.leep.exeter.ac.uk/orval/.
M. Faccioli et al.
measures of economic surplus, values that would correctly be used in a
social cost-benefit analysis attempting to appraise the merits of some
proposed project or policy. The rules of natural capital accounting are,
however, clear in requiring that valuation in accounts should use esti­
mates of exchange values, rather than economic surplus measures (Obst
et al., 2016). Estimates of exchange values for non-market goods are
though not readily available, which is why local natural capital accounts
have generally relied on economic surplus measures. Using the method
suggested in Barton et al. (2019b), Day (2021) used the ORVal model to
estimate exchange values for recreational landcovers in the UK. In this
paper, we used those estimates of exchange value to calculate recrea­
tional benefits of natural capital on Dartmoor and we contrasted the
resulting figures with the values presented in Table 5 (based on the
economic surplus measures). Importantly, in calculating those two
different value measures, identical assumptions were made concerning
the availability and qualities of recreational natural capital. We found
that the exchange value of recreation for Dartmoor is £1,969,823, a full
order of magnitude lower than the value estimated using the economic
surplus measures in Table 5.
In the further development of natural capital accounts a major
question is which of the two very different value measures should be
used (Turner et al., 2019). To conform to accounting practices measures
of exchange value should be consistently applied in the valuation of
natural capital (or, more correctly, the ecosystem services that flow from
that natural capital). On the other hand, if the desire of the account
compiler is to evaluate the benefits flowing from natural capital to so­
ciety then perhaps a more appropriate message is provided by valuation
using measures of economic surplus.
e. Reference conditions in non-market valuation for natural capital
accounting
Unlike project or policy appraisal, natural capital accounts are not
concerned with the impacts of changes in natural capital, rather they
seek to evaluate the benefit flows that arise from the current endowment
of natural capital. But for many natural capitals, the question of how
much benefit the current endowment of natural capital provides is not
well formed. To illustrate this point, consider the flood protection ben­
efits that arise from a particular natural capital habitat, for example,
improved permanent grazing land. The NEVO tool indicates that there
are 47,110 ha of this habitat on Dartmoor and 42,130 ha on Exmoor.
Since this habitat provides permanent grass coverage to the soil we
might assume that it also provides some level of flood protection ben­
efits. To assess those benefits we make use of the NEV flood model which
examines the impact of land use on the frequency and extent of down­
stream flood events and values those impacts in terms of changes in
flood-damage costs to property and infrastructure (Day et al., 2020).
The question of the size of possible flood-protection benefits depends
crucially on what assumption we make about the state of the land if it
was not under permanent grazing, the so-called reference condition. If we
were to assume that alternative landcover were bare soil or even
bedrock then we might be right to conclude that permanent grazing land
offers flood protection benefits. Of course, that is only one assumption
we might make. Indeed, in the context of Dartmoor and Exmoor Na­
tional Parks, it is far more realistic to assume that the alternative land
cover would be ungrazed natural grassland or woodland. NEV estimates
of the value of the annual flood protection benefits delivered by per­
manent grazing land in the two National Parks under those two different
assumptions (as to the nature of the reference condition land use) are
presented in Table 7.
Notice immediately that contrary to our original contention that
permanent grazing land offers value in protecting against floods, we
observe that the values in Table 7 are negative; natural grassland and
woodland actually offer improved protection against floods and hence
maintaining permanent grazing land in its current use represents a cost
to society. Notice also that those costs are five times larger when we
13
Journal of Environmental Management 327 (2023) 116272
Table 7
Flood protection value of permanent grazing land: comparing assumptions
regarding the reference landcover condition.
Assumed reference Dartmoor (£2015 per year) Exmoor (£2015 per year)
landcover condition
Ungrazed Natural -£ 43,660 -£ 50,610
Grassland
Woodlands -£ 240,460 -£ 270,700
assume woodland (rather than ungrazed natural grassland) to be the
alternative. Clearly the magnitude of the entry for any one natural
capital stock and, therefore, its implied importance, is critically deter­
mined by an essentially arbitrary choice over the reference condition.
The question of reference conditions is still a subject of debate in the
natural capital accounting literature, with different assumptions being
made in different accounting exercises (Maes et al., 2020). The question
of reference conditions was generally not even addressed in the local
natural capital accounts reviewed in this study, even though that choice
can have significant implications for the magnitude and even sign of the
account entry for any particular natural capital stock.
f. Accounting for aspects related to temporal dynamics
The reviewed scoping studies tend to report, along with flow ac­
counts, also stock accounts. To build stock accounts, the value of the
flow of ecosystem services provided by a given natural asset over a
future time interval needs to be calculated and converted to net present
value equivalents. To do so, an appropriate discount rate needs to be
selected, which reflects the importance that is given to future benefits. A
positive discount rate implies that the longer the waiting time before a
given good can be enjoyed, the lower the perceived value of that good
(Weitzman, 2001). In environmental economics and policy-making, a
range of possible discount rates are often considered and there is open
debate regarding which is the most appropriate rate to use (Drupp et al.,
2018). The choice of the discount rate can have substantial implications
for the total value calculated for given flows of ecosystem goods and
services over time and it can therefore affect long-term management
decisions. In Appendix A8, we look at the effects of considering different
discount rates for the value of carbon sequestration.
3.3. Evaluating the usefulness of ‘standard practice’ accounts
At the end of the project, discussions were held with the National
Park Authorities concerning the results of the natural capital accounts
and to share details of the various complexities, omissions and un­
certainties examined in the previous section. Starting from the list of
ambitions highlighted by the National Park Authorities at the beginning
of the project in relation to the use of the natural capital accounts (see
Table 8), each aspiration was discussed and a colour-coded system was
used to evaluate the extent to which the produced accounts were
perceived as meeting the initial expectations.
As indicated by the colour-coded assessment, in a few cases only
were the natural capital accounts seen to satisfy initial expectations
(green or orange boxes). Stakeholders thought that the produced ac­
counts can provide a useful framework to classify natural capital stocks
and value the related ecosystem services, which can be employed for
reporting purposes. The accounts were also perceived to be useful to
illustrate some knowledge gaps and information shortages, even though
this ambition was only partially met due to the account incompleteness
and the wider limitations outlined earlier in this paper.
However, as displayed in Table 8, in most cases (red boxes), the
representatives at both National Park Authorities agreed that natural
capital accounts based on ‘standard practice’ approaches did not satisfy
initial expectations and are of limited usefulness to inform their
M. Faccioli et al.
Table 8
Evaluation of the usefulness of ‘standard practice’ natural capital accounting.
For the reader of the printed version of this article, please refer to the online manuscript for a colour version of the Table.
decision-making. For example, the accounts were perceived to fail to
provide specific guidance regarding the use of the land owned by the
National Park Authorities (which is only a subset of all land within the
National Park boundaries). This is because the ‘standard practice’
approach in natural capital accounting does not generally provide in­
formation on land and ecosystem services by land-holding types
(Atkinson and Ovando, 2020). Moreover, it was felt that due to a
mismatch between the expectations of what natural capital accounts can
be used for and what they can actually deliver, the produced accounts
could not help to inform a variety of management decisions. These
included designing schemes to incentivise farmers to provide ecosystem
services; leveraging new funding; prioritising between different man­
agement options; and guiding decisions about investments. To achieve
these goals, which are more aligned with the remit of project appraisal,
rather than the scope of natural capital accounting (see section 2.1),
other tools (such as cost-benefit analyses or risk registers) represent
perhaps more suitable options.
4. Conclusions
The results of our work acknowledge that natural capital accounting
is likely a useful tool to inform policy-making, especially where the
required data are available. However, our critical assessment also il­
lustrates a number of valuable lessons regarding methodological limi­
tations and data gaps within natural capital accounting applied at the
local (i.e. sub-national) scale. Here, significant efforts are required in
order to design and develop more useful and informative tools for pol­
icy- and decision-makers. These lessons learned are summarised as
follows:
• Greater clarity is needed regarding what natural capital ac­
counts are (and are not) and what their proposed uses are. To
inform management decision-making, at local scale, there is a need
to develop greater clarity regarding the capabilities and potential
applications of the natural capital accounting approach. Based on the
results of our project, we illustrate that natural capital accounts are
often mistakenly perceived as project appraisal tools to support de­
cisions regarding alternative investment options. To guide such
management decisions, alternative decision-support approaches
(such as cost-benefit analyses or natural capital risk registers) could
represent more useful tools.
14
Journal of Environmental Management 327 (2023) 116272
• Guidelines are needed to support the development of natural
capital accounts at regional and local levels. Clear guidance is
needed on the methodology and principles underlying natural capi­
tal accounting at local scale to promote the adoption of common
standards and prevent different organisations from using different
approaches. The use of a consistent and robust methodology across
different organisations is essential for comparability purposes. Cen­
tral issues here include clear guidance as to whether local natural
capital accounts should be using exchange values or can continue
using economic surplus values. Likewise, for natural capital accounts
to include meaningful values, guidance must be developed as to what
alternative land uses should be considered as baselines from which to
assess the benefit flows provided by current habitats.
• Tools for natural capital assessment and monitoring, ecosystem
service quantification and valuation are needed to support the
development of natural capital accounts and collaborations
with experts should be encouraged. The development of natural
capital accounts for organisations such as National Park Authorities
can be challenging due to the limited availability of both resources
and expertise to develop and update the accounts. Developing a
natural capital account can be time-consuming and requires inter­
disciplinary knowledge and a range of technical and analytical skills,
often not available in-house. Publicly available tools, developed by
academics or other specialists, but tailored for use by non-specialists,
are needed to enable smaller scale organisations to develop natural
capital accounts. If organisations don’t have the necessary resources
or skills to design natural capital accounts themselves, collaborations
with specialists should be encouraged.
• Data availability is a major issue and fit-for-purpose data
collection for natural capital accounting should be promoted.
Our work overall highlighted a lack of data to consistently and
reliably measure natural assets over multiple years to detect change.
In addition to this, data gaps also exist regarding the quantification of
a range of important ecosystem goods and services (e.g. biodiversity
or landscapes - which are of particular interest especially to National
Park Authorities). There is therefore a need to promote and support
the collection of fit-for-purpose data for local natural capital ac­
counting purposes. At the very least, this should focus on repeatable
(multi-year) data on assets across the whole area of National Parks,
as well as on ecosystem service measures for those goods and services
M. Faccioli et al.
which cannot typically be derived from national data (e.g. water
extraction, game harvesting and volunteer numbers).
• Valuation methods need to be fit-for-purpose for natural capital
accounting. Based on our project results, it emerged that the values
for the market goods generated by natural capital in the National
Parks are relatively easy to assess in natural capital accounts, whilst
some important non-market goods are either completely missing
from or only partially included in the accounts. Importantly, no
established methodology seems to be available to fully value the
benefits of important services, such as flood protection, cultural
heritage and landscape values. More efforts are therefore needed to
develop sound valuation methodologies in these areas.
• Uncertainties need to be made explicit. Gaps in data and limita­
tions in the available methodologies need to be explicitly acknowl­
edged in natural capital accounting exercises to avoid the risk of
misinterpreting account results. Sensitivity tests need to be more
systematically performed in accounting exercises and the related
estimates of uncertainties reported.
• The quantification of the flow of ecosystem goods and services
should be better linked to the ecological condition of natural
assets. While the capability of natural assets to provide goods and
services that benefit people heavily depends on the ecological con­
dition of the stock, this information is rarely accounted for in ‘stan­
dard practice’ natural capital accounts. Wherever possible, data on
asset condition, as well as evidence on the effects of condition on
ecosystem service provision, should be included in the accounting
process.
• Spatial and temporal aspects need to be better incorporated into
natural capital accounting. Based on the reviewed natural capital
accounting studies, it is possible to conclude that to date limited
consideration has been given to spatial and temporal aspects in
‘standard practice’ natural capital accounts. Despite evidence that
values are sensitive to geographical factors (Bateman et al., 2011;
Johnston and Ramachandran, 2015; Schaafsma et al., 2012;
Schaafsma, 2015; Sagebiel et al., 2017), spatial dimensions relating
to the valuation of the benefits arising from ecosystem services are
largely ignored. Very few of the reviewed natural capital accounting
studies have included maps illustrating the spatial distribution of the
various assets or ecosystem services supplied by a given area and
none of them have considered the implications of the location of the
natural capital and related ecosystem services in terms of the benefits
provided to people. Given that in the majority of cases, the location
of the natural asset and the associated goods and services is an
important driver of economic values, spatially explicit natural capi­
tal accounting methodologies should be encouraged wherever
possible. This is relevant especially if decisions about spatial plan­
ning are to be made based on the results of natural capital accounting
exercises. Given the importance of natural capital accounting as a
tool to monitor changes over time, temporal dynamics also need to
be better understood. This concerns both the amount of ecosystem
services produced over different years and the role of time in the
valuation of goods and services (i.e. through the choice of the dis­
count rate).
Appendixes
A1. list of the reviewed relevant natural capital accounting scoping studies
The following list of reports was reviewed:
• White, C., Dunscombe, R., Dvarskas, A., Eves, C., Finisdore, J., Kieboom, E., Maclean, I., Obst, C., Rowcroft, P. & Silcock, P. (2015), Developing
ecosystem accounts for protected areas in England and Scotland, Department for Food, Environment & Rural Affairs/The Scottish Government
• RSPB (2017). Accounting for Nature: A Natural Capital Account of the RSPB’s estate in England
• Rouquette, J.R. (2016). Mapping Natural Capital and Ecosystem Services in the Nene Valley. Report for the Nene Valley NIA Project.
15
Journal of Environmental Management 327 (2023) 116272
While seeking to identify the advantages and limitations of local
natural capital accounts, the analyses presented in this paper are also
subject to some limitations. The conclusions and lessons learned in our
study are derived from the analysis of specific case studies and are
therefore not necessarily valid for different contexts. More efforts are
hence needed to understand the generalisability of our findings and
recommendations to other localised settings. Many aspects of local
natural capital accounting additionally require exploration in the future.
One issue which remains largely under-researched relates to the sus­
tainability (or unsustainability) of extraction and/or use of natural
capital stocks. Flow accounts, which only focus on annual ecosystem
services’ supply, provide only a partial picture. Stock accounts, which
not only look at annual flows (e.g. timber extraction), but also at the
total stock (e.g. total standing timber) could be used to provide an
improved framework for sustainability decision-making. A better un­
derstanding of the implications of sustainable or unsustainable uses of
natural capital stocks is crucial if natural capital accounting is to be used
to inform decision-making in the longer term. As highlighted in the
ENCA guidance document (Defra, 2021), another area requiring further
attention is the costs of maintaining natural capital stocks for the pro­
vision of ecosystem goods and services. One key conclusion from the
review of previous natural capital accounts is that insufficient consid­
eration has generally been given to the costs (compared to the benefits)
of natural capital. Additionally considering the costs of ecosystem ser­
vices’ provision and natural capital maintenance can provide a more
complete and informative picture to guide management
decision-making.
Author contribution
Michela Faccioli: Conceptualization; Methodology; Formal analysis;
Investigation; Writing – original draft; Writing – review & editing;
Project administration. Sara Zonneveld: Conceptualization; Methodol­
ogy; Formal analysis; Investigation; Writing – original draft; Writing –
review & editing; Project administration. Charles Tyler: Conceptuali­
zation; Investigation; Writing – review & editing; Supervision; Funding
acquisition. Brett Day: Conceptualization; Methodology; Formal anal­
ysis; Investigation; Writing – review & editing; Supervision; Funding
acquisition.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank the Dartmoor and Exmoor National Park
Authorities for their support and collaboration in this project. This
research was funded by the Natural Environment Research Council
(NERC) as part of the SWEEP programme (South West Partnership for
Environment and Economic Prosperity) [grant number NE/P011217/1].
M. Faccioli et al. Journal of Environmental Management 327 (2023) 116272

• Cryle, P., Krisht, S., Tinch, R., Provins, A., Dickie, I., Fairhead, A. (2015). Developing UK natural capital accounts: woodland ecosystem accounts.
Economics for the Environment Consultancy Ltd (Eftec) in association with Cascade Consulting for Defra
• Office for National Statistics scoping studies:
o Jones, L., Vieno, M., Morton, D., Cryle, P., Holland, M., Carnell, E., Nemitz, E., Hall, J., Beck, R., Reis, S., Pritchard, N., Hayes, F., Mills, G., Koshy,
A., Dickie, I. (2017). Developing Estimates for the Valuation of Air Pollution Removal in Ecosystem Accounts. Final report for Office of National
Statistics, July 2017
o Smithers, R., Korkeala, O., Whiteley, G., Brace, S., and Holmes, B. (2016). Valuing flood-regulation services for inclusion in the UK ecosystem
accounts. Ricardo Energy & Environment for the UK Office for National Statistics
o Office for National Statistics (ONS) (2016) Scoping the UK coastal margin ecosystem accounts

A range of other reports16 (including Exmoor’s “Towards a Register of Exmoor’s Natural Capital”) were included in the review, but could not be
used for the purposes of this project because they either provided only qualitative information, or they provided quantitative figures which were,
however, not readily transferrable to Dartmoor and Exmoor National Parks.

Table. A2
List of the natural capital asset classes and sub-classes used to produce natural capital accounts for Dartmoor and Exmoor National
Parks (*)

Exmoor Dartmoor Adaptations made to Dartmoor classes

Woodland Woodland
Broadleaved Broadleaved 30% of Dartmoor National Park’s Rho
pasture extent was subtracted from total
Land Cover Map broadleaved extent
Coniferous Coniferous
Open water Open water
Freshwater Freshwater
Saltwater Saltwater
Mountain/heath/bog Mountain/heath/bog
Bog Bog
Heather grassland Heather grassland
Heather Heather
Inland Rock Inland Rock
Improved grassland Improved grassland Total Dartmoor National Park’s dry
grassland extent and 25% of Rhos pasture
extent was subtracted from total LCM
improved grassland extent
Semi-natural grassland Semi-natural grassland
Neutral Species-rich dry LCM Neutral and Calcareous grassland
extents were merged, and Dartmoor’s dry
grass extent added.
Calcareous Species-rich wet (Rhos pasture) Based on Dartmoor’s Rhos pasture extent
(subtracted from LCM extents of acid
grassland (45% of Rhos extent), improved
grassland (25% of Rhos extent) and
broadleaved woodland (30% of Rhos
extent))
Acid Acid 45% of Dartmoor’s Rhos pasture extent
subtracted from LCM acid grassland extent
Fen/marsh/swamp Fen/marsh/swamp
Arable/horticulture Arable/horticulture
Coastal
Saltmarsh
Supra-littoral rock
Supra-littoral sediment
Littoral rock
Littoral sediment
(*) For Exmoor, LCM 2015 data and classifications were used. For Dartmoor, LCM 2015 data and classifications were adapted by
considering additional local data on Rhos pasture and dry grassland (adaptations are detailed in the table above).

16
List of reports reviewed but not providing quantitative and easily transferrable information to build standard practice natural capital accounts:• Deane R. and
Walker A. (2018). Towards a Register of Exmoor’s Natural Capital. Report to the Exmoor Society, Dulverton• Hölzinger, O., Laughlin, P. (2016). Cornwall Area of
Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) Natural Capital Assessment• Whiteley, G., Shabb, K., Korkeala, O., Mccullough, A., Smithers, R. (2016). Reviewing cultural
services valuation methodology for inclusion in aggregate UK natural capital estimates. Report for Office National Statistics• Office for National Statistics (ONS)
(2017). UK natural capital: developing UK mountain, moorland and heathland ecosystem accounts.• Dickie I., Evans C., Smyth M.A., Artz, R. (2015). Scoping the
Natural Capital Accounts for Peatland, work package 3 of Report NR0165 for Defra.• Office for National Statistics (ONS) (2018). UK natural capital: developing semi-
natural grassland ecosystem accounts.• Office for National Statistics (2018). UK Natural Capital: Ecosystem service accounts 1997 to 2015.• Office for National
Statistics (2016). UK Natural Capital: Monetary estimates 2016.

16
 Table A3

M. Faccioli et al.
Natural capital account table for Exmoor National Park

STOCKS GOODS & SERVICES TOTAL

Natural capital stock Stock Recreation Climate regulation Timber Livestock Crops Volunteering Air quality Pollination
extent
Annual Value Annual Value Annual Value Total Value Annual Value Annual Value Annual kg Value Annual Value
(ha)
visitors tonnes of m3 livestock tonnes hours PM10 pollinator-
CO2e overbark no. absorbed dependent
seques. tonnes

Total goods & 69,890 1,258,024 £2,762,899 130,731 £8,156,890 28,935 £426,677 362,840 £7,257,879 21,589 £1,613,595 27,288 £199,436 155,495 £2,472,710.48 71 £7,432 £22,897,519
services

Woodland 11,254 202,572 £730,693 143,501 £8,953,676 28,935 £426,677 0 £0 134,035 £2,174,901.42 0 £0 £12,285,948
Broadleaved 7,876 141,768 £511,368 84,352 £5,263,109 3,938 £60,443 0 £0 93,803 £1,522,083.13 0 £0
Coniferous 3,378 60,804 £219,325 59,149 £3,690,566 24,997 £366,234 0 £0 40,232 £652,818.29 0 £0
Open water 234 4,212 £8,264 − 999 -£62,332 0 £0 0 £0 0 £0.00 0 £0 -£54,069
Freshwater 185 3,330 £6,533 − 999 -£62,332 0 £0 0 £0 0 £0.00 0 £0
Saltwater 49 882 £1,730 0 £0 0 £0 0 £0.00 0 £0
Mountain/heath/ 3,407 61,324 £333,368 10,992 £685,852 0 £0 0 £0 1,496 £23,238.73 0 £0 £1,042,459
bog
Bog 26 468 £2,544 0 £0 0 £0 0 £0
Heather grassland 356 6,408 £34,835 573 £35,762 0 £0 0 £0 228 £2,657.23 0 £0
Heather 3,020 54,360 £295,510 10,419 £650,090 0 £0 0 £0 1,268 £20,581.51 0 £0
Inland Rock 5 88 £479 0 £0 0 £0 0 £0 0 £0.00 0 £0
Improved grassland 34,113 614,034 £1,022,730 0 £0 0 £0 8,187 £132,847.09 0 £0 £1,155,577
Semi-natural 17,259 310,662 £517,436 27,766 £1,732,422 0 £0 0 £0 10,982 £128,823.28 0 £0 £2,378,682
grassland
Neutral 357 6,426 £10,703 553 £34,526 0 £0 0 £0 164 £2,664.69 0 £0
17

Calcareous 0 0 £0 0 £0 0 £0 0 £0 0 £0.00 0 £0
Acid 16,902 304,236 £506,733 27,212 £1,697,896 0 £0 0 £0 10,817 £126,158.59 0 £0
Fen/marsh/swamp 0 0 £0 0 £0 0 £0 0 £0 0 £0.00 0 £0
Arable/horticulture 2,736 49,248 £82,027 − 51,026 -£3,183,773 0 £0 21,589 £1,613,595 739 £11,986.73 71 £7,432 -£1,468,733
oats 70 420 £32,817 0 £0
oilseed rape 436 1,613 £287,312
spring barley 266 1,464 £137,949 0 £0
winter barley 268 1,905 £156,176 0 £0
wheat 1,208 9,786 £783,807 0 £0
linseed 11 16 £3,525 1 £176
sugar beet 64 3,898 £36,735 0 £0
peas 30 72 £7,998
field beans 118 283 71

Journal of Environmental Management 327 (2023) 116272

£29,025 £7,256
potatoes (early) 7 107 £10,389 0 £0
potatoes (main 61 2,025 £127,860 0 £0
crops)
other 196
Coastal 887 15,971 £68,381 498 £31,046 0 £0 0 £0 0 £0 56 £913.22 0 £0 £100,340
Saltmarsh 84 1,512 £6,474 353 £22,013 0 £0 0 £0 0 £0 56 £913.22 0 £0
Supra-littoral rock 471 8,478 £36,298 0 £0 0 £0 0 £0 0 £0 0 £0.00 0 £0
Supra-littoral 3 59 £254 4 £235 0 £0 0 £0 0 £0 0 £0.00 0 £0
sediment
Littoral rock 90 1,620 £6,936 0 £0 0 £0 0 £0 0 £0 0 £0.00 0 £0
Littoral sediment 239 4,302 £18,419 141 £8,798 0 £0 0 £0 0 £0 0 £0.00 0 £0.00
 M. Faccioli et al.
Table A4
Natural capital account table for Dartmoor National Park

STOCKS GOODS & SERVICES TOTAL

Natural capital stock Stock Recreation Climate regulation Timber Livestock Crops Air quality Pollination
extent
Annual Value Annual Value Annual Value Total Value Annual Value Annual kg Value Annual Value
(ha)
visitors tonnes of m3 livestock tonnes PM10 pollinator-
CO2e overbark no. absorbed dependent
seques. tonnes

All stocks 94,322 6,508,218 £15,516,528 185,675 £11,585,099 32,000 £455,630 282,088 £8,193,537 17,218 £1,286,865 171,888 £2,788,461 57 £5,928 £39,832,048.46

Woodland 12,194 841,386 £3,034,945 156,125 £9,741,358 32,000 £455,630 0 £0 145,231 £2,356,562 0 £0 £15,588,495.40
Broadleaved 8,440 582,360 £2,100,618 90,392 £5,640,000 4,220 £64,771 0 £0 100,520 £1,631,079 0 £0
Coniferous 3,754 259,026 £934,327 65,733 £4,101,358 27,780 £390,859 0 £0 44,710 £725,482 0 £0
Open water 217 14,973 £29,376 − 1,172 -£73,114 0 £0 0 £0 0 £0 0 £0 -£43,738.15
Freshwater 217 14,973 £29,376 − 1,172 -£73,114 0 £0 0 £0 0 £0 0 £0
Saltwater 0 0 £0 0 £0 0 £0 0 £0 0 £0 0 £0
Mountain/heath/bog 11,679 805,851 £4,380,738 8,654 £539,991 0 £0 0 £0 1,153 £18,055 0 £0 £4,938,783.57
Bog 8,928 616,032 £3,348,851 0 £0 0 £0 0 £0
Heather grassland 224 15,456 £84,021 361 £22,502 0 £0 0 £0 143 £1,672 0 £0
Heather 2,404 165,876 8,294 0 0 1,010 0
18

£901,729 £517,489 £0 £0 £16,383 £0

Inland Rock 123 8,487 £46,137 0 £0 0 £0 0 £0 0 £0 0 £0
Improved grassland 29,035 2,003,415 £3,336,871 0 £0 0 £0 6,968 £113,072 0 £0 £3,449,942.46
Semi-natural grassland 39,015 2,692,035 £4,483,830 62,761 £3,915,970 0 £0 0 £0 17,947 £291,213 0 £0 £8,691,012.99
Acid 36,595 2,525,055 £4,205,710 58,918 £3,676,164 0 £0 0 £0 16,834 £273,150 0 £0
Fen/marsh/swamp 11 759 £1,264 43 £2,684 0 £0 0 £0 5 £82 0 £0
Species-rich dry grassland 1,107 76,383 £127,223 1,782 £111,204 0 £0 0 £0 509 £8,263 0 £0
Rhos pasture 1,302 89,838 £149,633 2,018 £125,919 0 £0 0 £0 599 £9,718 0 £0
Arable/horticulture 2,182 150,558 £250,768 − 40,694 -£2,539,106 0 £0 17,218 £1,286,865 589 £9,560 57 £5,928 -£985,985.23
oats 56 0 £0 335 £26,172 0 £0
oilseed rape 348 0 £0 1,287 £229,135
spring barley 212 0 £0 1,168 £110,017 0 £0
winter barley 214 0 1,519 0

Journal of Environmental Management 327 (2023) 116272

£0 £124,553 £0
wheat 964 0 £0 7,804 £625,098 0 £0
linseed 9 0 £0 13 £2,811 1 £141
sugar beet 51 0 £0 3,109 £29,297 0 £0
peas 24 0 £0 57 £6,379
field beans 94 0 £0 225 £23,148 56 £5,787
potatoes early 6 0 £0 85 £8,285 0 £0
potatoes main crop 49 0 £0 1,615 £101,970 0 £0
remainder (other) 157 0 £0
M. Faccioli et al. Journal of Environmental Management 327 (2023) 116272

A5. More details on the implications of misclassifying land cover data

Based on stakeholders’ consultation, it emerged that the LCM 2015 data tend to misclassify open grassland habitats (heather) as acid grassland for
Exmoor. We therefore tested for the effects of re-classifying acid grassland as ‘heather’. Initially, the LCM data estimated 16,902 ha of acid grassland
and 3,020 ha of heather on Exmoor. After re-classification, the total amount of heather habitat was changed to 19,922 ha, with no acid grassland. As a
result, the total natural capital account value changed from £22.9 million in the original account, to £26 million under the updated assumptions. The
re-classification of habitats only affected the provision and therefore the total value of some ecosystem services (i.e. recreation, climate regulation and
air quality). The quantity and value of the remaining ecosystem services was left unaffected, either because these services are not provided by acid
grassland and open moorland habitats or because the rate of provision of these two services is the same for both land cover types.
Table A5 summarises the changes in the ecosystem services’ value, before and after habitat re-classification, and in the last column it reports the
reasons underlying the detected variations:

Table A5
Changes in ecosystem services’ value, before and after habitat re-classification.

Ecosystem service Original value (in million) Value after habitat re-classification (in million) Specific reason for change

Recreation £2.76 £3.91 Different value per visit to grassland and moorland habitats
Climate Regulation £8.16 £10.10 Different rates of carbon capture in grassland and moorland habitats
Air Quality £2.47 £2.46 Different rates of PM10 capture between grassland and moorland habitats

A6. Alternative assumptions for the quantification of carbon sequestration services

Measures of the flow of carbon sequestration services provided by natural capital vary substantially in the reviewed studies due to the consid­
eration of different habitats or plant species which have different sequestration rates. Variations in the reported figures also depend on whether only
CO2 emissions or additionally other greenhouse gases, such as methane and nitrous oxide (measured as CO2e - CO2 equivalent), are accounted for.
Based on our review, the RSPB scoping study (RSPB, 2017) offered the most comprehensive figures by considering CO2e sequestration rates across
different habitat types. This is therefore the approach that we have replicated in our ‘standard practice’ accounts.
To test for the effect of alternative assumptions about sequestration rates, we considered various sources and metrics of carbon sequestration for
the case of woodland habitats in Exmoor (Tables A6a and A6b). To allow changes in the accounts to be driven only by variations in the biophysical
estimates of carbon sequestration, we kept constant the assumptions about the economic value per tonne of carbon (equal to the UK Government non-
traded carbon price).

Table A6a
The effects of different assumptions on the quantity of carbon sequestration services in broadleaved woodland in Exmoor

Broadleaved woodland

Carbon sequestration (tonnes/ha/year) Type Assumption source Total annual sequestration (tonnes/year) Climate regulation value

10.71 CO2e R 84,352 £5,263,109

9.37 CO2e N 73,798 £4,604,606
4.97 CO2 D 39,142 £2,442,358
4.71 CO2e E 37,096 £2,314,589

Table A6b
The effects of different assumptions on the quantity of carbon sequestration services in coniferous woodland in Exmoor

Coniferous woodland

Carbon sequestration (tonnes/ha/year) Type Assumption source Total annual sequestration (tonnes/year) Climate regulation value

17.51 CO2e R 59,149 £3,690,566

12.13 CO2e N 40,975 £2,556,629
12.66 CO2 D 42,765 £2,668,336
4.47 CO2e E 15,100 £942,138

Notes: D = Defra natural capital account for protected areas (White et al., 2015); R = accounts for RSPB estate (RSPB, 2017); E = Eftec woodland natural capital
account for the UK (Cryle et al., 2015); N = Nene Valley report (Rouquette, 2016).

In addition to the estimates provided in the RSPB scoping study, alternative figures found in the Defra/AECOM report (White et al., 2015), the Nene
Valley study (Rouquette, 2016) and the Eftec report on woodlands (Cryle et al., 2015) were also considered. The Defra/AECOM study offers a poor
estimation of carbon sequestration because it only focuses on one broadleaved and one coniferous species and overlooks greenhouse gases other than
CO2 entirely. Similarly, the Eftec and Nene Valley studies only report sequestration rates for a few habitat types, thereby providing a partial picture of
the carbon sequestration services offered by woodlands. The figures provided in the RSPB report represent more informed and accurate estimates.
However, these can be improved by collecting local data on the exact species and age composition of National Park woodlands, which could help with
the identification of more context-specific estimates of carbon sequestration in the scientific literature.

19
M. Faccioli et al. Journal of Environmental Management 327 (2023) 116272

Tables A6a and A6b show that when different carbon sequestration rates are selected, the estimates of total sequestration by woodlands can vary by
tens of thousands of tonnes and the climate regulation value can vary by several million pounds. Hence, the choice of the specific estimate to quantify
ecosystem services’ provision can play a substantial role on the total account results.

A7. The implications of using alternative assumptions of crop production

When discussing the initial account findings with National Park staff, it was clear that the ‘standard practice’ approach, employing national av­
erages to allocate agricultural land by crop type, is not readily applicable to Dartmoor and Exmoor. Agricultural land use in the two National Parks is
very different from the national averages. Data from the Defra June Survey Agricultural cut for National Parks17 was reviewed in order to identify
improved estimates of the proportions of different crop types on Dartmoor and Exmoor National Parks’ arable land. However, these data are limited in
that they only consider a restricted number of crop categories (i.e. “cereals”, “other arable crops” and “horticultural crops”).
Alternative information on crop proportions for Dartmoor and Exmoor National Parks are offered by the Farm Business Survey18 data, which
underpin the spatially-specific agricultural model contained in the NEVO tool.19 We converted the extent of crop types in NEVO into percentages of
arable land by crop type and compared these against the national percentages used in our ‘standard practice’ accounts (presented in Table 3). The
results of this comparison are outlined in Table A7a.

Table A7a
Estimates of crop proportions using national data versus more localised information

Crop type % of arable land based on national data % of Dartmoor arable land based on NEVO % of Exmoor arable land based on NEVO

Wheat 44.2 26.7 21.6

Spring barley 9.7 13.4 13.0
Winter barley 9.8 8.6 8.3
Oilseed rape 16 16.9 13.0
Sugar beet 2.4 0 0
Potatoes (early) 0.3 0.03 0
Potatoes (late) 2.2 0.03 0
Linseed 0.4 34.4 44.0
Oats 2.6 34.4 44.0
Peas 1.1 34.4 44.0
Field beans 4.3 34.4 44.0
Other 7 34.4 44.0

It has to be noted that NEVO uses fewer crop categories, as potatoes were not separated into “early” and “late”, and linseed, oats, peas and field
beans were not included (and therefore aggregated into the “other” category).
Table A7a illustrates that there are some substantial differences between national data and NEVO estimates of crop proportions on arable land. In
particular, the estimates of wheat produced on Dartmoor and Exmoor are substantially lower in NEVO, compared to the national averages based on
Defra data. The proportion of “other”, unspecified, crops is also considerably higher.
We then tested (Tables A7b and A7c) how different estimates of crop proportions can change the account results:

Table A7b
Implications of using different estimates of crop proportions on crop production and value (Dartmoor)

Crop type Total production (tonnes) Value (£2015)

Assuming ‘Standard Practice’ Assuming NEVO crop proportions Assuming ‘Standard Practice’ Assuming NEVO crop proportions
(national data) crop proportions (national data) crop proportions

Wheat 7,804 4,719 £1,555,106 £940,310

Spring barley 1,168 1,608 £208,782 £287,580
Winter barley 1,519 1,333 £271,686 £238,310
Oilseed rape 1,287 1,365 £457,778 £485,515
Sugar beet 3,109 0 £100,393 £0

17
Defra June Survey statistical data set geographical breakdowns, available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/structure-of-the-agricultural-
industry-in-england-and-the-uk-at-june
18
Further information on the Farm Business Survey: https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/farm-business-survey.
19
Accessible at: https://www.leep.exeter.ac.uk/nevo.

20
M. Faccioli et al. Journal of Environmental Management 327 (2023) 116272

Table A7c
Implications of using different estimates of crop proportions on crop quantity and value (Exmoor)

Crop type Total production (tonnes) Value (£2015)

Assuming ‘Standard Practice’ Assuming NEVO crop proportions Assuming ‘Standard Practice’ Assuming NEVO crop proportions
(national data) crop proportions (national data) crop proportions

Wheat 9,786 4,787 £1,949,940 £953,867

Spring barley 1,464 1,958 £261,791 £350,132
Winter barley 1,905 1,612 £340,666 £288,206
Oilseed rape 1,613 1,317 £574,006 £468,664
Sugar beet 3,898 0 £125,882 £0

Given that the NEVO tool and the ‘standard practice’ approach focus on different crops, comparison of results is only possible for those crops that
are considered in both cases: wheat, spring barley, winter barley, oilseed rape and sugar beet. For barley, oilseed rape and sugar beet, variations in the
figures are relatively minor between the two approaches, with production varying by several hundred tonnes only. However, wheat production
amounts, and the resulting values, are very different between the national and NEVO estimates of crop proportion. Wheat production is overestimated
when using national estimates of crop proportions. As land allocated to wheat production in uplands on Dartmoor and Exmoor is likely lower
compared to the national average, NEVO estimates seem to represent a more realistic picture of true crop production for our case study areas. In order
to improve the ‘standard practice’ approach, whilst still focusing on a more complete list of crop types, we would recommend replacing national
estimates with data collected on the exact crop areas within the National Park boundaries.

A8. Making alternative assumptions about the discount rates

In the UK, the Government guidelines, as set in the HM Green Book, provide guidance regarding the appropriate discounting rate to apply to
environmental goods and services. Recommendations are generally that a discount rate of 3.5% is employed for flows of ecosystem services projected
out to 30 years, with discount rates declining to 3% for longer periods of time. This decline (to the so called ‘reduced‘ discount rate) is justified by the
fact that for significantly long periods into the future (i.e. exceeding 30 years) it is not ethically defensible not to employ a lower discount rate, given
the irreversible wealth transfers that is otherwise implied from the future generations to the present generation. Table A8a below summarises various
long-term discount rates that the Green Book considers for different ranges of time:

Table A8a
Overview of discount rates recommended by the Green Book over different periods of time

Period of years 0–30 31–75 76–125 126–200 201–300 301+

Standard rate as published in the Green Book 3.5% 3.00% 2.50% 2.00% 1.50% 1.00%
Reduced rate 3.00% 2.57% 2.14% 1.71% 1.29% 0.86%

Alternative discount rates for the valuation of the flows of environmental goods and services taking place in the very long term are recommended
elsewhere (e.g. Drupp et al., 2018). Drupp et al. (2018) report the results of a survey to a pool of experts who were asked about acceptable estimates of
the social discount rate for very long-term environmental problems. The median value estimated from this exercise was 2%, ranging from a lower
bound of 1% to an upper bound of 3.5%. The minimum value provided in the survey was 0% and the maximum was 10%. This shows that there can be
huge variation in the figures that can be considered for the social discount rate.
To illustrate the sensitivity of the account values to the choice of the discount rate we consider the case of carbon sequestration as an example. The
Defra/ONS (2014)20 document recommends to consider a time horizon of 50 years as the asset life of woodlands and, as such, the asset value of
woodland-related services (including carbon sequestration) should also be capitalised over the same period of time.
Below we compare the value of the flow of carbon sequestration services over the assumed period of time (50 years) for Dartmoor and Exmoor, by
considering different discount rates, to illustrate the sensitivity of the results to the choice of specific figures:

Table A8b
Carbon sequestration values assuming different discount rates

Discount rate

3.5% HM 3.5% + 3% 2% 1%

Dartmoor National Park £271,735,647 £284,082,468 £364,045,574 £454,090,888

Exmoor National Park £191,324,896 £200,018,104 £256,318,899 £319,718,422

Results of this exercise show that the total net present value figures for the annualised flows of carbon sequestration values vary considerably
depending on the discount rate, with much higher net present values calculated when lower discount rates are considered.

20
Defra/ONS (2014), Principles of ecosystem accounting. Paper for Natural Capital Accounting Steering Group.

21
M. Faccioli et al. Journal of Environmental Management 327 (2023) 116272

References Hanley, N., Barbier, E., 2009. Pricing Nature: Cost-Benefit Analysis and Environmental
Policy. Edward Elgar Cheltenham (UK) and Northampton (MA, USA).
Hein, L., Remme, R.P., Schenau, S., Bogaart, P.W., Lof, M.E., Horlings, E., 2020.
Agarwala, M., Atkinson, G., Baldock, C., Gardiner, B., 2014. Natural capital accounting
Ecosystem accounting in The Netherlands. Ecosyst. Serv. 44, 101118.
and climate change. Nat. Clim. Change 4, 520–522.
Horlings, E., Schenau, S., Hein, L., Lof, M., de Jongh, L., Polder, M., 2020. Experimental
Atkinson, G., Groom, B., Hanley, N., Mourato, S., 2018. Environmental valuation and
Monetary Valuation of Ecosystem Services and Assets in the Netherlands. CBS Den
benefit-cost analysis in U.K. policy. J. Benefit-Cost Anal. 9 (1), 97–119. https://doi.
Haag & Wageninger University & Research.
org/10.1017/bca.2018.6.
Johnston, R.J., Ramachandran, M., 2015. Modeling spatial patchiness and hot spots in
Atkinson, G., Ovando, P., 2020. Distributional issues in natural capital accounting: an
stated preference willingness to pay. Environ. Resour. Econ. 59 (3), 363–387.
application to land ownership and ecosystem services in Scotland. In: Centre for
Jones, L., Vieno, M., Morton, D., Cryle, P., Holland, M., Carnell, E., Nemitz, E., Hall, J.,
Climate Change Economics and Policy Working Paper 382/Grantham Research
Beck, R., Reis, S., Pritchard, N., Hayes, F., Mills, G., Koshy, A., Dickie, I., 2017.
Institute on Climate Change and the Environment Working Paper 354. London
Developing Estimates for the Valuation of Air Pollution Removal in Ecosystem
School of Economics and Political Science, London.
Accounts. Final report for Office of National Statistics, July 2017.
Barbier, E.B., 2019. The concept of natural capital. Oxf. Rev. Econ. Pol. 35 (1), 14–36.
Leifeld, J., Wüst-Galley, C., Page, S., 2019. Intact and managed peatland soils as a source
Barker, R., 2019. Corporate natural capital accounting. Oxford Bulletin of Economic
and sink of GHGs from 1850 to 2100. Nat. Clim. Change 9, 945–947.
Policy 35 (1), 68–87.
Lindhjem, H., Reinvang, R., Zandersen, M., 2015. Landscape Experiences as a Cultural
Barton, D.N., Caparrós, A., Conner, N., Edens, B., Piaggio, M., Turpie, J., 2019a.
Ecosystem Service in a Nordic Context Concepts, Values and Decision-Making.
Discussion paper 5.1: defining exchange and welfare values, articulating
Mace, G.M., 2019. The ecology of natural capital accounting. Oxf. Rev. Econ. Pol. 35 (1),
institutional arrangements and establishing the valuation context for ecosystem
54–67.
accounting. In: Paper Drafted as Input into the Revision of the System on
Maes, J., Czúcz, B., Keith, H., Jackson, B., Nicholson, E., Dasoo, M., 2020. A review of
Environmental-Economic Accounting 2012–Experimental Ecosystem Accounting.
ecosystem condition accounts: lessons learned and options for further development.
Version of 25 July 2019.
One Ecosyst. 5, e53485.
Barton, D.N., Obst, C., Day, B., Caparrós, A., Dadvand, P., Fenichel, E., Havinga, I.,
Natural Capital Coalition, 2016. Natural Capital Protocol. Natural Capital Coalition,
Hein, L., McPhearson, T., Randrup, T., Zulian, G., 2019b. Discussion paper 10:
London.
recreation services from ecosystems. In: Paper Submitted to the Expert Meeting on
Natural Capital Committee, 2018. Advice to Government on the 25 Year Environment
Advancing the Measurement of Ecosystem Services for Ecosystem Accounting, New
Plan.
York, 22-24 January 2019 and Subsequently Revised. Version of 25 March 2019.
Natural Capital Committee, 2019. State of Natural Capital Annual Report 2019. Sixth
Bateman, I., Brouwer, R., Ferrini, S., Schaafsma, M., Barton, D.N., Dubgaard, A., et al.,
Report to the Economic Affairs Committee of the Cabinet.
2011. Making benefit transfer work: deriving and testing principles for value transfer
Obst, C., 2015. Account for soil as natural capital. Nature 527, 165.
for similar and dissimilar sites using a case study of the non-market benefits of water
Obst, C., Hein, L., Edens, B., 2016. National accounting and the valuation of ecosystem
quality improvements across Europe. Environ. Resour. Econ. 50 (3), 365–387.
assets and their services. Environ. Resour. Econ. 64 (1), 1–23.
Boyd, J.W., Bagstad, K.J., Ingram, J.C., Shapiro, C.D., Adkins, J.E., Casey, C.F., et al.,
Ofwat, 2019. Time to Act, Together: Ofwat’s Strategy. Ofwat report. October 2019.
2018. The natural capital accounting opportunity: let’s really do the numbers.
ONS, 2016. Scoping the UK Coastal Margin Ecosystem Accounts.
Bioscience 68 (12), 940–943.
ONS, 2017. Principles of Natural Capital Accounting. A Background Paper for Those
Bright, G., Connors, E., Grice, J., 2019. Measuring natural capital: towards accounts for
Wanting to Understand the Concepts and Methodology Underlying the UK Natural
the UK and a basis for improved decision-making. Oxford Bulletin of Economic
Capital Accounts Being Developed by ONS and Defra.
Policy 35 (1), 88–108.
Özdemiroğlu, E., 2019. Natural capital – a practitioner’s overview of concepts and
Brown, C., King, S., Ling, M., Bowles-Newark, N., Ingwall-King, L., Wilson, L., Pietilä, K.,
applications. Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy 8 (4), 343–352.
Regan, E., Vause, J., 2016. Natural Capital Assessments at the National and Sub-
Paoli, C., Povero, P., Burgos, E., Dapueto, G., Fanciulli, G., Massa, F., Scarpellini, P.,
national Level. UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge, UK. Google Preview WorldCat COPAC).
Vassallo, P., 2018. Natural capital and environmental flows assessment in marine
CEH (Centre for Ecology and Hydrology), 2017. Land Cover Map 2015 Dataset
protected areas: the case study of Liguria region (NW Mediterranean Sea). Ecol.
Documentation.
Model. 368, 121–135.
Champ, P.A., Boyle, K.J., Brown, T.C., 2003. A Primer on Nonmarket Valuation, second
Provins, A., Royle, D., Bolt, K., Evison, W., Cox, V., Ozdemiroglu, E., et al., 2015.
ed. Springer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.
Developing Corporate Natural Capital Accounts. Final Report for the Natural Capital
Costanza, R., de Groot, R., Braat, L., Kubiszewski, I., Fioramonti, L., Sutton, P.,
Committee.
Farber, G., 2017. Twenty years of ecosystem services: how far have we come and
Redman, G., 2017. The John Nix Pocketbook for Farm Management 2018, 48th Edition.
how far do we still need to go? Ecosyst. Serv. 28, 1–16.
Melton Mowbray: Agro Business Consultants.
Cryle, P., Krisht, S., Tinch, R., Provins, A., Dickie, I., Fairhead, A., 2015. Developing UK
Ricardo Energy & Environment for the UK Office for National Statistics; Office for
Natural Capital Accounts: Woodland Ecosystem Accounts. Economics for the
National Statistics (ONS), 2016. Scoping the UK Coastal Margin Ecosystem Accounts.
Environment Consultancy Ltd (Eftec) in association with Cascade Consulting for the
Rouquette, J.R., 2016. Mapping Natural Capital and Ecosystem Services in the Nene
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra).
Valley. Report for the Nene Valley NIA Project.
Day, B., Smith, G., 2017. The ORVal Recreation Demand Model: Extension Project.
RSPB, 2017. Accounting for Nature: A Natural Capital Account of the RSPB’s Estate in
Report from the Land, Environment, Economics and Policy (LEEP) Institute at the
England.
University of Exeter available at: https://www.leep.exeter.ac.uk/orval/pdf-reports/
Sagebiel, J., Glenk, K., Meyerhoff, J., 2017. Spatially explicit demand for afforestation.
ORValII_Modelling_Report.pdf.
For. Pol. Econ. 78, 190–199.
Day, B., Smith, G., 2018. Outdoor Recreation Valuation (ORVal) User Guide: Version 2.0,
Schaafsma, M., 2015. Spatial and geographical aspects of benefit transfer. In:
Land, Environment, Economics and Policy (LEEP) Institute. University of Exeter,
Johnston, R., Rolfe, J., Rosenberger, R., Brouwer, R. (Eds.), Benefit Transfer of
Business School.
Environmental and Resource Values, The Economics of Non-market Goods and
Day, B., Owen, N., Binner, A., Bateman, I., Cho, F., De-Gol, A., Ferguson-Gow, H.,
Resources, vol. 14. Springer, Dordrecht.
Ferrini, S., Harwood, A., Lee, C., Liuzzo, L., Mancini, M., Pearson, P., 2020. The
Schaafsma, M., Brouwer, R., Rose, J., 2012. Directional heterogeneity in WTP models for
Natural Environmental Valuation (NEV) Modelling Suite: A Summary Technical
environmental valuation. Ecol. Econ. 79, 21–31.
Report, April 2020, Report for Economics and Modelling Team. Department of Food
Sen, A., Harwood, A.R., Bateman, I.J., Munday, P., Crowe, A., Brander, L., et al., 2014.
and Rural Affairs, London.
Economic assessment of the recreational value of ecosystems: methodological
Day, B., 2021. Report 5: Outdoor Recreation in England & Wales: Visits, Values & Prices.
development and national and local application. Environ. Resour. Econ. 57 (2),
Report to Defra for ORVal Insights Project.
233–249.
Defra, 2021. Enabling a natural capital approach guidance. Available at: https://www.
Smithers, R., Korkeala, O., Whiteley, G., Brace, S., Holmes, B., 2016. Valuing Flood-
gov.uk/government/publications/enabling-a-natural-capital-approach-enca-guidan
Regulation Services for Inclusion in the UK Ecosystem Accounts. Ricardo Energy &
ce/enabling-a-natural-capital-approach-guidance.
Environment for the UK Office for National Statistics.
Dickie, I., Neupauer, S., 2019. Natural capital accounts: nations and organisations.
Sunderland, T., Waters, R., Marsh, D., Hudson, C., Lusardi, J., 2019. Accounting for
Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy 8 (4), 379–393.
National Nature Reserves: A Natural Capital Account of the National Nature Reserves
Drupp, M.A., Freeman, M.C., Groom, B., Nesje, F., 2018. Discounting disentangled. Am.
Managed by Natural England. Report published by Natural England.
Econ. J. Econ. Pol. 10 (4), 109–134.
Sutton, P.C., Duncan, S.L., Anderson, S., 2019. Valuing our national parks: an ecological
Fenichel, E., Hashida, Y., 2019. Choices and the value of natural capital. Oxf. Rev. Econ.
economics perspective. Land 8 (4), 54.
Pol. 35 (1), 120–137.
Turner, K., Badura, T., Ferrini, S., 2019. Natural capital accounting perspectives: a
Franzese, P.P., Buonocore, E., Donnarumma, L., Russo, G.F., 2017. Natural capital
pragmatic way forward. Ecosys. Health Sustain. 5 (1), 237–241.
accounting in marine protected areas: the case of the Islands of Ventotene and S.
UNEP-WCMC, 2016. Feasibility Study for Biodiversity Accounting in Uganda
Stefano (Central Italy). Ecol. Model. 360, 290–299.
(Cambridge, UK).
Fujiwara, D., Oroyemi, P., McKinnon, E., 2013. Wellbeing and Civil Society. Estimating
United Nations, 2014a. System of Environmental-Economic Accounting 2012 Central
the Value of Volunteering Using Subjective Wellbeing Data. A Report of Research
Framework. https://seea.un.org/sites/seea.un.org/files/seea_cf_final_en.pdf.
Carried Out by the Department for Work and Pensions and the Cabinet Office.
United Nations, 2014b. System of Environmental-Economic Accounting 2012
Guerry, A.D., Polasky, S., Lubchenco, J., Chaplin-Kramer, R., Daily, G.C., Griffin, R.,
Experimental Ecosystem Accounting. https://seea.un.org/sites/seea.un.org/files/
2015. Natural capital and ecosystem services informing decisions: from promise to
seea_eea_final_en_1.pdf.
practice. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 112 (24), 7348–7355.

22
M. Faccioli et al. Journal of Environmental Management 327 (2023) 116272

Vassallo, P., Paoli, C., Buonocore, E., Franzese, P.P., Russo, G.F., Povero, P., 2017. White, C., Dunscombe, R., Dvarskas, A., Eves, C., Finisdore, J., Kieboom, E., Maclean, I.,
Assessing the value of natural capital in marine protected areas: a biophysical and Obst, C., Rowcroft, P., Silcock, P., 2015. Developing Ecosystem Accounts for
trophodynamic environmental accounting model. Ecol. Model. 355, 12–17. Protected Areas in England and Scotland: Main Report. Department for Food,
Weitzman, M.L., 2001. Gamma discounting. Am. Econ. Rev. 91 (1), 260–271. Environment & Rural Affairs/The Scottish Government.

23