Open Collections

UBC Undergraduate Research

Accounting for Nature : Responding to the Climate Emergency by Valuing Natural Assets : A Primer Cheng, Nicole; Suchy, Emily; Tsui, Felicia; Tulissi, Taylor 2021-04-18

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Notice for Google Chrome users:
If you are having trouble viewing or searching the PDF with Google Chrome, please download it here instead.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
52966-Cheng_N_et_al_ENVR_400_Accounting_nature_2021.pdf [ 7.3MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 52966-1.0397279.json
JSON-LD: 52966-1.0397279-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 52966-1.0397279-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 52966-1.0397279-rdf.json
Turtle: 52966-1.0397279-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 52966-1.0397279-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 52966-1.0397279-source.json
Full Text
52966-1.0397279-fulltext.txt
Citation
52966-1.0397279.ris

Full Text

  Accounting for Nature:  Responding to the Climate Emergency by Valuing Natural Assets  A Primer     An ENVR 400 Cohort with the City of Vancouver and CityStudio  Nicole Cheng, Emily Suchy, Felicia Tsui, and Taylor Tulissi April 18, 2021   ReVSRQdiQg WR Whe ClimaWe EmeUgeQc\ b\ValXiQg NaWXUal AVVeWV: A PUimeU NaWXUal aVVeW (NA) PaQagePeQW fUaPeZRUkVSURPRWe Whe cRQVeUYaWiRQ Rf QaWXUal aVVeWV, RU WheSh\Vical aQd biRlRgical UeVRXUceV aQd ecRV\VWePVfRXQd iQ QaWXUe (MNAΖ, 2017). E[aPSleV Rf WheVe NAVcRXld be VRil, aiU RU ZaWeU, aQd aUe iPSRUWaQW iQVXSSRUWiQg life RQ eaUWh (MNAΖ, 2017). B\ SlaciQgPRQeWaU\ YalXe RQ WheVe QaWXUal aVVeWV aQd WheecRV\VWeP VeUYiceV (ES) WhaW Whe\ SURYide, WheiUZRUWh caQ be beWWeU XQdeUVWRRd b\ SeRSle RXWVide RfWhe geQeUal field Rf eQYiURQPeQWal VcieQce. ΖQ UeceQW \eaUV, NA PaQagePeQW V\VWePV haYe beeQcUeaWed aQd XWili]ed iQ cRPPXQiWieV glRball\.HRZeYeU, iQ Whe CiW\ Rf VaQcRXYeU, a NAPaQagePeQW V\VWeP haV \eW WR be iQWURdXced. The gRal Rf WhiV SUiPeU UeSRUW iV WR SURSRVe aPaQagePeQW V\VWeP WhaW QRW RQl\ SURPRWeV a fiVcalYalXe Rf WheVe aVVeWV, bXW iQWegUaWeV diYeUVe,eTXiWable aQd VXbjecWiYe Za\V Rf UelaWiQg WR, aQdYalXiQg QaWXUe. ThiV Zill allRZ fRU VWURQgeU deciViRQ-PakiQg ZiWhiQ Whe fieldV Rf cRQVeUYaWiRQ, UeVWRUaWiRQ,PXQiciSal aVVeW PaQagePeQW aQd XUbaQ SlaQQiQg. WATERWAYSFORESHORESSOΖLS*FORESTSThe fRUeVW caWegRU\iQcOXdeV aOO pXblic aQdpriYaWe WUeeV iQVaQcRXYeU. E.g. fRUeVWV RfaOO ageV, XQdeUVWRU\, fRUeVWfORRUV, aQd VWUeeW WeeVFRUeVhRUeV aUe Whe NAVWhaW e[iVW aW Whe marineaQd WerresWrial bRXQdaU\,e[WeQdiQg RYeU Whe ZhROeiQWeUWidaO ]RQe. E.g.beacheV, URck\ VhRUeOiQeV,PXdfOaWV aQd eVWXaUieVThe VRiO caWegRU\iQcRUSRUaWeV OaQd noWcoYered b\ Wrees. E.g.gUaVVOaQdV, VhUXbOaQdV,aQd SUiYaWe aQd SXbOic WXUfOaZQV aQd \aUdV.*CaUbRQ VeTXeVWUaWiRQ aQd VWRUage aUeSaUWicXOaUO\ iPSRUWaQW ecRV\VWeP VeUYiceVaVVRciaWed ZiWh VRiOV.The ZaWeUZa\V caWegRU\aUe Whe NAV iQfOXeQced b\freshZaWer. E.g. OakeV,SRQdV, ZeWOaQdV, cUeekV,UiYeUV, UiSaUiaQ ]RQe aQdfORRdSOaiQV. AccRXQWLQg fRUNaWXUeThiV UeSRUW ZaV ZUiWWeQ b\ aQ ENVR 400 CRhRUWZiWh Whe CiW\ Rf VaQcRXYeU aQd CiW\SWXdiR.  AXWhRUV: NicROe CheQg, EPiO\ SXch\, FeOicia TVXi,Ta\ORU TXOiVViEXECUTΖVE SUMMARYNaWXUe haV iQWaQgibOe YaOXeV WhaW aUe difficXOW WR gUaVS iQ cRQcUeWe WeUPV. NaWXUaO aVVeWV aQd WheiUecRV\VWeP VeUYiceV haYe Whe caSaciW\ WR PiWigaWe cOiPaWe UiVkV, ZhiOe aOVR iPSURYiQg PeQWaO, ePRWiRQaO,aQd Sh\VicaO heaOWh. A SUiRUiWi]aWiRQ VchePe caQ heOS gXide Whe SURceVV Rf addUeVViQg WhRVe iQWaQgibOeYaOXeV. The CiW\ Rf VaQcRXYeU'V 2020 COiPaWe EPeUgeQc\ AcWiRQ POaQ ZaV XVed WR gXide Whe SUiRUiWi]aWiRQRf QaWXUaO aVVeWV baVed RQ WheiU cRQWUibXWiRQV WR cOiPaWe UeViOieQce. RecRgQi]iQg WhaW acceVV WR QaWXUe aQd cOiPaWe iPSacWV aUe XQeTXaOO\ diVWUibXWed acURVV cRPPXQiWieVZiWhiQ Whe CiW\ PeaQV WhaW acWiRQV VhRXOd be diUecWed aW WhRVe PRVW YXOQeUabOe fiUVW. ThiV UeTXiUeVfUaPeZRUkV WR be fOe[ibOe eQRXgh WR iQcRUSRUaWe a decRORQi]iQg SUacWice Rf OeaUQiQg aQd XQOeaUQiQg. MONETARY VALUATΖONNaWXUe haV YaOXeV WhaW caQQRW be TXaQWified RU WUaQVOaWed iQWR PRQeWaU\ WeUPV, WhXVWheVe YaOXeV VhRXOd be cRQVideUed WR be Whe baVeOiQe Rf SRVVibOe NA YaOXaWiRQ.NON-MONETARY VALUATΖONNEXT STEPSCiW\ EQgiQeeUiQg aQd SXVWaiQabiOiW\DeSaUWPeQW SWaff WRgeWheU ZiWh WhePaUkV BRaUd VhRXOd fXUWheU WhiV ZRUkWR cUeaWe a QaWXUaO aVVeWV iQYeQWRU\aQd aVVeVV baVeOiQe PRQeWaU\ YaOXe. B\ aSSO\iQg Whe SUiRUiWi]aWiRQfUaPeZRUk aQd cRQVXOWiQg ZiWh aW-UiVkcRPPXQiWieV, CiW\ SWaff aQdCRXQciOORUV caQ diUecW SOaQQiQgiQiWiaWiYeV WR Pa[iPi]e cOiPaWeUeViOieQc\.The figXre aboYe VhoZV Whe relaWiYe imporWance of VerYiceV for climaWe reVilienc\ ThiV UeSRUW ZaV ZUiWWeQ b\ aQ ENVR 400 CRhRUWZiWh Whe CiW\ Rf VaQcRXYeU aQd CiW\SWXdiR.  AXWhRUV: NicROe CheQg, EPiO\ SXch\, FeOicia TVXi,Ta\ORU TXOiVViIV Acknowledgements  Vancouver is located on the traditional, ancestral and unceded territory of the xʷməθkwəy̓əm (Musqueam), Skwxwú7mesh (Squamish), and Səl Qílwətaʔ/Selilwitulh (Tsleil-Waututh) Nations. As uninvited guests on stolen land, we are indebted to the hospitality of the Host Nations and to the leadership and inspiration that Indigenous thought has offered the field of sustainability. We recognize the importance of not only grounding our work in decolonization but also of embracing a continual practice of learning and unlearning aligned with what the intersections of each of our individual positionalities ask of us. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, our team is working from many different places, and we would like to acknowledge the caretakers of those lands as well:   Kwikwetlem, Səl Qílwətaʔ/Selilwitulh (Tsleil-Waututh), Skwxwú7mesh (Squamish), Stó:lō, Qayqayt and xʷməθkwəy̓əm (Musqueam) (Anmore, BC)   Blackfoot, Niisitapi, Ktunaxa, Tsuut’ina, Michif Piyii (Métis) (Okotoks, AB)  Syilx, Sn̓ʕay̓čkstx (Sinixt), Ktunaxa, Secwépemc (Revelstoke, BC)  We would like to thank Lisa Brideau, Roanna Chui, Brandon Hildebrandt, Heidi Horlacher, Nina   Jauernig, Sushmitha Karunakara and Tamara Mcpherson from the City of Vancouver,  Katherine Howard, Pouyan Keshtkaran and Krista Voth from the Vancouver Parks Board and finally Isabel Gordon from the District of West Vancouver for graciously taking the time out of their schedules to share their expertise with us. Their guidance has been integral in the development of this primer.  We would also like to thank our UBC ENVR400 teaching team for the guidance and support over this past year: Michael Lipsen and Tara Ivanochko, as well as our teaching assistant Rebecca Beutel who has provided us with guidance and support through our consultations.  We are working in partnership with Angela Danyluk and Kelly Gardner. Angela is a senior sustainability specialist for the City of Vancouver. She specializes in leadership, adaptation to sea level rise and extreme heat, and urban ecology. Kelly is the projects coordinator at CityStudio and provides strong technical guidance on building our team and organizing our work. We would like to thank these partners for their expertise and encouragement throughout the way. It was a pleasure working with them both. V Team Biographies  Nicole Cheng (she/her) is finishing her dual degree of a Bachelor of Science in Environmental Science, with a concentration in land, water and air, and a Master of Management at UBC. Her interests lie in natural resource conservation, environmental justice and public education on climate action. Through her experience with Environment and Climate Change Canada, Nicole has helped execute a long-term natural resource monitoring program, and with her Management classes, she has been introduced to financial frameworks and asset management. She brings these insights as well as strong communication and writing skills to the team. She enjoys running along Vancouver’s shorelines and swimming in the coastal waters.  Emily Suchy (she/they) has focussed on social-ecological systems thinking throughout her degree in Environmental Science at UBC. She is passionate about grassroots community organizing, decolonization, and intersectionality. She finds a lot of hope in using storytelling and art to imagine a just, more livable future and inspire collective action in response to converging global crises. Through her work leading and supporting student sustainability initiatives at UBC and in Austria, she has collaborated to bring community projects from ideas to reality, developed strong written and spoken communication skills, and applied social-ecological systems concepts to real world issues. She loves to ride her bike through Vancouver’s extensive bike path network, rain or shine.   Felicia Tsui (she/her) is in her final year of a Bachelor of Science. She is majoring in Environmental Science with a concentration in ecology and conservation, and minoring in Political Science. Her interests include ecology, environmental policy, and environmental justice. Skills she brings to the project include communication skills, and basic understanding in using GIS software and R. She loves strolling through Vancouver’s beautiful parks on sunny days.   Taylor Tulissi (she/her) is in her final year of the Environmental Science program at the University of British Columbia with a concentration in ecology and conservation. Her interests lie in the area of biodiversity conservation and sustainable practices in agriculture and in society as a whole. She brings communication skills, as well as basic knowledge in GIS software and other data analysis software such as R and MATLAB to the team. She loves visiting the Vancouver beaches to relax and explore.     Table of Contents Executive summary II	Acknowledgements IV	Team Biographies V	Table of Contents 1	Table of Figures 4	List of Tables 5	Background 6	Definitions: What are Natural Assets and Ecosystem Services? 6	Policy Context: Why is this necessary? 8	Introduction 9	Valuing Vancouver 9	Leaders in the Field 9	Natural Assets in a Climate Emergency 10	Embedding Equity 10	Decolonizing Nature 12	Our Approach 13	Objectives 14	Methods 15	Determining natural asset and ecosystem services categories 15	Determining methods for monetary valuation of natural assets 16	Approach to recommend monetary valuation methods for the City of Vancouver ......................................... 17	Approach to present monetary values of ESs for reference ............................................................................. 17	Methods for Prioritization 18	Maximizing Resilience: Applying a Risk Analysis ............................................................................................... 18	Questions for Point Allocation .......................................................................................................................... 20	Matrix of ES and Climate Shocks, Stresses, and Goals ...................................................................................... 21	Natural Asset Categories 24	Forests 24	Foreshore 26	2 Soils 28	Waterways 30	A Note on Carbon storage 32	Monetary Valuation 33	Overview of the monetary valuation process of NAs 34	Methods to determine monetary values of ESs 36	Determining Monetary Valuation in Vancouver 37	Prioritization Matrix Outcomes 40	Assessing Priority Neighbourhoods 41	Case Study: Stanley Park’s Forest as a NA 42	Monetary valuation 43	Prioritization 45	Stanley Park ....................................................................................................................................................... 45	Downtown Eastside ........................................................................................................................................... 46	Discussion 47	Creating Categories 47	Languages for Value 48	Notes on Prioritization 48	Limitations & Looking Forward 50	Limitations 50	Recommendations 51	Next Steps 52	Concluding Statement 52	Works Cited 53	Glossary of Terms 58	List of Acronyms 62	Appendix A - Table of ESs 63	Appendix B - Monetary values of ESs from local studies 65	Appendix C - Recommended monetary valuation method for each ES 70	Appendix D - Definitions of common monetary valuation methods for ESs 74	3 Appendix E - Transferability of ESs across study locations under the Benefits Transfer approach 77	Appendix F - Potential datasets that the City of Vancouver can use for monetary valuation 78	Appendix G - List of neighbourhood consequences criteria 81	   4 Table of Figures  Figure 1. Breakdown of ecosystem service categories with examples relevant to the City of Vancouver. ...................................................................................................................... 7 Figure 2. The Conceptual framework developed and used by the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. ............................................... 11 Figure 3. Application of risk analysis to the universal goal of city-wide resilience to climate impacts, targeted for action at the neighbourhood level. .............................................. 19 Figure 4. Forest ESs and their monetary values. .................................................................... 25 Figure 5. Foreshore ESs and their monetary values. .............................................................. 27 Figure 6. Soils ESs and their monetary values. ....................................................................... 29 Figure 7. Waterways ESs and their monetary values. ............................................................ 31 Figure 8. Carbon storage monetary values ............................................................................ 33 Figure 9. Outline of determining monetary value of natural assets. ...................................... 34 Figure 10. Relative importance of ESs for climate resiliency. ................................................. 40 Figure 11. Overview of the NA management process. ........................................................... 42 Figure 12. Monetary valuation of Stanley Park’s forest. ........................................................ 43 Figure 13. Maps of (a) urban heat, (b) tree canopy cover, and (c) projected sea level rise in Vancouver. .................................................................................................................... 46    5 List of Tables Table 1. List of guiding questions applied for points allocation in prioritization matrix. ........ 21 Table 2. Relevance of the identified ES to the Vancouver Climate Emergency Big Moves (CEBM) as well as the top climate risks identified in Vancouver’s Climate Change Adaptation Strategy. ..................................................................................................... 22 Table 3. Forest NA subcategories and their associated ESs. ................................................... 26 Table 4. Foreshore NAs and their associated ESs. .................................................................. 28 Table 5. Soil NAs and their associated ESs. ............................................................................ 30 Table 6. Waterway NAs and their associated ESs. ................................................................. 32 Table 7. Calculations to find the total monetary value of ESs across Stanley Park’s forest and the summed total of the NA of Stanley Park’s forest. .................................................... 44 Table 8. Calculations to find the total monetary value of carbon storage from Stanley Park’s forest. ........................................................................................................................... 45 Table 9. Relevant ecosystem services and their definitions for the City of Vancouver. .......... 63 Table 10. Monetary values of ESs from studies near Vancouver. ........................................... 65 Table 11. Monetary values of the carbon storage ES from studies near Vancouver. .............. 68 Table 12. Recommended monetary valuation method for each ES as well as an example study for reference and notes on application to the City of Vancouver. .................................. 70 Table 13. Definitions of common ES monetary valuation methods. ...................................... 74 Table 14. Level of transferability of ES across different study locations. ................................ 77 Table 15. Existing datasets that the City of Vancouver can use. ............................................ 78 Table 16. Assessment Criteria for Relative Potential Impacts of Climate Disasters ................ 81 	  6 Background Definitions: What are Natural Assets and Ecosystem Services? The concept of Ecosystem Services is not new. We are taught from an early age about the benefits that come from nature that foster the development of human society. By first clearly defining the terms and their dimensions, we can begin to place value on nature. Natural Assets (NAs) are the “stock of natural resources and ecosystems that yield a flow of benefits to people” (MNAI 2018, pg. 3). Ecosystem Services (ESs) are the benefits people obtain from ecosystems and natural assets, both directly and indirectly (MNAI, 2017). This report aims to provide the City of Vancouver with baseline tools to protect and conserve their NAs, as well as to account for nature in the cities asset management framework. The categories of ESs explored in this primer are described below. Provisioning services that provide tangible products to humans such as food and water. A local example of provisioning services is the harvesting of clams and shellfish from Burrard Inlet. Regulating services such as flood control and air purification can be thought of as the services that moderate natural processes. Supporting services allow for other ESs to function and includes services such as nutrient cycling and soil formation that maintain the conditions for life on Earth. Cultural services include the non-material benefits from nature such as the spiritual, recreational and cultural benefits. This includes the symbolic benefits that people obtain from these ecosystem services. We have also included the relational value of nature as an ES that goes beyond the intrinsic value of nature to humans. Relational value is a complex concept that involves the preferences, principles and virtues around the human-nature relationship (Chan et. al., 2018). Relational value exists whether it is conscious or unconscious. Examples of one's relational connection with nature could be the feeling of wellbeing when out in nature, or some component of nature that is symbolic to a person or group. This relational value service attempts to encapsulate part of the intangible value of natural assets that is important in the prioritization. Figure 1 provides a summary of the dimensions of ecosystem services and some examples.  Green infrastructure (GI) are engineered assets that integrate natural and semi-natural components that mimic ecosystem services provided by natural assets. For the purpose of this report, green infrastructure is not incorporated into the valuation system.  7   Figure 1. Breakdown of ecosystem service categories with examples relevant to the City of Vancouver.                  8 Policy Context: Why is this necessary?  This document aims to value NAs and ESs by prioritizing them through different lenses, including a climate, social justice, and financial lens. By doing this, we hope that the NAs of the City of Vancouver will be better understood, protected and conserved. While ES research is extensive, the implementation of NA management is fairly new and is being developed around the world, most notably by the Intergovernmental Panel on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) (Díaz et al., 2015). Municipalities such as the Town of Gibsons and The District of West Vancouver have already implemented frameworks to value the ESs of the region and have been guided by the David Suzuki Foundation and the Municipal Natural Assets Initiative (MNAI) to do this work. As described in Vancouver’s Climate Change Adaptation Strategy (released 2012 and updated 2018), the city will experience hotter, drier summers; warmer, wetter winters; and rising sea levels. The human implications include health risks due to extreme heat events, more severe water restrictions, sewage back-ups due to high rainfall volumes, more vectors for diseases, and increased flooding along the coast as well as the Fraser River due to sea level rise and storm surges. The current climate crisis and loss of biodiversity coupled with aging and failing infrastructure provide incentive for this work. NAs and their ESs have the capacity to help mitigate climate risks, as well as improve mental, psychological, and physical health. However, access to nature is not equally distributed across socioeconomic backgrounds and thus, some communities are more vulnerable and will be disproportionately affected by these climate risks. This framework is an opportunity to center equity, reconciliation and climate resilience into the prioritization process.   The difficulty in assessing the value of NAs in market terms has often led to NAs being overlooked, or simply not included altogether in management and policy frameworks. ESs are often misunderstood in a simplistic and reductionistic way as the act of simply assigning a monetary value to nature. In reality, this is just one aspect of the process. While ESs certainly has embedded limitations for integrating social systems, as the concept matures, people are pushing for a more nuanced approach (Chan & Satterfield, 2020; Díaz et al., 2015). For example, there is an emerging category of value called “relational values” that has the potential to break the dichotomy of intrinsic value (the worth of nature itself) vs. instrumental value (the things nature does for humans) to include qualitative and diverse dimensions of human-nature relationships (Chan, Gould, & Pascual, 2020; Himes & Muraca, 2018). This framework aims not to simply assign a “price tag” to NAs, but rather to holistically integrate NAs into existing asset management frameworks in a way that values their tangible and intangible benefits, in hopes to properly protect and conserve them. 9 Introduction  Valuing Vancouver  Currently, the City of Vancouver does not manage its NAs. In contrast, built assets such as buildings, roads and pipe systems have comprehensive management systems. NAs such as forests, lakes, rivers, coastal areas and soils do not have the same level of management and are consequently undervalued or overlooked entirely. Vancouver is home to some of the most beautiful areas in the country and arguably the world, and its natural assets provide Vancouverites and visitors with a connection to nature. Stanley Park, Jericho Beach and Trout Lake are just a few examples. To better protect the environment and better respond to the climate emergency, the City of Vancouver is endeavoring to account for its natural assets either within its existing asset management frameworks or in a parallel process. Value is subjective and is communicated in diverse ways depending on the audience. Monetary value can help us to understand the value of the services nature provides in comparison to built assets and it can also help City staff responsible for budgeting allocate funds appropriately. Prioritization can help to understand intangible values and incorporate diverse community values that might be more relatable to residents not involved in financial planning. These are two different languages we can use to communicate value.  Leaders in the Field Natural assets (NAs) can be valued in terms of the ESs they provide. This is a relatively new field with organizations such as Municipal Natural Assets Initiative (MNAI), the David Suzuki Foundation, the Economics of Ecosystem & Biodiversity (TEEB), and the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) leading the way. Local leaders in British Columbia include the Town of Gibsons, which was the first municipality in North America to strategize how to include NAs into asset management beginning in 2009 (Town of Gibsons, 2019), and the District of West Vancouver, which was the first municipality in Canada to compile a NA inventory reported in 2019 (District of West Vancouver, 2020). Municipalities across Canada are also realizing the importance of NA incorporation into asset management: The Town of Okotoks (Alberta) compiled a NA inventory from 2019-2020 (Conrad, 2020), and the City of Saskatoon (Saskatchewan) released its pilot project in 2020 (City of Saskatoon, 2020). 10 Natural Assets in a Climate Emergency  Natural assets are and will increasingly be the centre point of adaptation responses to the climate emergency. Nature-based approaches to carbon sequestration, if planned from an ecosystem-based approach, have countless co-benefits such as habitat creation, increased biodiversity, increased human health and many more. Managing natural assets allows municipalities to better respond to the climate emergency as NAs and their ESs can both mitigate global climate change and help us to adapt to the consequences of the global community (specifically the Global North) not acting on climate action soon enough. In Vancouver, these consequences include severe storms, floods, drought, poor air quality, and sea level rise. The City, as outlined in the Climate Emergency Action Plan (CEAP), has significant work ahead of them in adapting to these impacts (City of Vancouver, 2020). Still, Vancouver is one of the global cities that has a greater responsibility to decarbonize at an accelerated rate, and thus mitigation efforts are just as essential.  Embedding Equity  The City’s Social Policy Team is currently working on their Equity Framework that will be used to guide projects and policies (Maina, 2019). This team has identified the concept of Targeted Universalism for their policy work, which has equity embedded in its methodology (this will be described in detail later).  One consideration identified in the Social Policy Team’s brief is to ask whether there are potential unintended consequences of the action. Integrating NAs into existing financial management plans demonstrates their economic value. However, responsible management goes beyond integrating NAs into existing financial systems. NA frameworks that only consider financial value may possibly have adverse effects on communities that place less emphasis on monetary value. In order to decenter dominant narratives of value and give due diligence to equity and decolonization, alternative languages for value are needed. This is essential if we are committed to a just transition from a fossil fuel dependent economy, as well as a future that leaves no one behind as we look forward to increasingly uncertain climate-induced weather events. The climate crisis is an opportunity to redistribute power and wealth and the way we shape our natural asset frameworks has direct implications for whether we grasp that opportunity or not.  Embedding equity into NA frameworks requires creating the space and flexibility for multiple worldviews to coexist. Intangible values are difficult to grasp in concrete terms, not least in numbers, though are arguably invaluable. Many studies have pointed to the difficulty of addressing these kinds of values, particularly within the ES framework, which understands the flow of services as one way from nature to people (Breslow et al. 2016; Chan et al 2018; Diaz et al 2018). The Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services 11 (Díaz et al., 2015) has done significant work to evolve the conceptualization of ES. Figure 2 depicts their conceptual framework which recognizes that diverse worldviews and knowledge systems provide strength to the argument for protecting nature. In the main panel, black headings of “nature”, “nature’s benefits to people”, and “good quality of life” serve as conceptual umbrellas under which alternative but similar concepts fall. Green text represents scientific perspectives while blue shows alternative worldviews. Nature provides benefits to people and these contribute to a good quality of life. Each of these concepts can be understood through different paradigms.    Figure 2. The Conceptual framework developed and used by the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services.  ESs as a framework understands biodiversity and functioning ecosystems as necessary for human wellbeing. It understands ecosystems as physical entities that are separate from humans, but which enable our survival. Goods and services are not generally something that we 12 feel an obligation to reciprocate to, while gifts, for most people, receive at least a thank-you. Conceptualizing ES more broadly as nature’s benefits to people can provide the space to include a reciprocal relationship in which humans are living in harmony with nature.  The concept of relational values was developed by Chan et al. (2018) as a way to shift ES from a one-way stream of goods and services from nature to people into a more integrated and reciprocal system that includes humans. Relational values recognize the “preferences, principles, and virtues of human-nature relationships” (Chan et al. 2018). This conceptualization understands that people are diverse and interact with nature in diverse ways. It also recognizes that people have an impact on nature, too; we do not exist in isolation. It places humans within ecosystems, eroding the dichotomy between nature and people. As this perception of the world becomes more mainstream, new management processes are called for. By recognizing the interconnections between human wellbeing and ecosystem resilience, we can begin to reframe ecosystem services as more than a one-way stream of benefits to people.  Decolonizing Nature  A NAs and ESs framework must be reconciled with a colonial past and present. Space specifically for Indigenous ways of knowing and leadership needs to be made in the implementation of these frameworks. In the context of Vancouver, this land and the surrounding waters have been inhabited, used, cared for, and shared by the Squamish, the Tsleil-Waututh, and the Musqueam peoples for millennia. Stanley Park and False Creek were shared territories between all three nations. They were places for gathering, hunting, living and practicing culture.  Members of the Squamish nation were forcibly removed from Vancouver on multiple occasions. One account of this is in Stanley Park - a park made to protect nature for the enjoyment of people. The Squamish First Nations people were unsettled from the peninsula in 1931, as their houses were considered to spoil the view of the park from downtown (Barman, 2007). Their homes were burned to the ground to erase any evidence. The totem poles that stand there now are not of the Squamish but rather Kwakiutl, a people whose lands are on northern Vancouver Island, far from Stanley Park. The totem poles are a sanitized display of Indigeneity which replaced real living Indigenous people.  Here, it is important to note that the issue at hand is a removal of people from land which provided livelihood. However, the concept of ownership of land is not an Indigenous one. Lands were used, cared for, and shared between nations, without clear borders of ownership. The concept of private property is a colonial one and this should be considered when creating frameworks for the management of land and water.  13 Our Approach In framing our project, we have employed the policy approach of targeted universalism (Powell et al., 2019). This approach identifies a universal goal (maximizing resilience to climate impacts) and then targets actions in neighbourhoods that require it most urgently. We have chosen to apply a systems thinking approach rather than a reductionist one in which nature and humans are isolated into single elements. We understand the city as one large system and neighbourhoods as subsystems within that system. In line with the City’s work to create Complete Walkable Neighbourhoods, we suggest level of service should be evaluated at the neighbourhood level rather than at the level of one natural asset.  As such, this document is not aimed to simply provide a monetary value for a NA in question. Monetary value provides a baseline to value the city’s existing NAs, evolving as more research on the topic becomes available. We have understood monetary valuation as one language we can deploy to communicate value. It ensures that nature and its benefits are not left out of management decisions or deemed endless or disposable due to a lack of formal value. The limitations to this approach include a difficulty of accounting for intangible values, a lack of recognition of diverse and subjective understandings of nature - what we call community values, and difficulty conceptualizing the total value lost due to the presence of absence of natural assets in a neighbourhood.  The prioritization process that we created is a second language that we can deploy which is perhaps more relatable to the majority of Vancouver residents. Monetary valuation makes sense if you understand the intricacies of Vancouver’s budget, the cost of infrastructure management, and the aging state of said infrastructure. If you can contextualize what it means when someone says Stanley Park provides annual services valued at almost $2 million, the value is apparent. But this provides little meaning to someone who looks to Stanley Park in order to brighten their mood by going for a walk in the forest. We imagine it would make little sense to someone who has a spiritual connection with Whoiwhoi because their ancestors lived there for millennia. Monetary value does not speak the right language in this case, it does not incorporate these intangible values we have mentioned in these examples - mental health and relational values, and it also provides little help in communities where natural assets are missing.  In order to address intangible values, we created a prioritization matrix. Given the threat of climate-related stresses on Vancouver, and the disproportionate impacts of these, we have come at the prioritization process through a lens of climate justice. Recognizing a need for equity and justice in the landscape of unequal access to nature, environmental racism, and climate inequities (Evergreen 2019; Fitzgibbons 2020), we have begun this process by asking what services do people need in order to be resilient to climate change impacts? We ask a series 14 of questions of each ES in order to rank how well it responds to a climate impact or supports a climate emergency big move.  Ideally this framework should be used as a living document that incorporates the expanding ideas around diversity, equity, and inclusion associated with the tangible and intangible aspects of ESs and NAs.   Objectives The overarching goal for this project is to provide a framework that can be used to value, protect and conserve NAs in the context of the City of Vancouver. Further project objectives that have been used to shape and scope this project are as follows:  1. Create categories to incorporate the NAs in Vancouver 2. Propose methods to communicate the value (monetary and non-monetary) of NAs in Vancouver  3. Propose a method to address intangible values of NAs and their ESs that have not yet been or cannot be quantified.  4. Ensure equity, decolonization, and climate resiliency and adaptation are centered in a NAs and ESs framework.   15 Methods To guide our creation of this primer, we relied on the literature as well as conducted interviews with local experts. We interviewed Isabel Gordon from the District of West Vancouver to learn about the District’s natural asset inventory, the City of Vancouver’s engineering staff to learn about current asset management, and Lisa Brideau from the City of Vancouver to learn about current equity initiatives in the city, specifically in relation to the Climate Emergency Action Plan Equity Working Group. The Vancouver Parks Board was interviewed to further our understanding on the current inclusion of natural assets in park management, and how they can be better incorporated. A recurring theme throughout these interviews was the idea of creating a ‘living document’, or one that is constantly evolving. Because the field of natural asset management is still advancing, new ideas and strategies are being added frequently. A main goal of this writing is to promote the conservation and protection of natural assets in the city, without simply assigning them a dollar value. With this, a system for prioritizations centered on climate risk, community equity and access to nature was created. The overarching methods are outlined below.  Determining natural asset and ecosystem services categories  Categories needed to be defined to encompass the NAs within the City of Vancouver. These are based on local initiatives to value NAs. The West Vancouver study for valuing its NAs was used as a starting point. The West Vancouver categories include forests, waterways, foreshores and parks. Interviews with the City of Vancouver and The District of West Vancouver further informed the categories that could be incorporated into existing asset management. Deliberation on the importance of soils and their important carbon sequestration and storage roles led to the creation of a category of its own that would include both public and private land soils, as well as the different land types of grasslands, shrublands and croplands. The interview with Isabel Gordon from District of West Vancouver further supported the addition of the soils category. Thus, parks were excluded, and this led to the following categories generated for NA management for Vancouver: Foreshores, Forests, Waterways and Soils. Given that the Vancouver Park Board has jurisdiction over parks in the city, we felt this would address our purposes best.   By analyzing the studies on NA management done by West Vancouver, four categories were extracted that can encompass the NAs present in the City of Vancouver. These finalized categories are forests, foreshores, soils and waterways. Using the Sensitive Ecosystem Inventory (SEI) resource from Metro Vancouver, a further breakdown within each NA category was made to be more specific to Vancouver. 16 Determining methods for monetary valuation of natural assets In this framework, there are two components for monetary valuation: 1) recommend monetary valuation methods for the City to use in determining monetary values of ESs local to Vancouver and 2) present monetary values of ESs from proximate studies for guidance and reference. Evaluating studies to address these components was done through considering two criteria: proximity of study location to Vancouver and extensiveness of ES valuation. The first consideration of a location-based approach, in which studies evaluating monetary values of ESs that are the most proximate to Vancouver were drawn upon first, was chosen because the value of ESs, and thus NAs, can vary from location to location. Thus, by centering this framework on studies close to Vancouver, adaptation to suit the City’s needs can be met with higher confidence. The second consideration of extensiveness of ES valuation was chosen because creating a framework based on existing frameworks that consider a suite of ESs in one study provides more unity than creating a framework based on isolated pieces.  In order of priority, the studies considered in the monetary value portion of this framework are:  1) Natural Capital in BC’s Lower Mainland: Valuing the benefits from nature by Wilson (2010) As Vancouver is a part of BC’s Lower Mainland, the value of ESs determined and methods in this study are highly applicable to Vancouver. Thus, this study was given first priority so that ES valuation endeavors by the City can be cross-checked with this study which should have similar results. 2) Sound investment: Measuring the return on Howe Sound’s ecosystem assets by Molnar (2015) This study’s location, Howe Sound, is northwest of Vancouver spanning from West Vancouver to Squamish and is the second most proximate location to Vancouver. It should be noted that Howe Sound has a considerable portion of pristine areas compared to that of a city such as Vancouver, so monetary values taken from this study are likely higher than values for Vancouver.  3) West Vancouver's natural capital assets: A preliminary inventory by District of West Vancouver (2019) This is an example of NA management in a municipality close to Vancouver. The District of West Vancouver is in the preliminary stages of NA management as it has completed the first step in inventorying its NAs in West Vancouver, being the first municipality in Canada to do so (District of West Vancouver, 2020). Since all of its ES monetary values were based on values taken from external case studies rather than research conducted by the District itself, this study was used more as a starting point to find further information as needed.  17 Approach to recommend monetary valuation methods for the City of Vancouver Each of the three proximate studies describes methods used to assign monetary valuation to ESs in its study, and Molnar (2015) provides a summary of various monetary valuation methods best suited for each ES. Beginning with the first priority study, Wilson (2010), each ES monetary valuation method in the study was compared to the monetary valuation method for the respective ES recommended by the second priority study, Molnar (2015). If the monetary valuation method for an ES in Wilson (2010) is one that is also listed as the best suited method for that ES in Molnar (2015), the ES monetary valuation method was recommended in this framework. Methods from Wilson (2010) are prioritized because it is a study that incorporates Vancouver in its study area of BC’s Lower Mainland, so its methods are likely suitable for the City to replicate in the context of Vancouver. Methods from Wilson (2010) were cross-checked with recommendations Molnar (2015) to ensure higher validity of method choice. If the monetary valuation method for an ES in Wilson (2010) is not on the list of recommended methods in Molnar (2015) or if an ES defined in this framework is not analyzed in Wilson (2010), the monetary valuation method for that ES in the next priority study, Molnar (2015), was considered and cross-checked against the table of recommendations in Molnar (2015) then recommended if matched. All methods in Molnar (2015) are those that are listed as recommended methods by Molnar (2015), so the third priority study did not need to be considered here.  Approach to present monetary values of ESs for reference To present monetary values of ESs for the City to reference, monetary values of ESs were extracted from the three proximate studies in order of priority, i.e., the monetary value of an ES was first taken from Wilson (2010), but if the ES was not analyzed in Wilson (2010), then its monetary value was taken from Molnar (2015) then District of West Vancouver (2019). In the case that there were multiple monetary values presented for an ES, such as in Molnar (2015), the monetary value determined from research conducted closest to Vancouver by distance was taken. Furthermore, some ESs in this framework did not have monetary values from the local studies, especially the ESs under the soils NA category as this category is not present in the three local studies. In such cases, the monetary values for these ESs were left blank. This could be an endeavour of the City to determine local values for such ESs. Finally, since monetary values from different years are worth different amounts due to inflation, the monetary values were all converted to the dollar value in 2020 for consistency in this framework. This conversion was done using rates set from the Bank of Canada Inflation Calculator (average annual rate of inflation from 2019-2020 at 2.40%, from 2014-2020 at 11.13% and from 2005-2020 at 34.12%) (Bank of Canada, n.d.).  18 Methods for Prioritization  In order to address the question “what services do people need in order to be resilient to climate change impacts?,” we created a matrix connecting ESs identified in the categories section with climate shocks and stresses (risks), and climate emergency big moves. Since the overall goal was to maximize city-wide (our system) resilience, we needed to understand what it is that is eroding resilience in the first place. This means understanding impacts of and vulnerabilities to climate shocks and stresses. The questions that are used to allocate points within the matrix were determined based primarily on a risk analysis.   With the goal of maximizing community resilience, our prioritization process is guided by two questions:  1. Which ESs support community resilience to climate shocks and stresses? Which NAs perform these services?  2. Which neighbourhoods should be targeted for action to reduce the consequences of climate shocks or stresses? Can the NAs identified in (1) minimize these consequences? Maximizing Resilience: Applying a Risk Analysis The flip side of vulnerability is resilience. In order to maximize resilience we must prioritize areas and communities most at risk to shocks or stresses (City of Vancouver, 2018a - Vancouver’s Changing Coastline). As mentioned in our approach, we applied a policy approach called Targeted Universalism in which one defines a universal goal to strive for and then enacts targeted actions in communities or areas where support is needed most to achieve the goal. In this case, maximizing city-wide resilience is the universal goal and targeted actions are directed  at neighbourhoods that display higher vulnerability (Powell et al., 2019). This could include neighbourhoods that have a high prevalence of poor health, lower education, or low community cohesion. This approach supports the work being done in the Resilient Vancouver Strategy (City of Vancouver, 2019).    As described in the Vancouver Climate Change Adaptation Strategy, we know that the shocks and stresses most likely to occur in Vancouver due to climate change are flooding due to storm surges exacerbated by both sea level rise and, in winter, extreme precipitation; in summer, heat waves, drought, and poor air quality due to wildfire smoke (City of Vancouver, 2018b). We can assess risk to these shocks by understanding likelihood (where they are most likely to occur, how often, and to what extent) and what the consequences of those events are for the people, infrastructure, and biodiversity that resides in those locations. Figure 3 shows the application of this kind of risk analysis to our universal goal of city-wide resilience to climate shocks and stresses. Since actions are targeted at the neighbourhood level, the analysis is performed at this sub-system scale.  19   Figure 3. Application of risk analysis to the universal goal of city-wide resilience to climate impacts, targeted for action at the neighbourhood level. Understanding Likelihood  To understand likelihood, the city has done significant work on understanding sea level rise extents today and into the future (City of Vancouver, 2018a). For example, we know that the Fraser river floodplain and False Creek have a high likelihood of flooding. We also have significant data on urban heat islands — places that are most likely to experience extreme heat. The Downtown Eastside has a high likelihood for extreme heat. This type of data and modelling helps us to understand how and where climate impacts are most likely to occur.  Having said that, likelihood cannot be changed, at least not immediately. Mitigation of climate change by reducing emissions can reduce the likelihood of climate storms to some extent. However, given current projections and climate models released in the Special Report: Global Warming of 1.5C by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2018), mitigation plans are no longer enough. There is no scenario that will not require us to adapt to climate impacts and storms. Indeed, poor air quality and heat waves have already had devastating impacts; in 2009, Vancouver experienced a heat wave that resulted in over 100 deaths (Kosatsky, 2010). Adaptation plans are how we can reduce these consequences.  20  Understanding Consequences  Consequence is a product of both impact and vulnerability, where vulnerability is a product of adaptive capacity, sensitivity, and exposure. To understand consequences, we can assess each of these factors and combine them to reflect the implications and effects of shocks. As seen in Figure 3, the consequence of a climate event (shock or stress) on a neighbourhood community is a product of the impact of the event on the level of community health and community vulnerability. Community health is an evolving field in public health, but generally speaking should be understood in a holistic sense to include multiple dimensions such as mental, emotional, physical, and spiritual health (Goodman et al., 2014). Community vulnerability consists of the capacity of community members to adapt to shocks or stresses (adaptive capacity), the sensitivity of community members to these events, and the intensity and duration of the climate event exposure. Sensitivity can be contextualized in terms of community members’ trauma history. Trauma is defined as the “present day experience of significant historical and contemporary harm done especially to Indigenous people and people of color in the U.S. and Canada” (Fast and Collin-Vézina 2010). It is important to consider whether there are events in a community members’ or their ancestor’s past that could be triggering or cause an amplified response to the climate event. Exposure to the climate event can be changed sometimes, for example by ensuring buildings are equipped with air conditioning during a heat wave, or by increasing tree canopy cover to increase evapotranspiration and subsequent cooling effects.  Questions for Point Allocation  The questions for point allocation in the matrix were then developed based on this risk analysis and are shown in Table 1. Letters IDs indicate which question resulted in point allocation. ESs were given points based on their ability to improve adaptation to a climate shock or storm, or to advance a Climate Emergency Big Move (thus mitigating climate change).    21  Table 1. List of guiding questions applied for points allocation in prioritization matrix. For point allocation of the climate impacts, ask questions A and B; for point allocation to the CE Big Moves, ask questions C and D. ID Guiding Question Points CLIMATE SHOCKS & STRESSES (Adaptation) A Are the consequences of the climate event reduced by the provision of the ES by:  (1) reducing impact or  (2) reducing vulnerability by: (a) increasing adaptive capacity,  (b) reducing sensitivity, or  (c) reducing exposure? 2 B Is the ES negatively impacted by the listed CC shock or stress? 1 CE BIG MOVE (Mitigation) C Does the provision of the ES support the listed goal? 2 D Is the provision of the ES a co-benefit to the listed goal? 1  For point allocation with respect to the climate impacts, ask questions A and B. Any ES which reduces the consequences of a climate shock or stress receives 2 points, as this is considered directly adapting. If the ES was negatively affected by the listed climate change shock or stress then it received 1 point, as alternative provision of that service would need to be identified.  For point allocation with respect to the Climate Emergency Big Moves, ask questions C and D. ES which support the listed goal receive 2 points, as they are considered directly mitigating. Those that are a co-benefit to the listed goal receive one point. For example, a co-benefit to carbon sequestration could be water regulation, as the natural assets that sequester carbon (vegetation) also help regulate water.  Matrix of ES and Climate Shocks, Stresses, and Goals  Some NAs and their ESs are vulnerable to climate change impacts while others have the capacity to mitigate climate risks and improve mental, emotional and physical health. This dual role of provider of security as well as vulnerability to impacts puts NAs in a dynamic position. Tying the above risk analysis together is done in a matrix (see Table 2) which connects climate shocks and stresses identified in the Climate Action Adaptation Strategy (City of Vancouver, 2018) as well as Climate Emergency Big Moves identified in the Climate Emergency Action Plan (City of Vancouver, 2020) with relevant ESs identified in the Natural Asset Categories section of this report. The goal for this part of the prioritization process is to identify which ES are most valuable in terms of maximizing community resilience to climate shocks and stresses. (Note that this is a preliminary list of ESs that can be expanded as necessary.) Since 22 likelihood cannot be changed (significantly), community resilience is maximized when consequences of risks (shocks and stresses) are minimized.  Only three of the six Climate Emergency Big Moves are included as the other three relate to embodied carbon in building and construction, and in the transition to electric vehicles, which are not relevant to NAs and ESs. The Climate Emergency Big Moves are considered mitigation efforts as they relate to reducing the stock of carbon in the atmosphere. As seen in Figure 3, mitigation is considered a reduction of likelihood. As mentioned above, likelihood can only be marginally reduced given the scale both temporally and spatially of Vancouver’s global impact in terms of climate change. These mitigation efforts are included nevertheless, as Vancouver, being a city in the Global North, has a huge debt to pay in the global carbon budget. We have a responsibility to decarbonize at an accelerated rate, especially when comparing to cities in the Global South.  For ease of use, the Climate Emergency Big Moves (City of Vancouver, 2020) are simplified in the matrix. The goal to ensure that 90% of residents live within an easy walk or roll of their daily needs by 2030 is simplified into “decrease fossil fuel use.” The goal to have two-thirds of trips in Vancouver to be taken by active transportation and transit by 2030 is simplified into “increase energy efficiency.” Finally, the goal to restore, by 2030, enough aquatic and land ecosystems to remove 1 million tonnes of carbon per year by 2060 (See Appendix M of CEAP Full Report) is simplified into “sequester carbon.”                   Table 2. (Following page). Relevance of the identified ES (columns) to the Vancouver Climate Emergency Big Moves (CEBM) as well as the top climate risks identified in Vancouver’s Climate Change Adaptation Strategy (rows) (City of Vancouver 2020; City of Vancouver 2018). All CEBM are simplified into broad goals. Points are totaled and colour coded by priority with red being the most relevant ES and green on the other end of the spectrum. It should be noted that this does not reflect total value, but simply the relevance of the ES to stated climate change impacts and goals.   5HODWLYH,PSRUWDQFHRI(6VIRU&OLPDWH0LWLJDWLRQDQG$GDSWDWLRQ $HVWKHWLFV$LUILOWUDWLRQ%LRGLYHUVLW\&DUERQVHTXHVWUDWLRQ&OHDQZDWHUSURYLVLRQLQJ&XOWXUH(GXFDWLRQ(URVLRQFRQWURO)RRGSURYLVLRQLQJ+DELWDWIRUZLOGOLIH0HQWDO+HDOWK3ROOLQDWLRQ5HFUHDWLRQ5HODWLRQDO(YDSRWUDQVSLUDWLRQ:DVWHWUHDWPHQW:DWHUILOWUDWLRQ:DWHUUHJXODWLRQ6($/(9(/5,6($GDSWDWLRQ&RDVWDOHURVLRQ % % % $% $% $% % % $% % % $% % % % %)ORRGLQJGXHWRFRDVWDOVWRUPVXUJH % $% % % $% $% $ % % $% % % $% % %$% $%:$50(5:(77(5:,17(56$GDSWDWLRQ)ORRGLQJGXHWRH[WUHPHUDLQ % $% % % $% $% $ % % $% % % $% % %$% $%+277(5'5,(56800(56$GDSWDWLRQ([WUHPHKHDW	SRRUDLUTXDOLW\ $ % % $% $% % % $% % % $% $ $'URXJKW % $% % $% $% $% % % % $% % % $$% $5(/(9$17&(%,*029(60LWLJDWLRQ5HGXFHIRVVLOIXHOXVH &&' ' &' &' ' & ' &' &'&' &' & & & &,QFUHDVHHQHUJ\HIILFLHQF\ &' ' &' &' ' &'&' &' & & & &6HTXHVWHUFDUERQ ' ' &' &' &' ' ' &' &' &' ' '&' &' ' ' ' '727$/                  24 Natural Asset Categories  The following sections aim to break down the natural asset categories of forests, foreshores, soils and waterways. Definitions of the NAs included in each category are included, as well as the ecosystem services that are generally provided by each category.  Forests The forest category includes all the public and private trees in Vancouver, such as street trees as well as dense forests such as those in Stanley Park. Forests of all ages are included within this category, and include the understory, forest floor as well as the trees. We later discuss in the monetary valuation section how we account for the natural assets as per hectare, so we do not distinguish soils that are covered with trees from the soil itself. Urban street trees are also included in the forest category as they do provide some of the ecosystem services as individual trees such as shading and cooling. We recognize that connectivity of natural systems provides the greatest quality of services, but do not want to discount the value of individual trees. Further examples of the natural assets within this category and the ecosystem services identified to be provided by forests are included in Table 3. Water filtration and shading and cooling are key ESs that trees and forests provide. As the trees perform evapotranspiration, they reduce the heat island effect and can help mitigate this impact on Vancouver. Vegetation also filters pollution out of the air and sequesters carbon, thus mitigating the impacts of climate change. Figure 4 visualizes some of the ESs found in forests with their monetary values.  25  Figure 4. Forest ESs and their monetary values taken from local studies Knowler et al. (2003) and Wilson (2010) (all dollar values are in 2020 equivalence). No value for shading and cooling under forests was provided in local studies. For a detailed table of all ES monetary values and their specific study referenced, please see Appendix B.  Both old and new growth forests provide a multitude of ecosystem services, most obviously relational and cultural services such as aesthetic, cultural, educational, and recreational services. They also perform incredibly important regulating services that are integral in climate risk mitigation; some of these services include air filtration, carbon storage and sequestration, habitat for wildlife, pollination, water filtration, and water regulation. Urban street trees also perform many of the cultural and relational services, and regulating services. Carbon storage and sequestration, water and air quality regulation, habitat for wildlife, and shading and cooling are some of the key services provided by urban street trees in helping mitigate climate impacts. While the degree of which forests of all ages, and urban tree canopies can provide these services differ, nonetheless they both provide meaningful services that aid in increasing climate resilience.      26 Table 3. Forest NA subcategories and their associated ESs. Colours of ecosystem services illustrate the category they fall under, according to Figure 1 (supporting, regulating, provisioning, cultural, or relational).   Forest Natural Assets Ecosystem Services Natural forests of all ages Urban street trees Forest floor and understory Aesthetics ✓ ✓ ✓ Air filtration ✓ ✓ ✓ Carbon sequestration ✓ ✓ ✓ Culture ✓ ✓ ✓ Education ✓ ✓ ✓ Habitat for wildlife ✓ ✓ ✓ Pollination ✓ ✓ ✓ Recreation ✓  ✓ Relational ✓  ✓ Shading and cooling ✓ ✓  Water filtration ✓  ✓ Water regulation ✓ ✓ ✓  The subjectivity of this list should be noted, as well as the fact that the assigned ecosystem services under each of the NAs are non-exhaustive lists. Recreation is a service provided by forests of all ages, and by forest floor and understory as forest floor and understory are part of forests as a whole; however we do not consider urban street trees to be a natural asset to provide recreational services because monetary value considers recreational services as places one would go to specifically for the purposes of recreation. Relational services in particular are especially highly subjective. For example, the understory in a forest may contain specific plants that have special value to certain people and in order to incorporate diversity, this box is checked, however it may not be the case for everyone.  Foreshore Foreshores are the NAs that exist at the marine and terrestrial boundary, extending over the whole intertidal zone. Included in the category are NAs such as the beaches, rocky shorelines, mudflats and estuaries that can be found in Vancouver. A few of the ESs provided by 27 this NA category include food provisioning of shellfish and other food, water regulation in terms of flooding shorelines. All of these natural assets provide cultural services such as aesthetic, education, and recreational services. Mudflats in particular are especially important in providing habitat for wildlife, and controlling coastal erosion. Beaches and shorelines in Vancouver have enormous value from the people they attract. Table 4 provides a list of NAs and ESs that fall under the foreshore category. A visual example including some monetary values is provided in Figure 5.   Figure 5. Foreshore ESs and their monetary values (in $/ha/yr) taken from local studies Knowler et al. (2003) and Molnar (2015). No value for water regulation under foreshore was provided in local studies. For a detailed table of all ES monetary values and their specific study referenced, please see Appendix B.    28 Table 4. Foreshore NAs and their associated ESs.  Foreshore Natural Assets Ecosystem Services Beaches Rocky shorelines Mudflats Estuaries Aesthetics ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Culture ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Education ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Erosion control ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Food provisioning ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Habitat for wildlife ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Recreation ✓ ✓  ✓ Relational ✓ ✓  ✓ Water regulation ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓   Recreation and relational services are not included in the list of ESs provided by mudflats because, as mentioned previously (see Forests above), assets with recreational services are considered places one would purposely go to for the purpose of recreation. Although we do not consider relational services an ES provided by mudflats, it is important to keep in mind the subjective nature of this ES category.  Soils The category of soils incorporates a variety of land types, including grasslands, shrublands, and both public and private turf lawns and yards. This soil category was created to incorporate land that is not covered in trees, and to take into account the privately owned land that still contributes ESs to the city. Private land soils account for a large portion of this category. The carbon sequestration and storage service provided by soils is an important one, and has largely gone undervalued in previous NA management frameworks. The organic matter in soils as well as living plant material and roots that remain in the soil provide a large drawdown and storage mechanism for carbon, which can help to mitigate changing climate. The NAs in the soils category share many similarities, thus the ESs they provide also share considerable overlap as well. Table 5 lists the NAs and ESs under the soils category. See Figure 6 for a visual example including some monetary values.   29   Figure 6. Soils ESs and their monetary values (in $/ha/yr) taken from local study Molnar (2015). As soils is not a NA category present in local studies but determined from this analysis to be relevant in a NA framework, most soil ES monetary values were not considered nor provided in local studies. The monetary value for education was presented in Molnar (2015) as a monetary value that is applicable to all NA categories and is thus included here for soils. For a detailed table of all ES monetary values and their specific study referenced, please see Appendix B.   30 Table 5. Soil NAs and their associated ESs.  Soil Natural Assets Ecosystem Services Private lands containing soil Parks with little/no tree cover Public lands containing soils Aesthetics ✓ ✓ ✓ Biodiversity ✓ ✓ ✓ Carbon sequestration ✓ ✓ ✓ Culture ✓ ✓ ✓ Education ✓ ✓ ✓ Habitat for wildlife ✓ ✓ ✓ Recreation ✓ ✓ ✓ Relational ✓ ✓ ✓ Water regulation ✓ ✓ ✓  Waterways The category for waterways include NAs influenced by freshwater such as lakes, ponds, wetlands, creeks, rivers, as well as the surrounding riparian zone and floodplain. Vancouver has an extensive network of streams, many of which have been buried during urbanization processes (City of Vancouver, 2019 - Rain City Strategy). Daylighting streams or creating new Green Rainwater Infrastructure (GRI) is an area of research that is receiving significant attention in the City, relevant to the category of waterways. The ESs provided by the NAs in the waterways category share many similarities, however as seen in the table shown below, wetlands provide the unique services of carbon sequestration, and waste management. Table 6 lists the NAs and ESs that fall under waterways. Figure 7 shows some of the ESs and their monetary value that fall in the category of waterways 31  Figure 7. Waterways ESs and their monetary values (in $/ha/yr) taken from local studies Hauser & van Kooten (1993), Knowler et al. (2003), Leschine et al. (1997), Molnar (2015), US Army Corporation of Engineers (1971) and Wilson (2010). No values for aesthetics and culture were provided in local studies. For a detailed table of all ES monetary values and their specific study referenced, please see Appendix B.   32 Table 6. Waterway NAs and their associated ESs.  Waterways Natural Assets Ecosystem Services Lakes Ponds Creeks Rivers Wetlands Riparian area Floodplains Aesthetics ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Carbon sequestration (wetlands)     ✓   Clean water provisioning ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Culture ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Education ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Habitat for wildlife ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Recreation ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Relational ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Waste management (wetlands)     ✓   Water filtration  ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Water regulation ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ A Note on Carbon storage One ecosystem that has links to all categories of NAs is carbon storage. Because this is a long-term service, it cannot be valued on a per year basis, thus the use of units dollars per hectare. Wetlands that are included in the waterways category play a large role in the carbon storage ES as seen in Figure 8. Forests, foreshores, and soils also have significant carbon storage capacity.  33  Figure 8. Carbon storage monetary values (in $/ha) for forests, wetlands (under waterways), foreshore and soils from local studies Nellemann et al. (2009) and Wilson (2010). As carbon is only stored in biomass, waterways as a category are not considered; however, wetlands specifically (under waterways) are considered for their biomass in vegetation. For a detailed table of all ES monetary values and their specific study referenced, please see Appendix B. Monetary Valuation   Assigning monetary values to NAs allows for integration into traditional asset management that exists for built assets. The City of Vancouver utilizes a software  ‒ Hansen ‒ to inventory and manage its assets. Assets can be organized based on their age, maintenance costs, lifecycles, conditions, etc. The City manages its assets in 10-year cycles that are refreshed every 4 years with updates on maintenance needs (Interview with City Engineering Staff on January 13, 2021). Incorporating NAs into this management system will ensure they are given consideration at the same, or even higher, frequency of that of built assets. For the integration of NAs, their monetary values need to be determined. An important distinction to be made is that these monetary values are to be used as tools for integration into asset management; they are not price tags for nature. Without assigning monetary value to or accounting for NAs, they risk being overlooked in asset management practices entirely. Monetary valuation attempts to prevent the exclusion of NAs in asset management from being an indicator of NAs having no 34 value at all. However, there are also some values that cannot be quantified or translated into monetary terms, so these monetary values should be considered to be the baseline of possible NA valuation. The section on non-monetary valuation attempts to address the intangible valuation.  Overview of the monetary valuation process of NAs   Figure 9. Outline of determining monetary value of natural assets. The baseline monetary value of NAs can be represented in terms of the services they provide. This is a bottoms-up approach of finding the monetary values of all the benefits or services a NA provides and using the total as the value of the NA. As noted earlier, these benefits or services are specifically the ESs. The set of ESs a NA provides will vary depending on the category the NA falls under (forest, waterway, foreshore or soil). The final monetary value of the NA will also depend on the extent of the area the NA covers as ES provision is proportional to the size of the NA. So, the baseline monetary value of the NA depends on the type of ESs it provides as well as the area of the NA itself. Consequently, the monetary value of each NA will be unique and must be calculated separately.   First, monetary values of ESs in each NA category need to be determined (Figure 9 - step 1). Note that the monetary value of an ES under one NA category will not be the same in value as the same ES under another NA category. This is because ESs are specific to the NA it provides benefits through. For example, carbon sequestration by a forest will have a different value compared to carbon sequestration by a wetland.  ESs are annual rates. This is because their benefits are ongoing and can change, usually with an increase or appreciation in value, over time. As Molnar (2015) explains, the value of ESs, and thus benefits of NAs, extends into the distant future often with timelines much longer than that of built assets, which have value recognized in the near future accounted for through their depreciation. While built assets tend to require more and more maintenance or replacements with time, NAs have a greater capacity to provide more benefits over longer timelines. When calculating the Net Present Value of the flow of ESs or the future benefits of a NA through time, usually to compare to the Net Present Value of built assets, the exact rate to apply in this financial calculation is still highly contested in the academic field (Molnar, 2015). Molnar (2015) utilizes three discount rates (0%, 3% and 5%) to mitigate this and offers a range of possible Net Present Values to elucidate the significance of a NA’s increased value over time 35 rather than to attempt to provide its exact Net Present Value. ESs being presented as rates allows for this dynamic nature of changing benefits over time. Additionally, ESs are given over an area, commonly in hectares, of the NA it belongs to. As a result, the monetary value of an ES is expressed in dollars/hectare/year ($/ha/yr). This unit rate is then applied across the area of a particular NA to find the annual service across the entirety of that NA ($/yr) (Figure 9 - step 2). This is done by multiplying each ES monetary value ($/ha/yr) by the area the NA covers (ha) (Equation 1). This will give the total monetary value of a given ES across a NA ($/yr). Though, it should be noted that this application of ES monetary values across a NA area has a limitation in that the ES is assumed to be applicable across the entirety of a given NA. This does not account for patchiness or differences in level of service within the NA. The monetary value of the ES is instead considered to represent an average of the level of service across the NA.   Equation 1: Total MV of an ES across a NA ($/yr or $ for carbon storage) = MV of ES ($/ha/yr or $/ha for carbon storage) x Area of NA (ha)    Where MV = monetary value ES = ecosystem service NA = natural asset  Once this is done for each ES in a NA, the total monetary value of all ESs in a NA can be summed for a total annual value of all the benefits or services a NA provides, which is also the value of the NA (Equation 2) (Figure 9 - step 3).   Equation 2. Value of NA = Annual MV of ES1 + Annual MV of ES2 + Annual MV of ES3 +...  Note, the ES of carbon storage is an exception to these annual rates of ESs because carbon storage is a long-term reservoir, storing all the accumulated carbon at a certain time, rather than being a rate of benefits. The final carbon storage monetary value for a NA will not be an annual value but rather a baseline value that carries over from year to year ($/ha). Thus, the monetary value of carbon storage for NAs is considered as a separate value and not included in the sum of annual monetary values of ESs shown in Equation 2. The District of West Vancouver (2019) provides an example of this distinction. Please also see the section Case Study: Stanley Park’s Forest as a NA for a Vancouver-specific example of this distinction, as well as for what the monetary valuation process looks like in practice. 36 Methods to determine monetary values of ESs Monetary valuation methods of ESs can be categorized into three broad approaches as described by Pascual and Muradian (2010): 1) direct market valuation approaches, 2) revealed preference approaches, and 3) stated preference approaches. Direct market valuation approaches are based on market prices, quantities and costs of related products in the economy. For example, an engineered drainage system might offer the same flood control as a forest, so the cost of this drainage system would act as a surrogate for the value of this ES. These direct market approaches are most commonly used to value provisioning ESs because such services provide a supply or product from nature. Revealed preference approaches are based on observable actions, such as purchasing choices, that reveal indirectly how much individuals are willing to pay for their access to nature. For example, individuals might be willing to pay a higher price for a house that is closer to a forest, indicating a preference or recognized value of nature. These approaches can be applied to ESs related to environmental resources that people access. Stated preference approaches, on the other hand, are based on explicitly stated values of how much individuals are willing to pay for their access to nature. These are usually determined through questionnaires and are commonly used to value ESs that do not have adequate market surrogates. A full list of common monetary valuation methods and their definitions can be found in Appendix D.   The monetary valuation method chosen will depend on the characteristics of the ES as well as the type of data that is available in Vancouver or the type of data that can be reasonably obtained. For example, to determine the monetary value of the waste treatment benefit of wetlands (benefit of removing excess nitrogen and phosphorus from the water) in BC’s Lower Mainland, Wilson (2010) utilized known costs of the same waste treatment processes provided by water treatment facilities in the Greater Vancouver District. This is known as the Replacement Cost method in which the cost of a benefit performed by engineered structures can be used as the monetary value of the ES performing the same or a similar function. The waste treatment ES of the wetlands could have been calculated using other methods; however, utilizing existing, available and relevant information from the water treatment facility was less resource intensive than conducting additional research to employ other valuation methods. The choice of which monetary valuation method to use should be evaluated on a case by case basis for each ES, examining what relevant data is available or what data can be best obtained and applied. To support this process, recommendations of a monetary valuation method for each ES,  a study example applying the method for reference, and implementation in Vancouver can be found in Appendix C.  37 Determining Monetary Valuation in Vancouver There are three approaches the City can take to determine the monetary valuation of ESs in Vancouver: 1) conduct extensive primary research to determine local monetary values specific to Vancouver, 2) use monetary values from studies elsewhere as monetary values of ESs in Vancouver (the Benefits Transfer approach, detailed in Appendix D), or 3) utilize a combination of conducting the City’s own primary research and utilizing values from other studies.  While the first approach would provide the most accurate baseline monetary values representative of Vancouver’s local ESs and NAs, it may not be the most feasible in terms of resources and time, especially with the urgency in responding and adapting to climate change. The second approach has limitations in transferability of level of service of ESs across different sites; however, it is the least resource intensive as it would allow the City to come up with monetary values without planning and conducting primary valuation itself. The third approach offers a balance of rigor and feasibility, considering the resources available and the climate urgency.  The third approach employs the Benefits Transfer monetary valuation method which takes the monetary value of an ES elsewhere and uses it as the monetary values of that ES in the location of interest for some ESs, and employs primary research to determine monetary values local to Vancouver for other ESs. The most rigorous approach would be to conduct primary research wherever possible and rely on the Benefits Transfer approach when primary research cannot be feasibly done. However, depending on timelines, the City might decide to rely more on transferred monetary values to save resources and time. The balance between primary research and the Benefits Transfer approach will depend on the City’s project timelines, goals and budget allocation. For the City of Vancouver, utilizing the Benefits Transfer approach will still offer some rigor in the Vancouver context because there is a valuation study available that incorporates Vancouver in its study area: Wilson (2010).   Utilizing the Benefits Transfer Approach  To use the Benefits Transfer approach, Vancouver has the opportunity to draw from local or proximate studies that have already been conducted. In order of proximity these are: 1) Natural Capital in BC’s Lower Mainland: Valuing the benefits from nature by Wilson (2010), 2) Sound investment: Measuring the return on Howe Sound’s ecosystem assets by Molnar (2015), and 3) West Vancouver’s natural capital assets: A preliminary inventory by District of West Vancouver (2019). Wilson (2010) includes Vancouver in its total study area of BC’s Lower Mainland. Molnar (2015) focusses on the Howe Sound area which is a more pristine area compared to Vancouver’s urban setting, so some of its monetary values are likely higher than 38 what Vancouver would have. District of West Vancouver (2019) relies on Molnar (2015) but also references some other studies in BC and outside of BC. So, these studies have their limitations in that they do not provide valuations specific to Vancouver or to Vancouver alone, but they can still be valuable resources when also considering the transferability of level of service across locations (more support in Appendix E). Note that monetary values from studies in different years will need to be standardized to the same dollar value to account for inflation over time. This can be done by consulting the Bank of Canada Inflation Calculator (Bank of Canada, n.d.). To aid the application of the Benefits Transfer approach to Vancouver, monetary values were compiled from proximate studies and standardized to the dollar value in 2020. These can be found in Appendix B.  Conducting the City’s own primary valuation   To conduct primary research in determining the monetary values of ESs in Vancouver, the City should start with its existing data. The City has already compiled comprehensive GIS mapping of Vancouver’s tree canopy cover, urban heat islands, impervious areas and natural areas (City of Vancouver, 2019; Vancouver Park Board, 2018). Metro Vancouver also has GIS data of land cover, impervious areas and tree canopy cover as well as carbon storage estimates in vegetation and soil (Metro Vancouver, 2019). These datasets and their potential uses are summarized in Appendix F, and they offer a foundational starting point for the City in conducting its own NA valuation as well as inventorying what NAs it has in the first place. Namely, the datasets of different land cover can be used to identify NAs in Vancouver and can be used for area calculations, applying monetary values of ESs to a given natural asset such as for forest, wetland, freshwater and soil areas (Equation 1). Metro Vancouver’s “Regional Carbon Storage” dataset will be particularly useful in determining monetary values for carbon storage as it provides estimates of carbon storage of vegetation and soils in the Metro Vancouver area.   While these datasets are good starting points, there may be ESs that call for additional research to be done in determining their monetary valuation. There are many different possible valuation methods, and the chosen method will depend on what data can be reasonably obtained. Recommendations of a method for each ES, an example study that applies this method as well as how the City can implement this monetary valuation for each ES in Vancouver is presented in Appendix C. As a summary, the City can look to local commercial and economic values for monetary values of ESs that utilize the Production Approach method, such as relying on commercial fisheries outputs for valuing salmon habitat (Knowler et al., 2003). The City can also consider construction and maintenance costs of built assets providing similar services as certain NAs in Vancouver for monetary values of ESs that utilize the Replacement Cost method, such as looking at costs of wastewater treatment facilities that serve Vancouver 39 for valuing wastewater treatment of wetlands (Wilson, 2010). In addition, the City could conduct surveys to collect information on how much residents are willing to pay to access nature-based recreation or education to elucidate the value of recreation and education ESs in Vancouver (Molnar, 2015). Finally, the City can also utilize the “Regional Carbon Storage” dataset, which has estimates of carbon stored in vegetation and soils (Metro Vancouver, 2019), along with the IPCC reported social cost of carbon as used by Wilson (2010) in determining valuation of carbon storage.   Putting it all together   Once the City determines the monetary values of its ecosystem services, it can follow the procedure in the monetary value overview above with Equations 1 and 2 to calculate the total value of every natural asset. The City can utilize its land cover datasets for NA areas (Appendix F) that monetary values of ESs can be applied to. Once the City determines the monetary value of each natural asset through its annual benefits and its long-term benefit of carbon storage, NAs in Vancouver can be incorporated into the City’s budgeting, asset management system (Hansen) and work plans in a move to better protect NAs in responding to climate change.    While monetary valuation is a tool to ensure NAs are not overlooked in traditional asset management, it also has some limitations in assigning formal valuation to nature. Its broad approach assumes cohesiveness of level of service throughout a NA area, overlooking patchiness that is often present within a NA. It also only provides valuation for benefits that can reasonably be quantified, leaving out intangible values. Thus, all monetary values should be taken as baselines. Finally, a monetary-value-centered approach to NA valuation also overlooks areas that have a presence of absence of NAs, which we hypothesize are often areas that are the most vulnerable to climate impacts. For a NA and ES framework to be an effective response to the climate emergency which maximizes city-wide resilience, we need to consider areas in Vancouver lacking NAs in the first place. The outcomes of the prioritization matrix follow. This is an attempt to shift our focus to communities where support is needed most, thus prioritizing equity and decolonization.    40 Prioritization Matrix Outcomes As a result of the prioritization matrix shown in Table 2, five priority ES are identified. These are: mental health, relational, culture, education (all with 22 points) and biodiversity (with 17 points). The top four fall in the category of cultural and relational services, while biodiversity is a supporting service. The relative importance of each ES is depicted in Figure 10. These ESs are all (besides biodiversity) somewhat subjective and thus the value of them becomes a question of community values. They are also all relatively intangible and lack methods for monetary value, and thus would be excluded from NA management frameworks without non-monetary valuation methods to supplement monetary value.   Figure 10. Relative importance of ESs for climate resiliency, with the top 5 most important ESs being culture, education, mental health, relational and biodiversity. Furthermore, there is not one single NA that performs each of these ESs. Rather, what each of these ESs have in common is that the continued provision of them requires diverse and spatially extensive ecosystems (see section on NA Categories and their associated ESs). This aligns with Fitzgibbons (2020: 55) which, based on public engagement in Vancouver, scholarly literature review, and a jurisdictional policy scan of cities that are global leaders in defining and planning for access to nature, defines a Restorative Natural Area (RNA) as:  “a natural or naturalized area that is, as much as possible, removed from road noise, traffic, and other interventions. It is relatively quiet with minimal crowding, and contains natural elements like native plants and water features to elicit “soft fascination.” Parks like Stanley Park, Pacific Spirit Regional Park, and Jericho Beach Park have plenty of restorative natural spaces. [...] a Restorative Natural Area is not likely to be a pocket park, green roof, sports field, playground, or crowded public space.”  41  The results of the matrix show the importance of whole ecosystem thinking rather than individual NAs. NAs that are in close spatial proximity to other NAs and which work as ecosystems have a greater restorative potential. These areas are also more resilient to climate impacts, as a diversity of native plants and water features each with slightly different functions allows for redundancy, should one fail. Indeed, evidence shows that biodiversity increases ecosystem stability and functioning (Cardinale et al. 2012). As such, it is likely that the conditions which increase the provision of mental health services, for example, would also simultaneously increase the provision of cultural, relational, and educational services.  The prioritization matrix has identified key ESs, though the subjectivity of these services must cause us to ask whose mental health, whose culture, what kind of education, whose relationships? The following section begins to address this.   Assessing Priority Neighbourhoods  This aspect of the prioritization process is an attempt to centre equity, decolonization, and climate resilience and adaptation in our framework (Project Objectives 4 and 5). Once priority ESs are known, specific neighbourhoods or communities need to be identified for where the conservation or restoration of that ES should occur first. The following considerations can help to identify these neighbourhoods and contextualize the larger picture of what is happening within that system, and how NAs and ESs could be better integrated.  It is clear that access to nature as well as the impacts of environmental disasters, which are increasing in severity and frequency with climate change, are not equally distributed across socioeconomic backgrounds. Appendix G lists some assessment criteria for identifying the relative potential impacts of climate disasters. This includes communities who are already facing systemic racism, sexism, ableism or other forms of discrimination and thus have compromised adaptive capacity or increased sensitivity (Evergreen 2020). In order to address the higher exposure levels, it also includes physical attributes of the build environment which relate to the ability of an area to weather a climate impact. For example, an area with high canopy cover will have greater ability to weather a heat wave.  Also included in Appendix G are datasets or reports that could be relevant in determining where the listed criteria applies in Vancouver and thus which areas should be prioritized. Future studies could perform a geospatial analysis overlaying these criteria, though this is not a prerequisite to planning efforts today. Indeed, the Sea Level Rise (SLR) strategy (City of Vancouver 2018) recognizes this already; areas vulnerable to SLR are prioritized based on relative consequences to people and infrastructure.    42  Case Study: Stanley Park’s Forest as a NA   Figure 11. Overview of the NA management process. To better illustrate the NA management process (Figure 11), we present an overview using Stanley Park’s forest as a case study. To simplify the process, only the park’s forest is considered here as a NA, but other NAs, under the categories foreshore and soils, are also present in Stanley Park and should be considered in a comprehensive NA management system. First, the City should inventory all of its NAs in Vancouver (Figure 11 - step 1). After identifying Stanley Park’s forest as a NA, the City would have to determine the NA’s category and its associated ESs (Figure 11 - step 2). In the case of Stanley Park’s forest, this NA falls under the forest category and the natural forest of all ages subcategory. Consulting Table 3, we see that all forest ESs apply to Stanley Park’s forest.  43 Monetary valuation To determine monetary valuation of NAs (Figure 11 - step 3), please consult the Monetary Valuation section and the methods recommended and detailed in Appendix C and Appendix D, respectively. For this case study, monetary values of ESs from local studies presented in the Natural Asset Categories section as well as detailed in Appendix B are used.   Using the monetary value of each ES, we can find the value of each ES specific to Stanley Park’s forest by applying the monetary value of the ES to the forest’s area using Equation 1 from the Monetary Valuation section. In this case study, the area of Stanley Park’s forest is taken to be 300ha (Vancouver Park Board, 2009); however, for robust valuation analyses, consider using GIS or other tools to determine exact area cover of a specific NA.  Calculations of ES monetary values applied to Stanley Park’s forest are provided in Table 7. Note, the valuation of carbon storage is considered separately as it is a long-term value rather than an annual value. In this case, we used the unknown forest age class for the carbon storage monetary value calculation. This calculation is provided in Table 8.   Figure 12. Monetary valuation of Stanley Park’s forest using values taken from proximate studies detailed in Appendix B. After finding the monetary value of each ES applied to Stanley Park’s forest, we can determine the total monetary value of the forest in terms of the services it provides by adding up all ES monetary values of Stanley Park’s forest using Equation 2 from the Monetary 44 Valuation section (Table 7). Carbon storage is considered separately (Table 8). Some ES monetary values were not present in the local studies considered, so these are excluded here. The City should endeavour to determine valuation for all of its ESs present in Vancouver. From these calculations (with the exclusion of aesthetic, culture, relational and shading and cooling ESs), Stanley Park’s forest is valued at its provision of ecosystem services worth $1,957,470.00/yr and its carbon storage worth $474,381.00 (Figure 12).   Table 7. Calculations to find the total monetary value of ESs across Stanley Park’s forest and the summed total of the NA of Stanley Park’s forest. Ecosystem service Monetary Value ($2020/ha/yr) Area of Stanley Park's Forest (ha) Total monetary value of ESs Across Stanley Park's Forest ($2020/yr) Calculation monetary value Area of NA monetary value x Area of NA Aesthetic - 300 - Air filtration $664.31 300 $199,293.00 Carbon sequestration $52.31 300 $15,693.00 Culture - 300 - Education $36.67 300 $11,001.00 Habitat for wildlife $4.45 300 $1,335.00 Pollination $2,238.46 300 $671,538.00 Recreation $170.33 300 $51,099.00 Relational - 300 - Shading and cooling - 300 - Water filtration $2,533.53 300 $760,059.00 Water regulation $824.84 300 $247,452.00   Total monetary value of Stanley Park's forests $1,957,470.00 45 Table 8. Calculations to find the total monetary value of carbon storage from Stanley Park’s forest. The carbon storage value was taken for an unknown age of forest stand from Appendix B. Ecosystem service Monetary Value ($2020/ha) Area of Stanley Park's Forest (ha) Total monetary value of ESs Across Stanley Park's Forest ($2020/yr) Calculation monetary value Area of NA monetary value x Area of NA Carbon storage $1,581.27 300 $474,381.00 Prioritization Stanley Park As identified, some priority ESs are: mental health, culture, education, relational value, and biodiversity. These services are provided by interconnected NAs that create complete dynamic ecosystems, similar to a Restorative Natural Area (RNA) described by Fitzgibbons (2020). Stanley Park is specifically mentioned as an example of an area with high restorative potential. The park is an extensive forest covering 300ha and provides these priority services to a high degree. The Stanley Park Ecology Society performs workshops for education purposes. Many residents and tourists recreate in the park, which improves mental health and social cohesion (relational services). The dense canopy cover provides habitat for biodiversity to flourish.  Since Stanley park is not a residential area, initially trying to apply the prioritization process seemed difficult if not completely irrelevant. However, upon further consideration of the deep history of colonial violence, it becomes more obvious that the priority community for consultation should be members from all three Host Nations: The Squamish, Musqueam, and Tsleil-Waututh Nations. Despite being a place that fosters many of these intangible ESs, the experience and relationships that Vancouver residents have with this place are not uniform. Though today there are no residents in Stanley Park, it is still relevant to ask questions like who's mental health, whose culture, what kind of education, whose relationships? This is critical for equity.  While it is not realistic to suggest that all neighbourhoods should look and function like Stanley Park because there are no residential properties within the park, we can use the park and its history to inform design and planning decisions so as to maximize resilience to climate impacts for all people throughout the city. Furthermore, the fact that Stanley Park does provide these key ESs highlights the importance of stewarding the park to maintain the biodiversity, ecological functioning, and restorative potential that exists there for future generations.  46 Downtown Eastside  Let us now look at step 4 of Figure 11 and apply the neighbourhood system concept to the Downtown Eastside. This is a priority area in terms of social support. The area is extremely well studied in the social sciences (Linden et al. 2013). The neighbourhood experiences “high rates of drug use, poverty, crime, infectious disease, and mental illness.” We know that the urban forest is sparse, at best - as seen in Figure 13, impermeable concrete surfaces cover most of the ground in this neighbourhood. The city has done LiDAR remote sensing to determine urban tree canopy cover. A simple visual analysis of the maps resulting from these data shows an obvious correlation between low tree canopy cover and high heat (Figure 13). This area is also likely to experience sea level rise; the overlap of these risks makes the area high priority for adaptation support.  Figure 13. Maps of (a) urban heat, (b) tree canopy cover, and (c) projected sea level rise in Vancouver. The negative correlation between tree canopy cover and heat is easily visually identifiable when comparing the map of heat islands (a) with urban tree canopy cover (b). Areas with low (<5%) tree canopy cover are areas with the highest land surface temperature on a hot summer day (42-49°C). The DTES and Marpole are two neighbourhoods where this correlation is most obvious. This can be furthered to include a social risk analysis, which is included in the prioritization scheme. The DTES, for example, is a social priority area, which also shows a severe heat island as well as being an area projected for sea level rise (c). The convergence of social risk with heat risk can be minimized through increasing tree canopy cover, though this interaction with sea level rise will require a multidimensional adaptation approach. The coarse observations from this example give reason to hypothesize that the presence of absence of natural assets might be what increases consequences of climate shocks or stresses. Yu et al. (2020) created and mapped a vulnerability index for the health impacts of climate change in Vancouver and Omitaomu, Kotikot, and Parish (2021) list criteria for assessing the relative potential impact of flood disasters. A report by Evergreen (2019) provides 47 Vancouver-based information on climate impacts on vulnerable communities. Fitzgibbons (2020) explores the unequal distribution of access to nature as well as the subjective nature of what access means for various abilities and cultural values. These reports bring further evidence to how race, age, education, ability, and socioeconomic status, among other factors, intersect with the physical environment and influence the consequences that climate shocks and stresses have on people. Furthermore, due to systemic inequities such as environmental racism, the neighbourhoods which display a presence of absence of NAs are often home to those already experiencing marginalization every day. This may result in having lower adaptive capacity, or higher sensitivity, meaning the consequences of climate impacts are more adverse for these populations. The lack of NAs also means there are fewer natural features to absorb the impacts of a climate event and thus, exposure for residents of those neighbourhoods is higher. For these reasons, we suggest the presence of absence of NAs should be a reason to flag areas for prioritization.  Discussion Creating Categories  When initially creating the NA categories, we were informed by the NA framework from West Vancouver, leaving us with the categories of forests, foreshores, waterways and parks. After some deliberation and the interview with the Vancouver Parks Board, the parks category was eliminated as parks in Vancouver are under the Park Board’s jurisdiction. The importance of soil for carbon capture and storage as well as storm water management was thoroughly discussed. Furthermore, neighbourhoods with primarily single family homes contain a vast expanse of soils in private land. The rate of urbanization and development also means that soils are being depleted at a fast pace. This intersection with the expected increase in rainfall due to climate change causes increased concern. For these reasons, we created a category specifically for soils that includes both public and private soils. Further refinement of the other three categories was done by analysing the Sensitive Ecosystem Inventory (SEI) mapping tool for Metro Vancouver and determining which subcategories occur within the Vancouver boundary. This report was also used to help define the categories more specifically from an ecological perspective.  In the tables listing ESs provided by NAs, it should be noted that the lists are subjective and non-exhaustive. For example, urban street trees do indeed provide the service of water filtration, however not to the same extent that a natural continuous forest of any age does. The NAs and their respective ESs in this report were decided on based on what we found in reports and literature. A more encompassing method of listing ESs in the future would be to use a value 48 system of 1-5 to indicate the level of service, use, or application of an ES with respect to each NA subcategory. Languages for Value  The monetary valuation process and prioritization scheme are two distinct approaches to, or languages, for valuing NAs; however, these two processes complement each other and should therefore be used in tandem with each other. The monetary valuation process addresses the tangible values of NAs and ESs, which assumes that existing assets will be protected. However, this process does not recognize or address areas where NAs do not exist. The prioritization process on the other hand, does address this challenge by employing a systems approach to valuation. The systems approach in this case defines the neighborhood as a sub-system of the larger city system. This process looks at neighborhoods and evaluates their vulnerability, resilience, risks, and so forth. By doing so, the prioritization process ensures that vulnerable neighborhoods do not get overlooked because often, the neighborhoods lacking NAs are the ones that need it the most.  By implementing both the monetary valuation process in conjunction with the prioritization process, this will ensure that existing NAs will be protected, while also creating an opportunity to discuss where NAs can be implemented in areas where they yet to exist.  Notes on Prioritization   After the first iteration of our prioritization scheme, we received valuable feedback with a few key concerns. First, the fact that the priority ESs were almost all cultural and relational services raised questions about the validity of the list of questions which were used to assign points within the matrix. Were they too biased towards cultural and relational services? Were our categories of impacts unevenly distributed such that point allocation was inherently skewed? In order to address these concerns, we simplified categories of climate impacts and reconsidered our point-allocation questions. The questions were redefined based on the risk analysis and simplified. There are now only two questions each for mitigation and adaptation and an even number of possible points. Simplifying the Climate Emergency Big Moves into simple goals also reduced ambiguity when asking the questions. Two team members then went through and independently performed the point allocation process. The results did not change.  Here we would like to draw a metaphor between the concept in conservation science of “umbrella species” and something we’d like to call “umbrella services.” The polar bear and the panda are both umbrella species. These are species that receive a lot of attention in the public eye because they are charming, personable, and invoke an emotional response making people want to save them. They also happen to have large habitats and require well functioning ecosystems to survive. They are not chosen as the poster-species by accident. By focussing on 49 the polar bear, we protect a number of other species by default. We suggest that services such as mental health, education, relational, and culture could be understood as umbrella services. The NAs that provide these services are not single, isolated pieces of nature, but rather continuous and diverse ecosystems. If a NA provides mental health, it likely also provides the kinds of services that we might think of first when we think of climate change — services such as evapotranspiration, water regulation, carbon sequestration, and pollination. However, mental health provision might be more relatable to people than carbon sequestration.   Another piece of feedback asked what the purpose of prioritization is. This can be answered simply by stating that we cannot do everything all at once. After considering this question a little more deeply, our perspective has shifted. Given the magnitude and rate at which we will have to transition and adapt to the climate emergency, it is difficult to simply accept the previous statement. It is true that the prioritization process that we developed did not specifically help to know which NAs need attention. However, it might provide other valuable insight.  First, it pushes us to think on a systems level rather than at the level of one NA. This is why we have opted to evaluate level of service at the neighbourhood scale, with the neighbourhood being a sub-system of the complete city system. By applying systems thinking to our evaluation, we can recognize and account for the value of continuity and connection between NAs. This seems a more holistic and ecosystem-based approach than a reductionist one geared at the level of the NA. Again, the concept of umbrella services lends itself well here.  Secondly, perhaps with some naivety and a dash of audacious hope, it leads us to ask whether it is really the case that we need to prioritize so specifically. While honestly recognizing that City staff are very busy and work hard, we want to humbly dwell on the question: Is it really true that we have such limited resources? Two alternative rationales for our collective perception of scarcity follow.  First, is there an alternative way to approach solutions? Could we shift the way we prepare or respond to challenges in a way that actually multiplies change vectors? For example, if we prioritize at the level of the NA, we might learn that we need more trees in the Downtown Eastside and we might know what species we should plant for optimal evapotranspiration function. We might even be able to account for some co-benefits in that decision-making process. And then the City would employ staff and go ahead and plant those trees and then go back to their prioritization process and decide what’s next.  Alternatively, if we look at the neighbourhood as a system, we can ask how well does the neighbourhood provide the top 5 most important ES we have identified? We can begin to recognize patterns such as prevalence of poor mental health in a given neighbourhood. We can then look at other features of that neighbourhood, for example access to nature or tree canopy cover. Then we can ask people in that neighbourhood what kind of nature they want to see — what kind of nature might improve their mental health? By engaging residents in the process, 50 providing hands-on workshops and community restoration events, we build multiple dimensions of value beyond simply physical resilience to climate storms. Through these types of activities, it is likely that we will build relational value and social cohesion, increase mental health, grow support for restoration activities, and share diverse knowledge forms in a two way stream. This approach has a multiplying effect; it grows beyond the boundaries of the planting-a-tree event. Attendees of the event will tell their friends, or decide to replace their turf lawn with pollinator friendly wildflowers. While we recognize the very real time commitment that community engagement requires, we want to emphasize that during this process, we didn’t just plant the physical roots of a tree; we planted roots for community resilience. The value is exponential. Maybe we can do everything at once?   Second, are our prioritization frameworks upholding the dichotomy between nature and people? A human perspective on prioritization does not rule out the inherent value of nature because we are nature. We should be cautious not to further the narrative of human existence causing harm to nature. There are lifestyles and choices we can make that ensure we live in harmony with the natural environment. This perspective shifts the concept of scarcity into one of abundance. Traditional Ecological Knowledge has a lot of wisdom to share in this department. Cultivated clam gardens are a great piece of evidence that humans can positively drive ecosystem functioning and abundance (Deur et al. 2015; Matei, 2020). These gardens were traditionally created by building rock walls at the low tide line to form terraced, shallow shorelines that clams thrive in. This increased food security in a sustainable and non-intrusive way. With human actions, the clam gardens have been up to 300% more productive. Maybe human existence can have a positive impact on nature?   Limitations & Looking Forward Limitations  One major limitation of creating any NAs and ESs framework is that intangible assets require subjectivity and flexibility. We have stressed the importance of this being a living document, though even so, values and relations are constantly changing over time as communities evolve and adapt to changing conditions and cultures. As such, community consultation to incorporate these diverse and subjective values needs to be embedded into NA management long-term. Continual consultation with community members who do not fit traditional lifestyles is important to ensure diverse voices are heard.   A second limitation of this NA framework is that green infrastructure was not incorporated into the valuation system. GI are engineered assets and cannot be considered fully “natural.” GI lies on a spectrum of “green” (which more closely resembles natural assets) and “grey” (which more closely resembles traditional assets). Daylighted streams and 51 engineered wetlands for example, lie on the “green” side of the spectrum and more obviously resembles a NA. Permeable pavement and green streets on the other hand, are considered more “grey” as they are more obviously engineered by humans. Currently, the valuation of GI already exists in different frameworks within the City of Vancouver, however with this framework, the hope is that the valuation of ESs and intangible values will also be considered when assessing the value of GI. Recommendations Now that there is a framework for determining the valuation of NAs and their ESs, we recommend the following steps to aid the implementation of this process. The city should compile an inventory of its existing NA to apply valuation to it. For an example of this inventory, please see District of West Vancouver (2019). As “Soils” is a new category that is not yet considered in local studies, it would be worthwhile for the city of Vancouver to determine its local soils’ ES monetary values. Following the compilation of Vancouver’s NA, it would be worthwhile to explore the appreciation of NA over time, contrary to traditional assets which undergo depreciation.  Furthermore, a potential worthwhile investment is to utilize the CITYgreen software developed by the American Forestry Association (available for commercial purchase) (American Forestry Association, n.d.). It is a GIS extension of ArcView that uses urban ecology land covers to measure economic benefits of trees, soils and other natural resources. It has been widely used in ES monetary value methods and was a primary tool to calculate avoided costs of stormwater runoff, avoided costs of air pollution removal, and avoided costs (among other valuation methods) of carbon sequestration in Wilson (2010) among other studies and city projects (Haines, 2000; Li et al., 2011; Longcore et al., 2004).  In line with the ecosystem-based approach we have attempted to operationalize in this report, we suggest that a circular economy perspective could be adopted for the management of NAs and ES. This allows for reciprocity between nature and people. Nanaimo is the first Canadian city to operationalize the Donut Economy approach developed by Kate Raworth (2012). This model provides a conceptualization of the safe and just operating space for humanity in which all human needs are met without pushing beyond the planetary boundaries.  Finally, should the use or implementation of NA be unfeasible or impossible, GI can be considered as a potential alternative as it functions to mimic the ESs that NAs provide naturally.   52 Next Steps City Engineering and Sustainability Department Staff together with the Parks Board should further this work to create a natural assets inventory and assess baseline monetary value. By applying the prioritization framework and consulting with at-risk communities, City Staff and Councillors can direct planning initiatives to maximize climate resiliency. The prioritization process we created identified priority ESs that ensure resilience to climate shocks and stresses is maximized. In order to operationalize this, we need to take targeted actions in neighbourhoods that need them most. The City should apply criteria from Appendix G to assess the level of service of these priority ESs in various neighbourhoods around Vancouver. Once priority neighbourhoods are identified, open dialogue and joint decision-making with community members should follow. Consultation and discussion should occur right from the beginning, and should be a two-way sharing of knowledge. Planners should ask what kinds of nature the community members value; what is culturally appropriate, what feels safe, what makes residents feel happy and connected to nature and each other? Implementation of these plants should also include residents. Hosting workshops in which community members have the opportunity to be in leadership positions or to simply participate in whatever capacity they would like will build relational value, social cohesion, mental health and many other co-benefits. This creates a sense of ownership and connection and multiplies the impact of planting a tree. There are a number of non-monetary valuation methods that could be further explored to guide this consultation and collaboration process. Kelemen et al. (2016) provides an excellent guide on such methods. The City’s Social Policy Team also has great resources on ensuring equity is centred in public participation processes (Maina, 2019).   Concluding Statement  Summary of Next Steps: 1) Inventory Vancouver’s NA 2) Determine baseline monetary values of NAs through their ESs 3) Identify priority areas to open meaningful consultations and direct funding to   Vancouver is supported by many NAs and their ESs. The City’s forests, beaches, waterways and other natural areas are some of the most identifiable features that make Vancouver the beautiful city that it is known for, and they are critical to protect in the City’s response to climate change. At the same time, areas that lack NAs are equally as important in climate change adaptation considerations. We hope that our primer that considers both the protection of existing NAs through integration into asset management and the prioritization of neighbourhoods that are at risk of climate-related, among other, inequities will be a strong resource for the City of Vancouver to better respond to the climate emergency.  53 Works Cited Adaptation to Climate Change Team, The. Simon Fraser University. (2020). Accounting for Natural Assets: A Low Carbon Resilience Approach. https://dev.act-adapt.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/Natural-Asset-Valuation.pdf American Forestry Association. (n.d.). CITYgreen Software. [Computer software - ArcView extension]. http://www.conservationgis.org/links/methods1.html Bank of Canada. (n.d.). Inflation calculator. https://www.bankofcanada.ca/rates/related/inflation-calculator/ Biodiversity.fi. (2015). Value of erosion control. Finnish Ecosystem Services. https://www.biodiversity.fi/ecosystemservices/services/regulating/erosion-control/value Bowker, J. M., English, D. B. K., & Donovan, J. A. (1996). Toward a value for guided rafting on southern rivers. Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, 28(2), 423–243. Cardinale, B.J.; Duffy, E.; Gonzalez, A.; Hooper, D.U.; Perrings, C.; Venail, P.; Narwani, A.; Mace, G.M:; Tilman, D.; Wardle, D.A.; Kinzig, A.P.; Daily, G.C.; Loreau, M.; Grace, J.B.; Larigauderie, A.; Srivastava, D. and Naeem, S. (2012). Biodiversity loss and its impact on humanity. Nature. 486, 7401, pp 59-67.  doi:10.1038/nature11148. http://dx.doi.org/  Chan, K. M., Gould, R. K., &amp; Pascual, U. (2018). Editorial overview: Relational values: What are they, and what’s the fuss about? Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 35, A1-A7. doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2018.11.003 Chan, K.M.A. and T. Satterfield (2020). The maturation of ecosystem services: Social and policy research expands, but whither biophysically-informed valuation? People and Nature. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10137 City of Saskatoon. (2020). Natural capital asset valuation: pilot project. City of Saskatoon. https://www.saskatoon.ca/sites/default/files/documents/ncav-report-final.pdf City of Vancouver (2018). Climate Change Adaptation Strategy. https://vancouver.ca/files/cov/climate-change-adaptation-strategy.pdf City of Vancouver. (2019). Rain City Strategy: A green rainwater infrastructure and rainwater management initiative. https://vancouver.ca/home-property-development/one-water.aspx City of Vancouver. (n.d.). Stanley Park. Retrieved March 23, 2021, from https://vancouver.ca/parks-recreation-culture/stanley-park.aspx 54 Conrad, K. (2020, November 4). Okotoks develops natural asset inventory. Okotoks Today. https://www.okotokstoday.ca/local-news/okotoks-develops-natural-asset-inventory-2847353 Deur, D., Dick, A., Recalma-Clutesi, K., & Turner, N.J. (2015). Kwakwaka’wakw “Clam Gardens”: Motive and Agency in Traditional Northwest Coast Mariculture. Human Ecology, 43:201–212. DOI 10.1007/s10745-015-9743-3  Díaz, S., Demissew, S., Carabias, J., Joly, C., Lonsdale, M., Ash, N., Larigauderie, A., Adhikari, J. R., Arico, S., Báldi, A., Bartuska, A., Baste, I. A., Bilgin, A., Brondizio, E., Chan, K. M. A., Figueroa, V. E., Duraiappah, A., Fischer, M., Hill, R., ... Zlatanova, D. (2015). The IPBES Conceptual Framework - connecting nature and people. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 14, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2014.11.002 District of West Vancouver. (2019). West Vancouver’s natural capital assets: A preliminary inventory. District of West Vancouver. https://www.westvancouver.ca/sites/default/files/dwv/council-agendas/2019/jul/15/19jul15 - 6.pdf District of West Vancouver. (2020). Council Report: 2020 Asset Management Update. https://doi.org/10.1192/pb.22.7.462 Fast, E., & Collin-Vézina, D. (2010). Historical Trauma, Race-based Trauma and Resilience of Indigenous Peoples: A literature review. First Peoples Child and Family Review, 5(1), 126-136. Goodman, R.A., Bunnell, R., & Posner, S.F. (2014). What is “community health”? Examining the meaning of an evolving field in public health. Preventive Medicine, 67(1), 58-61. Gupta, T. R., & Foster, J. H. (1975). Economic criteria for freshwater wetland policy in Massachusetts. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 57(1), 40–45. Haines, D. B. (2000). The value of trees in the City of New Berlin. AICP. https://proceedings.esri.com/library/userconf/proc01/professional/papers/pap1021/p1021.htm Himes, A., & Muraca, B. (2018). Relational values: the key to pluralistic valuation of ecosystem services. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 35, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2018.09.005  Hauser, A., & van Kooten, G. C. (1993). Benefits of improving water quality in the Abbotsford aquifer: an application of contingent valuation methods. Fraser River Action Plan. 55 IPCC, (2018). Summary for Policymakers. In: Global Warming of 1.5°C. An IPCC Special Report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty [Masson-Delmotte, V., P. Zhai, H.-O. Pörtner, D. Roberts, J. Skea, P.R. Shukla, A. Pirani, W. Moufouma-Okia, C. Péan, R. Pidcock, S. Connors, J.B.R. Matthews, Y. Chen, X. Zhou, M.I. Gomis, E. Lonnoy, T. Maycock, M. Tignor, and T. Waterfield (eds.)]. World Meteorological Organization, Geneva, Switzerland, 32 pp. Kelemen, E.; García-Llorente, M.; Pataki, G.; Martín-López, B. and E. Gómez-Baggethun (2016). Non-monetary techniques for the valuation of ecosystem service. In: Potschin, M. and K. Jax (eds): OpenNESS Ecosystem Services Reference Book. EC FP7 Grant Agreement no. 308428. Available via: www.openness-project.eu/library/reference-book  Knowler, D. J., MacGregor, B. W., Bradford, M. J., & Peterman, R. M. (2003). Valuing freshwater salmon habitat on the west coast of Canada. Journal of Environmental Management, 69, 261–273. Kosatsky, T. 2010. “Hot day deaths, summer 2009: What happened and how to prevent a recurrence.” British Columbia Medical Journal 52(5): 261.  Kulshreshtha, S. N., & Gillies, J. A. (1993). Economic evaluation of aesthetic amenities: A case study of River View. Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 29(2), 257–266. Leschine, T. M., Wellman, K. F., & Green, T. H. (1997). The economic value of wetlands: wetlands role in flood protection in Western Washington. Washington State Department of Ecology, 1–68. Li, X., Wei, Y., & Li, L. (2011). Research of city ecological green space design based on CITYgreen. Advanced Materials Research, 243–249, 6668–6671. https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/amr.243-249.6668 Linden, I.A., Mar, M.Y., Werker, G.R., Jang, K., & Krausz, M. (2013). Research on a Vulnerable Neighborhood—The Vancouver Downtown Eastside from 2001 to 2011. Journal of Urban Health, 90, 559–573 . https://doi.org/10.1007/s11524-012-9771-x  Longcore, T., Li, C., & Wilson, J. P. (2004). Applicability of CITYgreen Urban Ecosystem Analysis Software to a Densely Built Urban Neighbourhood. Urban Geography, 25(2), 173–186. Matei, A. (2020). 'Bringing beaches back to life': the First Nations restoring ancient clam gardens. The Guardian. Accessed online April 17, 2021 from 56 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/sep/23/clam-gardens-first-nations-beaches-pacific-northwest  Metro Vancouver. (2019). Open Data Catalogue. http://www.metrovancouver.org/data Molnar, M. (2015). Sound investment: Measuring the return on Howe Sound’s ecosystem assets. David Suzuki Foundation. Moran, D. (1984). Contingent valuation and biodiversity: Measuring the user surplus of Kenyan protected areas. Biodiversity & Conservation, 3, 663–684. Nellemann, C., Corcoran, E., Duarte, C. M., Valdes, I., De Young, C., Fonseca, I., & Grimsditch, G. (2009). Blue carbon: A rapid response assessment. In the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). Parsons, G. R., & Powell, M. (2001). Measuring the cost of beach retreat. Coastal Management, 29, 91–103. Pascual, U., & Muradian, R. (2010). The economics of valuing ecosystem services and biodiversity. (Chpt 5). In The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: The Ecological and Economic Foundation. www.teebweb.org/ EcologicalandEconomicfoundation/tabid/1018/default.aspx Phillips, D. (2011). Assessment of ecosystem services provided by urban trees: Public lands within the urban growth boundary of Corvallis, Oregon. https://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_record_Report.cfm?Lab=NHEERL&dirEntryId=246414 Powell, J. A., Menendian, S., & Ake, W. (2019) Targeted Universalism: Policy & Practice. Haas Institute for a Fair and Inclusive Society. https://belonging.berkeley.edu/targeteduniversalism  Pringle, T. (2018). Assessing the worth of ecological services using the ecological accounting process for watershed assessment: Brooklyn Creek demonstration application in the Comox Valley. https://waterbucket.ca/gi/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2018/09/Brooklyn-Creek_EAP-Demonstration_FINAL_Sep2018_low-res.pdf Raworth, K. (2012). A safe and just space for humanity: Can We Live Within The Doughnut? Oxfam Discussion Paper. https://www-cdn.oxfam.org/s3fs-public/file_attachments/dp-a-safe-and-just-space-for-humanity-130212-en_5.pdf   57 Town of Gibsons. (2019). Gibson’s Natural Asset Management Journey. Gibsons. https://gibsons.ca/sustainability/natural-assets/gibsons-natural-asset-management-journey/ US Army Corporation of Engineers. (1971). Flood control, Roseau River, Minnesota: General design memorandum. Vancouver Park Board. (2018). Vancouver’s Parks and Recreation: Inventory & Analysis. https://vancouver.ca/images/web/vanplay-inventory-and-analysis-full-report.pdf Vancouver Park Board. (2009). Stanley Park Forest Management Plan. https://vancouver.ca/files/cov/Stanley-Park-Forest-Management-Plan.pdf Wilson, S. J. (2010). Natural capital in BC’s Lower Mainland: Valuing the benefits from nature. David Suzuki Foundation ; Pacific Parklands Foundation. http://www.davidsuzuki.org/publications/downloads/2010/DSF_lower_mainland_natural_capital.pdf Yu, J., Castellani, K., Yao, A., Cawley, K., Zhao, X., & Brauer, M. (2020). Mapping spatial patterns in vulnerability to climate change-related health hazards. Vancouver Coastal Health and the University of British Columbia. https://vchtest.s3.ca-central-1.amazonaws.com/Mapping+spatial+patterns+in+vulnerability+to+climate+change-related+health+hazards+-+2020+Report.pdf       58 Glossary of Terms   Adaptive capacity refers to the capacity of community members to adapt to shocks or stresses; and/or ability of humans and nature to adjust to changes caused by climate impacts.  Carbon sequestration  (carbon sequestered by flora per annum)   Carbon storage  (not a per year value; carbon that is held in biomass already)  Climate Adaptation  refers to the changes people and ecosystems make in order to withstand the impacts of climate-related shocks and stresses such as heat waves, flooding, wildfire smoke or sea level rise. Building a shoreline dike, raising buildings, or relocating people and infrastructure upland are all examples of adaptation to sea level rise as a product of climate change (CoV 2018).   Climate Impacts refers to the effects of climate change and the severity.  Climate Justice refers to a concept that relates the impacts of climate change from a science perspective, to concepts of social justice and equity.   Climate Mitigation  refers to the direct reduction of the concentration of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere through either decreased anthropogenic emissions or increased sequestration in order to limit the global warming effect. Reducing the use of fossil fuel powered transportation or planting trees to sequester carbon are both examples of climate mitigation efforts.   Community Values  Are the values that a group of people hold. Value is often subjective and intangible, so it is important to open dialogue with community members. Non-monetary valuation methods offer a methodology for communicating and understanding community values.    59 Consequences are the results, effects, importance or relevance of an event.  Cultural services  refer to services include the non material benefits from nature such as the spiritual, recreational and cultural benefits. This includes the symbolic benefits that people obtain from these ecosystem services.  Directly Adapting Refers to any ES which reduces the consequences of a climate shock or stress.   Directly Mitigating Refers to any ES that supports a listed Climate Emergency Big Move.   Directly Impacted refers to being immediately affected by an event or condition.  Ecosystem Services are the benefits people obtain from ecosystems, both directly and indirectly (MNAI, 2017)  Evaluation is the assessment or examination of   Green Infrastructure  (GI) are engineered assets that integrate natural and semi-natural components that mimic ecosystem services provided by natural assets.  Invaluable Indispensable, or extremely valuable   Level of Service Can be defined at the level of the NA, but for our purposes, is defined at the level of the neighbourhood; how well does the neighbourhood provide the ecosystem service in question?   Likelihood  where [risks, shocks, or stresses] are most likely to occur, how often, and to what extent   60 Long-term lasting, persisting, or occurring over a long period of time  Natural Assets  are the “stock of natural resources and ecosystems that yield a flow of benefits to people” (MNAI 2018, pg. 3)  Presence of absence Refers to a state in which natural assets are absent from the neighbourhood/landscape.   Provisioning services Services provided by NA’s that provide tangible products to humans such as food and water.  Relational Values are a complex concept that involves the preferences, principles and virtues around the human-nature relationship (Chan et. al., 2018).  Regulating services refer to the services that moderate natural processes.  Resilience  Refers to the capacity to recover or adapt to changes or events.   Restorative Natural Area  (RNA) is “a natural or naturalized area that is, as much as possible, removed from road noise, traffic, and other interventions. It is relatively quiet with minimal crowding, and contain natural elements like native plants and water features to elicit “soft fascination” (Fitzgibbons 2020).   Risks refer to the exposure to a chance of injury or loss; or forces or circumstances that pose danger to people/what they value; likelihood of loss multiplied by the level of impact.  Sensitivity can be contextualized in terms of community members’ trauma history. Trauma is defined as the “present day experience of significant historical and contemporary harm done especially to Indigenous people and people of color in the U.S. and Canada” (Fast and Collin-Vézina 2010).   61 Shocks refer to sudden or surprising events due to climate change.  Stresses  Refer to adverse events or conditions that cause strain to a system.  Supporting services refer to services that allow for other ES to function and includes services such as nutrient cycling and soil formation that maintain the conditions for life on Earth.  Valuation Refers to the process of assessing worth  Wildlife  includes (native) mammals, birds, insects, mammals, reptiles          62 List of Acronyms CC - Climate Change  CE - Climate Emergency  CEBM - Climate Emergency Big Moves DTES - Downtown Eastside  ES(s) - Ecosystem Service(s) GI - Green Infrastructure GIS - Geographic Information System GRI - Green Rainwater Infrastructure IPBES - Intergovernmental Panel on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services LiDAR - Light Detection And Ranging MNAI - Municipal Natural Assets Initiative MV - Monetary Value NA(s) - Natural Asset(s) RNA - Restorative Natural Area SEI - Sensitive Ecosystem Inventory  SLR - Sea Level Rise              63 Appendix A - Table of ESs Table 9. Relevant ecosystem services and their definitions for the City of Vancouver. Ecosystem Service Definition Provisioning Services Clean water provisioning Water for human consumption. Food provisioning Plant or animal biomass for human consumption. Regulating Services Air filtration Removal of pollutants and production of clean air. Carbon sequestration Drawdown of atmospheric carbon. Carbon storage The ability of natural areas to hold carbon. Erosion control Protection from soil erosion thought plant cover. Habitat for wildlife Available area for animals and insects to live, reproduce. Pollination Natural fertilization of plants. Water filtering Filtration of water into clean and usable reservoirs. Water regulation Drought and flood regulation. Waste treatment (wetland) Absorption of excess nutrients. Supporting Services Biodiversity Acceptable numbers and diversity of organisms within natural areas. Shading and cooling Transpiration benefits from trees and other vegetation. Cultural Services 64 Aesthetic Natural beauty of nature. Culture Spiritual and otherwise meaningful uses of nature within a cultural context. Education The use of nature for learning and education. Recreation Recreational and tourism use of ecosystems. Relational value Relational The human relationship with nature.    65 Appendix B - Monetary values of ESs from local studies  The City can use these monetary values as reference points when conducting its own valuation, or it can use these values in the Vancouver context through the Benefits Transfer approach, preferably in instances when conducting the City’s own primary research is not possible or feasible. Monetary values of carbon storage are in a separate table following below due to them being in $/ha rather than $/ha/yr. Some monetary values of ESs were not presented in the local studies considered. These can be ESs the city can endeavour to determine local valuation for. Intangible ESs (aesthetics, culture and relational) do not have monetary values presented here but are attempted to be accounted for in the Non-Monetary Valuation section. Methods outlining how proximate studies were chosen for the reported monetary values can be found in the Methods section.   Table 10. Monetary values of ESs from studies near Vancouver. NA category ES Value in $2020/ha/yr Method Location of study Reference Foreshore Aesthetic - - - - Culture - - - - Education $36.67 Travel cost Howe Sound, BC Molnar (2015) Food provisioning $0.74 Production approach Howe Sound, BC Molnar (2015) Habitat for wildlife $2.22-11.11 Production approach BC Knowler et al. (2003) Recreation $754.57 Travel cost Howe Sound, BC Molnar (2015) Relational - - - - Water regulation - - - - Forests Aesthetic - - - - Air filtration $664.31 Avoided cost Lower Mainland Wilson (2010) Carbon sequestration $52.31 Avoided cost Lower Mainland Wilson (2010) Culture - - - - 66 Education $36.67 Travel cost Howe Sounds, BC Molnar (2015) Habitat for wildlife $4.45 Production approach BC Knowler et al. (2003) Pollination $2,238.46 Production approach Lower Mainland Wilson (2010) Recreation $170.33 Production approach Lower Mainland Wilson (2010) Relational - - - - Shading and cooling -    Water filtration $2,533.53 Avoided cost Lower Mainland Wilson (2010) Water regulation $824.84 Replacement cost Lower Mainland Wilson (2010) Soils Aesthetic     Biodiversity - - - - Carbon sequestration - - - - Culture - - - - Education $36.67 Travel cost Howe Sound, BC Molnar (2015) Habitat for wildlife - - - - Relational - - - - Water regulation - - - - Waterways Aesthetic - - - - Clean water provisioning $133.35 Replacement cost BC Hauser & van Kooten (1993) as cited in District of West Vancouver (2019) 67 Culture - - - - Education $36.67 Travel cost Howe Sound, BC Molnar (2015) Habitat for wildlife (salmon specifically) $4.39 Production approach BC Knowler et al. (2003) Recreation $754.57 Travel cost Howe Sound, BC Molnar (2015) Relational - - - - Water filtration (creeks-riparian buffer) $2,462.38 Replacement cost BC Wilson (2010) as cited in District of West Vancouver (2019) Water filtration (small lakes, ponds) $2,451.83 Replacement cost BC Wilson (2010) as cited in District of West Vancouver (2019) Water regulation (creeks) $1,799.96- $8,222.24 Avoided cost Washington, USA Leschine et al. (1997) Water regulation (river) $1,361.97 Avoided cost Massachusetts, USA US Army Corporation of Engineers (1971) as cited in District of West Vancouver (2019) Water regulation (small lakes, ponds) $1,802.82- $8,220.85 Avoided cost Washington, USA Leschine et al. (1997) Specific for wetlands (in addition to waterways ES): Carbon sequestration by non-tidal wetland $17.44 Avoided cost Lower Mainland, BC Wilson (2010) 68 Carbon sequestration by tidal wetland $146.40 Avoided cost Lower Mainland, BC Wilson (2010) Habitat for wildlife $38.89-178.38 Production approach BC Knowler et al. (2003) Recreation $170.33 Production approach Lower Mainland, BC Wilson (2010) Relational - - - - Waste treatment (absorb excess N and P) $1,720.76 Replacement cost Lower Mainland, BC Wilson (2010) Water filtration $2,533.53 Avoided cost Lower Mainland, BC Wilson (2010)  Table 11. Monetary values of the carbon storage ES from studies near Vancouver. Carbon Storage NA category Sub-category Value in $2020/ha Method Study location Reference Foreshore - $0.01 Avoided cost Worldwide Nellemann et al. (2009) as cited in Molnar (2015) Forests Average for forests in BC's Lower Mainland $2,292.11 Avoided cost Lower Mainland, BC Wilson (2010) 1-20 year forests $316.52 Avoided cost Lower Mainland, BC Wilson (2010) 21-50 year forests $949.57 Avoided cost Lower Mainland, BC Wilson (2010) 51-100 year forests $2,372.58 Avoided cost Lower Mainland, BC Wilson (2010) 101-250 year forests $2,847.37 Avoided cost Lower Mainland, BC Wilson (2010) >250 year forests $3,163.89 Avoided cost Lower Mainland, Wilson (2010) 69 BC unknown year forests $1,581.27 Avoided cost Lower Mainland, BC Wilson (2010) Soils Grassland $796.67 Avoided cost Lower Mainland, BC Wilson (2010) Shrubland $1,341.20 Avoided cost Lower Mainland, BC Wilson (2010) Cropland (excludes agricultural land) $885.19 Avoided cost Lower Mainland, BC Wilson (2010) Wetlands (under waterways) Swamps $1,989.00 Avoided cost Lower Mainland, BC Wilson (2010) Marsh $1,413.62 Avoided cost Lower Mainland, BC Wilson (2010) Shallow water $945.55 Avoided cost Lower Mainland, BC Wilson (2010) Fen $1,964.86 Avoided cost Lower Mainland, BC Wilson (2010) Bog $3,599.78 Avoided cost Lower Mainland, BC Wilson (2010) Other wetland $1,508.85 Avoided cost Lower Mainland, BC Wilson (2010)    70 Appendix C - Recommended monetary valuation method for each ES Table 12. Recommended monetary valuation method for each ES as well as an example study for reference and notes on application to the City of Vancouver. Ecosystem Service Valuation Method Relevant Study Description of Study Application to the City of Vancouver Aesthetic Hedonic pricing Kulshreshtha & Gillies (1993) Uses hedonic pricing from values paid by Saskatoon residents, based on property taxes and rent, to estimate aesthetic values of the South Saskatchewan River Utilize property tax and rent payment data to identify patterns of higher perceived values with proximity to certain NAs for their aesthetics Air filtration Avoided costs Wilson (2010) Uses CITYgreen GIS software to evaluate how much pollution (CO, NO2, PM and SO2) is removed by tree canopies. Avoided health costs are used from CITYgreen values which are based on research by David Nowak of the USDA Forest Service Utilize the tree canopy cover dataset (Vancouver Park Board, 2018) along with accessing CITYgreen software for its calculations of air pollution removal by tree canopies Biodiversity Contingent valuation Moran (1984) Quantifies economic benefit through a survey evaluating different preferences on park use and access payment Conduct contingent valuation surveys asking park and forest users their perceived value of park use and access related to biodiversity, building off the study methods by Moran (1984) Carbon sequestration Avoided costs Wilson (2010) Uses CITYgreen GIS software to calculate the annual uptake of carbon based on forest age class. Then used the IPCC estimate of social costs for the economy to offset CO2 emissions at a per tonne per hectare per year amount. This value is adjusted based on land type and location. Utilize land cover class data in the "Land Cover Classification" dataset (Metro Vancouver, 2019) or the "Sensitive Ecosystem Inventory for Metro Vancouver" Dataset (Metro Vancouver, 2019) to use forest age class data, if available in these datasets, along with the IPCC social costs of carbon to determine carbon sequestration values Carbon storage Avoided cost Wilson (2010) Uses the IPCC estimate of social costs for the economy to offset CO2 emissions (similar to the valuation for carbon sequestration; however, this value is a stored value over years rather than an annual rate. Tonnes of carbon stored Can follow the methods outlined in Wilson (2010). However, Metro Vancouver (2019) provides "the Regional Carbon Storage" dataset which offers carbon storage estimates in Metro Vancouver vegetation and soil. The values from this dataset can be utilized in carbon storage valuations 71 per hectare were estimated for different forest age classes from forest land covers, obtained from the B.C. Vegetation Resources Inventory database. Alternative methods recommended by Wilson (2010) are replacement cost and market price of carbon trading Clean water provisioning Replacement cost Wilson (2010) Considers the replacement cost of water supply if natural sources had to be replaced with bottled water, using a price per litre. Can look at the City's data on household water usage volume and calculate the equivalent volume in bottled water at the current market price, in replacing clean water provisioning Culture N/A N/A Cultural services are difficult and arguably impossible to quantify. We try to account for its value through our prioritization scheme. We further recommend consultation with groups who have cultural interest in the lands to understand an approximate baseline value Please refer to the prioritization matrix Education Travel cost Molnar (2015) This ES is difficult to value and recommend a method for. However, Molnar (2015) attempts an in-house calculation using survey data that presents a value each person is willing to pay for its local education camps. This value was then multiplied by the total population of the study area then divided by the total study area to get a value per hectare for the year of the survey Can consider any nature-based education programs running in Vancouver and conduct surveys to determine what residents are willing to pay for their access to natured-centered education Erosion control Avoided cost N/A A relevant case study for this could not be found. However, Biodiversity.fi (2015) lists examples of using costs of artificial means of erosion control or economic expenses due to fish catch loss from erosion near aquatic Could identify areas in Vancouver known to have erosion and look at potential economical impacts of the area's erosion such as potential commercial fishery production decreases in the case of coastal erosion 72 ecosystems as values to consider for this ES Food provisioning Market Prices N/A This will vary based on location as values are highly dependent on the local economy. Take current market prices for foods identical or similar to foods supported by the food provisioning ecosystem service Utilize current market prices of the food to value the ES providing the same food Habitat for wildlife Production approaches Knowler et al. (2003) Uses economic values produced by local commercial fisheries and sport fisheries specifically for coho salmon in the Strait of Georgia Consider production prices and revenues of commercial fisheries local to Vancouver Pollination Production approach Wilson (2010) Uses the economic value of production from crops that depend on pollination in the Lower Mainland Consider production prices that crops yield. This may not be applicable to Vancouver as there may not be any agricultural areas. Recreation Travel cost Molnar (2015) Calculated travel costs based on in-house information about travel expenses people paid to access local recreation, costs people were willing to pay for increased recreation access. Would be worthwhile to reach out to study leads to find detailed methods of "in-house" calculation Consider any data the City has on collecting fees to access nature-based recreation in Vancouver such as to access Stanley Park through transit, its parking fee, etc. or conduct a survey to ask residents for their cost of travel to access nature in Vancouver Relational N/A N/A Relational services are difficult and arguably impossible to quantify. We try to account for its value through our prioritization scheme. We further recommend consultation with groups who have cultural interest in the lands to understand an approximate baseline value Please refer to the prioritization matrix Salmon habitat Production approaches Knowler et al. (2003) Uses economic values produced by local commercial fisheries and sport fisheries specifically for coho salmon in the Strait of Georgia Consider production prices and revenues of commercial fisheries local to Vancouver , specifically for salmon Shading and cooling Avoided cost Phillips (2011) Uses energy costs of cooling buildings as well as the air Utilize expenses in utility bills of buildings running air conditioning in the area proximate 73 pollution released to do so to avoided costs provided by shading and cooling of trees the the NA of interest Waste treatment (for wetlands only) Replacement cost Wilson (2010) Based on Metro Vancouver water treatment costs for water treatment facilities to remove nitrogen and phosphorous Consider costs of water treatment services provided by facilities serving Vancouver. The City could consider taking the value reported by Wilson (2010) as the study evaluated costs from a water treatment facility in Metro Vancouver Water filtration Replacement cost Wilson (2010) Based on a combination of 1) costs of water treatment that households pay in the Greater Vancouver Water District and 2) estimated 20% increase in water treatment costs for every 10% decrease in forest/wetland land cover Could consider taking the value reported by Wilson (2010) as the study evaluated water treatment in the Greater Vancouver area which may be similar enough to Vancouver Water regulation Replacement cost Wilson (2010) Uses CITYgreen GIS software to evaluate costs of water runoff control through engineered structures. Data for the Fraser Canyon, Harrison River, Chilliwack, Lower Fraser and Squamish watersheds were used Utilize the watershed data reported in the RainCity Strategy (City of Vancouver, 2019) along with accessing CITY green software to analyze potential water runoff, its resulting costs incurred and costs for engineered structures to control water runoff              74 Appendix D - Definitions of common monetary valuation methods for ESs Table 13. Definitions of common ES monetary valuation methods (Molnar, 2015; Pascual & Muradian, 2010; The Adaptation to Climate Change Team, Simon Fraser University, 2020). Valuation Method Description Relevant study Direct Market Valuation Approaches Market prices Values based on market price of products that provide similar or identical services (ex. food products from food provisioning services can be compared to market prices of those foods) - Replacement cost Values based on cost to replace the ecosystem service with an engineered asset providing the same service (ex. flood regulation values could be based on costs to install catch basins/storm drains throughout the area) Wilson (2010) for waste treatment for wetlands Avoided cost Values based on total expenses if the ecosystem service was absent (ex. cost of water damage to nearby infrastructure if flood regulation was not present) Wilson (2010) on carbon storage Production approaches Values based on revenues gained from economic production that rely on this ecosystem service (ex. increased commercial fishery outputs with increased water quality or money spent on nature-based recreation provided by a natural asset) Knowler (2003) on habitat (salmon) and Wilson (2010) for recreation for forests Revealed Preference Approaches Opportunity cost Values based on costs towards next best use of resources or next best representative cost for achieving similar pursuits, and these costs cannot be expended on other activities once expensed on the use of resources, i.e. there can only be one opportunity these costs cover (ex. cost of time spent travelling to engage in nature-based recreation cannot be spent on travelling to Gupta & Foster (1975) on clean water provisioning for wetlands 75 engage in other pursuits) Travel cost Values are a total of all the economic costs associated with individuals using the area with the ecosystem service (ex. parks can be valued by a total of costs to travel to the park, entry fee, perceived value of visitor's times, etc.) Bowker et al. (1996) for recreation on waterways Hedonic pricing Values based on how much the presence of the ecosystem service affects economic markets (ex. properties near foreshores/coastlines may be priced higher than houses more inland). This is usually for estimating aesthetic values Parsons & Powell (2001) for water regulation of foreshore Stated Preference Approaches Contingent valuation Values based on willingness to pay for continuation of an ecosystem service compared to alternative scenarios in a hypothetical scenario, usually taken through a survey (ex. whether or not people are willing to pay for increased preservation of a local forest) Hauser & van Kooten (1993) for clean water provisioning of wetland in Abbotsford, BC Group valuation Values based on inputs from a group of key stakeholders (ex. discussions from local First Nations on an area's cultural values) - Conjoint analysis Values based on how individuals rank a set of scenarios and ecosystem conditions (ex. scenarios of different taxation rates to cover different levels of flood protection of wetland remediation work) - Unclassified Approaches Benefits transfer Values based on values assigned to ecosystem services from studies in other locations. Criteria for applicability of other study values to the area of interest is determined by study leads. For example, Molnar (2015) used 3 criteria to assess studies for their transferability of ES values: 1) it is peer-reviewed, 2) the study location is in North America and 3) its methodologies meet the recommendations determined by the research team for the study purpose in Howe Sound BC. Note, a limitation of this approach is the validity Molnar (2015) on a variety of ecosystem services 76 of using values of ESs from other locations for values in the area of interest since each ecosystem is unique. However, this approach saves considerable time and resources Ecological Accounting Process (EAP) (note: method is for valuation of a natural asset rather than an ecosystem service) Values based on land value, determined by the average unit rate of BC Assessment Values of nearby properties, multiplied by the total area of the natural asset. This is usually used for wetlands, streams, ponds and riparian areas. For more details and a local case study in Comox, BC, see Pringle (2018) -    77 Appendix E - Transferability of ESs across study locations under the Benefits Transfer approach This is based on transferability as defined by Molnar (2015). Not all ESs considered in this framework are listed by Molnar (2015). In general, to consider transferability of an ES under the Benefit Transfer approach, level of variability in service that the ES provides from one location to another should be considered (ex. If this ES was considered for another location, how different would it be? If it is very different, its transferability would be low, and the Benefit Transfer approach should be used with caution).  Table 14. Level of transferability of ES across different study locations. Ecosystem service Transferability across study locations Food provisioning High Fresh water Medium Disturbance regulation (ex. Water regulation) Medium Nutrient cycling Medium Gas and climate regulation High Clean air Medium Waste processing Medium - high Tourism and recreation Low       78 Appendix F - Potential datasets that the City of Vancouver can use for monetary valuation Table 15. Existing datasets that the City of Vancouver can use. Data/Report Description Possible Natural Asset Category Possible Ecosystem Service EcoHealth Indicators - Canopy and Imperviousness (Metro Vancouver, 2019) Tree canopy cover (in addition to impervious surfaces and potential planting areas) in Metro Vancouver. This can utilized in guiding valuation of the air filtration and shading and cooling ESs Forests Air filtration, Shading and cooling EcoHealth Indicators - Canopy and Imperviousness (Metro Vancouver, 2019) Impervious surfaces and potential planting areas (in addition to tree canopy cover) in Metro Vancouver. This can utilized in guiding valuation of the water regulation ES Forests Water regulation Land Cover Classification (Metro Vancouver, 2019) Different land covers classified according to broad biophysical classes in Metro Vancouver. This can be used as the NA areas that monetary values of ESs will be applied to All All Metro Vancouver Regional Parks - Park Boundaries (Metro Vancouver, 2019) Areas of parks and greenways in Metro Vancouver. This can be used as the NA areas that monetary values of ESs will be applied to Forests, soils All ESs in forests and soils 79 RainCity Strategy: Appendix D - Watershed Characterization (City of Vancouver, 2019) Maps for watersheds, urban heat islands, land use, tree canopy cover and impervious areas in Vancouver. These datasets can be consulted for a variety of ESs and NA areas such as urban heat islands and tree canopy cover to evaluate shading and cooling of trees, and watersheds to better understand NAs in the waterways category. The land use dataset can also be consulted for parks areas that monetary values of ESs will be applied to All All Sensitive Ecosystem Inventory for Metro Vancouver (Metro Vancouver, 2019) Areas of wetlands, older forests, woodlands, old fields, young forests, rivers, freshwater bodies, and intertidal and estuarine zones in Metro Vancouver. This can be used as the NA areas that monetary values of ESs will be applied to All All The Regional Carbon Storage dataset: Carbon Biomass, Ecotype & Soil (Metro Vancouver, 2019) Estimates of carbon stored in vegetation and soils in Metro Vancouver. This can utilized in guiding valuation of the carbon storage ES Forests, soils Carbon storage VanPlay: Inventory and Analysis - Chapter 2: Parks (Vancouver Park Board, 2018) Areas of parks and their level of access in Vancouver. This can be used as the NA areas that monetary values of ESs will be applied to Forests, soils All ESs in forests and soils VanPlay: Inventory and Analysis - Chapter 5: Nature (Vancouver Park Board, 2018) Areas of parks, biodiversity zones, natural areas, wildlife corridors and waterways in Vancouver. This can All All 80 be used as the NA areas that monetary values of ESs will be applied to   81 Appendix G - List of neighbourhood consequences criteria Table 16. Assessment Criteria for Relative Potential Impacts of Climate Disasters (such as floods, heat waves, poor air quality, loss of culture). Criteria selected based on Evergreen (2020), Omitaomu, Kotikot and Parish (2021) as well as other relevant physical characteristics. Relevant datasets or reports are listed in the right column. VODP = Vancouver Open Data Portal.  Criteria Measure Premise Data/Report Access to Nature Excellent, reasonable, low Access to nature is unequally distributed and subjective (Fitzgibbons 2020). Could be included as a "daily need" under the CE big move stating "90% of people living within an easy walk or roll of their daily needs" (City of Vancouver 2020). Fitzgibbons (2020) Average household income Population Vulnerability Low income households are more vulnerable (lower adaptive capacity) to climate impacts (Omitaomu, Kotikot, and Parish 2021). Census Data Canopy cover Potential for infiltration & evapo- transpiration Lack of canopy to perform evapotranspiration increases flood extent and creates heat island effect. Vegetation promotes infiltration and increased air quality (Omitaomu, Kotikot, and Parish 2021). Metro Vancouver (2019); VODP Population Population Density Areas with high population density have more people put at risk (Omitaomu, Kotikot, and Parish 2021). Census Data  Projected population increase Increased density may increase construction of impermeable surfaces, thus increasing effects of floods (Omitaomu, Kotikot, and Parish 2021). Census Data Proportion disabled Population Vulnerability Disabled people are more vulnerable (lower adaptive capacity) to climate impacts (Evergreen 2020). Census Data; Evergreen (2020) Proportion impervious surface Potential for runoff infiltration Lack of permeable surfaces to absorb runoff creates floods (Omitaomu, Kotikot, and Parish 2021). Metro Vancouver (2019) Proportion Indigenous Population Vulnerability Indigneous communities and cultures are more vulnerable (lower adaptive capacity) to climate impacts (Evergreen 2020). Census Data; Evergreen (2020) Proportion LGBTQ+ Population Vulnerability LGBTQ people are more vulnerable (lower adaptive capacity) to climate impacts (Evergreen 2020). Census Data; Evergreen (2020) Proportion non-english speaking Population Vulnerability Non-english speaking people are more vulnerable (lower adaptive capacity) to climate impacts (Evergreen 2020). Census Data; Evergreen (2020) Proportion unhoused Population Vulnerability People without a home are more vulnerable (lower adaptive capacity) to climate disasters (Evergreen 2020). Evergreen (2020) 82 Walkability Walkability Index Presence of NAs doubles chance of adult walking for home-based discretionary trip (Frank et al. 2010) thus mitigating climate impacts. Frank et al. (2010); VODP Proportion young & elderly Population Vulnerability Children (under 18 years) and elderly (over 65 years) are more vulnerable (lower adaptive capacity) to climate disasters (Omitaomu, Kotikot, and Parish 2021). Census Data; Evergreen (2020)  

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            data-media="{[{embed.selectedMedia}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.52966.1-0397279/manifest

Comment

Related Items