Researchers comparing land-use in East Anglia have worked out that Fenland habitat is more valuable than arable land.

image expired

Although the process of applying financial values to 'ecosystem services' – certain natural functions that form a part of a habitat and provide benefits for humans – or even whole ecosystems is now widely accepted, this remains something of a controversial approach, and the scope of its use has been challenged by environmentalists.

Even so, Dr Francine Hughes of Anglia Ruskin University, whose research was published in the journal Ecology and Evolution, calculated that each hectare of land at Wicken Fen in Cambridgeshire is worth almost £130 more per year as wetland than as arable farmland.

The study compared the fenland with its former use as intensively farmed arable land. The restored wetland was found to provide flood protection, grazing land, increased opportunities for recreational and tourism use, as well as reductions in carbon emissions.

Dr Hughes studied 479 hectares of restored wetland adjacent to Wicken Fen National Nature Reserve. The Wicken Fen Vision project is intended to grow over the next 100 years to cover 5,300 hectares of wetland. It is being carried out by the National Trust.

Environmental biologist: Wetland area worth £62,000 more

Although restoration has led to an estimated loss of arable production of £1,324 per hectare per year, the costs of managing wetland compared with arable land are also lower by an estimated £860 per hectare per year.

When combined with estimated gains of £435 per hectare per year in nature-based recreation and tourism, £78 from grazing, £31 from flood protection, and a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions worth an estimated £47, the total increase in value for the 479 hectares of land surveyed was £61,964 for 2011 – the year studied.

Dr Hughes commented, "Our study at the Wicken Fen Vision project gives us evidence that restoration of wetland habitats not only helps wildlife but also provides benefits for many people both locally and further afield.

"Under arable production, a small number of landowners and their employees gain the majority of the benefits. Under restoration a much broader range of people benefit, including many more visitors as well as the global community through reduced greenhouse gas emissions. Yet many of these benefits do not accrue to the landowner who is therefore encouraged to continue undertaking arable production rather than considering the possibilities of restoration."

"More generally, we hope that our approach for rapidly evaluating a broad range of services under contrasting land uses can inform a wider debate about the purpose and scope of publicly funded incentives, such as carbon payments, to landowners."