Search USGSSearch

USGS · 70118896

Valuation of rangeland ecosystem services

Abstract

Economic valuation lends itself well to the anthropocentric orientation of ecosystem services. An economic perspective on ecosystems portrays them as natural assets providing a flow of goods and services valuable to individuals and society collectively. A few examples include the purification of drinking water, reduced risk from flooding and other extreme events, pollination of agricultural crops, climate regulation, and recreation opportunities from plant and animal habitat maintenance, among many others. Once these goods and services are identified and quantified, they can be monetized to complete the valuation process. The monetization of ecosystem goods and services (in the form of dollars) provides a common metric that allows for cross-comparison of attributes and evaluation of differing ecological scenarios. Complicating the monetization process is the fact that most of these goods and services are public and non-market in nature; meaning they are non-rival and non-exclusive and are typically not sold in a traditional market setting where monetary values are revealed. Instead, one must employ non-market valuation techniques, with primary valuation methods typically being very time and resource consuming, intimidating to non-economists, and often impractical. For these reasons, benefit transfer methods have gained popularity. This methodology harnesses the primary collection results of existing studies to make inferences about the economic values of non-market goods and services at an alternative policy site (in place and/or in time). For instance, if a primary valuation study on oak reestablishment on rangelands in southern California yielded a value of $30 per-acre associated with water regulation, this result can be transferred, with some adjustments, to say something about the value of an acre of oaks on rangelands in northern portions of the state. The economic valuation of rangeland ecosystem services has many roles. Economic values may be used as input into analyzing the costs and benefits associated with policies being proposed, or possibly already implemented. For example, with monetized values acting as a common metric, one could compare the 'benefits' of converting a rangeland ecosystem for commercial development (perhaps estimated at the market value of the developed land) with the foregone ecosystem service values (in addition to any land income lost) resulting from that land conversion. Similarly, ecosystem service values can be used to determine the level of return on an investment. rhis is a primary objective for private land conservation organizations who typically have very limited resources. Ecosystem service valuation can also have a role in damage assessments from incidents that require compensation such as oil spills. Additionally, valuation can be very informative when investigating regulatory programs that trade ecological assets such as wetland mitigation programs. Typically these programs are based simply on an 'acre for acre' criterion, and do not take into consideration varying welfare values associated with that ecosystem. Lastly, and most fundamental, ecosystem service valuation serves as a recognition tool for people of all backgrounds. Identifying and valuing ecosystem goods and services on rangelands brings to light the value these natural assets have to human welfare that often remain hidden do to their public and non-market attributes. This type of recognition is vital to the preservation of rangeland ecosystems in the future and the many ecological benefits they provide.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

W.R. Gascoigne. 2011. Valuation of rangeland ecosystem services. https://pubs.usgs.gov/publication/70118896

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

Time-to-depth conversion of seismic-reflection data from eastern Lake Superior and implications for the eastern arm of the Midcontinent Rift

Seismic-reflection data were acquired in the mid 1980s along several lines across eastern Lake Superior by industry and the Great Lakes International Multidisciplinary Program on Crustal Evolution (GLIMPCE) (Fig. 1). The lines form part of a larger network of crossing lines over the entire lake, which can be used to develop three-dimensional geologic models of the Mesoproterozoic Midcontinent Rift that lies below. To better interpret these lines, we developed velocity models to convert seismic reflections versus two-way travel time (TWTT) to reflections versus depth. In addition, the velocity models themselves provide insights into the structure of the Midcontinent Rift by recognizing common velocity ranges for certain rock types (Grauch, 2023).

eastern Lake Superior

Revisiting the utility of regional-scale, high-quality geophysical data in mineral exploration - A case study featuring the Mammoth Magnetic Anomaly, Pinal County, Arizona

Regional aeromagnetic surveys passively measure the total magnetic intensity (TMI) and are a foundational tool used in mineral exploration (Airo, 2015). With the increased global demand and the number of critical mineral resources required for manufacturing high-tech devices, developing high-quality, regional-scale geophysical surveys could aid critical mineral exploration efforts and geologic mapping. In 2019, the U. S. Geological Survey launched the Earth Mapping Resources Initiative (Earth MRI) to modernize the geologic and geophysical mapping of regions that have the potential to contain critical mineral resources within the United States. In support of planning Earth MRI geophysical surveys, Drenth and Grauch (2019) defined five aeromagnetic data quality rankings (rank 1 through rank 5) applying them to the airborne geophysical survey inventory of the United States (Johnson et al., 2021). Rank 1 aeromagnetic surveys are of the highest quality, meeting modern standards and allowing best practices for qualitative and quantitative interpretation; whereas rank 5 aeromagnetic surveys are of the lowest quality, being useful only for qualitative interpretation of broad features. Through the Earth MRI effort, 48 high-quality, regional-scale rank 1 and 2 airborne magnetic and radiometric geophysical surveys have been planned, collected, or publicly release through May 2025 (U. S. Geological Survey, 2025). Here, a portion of a rank 1 Earth MRI aeromagnetic survey in southeast Arizona is presented and compared to a legacy rank 5 aeromagnetic survey over the Mammoth Magnetic Anomaly (MMA), demonstrating how modern, high-quality aeromagnetic data improves our view of crustal geology, aiding mineral exploration.

Arizona

Early Miocene volcanic rocks and associated tectonics, Lava Hills and southern Bristol Mountains, California

Volcanic rocks of latest Oligocene to early Miocene age form an east-west belt across part of the central eastern Mojave Desert from the Whipple Mountains on the east to the Rosamond Hills on the west. We term this the central belt because it is separated from northern and southern belts by swaths with no volcanic rocks. Limited geochronologic data indicate that much of the belt is latest Oligocene and early Miocene in age, about 24 to 19 Ma, a finding that is consistent with these rocks being overlain by the 18.8 Ma Peach Spring Tuff in many places. We describe Miocene geology in a central area of the belt, in the Lava Hills, southern Bristol Mountains, and southern Old Dad Mountains. Sedimentary basins formed coeval with early andesite to rhyolite volcanism, progressing from fluvial and lacustrine tuffaceous sandstone to volcanic lavas, tuffs, and breccias, indicating that early basins formed proximal to volcanic edifices. Higher strata are fluvial and lacustrine with lavas punctuating the sequence. Although basins may partly have been formed within topographic lows bounded by volcanic domes, plateaus, and stratovolcanoes, consistent stratigraphic sections over wide areas indicate that tectonic basin evolution affected broad areas. The volcanic section is capped by local basalt flows and the regional Peach Spring Tuff. Limited data on normal faults support interpretations of early extensional basin development caused by northeast-southwest oriented stretching. Later extension caused stratal rotations, tilting early deposits down to the southwest. This tilted and subsequently beveled basin architecture was overlain by the youngest volcanic deposits, primarily rhyolite and basalt. The Peach Spring Tuff, 18.8 Ma, lies within this upper unit. Similar stratigraphic and structural relations are exposed in the nearby Marble Mountains and Van Winkle Mountain sections, reinforcing that a broad area underwent similar volcanism and tectonism. In our study area the upper unit is only very gently tilted except near dextral strike-slip faults of the eastern California shear zone. These late Miocene to Recent faults are represented as four main fault zones spaced about 5 km apart, representing distributed shear north of the Bristol Lake basin.

California