Heritage, natural capital and ecosystem services: case studies Project No: 7740 The Blackdown Hills Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty Case Study: An integrated approach to valuing environmental capital and services (boundaries and linear landscape features) Final report and Case study Project name: Heritage, natural capital and ecosystem services: case studies (Blackdown Hills) Historic 7740 England reference number: Authors: Tim Youngs, Blackdown Hills AONB Manager St Ivel House Station Road Hemyock Devon EX13 3SJ 01823 680681 [email protected] http://www.blackdownhillsaonb.org.uk/ Bill Horner, Historic Environment Manager Devon County Council County Hall Topsham Road Exeter Devon EX2 4QD 01392 382494 [email protected] https://new.devon.gov.uk/historicenvironment/ Origin date 23 October 2018 Tim Youngs & Bill Horner Reviser(s) 10 March 2019 Date of Last Revision Change the exec summary and conclusion section Summary of Re-number Changes Make monetarisation values clearer Make changes as outlined by Historic England Blackdown Hills AONB field boundaries: project 7740 2 Executive summary This is one of a number of initiatives through which Historic England aim to support the heritage sector in engaging with natural capital and ecosystem services methodologies in order to protect the historic environment within future environmental policy. This case study, focussing on the field boundaries and linear features in the Blackdown Hills Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) will primarily address how the historic environment might be better included, but will also inform the development of the guidance for the heritage sector on how to engage with natural capital and ecosystem services approaches. The hypotheses for the project are: 1. When comparing and contrasting discrete landscapes (with networks of field boundaries and linear landscape features), some are richer in natural capital than others and provide a wider range and more benefit to society (ecosystem services) 2. The natural capital value of some landscapes (with networks of field boundaries and linear landscape features) is currently undervalued, once all aspects of heritage (including designated and undesignated sites) are integrated and accounted for Methodology A relatively detailed methodology was devised to choose four representative study squares, each two by two kilometres in size. A 4 part methodology was then devised that looked to test and quantify (via scoring): 1. Extent of total stock 2. Synergy and added value 3. Function/ economics of the boundaries 4. Natural capital stock to ecosystem service flow A further two sections of the methodology then looked to: 5. Draw the threads together 6. Testing/ verifying and applying the results Analysis was undertaken per Historic Landscape Character (HLC) type within each study square. HLC types can occur in more than one study square. General results: • The study areas have extensive field boundary networks (predominantly banks with hedges) that are well connected, many intact and with variable numbers of hedgerow trees. • There is a trend for intact hedges and hedgerow trees in the Blackdown Hills and the thicker and sinuous nature of hedges in landscapes retaining characteristics of medieval origin. • There is considerable historic environment interest in the four study squares. The majority of hedges in the study squares are considered ‘important’ hedges. • For all study areas, there is significant association between field boundaries and heritage assets recorded on the HERs. • The methodology was largely found to be fit for purpose, but scoring some areas was difficult due to lack of data or the degree of subjectivity. • Study area 1 (Hemyock) scored 18.36 overall and study area 2 (Wrangway/ Sampford) scored 16.25 overall (both out of a possible 25). The main reasons for this are the greater density of field boundaries in study area 2 (Hemyock square) that were generally in good condition and had a strong co-incidence across biological/ historic/ cultural heritage. Blackdown Hills AONB field boundaries: project 7740 3 • It appears that a premium associated with the historic environment (including association between field boundaries and HER’s) has been identified in some cases and more generally, we have evidence that the historic environment has influenced delivery of the final benefits. • This all translates through to natural capital stock and ecosystem service flow; the natural capital stock is considered to be high when taking into account the full suite of heritage assets. Natural capital stock and ecosystem service flow results 1. There is significant field boundary stock in the study areas. In study area 1, the length of field boundaries is 78 kilometres (71 kilometres of this being hedged boundaries). In study area 2, the length of field boundaries is 52 kilometres (49 kilometres of this being hedged boundaries). 2. We have gathered information on the condition of field boundary stock and have made assumptions and then tested what this means, in terms of the extent of services that flow from the stock. 3. In terms of testing these assumptions and monetising the service values, the following assessments were made of field boundaries (within two of the study squares): carbon stock, flood alleviation and access/ recreation benefits 4. Carbon stock in biomass: • Study area 1 (Hemyock)= 1758 tonnes, carbon stock value £341,972, Annual carbon flux value= 387 tonnes of carbon/year, Annual flux value1= £75,370/ year • Study area 2 (Wrangway/ Sampford)= 1235 tonnes, carbon stock value= £240,411, Annual carbon flux value= 263 tonnes/ carbon/ year, annual flux value £51,306/ year 5. Flood alleviation benefits: the value of this water storage service is calculated as follows: • Hemyock square: £174,323 • Sampford square: £120,111 6. Access/ recreation benefits: in study area 2, since there are very few Public Rights of Way that are in this area of analysis, the values are not readily available to calculate. As an approximation, the ORVal tool (https://www.leep.exeter.ac.uk/orval/) was traced across the bridleway that is next to a boundary feature Scheduled Monument 0380 (Sampford study square). The tool estimates approximately1622 visits per year and a welfare value of £4406 7. An analysis of HER assets and the National Ecosystem Assessment derived value was inconclusive insofar as there was no way to differentiate the ecosystem service values from land whether HER or HLC, because there was no data that could put in a differential between the two. This means that an ecosystem service ‘uplift’ from including HER’s cannot be demonstrated to stakeholders nor that differences in ecosystem service values between HLC’s can be interrogated. A more detailed GIS layer of land use and land cover with condition would have enabled a better differentiation. 8. Non-monetised services are listed in table 4. The full value of services is therefore higher than monetised value alone. Conclusions 1 The amount of carbon exchanged between Earth’s carbon pools e.g. ocean, atmostphere, land, living things Blackdown Hills AONB field boundaries: project 7740 4 Demonstrating the link between the historic environment and the natural capital stock is challenging, as it relies on having comprehensive datasets that are often not available at the correct resolution. In the Blackdown Hills AONB, as a result of the pre-designation archaeological surveys and recent National Mapping Programme survey that provides more detailed historic environment information, it transpires that in this case study the biological data was often at too coarse a scale for meaningful analysis. The methodology therefore requires sufficient detail of data that could be collated given resources to do so, or proxys used. The pros and cons of each are that gathering of detailed biological data is time demanding/ costly although proxys can be inaccurate. Including biological and historic/ cultural measures in one scoring system requires the appropriate expert specialisms of more than one person and can become subjective when trying to align one with the other (in terms of scoring). The hypotheses were proved to be largely correct; there are differences between the natural capital resource between HLC types. Some HLC types within the study areas are richer in natural capital than others and provide a wider range and more benefit to society. In addition, there is evidence that the natural capital value is currently undervalued. Looking over the tables on ecosystem service values for particular HER asset types, scored by Provisioning, Cultural, Regulatory and Supporting services, there is a trend of higher for those HER types that are most clearly part of the landscape, for example woodlands, orchards, various types of extractive pits (which mostly are tree covered now – by human or natural processes), field systems, trackways, boundaries, curvilinear enclosure. Similarly the tabulation of land use type by HLC type seems to be showing high ecosystem service values in both study areas for those land uses (generally permanent pasture and woodland) that are most closely associated with the more ancient and heritage asset rich HLC types. For example, in the Hemyock study area medieval enclosure landscape HLC types accounts for 43% of the area’s permanent pasture – which scores highly for a range of services. In addition, proxy services were identified including pollinators (in species rich hedge margins in adjacent priority habitats) and cultural heritage. The