4.7 Article

Quantifying and valuing carbon flows and stores in coastal and shelf ecosystems in the UK

Journal

ECOSYSTEM SERVICES
Volume 35, Issue -, Pages 67-76

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2018.10.013

Keywords

Ecosystem services; Carbon storage; Offshore sediments; Blue carbon; Mitigation; Ecosystem governance

Funding

  1. Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) [C6090, NE/K001914/1]
  2. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) of the United Kingdom [C6090, NE/K001914/1]
  3. NERC [NE/K001914/1] Funding Source: UKRI

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Evidence shows that habitats with potential to mitigate against greenhouse gases emissions, by taking up and storing CO2, are being lost due to the effects of on-going human activities and climate change. The carbon storage by terrestrial habitats (e.g. tropical forests) and the role of coastal habitats (`Blue Carbon') as carbon storage sinks is well recognised. Offshore shelf sediments are also a manageable carbon store, covering similar to 9% of global marine area, but not currently protected by international agreements to enable their conservation. Through a scenario analysis, we explore the economic value of the damage of human activities and climate change can inflict on UK marine habitats, including shelf sea sediments. In a scenario of increased human and climate pressures over a 25-year period, we estimate damage costs up to US$12.5 billion from carbon release linked to disturbance of coastal and shelf sea sediment carbon stores. It may be possible to manage socio-economic pressure to maintain sedimentary carbon storage, but the trade-offs with other global social welfare benefits such as food security will have to be taken into account. To develop effective incentive mechanisms to preserve these valuable coastal and marine ecosystems within a sustainability governance framework, robust evidence is required.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available