1. A methodological framework for the valuation of natural predators
A case study of ecological - economic modeling in low strain pear production in Belgium
Silvie Daniels

2. Agroecosystem low strain pear production, Flanders (BE)
Ecosystem-based approach to biodiversity valuation taking into account the functional role of species within the ecosystem   €
Sooty mold
Low strain pear production
Flanders, Belgium Pp
Cacopsylla pyri
Pest insect
Beneficial insects An
Anthocoris nemoralis Af
Allothrombium fuliginosum Hp
Heterotoma planicornis
Silvie Daniels | Hasselt University | Centre for Environmental Sciences

3. 1. Research objectives
to quantify the link between the loss of species and the provisioning of ecosystem services (biological pest control)
to quantify the economic losses which can be attributed to a reduction of natural predators
To develop a general methodological framework for the valuation of non-marketable species based on their ecological role within the ecosystem (ecosystem-based approach for the valuation of biodiversity)
Silvie Daniels | Hasselt University | Centre for Environmental Sciences

4. 2. Research methodology
Ecosystem-based approach to biodiversity valuation taking into account the functional role of species within the ecosystem  
1. Biodiversity loss function
2. Analysis of ESS losses
3. Ecological -economic linking functions
4. Direct and indirect costs
5. Valuation of natural predators
Modeling population dynamics for 2 management scenarios
a. Damage control framework
Extended Economic Injury Level (EIL) and Cost Benefit Analysis
Biological pest control:
# pp removed by np
Yield loss
ORGANIC
ORGANIC
ORGANIC
Pest
insect
Natural
predators
= CONTRIBUTION OF NATURAL PREDATORS TO THE REDUCTION OF DIRECT AND INDIRECT COSTS OF PEAR PRODUCTION
Pest population density
b. External costs framework
IPM
Pest
insect
Natural
predators
IPM
IPM
Pesticide use
External costs
ECOLOGICAL MODEL
ECONOMIC MODEL
Silvie Daniels | Hasselt University | Centre for Environmental Sciences

5. 3. Modeling population dynamics (1): prey model Pp (stella)
Silvie Daniels | Hasselt University | Centre for Environmental Sciences

6. 3. Modeling population dynamics (2): insecticide applications
Abamectine
Spirodiclofen
Emamectine benzoaat
Indoxarb
Emamectine benzoaat
Thiacloprid
170
120
130
161
207
233
Silvie Daniels | Hasselt University | Centre for Environmental Sciences

7. 4. Biodiversity loss function (1): changes in species abundance
Silvie Daniels | Hasselt University | Centre for Environmental Sciences

8. 4. Biodiversity loss function(2): changes in predator abundance
Absolute number
Loss fraction
Reference scenario
(organic pear production)
Alternative scenario
(IPM) ∆
1. Allothrombium fuliginosum
Safety standard (<25% loss fraction)
100% #
75% #
25%
2. Anthocoris nemoralis #
48% #
52%
3. Heterotoma planicornis #
81% #
19%
Silvie Daniels | Hasselt University | Centre for Environmental Sciences

9. 5. Analysis of ESS: loss of biological pest control
Reference scenario
(organic pear production)
# Pp nymphs
Alternative scenario
(IPM)
Loss of biological pest control potential
1. Total predation
2. Sensitivity analysis
[ ] death rate
47.744
[min , max ]
87.72%
[87.5%, 87.72%]
87.72% loss in potential biological pest control
(Inspite safety level <25% loss fraction for beneficial insects)
>85%
Silvie Daniels | Hasselt University | Centre for Environmental Sciences

10. Ecosystem-based approach to biodiversity valuation taking into account the functional role of species within the ecosystem  
1. Biodiversity loss function
2. Analysis of ESS losses
3. Ecological -economic linking functions
4. Direct and indirect costs
5. Valuation of natural predators
Modeling population dynamics for 2 management scenarios
a. Damage control framework
Extended Economic Injury Level (EIL) and Cost Benefit Analysis
Biological pest control:
# pp removed by np
Yield loss
ORGANIC
ORGANIC
ORGANIC
= CONTRIBUTION OF NATURAL PREDATORS TO THE REDUCTION OF DIRECT AND INDIRECT COSTS OF PEAR PRODUCTION
Pest population density
b. External costs framework
IPM
Pest
insect
Natural
predators
IPM
IPM
Pesticide use
External costs
ECOLOGICAL MODEL
ECONOMIC MODEL
Silvie Daniels | Hasselt University | Centre for Environmental Sciences

11. 6. Ecological economic linking function 1
1000 PP adults yield ‘detectable damage’
 386*106 adults/ha yield 1% black pears
Yield loss
(% black pears)
ORGmax
ORGmin
IPMmax
IPMmin 1%
386*106
Pest population density
(adult days/ha)
IPM
ORG
Ecological sensitivity analysis
Silvie Daniels | Hasselt University | Centre for Environmental Sciences

12. 7. The economics of pest control (1): theoretical framework
Preventive applications:
Responsive applications:
Lichtenberg, E., and D. Zilberman. 1986a. “The Econometrics of Damage Control: Why Specification
Matters.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 68: 261–273.
Silvie Daniels | Hasselt University | Centre for Environmental Sciences

13. 7. The economics of pest control (2): theoretical framework
Responsive applications:
Natural predators:
Externalities:
Silvie Daniels | Hasselt University | Centre for Environmental Sciences

14. 8. Empirical framework (1): direct costs analysis Aramis (@Risk)
<
>
<
Silvie Daniels | Hasselt University | Centre for Environmental Sciences

15. 8. Empirical framework (2): direct costs analysis Aramis (@Risk)
Difference in direct costs for the two scenarios
Calculate the contribution of natural predators to a reduction in direct costs
Silvie Daniels | Hasselt University | Centre for Environmental Sciences

16. 9. Empirical framework (3): indirect costs analysis
Public health impacts
Groundwater contamination
Fishery losses
Honeybee and pollination losses
Crop losses
(Pimentel, 2005)
Silvie Daniels | Hasselt University | Centre for Environmental Sciences

17. 9. Empirical framework (4): indirect costs linking function
Ecological economic linking function 2: pesticide use – external costs
EIQ
Environmental Impact Quotient
Farm workers (applicators & pickers)
Consumers (ground water leaching & food consumption)
Environment (aquatic life, bees, birds)
PEA
Pesticide Environmental
Accounting Tool
Silvie Daniels | Hasselt University | Centre for Environmental Sciences

18. 10. Valuation of natural predators
Loss of biological pest control
Yield loss
Direct Costs
Indirect Costs
ORGANIC
ORGANIC
ORGANIC
ORGANIC
IPM
IPM
IPM
IPM
= CONTRIBUTION OF NATURAL PREDATORS
TO THE REDUCTION OF DIRECT AND INDIRECT COSTS OF PEAR PRODUCTION
Silvie Daniels | Hasselt University | Centre for Environmental Sciences

19. 11. Concluding remarks
to quantify the link between the loss of species and the provisioning of ecosystem services (biological pest control)
to quantify the economic losses which can be attributed to a reduction of natural predators
To develop a methodological framework for the valuation of non-marketable species based on their ecological role within the ecosystem (ecosystem based approach for the valuation of biodiversity)
Stress the importance of including the functional role of species when attempting to value nonmarketable species
stress the need for the integration of full ecological and economic models in policy making
Silvie Daniels | Hasselt University | Centre for Environmental Sciences

20. Hasselt University (Belgium) Centre for Environmental Sciences
Thank you!
Hasselt University (Belgium)
Centre for Environmental Sciences
Silvie Daniels | Hasselt University | Centre for Environmental Sciences