**4. Discussion**

(Table 8). With 321,750 rural households in Manitoba in 2006, the total value for conserving the burrowing owl in Manitoba grasslands was estimated to be \$10.96 million/yr or approxi‐ mately \$4.60/ha/yr (Table 4). Using these estimates, the total willingness to pay by Manitoba rural households was estimated to range from \$0.25 to \$0.46 million/yr or \$0.20 to 0.37/ha/yr

The total economic value of Manitoba grasslands varies between \$1,204 million/yr (\$527/ha/yr) to \$2,056 million/yr (\$883/ha/yr; Table 8). This range is relatively narrow as a consequence of the sensitivity analysis conducted. The scope of research for values that were derived from benefit transfer was limited to those studies conducted in a similar eco-zone to Manitoba grasslands. Further, a 20% price fluctuation in prices was assumed for values that are derived using market price. The economic value of Manitoba grasslands obtained in this study should be taken as a minimum value which is expected to change as information specific

Among all the estimated values of various ecosystem services, besides the commercial (marketbased) values, carbon sequestration is an important ecosystem service (Figure 4). About a third of the total value of Manitoba grasslands is through production of forages and related goods. Under most expected conditions, the ecosystem service most important for this ecosystem is carbon sequestration. At this time, 42% of total value is credited to this service. The third most

1Estimates are based on 2,385,660 ha of grassland except nutrient cycling (1,559,325 ha).

Figure 4. Distribution of total economic value of Manitoba grassland by type of ecosystem service

This study set out to provide a strategy for estimating the economic value of goods and services from Manitoba grasslands by utilizing market and non-market based approaches. Assigning value to goods and services such as perennial forage production and carbon sequestration that are traded in the open market is a matter of identifying prevailing market values. The market value of goods and services such as forage production will depend on the quality of the goods and services. The value of pasture, for example, should take into account season, pasture plant species, and pasture management since such factors will influence pasture quality. For hay, quality characteristics including nutrient content (protein and energy) as well as organoleptic characteristics, such as color, mold, and dust, to assign value would lead to a more objective price determination. Such a pricing system would give a range in prices for forage production. The strategy of assigning value based on forage quality was not employed in the current study due to inadequate information. Carbon sequestration is influenced by location of the grasslands [28] and by management practices that are imposed on the grasslands [10]. Carbon sequestration estimates reported in these studies were not measured directly and the differences in

estimates among studies suggest a need for direct carbon sequestration measurements in grasslands.

utilized to value ecosystem goods and services, benefit transfer will likely remain the method of choice.

Genetic, medicinal, and ornamental resources, water supply and cultural services, such as cultural and artistic information, and spiritual and historic information were not included in the valuation of Manitoba grasslands

Benefit transfer was used to valuate non-market goods and services in Manitoba grasslands. Challenges in applying benefit transfer analysis are mainly related to difficulties in identifying and selecting suitable studies for comparison, in combining data and in transferring data [40, 41]. It is also important to note that most studies are not designed with the aim of transferring [40, 41]. A more complex approach, which we did not use in this study, is to use meta-analysis to systematically analyze the impact of a study on estimated values [26]. The use of the benefit transfer method is not universally accepted and has been questioned. In most cases, the original studies will have valued small changes in specific and localized components of individual ecosystems, which makes it incorrect to extrapolate value estimates obtained from these localized scenarios to a much larger scale [26]. Benefit transfer has also been criticized as being dirty, quick and ugly [42]. Some economists do not consider benefit transfer as a methodology, but simply consider it as transfer of estimates from one location to other location [25]. Others (43) consider the transfer of valuations from one ecological and social context to another as dangerous because ecosystem values are highly dependent on location. Until more appropriate methods are

High CO2 price 1,610.68 703.36 1,378.90 600.79 2,055.74 883.43

Refugium function 1%

> Forage production 33%

important ecosystem service for the Manitoba grassland is from waste treatment.

Recreation and aesthetics 2%

Table 8. The annual value of goods and services from Manitoba grasslands.

Carbon sequestration 42%

**Figure 4.** Distribution of total economic value of Manitoba grassland by type of ecosystem service

(Table 8).

162 Agroecology

**3.3. Total value of Manitoba grasslands**

to Manitoba grasslands becomes available.

**4. Discussion**

Nutrient cycling 8%

Water regulation 1%

Soil erosion control 2%

Soil formation 1%

Waste treatment 10%

This study set out to provide a strategy for estimating the economic value of goods and services from Manitoba grasslands by utilizing market and non-market based approaches. Assigning value to goods and services such as perennial forage production and carbon sequestration that are traded in the open market is a matter of identifying prevailing market values. The market value of goods and services such as forage production will depend on the quality of the goods and services. The value of pasture, for example, should take into account season, pasture plant species, and pasture management since such factors will influence pasture quality. For hay, quality characteristics including nutrient content (protein and energy) as well as organoleptic characteristics, such as color, mold, and dust, to assign value would lead to a more objective price determination. Such a pricing system would give a range in prices for forage production. The strategy of assigning value based on forage quality was not employed in the current study due to inadequate information. Carbon sequestration is influenced by location of the grass‐ lands [28] and by management practices that are imposed on the grasslands [10]. Carbon sequestration estimates reported in these studies were not measured directly and the differ‐ ences in estimates among studies suggest a need for direct carbon sequestration measurements in grasslands.

Benefit transfer was used to valuate non-market goods and services in Manitoba grasslands. Challenges in applying benefit transfer analysis are mainly related to difficulties in identifying and selecting suitable studies for comparison, in combining data and in transferring data [40, 41]. It is also important to note that most studies are not designed with the aim of transferring [40, 41]. A more complex approach, which we did not use in this study, is to use meta-analysis to systematically analyze the impact of a study on estimated values [26]. The use of the benefit transfer method is not universally accepted and has been questioned. In most cases, the original studies will have valued small changes in specific and localized components of individual ecosystems, which makes it incorrect to extrapolate value estimates obtained from these localized scenarios to a much larger scale [26]. Benefit transfer has also been criticized as being dirty, quick and ugly [42]. Some economists do not consider benefit transfer as a methodology, but simply consider it as transfer of estimates from one location to other location [25]. Others (43) consider the transfer of valuations from one ecological and social context to another as dangerous because ecosystem values are highly dependent on location. Until more appropriate methods are utilized to value ecosystem goods and services, benefit transfer will likely remain the method of choice.

Genetic, medicinal, and ornamental resources, water supply and cultural services, such as cultural and artistic information, and spiritual and historic information were not included in the valuation of Manitoba grasslands due to lack of information. Such goods and services tend to be site-specific and values obtained within the region of interest, in this case, prairie grasslands, would be more appropriate. Since no valuation studies for these goods and services were identified, primary data collection would be the only method to collect such information. Techniques that can be utilized to value these goods and services have been suggested [27]. A market-based valuation (direct market pricing) is appropriate to value genetic, medicinal, and ornamental resources, water supply, and nursery function although other techniques such as factor income, replacement cost, and contingent valuation can also be applied [27]. For cultural services, techniques such as contingent valuation, travel cost, and hedonic pricing are impor‐ tant [27]. With growing emphasis on valuation of grassland goods and services, there is a need to conduct specific studies that will provide values for such goods and services. Such infor‐ mation will further improve the value of grasslands, thus further emphasizing the importance of maintaining productive grasslands.
