Economic Valuation of Nature’s Contributions in the Antarctic: Extension of the Nature’s Contributions to People Conceptual Framework

Abstract

The Antarctic region harbors abundant natural resources that constitute a common heritage site for humankind. However, given climate change and global resource scarcity, natural resource management has emerged as a pivotal issue in Antarctic governance. Assessing the value of natural resources is fundamental and crucial for ensuring their sustainable utilization and conservation. This study attempted to promote decision-makers’ understanding of the Antarctic using nature’s contribution to people (NCP) and provide an evaluation of the value of natural resources in the Antarctic, thereby contributing to sustainable global development. It developed a conceptual framework for evaluating natural resource values in the NCP, which includes scope delimitation, type identification, and value assessment. Economic value assessments were conducted for key NCPs in Antarctica. Based on existing biological, physical, and economic data, our initial estimates indicate that the economic value of the realized NCP is approximately 2.46 trillion CNY, with regulating NCP accounting for roughly 70% of the total value. If the potential NCP in the Antarctic were realized at foreseeable scientific and technological levels, the total economic value would reach approximately 105.62 trillion CNY. Regulating NCP accounted for most of the total value, but material NCP accounted for more than 20%. Overall, the development of natural resources and environmental protection are two sides of the same coin in the Antarctic, and there may be trade-offs between different NCPs. With increasing human activity, many NCP may be lost in the Antarctic region. This study develops a new perspective on the valuation of nature’s contributions to the Antarctic. The evaluation results can provide scientific evidence for decision-making and management of the development and utilization of natural resources in the Antarctic.

1. Introduction

Natural resources in the Antarctic are virtual repositories for future human development and play a crucial role in the economic, social, and political landscapes of countries worldwide [1]. Owing to the global scarcity of natural resources, the Antarctic region has received increasing attention from several countries. Since the signing of the Antarctic Treaty in 1959, the number of Antarctic Treaty Consultative Parties has increased from 12 to 53, representing a growth rate of over 400%. Over the past few decades, governmental and non-governmental agencies in various countries have increased the frequency and intensity of human activity in the Antarctic [2,3,4]. This may destroy fragile ecosystems in the Antarctic [5]. The urgency of this issue is particularly concerning given increasing climate change and human pressure in the Antarctic [6,7]. Therefore, the international community has engaged in vigorous debates over the management of natural resources, including discussions on the regulation of mineral resource activities after 2048 [8], the development of tourism resources [9,10], and the restriction of fishing activities in the Antarctic [11]. In recent years, considerable attention has been paid to the natural resources in the Antarctic, which continue to increase over time [12].

One practical approach to promoting the sustainable utilization of natural resources is to clarify the value of protecting them [13,14]. The value of natural resources reflects the trade-offs that society is willing to protect. Owing to the harsh natural environment and restrictions of international agreements, compared to the Arctic, the evaluation of the value of natural resources in the Antarctic is lagging [12,15]. There remains a gap in the assessment of the value of natural resources on the Antarctic continent and in marine areas. The biotic and abiotic natural elements that provide services in the Antarctic must be managed strategically to satisfy the global beneficiaries of nature’s contributions [16]. Scientific evaluations of the value of natural resources in the region can guide the decision-making process for sustainable natural resource management, which is critical to Antarctic governance. Therefore, there is an urgent need to deepen our systematic understanding of natural resources in the Antarctic region and strengthen the comprehensive evaluation of their value. This information is important for the development of international policies and global environmental protection.

Currently, there are three main research paths for natural resource valuation: ecosystem services (ES), inclusive wealth indexing, and nature’s contribution to people (NCP). The ecosystem services framework bridges ecosystems with human well-being. It has gradually become the mainstream method for comprehensive evaluation of natural resources [17,18]. However, this does not account for abiotic resources in ecosystem service valuations [19]. The inclusive wealth index is another method for assessing the value of natural resources. It aims to measure sustainability at the global, national, and regional scales based on the sum of produced capital, human capital, and natural capital [14,20]. However, this method lacks specific components in the calculation, such as the coastal natural capital and ecosystem services of agricultural land. Díaz et al. proposed the concept of NCP to understand the relationship between humans and nature [21]. This concept attempts to comprehensively capture the relationship between nature and human well-being by emphasizing the importance of non-instrumental and cultural perspectives. NCP is characterized by what constitutes the connection between nature and human well-being and how they connect. Compared to the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA) and the Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB), the NCP paradigm provides a new perspective for a comprehensive understanding of natural resource value by focusing on both instrumental and relational values.

In the Antarctic, the evaluation of the value of natural resources is mainly focused on the ecosystem service framework proposed by the MEA. It includes determining the dimensions of ecosystem services that exist [16], quantifying core ecosystem services in some regions [22,23], and evaluating certain ecosystem services [24]. These studies provide a new window for understanding the benefits of the Antarctic region’s natural resources for global human well-being. Owing to the lack of geospatial data and assessment methods, larger-scale or more comprehensive assessments of ecosystem services are still lacking in the Antarctic [15]. However, commercial fishing and tourism in and around Antarctica have attracted extensive discussion among scholars. As commercial fishing and tourism are allowed under the Antarctic Treaty governance system, some countries and humans have benefited from this [22]. Because of the sensitivity of the Antarctic ecosystem to human activities, commercial fishing and tourism may cause irreversible damage to the interests of other Antarctic ecosystems, even though commercial fishing and tourism activities in Antarctica are regulated by the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources and the International Association of Antarctica Tour Operators, respectively [11,25]. There has been little discussion on natural resources that cannot be exploited by the Antarctic Treaty System, such as minerals and freshwater [8,26]. Additionally, because Antarctica has no permanent human settlements and few footprints, it holds unique spiritual, religious, and aesthetic value for people worldwide [22,27]. Although the number of people who have visited Antarctica is small, people worldwide can achieve Antarctic environmental education through media such as TV, newspapers, and the Internet, which is an important source of value. For example, some studies have conducted social surveys through questionnaires and interviews to measure the value of wilderness and aesthetics in the Antarctic [28,29]. Moreover, Antarctica is considered a natural scientific laboratory with important scientific value [30]. Scientific knowledge has grown significantly over the years in the Antarctic region and has provided important support for global environmental protection policies [31].

Existing literature has included the value of various natural resources in the Antarctic. Most studies of Antarctic natural resources have focused on qualitative analyses, with few conducting quantitative evaluations. Additionally, most assessments of Antarctic natural resources rely on the framework of ecosystem services; however, this ignores the fact that the scope of the assessment of ecosystem services excludes abiotic resources, which are crucial for the sustainable use of Antarctic natural resources. These factors limit our understanding of the value of natural resources in Antarctica. This is exacerbated by the underrepresentation of the Antarctic continent and the surrounding Southern Ocean in global ecosystem assessments [32]. Moreover, there is a specific relationship between natural resources, culture, and way of life, with inseparable values between them and cultural services [14,33]. As the Antarctic is a peaceful, pristine state, it offers unique cultural services to people worldwide, such as spiritual, religious, and aesthetic values.

To address this gap in the literature, this study utilized the NCP concept to understand the value of natural resources from a more inclusive and diverse perspective and provide an evaluation of the value of natural resources in the Antarctic. The specific objectives of this study are: (1) to gain a new understanding of the value of natural resources based on the connotations of the NCP concept; (2) to develop a natural resource valuation system suitable for the Antarctic region; and (3) to provide decision-makers with more practical information on the value of natural resources in the Antarctic through evaluation.

The remainder of this paper is organized as follows: Section 2 introduces the concepts of the NCP and the framework for its value evaluation. Section 3 describes this study’s research area, data sources, and methodology. Section 4 presents the results of the natural resource value assessment. Section 5 discusses the results and limitations of this study. Finally, Section 6 presents our conclusions.

2. Theoretical Frameworks

2.1. Nature’s Contributions to People (NCP)

Since the MEA proposal, efforts to identify, quantify, and protect a broad range of ecosystem services and their contribution to human well-being have become mainstream, drawing attention from governments and non-governmental organizations. However, the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) has developed a new conceptual framework for natural resource assessment compared to the narrow scope and potential lack of inclusiveness of the ecosystem services framework [21]. In 2017, the IPBES Plenary approved the conceptual framework, which identified NCP as the core element. NCP is an important bridge connecting nature and a high quality of life. It is defined as all the benefits and occasional detriments that people obtain from nature and their relationships [34]. As an extension of the ecosystem service framework, NCP offers a more inclusive and diverse interpretation of the relationship between people and nature [21]. Since then, NCP has been widely applied in natural resource assessments, and an accurate understanding of NCP’s role in the sustainable development of natural resources is crucial [14,35,36].

NCP provides a new perspective for understanding the value of natural resources through the interactions between people and nature (Figure 1). From different perspectives, NCP can be divided into potential and realized NCP [37,38]. From the perspective of nature’s contribution, potential NCP refers to the ability of an ecosystem to provide NCP. This can be a service when coupled with people’s needs. For example, the ocean contains abundant fish and other biological resources that do not depend on the current levels of human utilization. From the perspective of people’s needs, realized NCP refers to humans’ actual utilization of natural resources, which depends on current human technology and knowledge levels, such as the amount of food provided and the ability to treat diseases. Potential NCP often needs human inputs, such as anthropogenic assets and relevant institutions, to become realized, which can positively or negatively contribute to the quality of life. For example, marine ecosystems provide seafood through aquaculture, but humans can only obtain seafood through human inputs such as ships and fishing gear. Therefore, this study discusses the value of natural resources from the dual dimensions of nature’s contribution to people: (i) people’s needs and (ii) nature’s contributions.

2.2. A Valuation Framework in Antarctic

2.2.1. Characteristics of Natural Resources in the Antarctic

The Antarctic region has abundant natural resources and significant potential for sustainable development. However, its international status as a common heritage of humankind, with shared ownership, open access, and competition for resource use, poses coordination challenges for international governance [39]. These include conflicts between public and private demands and the unequal distribution of benefits [40]. Therefore, a comprehensive consideration of the diverse value of Antarctica’s natural resources for humanity is necessary. Currently, the Antarctic Treaty System has frozen sovereignty claims and related mining activities regarding the Antarctic’s natural resources, resulting in slow progress in research on Antarctic natural resources. Moreover, limited research on land use/cover change, and ecosystem services in the Antarctic has led to a lack of knowledge and understanding of Antarctic natural resources and their potential value [17,41]. Currently, the international community is more concerned with the contribution of Antarctic natural resources, such as commercial fishing and Antarctic tourism, to human well-being. However, within the sustainable development framework, it should not focus more on their direct economic value, which may benefit stakeholders in the short term [11]. The diverse values provided by Antarctica’s natural resources, including ecological protection, scientific research, cultural heritage, and climate regulation, should be recognized, acknowledging their future potential.

2.2.2. A Framework of NCP Valuation in the Antarctic

This study evaluated the value of the NCP in the Antarctic by considering the relationship between humans and nature. It proposes a theoretical framework for the evaluation, namely scope definition, type identification, and value assessment (Figure 2).

Scope Definition

A scientific and rational assessment of natural resource value is crucial. which can help policymakers and stakeholders understand nature’s contributions better. This understanding is essential for developing effective protection and management strategies. Such assessments promote the sustainable use and environmental protection of natural resources, especially in resource-rich areas such as the Antarctic. However, the MEA framework primarily focuses on the value of biological resources and often neglects non-biological resources, such as minerals, which are crucial given the context of global resource scarcity. Additionally, the use of these non-biological resources competes with the use or management of biological resources, and their exclusion from the ES analysis cannot explain this competitive interest [42]. Therefore, integrating biotic and abiotic resources into the scope of natural resource valuation is necessary to comprehensively evaluate the value of Antarctic natural resources and provide a scientific basis for their protection and management.

Type Identification

NCP refers to all positive and negative contributions of nature (biodiversity, ecosystems, and their related ecological and evolutionary processes) to a good quality of life, including both specific contextual and generalizable perspectives [21]. Given the lower levels of human activity in the Antarctic, a generalizable perspective of the NCP is deemed more appropriate for understanding the value of its natural resources. The generalizable perspective of NCP strives for a universal set of categories. The NCP classification system classifies nature’s contributions into three major categories: regulating, material, and non-material. Material NCP refers to materials, tangibles, or other physical substances from nature that directly support human material survival and infrastructure, such as fish from the ocean and crops from agricultural lands, which provide essential nutrients for human consumption. The non-material NCP refers to the subjective or psychological aspects of nature that support human well-being, including personal and collective dimensions, such as activities such as hiking, bird-watching, or camping that enhance mental and emotional well-being. The regulating NCP refers to the functional and structural aspects of organisms and ecosystems that alter the environmental conditions experienced by people and maintain or regulate the production of provisioning and cultural contributions, often indirectly affecting human well-being. For example, oceans play a key role in regulating climate by absorbing carbon dioxide. This category is different from the MA framework; culture permeates through and across all three broad NCP groups rather than being confined to an isolated category [21].

Value Assessment

NCP is a concept based on the complex interdependence of people and nature. It is widely acknowledged that there is often a mismatch between people’s needs and nature’s contributions [37]. The realized NCP is determined by people’s needs and is influenced by human cognition, scientific and technological advancement, and other factors; however, the potential NCP is the capacity of natural systems to provide NCP. In the Antarctic, human activities that exploit natural resources are limited, resulting in relatively little contribution from natural resources that humans can directly utilize. However, there is enormous potential for natural resources in this region. Therefore, a comprehensive assessment of the value of natural resources in the Antarctic region must consider both realized and potential NCP. The flow value represents the realized NCP, and the stock value represents the potential NCP.

This valuation framework broadens the scope of traditional valuation by incorporating both biotic and abiotic natural resource elements to evaluate the NCP in the Antarctic. By comprehensively assessing the value of Antarctic natural resources from the perspective of nature’s contributions and people’s needs, a more comprehensive understanding of Antarctic natural resources can be achieved. Therefore, it has identified three broad NCP group assessment indicators based on the IPBES assessment framework.

3. Material and Methods

3.1. Study Area and Data Sources

The Antarctic region, located in the southern hemisphere, is the highest, driest, coldest, and most desolate location on Earth, with an area of approximately 14 million square kilometers, accounting for approximately 20% of the southern hemisphere. The Antarctic continent comprises most of the Antarctic region, which is almost entirely covered by glaciers, with only 0.18% being ice-free [43]. The surrounding Southern Ocean contains extensively diverse and abundant marine species. Owing to the annual average temperature of minus 56 Fahrenheit, there are no permanent residents on the continent, except for research personnel. The Antarctic region studied in this study refers to the area south of 60 °S, including the Antarctic continent, surrounding islands, and oceans (Figure 3).

Owing to the lack of relevant literature and databases on the valuation of natural resources in the Antarctic, this study primarily relied on secondary sources from previous research on the value of natural resources in the Antarctic, as well as estimates and statistical data provided by relevant literature, to conduct initial calculations on the value of Antarctic resources. The data sources used include publicly available publications and official websites to ensure transparency and credibility. This study provides an assessment of the value of natural resources in the Antarctic. There are still many obstacles to evaluating natural resource values, owing to limitations in data and technical methods. Furthermore, in this study, the beneficiaries of the valuation of natural resources are assumed to be the entire human society, even though the beneficiaries of activities such as commercial fishing and tourism are not necessarily representative of the entire human society. Nonetheless, calculating the value of commercial fishing and tourism activities is assumed to reflect the overall preferences of the entire human society. For more detailed primary data, please refer to the cited sources.

3.2. Classification of NCP in Antarctic

This study identified the primary natural resource values based on principles such as the importance of natural resources, the uniqueness of the region, and data availability within the framework of the NCP. First, this study conducted a systematic literature review to identify the types of natural resource values in Antarctica. Second, the natural resource values mentioned in official documents, such as the Antarctic Treaty System, were integrated. Finally, based on the classification of NCP from a generalizable perspective, the key evaluation indicators in the Antarctic were determined for different categories (

Table 1. Key NCP in Antarctic.

NCP		Details
Material NCP	Fresh water	Fresh water stored in ice sheets and ice shelves is not currently used as a resource but has been proposed as a future source of freshwater for other regions [27].
	Minerals	The Antarctic is extremely rich in mineral resources, including more than 220 different kinds, such as fossil energy, metal minerals, et al. [44].
	Fishing	Sustainable harvesting of marine living resources is allowed under the Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources, within a comprehensive regulatory framework [45].
No-material NCP	Tourism	Tourist cruises, yachts, scenic flights, adventure tourism, and so forth [46].
	Science	The Antarctic is used for scientific research and research on processes of regional or even global importance [16].
Regulating NCP	Climate regulation	As a major global heat sink, the frozen Antarctic continent and the Southern Ocean play a major role in the Earth’s Climate System [47].
	Runoff regulation	Water cycle features such as maintenance and regulation of global sea level, e.g., water storage or buffering of water in ice shelves or ice sheets exist [23].

).

3.3. Approaches and Methods for Monetary Valuation

Given the complexity and diversity of nature’s contributions to the Antarctic across different types of NCP indicators, we combined the applicability of the method with the availability of data to determine the evaluation methods and parameters. Economic values were adjusted for inflation using the World Bank’s purchasing power parity conversion factors, with monetary values standardized to 2018. This study also follows existing research by setting the capital discount rate at 5% [48]. In the absence of special circumstances, it conservatively assumes that future technological advancements will remain unchanged and that the average annual net return, representing the benefit flow, will remain constant indefinitely when calculating the potential return.

3.3.1. Minerals

Antarctica has attracted considerable attention owing to its abundant mineral resources. Reports suggest that the region contains over 220 mineral resources, including coal, oil, and natural gas, all of which are critical natural resources with substantial reserves. In this study, the value of mineral resources is evaluated using the direct market method.

Realized NCP of Minerals

In 1991, the international community established the Protocol on Environmental Protection for the Antarctic Treaty, which strictly prohibited the exploitation of Antarctic mineral resources other than for scientific research until 2048 [8]. Currently, there is no mineral mining activity in the Antarctic region; thus, the current value of the region’s utilization by humans is nonexistent.

Potential NCP of Minerals

As scientific and technological capabilities continue to advance, the possibility of mineral resource extraction in the Antarctic region is increasing. Mining activities are already underway in the Arctic and deep-sea regions, indicating the potential for future mineral resource development in the Antarctic [49]. Therefore, the total potential value of Antarctic mineral resources was assessed using the costs and benefits associated with mineral resource development. The formula is as follows:

$${\mathrm{V}}_{Mi}=v_i\times \left(p_i-c_i\right)$$

(1)

$${\mathrm{V}}_M=\sum _{i=1}^n{\mathrm{V}}_{Mi}$$

(2)

where ${\mathrm{V}}_{Mi}$ is the mineral resource value of unit $i$; $v_i$ is the quantity of mineral resources of unit $i$ [44], mainly includes petroleum (5~10 × 10¹⁰ Barrel), natural gas (3~5 × 10¹² m³) and coal (5 × 10¹¹ t); $p_i$ is the shadow price of mineral resources of unit $i$; the 10-year average price of mineral resources was adopted (http://www.eia.gov/, accessed on 23 January 2023). The price of petroleum, natural gas, and coal is 419.80 CNY per barrel, 172.96 CNY per thousand cubic meter, and 192.73 CNY per short ton, respectively. $c_i$ is the cost of mineral resource utilization, 60% of the price 1 [50]; ${\mathrm{V}}_M$ is the total value of mineral resources.

3.3.2. Fishery

Since the 1970s, fishing vessels have targeted Antarctic krill as the primary catch source in the Southern Ocean. Currently, Antarctic krill dominates the commercial fisheries in the area, representing over 90% of the total catch [16]. In this study, the aim was to evaluate the value of Antarctic krill, given the lack of essential data, while ignoring the value of other fishery resources.

Realized NCP of Fishery

Currently, the Antarctic Treaty System permits commercial fishing in the Southern Ocean. According to the classification of Antarctic fishing zones by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, approximately 300,000 tons of aquatic products are harvested and supplied annually to various countries worldwide. The Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR) has established an annual catch limit of 625,000 tons of Antarctic krill [51]. Therefore, this study employed a direct market valuation method to calculate the value of Antarctic fishery resources. The formula is as follows:

$${\mathrm{V}}_{F0}={\overline{v}}_f\times p_f\times \left(1-c\right)$$

(3)

where ${\mathrm{V}}_{F0}$ is the value of Antarctic krill, ${\overline{v}}_f$ is the average annual catch of Antarctic krill, 291,850.5 tons (http://www.ccamlr.org/, accessed on 23 January 2023), $p_f$ is the price of Antarctic krill, 3501.34 CNY per ton [27]; $c$ is the cost of commercial fishing in the Antarctic, which is based on an average Arctic fishing cost of 80% income [52].

Potential NCP for Fisheries

To ensure the sustainable development of Antarctic fisheries, CCAMLR has set an annual catch limit for Antarctic krill. As of 2018, the annual catch of Antarctic krill was 31.30 tons, indicating that the catch has not yet reached the fishing limit. This study used a revenue approach to evaluate the potential value of Antarctic fishery resources. This study assumed that the catch would gradually increase based on the 10-year average growth rate until the maximum catch was reached, at which point the maximum catch would be harvested annually. This approach allowed us to assess the potential value of resources while considering their sustainable use. The formula is as follows:

$$V_{Fy}=V_{F0}\times {\left(1+a\right)}^i$$

(4)

$$V_F=\sum _{i=0}^i{\displaystyle \frac{V_y}{{\left(1+r\right)}^i}}+{\displaystyle \frac{V_{max}}{r{\left(1+r\right)}^t}}$$

(5)

where $V_{Fy}$ is the value of Antarctic krill at time $y$; $a$ is annual growth rate of Antarctic krill catch (11.98%); $t$ is the time when the maximum catch is reached 2, $0\le i\le t$; $V_F$ is the total potential value of fishery resources. $r$ is the discount rate (5%), $V_{max}$ is the maximum annual value of fishery catch, and 625,000 tons [51].

3.3.3. Fresh Water

The Antarctic contains the world’s largest freshwater reserves, with approximately 70% of global freshwater stored in its eastern and western ice sheets [53]. As freshwater scarcity has become an increasingly pressing global issue, the World Economic Forum has identified collecting icebergs from the Antarctic as one of five alternative methods for alleviating water stress (www.weforum.org/, accessed on 23 January 2023). Therefore, freshwater resources in the Antarctic region are of great value to humans and can be an essential means of addressing the global water crisis.

Realized NCP of Fresh Water

Scientists are discussing the feasibility of extracting freshwater resources from the Antarctic [54]. To date, no human activity has exploited freshwater resources in the Antarctic, except for their use at Antarctic research stations [16]. However, the amount of freshwater used by these stations was negligible compared to the total freshwater reserves in Antarctica. Therefore, it is argued that the amount of freshwater currently used by humans is zero; thus, its current value is non-existent.

Potential NCP of Fresh Water

Researchers from various countries have explored ways to obtain freshwater resources from the Antarctic to address global and regional water scarcity issues. For instance, Hult and Ostrander made preliminary estimates of the conversion of icebergs to freshwater [55]. Lefrancois et al. found that transporting icebergs from Antarctica to South Africa could be profitable for supplying fresh water [54]. If the cost of extracting freshwater resources can be reduced to an acceptable level, obtaining freshwater resources from the Antarctic could be a feasible solution for global water scarcity. This study used the market valuation method to assess the potential value of fresh water. The formula is as follows:

$${\mathrm{V}}_{w0}=v_w\times \left({\mathrm{p}}_w-{\mathrm{c}}_w\right)$$

(6)

$${\mathrm{V}}_w={\displaystyle \frac{{\mathrm{V}}_{w0}}{r}}\left[1-{\displaystyle \frac{1}{{\left(1+r\right)}^n}}\right]$$

(7)

where ${\mathrm{V}}_{w0}$ is the potential annual value of freshwater, $v_w$ is the total annual freshwater in the Antarctic, 1.2 × 10¹² m³, ${\mathrm{p}}_w$ is the potential benefit of freshwater, 2915.80 CNY thousand cubic meter, ${\mathrm{c}}_w$ is the cost of freshwater extraction, 50% of potential benefit 3; ${\mathrm{V}}_w$ is the total potential value of freshwater, $r$ is discount rate (5%).

3.3.4. Climate Regulation

The Antarctic is considered necessary for Earth’s climate system to act as a global heat sink that helps regulate the global temperature and regional climate [47]. Antarctic climate regulation is not limited to the Antarctic continent but is global.

Realizing the NCP of Climate Regulation

To quantify the economic value of the Antarctic climate regulation loss, this study referred to the Arctic climate regulation loss calculations [56]. Given the small land area of the Antarctic (0.44% of the total area of the Antarctic), this study quantified the effects of changes in ice-sheet reflectance. The formula is as follows:

$${\mathrm{s}}_i=\mathsf{\alpha }\times {\displaystyle \frac{c_i}{c_0}}$$

(8)

$${\mathrm{V}}_{Q0}=\mathsf{\beta }\times {\mathrm{s}}_i\times p_c$$

(9)

where ${\mathrm{s}}_i$ is forcing values, $\mathsf{\alpha }$ is the proportional coefficient of CO₂ rise caused by sea ice loss, 0.2~0.4, $c_i$ is global carbon dioxide concentration at year $i$, $c_0$ is the carbon dioxide concentration in the base year, 690 ppm (www.library.wmo.int/, accessed on 23 January 2023); ${\mathrm{V}}_{Q0}$ is the value of climate regulation; $\mathsf{\beta }$ is the conversion factor of forcing values to be converted to carbon dioxide equivalent, 0.47~0.94 [56]; $p_c$ is the price of carbon dioxide 154.24 CNY per tCO₂ [57].

Potential NCP of Climate Regulation

This study mainly calculated the value of Antarctic climate regulation by estimating the contribution of ice sheet albedo to carbon dioxide concentration. Similarly, assuming that the cost loss caused by climate change will continue until 2100, the potential value of climate change can be calculated using Equations (8) and (9). Then, the calculated values were discounted to 2018 and summed. The formula is as follows:

$${\mathrm{V}}_Q=\sum _{i=2019}^{2100}{\displaystyle \frac{{\mathrm{V}}_{Q0}}{{\left(1+r\right)}^{i-2018}}}$$

(10)

where ${\mathrm{V}}_Q$ is forcing values, $r$ is discount rate (5%).

3.3.5. Runoff Regulation

The melting of the Antarctic ice sheet surface is sensitive to global climate change [58]. Runoff from melting the Antarctic ice sheet is an essential uncertainty in predicting future ice sheet and sea level changes as the global climate warms [59].

Realized NCP of Runoff Regulation

The shadow engineering method estimates the runoff regulation value, converts the average annual ice reserves into the corresponding reservoir capacity, and calculates it based on the engineering cost required for the unit storage capacity [60]. The formula is as follows:

$${\mathrm{V}}_{r0}=v_m\times p_r$$

(11)

where ${\mathrm{V}}_{r0}$ is the annual runoff regulation value, $v_m$ is the annual meltwater from the Antarctic glaciers, 89 Gt (http://www.chinageoss.cn/, accessed on 23 January 2023), $p_r$ is the average reservoir capacity cost, 8.57 CNY per cubic meter [60].

Potential NCP for Runoff Regulation

The freshwater budget is mainly in equilibrium in the Antarctic region, with sea ice formation and melting, precipitation, and melting of the ice shelf base offsetting each other. Therefore, assuming a constant annual value for Antarctic runoff regulation, the potential total value of the Antarctic runoff regulation can be calculated using the income reduction method. The formula is as follows:

$${\mathrm{V}}_r={\displaystyle \frac{V_{r0}}{r}}\left[1-{\displaystyle \frac{1}{{\left(1+r\right)}^n}}\right]$$

(12)

where ${\mathrm{V}}_r$ is the potential total value of runoff regulation in the Antarctic and $r$ is the discount rate (5%).

3.3.6. Science

The Antarctic is widely considered a natural laboratory for scientific research, and the Antarctic Treaty explicitly states the need to protect its scientific value. Scientific research on Antarctica, or globally relevant knowledge acquired within the region, has made significant contributions to knowledge over the years [16].

Realized NCP for Science

To assess the scientific value of the region, this study uses funds invested by various countries in Antarctic scientific research as an evaluation indicator. As the funding input for the Antarctic region is private, this study uses the proportion of each country’s investment in global scientific research as the proportion of its investment in Antarctic scientific research funding. It calculates the average annual investment of each country in Antarctic scientific research. The formula is as follows:

$${\mathrm{V}}_{s0}={\displaystyle \frac{v_j}{t_j}}$$

(13)

where ${\mathrm{V}}_{s0}$ is funding for scientific research in the Antarctic, $v_j$ is funding in the Antarctic for country $j$ (www.nsf.gov, accessed on 23 January 2023), $t_j$ is the proportion of funding in the Antarctic for country $j$ (https://www.oecd.org/, accessed on 23 January 2023).

Potential NCP for Science

Under the assumption of constant annual investment by each participating nation, the value of scientific inquiry in the Antarctic can be evaluated by employing an income reduction methodology.

$${\mathrm{V}}_s={\displaystyle \frac{{\mathrm{V}}_{s0}}{r}}\left[1-{\displaystyle \frac{1}{{\left(1+r\right)}^n}}\right]$$

(14)

where ${\mathrm{V}}_s$ is the total value of scientific research, $r$ is discount rate (5%).

3.3.7. Tourism

Antarctic tourism is a recognized legal recreational activity under the Antarctic Treaty System. The International Association of Antarctic Tour Operators (IAATO) was established in 1991 to promote best practices in private sector tourism in Antarctica.

Realized NCP for Tourism

This study is intended to calculate the economic value of Antarctic tourism using a cost-benefit analysis. Owing to the difficulty in obtaining Antarctic tourism cost data, the profit margin of the cruise industry is used as a benchmark for Antarctic tourism costs [50]. Considering that American tourists account for more than 30% of the total Antarctic tourism, much higher than those from other countries, the average cost per American tourist published by American travel agencies was adopted as the basis for the calculations (www.polarguidebook.com, accessed on 23 January 2023). The formula is as follows:

$${\mathrm{V}}_{T0}=\mathsf{\mu }\times {{\overline{p}}_T\times \overline{v}}_T$$

(15)

where ${\mathrm{V}}_{T0}$ is the annual tourism value; $\mathsf{\mu }$ the coefficient of return; 10%; ${\overline{p}}_T$ is the average cost of Antarctic tourism, 50,000~500,000 CNY; ${\overline{v}}_T$ is the average number of Antarctic tourists, 42,775 people (www.iaato.org/, accessed on 23 January 2023).

Potential NCP for Tourism

The revenue cost method is adopted to calculate the economic value of Antarctic tourism. Assuming infinite revenue from Antarctic tourism, the entertainment value is derived by subtracting the total cost from the annual net income while maintaining a constant discount rate. This approach enables us to determine the actual value of Antarctic tourism. The formula is as follows:

$${\mathrm{V}}_T={\displaystyle \frac{{\mathrm{V}}_{T0}}{r}}\left[1-{\displaystyle \frac{1}{{\left(1+r\right)}^n}}\right]$$

(16)

where ${\mathrm{V}}_T$ is the potential total revenue of tourism and $r$ is discount rate (5%).

4. Results

According to the evaluation of the realized NCP in Antarctica, the total value was 2.46 trillion CNY (

Table 2. Summary of NCP in the Antarctic.

NCP		Realized NCP (Trillion CNY/Year)	Potential NCP (Trillion CNY)
Material	Minerals	0	51.42 (47.15~55.68)
	Fishery	0.0002	0.0081
	Fresh water	0	0.042 (0.035~0.049)
Regulating	Climate regulation	1.69 (1.13~2.26)	38.70 (25.81~51.59)
	Runoff regulation	0.76	15.25
Non-material	Science	0.0086	0.17
	Tourism	0.0013 (0.0002~0.0024)	0.027 (0.0051~0.048)

). Regulating NCP accounted for the largest proportion, followed by material NCP and non-material NCP, which accounted for 99.59%, 0.40%, and 0.01%, respectively. Notably, the economic value of material NCP was the lowest at 0.00020 trillion CNY. Additionally, there is no value for mineral or freshwater resources, owing to restrictions under the Antarctic Treaty System. Although Antarctica has abundant natural resources, its direct contribution to a good quality of life is limited. Only commercial fishing activities allowed under the Antarctic Treaty System can provide materials for the NCP. In contrast, non-material NCP have a relatively high economic value of 0.0099 trillion CNY. The value of science is higher than that of tourism, at 0.0086 and 0.00013 trillion CNY, respectively. It is important to note that these values may have been underestimated because they may have increased with human activity. The highest value is in regulating NCP at 1.69 trillion CNY, which is much higher than the material and non-material NCP. The value for climate regulation was higher than that for runoff. These services are global, with the entire Earth depending on the Antarctic climate and runoff regulation. Thus, the maximum value of natural resources in the Antarctic is not from direct economic contributions but from the Antarctic’s regulatory role in the global ecosystem.

According to an evaluation of potential NCP in the Antarctic, the total value was 105.62 trillion CNY. Regulating NCP accounted for the largest proportion, followed by material NCP and non-material NCP, which accounted for 51.08%, 48.73%, and 0.19%, respectively. For regulating NCP, the value of climate regulation is higher than that of runoff, at 38.70 and 15.25 trillion CNY, respectively. For the material NCP, the mineral value was the highest, at 51.42 trillion CNY, three to four orders of magnitude higher than that of the material NCP. This indicates the enormous potential value of Antarctic mineral resources. For non-material NCP, the value of tourism is lower than that of science, at 0.027 and 0.17 trillion CNY, respectively. Regulating and material NCP are the main contributors, and the sum of values accounts for 99.81% of NCP. In terms of specific indicators, the value of mineral resources, climate regulation, and runoff regulation is higher than others and is the main source that is likely to provide the greatest benefits to mankind in the future.

By comparing the estimates of the realized and potential NCP, it was found that the main component is regulating NCP, of which climate regulation is the most critical value. In the context of climate change, NCP regulation should be the most important aspect of global sustainable development, especially for climate regulation in the Antarctic. Material NCP: Antarctic mineral and freshwater resources have great future potential, but their material NCP does not exist. Where the value of the mineral is almost half of the potential NCP. This could be an important area of concern for future Antarctic natural resource management, if permitted by future regulations and technically feasible. Non-material NCP has always made a relatively little contribution to realized and potential NCP. This is mainly due to the limitations of data acquisition and calculation methods, which may be underestimated.

5. Discussion

5.1. A New Way to Understand Nature’s Contributions

Natural resources are essential for promoting human well-being and sustainability, particularly the critical natural resources that play an essential role in sustainable development [14,61]. A practical method for preventing the overuse of natural resources and promoting sustainability is to clarify the contributions of nature. In the Antarctic, the value of nature’s contribution is yet to be fully reflected because of less human activity. A human-centric orientation often overlooks the value of nature’s contributions to the Antarctic region. For example, global ecosystem service value assessments and IPCC reports rarely involve value assessments in the Antarctic [17,31]. This study attempts to understand the value of nature’s contributions from the perspective of the relationship between nature and humans and, thus, construct an assessment framework using the NCP concept in the Antarctic.

In this study, biotic and abiotic elements are integrated into the assessment scope, expanding upon the previous definition of the NCP scope and enabling a more comprehensive assessment of the Antarctic. There were two reasons for extending the scope of the assessment. First, previous assessments of nature’s contributions have ignored abiotic elements. In the ecosystem services framework, some natural contributions that humans can use directly, such as minerals and hydrocarbons, are excluded, as in the CICES classification [62]. It is difficult to explain the competing interests between the use and management of biological and non-biological resources. A complete ecosystem classification system that includes non-biological flows will better reflect all ecosystem benefits and support managers in making decisions. Second, as Antarctica is an internationally recognized global commons, there is no clear property boundary for Antarctic natural resources, which means that there is no standardized order for the development, utilization, and protection of Antarctic natural resources. Therefore, to clarify nature’s contributions to the Antarctic, it is necessary to expand the assessment scope and include as many biological and non-biological resources as possible to ensure that the information is as transparent as possible, thus promoting fair utilization. The evaluation scope of integrated biotic and abiotic elements has also been recognized in assessing nature’s contributions to the Arctic [50].

Additionally, assessing nature’s contributions from the two dimensions of realized and potential NCP can provide a more comprehensive understanding. Nature’s contributions to people can be divided into potential and realized benefits, and a gap exists between these [37]. The gap is a part of people’s needs that are not met by nature and is often the most visible impact on people. Bridging this gap depends on anthropogenic assets and related institutions [38]. With societal and economic development, the proportion of realized to potential NCP will increase, which also means that the contribution of nature to human beings may further increase. This is consistent with the conclusions of previous studies. Costanza et al. argued that unit value estimates increase when assessing global ecosystem services [63]. Therefore, this study assessed the realized NCP from the perspective of human needs and the potential NCP from the perspective of nature’s contributions. This provides a new way of thinking for a more comprehensive understanding of the contributions of nature to society. Simultaneously, it can provide policymakers with practical information to guide them in making wise and sustainable decisions in Antarctica.

5.2. Economic Valuation of NCP in Antarctic

According to our evaluation results, the total value of the Antarctic’s realized NCP is 2.46 trillion CNY, and the total value of the potential NCP is 105.62 trillion CNY, which is two to three orders of magnitude higher than the realized value. This indicates that the realized contribution of nature is enormous in the Antarctic, and its potential is even greater. However, this is a conservative estimate of the potential NCP at the foreseeable future level of technology. With the improvement of data accuracy, advancement of assessment technology, and comprehensive assessment scope, the value of the NCP may be even higher in the Antarctic region. In the different categories of NCP, the results found that regulation NCP accounts for the largest proportion of the total value, approximately 51.08% of the total value. This shows that nature’s contributions have more of a regulatory effect on global climate change and sea level. It is consistent with the view that the Antarctic is a sensitive area affecting global climate change and has an important impact on sea level rise [64,65].

Notably, there have been significant changes in the assessment of material NCP in terms of realized and potential benefits. Specifically, the percentage of mineral resources that humans could directly utilize increased from 0 to 48.68%. This indicates that the mineral resources in the Antarctic are a potentially huge wealth for humankind. In the future, if developed under legal and environmentally permitted conditions, the value of Antarctic mineral resources will undoubtedly interest stakeholders [8]. However, if the interests of various parties are not coordinated, the predatory exploitation of Antarctica’s natural resources will intensify and cause irreversible environmental disasters. Therefore, adherence to the strategy of “governance first, utilization later” is necessary. A clear inventory of Antarctic natural resources is needed. Based on the results of the natural resource value assessment, priority should be given to the regulation of Antarctic natural resources in the future, which is a function that benefits humanity globally. The direct or indirect exploitation value of Antarctic natural resources for human productive activities is then considered. Then, coordinating the relationships among various stakeholders before utilizing natural resources may help minimize the environmental risks associated with natural resource utilization.

For non-material NCP, the potential and realized values were always relatively low in the evaluation results, which can be attributed to the following reasons: First, nonmaterial NCPs are often difficult to quantify. This study quantified non-material NCP through economic evaluation, which may lead to inappropriate valuation methods and lower value quantification [50]. The Madrid Protocol acknowledges Antarctica’s wilderness, aesthetic, and scientific values; however, these values have not been quantified. Although market-based methods can relatively easily measure non-material NCP, they often overlook the externalities associated with these values. For instance, Cassandra M. Brooks has called for a comprehensive assessment and mapping of Antarctic ecosystem services, including an analysis of stakeholders’ social perceptions and all non-monetary values. This would facilitate a deeper understanding of non-material NCP.

The harsh geographic environment of the Antarctic and the constraints of the Antarctic Treaty System limit human activities in the Antarctic, which leads to insufficient understanding of the Antarctic and lower economic valuation results for non-material NCP [30]. However, with further human exploration of the Antarctic, the non-material value of natural resources in the Antarctic is expected to increase. For example, the number of tourists visiting the Antarctic is increasing annually, and the number of members of the Antarctic Treaty and Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research is gradually increasing [16]. More countries are expected to participate in the scientific research on Antarctica. Therefore, the economic value results for non-material NCP in the Antarctic could be further improved.

5.3. Trade-Offs in Natural Resources Management

With the deepening of human research and exploration in the Antarctic, managing natural resources has created new opportunities. For example, Antarctic tourism has attracted increasing attention in recent years. Since the beginning of the modern Antarctic travel industry in the 1960s, the number of visitors to Antarctica has grown annually from a few hundred to 50,000 people. Additionally, global climate change may increase the melting of sea ice, resulting in improved accessibility to the Antarctic for human activities. Previously inaccessible fishing grounds may also open up more space, which benefits existing commercial fishing and the development of other biological resources. Thatje and Aronson argued that the world’s reliance on fossil fuels and economic development intensify the demand for finite natural resources [66]. The Antarctic region has become the focus of global natural resource development. With the reduction in legal and environmental barriers in the Antarctic, the development of mineral resources will bring great wealth to human society.

However, increased opportunities for natural resource development may pose significant challenges to managing Antarctic natural resources. Exploitation of these resources could lead to irreparable damage to the Antarctic ecosystem, compromising regulations and other NCP [67]. Existing literature has already shown that there are complex trade-offs between regulating and material NCP [68]. In Antarctica, ES beneficiaries undertake conflicting activities. The clash between conservation and scientific and logistical interests is raising concerns, especially in ice-free areas [69]. For example, the black carbon footprint of research activities and tourism in the Antarctic has likely increased as human presence on the continent has surged in recent decades [70]. Significant uncertainty regarding the environmental impact of mineral resource exploitation is a key reason such activities are limited by the Antarctic Treaty System. Although the Antarctic has abundant natural resources with significant potential value for global human society, it remains unknown whether exploiting these natural resources will promote sustainable global development. Therefore, a cautious approach is required when discussing the management of Antarctic natural resources.

Specifically, different stakeholders have diverging priorities and concerns. For example, the scientific community seeks to preserve pristine environments for long-term studies, but commercial fishing interests are interested in exploiting newly accessible fishing grounds. The conflicts among these stakeholders manifest in various ways. For instance, tourism operators might push for fewer restrictions to boost visitor numbers, while environmental organizations argue for stricter controls to prevent ecological damage. Similarly, commercial interests in fishing may clash with conservation efforts that seek to limit such activities to preserve biodiversity.

To address these conflicts and promote sustainable resource management, several strategies can be implemented. First, establish coordination mechanisms. A cross-stakeholder coordination committee could be established to facilitate dialogue and cooperation among different groups. Regular meetings and consultations could help align interests and develop mutually acceptable solutions. Then, implement adaptive management. A flexible management approach, where policies are adjusted based on environmental conditions and stakeholder feedback, can help balance competing interests and respond to new challenges. Lastly, promote benefit-sharing models. Creating mechanisms for sharing benefits from resource exploitation with conservation initiatives can help reconcile economic and environmental goals. For example, funds generated from resource use could be invested in conservation projects.

Despite the significant potential value of Antarctica’s natural resources, it remains uncertain whether their exploitation will contribute to sustainable global development. Therefore, a cautious and inclusive approach to managing these resources is essential to balancing environmental protection with economic interests.

5.4. Limitations

Although this study attempts to comprehensively understand nature’s contributions to the Antarctic from a new perspective and provides assessment results, it is important to acknowledge several key limitations and constraints that affect the reliability and applicability of these results.

This study relies heavily on secondary data due to the scarcity of primary databases and literature on Antarctic natural resources. The dynamic nature of technological advancements and socio-economic changes makes it challenging to predict how these factors will evolve and impact the Antarctic environment. This study is a conservative estimate that may underestimate the value of Antarctic natural resources. Future research would benefit from the development of robust, primary data collection initiatives and the establishment of comprehensive databases specific to Antarctic natural resources.

The assessment of Antarctic natural resources presented in this study is not directly compared with similar evaluations from other regions or existing literature. This lack of comparative analysis limits our ability to gauge the rationality and uniqueness of the assessment results. In the future, incorporating comparisons with remote regions, as well as reviewing similar studies, could provide a benchmark for evaluating the Antarctic findings. Comparative analysis would help contextualize the results and improve the understanding of how Antarctic resource values align with or differ from those in other regions.

Additionally, awareness of the dynamic and interconnected nature of these ecosystems is crucial. The relationship between natural resource exploitation and environmental change is often significant. The impact of natural resource exploitation on other values was not fully considered when assessing the potential NCP. Static and unchanging methods of assessing potential NCP may result in uncertainty, especially for non-material NCP.

In summary, caution must be exercised when interpreting the estimated results, and their limitations should be acknowledged. Addressing these limitations through further research and methodological improvements will be crucial for advancing our knowledge and management strategies for Antarctic natural resources.

6. Conclusions

Assessing the contribution of nature to sustainable development is crucial. Although it is challenging to quantify the value of NCP in the Antarctic, valuation is essential for supporting policy and management implementation to ensure sustainable management of natural resources in the Antarctic. This study employs the concept of the NCP and examines the value of the Antarctic’s natural resources in terms of both realized and potential benefits, which may raise awareness about protecting natural resources in the Antarctic. Additionally, the assessment scope of NCP was extended by integrating both biotic and abiotic resources, which provides a comprehensive understanding of nature’s contributions in the Antarctic. Subsequently, a framework for the valuation of nature’s contributions was developed, including scoping, identification, and valuation, to guide the assessment of the value of natural resources.

Furthermore, this study attempts to provide an economic valuation of Antarctica’s natural resources using secondary data and original calculations. The total value of nature’s contribution is enormous in the Antarctic region, with climate regulation being the main contributor. Currently, the value of nature’s contribution is derived mainly from regulating NCP, both in terms of realized and potential benefits. By contrast, the gap in material NCP is significant from the perspective of nature’s contributions and people’s needs, particularly for mineral resources. Although the value of material NCP is huge, this does not imply that natural resources can be exploited boundlessly. Against the backdrop of global climate change and resource scarcity, the development and utilization of Antarctic natural resources must be performed cautiously and based on sustainable development goals to avoid shortsighted economic development. This study develops a new perspective on the valuation of nature’s contributions to the Antarctic region. The evaluation results can provide scientific evidence for decision-making and management of the development and utilization of natural resources in the Antarctic.