Public Preferences and Values for Ecological Goods and Services in a Northern New Brunswick Watershed

Transcription

1 Public Preferences and Values for Ecological Goods and Services in a Northern New Brunswick Watershed TONIA ANDERSON M.SC.F. CANDIDATE FACULTY OF FORESTRY AND ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT UNIVERSITY OF NEW BRUNSWICK Acknowledgements: Dr. Van Lantz (UNB) Dr. Wolfgang Haider (SFU) Ryan Trenholm (SFU) Monica McKendy (UNB) Tom Beckley (UNB) WEBS September 2012

2 Outline I. Introduction II. III. IV. Methods Results Future Work V. Discussion

3 I. Introduction Healthy watersheds provide valuable EG&S to Canadian communities Water Quality Wildlife Habitat Among others The problem: Lack of property rights Lie outside the traditional domain of commercial markets The Little River watershed is part of New Brunswick s potato belt Soil erosion, sedimentation, and nutrient loading causing a decline in soil and water quality

4 Previous Literature I. Introduction Understanding Public Perceptions Focus on comparing landowner and public perceptions of stewardship Some focus on where the community feels responsibility should fall Public or private Neglecting the obvious What are the public s expectations of private landowner stewardship

5 I. Introduction Valuing EG&S Revealed preference techniques Looks at a surrogate market Takes into account various constraints individuals face household incomes time market imperfections (Louviere et al. 2000) Captures only part of the total economic value (Birol et al 2006).

6 I. Introduction Stated preference techniques Asks an individual what they WTP(WTA) to see an EG&S increase(decrease) Based on a hypothetical scenario Captures the entire total economic value Two main types Contingent Valuation Method (CVM) Choice Experiment Modelling (CEM) CEM-Most Preferred

7 I. Introduction More research is needed on i. Understanding the public s perception of landowner rights and responsibilities of EG&S management within the watershed ii. Valuing watershed EG&S to ensure net benefits to society are not lost if water quality and wildlife habitat decline

8 I. Introduction Research Objectives i. Assess how the general public perceives the rights and responsibilities of private landowners for managing EG&S in the Little River watershed, northern NB. ii. Quantify the social benefits of EG&S improvements in the Little River watershed using the CEM.

9 II. Methods Case study: The Little River Watershed

10 II. Methods Survey Design and Implementation Mailed to 800 households between July and September 2011 Recruited by a telemarketing company Mail-out followed a modified Tailored Design (Dillman, 2000) 5 sections Intro questions: does the respondent live outside the watershed? Perspective of landowner rights and responsibilities for managing EG&S Public perspective of the current and future state of the watershed CEM and follow up questions Socio-economic questions

11 II. Methods Understanding the perspective of landowner rights and responsibilities for managing EG&S Likert scale for level of agreement to statements Ordered Logit Analysis Statement There is too much government regulation on private land Sensitive areas on private land should be protected from being altered or damaged Landowners can do whatever they like with their land without regard for others Landowners should protect/provide a. Wetlands b. Wildlife habitat c. Reduce their use of fertilizers d. Use of erosion control structures e. Clear cutting of woodlots f. Reduce their use of pesticides Reason To understand if the public feels the gov t should be more (less) involved with private land operations To better understand how the public feels privately owned land should be managed To better understand if the public feels landowners should take into account the community when making decisions To tease out any biases towards specific conservation actions and beneficial management practices

12 II. Methods Preamble to the Choice Experiment Environmental conditions in the watershed can be maintained and/or improved through various government-funded environmental stewardship programs. On the following pages, we will ask you to choose between different programs that would improve environmental conditions 10 years from now in the watershed. Each question will ask you to choose 1 of 3 environmental stewardship programs: A, B, or C.

13

14 III. Results Data Analysis Response Rates: 386 returned (44%) 117 were removed Didn t answer the CE, or answered systematically 73 were removed Protest responses This yielded a final response rate of 24.5%

15 Response Distribution Too much gov t regulation Whatever they like on their land Protect Wetlands Protect wildlife habitat Clear cutting Erosion control structure s Strongly Disagree 5.6% 29.3%.3%.6% 1.1% 0% Disagree 15.8% 50.0% 2.8% 5.0% 1.6%.6% Neutral 34.2% 13.8% 12.5% 23.3% 7.9% 6.4% Agree 25.8% 3.6% 40.4% 42.8% 31.3% 40.7% Strongly Agree 18.6% 3.3% 44% 28.3% 58% 52.4% Missing Values 66 responses 26 responses 27 responses 49 responses 21 responses 29 responses

16 Variable Ordered Logit Regression Results Too much gov t regulation Whatever they like on their land Protect Wetlands Protect wildlife habitat Clear cutting High_School 0.420* 0.499** Income<$50, * 0.398* 0.495** * Rural ** Female 0.420* 0.387* Age ** 0.547** Full_Time *** Part_time ** Retired *** Producer * Passive_Rec Motor_Rec 0.500** Hunt_Fish *.281 Lives_within

17 III. Results Choice Experiment 3 class model U t i l i t y Wildlife Habitat % of land set aside to support habitat Class 1 Class 2 Class 3 Landowner Income Water Quality U t 3 i 2 Class 1 l 1 0 Class 2 i t Class 3 y -2-3 frequency of threats to water quality; often, sometimes, rarely U t i l i t % decrease in landowner income by taking land out of production Class 1 Class 2 Class 3

18 III. Results Choice Experiment Willingness to Pay Attribute Level Class 1 Class 2 Class 3 ASC $ $76.94 $ Wildlife habitat +10% $ $22.01 $ % $ $57.11 $81.63 Water quality sometimes $ $11.16 $64.97 rarely $ $22.23 $86.93 Landowner income -10% -$2.98 -$2.98 -$ % -$ $ $39.83

19 III. Results Compensating Surplus: Total Social Benefits Attribute Status Quo Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Water Quality Often Sometimes Rarely Rarely Wildlife Habitat 5% 15% 15% 25% Land_Income 0% 10% 10% 20% Individual CS ($/year/person for 10 years) Aggregate CS ($/year for 10 years) Status Quo Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 - $ $ $ ,650, ,082, ,480,335.13

20 IV. Future Work Landowner Survey What is a landowner willing to implement as BMPs? What is their willingness to accept payment for these BMPs? Cost-Benefit Analysis Are the costs less than what the public is WTP?

21 V. Discussion/Questions?

22 References Colombo, S., Calatrava-Requena, J., & Hanley, N. (2006). Analysing the social benefits of soil conservation measures using stated preference methods. Ecological Economics, 58, Dillman DA. (2000). Mail and Internet Surveys: The Tailored Design Method, New York: Wiley. Doss, C. R., & Taff, S. J. (1996). The influence of wetland type and wetland proximity on residential property values. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 21, Government of Canada. (2011, May 18). Black Brook Watershed - Watershed Evaluation of Best Management Practices. Retrieved October 2, 2011, from Agriculture and Agri-food Canada: AAC/display-afficher.do?id= &lang=eng Mitchell, R.C., Carson, R.T., Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: the Contingent Valuation Method. Resources for the Future, Washington D.C Postel, S. L., & Thompson, B. H. (2005). Watershed protection: capturing the benefits of nature's water supply services. Natural Resources Forum, 29, *A full list of references can be found in the article submitted