Modeling of Ecological and Economic Impacts Lessons learnt from Finnish river basin management

Transcription

1 Modeling of Ecological and Economic Impacts Lessons learnt from Finnish river basin management Olli Malve FreshWater Centre, Finnish Environment Institute (SYKE) Project reference: LIFE09 ENV/FI/ CIS Working group on Programmes of Measures Meeting 12-13/ :00-17:00 Better PoM s in the 2 nd cycle Linking Pressures and Measures Using modeling and optimisation to decide on the selection of measures (NTUA) US/Research Development/Research_and_development_projects/Projects/Tools_for_evaluation_and_man agement_of_eutrophication_gisbloom

2 Tools for participatory implementation of cost efficient monitoring and management of river basins systematic approach GisBloom Life+, , LIFE09 ENV/FI/ Usage of models in selection of cost efficient measures Estimation of ecological impacts Estimation of economic impacts Identification of cost efficient measures Framework for joint use of the models and tools for the river basin management planning Dissemination using web based map tools participary planning and implementation Demonstrations in Finnish river basin management Lessons learnt 2

3 Modeling and planning of measures General framework Data Analyses 1. Collation and Analyses of Data GIS Data Base Management Scenarios Models and Web Services Climate Scenarios 2. Implementation of Models, Tools and Services Ecological and Socio-Economic Forecasts and Impact Estimates Public Understanding, Motivation and Skills 3. Planning and Decision Making in River Basin Management Cost-Efficient Implementation of Management Good Ecological Status and Usability of Water Body

4 Modeling of runoff and nutrient load Nutrient mass balance fluxes Source apportionment of nutrient load 4

5 Estimation of Ecological Impacts of Pressures and Measures Maximum Permissible Nutrient Load (MPNL), LLR-model Chl-a estimate as a function of in Pyhäjärvi Maximum permissible load TotN surface load [g/m2/a] Maximum permissible load Maximum permissible load observed surface loads G/M limit, 50% confidence G/M limit, 80% confidence 6 Good/Mod 7 Good/Mod TotP surface load [g/m2/a]

6 KUTOVA - a tool for selecting costeffective mitigation measures A spreadsheet model for determining the cost-effectiveness of phosphorus loading mitigation measures at catchment scale It can be used to compare single measures by their costeffectiveness or achievable phosphorus reduction rates It can also be used to build cost-effective combinations of measures to achieve Maximal Permissible Nutrient Load (MPNL) The user has the possibility to choose the measures and their dimensioning Includes 19 measures from agriculture, forestry, peat mining and scattered settlement

7 Recursive selection of cost-efficient measures 1. Select the most cost efficient measure Implement as much possible 2. Calculate costs and reduction of load 3. Select next measure 4. Calculate costs and reduction of load 5. Repeat phase 3 6. Stop if budget is used Cost efficiency of measures 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% Metsätalouden putkipadot Monivuotinen nurmiviljely, >6,0% Suojavyöhykkeet, >6,0% kaltevuus Monivuotinen nurmiviljely, 3,0- Suojavyöhykkeet, 3,0-6,0% kaltevuus Pienet kosteikot (<0,5 ha), > 50 % Keskikokoiset kosteikot (0,5-2 ha), Suuret kosteikot (> 2 ha), % Pienet kosteikot (<0,5 ha), % Keskikokoiset kosteikot (0,5-2 ha), Virtaaman säätö Uudet loma-asutuksen Suuret kosteikot (> 2 ha), % Pienet kosteikot (<0,5 ha), % Pintavalutuskenttä (ei pumppausta) Ravinteiden käytön hallinta Keskikokoiset kosteikot (0,5-2 ha), Peltojen talviaikainen eroosion Suojavyöhykkeet, 1,5-3,0% kaltevuus Viemäröinnin laajentaminen haja- Vapautuksen saaneiden Uudet haja-asutuksen Lannoitusten suojakaista Peltojen talviaikainen eroosion Uudistushakkuiden suojakaista Pienkemikalointi Peltojen talviaikainen eroosion Suojavyöhykkeet, 0,5-1,5% kaltevuus Kustannustehokkuus paranee

8 What could be achieved using costeffective selection of measures? Measures suggested in PoMs were entered into KUTOVAtool Costs and load reduction rates were calculated Costs were set as a budget constraint for the cost-effective combination of measure Measures were selected until the budget constraint was met Pilot area Phosphorus reduction rate with Programme of Measures Phosphorus reduction rate with the cost-effective solution Difference River Temmesjoki 10 % 18 % 8 %-point*** River Lapuanjoki 16 % 33 % 17 %-point*** River Karvianjoki 9 % 16 % 7 %-point*** River Paimionjoki 7 % 30 % 23 %-point*** Lake Hiidenvesi 21 % 38 % 17 %-point*** Lake Vanajanselkä 20 % 37 % 17 %-point*** River Vantaanjoki 38 % 43 % 5 %-point** Lake Pien-Saimaa 11 % 27 % 16 %-point*** Independent sample t-test *** p<0,000 ** p<0,01 * p<0,05

9 Recreational benefits of improved water quality VIRVA-model A spreadsheet tool designed for estimating the monetary benefits of improved water quality to recreational use of the water bodies Two user groups Users of water front properties Other users Includes 5 recreational activities Swimming Fishing Boating Use of water for sauna and/or washing purposes Spending time at the water front and enjoyment of scenery The value estimates are connected to The price of the water front property The value of one swimming, fishing or boating trip 11

10 Recreational benefits of improved water quality VIRVA-model The VIRVA-model has been piloted in three river basins (Lapuanjoki, Paimionjoki and Karvianjoki), three lakes (PienSaimaa, Hiidenvesi and Vanajavesi), and in a coastal area of the Gulf of Finland. In the pilot areas the benefits are estimated to be approximately /waterfront property/year Depending e.g. on the form of surface water, the current water quality and the selling price of the property. For those who do not have access to a summer house, the annual benefits of water quality improvements are approximately % less than for those who have access to waterfront property. The recreational benefits of the implementation of the WFD in Finnish river basin district 3 Recreational value of the water bodies in present state /v Recreational value of the water bodies in target state /v Recreational benefit of the improved water quality /v Number of waterfront properties Benefit/property /year/property 12

11 Joint use of the models Used models Nutrient loading estimation model VEMALA Lake Load Response (LLR) model for ecological impacts KUTOVA-tool for selecting the cost-effective mitigation measures VIRVA model for estimating the recreational benefits of the imrpoved water quality. The cost-benefit analysis was incomplete Total benefits should have been estimated Illustrative decision support system for comprehensive river basin management planning It showed the uncertainties and risks related to the river basin management planning decisions 13

12 Joint use of the models in river basin management planning Models are used to estimate 1. Runoff and nutrient loads 2. Impacts on nutrients and algae in a lake 3. Maximum Permissible Nutrient Loads (MPNL) 4. Costs of measures to achieve MPNL and recreational benefits and to create 5. a cost efficient program of measures PoMs 15

13 Dissemination using web based map tools - Parcipatary planning and implementation VESINETTI - GIS-based Web service for interactive use of the models and data The main users are river basin management coordinators, experts, private consultants and public. Materials like data, pictures and reports can be uploaded Results from GisBloom-project are availablei. 17

14 Demonstrations in Finnish river basin management (GisBloom project) 18

15 Lessons learnt In the planning of PoMs, there is a demand for systematic evaluation of ecological and economic efficiency of mitigation measures. Models are useful in planning and dimensioning of the measures. Consultancy services for end users ought to be tailored and provided. Models need to be further automated and integrated. Uncertainty analysis should be introduced into each model. The web based map services(vesinetti.fi, LakeWiki) are useful in dissemination, education and in participatory river basin management. Maximum permissible nutrient loads are difficult or impossible to achieve using present measures. New measures are needed or timetables must be postponed More emphasis should be placed on the estimation of the economic benefits VIRVA model estimates only the recreational benefits (use value) 19