The Use of Ecosystem Service Valuation in Decision Making : Case Studies from the Private and Public Sector ACES 2012

Transcription

1 The Use of Ecosystem Service Valuation in Decision Making : Case Studies from the Private and Public Sector ACES 2012

2 Types of Ecosystem Service Values Revenue Producing Wetland Banks Water Quality Trading Species Banking Carbon Credits Operational Dependencies and impacts that affect revenue and cost Water Availability Establish Priorities Ranking of Assets, Land, or Strategies Regulatory Shows the net impact of operations/ regulations on ecosystems and people Social and CSR Desire to measure and report the impact of operations and practices on ecosystems and people The intended use of the valuation drives the approach

3 Practical Issues in Implementing Ecosystem Valuation Need and Role of Frameworks Data Quality and Gaps Role of Dollars

4 Expert Elicitation and the Value of Natural Systems in Florida Doug MacNair Stuart Norvell Rush Childs Cardno ENTRIX C ACES Conference, December 2012

5 NATURAL SYSTEMS CORE MISSION Protecting water-related natural systems increases the District s ability to carry out its responsibilities. Goal: To preserve, protect, and restore natural systems in order to support their natural hydrologic and ecologic functions.

6 CHALLENGES IN VALUING NATURAL SYSTEMS Deciding whose values to use Estimating values independent of other Core Mission Benefits Defining natural systems and the units of measurement

7 CHALLENGES IN USING BENEFITS TRANSFER Most prevalent valuation method is contingent valuation Surveys of the general public about the hypothetical value of complex ecosystem services are very unlikely to be unreliable Studies typically bundle or double count benefits Few disaggregate benefits by service Huge variation in results Wetland WTP is $ $ 6,494 per acre Few studies for Florida, mostly focusing on wetlands (Milon) Values aren t District specific or specific to natural systems

8 EXPERT ELICITATION APPROACH Multi-criteria Decision Analysis Provides views of experts familiar with resources No Need to Directly Estimate Dollar Values Tailored Values: Natural Systems Benefit of District Land Ownership Cost Efficient Pilot Can Reduce Double Counting of Benefits

9

10 HOW THE METRICS WERE CHOSEN Reviewed available natural systems GIS data from the Critical Lands and Water Inventory Project (CLIP 2.0) Consulted with Cardno ENTRIX ecologists to determine which are reasonably independent Examined spatial correlations between the selected datasets

11 NATURAL SYSTEM METRICS Groundwater supply Potential Habitat Richness Natural Community Type FL Ecological Greenways Network Score

12 TRADEOFF ANALYSIS - EXAMPLE Attributes Property A Property B Water Supply from Site (MGD) Habitat Richness 2 4 species 4 6 species Natural Community Type Ecological Greenways Network Insufficiently protected Unaltered native cover 9 3 Which Property Will Best Meet the District's Core Objectives? A is Much Better than B A is Better than B Neither B is Better than A B is Much Better than A

13 SURVEY DEMOGRAPHICS Distribution of Respondent Affiliations 2% 11% 3% 6% Industry Consulting 23% Academia 44% 5% 6% Agency Fed Agency NGO 62 Responses out of 117 invitations (53%)

14 PARAMETER ESTIMATES Greenway_9 Greenway_5 Natural Community Habitat Richness Water supply

15 Capitalized Value per Unit-Acre (30 4%) $11.78 $5.99 $4.18 $1.43 Habitat Richness Natural Community Greenway_5 Greenway_9

16 WHY ARE THE VALUES MUCH LOWER Based on experts THAN CV? Trading-off water supply for real agency decision making is more realistic than trading off hypothetical Natural system values are still embedded in water supply (can t get water supply without getting natural systems)

17 Next Steps Sensitivity analysis Do natural system values affect rankings Only differences matter Debrief with participants about how they answered questions Test with alternate metrics