Bringing Economic Principles to the Practical Measurement of Ecosystem Services Future Midwestern Landscape Case Study

Transcription

1 Bringing Economic Principles to the Practical Measurement of Ecosystem Services Future Midwestern Landscape Case Study Lisa A. Wainger University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science and US EPA ORD ESRP ACES December 9, 2010

2 Questions Addressed by Case Study 1. How do benefits change when you alter management of agro-ecosystems? Direct uses (water supply, recreation, aesthetics) Indirect uses (flood risk mitigation) Non-use services (existence, bequest) 2. How can we use maps of ecosystem services to prioritize investments in preservation, restoration, or mitigating risk? 3. How can we compare tradeoffs among competing services? 2

3 The Big Picture Ecological & Economic Assessments are Coordinated to Measure Benefits Human / system behavior Stressor Ecological Endpoints Ecosystem Service Benefits Monetary Indicators Ecological Production Functions Economic Demand & Benefit Functions 3

4 Step 1: Create measures of ecological outcomes Conceptual Link to Ecosystem Service Site Functional Assessment Landscape Context Filter Reliability Filter How does the indicator relate to a human use or value of the ecosystem? How will the indicator respond to a change in stress or management? Does the neighborhood constrain or enhance site functional quality? Is the site likely to produce a stream of functions into the future? (e.g., SLR risk)

5 Quality of ecological outcomes with alteration Functional Quality Max Game species abundance Bird Species Richness 0 Less Altered System Highly Altered System 5

6 Step 2: Complementary inputs turn ecological outcomes into ecosystem service metrics Quality Filter Does the site have sufficient ecological quality to support users / beneficiaries? Complementary Inputs Is activity or infrastructure present to demonstrate service can be used? Future Use Do current trends suggest use will change in the future?

7 Step 3: Assess benefits of a change in ecosystem service supply (How much does a user care about a change?) Scarcity Does demand exceed supply? Substitutability vs Irreplaceability Resilience / Vulnerability Risk Tolerance Are affordable substitutes available? Can users absorb a change without losing welfare? Are users willing to risk deterioration or loss of a service?

8 Using Level of Service to suggest scarcity and potential benefits of a change in supply Similar approach used by local governments to prioritize capital investments New application to natural resource investments Supply (e.g., suitable/ desirable acreage) Demand (e.g., user days demanded - unconstrained by supply) / = Level of Service (e.g., acres per user day demanded) 8

9 Example 1: Direct Use Service Level of Service = Supply / Demand Species Abundance Supply Access Waterfowl Hunting LOS Demand Ruralness Estimated User Days Substitutable Sites 9

10 Waterfowl hunting supply by Low watershed Habitat in hunting season Access Ruralness Capacity DRAFT Figure Removed High 10

11 Establishing participation rates Include constraints due to time and interest; regional preferences Ignore constraints due to lack of supply All else equal, how many trips would be taken at an average level of supply US Migratory Bird Hunting Participation Rates (Nonwhite only) within FML Region (FHWAR 2006) 11

12 Establishing Demand for Recreation Population & Demographics Distributed census data based on land suitability Sample Dasymetric Data Distribution of Excess Demand (from urban) Distributed to adjacent areas based on willingness to travel Legend 12

13 Waterfowl hunting demand by Participation rates by demographic group Population Willingness to travel Low High watershed DRAFT Figure Removed 13

14 Waterfowl hunting Level of Service Supply/demand -quality-weighted acres per user-day DRAFT Figure Removed High Low 14

15 Example 2: Non-use Service Level of Service = Supply / Goal Habitat Quality - Site Supply Size of Contiguous Habitat Existence Value - Bobwhite Site Protection Status Goal 30% Historic Range Protected 15

16 How a preservation goal translates to economic benefits Benefit / Utility 30% % native range preserved

17 Example Results: Level of Service Ratings LOS Rating LOS Score (proportion of demand met) Watershed Totals High > 120% 200 Sustaining % 400 Low < 80 % 200 *Breakpoints are adjusted by service 17

18 Conclusions Ecological indicators are most useful for decisionmaking if they are linked to an outcome that people use or value and are a function of a controllable management variable Ecosystem services are created when quality is acceptable and complementary inputs are provided Benefits of a service change depend upon the relationship between supply and demand Scarcity tends to enhance the benefit or harm of a change in service supply (all else equal) Scarcity may be suggested by comparing demand to supply (after substitutability or goals are considered)