Willingness-to-Pay to Protect Well Conserved Aquatic Systems Through Forest Conservation: A Meta-analysis

Transcription

1 Willingness-to-Pay to Protect Well Conserved Aquatic Systems Through Forest Conservation: A Meta-analysis The 3 rd UF Water Institute Symposium Gainesville, FL, February 16, 2012 Melissa M. Kreye, Damian C. Adams, Francisco J. Escobedo, and Tatiana Borisova School of Forest Resources and Conservation, University of Florida

2 Watersheds by potential for changes in water quality as a result of projected increases in housing density on private forest lands. Source:

3 How do we connect forest conservation to policies that protect water quality? Conserved forest ecosystem structures & components Nutrients reduced in adjacent water bodies via uptake and filtration (regulating services). Benefits produced such as: fishing, swimming, aesthetic and existence values Benefits valued in economic and monetary terms Information used to develop environmental policies and water quality protection programs

4 How are benefits valued? Economic Techniques Market price approaches Market cost approaches Replacement cost Damage cost avoided Revealed preference methods Travel cost method Hedonic price method Stated Preference methods Choice modeling Contingent valuation (CV) Participatory Approaches Deliberative valuation Mediation modeling Non-economic Techniques Consultative methods Questionnaires In-depth interviews Deliberative and participatory approaches Focus groups Citizen juries Health based valuation Q-methodology Delphi surveys Rapid rural appraisal Participatory action research Methods for reviewing information Systematic reviews Benefits transfer Adapted from Christie et al., (2008)

5 Study Goals Conduct a meta-analysis of CV studies that estimate the value of protecting water quality in well-conserved aquatic systems. Adjust attributes of the model to estimate the value of protecting water quality in the Lower Suwannee River watershed (Benefit transfer).

6 Study Criteria Value in-stream, fresh water resources considered to be fair or good (US EPA Report to Congress, 1994). Estimate willingness-to-pay (WTP) using contingent valuation methods. Studies were conducted in the U.S.

7 18 studies (43 WTP observations) Year conducted: Data Collected WTP per capita per year: $2.87-$ Locations: (7) West, (6) Southeast, (4) Northeast/Midwest Resources: (6) Rivers/Streams, (6) Wetlands, (1) Lakes, (4) All water resources combined Scale of proposed program: (12) Watershed/Basin (4) Single Location, (1) Statewide Proposed program: (8) land acquisition/conservation easement, (1) cost share, (9) non-specific program

8 Multiple Regression Model Model following: Johnston et al., 2005; Loomis and White, 1996; Nelson and Kennedy 2008

9 Results Table 1. Estimated multiple regression model of water protection valuation function (dependent variable is natural log of annual value per individual). Variable category Label 1 Coefficient (SE) Intercept Intercept (0.886) Survey Method CV_OE ** (0.220) Year YR_INDX 0.091*** (0.012) Weighting RR_COFF 0.897** (0.388) Median household income INCOME 0.058*** (0.000) Region SOUTH (0.259) Resource RIVER *** (0.209) Scale DR_BSN 0.821** (0.340) Scale SGL_SITE *** (0.415) Program PRG_AE *** (0.209) Sample size 43 R 2 adjusted Standard error F-statistic (degrees of freedom) * (9) *** Significant at p < 0.01, ** Significant at p < 0.05, * Significant at p < 0.10

10 Results Cont. Overall, respondents were willing-to-pay: Slightly less to protect water quality in the southeastern United States (US) compared to other regions in the US. Slightly less for rivers and streams compared to all other resources. More for programs that protect water resources within a watershed/basin.

11 Results Cont. Overall, respondents were willing-to-pay: Increasingly more each year to protect water quality. Less for programs that propose the use of land acquisition or conservation easements compared to programs that do not state how the program would be implemented. Johnston and Duke (2007)

12 Benefit Transfer

13 Policy Site Lower Suwannee River watershed Considered relatively pristine. Forestry is a major land use. Changes in land use are resulting in increased nutrient levels.

14 Result of Benefit Transfer Table 2. A benefit transfer of annual household willingness-to-pay (WTP) values (2010 US dollars) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for two types of water quality maintenance or protection programs at the lower Suwannee River watershed located in the northwest region of Florida (Median annual household income $35,371). Program Annual Household WTP CI (95%) Population Total Annual WTP Acquisition/ Easement Non-specific program $2.29 ($2.10-$2.50) 46,000 $105,340 $43.79 ($39.98-$47.97) 46,000 $2,014,340

15 Conclusions Total WTP illustrates the substantial value individuals place on forest conservation and protecting water quality. We can expect WTP to increase in the future. Researchers should consider: o Certain program implementation strategies may not be utility neutral. o Recognize the potential consequences of suppressing related preferences in welfare analysis.

16 Future Research How do anthropocentric and biocentric attitudes towards forests as well as social trust influence WTP behaviors for different forest conservation programs that protect water quality? o Programs that remove land owner rights o Programs that maintain land owner rights

17 Works Cited Christie, M., Fazey, I., Cooper, R., Hyde, T., Deri, A., Hughes, L., Bush, G., Brander, L., Nahman, DeLange, W., Reyers, B., An Evaluation of Economic and Non- Economic Techniques for Assessing the Importance of Biodiversity to People in Developing Countries. DEFRA, London. Johnston, R.J. and J.M. Duke, Willingness to Pay for Agricultural Land Preservation and Policy Process Attributes: Does the Method Matter?, American Journal of Agricultural Economics 89/4, Johnston, R.J., E.Y. Besedin, R. Iovanna, C.J. Miller, R.F. Wardwell and M.H. Ranson, Systematic Variation in Willingness to Pay for Aquatic Resource Improvements and Implications for Benefit Transfer: A Meta- Analysis, Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics 53, Loomis, J.B. and D.S. White, Economic Benefits of Rare and Endangered Species: Summary and Meta- Analysis, Ecological Economics 18, Nelson, J.P. and P.E. Kennedy, The Use (and Abuse) of Meta-Analysis in Environmental and Natural Resource Economics: An Assessment. Environmental and Resource Economics 42/3, US EPA Report to Congress, Downloaded 2/15/12