Achyut Kafle 1 and Stephen K. Swallow 2

Transcription

1 Ecosystem Auctions for Decision Support for Invasive Plants Management in Southern California Achyut Kafle 1 and Stephen K. Swallow 2 1 Ph.D. Candidate, University of Rhode Island 2 DelFavero Faculty Fellow, University of Connecticut Center for Environmental Sciences and Engineering

2 Background Nature Reserve of Orange County (NROC)

3 Background Orange County Invasive Management (OCIM) Natural Science Component Assess effectiveness of ecosystem restoration techniques on restoring native habitats and species (target birds) Katie Suding (UC Berkeley), Kristine Preston (NROC), Megan Lulow (IRC), and Sara Jo Dickens (UC Berkeley)

4 Background Social Science Component Assess public values and priorities of ecosystem restoration Integrating public values into a decision support tool for environmental managers combining these two components

5 Goal of the presentation Demonstrate an approach of assessing public values and priorities Demonstrate an approach of incorporating or integrating public values on prioritizing future restoration decisions

6 Methods: Real-money choice experiment Real-money choice experiment approach in environmental economics literature Asking people to make restoration choices Estimating the values using econometric model

7 Methods Attributes Description Restoration Effort Habitat and Bird Species Focus -High (Right Upper Graph) -Low (Right Lower Graph) -Coastal Sage Scrub ( California Gnatcatcher) -Coastal Cactus Scrub (Cactus Wren) -Native Grassland (Other native wildlife) Size (Acres) 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, and 9 Public Access -High: Running, hiking, mountain biking, designated area for dogs and horse-back riding -Medium: Running, hiking & mountain biking -Low: Research and guided tours only Trained Volunteers -Yes, in addition to restoration professionals -No Likelihood of Success -High: easy access maintenance &/or surrounding native landscape -Medium: Moderate access & /or mixed surrounding landscape

8 Methods: Example Restoration Choice

9 Methods: Voting or implementation decision rules

10 Results: Conditional Logit Model of Restoration Choices Conditional logit model to estimate the marginal values of restoration attributes Willingness to Pay (WTP) for restoration projects Percent of respondents that are likely to vote for restoration projects

11 Hypothesis Tests Results: Preliminary Hypothesis Tests Results Is there a statistically significant difference in marginal values of restoration attributes between two voting or decision rules? NO This means respondents showed similar marginal tradeoffs between restoration attributes under two rules. BUT Respondents showed significantly different marginal tradeoffs between a project and NO project dependent on socio-demographic factors and environmental attitudes. Is there a statistically significant difference in marginal values of restoration attributes between real and hypothetical restoration choices? NO This means participants answered the real and hypothetical restoration choices similarly.

12 Variables Results Group-1 Coefficients Group-2 Coefficients No Plan Dummy *** N/A High Restoration Effort *** *** Native Grass * Cactus Scrub Log (Size) *** *** Medium Public Access *** * Low Public Access *** Trained Volunteers *** *** High Likelihood of Success *** *** Log (Price) *** *** * Significant at 10% ** Significant at 5% *** Significant at 1%

13 Results: Marginal tradeoffs Variables (Tradeoff relative to acres) Low - High Restoration Effort No - Yes Trained Volunteers Group 1 Marginal tradeoff Medium-High LOS Low-Medium Public Access Low-High Public Access Group 2 Marginal tradeoff

14 Results: Willingness to Pay (WTP) for Restoration Attributes Project 1 Project 2 Project 3 Project 4 Project 5 Restoration Effort High High High Low Low Habitat and Bird Species Sage Scrub Native Grass Cactus Scrub Cactus Scrub Sage Scrub Size (Acres) Public Access Medium Medium Low High High Trained Volunteers Yes Yes Yes No No Likelihood of Success High Medium High High High Willingness to Pay (Vs. no plan: Group1) Willingness to Pay (Vs. Project4 : Group2) $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 3.40 $ N/A $ 2.43

15 Results: Ranking Projects using voting percentages Attributes Project 1 Project 2 Project 3 Project 4 Project 5 Restoration Effort High High High Low Low Habitat and Bird Species Sage Scrub Native Grass Cactus Scrub Cactus Scrub Sage Scrub Size (Acres) Public Access Medium Medium Low High High Trained Volunteers Yes Yes Yes No No Likelihood of Success High Medium High High High Voting percentage (%) Group 1 Voting percentage (%) Group

16 Conclusions and discussions Real-money choice experiment to estimate public values of ecosystem restoration Willingness to pay (WTP) for comparing restoration projects Rank available projects using voting percentages

17 Conclusions and discussions Integrating public values into environmental decision-making Coupled with ecosystem functioning and management criteria, may help achieve maximum ecosystem benefits per dollar invested

18 Future directions Heterogeneity in preferences for ecosystem restoration Latent Class Modeling to identify potential classes of similar preferences Advanced econometric techniques for better estimates of values

19 Any questions??? Thank you!!!