Upload
jared-carras
View
215
Download
2
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Ecosystem Service Valuation Workshop, July 2013
C
Expert Elicitation and the Value of Natural Systems in Florida
Barbara Wyse, Cardno ENTRIX
Develop a valuation framework for the Ecosystem Services provided by District land:
> Develop estimates of value for four mission areas– Water Supply– Water Quality– Flood Protection– Natural Systems
> Use available GIS data
> Develop screening-level estimate of value, considering current and alternative land uses with and without District ownership/regulations
Project Scope: Valuing Ecosystem Services on Lands of the Southwest Florida Water Management District
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.
Natural Systems Core Mission
> Deciding whose values to use
> Estimating values independent of other Core Mission Benefits
> Defining natural systems and the units of measurement
Challenges In Valuing Natural Systems
> Most prevalent valuation method is contingent valuation
> Surveys of the general public about the value of complex ecosystem services are unlikely to be reliable
> Studies often bundle or double count benefits– Few disaggregate benefits by service
> Huge variation in results– Wetland WTP is $0.41 - $ 6,494 per acre
> Few studies for Florida, mostly focusing on wetlands (Milon)– Values aren’t District specific or specific to natural systems
Challenges In Using Benefits Transfer
> Multi-criteria Decision Analysis – Obtain values 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
Expert Elicitation Approach
Survey
> Groundwater supply
> Potential Habitat Richness
> Natural Community Type
> FL Ecological Greenways Network Score
Natural System Metrics
Lesson Learned: Clear definitions of known, independent metrics.
> 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 metrics
How The Metrics Were Chosen
Lesson Learned: Actual and perceived independence of metrics are both important.
Tradeoff Analysis - Example
Attributes- Property A Property B
Groundwater Supply (MGD)
0.15 0.42
Potential Habitat Richness 2 – 4 focal species 4 – 6 focal species
Natural Community Level Insufficiently protected Unaltered native cover
Ecological Greenways Network
9 3
Which Property Will Best Meet the District's Core Missions?
A is Much Better than B
A is Better than B
NeitherB is Better
than AB is Much
Better than A
○ ● ○ ○ ○
Parameter Estimates: Per Unit Importance
Lesson Learned: District’s perceived and actual preferences differed.
Groundwater Supply
Natural Community Level
Greenway
Habitat Richness
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
Capitalized Value per Unit-Acre (30 Years at 4%)
Natural Community Level Greenway Habitat Richness$0.00
$1.00
$2.00
$3.00
$4.00
$5.00
$6.00
$7.00
Lesson Learned: Natural systems appear to be primarily valued for water-related services.
> Based on experts
> 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)
Why Are The Values Much Lower Than Other CV Studies?
> Sensitivity analysis – Do natural system values affect rankings?– Only differences matter
> Debrief with participants about how they answered questions
> Test with alternate metrics
Next Steps