Federal Resource Management and Ecosystem Services Guidebook nespguidebook.com The Federal Resource Management and Ecosystem Services Guidebook NON-MONETARY

Federal Resource Management and Ecosystem Services Guidebook nespguidebook.com The Federal Resource Management and Ecosystem Services Guidebook NON-MONETARY VALUATION: MULTI-CRITERIA EVALUATION ACES Workshop 2014 Dean Urban, PhDLynn Maguire, PhD Professor of Landscape EcologyProfessor of the Practice of Senior Associate DeanEnvironmental Decision Analysis Nicholas School of the EnvironmentNicholas SchoolDuke University

M ULTI -C RITERIA E VALUATION Federal Resource Management and Ecosystem Services Guidebook | nespguidebook.com Structured Decision-Making Encompasses much/most of the assessment framework outlined for FRMES: Stakeholder engagement, desired outcomes Management and ecological outcomes Stakeholder preferences for outcomes Levels of performance on a single service Trade-offs among competing services Aggregated information for decision support

M ULTI -C RITERIA E VALUATION Federal Resource Management and Ecosystem Services Guidebook | nespguidebook.com SDM vs. Alternatives Relative to benefit-relevant indicators: Directly engages stakeholders Relative to monetization: Does not require monetary valuation Can be applied to benefits that are hard to monetize Values options relative to the best option on the table (not necessarily business as usual)

M ULTI -C RITERIA E VALUATION Federal Resource Management and Ecosystem Services Guidebook | nespguidebook.com Structured Decision-Making This illustration: Multi-attribute utility theory (MAUT) Steps: Engage stakeholders, identify desired outcomes Select empirical indicators for desired outcomes Identify management means to achieve ends Elicit stakeholder preferences for levels of performance (per service) Elicit preferences for services

M ULTI -C RITERIA E VALUATION Federal Resource Management and Ecosystem Services Guidebook | nespguidebook.com Objectives Hierarchy The objectives hierarchy: Declares what outcomes are valuable to stakeholders Outlines relationships among desired outcomes: Categories (independent) Nestedness Final vs intermediate goods and services Identifies empirical indicators for the final outcomes

M ULTI -C RITERIA E VALUATION Federal Resource Management and Ecosystem Services Guidebook | nespguidebook.com Objectives Hierarchy

M ULTI -C RITERIA E VALUATION Federal Resource Management and Ecosystem Services Guidebook | nespguidebook.com Objectives Hierarchy Topology: Left side: categories of services (independent) Middle: refinement Right side: final goods and services, with measurement units

M ULTI -C RITERIA E VALUATION Federal Resource Management and Ecosystem Services Guidebook | nespguidebook.com Means-Ends Model

M ULTI -C RITERIA E VALUATION Federal Resource Management and Ecosystem Services Guidebook | nespguidebook.com Means and Ends The objectives hierarchy and means-end models are overlapping constructs Objectives hierarchy: a static depiction of desired outcomes and how they will be measured Means-ends models: a depiction of dynamics via which management might effect these outcomes The right-hand side of the M-E models is the left-hand side of an objectives hierarchy These are elaborated simultaneously

M ULTI -C RITERIA E VALUATION Federal Resource Management and Ecosystem Services Guidebook | nespguidebook.com Alternatives Matrix (1) MeasuresAlternative actions Status quoDownstream damUpstream release Numbers of bird 1 (breeding pairs on forest) 200220205 Wildlife viewing at walkway site (qualitative scale) One iconic sp < 5One iconic sp 5 Both >5 Flood events (annual average) 0.20.150.2 Cost ($MM NPV)0.11.00.8

M ULTI -C RITERIA E VALUATION Federal Resource Management and Ecosystem Services Guidebook | nespguidebook.com Stakeholder Preferences Preferences for levels of performance Given different expectations from management alternatives (the options on the table): Which option provides the least satisfaction? Which is the best/most preferred? How to other (intermediate) options compare, relative to the endpoints?

M ULTI -C RITERIA E VALUATION Federal Resource Management and Ecosystem Services Guidebook | nespguidebook.com Utility 0.0 1.0 worst Performance best

M ULTI -C RITERIA E VALUATION Federal Resource Management and Ecosystem Services Guidebook | nespguidebook.com Alternatives Matrix (2) Status quoDownstream damUpstream release Numbers of bird 1 (breeding pairs on forest) 200 (0) 220 (1) 205 (0.25) Wildlife viewing at walkway site (qualitative scale) One iconic sp < 5 (0.14) One iconic sp 5 (0.86) Both >5 (1) Flood events (annual average) 0.2 (0) 0.15 (0.8) 0.2 (0) Cost ($MM NPV)0.1 (1) 1.0 (0) 0.8 (0.6)

M ULTI -C RITERIA E VALUATION Federal Resource Management and Ecosystem Services Guidebook | nespguidebook.com Preferences Across Services Which services are preferred by stakeholders? Which are they willing to trade off against other services? For which are they willing to accept losses or reduction of services? Competing services implies that preferences for some require sacrifices on others

M ULTI -C RITERIA E VALUATION Federal Resource Management and Ecosystem Services Guidebook | nespguidebook.com Preferences Across Services

M ULTI -C RITERIA E VALUATION Federal Resource Management and Ecosystem Services Guidebook | nespguidebook.com Alternatives Matrix (3) Measures (Weights)Alternatives Status quoDownstream damUpstream release Numbers of bird 1 (breeding pairs on forest) (w = 0.11) 200 (0) 220 (1) 205 (0.25) Wildlife viewing at walkway site (qualitative scale) (w = 0.06) One iconic sp < 5 (0.14) One iconic sp 5 (0.86) Both >5 (1) Flood events (annual average) (w = 0.28) 0.2 (0) 0.15 (0.8) 0.2 (0) Cost ($MM NPV) (w = 0.55) 0.1 (1) 1.0 (0) 0.8 (0.6) Overall value0.560.390.42

M ULTI -C RITERIA E VALUATION Federal Resource Management and Ecosystem Services Guidebook | nespguidebook.com Decision Support At this point: stakeholder preferences for outcomes, weighted by preferred criteria (services) and by preferences for different levels of performance for each criterion (utility). This information should inform the decision.

M ULTI -C RITERIA E VALUATION Federal Resource Management and Ecosystem Services Guidebook | nespguidebook.com But What is embedded in the utilities? How consistent are stakeholder preferences? How to reconcile heterogeneous preferences among stakeholder factions? unpack and explore the elicitation process

M ULTI -C RITERIA E VALUATION Federal Resource Management and Ecosystem Services Guidebook | nespguidebook.com Exercise Utility: Bird population numbers (context) Wildlife viewing (qualitative scales) Flood risk (asymmetric stakeholders) Preferences across criteria: Heterogeneous stakeholder populations

M ULTI -C RITERIA E VALUATION Federal Resource Management and Ecosystem Services Guidebook | nespguidebook.com Utility (1) Bird populations: What is the relative value of these population levels? Option:Status QuoDownstream DamUpstream Release Birds (#)200220205

M ULTI -C RITERIA E VALUATION Federal Resource Management and Ecosystem Services Guidebook | nespguidebook.com Utility (1) 0.0 0.25 1.0 Option A: Linear interpolation

M ULTI -C RITERIA E VALUATION Federal Resource Management and Ecosystem Services Guidebook | nespguidebook.com Utility (1) Option A: Interpolation What if? the range were 200-500? 200 500 there was a minimum viable population size of 500? 200 500

M ULTI -C RITERIA E VALUATION Federal Resource Management and Ecosystem Services Guidebook | nespguidebook.com Utility Estimates How might we estimate these curves? Linear (or nonlinear) interpolation Model-based (e.g., utility = survival likelihood) Elicitation (of stakeholder, by expert) Survey (with attention to sampling frame!)

M ULTI -C RITERIA E VALUATION Federal Resource Management and Ecosystem Services Guidebook | nespguidebook.com Utility (2) Wildlife viewing: How to rate preferences for qualitative measures? Option:Status QuoDownstream DamUpstream Release Wildlife viewing1 spp, < 51 spp < 5, 1 < 5both spp, > 5

M ULTI -C RITERIA E VALUATION Federal Resource Management and Ecosystem Services Guidebook | nespguidebook.com Utility (2) Option B: the Ratio method for qualitative data Step 1: list all possible observations (cases) Category (obs)RatioPointsUtility Neither 1 spp, < 5x 1 spp, > 5x Both spp, < 5x 1 spp 5x Both spp, > 5x

M ULTI -C RITERIA E VALUATION Federal Resource Management and Ecosystem Services Guidebook | nespguidebook.com Utility (2) Option B: Ratio method Step 2: rate each case relative to the worst case Category (obs)RatioPointsUtility Neither(worst) 1 spp, < 5x2x 1 spp, > 5x2.5x Both spp, < 5x5x 1 spp 5x7x Both spp, > 5x8x

M ULTI -C RITERIA E VALUATION Federal Resource Management and Ecosystem Services Guidebook | nespguidebook.com Utility (2) Option B: Ratio method Step 3: multiply ratios by worst-case base score (10) Category (obs)RatioPointsUtility Neither(worst)10 1 spp, < 5x2x20 1 spp, > 5x2.5x25 Both spp, < 5x5x50 1 spp 5x7x70 Both spp, > 5x8x80

M ULTI -C RITERIA E VALUATION Federal Resource Management and Ecosystem Services Guidebook | nespguidebook.com Utility (2) Option B: Ratio method Step 4: divide through: (points-min)/(max-min) Category (obs)RatioPointsUtility Neither(worst)100.00 1 spp, < 5x2x200.14 1 spp, > 5x2.5x250.21 Both spp, < 5x5x500.57 1 spp 5x7x700.86 Both spp, > 5x8x801.00

M ULTI -C RITERIA E VALUATION Federal Resource Management and Ecosystem Services Guidebook | nespguidebook.com Utility (3) Flood risk reduction: How might different stakeholder groups value these options? Option:Status QuoDownstream DamUpstream Release Flood risk (avg)0.200.150.20

M ULTI -C RITERIA E VALUATION Federal Resource Management and Ecosystem Services Guidebook | nespguidebook.com Utility (3)

M ULTI -C RITERIA E VALUATION Federal Resource Management and Ecosystem Services Guidebook | nespguidebook.com Utility Utility estimates are dependent on: Range of options on the table Extremes of this range (worst, best cases) Which stakeholders are engaged Who (which groups/factions) Where (geographic location and extent) Timing of the ratings, including Immediate temporal context Planning horizon

M ULTI -C RITERIA E VALUATION Federal Resource Management and Ecosystem Services Guidebook | nespguidebook.com Preferences Across Services

M ULTI -C RITERIA E VALUATION Federal Resource Management and Ecosystem Services Guidebook | nespguidebook.com Preferences Across Services Eliciting weights for services Slider bar method: Forces the weights to add up properly to 1.0 Ratio method: Rank services from least to most preferred Assign ratios relative to least preferred Compute scores and relativize to sum to 1.0

M ULTI -C RITERIA E VALUATION Federal Resource Management and Ecosystem Services Guidebook | nespguidebook.com Preferences Across Services Ratio method across services:

M ULTI -C RITERIA E VALUATION Federal Resource Management and Ecosystem Services Guidebook | nespguidebook.com Alternatives Matrix Measures (Weights)Alternatives Status quoDownstream damUpstream release Numbers of bird 1 (breeding pairs on forest) (w = 0.11) 200 (0) 220 (1) 205 (0.25) Wildlife viewing at walkway site (qualitative scale) (w = 0.06) One iconic sp < 5 (0.14) One iconic sp 5 (0.86) Both >5 (1) Flood events (annual average) (w = 0.28) 0.2 (0) 0.15 (0.8) 0.2 (0) Cost ($MM NPV) (w = 0.55) 0.1 (1) 1.0 (0) 0.8 (0.6) Overall value0.560.390.42

M ULTI -C RITERIA E VALUATION Federal Resource Management and Ecosystem Services Guidebook | nespguidebook.com Extensions & Caveats Uncertainty: Set ranges of values to bound uncertainty Recompute alternatives matrix for range Does the favored outcome vary? All of this is localized to the decision context: Which services, range of values, stakeholders, location, timing None of this is likely to be very transferable Heterogeneity of stakeholders? Alternative alternatives matrices Use difference to frame further discussion

M ULTI -C RITERIA E VALUATION Federal Resource Management and Ecosystem Services Guidebook | nespguidebook.com Conclusions This approach can be applied in a wide variety of decision contexts, to a wide variety of services The results are context-dependent The mechanics are simple but not easy Get help! (Help is increasingly available)

nespguidebook.com For more information, contact Lydia Olander: [email protected] Federal Resource Management and Ecosystem Services Guidebook nespguidebook.com

Documents

Federal Resource Management and Ecosystem Services Guidebook nespguidebook.com The Federal Resource Management and Ecosystem Services Guidebook NON-MONETARY