Download Insert Title of Presentation Here Presenters Name No 1 Presenters

C
Expert Elicitation
and the Value of
Natural Systems
in Florida
Barbara Wyse, Cardno ENTRIX
Ecosystem Service Valuation Workshop, July 2013
Project Scope: Valuing Ecosystem Services on Lands
of the Southwest Florida Water Management District

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
Natural Systems Core Mission
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.
Challenges In Valuing Natural Systems
> Deciding whose values to use
> Estimating values independent of other Core Mission Benefits
> Defining natural systems and the units of measurement
Challenges In Using Benefits Transfer
> 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
Expert Elicitation Approach
> 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
Survey
Natural System Metrics
> Groundwater supply
> Potential Habitat Richness
> Natural Community Type
> FL Ecological Greenways
Network Score
Lesson Learned: Clear definitions of known, independent metrics.
How The Metrics Were Chosen
> 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
Lesson Learned: Actual and perceived independence of metrics are
both important.
Tradeoff Analysis - Example
AttributesGroundwater Supply
(MGD)
Property A
Property B
0.15
0.42
Potential Habitat Richness
2 – 4 focal species
4 – 6 focal species
Natural Community Level
Ecological Greenways
Network
Insufficiently protected Unaltered native cover
9
3
Which Property Will Best Meet the District's Core Missions?
A is Much
Better than B
A is Better
than B
Neither
B is Better
than A
B is Much
Better than A
○
●
○
○
○
Parameter Estimates: Per Unit Importance
Habitat Richness
Greenway
Natural Community Level
Groundwater Supply
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
Lesson Learned: District’s perceived and actual preferences differed.
2.5
3
3.5
Capitalized Value per Unit-Acre (30 Years at 4%)
$7.00
$6.00
$5.00
$4.00
$3.00
$2.00
$1.00
$0.00
Natural Community Level
Greenway
Lesson Learned: Natural systems appear to be primarily valued for
water-related services.
Habitat Richness
Why Are The Values Much Lower Than Other CV
Studies?
> 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)
Next Steps
> Sensitivity analysis
– Do natural system values affect rankings?
– Only differences matter
> Debrief with participants about how they answered questions
> Test with alternate metrics