Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
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