AN ASSESSMENT OF THE VALUE OF PACIFIC COUNTY’S...

AN ASSESSMENT OF THE VALUE OF PACIFIC COUNTY’S NEARSHORE ECOSYSTEMSECONOMIC DATA FOR THE SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM PLANNING PROCESS

AN ASSESSMENT OF THE VALUE OF PACIFIC COUNTY’S NEARSHORE ECOSYSTEMS: ECONOMIC DATA FOR THE SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM PLANNING PROCESS

JULY 2014

AUTHORSLola Flores, David Batker

RECOMMENDED CITATIONFlores, L., Batker, D. 2014. An Assessment of the Value of Pacific County’s Nearshore Ecosystems: Economic data for the Shoreline Master Program planning process. Earth Economics, Tacoma, WA.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTSEarth Economics project team members for this study included: Josh Reyneveld and Zac Christin; and our wonderful intern Andrew Martin. Also we would like to thank Tracy Stanton for her guidance, input and hard work on all of our work along the Washington Coast.

We deeply appreciate those who helped review and edit this document, Casey Dennehy from Surfrider Foundation, Tim Trohimovich and Heather Trim from Futurewise, and Liz Banse from Resource Media. We would also like to thank Pacific County’s Department of Community Development for the valuable geographical information of the study area, as well as members from Pacific County’s Marine Resources Committee and members from the shellfish industry for their participation in meetings and provision of data.

We would like to thank our Board of Directors for their continued support of Earth Economics: David Cosman, Josh Farley and Ingrid Rasch.

This project has been funded wholly by the generosity of Northwest Fund for the Environment.

Layout by Angela Fletcher.

The authors are responsible for the content of this report.

PREPARED BY

107 N. Tacoma AveTacoma, WA [email protected]

©2014 by Earth Economics. Reproduction of this publication for educational or other non-commercial purposes is authorized without prior written permission from the copyright holder provided the source is fully acknowledged. Reproduction of this publication for resale or other commercial purposes is prohibited without prior written permission of the copyright holder.

EARTH ECONOMICS 1

ABSTRACTWith the Pacific County Shoreline Master Program update due within the next two years, there is a county-wide discussion about what aspects of the shoreline environment to protect and why. Earth Economics produced an economic analysis that estimates the value of the ecosystem services provided by natural assets in Pacific County’s nearshore environment. The value of Pacific County’s nearshore ecosystems is approximately $985 million to $4.4 billion dollars per year. We also developed recommendations for the preservation of ecosystems that contribute tangibly to the local economy. With this report, we seek to contribute information so that the public and county decision-makers can better understand the economic context of project planning, policy choices and other requirements, particular to shoreline ecosystems and critical areas throughout the county.


2

CONTENTSABSTRACT ....................................................................................................................................................... IPACIFIC COUNTY’S NATURAL CAPITAL ........................................................................................................ 3

Economic Development in Pacific County ............................................................................................... 3SHELLFISH INDUSTRY IN PACIFIC COUNTY: ECONOMIC IMPACTS ........................................................... 4

Threats to the Nearshore ........................................................................................................................ 5ECONOMIC VALUE OF PACIFIC COUNTY’S NEARSHORE ECOSYSTEMS .................................................... 6

Nearshore Valuation: Annual Flow of Ecosystem Service Values ............................................................. 7Stock or Asset Value ................................................................................................................................. 9

INFORMING DECISION-MAKING .............................................................................................................. 10RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................................................. 11REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................................ 12APPENDIX 1: IMPORTANT DEFINITIONS ................................................................................................... 14APPENDIX 2: TABLES OF ECOSYSTEM SERVICES PRODUCED IN EACH LAND COVER TYPE................... 15APPENDIX 3: ECOSYSTEM SERVICE VALUATION REFERENCE LIST .......................................................... 18APPENDIX 4: FULL ESV REFERENCES ......................................................................................................... 21

TABLES & FIGURESFigure 1. Land cover map of Pacific County (GIS) ........................................................................................... 3Table 1. Ecosystem Services Valued in Pacific County .................................................................................... 6Table 2. Valuation of Pacific County’s nearshore ecosystem services by land cover types ............................ 8Table 3. Ecosystem services produced by pastures in Pacific County ............................................................. 8Table 4. Ecosystem services produced by shellfish harvest areas in Pacific County ....................................... 8

EARTH ECONOMICS 3

PACIFIC COUNTY’S NATURAL CAPITAL

Pacific County is greatly defined by its marine boundary to the Pacific Ocean. The county has a bountiful shoreline that provides stunning scenery, economic prosperity and diverse ecosystems. Willapa Bay and the mouth of the Columbia River are truly unique ecosystems that influence the nearshore throughout the county and the region. Sand dunes in Pacific County are of incomparable beauty, as well as the miles of sandy beaches and copious tidal pools. There are about 25,000 acres of distinct nearshore ecosystems.1

Economic Development in Pacific County The population in Pacific County is about 20,500, with most concentrating in the four urban areas of Ilwaco, Long Beach, Raymond and South Bend.2 Major industries in the county are shellfish, logging, tourism and agriculture.3,4 South Bend is known as the Oyster Capital of the World. Raymond, Pacific County’s largest city, is known as the Gateway to the Willapa and is home to the Willapa Seaport Museum and a Public Market. These are popular attractions during the summer.5

Pacific County’s nearshore is a significant provider of benefits to people’s livelihoods and entertainment. Marine waters off the coast are abundant in fish and invertebrates that support commercial and recreational fishing industries. Great blue herons, brown pelicans, dunlins, and other species of waterfowl feed on the wetlands of Willapa Bay.6 The bay provides habitat to marine mammals and birds that, in turn, draw wildlife watching enthusiasts to the area. Boating, kayaking and canoeing are common activities in Tokeland Marina, Smith Creek, Willapa Landing and other rivers and creeks all which offer beautiful scenery, tranquility and a chance to interact with nature. The beaches in North Cove are famous for their razor clam beds. Recreational shellfishers in Washington State make 250,000 trips to the area and harvest between 2.5 and 3 million razor clams per year.7

FIGURE 1 LAND COVER MAP OF PACIFIC COUNTY (GIS)

KEY

Highways Major County Roads

County Roads/City Streets

Main Rivers/Streams

Township Line

Section Line

City Limits

Reservation

0 11,000 feet

SCALE 1:132,000


4

Willapa Bay is one of the nation’s largest commercial shellfish operations. Pacific County has over 17,000 acres of shellfish aquaculture beds, more than the rest of Washington State, Oregon, and California combined.8 As was reported in 2013, Willapa Bay produces 318 pounds of shellfish per acre per year (5.5 million9/ 17,000 acres). Oysters from Willapa Bay are sold fresh, smoked, or frozen to international and domestic seafood wholesalers, as well as to local restaurants. Pacific County has $90,416,800 in output from the shellfish industry. Labor income from the shellfish industry (subset of output) is $45,014,700. This means that there is an average of $5,230 in economic output per acre per year, and $2,604 in labor income per acre per year.

The shellfish industry is the backbone of Pacific County’s economy. In a population of around 20,500,10 as reported in 2013, the shellfish industry directly provides between 80011 and 1,500 jobs, and generates nearly $45 million in total annual income for Pacific County workers.12

Pacific County is also home to small businesses specializing in shellfish processing and shellfish equipment sales, and income from the shellfish industry is spent on other local goods and services throughout the county. When these “indirect” economic impacts are also considered, the shellfish industry is responsible for between 15% and 24% of the total labor-earned income for Pacific County.13

Further economic benefits of the shellfish industry can be measured in avoided costs of nitrogen removal. Shellfish naturally improve water quality by filtering sediment and removing nitrogen from water. Many cities and counties spend millions of dollars on adding extra nitrogen-removing technologies to wastewater treatment plants to avoid the environmentally-devastating effects of excessive nitrogen, including eutrophication and algae blooms.

Pacific County shellfish remove an estimated 55,000 lbs of nitrogen from Willapa Bay each year, saving the county over $1.7 million annual cost needed to remove the same amount of nitrogen through extra investments in wastewater treatment. Willapa Bay is currently at a healthy, low state of eutrophication.14 Pacific County avoids the massive public spending required in other parts of the country, such as the Chesapeake Bay region, to remove nitrogen and reverse harmful eutrophication of the water.

SHELLFISH INDUSTRY IN PACIFIC COUNTY: ECONOMIC IMPACTS

SHELLFISH HELP PACIFIC COUNTY AVOID MASSIVE PUBLIC SPENDING BY NATURALLY IMPROVING WATER QUALITY.

EARTH ECONOMICS 5

Threats to the Nearshore Coastline ecosystems are extremely vulnerable to the impacts of increasing levels of development. Climate change effects, such as sea level rise and ocean acidification, are also a problem in our shore and nearshore areas. Shoreline development has been known to accelerate erosion by the stripping of natural vegetation and with sea level rise these effects could be seen at a higher frequency.15 Ocean acidification is a climatic change that creates an increasingly hostile environment for the survival of marine organisms due to the decline of calcium carbonate saturation in the water.16

Pacific County is currently working to preserve their sand dunes, dune grass habitats and other nearshore ecosystems.17 As a part of the Washington Coast Restoration Initiative, Pacific County plans to implement habitat restoration projects at Ellsworth Creek and Rue Creek, benefitting local salmon populations.18

When ecosystem services are lost, communities pay. Losses of natural storm protection, shellfish productivity, surface water conveyance or drinking water services often require communities to compensate by building facilities aimed at

re-creating those lost services. Communities, directly or indirectly, fund storm water systems, levees, hatcheries and filtration plants that must be built. Real costs are incurred to replace services that were previously free and, unfortunately, these replacement services are often less efficient and robust than the natural services they replace.

In order to understand the real economic costs of damaged natural systems in decision and policy-making, it is increasingly common to consider ecosystems as economic assets. Although it is impossible to capture the full intrinsic value of ecosystems, the monetary values for the services provided by those ecosystems can, and are, increasingly being quantified. Ecosystem services values are highly informative to common decision-making and policy frameworks, such as Benefit-Cost Analysis and the Washington State Department of Ecology’s Shoreline Master Programs.

NEARSHORE ECOSYSTEMS PROVIDE ECONOMIC VALUE, BUT ARE VULNERABLE TO DEVELOPMENT.


6

ECONOMIC VALUE OF PACIFIC COUNTY’S NEARSHORE ECOSYSTEMS

The ecosystem services present in Pacific County include water regulation, water supply, air quality, aesthetic value, food, energy and raw materials, soil retention, soil formation, waste treatment, habitat and nursery, pollination, carbon sequestration and storage, moderation of extreme events and recreation and tourism.

CU

LTIV

AT

ED

C

RO

PS

ES

TU

AR

IES

FO

RE

ST

S

FR

ES

H W

AT

ER

GR

AS

SL

AN

DS

MA

RIN

E

PA

ST

UR

ES

SE

AG

RA

SS

/A

LG

AE

BE

DS

SH

EL

LF

ISH

H

AR

VE

ST

SH

OR

EL

INE

SH

RU

B

WE

TL

AN

DS

AESTHETIC INFORMATION X X X X X X X X X

AIR QUALITY X X X

ENERGY AND RAW MATERIALS X

FOOD X X X

HABITAT AND NURSERY X X X X X X

MODERATION OF EXTREME EVENTS X X X X X X

POLLINATION X X X X X

RECREATION AND TOURISM X X X X X X X X

SOIL FORMATION X X X X X X

SOIL RETENTION X X

WASTE TREATMENT X X X X X X

WATER REGULATION X

WATER SUPPLY X X X X X X

CARBON SEQUESTRATION X X

CARBON STORAGE X X X

KEY

X Ecosystem services present and valued in this study

Ecosystem services present but NOT valued in this study

Ecosystem services not produced by this land cover type

Earth Economics conducted a full natural capital valuation, ecosystem services present, of all nearshore ecosystem services found in Pacific County (Table 1). We chose to monetarily value the ecosystems present from the shoreline one-mile inland and one-mile out because this area would most accurately value the services produced by nearshore ecosystems and their zones of influence.

TABLE 1 ECOSYSTEM SERVICES VALUED IN PACIFIC COUNTY

EARTH ECONOMICS 7

A total of 15 ecosystem services over 12 land cover types were identified in Pacific County’s nearshore ecosystems. Table 1 not only demonstrates the services present through out the county but also helps us identify what areas are in most need of further research. With the information in Table 1, we can understand the value placed on these services and comprehend how they are derived and why some seem to be underestimates. Most of the values present are underestimates. Filling some or all of the gaps could increase the values significantly.

Nearshore Valuation: Annual Flow of Ecosystem Service ValuesThe economy of Pacific County cannot be understood without examining the contribution of natural capital and its associated flows of ecosystem services to the economy and well-being of people. Our economy and communities reside within the landscape as part of the environment. However, most decisions are made without considering the explicit contribution of functioning ecosystems to economic activity and output. To improve economic decision-making, interest in identifying, describing, and quantifying the value of ecosystem services has grown tremendously over the past 20 years.19,20,21

To estimate the value of ecosystem services produced in Pacific County, we first identified the ecosystem services present across the county using Geographic Information Systems (GIS) data provided by county staff. Existing peer-reviewed ecosystem service valuation studies were then selected from our database and applied to Pacific County Nearshore. Each land cover in the county was assigned a total high and low annual per-acre dollar value for its ecosystem services produced. Values were summed across all land covers, resulting in a total annual flow of value for Pacific County.

This study employed benefit transfer methodology to derive the dollar values for each ecosystem service across each land cover type. Benefit transfer is used when the cost of conducting original studies on every site for every vegetation type is cost prohibitive and involves obtaining an estimate for the value of ecosystem services through the analysis of a group of studies, which have been previously carried out to value similar goods or services in similar geographies and contexts. The transfer itself refers to the application of derived values and other information from the original study site to a new but sufficiently similar site, like a house or business “comp.”22,23 As the “bedrock of practical policy analysis”24 benefit transfer has gained popularity in the last several decades as decision-makers have sought timely and cost-effective ways to value ecosystem services and natural capital.25

The calculated values were compiled and summarized and are displayed in Table 2. We found that most conservative estimate of the flow of value to the local and regional economy from Pacific County’s combined nearshore ecosystem services is $985 million every year. When we assume ecosystems in Pacific County are in good functional health and will continue at current state, the flow of value from Pacific County’s ecosystems can be as much as $4.4 billion per year.

All transferred values were converted to 2013 dollars per acre per year, representing the annual flow of value generated by a single ecosystem service on a single land cover each year. Combining the available ecosystem service values (water regulation, habitat, recreation, etc.) for one land cover yields a total value for that land cover in dollars per acre per year.

For example, one peer-reviewed scientific paper used in this valuation found that pastures provide between $2.77 and $426.32 in pollination value per acre each year. This value was combined with other available ecosystem service values such as recreation and tourism, valued at $31.78 and soil formation worth $7.16, to give a total value for pastures of approximately $42 to $465 per acre per year, as seen in table 3.


8

NEARSHORE (1 MILE) ACRES $/LOW $/HIGH $ TOTAL LOW $ TOTAL HIGH

Cultivated Crops 1,139 $551 $4,385 $627,181 $4,994,667

Estuaries 16,344 $13,287 $35,669 $217,156,423 $582,980,087

Forests 60,610 $6,452 $31,674 $391,042,144 $1,919,781,093

Fresh Water 1,069 $1,667 $43,485 $1,783,323 $46,505,804

Grasslands 10,587 $7,750 $18,125 $82,053,580 $191,894,014

Marine 46,628 $838 $1,018 $39,053,140 $47,479,108

Pastures 3,565 $42 $465 $148,712 $1,658,664

Seagrass/Algae beds 3,374 $21,992 $50,144 $74,200,280 $169,184,560

Shellfish Harvest Area 25,000 $2,379 $19,383 $59,482,743 $484,583,308

Shoreline 3,616 $3,454 $52,877 $12,488,472 $191,204,405

Shrub 19,996 $602 $1,943 $12,037,412 $38,849,902

Wetlands 22,374 $4,253 $33,255 $95,161,954 $744,044,223

Total 214,302 $985,235,363 $4,423,159,837

PASTURES

ECOSYSTEM SERVICE MIN MAX

Aesthetic Information

Air Quality

Energy and Raw Materials

Food

Habitat and Nursery

Moderation of Extreme Events

Pollination $2.77 $426.32

Recreation and Tourism $31.78 $31.78

Soil Formation $7.16 $7.16

Soil Retention

Waste Treatment

Water Regulation

Water Supply

Carbon Sequestration

Carbon Storage

Total $41.71 $465.26

SHELLFISH HARVEST AREAS

ECOSYSTEM SERVICE MIN MAX

Aesthetic Information $268.62 $709.39

Air Quality


Food

Habitat and Nursery $11.59 $2,568.83

Moderation of Extreme Events $1,779.10 $1,779.10

Pollination

Recreation and Tourism $128.80 $425.95


Soil Retention

Waste Treatment $63.11 $13,197.06

Water Regulation

Water Supply $49.68 $624.60


Carbon Storage

Total $2,379.31 $19,383.33

TABLE 2 VALUATION OF PACIFIC COUNTY’S NEARSHORE ECOSYSTEM SERVICES BY LAND COVER TYPES

TABLE 3 ECOSYSTEM SERVICES PRODUCED BY PASTURES IN PACIFIC COUNTY

TABLE 4 ECOSYSTEM SERVICES PRODUCED BY SHELLFISH HARVEST AREAS IN PACIFIC COUNTY

EARTH ECONOMICS 9

Another example worth teasing out is shellfish harvest areas, table 4. We valued a total of eight ecosystem services for this land cover type. Aesthetic information was valued at $268.62 to $709.39 per acre per year; habitat and nursery valued $11.59 to $2,568.83 per acre per year; moderation of extreme events valued $1,779.10 per acre per year; recreation and tourism valued $128.80 to $425.95 per acre per year; soil formation $78.41 per acre per year; waste treatment valued $63.11 to $13,197.06 per acre per year and finally water supply was valued at $49.68 to $624.60 per acre per year. If we add the low and high values per acre for each of these services we get the total shellfish harvest area valued at $2,379 to $19,383 per acre per year.

The breakdown tables for all ecosystem services valued in each land cover type in Pacific County can be found in Appendix 2.

Stock or Asset ValueWhen a business enterprise provides a reliable flow of income from its operations, a capital value for that business can be determined based upon that income stream. So too, a natural capital value can be determined for a naturally functioning ecosystem which provides annual income stream of services. The natural capital value for Pacific County’s nearshore has been calculated based on the annual flow of values identified in Table 2. Applying a 4% discount rate to the annual value of $985 million to $4.4 billion over 100 years, the asset value of Pacific County’s natural capital is calculated to total between $24 billion to $108 billion dollars, depending on the health of the ecosystem. When we apply a 0% discount rate, assuming natural capital will not depreciate over time, the value is approximately $98 billion to $442 billion.


10

INFORMING DECISION-MAKING

As with any valuable asset, it is prudent to take steps to invest as necessary to maintain and enhance the value of the asset over time. Active investment in Pacific County’s natural assets is advised, as the ‘ounce of prevention’ necessary to protect that value against challenges/risks posed by potential shoreline erosion and climate instability, and to avoid expensive mitigation expenses that could burden local agencies and ultimately taxpayers. The ecosystem service values provided in this study are defensible and applicable to decision-making at every jurisdictional level. This economic valuation can inform policy development and implementation, such as the county’s Shoreline Master Program.

With the Shoreline Master Program (SMP) update due within two years, private property landowners, local governments, non-profit organizations and community members have actively engaged in discussions about the merits and means of protecting the nearshore environment as an investment in the security of the local economy.

This economic analysis contributes vital information to better understand the economic context of project planning, decision-making and other requirements, particular to shoreline ecosystems and critical areas throughout the county. Pacific County has the opportunity while the SMP update process unfolds to work with landowners and community members to increase protection of crucial nearshore areas that protect property and contribute tangibly to the local economy.

The SMP update also requires counties to identify a no net loss measure of ecological functions currently present. Often times in order to quantify ecological functions along the coast; the shoreline is divided into designated segments referred to as reaches.26 The dollar values presented in table 2 can also help value ecosystem services present by reach, thus monitoring no net loss, or as we like to refer to it, net gain. With updated and informed shoreline regulation in place, the ecological functions of shorelines would tend to increase and so would the services produced by these healthy ecosystems therefore achieving net gain.

EARTH ECONOMICS 11

RECOMMENDATIONS

Natural assets are not indestructible and they are under pressure in Pacific County. The following recommendations are provided to outline steps to be taken to protect and invest in Pacific County’s natural capital to ensure its enhanced contribution to the economy into the future. We recommend that:

● State and local agencies incorporate the values for the nearshore ecosystem services provided here, in the development of shoreline protective regulations.

● Pacific County uses per acre ecosystem service values (table 2) to measure and track no net loss in designated segments of the shoreline (reaches).

● Pacific County includes the economic benefits of the shellfish industry not only from shellfish revenue but also the ecosystems services provided by these ecosystems (table 4) such as water supply, waste treatment, habitat and nursery and more.

● Pacific County, Washington State and federal agencies consider the value of sea grasses in the development of local regulatory policies, environmental impact assessment, and best land management practices.

● Communities invest in identifying critical funding needs and developing new finance mechanisms for nearshore conservation.

Identifying and measuring the value of natural capital in Pacific County is essential to enhancing effective and efficient natural resource management. Valuation of natural benefits leads to their protection and provides measures to influence policy development and decision-making. However, valuation is only a first step in the process of developing policies, measures and indicators that support discussions about the tradeoffs in investments of public and private money that ultimately shape the regional economy for generations to come.


12

REFERENCES

1 US Department of Commerce. 2014. United States Census Bureau. Available at: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/53/53049.html (retrieved Feb, 2014).

2 North Pacific County. 2014. Long Beach Peninsula Visitors Bureau. Available at: http://funbeach.com/villages/north-pacific-county/ (retrieved Feb, 2014).

3 Washington State. Employment Security Department. https://fortress.wa.gov/esd/employmentdata/reports-publications/regional-reports/county-profiles/pacific-county-profile (retrieved May, 2014)

4 National Association of Counties. 2013. Available at: http://www.naco.org/Counties/Pages/FindACounty.aspx (retrieved Feb, 2014).

5 Idem6 US Fish and Wildlife Service. Available at: http://www.fws.gov/refuges/profiles/index.cfm?id=135527 Washington Dept. of Fish and Wildlife. 2014. Available at: http://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/shellfish/

razorclams/ (retrieved March, 2014)8 Northern Economics, Inc. The Economic Impact of Shellfish Aquaculture in Washington, Oregon

and California. Available at: http://www.pacshell.org/pdf/Economic_Impact_of_Shellfish_Aquaculture_2013.pdf (retrieved March, 2014)

9 Sanford, E. 2012. An Analysis of the Commercial Pacific Oyster (Crassostrea gigas) Industry in Willapa Bay, WA: Environmental History, Threatened Species, Pesticide Use, and Economics. Master of Environmental Studies Thesis, The Evergreen State College.

10 US Department of Commerce. 2014. United States Census Bureau. Available at: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/53/53049.html (retrieved March, 2014).

11 Economic Profile System-Human Dimensions Toolkit. 2014. A Profile of Socioeconomic Measures. Selected Geographies: Pacific County, WA.

12 Northern Economics, Inc. The Economic Impact of Shellfish Aquaculture in Washington, Oregon and California. Available at: http://www.pacshell.org/pdf/Economic_Impact_of_Shellfish_Aquaculture_2013.pdf (retrieved March, 2014)

13 Washington Dept. of Fish and Wildlife. 2014. Available at: http://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/shellfish/razorclams/ (retrieved March, 2014)

14 Pacific County Government. Willapa Bay. Eutrophication Cards. http://ccma.nos.noaa.gov/stressors/pollution/eutrophication/eutrocards/willapa.pdf (retrieved March, 2014)

15 Boruff, B.J., Emrich, C., Cutter, S.L. 2005. Erosion Hazard Vulnerability of US Coastal Counties. Journal of Coastal Research: Volume 21, Issue 5: pp. 932 – 942

16 Doney, S.C., Fabry, V.J., Feely, R.A., Kleypas, J.A. 2009. Ocean Acidification: The Other CO2 Problem. Marine Science. Vol. 1: 169-192 (Volume publication date January 2009)

17 Pacific County Department of Community Development (DCD). 2013. Dune Modifications. Available at: http://www.co.pacific.wa.us/dcd/images/Dune%20Brochure.pdf (retrieved Feb, 2014).

18 Washington Coast Sustainable Salmon Partnership. 2013. Available at: http://www.wcssp.org/Documents/WashingtonCoastRestorationInitiative_Package_Final_12_10_13_v21_000.pdf (retrieved May, 2014)

EARTH ECONOMICS 13

19 Daily, G.C., 1997. Nature's services : societal dependence on natural ecosystems. Island Press, Washington, DC

20 Costanza, R., d'Arge, R., Groot, R.d., Farber, S., Grasso, M., Hannon, B., Naeem, S., Limburg, K., Paruelo, J., O'Neill, R.V., Raskin, R., Sutton, P., Belt, M.v.d., 1997. The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387, 253-260.

21 Balmford, A., Bruner, A., Cooper, P., Costanza, R., Farber, S., Green, R.E., Jenkins, M., Jefferiss, P., Jessamy, V., Madden, J., Munro, K., Myers, N., Naeem, S., Paavola, J., Rayment, M., Rosendo, S., Roughgarden, J., Trumper, K., Turner, R.K., 2002. Ecology - Economic reasons for conserving wild nature. Science 297, 950-953.

22 Brookshire, D.S., Neill, H.R., 1992. Benefit Transfers: Conceptual and Empirical Issues. Water Resources Research 28, 651-655.

23 Desvousges, W.H., Naughton, M.C., Parsons, G.R., 1992. Benefit transfer: conceptual problems estimating water quality benefits using existing studies. Water Resources Research 28.

24 Desvousges, W.H., Johnson, F.R., Banzhaf, H.S., 1998. Environmental Policy Analysis with Limited Information: Principles and Applications of the Transfer Method. Edward Elgar, Northhampon, MA.

25 Wilson, M., Hoehn, J., 2006. Valuing environmental goods and services using benefit-transfer: state-of-the-art and science. Ecological Economics 60, 335-342.

26 SMP Handbook. Chapter 4 No Net Loss of ecological functions. Available at: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/shorelines/smp/handbook/Chapter4.pdf (retrieved May 2014)

Images used in this report are licensed under the Creative Commons License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/) and are publicly available.

PAGE CREDITCover Cape Disappointment Beaches CC BY Razvan Orendovici

1 Ilwaco, WA CC BY “by and by”

4 Willapa Bay, CC BY Bea Harrison, USFWS

5 Cape Disappointment, CC0 United States Coast Guard

9 Sandpiper Sunset, CC BY ND Mark Smith

10 Waikiki Beach, CC BY Abhinaba Basu

11 Wild Flower on the beach, CC BY SA “bring back words”

26 Northhead Lighthouse from Benson Beach, CC BY Abhinaba Basu


14

APPENDIX 1 IMPORTANT DEFINITIONS

NearshoreThe nearshore is defined as extending from the area of tidal influence in lower rivers and extending offshore to a depth of 30 m MLLW (Mean Lower Low Water). It includes the riparian zone. For this study we considered a mile inland from the shoreline as part of the nearshore, to better capture the ecosystem services produced in this transition area.

ShorelineShorelands or Shoreland Areas mean those lands extending landward for 200 feet in all directions as measured on a horizontal plane from the OHWM; floodways and contiguous floodplain areas landward 200 feet from such floodways; and all wetlands and river deltas associated with the streams, lakes and tidal waters which are subject to the provisions of Chapter 90.58 RCW.

Ordinary High Water MarkOrdinary High Water Mark or OHWM means that mark that will be found by examining the bed and banks of a lake or stream and ascertaining where the presence and action of waters are so common and usual, and so long continued in all ordinary years, as to mark upon the soil a character distinct from that of the abutting upland, in respect to vegetation as that condition exists on June 1, 1971, as it may naturally change thereafter, or as it may change thereafter in accordance with approved development. In any area where the OHWM cannot be found, the OHWM adjoining fresh water shall be the line of mean high water. For braided streams, the OHWM is found on the banks forming the outer limits of the depression within which the braiding occurs.

DuneBuild up of soil inland from the Ocean or Bay providing natural flood protection, wildlife habitat, and other ecological and public safety functions.

Mean Sea Level (MSL)Average height of the sea surface water level computed by averaging the levels of all tide stages over a 19-year period. MSL along the west side of the Long Beach Peninsula is measured at approximately 21 feet.

EARTH ECONOMICS 15

APPENDIX 2 TABLES OF ECOSYSTEM SERVICES PRODUCED IN EACH LAND COVER TYPE

CULTIVATED CROPS ESTUARIES FORESTS

ECOSYSTEM SERVICE MIN MAX MIN MAX MIN MAX

Aesthetic Information $34.88 $88.92 $379.64 $379.64 $4,368.85 $17,852.42

Air Quality $123.84 $123.84 $165.91 $165.91


Food $25.53 $198.28

Habitat and Nursery $201.15 $2,137.78 $575.78 $575.78

Moderation of Extreme Events $17.52 $17.52 $46.28 $680.71

Pollination $2.76 $1,955.63 $72.48 $426.32

Recreation and Tourism $10.53 $32.46 $27.37 $2,323.41

Soil Formation $2.58 $10.00 $12,431.28 $12,431.28

Soil Retention $2.38 $131.70

Waste Treatment $155.58 $20,342.78 $33.68 $287.43

Water Regulation

Water Supply $11.42 $46.32 $82.91 $147.15 $17.15 $1,891.10

Carbon Sequestration $11.71 $84.69 $11.37 $488.01

Carbon Storage $343.54 $1,926.46 $1,132.90 $6,983.23

Total $550.64 $4,385.09 $13,286.61 $35,669.36 $6,451.78 $31,674.33


16

FRESH WATER GRASSLANDS MARINE


Aesthetic Information $82.16 $82.16 $255.04 $1,249.32

Air Quality $23.01 $23.01


Food $750.14 $750.14

Habitat and Nursery $141.65 $3,081.33 $11.30 $20.00

Moderation of Extreme Events $24.65 $4,149.84


Recreation and Tourism $158.37 $22,673.76


Soil Retention $39.30 $3,392.18

Waste Treatment $6,757.59 $6,757.59

Water Regulation $690.71 $2,667.57

Water Supply $594.61 $14,980.50 $13.59 $114.41


Carbon Storage $247.51 $2,150.18

Total $1,667.50 $43,485.31 $7,750.41 $18,125.44 $837.55 $1,018.25

PASTURES SEAGRASS/ ALGAE BEDS SHELLFISH HARVEST


Aesthetic Information $268.62 $709.39

Air Quality

Energy and Raw Materials $1.27 $1.27

Food

Habitat and Nursery $11.59 $2,568.83

Moderation of Extreme Events $24.65 $314.38 $1,779.10 $1,779.10


Recreation and Tourism $31.78 $31.78 $128.80 $425.95

Soil Formation $7.16 $7.16 $39.30 $27,901.40 $78.41 $78.41

Soil Retention

Waste Treatment $21,926.57 $21,926.57 $63.11 $13,197.06

Water Regulation

Water Supply $49.68 $624.60


Carbon Storage

Total $41.71 $465.26 $21,991.78 $50,143.62 $2,379.31 $19,383.33

EARTH ECONOMICS 17

SHORELINE SHRUB WETLANDS


Aesthetic Information $481.82 $481.82 $13.56 $13.56 $1,440.36 $5,325.42

Air Quality


Food $354.77 $354.77

Habitat and Nursery $575.78 $575.78

Moderation of Extreme Events $1,722.87 $7,866.83


Recreation and Tourism $2,971.85 $52,395.50 $11.26 $1,346.55 $208.62 $10,834.69

Soil Formation

Soil Retention

Waste Treatment $324.56 $5,691.95

Water Regulation

Water Supply $202.06 $3,181.20


Carbon Storage

Total $3,453.67 $52,877.32 $601.99 $1,942.88 $4,253.24 $33,254.86


18

APPENDIX 3 ECOSYSTEM SERVICE VALUATION REFERENCE LIST

LAND COVER AUTHOR(S) (PRIMARY) YEAR LOW HIGH

GRASSLANDS

Qiu et al. 2006 $255.04 $1,249.32 Rein, F. A. 1999 $24.65 $4,149.84 Wilson, S. J. 2008 $426.32 $426.32 Zhongwei, L. 2006 $6,757.59 $6,757.59

MARINE

Costanza, R., et al. 1997 $23.01 $110.69 Hanley, N. et al. 2003 $13.59 $13.59 Kahn, J. R. & Buerger, R. B. 1994 $11.30 $750.14 Nunes, P. & Van den Bergh, J. 2004 $109.18 $109.18 Soderqvist, T.& Scharin, H. 2000 $68.82 $114.41SEAGRASS/ALGAE BEDS

Costanza, R., et al. 1997 $1.27 $17,811.65 Rein, F. A. 1999 $24.65 $27,901.40

WETLANDS

Allen, J. et al. 1992 $354.77 $354.77 Costanza, R., et al. 1997 $2,125.51 $2,843.44 Doss, C. R. & Taff, S. J. 1996 $4,400.30 $5,325.42 Hayes, K. M., et al. 1992 $1,395.99 $3,683.75 Jenkins, W.A. et al. 2010 $582.53 $582.53 Kreutzwiser, R. 1981 $208.62 $208.62 Lant, C. L. & Tobin, G. 1989 $202.06 $2,224.67 Leschine, T.M. et al. 1997 $1,722.87 $7,866.83 Mahan, B.L. 1997 $10,834.69 $10,834.69 Olewiler, N. 2004 $324.56 $911.93 Thibodeau, F.R. & Ostro, B.D. 1981 $5,691.95 $7,688.35 van Vuuren, W. & Roy, P. 1993 $1,440.36 $1,440.36 Whitehead, J.C. 1990 $1,097.65 $2,417.57 Whitehead, J.C. et al. 2009 $253.96 $253.96

SHORELINE

Bell, F.W. & Leeworthy, V.R. 1986 $2,971.85 $3,289.47 Kline, J. D. & Swallow, S. K. 1998 $40,600.17 $52,395.50 Taylor, L.O. & Smith, V.K. 2000 $481.82 $481.82

EARTH ECONOMICS 19

SHRUB

Bennett, R., et. al. 1995 $286.43 $286.43 Costanza, R., et al. 1997 $1.39 $1,346.55 Kenyon, W. & Nevin, C. 2001 $575.78 $575.78 Maxwell, S. 1994 $13.56 $13.56 Willis, K.G. 1991 $11.26 $219.45

FORESTS

Bennett, R., et. al. 1995 $286.43 $286.43 Bishop, K. 1992 $2,072.99 $2,323.41 Costanza, R., et al. 1997 $72.76 $326.81 Hougner, C. 2006 $72.48 $325.53 Kenyon, W. & Nevin, C. 2001 $575.78 $575.78 Lant, C. L. & Tobin, G. 1989 $358.85 $358.85 Nowak, D.J. et al. 2002 $4,368.85 $17,852.42 Olewiler, N. 2004 $33.68 $33.68 Ribaudo, M. & Epp, D.J. 1984 $1,491.37 $1,891.10 Shafer, E.L. et al. 1993 $102.61 $568.75 Willis, K.G. 1991 $27.37 $219.45 Wilson, S. J. 2008 $128.70 $680.71 Zavaleta, E. 2000 $17.15 $581.69 Zhongwei, L. 2006 $286.24 $287.43

CULTIVATED CROPS

Bergstrom et al. 1985 $34.88 $88.92 Canadian Urban Institute. 2006 $6.32 $123.84 Hauser, A & van Kooten, C. 1993 $11.42 $46.32 Pimentel, D. et al. 1995 $131.70 $131.70 Robinson, W.S. et al. 1989 $13.93 $13.93 Southwick, E. E. & Southwick, L. 1992 $2.76 $2.76 Wilson, S. J. 2008 $2.38 $426.32 Winfree, R. et al. 2011 $47.13 $1,955.63

FRESH WATER

Gramlich, F. W. $1,159.59 $1,159.59 Berrens, R. P., et al. 1996 $2,423.00 $2,423.00 Bouwes, N. W. & Scheider, R. 1979 $648.78 $719.79 Bowker, J. M., et al. 1996 $5,088.09 $12,228.50 Burt, O. R. & Brewer, D. 1971 $597.45 $654.49 Cordell, H. K. & Bergstrom, J. C. 1993 $158.37 $2,915.79 Croke, K., et al. 1986 $594.61 $651.37 Gibbons, D.C. 1986 $690.71 $2,667.57 Kreutzwiser, R. 1981 $190.45 $190.45 Kulshreshtha, S. N. & Gillies, J. A. 1993 $82.16 $82.16 Loomis, J.B. 2002 $12,811.90 $22,673.76 Mathews, L.G. et al. 2002 $14,980.50 $14,980.50 Mullen, J.K. & Menz, F.C. 1985 $306.45 $439.14



20

Piper, S. 1997 $252.38 $276.47 Ribaudo, M. & Epp, D.J. 1984 $970.81 $970.81 Sanders, L.D. et al. 1990 $2,644.32 $2,644.32 Shafer, E.L. et al. 1993 $4,687.46 $17,903.42 Ward, F.A. et al. 1993 $4,752.67 $4,752.67 Wu, J. & Skelton-Groth, K. 2002 $141.65 $3,081.33

PASTURES

Costanza, R., et al. 1997 $2.77 $31.78 Pimentel, D. 1998 $7.16 $7.16 Wilson, S. J. 2008 $426.32 $426.32

SHELLFISH HARVEST

Anderson, G. D. & Edwards, S. F. 1986 $425.95 $425.95 Batie, S. S. & Wilson, J. R. 1978 $11.59 $1,450.67 Creel, M. & Loomis, J. 1992 $570.17 $624.60 Hicks, R. et al. 2002 $148.34 $148.34 Leggett, C. G. & Bockstael, N. E. 2000 $49.68 $49.68 Newell, R.I. et al. 2005 $78.41 $78.41 Opaluch, J. et al. 1999 $92.97 $92.97 Pompe, J.J. & Rinehart, J.R. 1995 $268.62 $709.39 Wilson, S. J. 2008 $128.80 $2,568.83

ESTUARIES

Armstrong, D.A. et al. 2003 $25.53 $142.96 Bauer D.M., et al. 2004 $379.64 $379.64 Bockstael, N. E., et al. 1989 $82.91 $147.15 Breaux, A., et al. 1995 $155.58 $20,342.78 Costanza, R., et al. 1997 $198.28 $12,431.28 Farber, S. 1987 $10.53 $32.46 Farber, S. & Costanza, R. 1987 $201.15 $2,137.78


FRESH WATER

EARTH ECONOMICS 21

APPENDIX 4 FULL ESV REFERENCES

Allen, J., Cunningham, M., Greenwood, A., Rosenthal, L. 1992. The value of California wetlands: an analysis of their economic benefits. Campaign to Save California Wetlands, Oakland, California.

Anderson, G. D., Edwards, S.F. 1986. Protecting Rhode Island coastal salt ponds - an economic-assessment of downzoning. Coastal Zone Management Journal 14, 67-91.

Armstrong, D.A., Rooper, C., Gunderson, D. 2003. Estuarine Production of juvenile Dungeness Crab and Contribution to the Oregon-Washington Coastal Fishery

Batie, S.S., Wilson, J.R. 1978. Economic values attributable to Virginia’s coastal wetlands as inputs in oyster production. Southern Journal of Agricultural Economics July 111-118.

Bauer, D. M., Cyr N.E., Swallow, S.K. 2004. Public Preferences for Compensatory Mitigation of Salt Marsh Losses: a Contingent Choice of Alternatives. Department of Environmental and Natural Resource Economics, University of Rhode Island, Conservation Biology 18, 401–411.

Bell, F.W., Leeworthy, V.R. 1986. An Economic Analysis of the Importance of Saltwater Beaches in Florida, Sea Grant Report SGR-82.

Bennett, R., Tranter, R., Beard, N., Jones, P. 1995. The value of footpath provision in the countryside: a case-study of public access to urban fringe woodland. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 38, 409-417.

Bergstrom, J. C., Dillman, B.L., Stoll, J.R. 1985. Public environmental amenity benefits of private land: the case of prime agricultural land. Southern Journal of Agricultural Economics 7 139-149.

Berrens, R. P., Ganderton, P., Silva, C.L. 1996. Valuing the protection of minimum in stream flows in New Mexico. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 21 294-308.

Bishop, K. 1992. Assessing the benefits of community forests: An evaluation of the recreational use benefits of two urban fringe woodlands. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 35, 63-76.

Bockstael, N.E., McConnell, K.E., Strand, I.E. 1989. Measuring the benefits of improvements in water quality: the Chesapeake Bay. Marine Resource Economics 6 1-18.

Bouwes, N. W., Scheider, R. 1979. Procedures in estimating benefits of water quality change. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 61, 635-639.

Bowker, J.M., English, D.B., Donovan, J.A. 1996. Toward a value for guided rafting on southern rivers. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 28, 423-432.

Breaux, A., Farber, S., Day, J. 1995. Using natural coastal wetlands systems for waste-water treatment - an economic benefit analysis. Journal of Environmental Management 44 285-291.

Burt, O.R., Brewer. D. 1971. Estimation of net social benefits from outdoor recreation. Econometrica 39, 813-827.


22

Canadian Urban Institute. 2006. Nature Counts: Valuing Southern Ontario’s Natural Heritage. Toronto, Canada. http://www.canurb.com/media/pdf/Nature_Counts_rschpaper_FINAL.

Cordell, H. K., Bergstrom, J.C. 1993. Comparison of recreation use values among alternative reservoir water level management scenarios. Water Resources Research 29 247-258.

Costanza, R, d’Arge, R., deGroot, R., Farber, S., Grasso, M., Hannon, B., Limburg, K., Naeem, S., O’Neill, RV., Paruelo, J., Raskin, RG., Sutton, P., van den Belt, M. 1997. The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387: 253-260.

Creel, M., Loomis, J. 1992. Recreation value of water to wetlands in the San-Joaquin Valley - linked multinomial log it and count data trip frequency models. Water Resources Research 28 2597-2606.

Croke, K., Fabian, R., Brenniman, G. 1986. Estimating the value of improved water-quality in an urban river system. Journal of Environmental Systems 16 13-24.

Doss, C. R., Taff, S.J. 1996. The Influence of Wetland Type and Wetland Proximity on Residential Property Values. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 21 120-129.

Farber, S. 1987. The value of coastal wetlands for protection of property against hurricane wind damage. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 14 143-151.

Farber, S., Costanza, R. 1987. The economic value of wetlands systems. Journal of Environmental Management 24: 41-51.

Gibbons, D. C. 1986. The economic value of water. Resources for the Future, Washington D.C.

Gramlich, F.W. 1977. The Demand for Clean Water: The Case of the Charles river. National tax Journal

Hanley, N., Bell, D., Alvarez-Farizo, B. 2003. Valuing the benefits of coastal water quality improvements using contingent and real behavior. Environmental and Resource Economics 24 273-285.

Hauser, A., Cornelis van Kooten, G. 1993. Benefits of Improving Water Quality in the Abbotsford aquifer: An application of contingent valuation methods.

Hayes, K.M., Tyrrell, T.J., Anderson, G. 1992. Estimating the benefits of water quality improvements in the Upper Narragansett Bay. Marine Resource Economics 7, 75-85.

Hicks, R., Haab, T., Lipton, D. 2002. Estimating the Economic Benefits of Oyster Reef Restoration and Marine Preserve Establishment in the Lower Chesapeake Bay 1-19.

Hougner, C. 2006. Economic valuation of a seed dispersal service in the Stockholm National Urban Park, Sweden. Ecological Economics 59, 364-374.

Jenkins, W. A., Murray, B. C., Kramer, R. A., and Faulkner, S. P. 2010. Valuing ecosystem services from wetlands restoration in the Mississippi Alluvial Valley. Ecological Economics, 695 1051-1061.

Kahn, J. R., Buerger, R.B. 1994. Valuation and the consequences of multiple sources of environmental deterioration - the case of the New-York Striped Bass fishery. Journal of Environmental Management 40 257-273.

Kenyon, W., Nevin, C. 2001. The use of economic and participatory approaches to assess forest development: a case study in the Ettrick Valley. Forest Policy and Economics 3, 69-80.

EARTH ECONOMICS 23

Kline, J. D., Swallow, S.K. 1998. The demand for local access to coastal recreation in southern New England. Coastal Management 26 177-190.

Kreutzwiser, R. 1981. The economic significance of the long point marsh, Lake Erie, as a recreational resource. Journal of Great Lakes Resources 7 105-110.

Kulshreshtha, S. N., Gillies, J.A. 1993. Economic-evaluation of aesthetic amenities - a case-study of river view. Water Resources Bulletin 29 257-266.

Lant, C. L., Tobin, G. 1989. The economic value of riparian corridors in corn belt floodplains: a research framework. Professional Geographer 41, 337-349.

Leggett, C. G., Bockstael, N.E. 2000. Evidence of the effects of water quality on residential land prices. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 39 121-144.

Leschine, T. M., Wellman, K.F., Green, T.H. 1997. Wetlands’ Role in Flood Protection. October 1997. Report prepared for: Washington State Department of Ecology Publication No. 97-100. http://www.ecy.wa.gov/pubs/97100.pdf

Loomis, J.B. 2002. Quantifying Recreation Use Values from Removing Dams and Restoring Free-Flowing Rivers: A Contingent Behavior Travel Cost Demand Model for the Lower Snake River. Water Resources Research 38.

Mahan, B. L. 1997. Valuing urban wetlands: a property pricing approach. Portland, Oregon: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Institute for Water Resources.

Mathews, L. G., Homans, F.R., Easter, K.W. 2002. Estimating the benefits of phosphorus pollution reductions: an application in the Minnesota River. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 38 1217-1223.

Maxwell, S. 1994. Valuation of rural environmental improvements using contingent valuation methodology: a case study of the Martson Vale Community Forest Project. Journal of Environmental Management 41, 385-399.

Mullen, J. K., Menz, F.C. 1985. The effect of acidification damages on the economic value of the Adirondack Fishery to New-York anglers. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 67 112-119.

Newell, R. I. E., Fisher, T. R., Holyoke, R. R., Cornwell, J. C. 2005. Influence of eastern oysters on nitrogen and phosphorus regeneration in Chesapeake Bay, USA. The comparative roles of suspension-feeders in ecosystems, 93–120.

Nowak, D.J., Crane, D.E., Dwyer, J.F. 2002. Compensatory Value of Urban Trees in the United States. Journal of Arboriculture. 28(4). 194-199.

Nunes, P.A., Van den Bergh, J.C. 2004. Can people value protection against invasive marine species? Evidence from a joint TC-CV survey in the Netherlands. Environmental and Resource Economics 28, 517-532.

Olewiler, N. 2004. The value of natural capital in settled areas of Canada. Ducks Unlimited Canada and the Nature Conservancy of Canada. http://www.ducks.ca/aboutduc/news/archives/pdf/ncapital.pdf.

Opaluch, J, Grigalunas, T, Mazzotta, M, Johnston, R, Diamantedes, J. 1999. Recreational and Resource Economic Values for the Peconic Estuary prepared for the Peconic Estuary Program. Peace Dale, RI: Economic Analysis Inc.


24

Pimentel, D. 1998. Benefits of biological diversity in the state of Maryland. Cornell University, College of Agricultural and Life Sciences. Ithaca, New York.

Pimentel, D., Harvey, C., Resosudarmo, P., Sinclair, K., Kurz, D., McNair, M., Crist, S., Sphpritz, P., Fitton, L., Saffouri, R., Blair, R. 1995. Environmental and economic costs of soil erosion and conservation benefits. Science 267:1117-1123.

Piper, S. 1997. Regional impacts and benefits of water-based activities: an application in the Black Hills region of South Dakota and Wyoming. Impact Assessment 15, 335-359.

Pompe, J., Rinehart, J.R. 1995. Beach quality and the enhancement of recreational property-values. Journal of Leisure Research 27 143-154.

Qiu, Z., Prato, T., Boehm, G. 2006. Economic Valuation of Riparian Buffer and Open Space in a Suburban Watershed. Journal of the American Resources Association. 42. 6. 1583–1596.

Rein, F. A. 1999. An economic analysis of vegetative buffer strip implementation - Case study: Elkhorn Slough, Monterey Bay, California. Coastal Management 27, 377-390.

Ribaudo, M., Epp, D.J. 1984. The importance of sample discrimination in using the travel cost method to estimate the benefits of improved water quality. Land Economics 60, 397-403.

Robinson, W.S, Nowogrodzki, R., Morse, R.A. 1989. The value of honey bees as pollinators of US crops. American Bee Journal 129, 477-487.

Sanders, L.D., Walsh, R.G., Loomis, J.B. 1990. Toward empirical estimation of the total value of protecting rivers. Water Resources Research 26 1345-1357.

Shafer, E. L., Carline, R., Guldin, R.W., Cordell, H.K. 1993. Economic amenity values of wildlife - 6 case-studies in Pennsylvania. Environmental Management 17, 669-682.

Soderqvist, T., Scharin, H. 2000. The regional willingness to pay for a reduced eutrophication in the Stockholm archipelago. In: Beijer Discussion paper No. 128. Stockholm, Sweden.

Southwick, E.E., Southwick, L. 1992. Estimating the economic value of honey-bees (hymenoptera, Apidae) as agricultural pollinators in the United States. Journal of Economic Entomology 85, 621-633.

Taylor, L. O., Smith, V.K. 2000. Environmental amenities as a source of market power. Land Economics 76, 550-568.

Thibodeau, F. R., Ostro, B.D. 1981. An economic analysis of wetland protection. J. Envtl. Mgmt. 19 : 72-79

Van Vuuren, W., Roy, P. 1993. Private and social returns from wetland preservation versus those from wetland conversion to agriculture. Ecological Economics, 8 3; 289-305.

Ward, F.A., Roach, B.A., Henderson, J.E. 1996. The economic value of water in recreation: Evidence from the California drought. Water Resources Research 32 1075-1081.

Whitehead, J. C. 1990. Measuring willingness-to-pay for wetlands preservation with the contingent valuation method. Wetlands 10 187-201.

Whitehead, J. C., Groothuis, P. A., Southwick, R., Foster-Turley, P. 2009. Measuring the economic benefits of Saginaw Bay coastal marsh with revealed and stated preference methods. Journal of Great Lakes Research, 35 3; 430–437.

EARTH ECONOMICS 25

Willis, K.G. 1991. The recreational value of the forestry commission estate in Great Britain - a Clawson-Knetsch travel cost analysis. Scottish Journal of Political Economy 38, 58-75.

Wilson, S.J. 2008. Ontario’s wealth, Canada’s future: Appreciating the value of the Greenbelt’s eco-services. David Suzuki Foundation, Vancouver, Canada. Http://www.davidsuzuki.org/Publications/Ontarios_Wealth_Canadas_Future.asp.

Winfree, R., Gross, B., Kremen, C. 2011. Valuing pollination services to agriculture. Ecological Economics 71, 80-88.

Wu, J., Skelton-Groth, K. 2002. Targeting conservation efforts in the presence of threshold effects and ecosystem linkages. Ecological Economics. 42(2). 313-331.

Zavaleta, E. 2000. The Economic Value of Controlling an Invasive Shrub. A Journal of the Human Environment. 29(8). 462-467. http://www.bioone.org/doi/full/10.1579/0044-7447-29.8.462

Zhongwei, L. 2006. Water Quality Simulation and Economic Valuation of Riparian Land-Use Changes. University of Cincinnati

Date post:	26-Aug-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times