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