1 “science, decision support models and ecosystem attribute valuation: an application to the san...
TRANSCRIPT
1
“Science, Decision Support Models and Ecosystem Attribute Valuation: An Application to the San Pedro
River, Arizona and Rio Grande, New Mexico”
David Brookshire (UNM)David Goodrich (USDA-ARS)
Julie Stromberg (ASU) Jennifer Thacher (UNM)Arriana Brand (USGS) Craig Broadbent (IWU)
Mark Dixon (USD) Karl Benedict (UNM)
Kevin Lansey (UA)
Molly McIntosh (MMC-LLC) Steve Stewart (SAHRA)
• Prepared for: “Challenges in Integrating (Hydrologic) Science into Urban+ Decision Making” (April 29 – May 1, 2013, Tucson, AZ).
Includes Economists, Biologist, Ecologist, Ornithologist, Hydrologist, Facilitator, Geospatial Engineer
Funded by U.S. EPA Environmental Protection Agency (Star grant program), in part by SAHRA (Sustainability of semi-Arid Hydrology and Riparian Area), and USGS through SILPE (Science Impact Laboratory for Policy and Economics—UNM)
EPA
San Pedro Riparian National Conservation Area (SPRNCA) - One of the Last Great Places On Earth
(The Nature Conservancy)• SPRNCA formed Nov 18th 1988
• Cattle removal began in 1988
• High degree of connectivity of surface and groundwater systems
• Flows north from Cananea, Mexico to the Gila River in Arizona– ~40 miles in length– ~56,000 Acres
• A semi-arid flyway – 412 Bird species, with 200+,
migrants– One of the most ecologically
diverse areas in the world
• Riparian vegetation consists of – Cottonwood, Salt Cedar– Mesquite, River Grasses 3
4
Restoration: Effects of Cattle Removal in the SPRNCA
1984
1998
View from Hereford Bridge
• Following cattle removal from SPRNCA in 1988…• Expansion of
herbaceous riparian vegetation
• Channel narrowing & stabilization
• Restoration occurred
Photos courtesy of BLM-Files
But No Status Quo: Beyond Restoration To Preservation, the Need for a Decision Support
System for Adaptive Management
Change in aquifer storage– Anthropogenic
5
-18000
-16000
-14000
-12000
-10000
-8000
-6000
-4000
-2000
0
2000
2003 2017 2030 2044Year
Acre-feet/Yr
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000
2003 2017 2030 2044Year
Acre-feet/Yr
Change in Consumptive Use– Anthropogenic
6
Water Polices are Available for the San Pedro to bring in
Additional Water?• INFRASTRUCTURE CHANGES
• location of subdivisions and groundwater wells• recharge basins
• WATER AUGMENTATION• increase the amount of water in the basin by piping it in from
other regions
• WATER CONSERVATION/PRICING• decrease the consumption of water in the region
• What are the benefits and costs of these programs?• Calculating the costs is relatively straightforward• But what about the benefits of ecosystem services?
7
Interested in a Tool for Finding the Balance: Beyond Restoration
1. How to go about an integrated science, and economics framework to find the balance?
Meeting HumanNeeds
MeetingEcosystem
Needs
San Pedro SubdivisionsSan Pedro Riparian Area
Purpose of San Pedro DSS:
to evaluate the benefits and costs of conservation, augmentation, and recharge alternatives (including non-market riparian values)
Incorporates multiple factors:USGS groundwater model Surface water supplyGroundwater storageResidential/commercial water uses
(infrastructure, well location)Simulations up to 50 years
Can vary (e.g.): populationslocation of recharge basinlocation of future wells
Generates alternative futures:BUT-Does not provide or
incorporate benefits of ecosystem attributes
THUS-tradeoffs identified are incomplete
DSS ToolDSS
Develop ScenariosAnthropogenic
Climatic
ChangesHydrology
Component
ChangesRiparian
Component
ChangesAvian
Component
Survey(Education)
Ecosystem ServicesDemandCurves
DSS(current
conditions)
EcosystemValuation
Component(Attributes)
1. Surface Water2. Birds3. Vegetation4. Cost
Characterization of an Ecosystem
1. Components2. Processes3. Outputs
Linking Science and Economics: A Foundation for Ecosystem Services
Valuation
IntegrateValues
Into DSS
Physical
SciencePlant
ScienceAvian
Science
Modeling
Science
Scenario &
Social Science
Abiotic, Biotic,
Geography & Remote
Sensing Science
Science Based Definitions and Ecosystem Attributes
Valuation studies are typically not anchored in an integrated science models:
• What is needed:– Walk through the forest - what do you know about it?
• The forest is pretty etc, but doubtful one knows the mix of vegetation, birds, groundwater levels etc
• Without this information cannot decide what you prefer from one area to another
– What is needed is science driven ecosystem attribute endpoint “bundles” describing ecosystem services
• With the drivers of change clearly defined,• Thus defining change in the system (marginal change of attributes)
10
Characterization of an Ecosystem
1. Components2. Processes3. Outputs
What Does Economics Require for Valuing Ecosystem Services ?
(3 Elements)
1. Ecosystem components of a “Place”2. Ecosystem process and functions
• Biological, chemical, and physical interactions between ecosystem components of a “place”:
3. Ecological endpoints of a “place” – changes in these are necessary descriptors of the Ecosystem Attribute “bundles” as attributes for Valuation–
• These are directly related to human welfare measure• Water flows, vegetation mix and abundance, bird
population, abundance and density• There are things your neighbor would understand!11
12
Ground Water Futures (GWF)• GWF1: 0.5 m uniform decline in ground water table• GWF2: 1 m uniform decline in ground water table• GWF3: 0.5 m uniform increase in ground water table
• GWF4: Continued and increased agricultural pumping near Palominas; new developments in unincorporated areas of Palominas and Hereford near SPRNCA
• GWF5: Increasing cone of depression in Sierra Vista, Ft. Huachuca, and Huachuca City with impacts toward the lower Babocomari and northern SPRNCA
• GWF6: Large increases in ground water levels due to recharge and conservation efforts in Sierra Vista and Bisbee
• GWF7: Combined from scenarios 4 & 5, representing effects of both agricultural pumping in the south and increasing cone of depression
• GWF8: Low extreme-river essentially dries up• GWF9: High extreme-river essentially has surface flows throughout
SPRNCA
SCENARIOS
Alternative Groundwater Scenarios
S8 S9
8
5
2
3
7
9
1
4
6
12
13
14
1011
Current
8
5
2
3
7
9
1
4
6
12
13
14
1011
S1
8
5
2
3
7
9
1
4
6
12
13
14
1011
S2
8
5
2
3
7
9
1
4
6
12
13
14
1011
S3
8
5
2
3
7
9
1
4
6
12
13
14
1011
S4
8
5
2
3
7
9
1
4
6
12
13
14
1011
S5
8
5
2
3
7
9
1
4
6
12
13
14
1011
S6
8
5
2
3
7
9
1
4
6
12
13
14
1011
S7
Reach boundary.shpClass 1 - DryClass 2 - IntermediateClass 3 - Wet
8
5
2
3
7
9
1
4
6
12
13
14
1011
8
5
2
3
7
9
1
4
6
12
13
14
1011
S8 S9
8
5
2
3
7
9
1
4
6
12
13
14
1011
Current
8
5
2
3
7
9
1
4
6
12
13
14
1011
S1
8
5
2
3
7
9
1
4
6
12
13
14
1011
S2
8
5
2
3
7
9
1
4
6
12
13
14
1011
S3
8
5
2
3
7
9
1
4
6
12
13
14
1011
S4
8
5
2
3
7
9
1
4
6
12
13
14
1011
S5
8
5
2
3
7
9
1
4
6
12
13
14
1011
S6
8
5
2
3
7
9
1
4
6
12
13
14
1011
S7
Reach boundary.shpClass 1 - DryClass 2 - IntermediateClass 3 - Wet
8
5
2
3
7
9
1
4
6
12
13
14
1011
8
5
2
3
7
9
1
4
6
12
13
14
1011
8
5
2
3
7
9
1
4
6
12
13
14
1011
Current
8
5
2
3
7
9
1
4
6
12
13
14
1011
S1
8
5
2
3
7
9
1
4
6
12
13
14
1011
S2
8
5
2
3
7
9
1
4
6
12
13
14
1011
S3
8
5
2
3
7
9
1
4
6
12
13
14
1011
S4
8
5
2
3
7
9
1
4
6
12
13
14
1011
S5
8
5
2
3
7
9
1
4
6
12
13
14
1011
S6
8
5
2
3
7
9
1
4
6
12
13
14
1011
S7
Reach boundary.shpClass 1 - DryClass 2 - IntermediateClass 3 - Wet
8
5
2
3
7
9
1
4
6
12
13
14
1011
Current
8
5
2
3
7
9
1
4
6
12
13
14
1011
S1
8
5
2
3
7
9
1
4
6
12
13
14
1011
S2
8
5
2
3
7
9
1
4
6
12
13
14
1011
S3
8
5
2
3
7
9
1
4
6
12
13
14
1011
S4
8
5
2
3
7
9
1
4
6
12
13
14
1011
S5
8
5
2
3
7
9
1
4
6
12
13
14
1011
S6
8
5
2
3
7
9
1
4
6
12
13
14
1011
S7
Reach boundary.shpClass 1 - DryClass 2 - IntermediateClass 3 - Wet
8
5
2
3
7
9
1
4
6
12
13
14
1011
8
5
2
3
7
9
1
4
6
12
13
14
1011
13
3. DSS(current
conditions)
4. ChangesHydrology
Component
Riparian Model
• The model places reaches of the river into one of three condition classes:– Based on 9 bio-indicators (e.g. types of plants)
which are sensitive to changes in hydrology.
• Each current condition class (e.g. situation today) is reflective of different levels of ecosystem functional capacity.
• Model is inside DSS and is used it to track changes in the abundance of each class over time, based upon ground water level changes:
– Dry : 73% Tamarisk, 10% Cottonwood-Willow
– Intermediate: 21% Tamarisk, 63% Cottonwood-Willow
– Wet: No Tamarisk, 89% Cottonwood-Willow14
5. ChangesRiparian
Component
Tamarisk
Avian Model: As riparian changes occur, so goes
avian changes
15
6. ChangesAvian
Component
5. ChangesRiparian
Component
16
Migrating Bird Abundance Changes
Tota
l Ab
un
da
nce
(n
um
ber
of
bir
ds
)
S3 Current S1 S2
Declining Groundwater by Scenario
17000
19000
21000
23000
Current
8
5
2
3
7
9
1
4
6
12
13
14
1011
S2 S3
8
5
2
3
7
9
1
4
6
12
13
14
1011
8
5
2
3
7
9
1
4
6
12
13
14
1011
S1
N
8
5
2
3
7
9
1
4
6
12
13
14
1011
Condition Class
CC2CC1
CC3
25000
7. EcosystemValuation
Component(Attributes)
Placing Values on Ecosystem
Services
• Development– 1963 NRJ Robert Davis (air quality – USEPA—ORD)– Embodied now in various U.S. Fed. Docs
• Contingent Valuation Model (CVM)– Asks individuals their Willingness To Pay (WTP) for a
single ecosystem attribute (e.g. greater number of birds)
• Choice Modeling (CM)– Asks individuals to choose a specific alternative from a
set of Ecosystem Attribute Bundles (e.g. birds, vegetation, surface water)
17
7. EcosystemValuationComponent(Attributes)• Surface • Water• Birds• Veg.
Designing the Surveys: Focus Groups
• Focus groups have been conducted using the Choice Experiment (CE) San Pedro Survey
• Public Feedback– Wanted more information
• Created “Drill Downs”– Changes in presentation of
visual material– Indicated what information
was most useful • Science Feedback
– Reviewed survey for technical accuracy
18
Marginal “Dollar” Values and their Use
• What kind of Marginal Dollar Values are generated from Contingent Valuation and Choice Modeling for Ecosystem Endpoints? – Miles of Visibility – Changes in Endangered Species Populations
• In this study -- Obtain Marginal Dollar Values (values for incremental changes) for:– Miles of surface water– Breeding birds by nest heights– Breeding birds by surface water dependency– Spring migratory birds– Vegetation diversity
19
San Pedro/Rio Grande Survey
• Survey includes:– Introduction and
discussion of riparian zones/focus on groundwater
– Background about the San Pedro/Rio Grande
– Essentially sets up market information
– Development of Ecosystem Services Endpoint Attribute Bundles • Water, Vegetation, and
Birds20
7. EcosystemValuationComponent(Attributes)• Surface • Water• Birds• Veg.
Current Condition
Contingent ValuationExample
AlternateCondition - 1
AlternateCondition - 2
Ask: How much areyou willing to pay for Alt. #1 over CC?
How much for Alt. #2 over CC?
How much for Alt. #2 over Alt. #1 ?
Choice Modeling Example - Riparian Preservation
• Decisions points: 1) do nothing 2) maintain CC 3) improve CC– different construction/conservation measures with each decision
Current Condition
AlternateCondition - 1
AlternateCondition - 2
Attributes RiparianVegetation
% Time SWIs Present
Bird Type/Pop.Attributes
< 60%
> 60%< 95%
> 95%
Bu
nd
le #
1B
un
dle
#2
Bu
nd
le #
3
• Attributes across bundles are NOT independent• Need science ( ) to describe dependence of attributes in a bundle
SPRNCA WTP Estimates• WTP to move from the
Current Conditions to S6– Vegetation is the significant
variable and the most important variable
– Large inc. in recharge, sig. inc. in surface flows
• WTP to avoid moving from the Current Conditions to S4– Water is the significant
variable and the bundle of ecosystem services is significant
– Involved continual pumping thus degradation
WTP
IncrementsWTP Avoid Decrements
Bundle -$10.94 $94.92 **
Bird -$41.44 $31.89 Veg $99.54 ** -$240.79Water $57.60 * $72.87 ***, ** denotes significant at the 10% and 5% levels
S8 S9
8
5
2
3
7
9
1
4
6
12
13
14
1011
Current
8
5
2
3
7
9
1
4
6
12
13
14
1011
S1
8
5
2
3
7
9
1
4
6
12
13
14
1011
S2
8
5
2
3
7
9
1
4
6
12
13
14
1011
S3
8
5
2
3
7
9
1
4
6
12
13
14
1011
S4
8
5
2
3
7
9
1
4
6
12
13
14
1011
S5
8
5
2
3
7
9
1
4
6
12
13
14
1011
S6
8
5
2
3
7
9
1
4
6
12
13
14
1011
S7
Reach boundary.shpClass 1 - DryClass 2 - IntermediateClass 3 - Wet
8
5
2
3
7
9
1
4
6
12
13
14
1011
8
5
2
3
7
9
1
4
6
12
13
14
1011
S8 S9
8
5
2
3
7
9
1
4
6
12
13
14
1011
Current
8
5
2
3
7
9
1
4
6
12
13
14
1011
S1
8
5
2
3
7
9
1
4
6
12
13
14
1011
S2
8
5
2
3
7
9
1
4
6
12
13
14
1011
S3
8
5
2
3
7
9
1
4
6
12
13
14
1011
S4
8
5
2
3
7
9
1
4
6
12
13
14
1011
S5
8
5
2
3
7
9
1
4
6
12
13
14
1011
S6
8
5
2
3
7
9
1
4
6
12
13
14
1011
S7
Reach boundary.shpClass 1 - DryClass 2 - IntermediateClass 3 - Wet
8
5
2
3
7
9
1
4
6
12
13
14
1011
8
5
2
3
7
9
1
4
6
12
13
14
1011
8
5
2
3
7
9
1
4
6
12
13
14
1011
Current
8
5
2
3
7
9
1
4
6
12
13
14
1011
S1
8
5
2
3
7
9
1
4
6
12
13
14
1011
S2
8
5
2
3
7
9
1
4
6
12
13
14
1011
S3
8
5
2
3
7
9
1
4
6
12
13
14
1011
S4
8
5
2
3
7
9
1
4
6
12
13
14
1011
S5
8
5
2
3
7
9
1
4
6
12
13
14
1011
S6
8
5
2
3
7
9
1
4
6
12
13
14
1011
S7
Reach boundary.shpClass 1 - DryClass 2 - IntermediateClass 3 - Wet
8
5
2
3
7
9
1
4
6
12
13
14
1011
Current
8
5
2
3
7
9
1
4
6
12
13
14
1011
S1
8
5
2
3
7
9
1
4
6
12
13
14
1011
S2
8
5
2
3
7
9
1
4
6
12
13
14
1011
S3
8
5
2
3
7
9
1
4
6
12
13
14
1011
S4
8
5
2
3
7
9
1
4
6
12
13
14
1011
S5
8
5
2
3
7
9
1
4
6
12
13
14
1011
S6
8
5
2
3
7
9
1
4
6
12
13
14
1011
S7
Reach boundary.shpClass 1 - DryClass 2 - IntermediateClass 3 - Wet
8
5
2
3
7
9
1
4
6
12
13
14
1011
8
5
2
3
7
9
1
4
6
12
13
14
1011
Develop ScenariosAnthropogenic
Climatic
ChangesHydrology
Component
ChangesRiparian
Component
ChangesAvian
Component
Survey(Education)
Ecosystem ServicesDemandCurves
DSS(current
conditions)
EcosystemValuation
Component(Attributes)
1. Surface Water2. Birds3. Vegetation4. Cost
Characterization of an Ecosystem
1. Components2. Processes3. Outputs
The Scientific Foundation of Ecosystem Services Valuation
IntegrateValues
Into DSS
Physical
SciencePlant
ScienceAvian
Science
Modeling
Science
Scenario &
Social Science
Abiotic, Biotic,
Geography & Remote
Sensing Science
25
Horizontal: Transferability science and valuation within a region (e.g. SW) (SP/RG//Verde/Salt/?) (continuing)
(SPRNCA)
(MRG)
• A goal is to have a menu of transfer functions for a region
Why– original studies for ALL areas is to expensive
• Benefit Transfers: Incremental monetary value of an ecosystem endpoint transferred another site
• Science Transfers: The relative science information between the “study and transfer sites” should be “similar”
What we did: • Developed Science for the Rio Grande
based upon San Pedro• Developed a Choice / Contingent
Valuation Survey– San Pedro– Rio Grande
• Compare/Calibrate the Marginal Dollar Values for Ecosystem Attributes
Across Sites within a Region: Using Place Based Science and Valuations
26
San Pedro, AZ Rio Grande, NMGila River, NMSalt River, AZ
Steps:• Calibrate across the original data sets from San Pedro and Grande• • Extend San Pedro efforts to upland areas
• Relate placed based science to:• Remote sensing information in Salt River and Gila• Within a representative ecosystem, we can use appropriate ecosystem function models• Relying upon remote sensing and GIS technologies
• Relate extent of the market for valuation transfer
We are discussing the following .
Landscape Conservation CooperativesSecretarial Order No. 3289 establishes Landscape Conservation Cooperatives, which are management-science partnerships that inform integrated resource-management actions across landscapes (February 22, 2010).
?
Defining the Region of Analysis (for science and valuation):
Extending this work into the Lower Mississippi Valley
28
?Everglades
Hawaii
SPRNCA, AZ
Rio Grande, NM
Gila River, NM
Salt River, AZ
?
?Hypothesis: A national map might be a composite of regional studies, based upon place based science and valuations
Thank You
29
THANK YOU