a tool for communicating confiden ce in predictions of ... · a tool for communicating confiden ce...
Post on 14-Aug-2020
2 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Map source: A. Engebretsen
A tool for communicating confidence in predictions of nutrient abatement effectiveness
David N. Barton(NINA), Alexander Engebretsen(UiO), Koji Tominaga(UiO) , Jannicke Moe (NIVA), Eirik Romstad (UMB)
Nutrient abatement measures & costs
Catchment run-off
Lake water quality
Use suitability
Willingness to pay for lake use suitability
Presentation overview
Norwegian WFD Guidance on evaluation A network approach Results: individual network models Results: integrated network for benefits assessments Discussion Conclusions
Overview
Presentation overview
Norwegian WFD Guidance on evaluation A network approach Results: individual network models Results: integrated network for benefits assessments Discussion Conclusions
Overview
Norwegian WFD Guidance on evaluation
«Less stringent environmental objectives» § 10. (mindre strenge miljømål)
§ 10 Når en vannforekomst er så påvirket av menneskelig virksomhet at det er umulig eller uforholdsmessig kostnadskrevende å nå målene i § 4 – § 6, kan det fastsettes mindre strenge miljømål dersom følgende vilkår er oppfylt: a) de miljømessige og samfunnsøkonomiske behov som denne menneskelige
virksomheten tjener, ikke uten uforholdsmessige kostnader kan oppfylles på andre måter som er miljømessig vesentlig gunstigere,
b) det sikres en høyest mulig tilstand for overflatevann og grunnvann gitt de store påvirkningene som er til stede, og
c) det ikke forekommer ytterligere forringelse av tilstanden i den berørte vannforekomsten
§ 15. (karakterisering, vurdering av miljøpåvirkning og økonomisk analyse) c) en økonomisk analyse være utarbeidet i samsvar med vedlegg III
Permanent derrogation - «if economic costs are greater than benefits [..] be certain that the calculation does not change by the time of the next evaluation..» «there are large margins of error implicit in the evaluations» [of this guidance] Temporary derrogation - « justified by the local impact assessment because measures are controversial…» Continued abatement despite derrogation - «…continue environmental improvement measures, but stop before reaching good ecological status because the’ last’ measures are disproportionately costly».
Guidance on evaluation(I): uncertainty is a key topic in derrogations from the goal of «good ecological status»
«Disproportionate costs» of measures relative to needs is a probability statement
benefit – cost = net benefit
50%
50%
+
-
25%
75%
+
-
5%
95%
+
-
0 0
A B C
1. «Reduce the need to assess benefits of individual measures… by conducting economic assessment of the benefits of packages of measures « 2.»Use the method of ‘backward evaluation’ by removing the least cost-effective measures and re-evaluating…»
Guidance on evaluation(II): What should ‘water authority economists’ do?
Temporal resolution
Spatial resolution
Annual
Farm
Daily
Catchment
Daily
Lake (vertical)
Seasonal (summer)
Lakeshore
Annual
Household location around lake
Nutrient abatement measures & costs
Use suitability (survey data, expert opinion)
Willingness to pay for lake use suitability
(regression model)
Lake water quality MyLake Cyanobacteria
Response/ Driver
Pressure
State
Impact
Impact/ Response
Catchment run-off (SWAT model)
FSSIM model Simple coefficients
-
Com
mun
icat
ion
chal
leng
e?
+
Inte
grat
ed m
odel
unc
erta
inty
+
-
Evaluating disproportionate costs of GES is possible in principle with an integrated model
Presentation overview
Norwegian WFD Guidance on evaluation A network ‘meta-model’ approach Results: individual network models Results: integrated network for benefits assessments Discussion Conclusions
Overview
A network ‘meta-model’ approach
Source: adapted from Fylkesmannen i Østfold. Tilskudd til Regionale Miljøtiltak (2005)
Map source: A. Engebretsen
SWAT-MyLake network ‘meta-model’
Presentation overview
Norwegian WFD Guidance on evaluation A network approach Results: individual network models Results: integrated network for benefits assessments Discussion Conclusions
Overview
ppResults: individual network models
Map source: A. Engebretsen
Ranking effectiveness using a diagnostic approach «working backward»
Relative likelihood of
achieving lowTot-P target
Background trend independent of
measures
SWAT-MyLake ‘meta-model’
Map source: A. Engebretsen
Model uncertainty: low probability of low Tot-P loading
Model uncertainty: low probability of
high loading
Willingness to pay for improvement in ecological status of
lakes in Østfold-Akershus
1113 households Websurvey 2008
Tot-P? Algae P? Secchi depth? correspondance with scenarios?
Expert judgement of water quality illustrations used in valuation study (I)
Expert judgement of water quality illustrations used in valuation study (II)
Water use suitability
0102030405060708090
100
Fishing(trout) Fishing(coarse) Bathing Rowing/paddling Bird watching
Would NOT practiceWould practice
0102030405060708090
100
Fishing(trout) Fishing(coarse) Bathing Rowing/paddling Bird watching
Would NOT practiceWould practice
0102030405060708090
100
Fishing(trout) Fishing(coarse) Bathing Rowing/paddling Bird watching
Would NOT practiceWould practice
0102030405060708090
100
Fishing(trout) Fishing(coarse) Bathing Rowing/paddling Bird watching
Would NOT practiceWould practice
Water use suitability
Willingness to pay increased sewage fees for improved water suitability
Presentation overview
Norwegian WFD Guidance on evaluation A network approach Results: individual network models Results: integrated network for benefits assessments Discussion Conclusions
Overview
Results: integrated network for benefits assessments
Evaluation of benefits of measures on water user suitability (I)
Relative % change of Scenario 4 compared to Scenario 2
Evaluation of benefits of measures on water user suitability (II)
Expected increase in WTP sewage fee /hh yr. for specific ecological states (relative to «red»)
Economic valuation of expected WTP/hh yr. for increased ecological status
Presentation overview
Norwegian WFD Guidance on evaluation A network approach Results: individual network models Results: integrated network for benefits assessments Discussion Conclusions
Overview
Discussion
Do we expect the catchment-lakes system
as a whole to be very responsive to measures
on agricultural land?
60% forest 14% agriculture
Presentation overview
Norwegian WFD Guidance on evaluation A network approach Results: individual network models Results: integrated network for benefits assessments Discussion Conclusions
Overview
Conclusions
• Fuzzy interfaces between disciplinary models (integrating independently conducted studies)
Conclusion Conclusions Extreme measures have a significant effect but are they too costly?..... Disproportionate cost analysis requires …..the evaluation of individual measures… …..with uncertainty quantification using long time series and simulation models that can evaluate abatement Interactions…. ……is VERY time and resource consuming…. …..is a theoretically valid concept, but not a practical tool for watershed management. ….alternative decision rules needed…..
top related