Rush Childs

Comments

Transcription

Rush Childs
ESValue-SWF
Valuing Ecosystem Services on Public Lands in
Southwest Florida
Project Scope
 Develop a valuation framework for the Ecosystem
Services provided by District land:
– Use available GIS data
Available
Data
– Develop screening-level estimate of value
Scenarios
– Consider baseline and alternative land uses
Screening-level
– Develop estimates according to four mission areas
Value Estimate
ESValue-SWF Basic Framework

Property value is a composite good
Land Values
Group 1
Core Mission
Group 2
Human Use
Group 3
Revenue
Producing
Group 4
Economic
Impact
Group 1 Core Mission
Water
Supply
Water
Quality
Flood
Protection
Group 4 Economic Impact
Jobs
Natural
Systems
Group 2 Human Use
Recreation
Special
Events
Hunting
Output
Group 3 Revenue Producing
Timber
Cattle
Leases
Tax Revenue
Direct
Taxes
(Indirect)
Ecosystem Services Valuation Approach
Ecological
structure and
function
Identify
land uses
and
ecosystem
types
• Soil type
• Recharge
• Nutrient
cycling
• Water storage
Geographic
attributes
Baseline
level of
services
and
benefit
provided
Land
conversion
scenarios
1) None
2) Agriculture
3) Residential
• Proximity to
receiving
waters
• Adjacent land
uses
Change in
service and
value with
and
without
District
regulations
Quantity – Production Function
 Applied to ¾ core mission areas
– Water supply
– Water quality
– Flood control
 SCS curve method to compute rainfall excess and potential runoff
 Water Quality – changes in nutrient concentration and mass load
 Water Supply – changes in infiltration and recharge
 Flood control – changes in peak flow and associated costs
Image credit: The Economist. 2005. "Rescuing Environmentalism."
http://www.economist.com/node/3888006?story_id=3888006.
Price – Economic Value Function
 Replacement cost or avoided cost
 Replace baseline value with
structural/engineered solution
 Water quality – Cost of BMPs and
untreated nutrients
 Water supply – replacement costs for
water supply development
 Flood control – cost of storage to match
pre- and post-hydrology
Image credit. Clever Green. 2011. "Water Tariff Soars by 38%." http://www.clevergreen.co.za/2011/05/25/watertariff-soars-by-38/.
Natural Systems
 Non-priced services:
– Biodiversity
– Unique natural communities
– Landscape connectivity
Images. 1.) National Forest Foundation. "Longleaf Pine Forest." http://www.nationalforests.org/conserve/programs/conservation/ocala; 2.) The
Resilient Earth.com "The Endangered Florida Panther." http://www.theresilientearth.com/?q=content/biodiversity; 3.) Summit County Citizen’s Voice.
“A Young Alligator floats in the Myakka river estuary in southwest Florida.” http://summitcountyvoice.com/2011/06/25/biodiversity-gators-a-key-linkbetween-between-ecoystems.
Tradeoff Analysis - Example
Attributes
Property A
Property B
Water Supply from Site
(MGD)
0.15
0.42
Potential Habitat Richness
2-4 species
5-6 species
Natural Community Type
Semi-natural land cover
Insufficiently-protected
natural community
Landscape Connectivity
Score
9
5
Which Property Will Best Meet the District's Core Objectives ?
A is Much
Better than B
A is
Better than B
Neither
B is
Better than A
B is Much
Better than A
Preliminary Results
Vote=
Robust
Coef.
Std. Err.
z
P>z [95% Conf. Interval]
Water supply
3.23
0.64
5.04 0.00 1.972798
4.4871
Species richness
0.15
0.024
6.33 0.00 0.104712
0.1986
Natural systems
0.63
0.12
5.16 0.00 0.393505
0.8758
Connectivity1
0.44
0.11
3.91 0.00 0.219013
0.6584
Connectivity2
1.24
0.16
7.63 0.00 0.924114
1.5631
Input
1a. Enter Site Information (i.e., from a GIS):
Select District Planning Region:
Site land use (FNAI type):
Site area (acres):
Soil hydrologic group for Site:
Slope of Site(%):
Enter Recharge Rate (in./yr):
Distance from site to nearest
water body (ft.):
CLIP 2.0 Potential Species
Richness:
Natural or Semi-natural
Community Type?
CLIP Florida Ecological
Greenway Score:
Heartland
Mesic Flatwoods
1645
D
2%
6.5
500
2a. User-Defined Scenario, General:
Annualization Rate (%):
Annualization Period (years):
District Land Use Conversion?
Conversion to:
BMP Implementation Rate (%):
Enter Site Information
for SWFWMD Parcel
2b. User-Defined Scenario, Water Quality:
2-4 species
BMP removal efficiency (%):
2c. User-Defined Scenario, Water
Supply:
Priority 5
1b. Enter information for off-site areas contributing runoff to District site:
1700
Residential
D
1d. Enter watershed information:
100 yr. 24-hr Storm (in):
70%
Natural
Enter Lost Recharge Offset Ratio (%)^:
BMP Infiltration Factor(%)*:
Off-site area contributing runoff
(acres):
Land use of off-site area
contributing runoff
Soil Hydrologic Group
upstream:
3%
20
No
Residential
95%
12
Possible runoff input
from up-gradient
overland flow
1
37%
Output
TOTALS
Capitalized
Cap/Acre
Water Quality
$ 20,278,201 $
Water Supply
$
Flood Control
Natural
Systems
Sum
Annualized
Ann/Acre
12,327 $
1,363,014 $
829
7,826,541 $
4,758 $
391,327 $
238
$
594,197 $
361 $
29,710 $
18
$
24,327 $
15 $
1,216 $
1
$ 28,723,266 $
17,461 $
1,785,267 $ 1,085
Next Steps
 Develop pilot application
 Uncertainty and Sensitivity
– Are more complex production functions warranted?

Similar documents