ESValue-SWFESValue-SWF

Valuing Ecosystem Services on Public Lands in Valuing Ecosystem Services on Public Lands in Southwest FloridaSouthwest Florida

Project Scope

Develop a valuation framework for the Ecosystem Services provided by District land:

– Use available GIS data

– Develop screening-level estimate of value

– Consider baseline and alternative land uses

– Develop estimates according to four mission areas

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

Natural Systems

Group 4 Economic Impact

Jobs Taxes (Indirect)

Output

Group 3 Revenue Producing

Timber Tax Revenue Direct

Cattle Leases

Group 2 Human Use

Recreation HuntingSpecial Events

Ecosystem Services Valuation Approach

Identify land uses and ecosystem types

Identify land uses and ecosystem types

Ecological structure and function

• Soil type• Recharge• Nutrient cycling• Water storage

Ecological structure and function

• Soil type• Recharge• Nutrient cycling• Water storage

Geographic attributes

• Proximity to receiving waters• Adjacent land uses

Geographic attributes

• Proximity to receiving waters• Adjacent land uses

Baseline level of services and benefit provided

Baseline level of services and benefit provided

Land conversion scenarios

1)None

2)Agriculture

3)Residential

Land conversion scenarios

1)None

2)Agriculture

3)Residential

Change in service and value with and without District regulations

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/water-tariff-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-link-between-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 coverInsufficiently-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=RobustCoef. 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

Input1a. Enter Site Information (i.e., from a GIS):   2a. User-Defined Scenario, General:

Select District Planning Region: Heartland

Enter Site Information for SWFWMD Parcel

  Annualization Rate (%): 3%Site land use (FNAI type): Mesic Flatwoods   Annualization Period (years): 20

Site area (acres): 1645   District Land Use Conversion? NoSoil hydrologic group for Site: D   Conversion to: Residential

Slope of Site(%): 2%   BMP Implementation Rate (%): 95%Enter Recharge Rate (in./yr): 6.5  

Distance from site to nearest water body (ft.):

500  2b. User-Defined Scenario, Water Quality:

CLIP 2.0 Potential Species Richness: 2-4 species   BMP removal efficiency (%): 70%

Natural or Semi-natural Community Type? Natural      

CLIP Florida Ecological Greenway Score: Priority 5  

2c. User-Defined Scenario, Water Supply:

 

  Enter Lost Recharge Offset Ratio (%)^: 1        BMP Infiltration Factor(%)*: 37%1b. Enter information for off-site areas contributing runoff to District site:      

Off-site area contributing runoff (acres):

1700Possible runoff input from up-gradient overland flow

  Land use of off-site area

contributing runoffResidential

  Soil Hydrologic Group

upstream: D                  1d. Enter watershed information:      

100 yr. 24-hr Storm (in): 12 

     

Output

TOTALS Capitalized Cap/Acre Annualized Ann/Acre

Water Quality $ 20,278,201 $ 12,327 $ 1,363,014 $ 829

Water Supply $ 7,826,541 $ 4,758 $ 391,327 $ 238

Flood Control $ 594,197 $ 361 $ 29,710 $ 18 Natural Systems $ 24,327 $ 15 $ 1,216 $ 1

Sum $ 28,723,266 $ 17,461 $ 1,785,267 $ 1,085

Next Steps Develop pilot application

Uncertainty and Sensitivity– Are more complex production functions warranted?