the definition & value of chesapeake bay environmental endpoints
DESCRIPTION
The Definition & Value of Chesapeake Bay Environmental Endpoints. James Boyd and Alan Krupnick Resources for the Future November 1, 2011. Ecological Endpoints. A special set of biophysical outputs Commodities that directly enter firm or home production Akin to “final goods” - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
The Definition & Value of Chesapeake Bay Environmental
Endpoints
James Boyd and Alan KrupnickResources for the Future
November 1, 2011
Ecological Endpoints
A special set of biophysical outputs Commodities that directly enter firm or
home production Akin to “final goods”
Commodities that require little subsequent biophysical translation to make clear their relevance to utility
“Endpoint Theory” Distinction between “inputs” and “final
goods” is fundamental to Benefit accounting (to avoid double counting) Benefit comprehension by respondents in stated
preference studies (to avoid confusion & error)
Production Theory
Key terms Inputs transformed into Outputs via Production functions
Qi = f (Ii1, Ii2, ...)
Same thing in natural systems except functions are ecological
Examples
InputBiophysical Process
Ecological Endpoint
Surface water pHHabitat and toxicity effects
Fish, bird abundance
Acres of habitatForage, reproduction, migration
Species abundance
Wetland acresHydrologic processes
Reductions in flood severity
Urban forest acresShading and sequestration
Air quality and temperature
Vegetated riparian border
Erosion processesSediment loadings to reservoirs
Commodities that require little subsequent biophysical translation
Note
Focus on endpoints leads to a smaller set of ecological commodities to be valued
The Problem With Non-Endpoint Commodities
• Requires respondent to understand and translate commodity’s role in subsequent ecological production
To value an “input” need to know The value of the output The production relationship between the input
and the output
Production Function Error
• What is the value of “more acres of eagle habitat?”
• Need to know two things(1) The value you place on eagle abundance
(2) The production function that translates eagle habitat into eagles
Respondents will intuit a + relationship
But don’t know its magnitude
Respondents will intuit a + relationship
But don’t know its magnitude
Principle 1
Commodities should be as close as possible to home production For accuracy and scenario acceptance*
Obvious? Perhaps, but often/usually not practiced in SP
literature
Note: “comprehension” alone is not the test
* A hypothesis to be tested empirically
Dual Commodities
Many ecological commodities are both input and output
In production theory, a given commodity can be both input and output Cars: output, but input when rented Lettuce: final good at Safeway, intermediate
good at McDonalds
Dual commodityProcess 1 output is Process 2 input
Examples
Endpoint Biophysical Process Different Endpoint
Trout abundanceForage and predation relationships
Bird abundance
Forest acresHydrological processes
Species abundance
Wetland acres Hydrologic processes Flood pulse regulation
Endpoints / final goods
But also inputs to production of these
Respondent Confusion
Am I being asked about the commodity as an “end in itself”?
Or its value as part of a larger system? Both?
Issues for Survey Treatments
Different degrees of subjects’ ecological intuition “Naïve” respondents:
Wetlands are open space, the value of open space to me is $X
“Sophisticated” respondents: The value of open space to me is $X but also
Wetlands support crabs, the value of crabs to me is $Y
Issue from above
What are the appropriate endpoints? Combination of theory and stakeholder
interactions
EPA Indicators Workshops RFF & EPA ORD (Corvallis) sponsored (Boyd & Ringold) Natural scientists, social scientists, policy offices Charge: Identify monitorable “final ecosystem commodities” for a
range of resource beneficiaries
To improve national stream monitoring programs (e.g., EMAP) or EPA OW programs (e.g., National Aquatic Resource Surveys)
Principles used in EPA Workshop to identifying indicators of final ecosystem
services
Strictly biophysical features, quantities or qualities that require little further translation to make clear their relevance to human well-being
Comprehensive identification requires identification of ecosystem beneficiaries
Exhaustive & non-duplicative, but clear desire for parsimony
A Group Process
Focus on types of users Industry, agriculture, recreation, aesthetics,
stewardship
Concretely, what do different users want more of or less of? No jargon! (the “next door neighbor test”)
Eco-check Index for the Bay(NOAA and UMCES)
The “iconic” Bay
Iconic is a stock concept; non-marginal Is “iconic” a word for “warm glow”? Resources that underlie being iconic
Cultural: the Watermen, Smith Island Biological: Bay oysters, blue crabs
Do changes in populations affect iconic status?
Future Baseline
Is sea level rise in the baseline? If so, Does this remove Smith Island and the
Watermen from further consideration?
Do crabs and oysters go (locally) extinct in the baseline? If not, Would increases in their population from
TMDLs affect their iconic status?
Conveying the hidden problems
Other endpoint (SP) issues Bundling (CV) vs attribute valuation (CE) Non-market endpoint proliferation
With our theory as a guide, are there that many? Bundling of correlated attributes Sample stratification approach Don’t use jobs, livelihood Focus groups help find indices
Boundaries
Ocean health: spawning success Groundwater Ancillary benefits/costs to BMPs, etc.
Increased trees in buffer zones – viewshed, but positive or negative?
Cultural losses: the Amish? Added urban green space from addressing
urban SWR
More Issues
Uncertainty: tough to address Timing
Design to impute discount rate Long-term benefits: tough issue. Most
analysts use shorter periods. Can do adjustments to values off-line
Interim benefits is latency. Not a big problem
Conclusion
Use theory to guide commodity definition Along with stakeholder process Determine future baseline (perhaps use
multiple treatments) Solve/make decisions on other issues
Valuation Research Issues• Confusion/scenario rejection rates comparing endpoint
Q’s to input, process or dual Q’s Validity test differences Test with and without “systems” information
treatments Effect of subject prior knowledge on the above
Approach
Develop mental models of nature (e.g., degree of decomposition into inputs, processes and outputs), compare to those of experts
Conduct focus groups to develop survey materials: information treatments, commodity descriptions
Conduct pilot studies: use sub-sampling to test treatment effects; develop measures of performance (effect on WTP; variance of WTP; answers to debriefs; passing scope tests)
Ecological science partnering to make necessary linkages and development of protocols for ecological science research and reporting
Metrics CategoriesI. Water Quantity (Amount and Timing, Depth, Width,
Velocity)II. Water Quality – Physical (Odor, temperature, clarity, bio-
fouling) III. Stream Bed Characteristics (Mud, rock, sand, sediment
accumulation)IV. Health risks from contact and drinking water; eating fishV. Species type, abundance, size, health, timing (flora and
fauna)VI. Riparian viewshed characteristicsVII. Intertemporal “naturalness” – to avoid undesirable
resource changes linked to sense of place, culture, history