Transcript Economic valuation and EBM - University of California

Economic valuation and EBM
An interdisciplinary approach to
support reasonable decision making
about the use of oceans and coastal
regions
1
Content
• Introduction: Aim EBM + Economic Valuation
so far (yellow)
• The new approach (blue)
• Study case: kelp forest California current
(pink)
2
Aim EBM
• Maintain and/or restore ecosystems at states
that….
• ….support human well-being for present and
future generations
3
Characteristics of tool to support EBM
• Integrate knowledge about human and
ecological systems. Such as….
– human activities  ecological components
– human activities  to human well-being
– ecological components interact
4
Role of economic valuation
• Economic value: expected utility or expected
positive effect on well-being of certain
amount of good/service (at certain time &
space)
• Economic valuation: observation of
behavior/decision that reflects economic
values
5
Economic valuation of “nature”: the traditional
approach
• Costanza et al.
• Flow of services of a given ecosystem type per
area and time (e.g. wetland  flow of services
$14,785 ha-1yr-1)
• Termed: value of ecosystem services approach
(VES)
• Based on the idea of: “functions are basis for
services”
6
Criticism of VES
• All services summed up for a given area
 risk of double counting; trade-offs not considered
• System of “functions” and “services” =vague
E.g.: If functions are the basis for services…
… what is the functional basis for the “service” beauty?
• State of ecosystems and scarcity of services do not
matter for their economic value
 “unrealistic”
• Static: human activities do not affect flow of services
Feedbacks not considered
(Banzhaf & Boyed 2005, Pearce 1998, Toman 1998, Costanza et al. 1997, etc.)
7
Recent developments
• “two activities – two ecological states”
approaches
– Examples: 2 activities: timber production vs. hydrological power
use, 2 ecological states: conservation vs. conversion (forest)
(Guo et al. 2000)
• “one activity - multiple ecological states”
– Example: diving, ecological states described by gradients of
visibility and biodiversity
(Wielgus et al. 2002)
8
What lacks….
• approach based on “activities” instead of “services”*
• Multi activity and multiple ecological stages approach…..
• ….treating ecological “quality” as multidimensional
• Dynamic approach: that allows us to consider effects of
human activities on ecosystem states
* the definition of services will be one of the results of the
research instead of an input (what ecological element is
important for what human activity at what levels)
9
The new approach
-characteristics• Consideration of
– benefits from several human activities within a region
– effects from human activities on ecological components
– interactions within the ecological system
– feedback from change in ecosystem configuration on
benefits from human activities
 Can not be a purely economic valuation; has to be an
interdisciplinary approach
10
The approach
-definitions• System configuration: composition of
ecological elements
• Ecological elements: definable entity of the
natural environment: e.g. species; they appear
in different abundances, production rates or
densities
• Activity: conducted by humans to sustain their
lives, fulfill their needs or obtain yields; they
appear in different intensities
11
The approach
-aim-
Find a combination of intensities of activities
in a region which is overall beneficial
for/supporting the group of people we are
interested in
12
The approach
-methods• economic valuation methods
–
–
–
–
Hedonic pricing
Contingent valuation
Travel cost
….
• Ecological modeling methods
– I do not have a clue
• Simulation to integrate results of disciplinary
methods
– As much clue as in ecological modeling
13
The approach
-steps in application1. Definition of
•
ecosystem type(s) and
•
spatial limits
2. Conceptual linkage of ecological and human
dimension
•
Identifying human activities depending on and
affecting ecological components
•
Identifying ecological components affected by
human activities
(based on different sources of knowledge e.g. user
conflicts)
14
Conceptual framework
Human
need II
+
Activity
II
+
Activity
I
Human
need I
+
species
I
-
Activity
III
-
0/-
-
+
species III
0
Activity
IV
+
Human
need III
-
species
II
+
-
Activity
III
15
The approach
-steps in application3. Empirical investigation of economic values [prices,
WTP, yields] or activity levels (if prices are fixed)
4. Empirical investigation of other possibly
explanatory factors for prices/activity levels/yields
5. Analysis of economic data: identify to what extent
differences in yields/WTP/activity levels are
attributable to ecosystem configuration
16
The approach
-steps in application6. Ecologic analysis: direct and indirect effects of
different human activities at different intensity
levels on ecological elements
7. Final analysis: Simulation of different management
options in terms of benefits in different sectors and
expected benefits in next “round” (as result of
feedback of ecological configuration change on
benefits)
17
Study case
1. Kelp forest, large scale: California current,
fine scale: Monterey Bay
2. Conceptual framework – human activity
related to kelp forest and effects on
ecological elements
18
study case - 2 conceptual framework
19
Study case - 3 Empirical investigation of economic
values….
•
… for different activities at different
ecosystem configurations
– Diving activity
– Commercial fishing
– Recreational fishing
20
Challenges obtaining human use data
• Must be comparable in dimensions:
– economic value
and
– space
or: must be linkable
to ecological data
– time
21
Benefits from activities – make different
dimensions comparable
• diving:
Number of dives X (price + add. WTP)
• recreational fishing:
Fishing hours X (price + add. WTP)
• commercial fishing:
ex-vessel prices X landings - (costs gas +
equipment)
22
Study case - 3 Empirical investigation of economic
values
• empirical entities to measure economic
values:
– Diving: price (equipment, tank filling, boat)
(plus additional WTP, e.g. expressed in
willingness to invest time; alternative activity
level (when prices are fixed)
– Commercial fishing: landed values, fishing
effort
– Recreational fishing: see diving
23
Activity
source
WTP/prices/yields/
revenues
Ecological
info
Geografical
area
Spatial
resolution
Time/ temp.
resolution
Diving
Diving survey
WTP for full day/half day
diving
(only what
costumers want to
see)
From
Monterey Bay
to San Diego
Varies
substantially
(specific
GPS loc to
only about
of island)
2005/2006
(snapshot)
Recreational
fishing
Report to the CA
F&G commission California
recreational
fisheries survey
2005 Annual
Review (2006)
Number of angler trips (from
man made structures, beaches
& banks, commercial
passenger fishing vessels,
private and rental boats)
Groups and
species:
Taxonomic super
group; Taxonomic group: or
user defined
species group
Whole
California
6 districts:
(more
detailed info
page 2ff)
2005
Recreational
fishing
Summarize RecFIN
MRFSS Sample
Data
Version 2
“catch values”:
angler hours, number of
anglers; fish examined [A],
reported [B] 1=dead, 2=alive;
number, weight, length [mean
and per hour]
example
Same as Report
of CA F&G on
rec fish
Whole
California
17 counties
of California
1980-2006
(monthly or
wave?)
Recreational
fishing
information
reported by NMFS
on species caught
by recreational
fishers:
http://www.st.nmfs.
gov/st1/recreational/
queries/index.html.
Angler trips
species caught
whole US
dunno
1981-2004
(annual or by
wave: 1-6)
24
activity
source
WTP/prices/yields/revenues
Ecological
info
Geografical
area
Spatial
resolution
Time
(temp. res)
Comm.
Fishing
DFG
Poundage and value of landings
Fish species,
molluscs,
plants and
worms
California
(port
Eureka to San
Diego)
9 different
ports
2001-2004
Halfmoon Bay
to SD
5 counties
Sou CA, 5
Ports. Nor CA
2003-2005
Value in $, pounds and number
of permits for whole California
California
non
1970-2005
Northern California catch
(pounds)
Lat. 38.18 –
39.59
11 areas
2000-2005
Pounds catch
LBS/RCPT ?
Comm.
Fishing
DFG – sea urchin
fishery report
2006
Red sea
urchin
Comm.
Fishing
DFG – sea urchin
fishery tables
Exvessel value determined from
price*pounds for each receipt
Red sea
urchin
Southern CA
(SB to SD)
8 CI +
5 counties
1991-2003
Comm.
Fishing
Anuario estadístico
de pesca 2003 de
comisión nacional
de acuacultura y
pesca (Mex)
Poundage and value of landings
(example)
Species
(e.g. abalone
and spiny
lobster)
Baja
California and
Baja
California Sur
2 states
1993-2003
(monthly)
Comm.
Fishing
Fish bulletin
Varies: poundage, value of
landings
Abalone and
spiny lobster
California and
Mexico
Depends…
Beginning
1917
Direct
kelp
harvest
Monterey Bay
Nat. Mar. Sanct.
Final Kelp
Management
Report (2000)
Metric tons harvested kelp (wet)
Macrocystis
Nereocystis
Whole CA
Non
1916-1994
Metric tons harvested kelp (wet)
n.a.
MBNMS
15 kelp beds
1987-1999
25
4. other factors to explain variation in human
activity levels/net revenues
• Example:
number of dives in certain place as function of
– density of kelp,
– diversity of fish species,
– probability to see big individuals,
– availability of substitute sites (and substitute activities!),
– accessibility of site,
– other attractive objects for diving (e.g. wrecks),
– human population density, surge or currents
– Etc.
 data needs!!!! Depend on specific aim of study! Help needed!
26
5. Analysis – hedonic functions
• Regression: how much variation of activity
level/net revenue can be explained by
ecosystem configuration considering other
important factors. = attributable to ecosystem
configuration or specific ecological elements
27
6. ecologic analysis
• Link to ecologists
28
7. Final analysis: Simulation of different
management options
• Needs to be done….
29
Many open questions….
30
The approach
-assumptions• Ecosystem configuration affects how much
benefits/yields humans obtain from certain activities
• Human activities (can) affect ecological elements
• Ecological feedback leads to effects on not directly
by human activities affected ecological elements
• Human activities can appear at so high intensities
that the ecosystem configuration is affected in a way
overall non-beneficial for humans
31