Valuing Ecosystem Services in Florida's Natural Systems

1. C Expert Elicitation and the Value of Natural Systems in Florida Barbara Wyse, Cardno ENTRIX Ecosystem Service Valuation Workshop, July 2013

2. Project Scope: Valuing Ecosystem Services on Lands of the Southwest Florida Water Management District • Develop a valuation framework for the Ecosystem Services provided by District land: • Develop estimates of value for four mission areas • Water Supply • Water Quality • Flood Protection • Natural Systems • Use available GIS data • Develop screening-level estimate of value, considering current and alternative land uses with and without District ownership/regulations

3. Natural Systems Core Mission Protecting water-related natural systems increases the District’s ability to carry out its responsibilities. Goal: To preserve, protect, and restore natural systems in order to support their natural hydrologic and ecologic functions.

4. Challenges In Valuing Natural Systems • Deciding whose values to use • Estimating values independent of other Core Mission Benefits • Defining natural systems and the units of measurement

5. Challenges In Using Benefits Transfer • Most prevalent valuation method is contingent valuation • Surveys of the general public about the value of complex ecosystem services are unlikely to be reliable • Studies often bundle or double count benefits • Few disaggregate benefits by service • Huge variation in results • Wetland WTP is $0.41 - $ 6,494 per acre • Few studies for Florida, mostly focusing on wetlands (Milon) • Values aren’t District specific or specific to natural systems

6. Expert Elicitation Approach • Multi-criteria Decision Analysis • Obtain values of experts familiar with resources • No Need to Directly Estimate Dollar Values • Tailored Values: Natural Systems Benefit of District Land Ownership • Cost Efficient Pilot • Can Reduce Double Counting of Benefits

7. Survey

8. Natural System Metrics Lesson Learned: Clear definitions of known, independent metrics. • Groundwater supply • Potential Habitat Richness • Natural Community Type • FL Ecological Greenways Network Score

9. How The Metrics Were Chosen Lesson Learned: Actual and perceived independence of metrics are both important. • Reviewed available natural systems GIS data from the Critical Lands and Water Inventory Project (CLIP 2.0) • Consulted with Cardno ENTRIX ecologists to determine which are reasonably independent • Examined spatial correlations between the selected metrics

10. Tradeoff Analysis - Example

11. Parameter Estimates: Per Unit Importance Lesson Learned: District’s perceived and actual preferences differed.

12. Capitalized Value per Unit-Acre (30 Years at 4%) Lesson Learned: Natural systems appear to be primarily valued for water-related services.

13. Why Are The Values Much Lower Than Other CV Studies? • Based on experts • Trading-off water supply for real agency decision making is more realistic than trading off hypothetical • Natural system values are still embedded in water supply (can’t get water supply without getting natural systems)

14. Next Steps • Sensitivity analysis • Do natural system values affect rankings? • Only differences matter • Debrief with participants about how they answered questions • Test with alternate metrics