“Science, Decision Support Models and Ecosystem
Attribute Valuation: An Application to the San Pedro
River, Arizona and Rio Grande, New Mexico”
•
David Brookshire (UNM)
David Goodrich (USDA-ARS)
Julie Stromberg (ASU)
Jennifer Thacher (UNM)
Arriana Brand (USGS)
Craig Broadbent (IWU)
Mark Dixon (USD)
Karl Benedict (UNM)
Kevin Lansey (UA)
Molly McIntosh (MMC-LLC)
Steve Stewart (SAHRA)
Prepared for: “Challenges in Integrating (Hydrologic) Science into Urban+
Decision Making” (April 29 – May 1, 2013, Tucson, AZ).
Includes Economists, Biologist, Ecologist, Ornithologist, Hydrologist, Facilitator, Geospatial Engineer
Funded by U.S. EPA Environmental Protection Agency (Star grant program), in part by SAHRA (Sustainability
of semi-Arid Hydrology and Riparian Area), and USGS through SILPE (Science Impact Laboratory for Policy
and Economics—UNM)
1
EPA
San Pedro Riparian National Conservation Area
(SPRNCA) - One of the Last Great Places On Earth
•
SPRNCA formed Nov 18th 1988
•
Cattle removal began in 1988
•
High degree of connectivity of
surface and groundwater systems
•
Flows north from Cananea, Mexico
to the Gila River in Arizona
– ~40 miles in length
– ~56,000 Acres
•
A semi-arid flyway
– 412 Bird species, with 200+,
migrants
– One of the most ecologically
diverse areas in the world
•
Riparian vegetation consists of
– Cottonwood, Salt Cedar
– Mesquite, River Grasses
(The Nature Conservancy)
3
Restoration: Effects of Cattle
Removal in the SPRNCA
View from Hereford Bridge
1984
1998
• Following cattle removal
from SPRNCA in 1988…
• Expansion of
herbaceous riparian
vegetation
• Channel narrowing &
stabilization
• Restoration occurred
Photos courtesy of BLM-Files
4
But No Status Quo: Beyond Restoration To
Preservation, the Need for a Decision Support
System for Adaptive Management
2000
35000
0
30000
-2000
25000
-6000
Acre-feet/Yr
Acre-feet/Yr
-4000
-8000
-10000
-12000
20000
15000
10000
-14000
5000
-16000
-18000
2003
0
2017
Year
2030
2044
Change in aquifer storage
– Anthropogenic
2003
2017
Year
2030
2044
Change in Consumptive Use
– Anthropogenic
5
Water Polices are Available
for the San Pedro to bring in
Additional Water?
•
INFRASTRUCTURE CHANGES
•
•
•
WATER AUGMENTATION
•
•
increase the amount of water in the basin by piping it in from
other regions
WATER CONSERVATION/PRICING
•
•
location of subdivisions and groundwater wells
recharge basins
decrease the consumption of water in the region
What are the benefits and costs of these
programs?
•
•
Calculating the costs is relatively straightforward
But what about the benefits of ecosystem services?
6
Interested in a Tool for Finding the
Balance: Beyond Restoration
Meeting
Ecosystem
Needs
San Pedro Riparian Area
Meeting
Human
Needs
San Pedro Subdivisions
1. How to go about an integrated science, and economics
framework to find the balance?
7
DSS
DSS Tool
Purpose of San Pedro DSS:
to evaluate the benefits and costs of conservation, augmentation, and
recharge alternatives (including non-market riparian values)
Incorporates multiple factors:
USGS groundwater model
Surface water supply
Groundwater storage
Residential/commercial water uses
(infrastructure, well location)
Simulations up to 50 years
Can vary (e.g.):
populations
location of recharge basin
location of future wells
Generates alternative futures:
BUT-Does not provide or
incorporate benefits of
ecosystem attributes
THUS-tradeoffs identified are
incomplete
Characterization of
an Ecosystem
1. Components
2. Processes
3. Outputs
Linking Science and Economics: A
Foundation for Ecosystem Services
Valuation
Survey
(Education)
Develop Scenarios
Ecosystem
Valuation
Component
Anthropogenic
Climatic
Changes
Hydrology
Component
Changes
Riparian
Component
DSS
(current
conditions)
Integrate
Values
Into DSS
Changes
Avian
Component
(Attributes)
1. Surface
Water
2. Birds
3. Vegetation
4. Cost
Ecosystem
Services
Demand
Curves
Characterization of
an Ecosystem
1. Components
2. Processes
3. Outputs
Science Based Definitions and Ecosystem
Attributes
Valuation studies are typically not anchored in an integrated science
models:
• What is needed:
– Walk through the forest - what do you know about it?
• The forest is pretty etc, but doubtful one knows the mix of vegetation, birds,
groundwater levels etc
• Without this information cannot decide what you prefer from one area to another
– What is needed is science driven ecosystem attribute endpoint
“bundles” describing ecosystem services
• With the drivers of change clearly defined,
• Thus defining change in the system (marginal change of attributes)
10
What Does Economics Require for
Valuing Ecosystem Services ?
(3 Elements)
1. Ecosystem components of a “Place”
2. Ecosystem process and functions
•
Biological, chemical, and physical interactions between
ecosystem components of a “place”:
3. Ecological endpoints of a “place” – changes
in these are necessary descriptors of the
Ecosystem Attribute “bundles” as attributes
for Valuation–
•
•
•
These are directly related to human welfare measure
Water flows, vegetation mix and abundance, bird
population, abundance and density
There are things your neighbor would understand! 11
SCENARIOS
Ground Water Futures (GWF)
•
•
•
GWF1: 0.5 m uniform decline in ground water table
GWF2: 1 m uniform decline in ground water table
GWF3: 0.5 m uniform increase in ground water table
• GWF4: Continued and increased agricultural pumping near
Palominas; new developments in unincorporated areas of
Palominas and Hereford near SPRNCA
•
GWF5: Increasing cone of depression in Sierra Vista, Ft. Huachuca, and Huachuca City with impacts toward the
lower Babocomari and northern SPRNCA
• GWF6: Large increases in ground water levels due to recharge
and conservation efforts in Sierra Vista and Bisbee
•
GWF7: Combined from scenarios 4 & 5, representing effects of both agricultural pumping in the south and increasing
cone of depression
•
•
GWF8: Low extreme-river essentially dries up
GWF9: High extreme-river essentially has surface flows throughout
SPRNCA
12
Alternative Groundwater
Scenarios
4. Changes
Hydrology
Component
3. DSS
(current
conditions)
Current
S1
S2
S3
S4
S5
S6
S7
S8
S9
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
11
10
9
11
10
9
8
11
10
9
8
11
10
9
8
11
10
9
8
11
10
9
8
11
10
9
8
11
10
9
8
11
10
9
8
11
10
9
8
8
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
5
5
4
4
3
Reach boundary.shp
Class 1 - Dry
Class 2 - Intermediate
Class 3 - Wet
5
1
4
3
2
5
1
4
3
2
5
1
4
3
2
5
1
4
3
2
5
1
4
3
2
5
1
4
3
2
5
1
4
3
2
5
3
2
1
4
3
2
2
1
1
13
5. Changes
Riparian
Component
Riparian Model
•
The model places reaches of the river into one of
three condition classes:
– Based on 9 bio-indicators (e.g. types of plants)
which are sensitive to changes in hydrology.
•
Each current condition class (e.g. situation today) is
reflective of different levels of ecosystem functional
capacity.
•
Model is inside DSS and is used it to track changes in
the abundance of each class over time, based upon
ground water level changes:
– Dry : 73% Tamarisk, 10% Cottonwood-Willow
– Intermediate: 21% Tamarisk, 63% CottonwoodWillow
– Wet: No Tamarisk, 89% Cottonwood-Willow
Tamarisk
14
5. Changes
Riparian
Component
6. Changes
Avian
Component
Avian Model: As riparian
changes occur, so goes
avian changes
15
7. Ecosystem
Valuation
Component
Total Abundance (number of birds)
(Attributes)
Migrating Bird
Abundance Changes
N
Current
S1
S2
S3
14
14
14
14
13
13
13
13
12
12
12
12
11
10
9
11
10
9
8
8
8
8
7
7
7
6
6
6
6
Condition
Class
CC1
CC2
CC3
23000
11
10
9
7
5
25000
11
10
9
5
4
5
4
3
3
2
1
5
4
2
1
4
3
3
2
1
1
21000
19000
17000
S3
S1
Current
Declining Groundwater by Scenario
2
S2
16
7. Ecosystem
Valuation
Component
(Attributes)
• Surface
• Water
• Birds
• Veg.
Placing Values on
Ecosystem
Services
• Development
– 1963 NRJ Robert Davis (air quality – USEPA—ORD)
– Embodied now in various U.S. Fed. Docs
• Contingent Valuation Model (CVM)
– Asks individuals their Willingness To Pay (WTP) for a
single ecosystem attribute (e.g. greater number of birds)
• Choice Modeling (CM)
– Asks individuals to choose a specific alternative from a
set of Ecosystem Attribute Bundles (e.g. birds,
vegetation, surface water)
17
Designing the Surveys:
Focus Groups
• Focus groups have been
conducted using the Choice
Experiment (CE) San Pedro
Survey
• Public Feedback
– Wanted more information
• Created “Drill Downs”
– Changes in presentation of
visual material
– Indicated what information
was most useful
• Science Feedback
– Reviewed survey for technical
accuracy
18
Marginal “Dollar” Values and
their Use
• What kind of Marginal Dollar Values are generated
from Contingent Valuation and Choice Modeling for
Ecosystem Endpoints?
– Miles of Visibility
– Changes in Endangered Species Populations
• In this study -- Obtain Marginal Dollar Values
(values for incremental changes) for:
–
–
–
–
–
Miles of surface water
Breeding birds by nest heights
Breeding birds by surface water dependency
Spring migratory birds
Vegetation diversity
19
7. Ecosystem
Valuation
Component
(Attributes)
• Surface
• Water
• Birds
• Veg.
San Pedro/Rio
Grande
Survey
• Survey includes:
– Introduction and
discussion of riparian
zones/focus on
groundwater
– Background about the San
Pedro/Rio Grande
– Essentially sets up market
information
– Development of Ecosystem
Services Endpoint Attribute
Bundles
• Water, Vegetation, and
Birds
20
Contingent Valuation
Example
Current
Condition
Ask: How much are
you willing to pay for
Alt. #1 over CC?
Alternate
Condition - 1
How much for Alt. #2
over CC?
How much for Alt. #2
over Alt. #1 ?
Alternate
Condition - 2
Choice Modeling Example - Riparian Preservation
Attributes
Riparian
Vegetation
% Time SW
Is Present
< 60%
Current
Condition
> 60%
< 95%
Alternate
Condition - 2
> 95%
• Attributes across bundles are NOT independent
• Need science (
) to describe dependence of attributes in a bundle
• Decisions points: 1) do nothing 2) maintain CC 3) improve CC
– different construction/conservation measures with each decision
Bundle #1 Bundle #2 Bundle #3
Alternate
Condition - 1
Bird Type/Pop.
Attributes
SPRNCA WTP Estimates
• WTP to move from the
Current Conditions to S6
WTP
WTP Avoid
Increments Decrements
Bundle
-$10.94
$94.92 **
Bird
-$41.44
$31.89
Veg
$99.54 **
-$240.79
Water
$57.60 *
$72.87 **
– Vegetation is the
significant variable and the
most important variable
– Large inc. in recharge, sig.
inc. in surface flows
• WTP to avoid moving
from the Current
Conditions to S4
– Water is the significant
variable and the bundle of
ecosystem services is
significant
– Involved continual
pumping thus degradation
*, ** denotes significant at the 10% and 5% levels
Current
S1
S2
S3
S4
S5
S6
S7
S8
S9
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
11
10
9
11
10
9
8
11
10
9
8
11
10
9
8
11
10
9
8
11
10
9
8
11
10
9
8
11
10
9
8
11
10
9
8
11
10
9
8
8
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
5
5
4
3
Reach boundary.shp
Class 1 - Dry
Class 2 - Intermediate
Class 3 - Wet
5
4
3
2
1
5
4
3
2
1
5
4
3
2
1
5
4
3
2
1
5
4
3
2
1
5
4
3
2
1
5
4
3
2
1
5
4
2
1
4
3
3
2
1
2
1
Characterization of
an Ecosystem
1. Components
2. Processes
3. Outputs
The Scientific Foundation of
Ecosystem Services Valuation
Survey
(Education)
Develop Scenarios
Ecosystem
Valuation
Component
Anthropogenic
Climatic
Changes
Hydrology
Component
Changes
Riparian
Component
DSS
(current
conditions)
Integrate
Values
Into DSS
Changes
Avian
Component
(Attributes)
1. Surface
Water
2. Birds
3. Vegetation
4. Cost
Ecosystem
Services
Demand
Curves
Horizontal: Transferability science and valuation within a region (e.g. SW)
(SP/RG//Verde/Salt/?) (continuing)
• A goal is to have a menu of transfer
functions for a region
Why– original studies for ALL areas is
to expensive
• Benefit Transfers: Incremental
monetary value of an ecosystem
endpoint transferred another site
(SPRNCA)
• Science Transfers: The relative
science information between the “study
and transfer sites” should be “similar”
What we did:
•
•
•
(MRG)
Developed Science for the Rio Grande
based upon San Pedro
Developed a Choice / Contingent
Valuation Survey
– San Pedro
– Rio Grande
Compare/Calibrate the Marginal Dollar
Values for Ecosystem Attributes
25
Across Sites within a Region: Using
Place Based Science and Valuations
San Pedro, AZ
Rio Grande, NM
Salt River, AZ
Gila River, NM
We are discussing the following .
Steps:
• Calibrate across the original data sets from San Pedro and Grande
•
•Extend San Pedro efforts to upland areas
• Relate placed based science to:
• Remote sensing information in Salt River and Gila
•Within a representative ecosystem, we can use appropriate ecosystem function models
•Relying upon remote sensing and GIS technologies
26
• Relate extent of the market for valuation transfer
Landscape Conservation Cooperatives
Secretarial Order No. 3289 establishes Landscape Conservation
Cooperatives, which are management-science partnerships that inform
integrated resource-management actions across landscapes (February
22, 2010).
?
Defining the Region of Analysis (for
science and valuation):
Extending this work into the Lower
Mississippi Valley
Everglades
Gila River, NM
?
Salt River, AZ
?
Rio Grande, NM
Hawaii
?
Hypothesis: A national map might be a composite
of regional studies, based upon place based
science and valuations
SPRNCA,28AZ
THANK YOU
Thank You
29