This is TABLE A. EXAMPLES OF NATIONAL FORESTS AND NATIONAL GRASSLANDS INTEGRATING ES INTO THEIR PLANNING Don’t know where it should go
Forest or Project | |
---|---|
Nez Pearce-Clearwater National Forest‚ Idaho | Early Adopter |
Chugach National Forest‚ Alaska | Early Adopter |
Cibola National Forest‚ New Mexico | Early Adopter |
El Yunque National Forest‚ Puerto Rico | Early Adopter |
Inyo‚ Sequoia‚ and Sierra National Forests‚ California | Early Adopter |
Francis Marion Forest‚ South Carolina | Mid Adopter |
Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests‚ North Carolina | Mid Adopter |
This is TABLE B. NATIONAL FORESTS AND NATIONAL GRASSLANDS INTEGRATING ES AT THE PROJECT LEVEL Don’t know where it should go
Forest or Project |
---|
Marsh Project‚ Deschutes National Forest‚ Oregon |
Cool Soda Project‚ Willamette National Forest‚ Oregon |
Table 1. An example of an alternatives matrix (or decision table) for 2 management alternatives affecting 4 services.
Status Quo/BAU | Alternative A | Alternative B | |
---|---|---|---|
Service 1 | |||
Service 2 | |||
Service 3 | |||
Service 4 |
MDCA Slide4
Measures | Status quo | Downstream dam | Upstream release |
---|---|---|---|
Number of bird 1 (breeding pairs on forest) | 200 | 220 | 205 |
Wildlife viewing at walkway site (qualitative scale) | One iconic sp < 5 | One iconis sp < 5‚ one > 5 | Both > 5 |
Flood Events (annual average) | 0.2 | 0.15 | 0.2 |
Implementation cost ($MM NPV) | 0.1 | 1.0 | 0.8 |
MDCA Slide7
Measures | Status quo | Downstream dam | Upstream release |
---|---|---|---|
Number of bird 1 (breeding pairs on forest) | 200 (0) | 220 (1) | 205 (0.25) |
Wildlife viewing at walkway site (qualitative scale) | One iconic sp < 5 (0.14) | One iconis sp < 5‚ one > 5 (0.86) | Both > 5 (1) |
Flood Events (annual average) | 0.2 (0) | 0.15 (0.8) | 0.2 (0) |
Cost ($MM NPV) | 0.1 (1) | 1.0 (0) | 0.8 (0.6) |
MDCA Slide9
Measures (weights) | Status quo | Downstream dam | Upstream release |
---|---|---|---|
Number of bird 1 (breeding pairs on forest) (w = 0.11) | 200 (0) | 220 (1) | 205 (0.25) |
Wildlife viewing at walkway site (qualitative scale) (w = 0.06) | One iconic sp < 5 (0.14) | One iconis sp < 5‚ one > 5 (0.86) | Both > 5 (1) |
Flood Events (annual average) (w = 0.28) | 0.2 | (0) 0.15 (0.18) | 0.2 (0) |
Cost ($MM NPV) (w = 0.55) | 0.1 (1) | 1.0 (0) | 0.8 (0.6) |
Overall value | 0.56 | 0.39 | 0.42 |
MDCA Slide11 – Table 4bb
Category | Ratio | Points | Relative Satisfaction |
---|---|---|---|
Neither | 10 | 0 | |
One‚ < 5 | 2x | 20 | 0.14 |
One‚ ≥ 5 | 2.5x | 25 | 0.21 |
Both < 5 | 5x | 50 | 0.57 |
One < 5‚ other ≥ 5 | 7x | 70 | 0.86 |
Both ≥ 5 | 8x | 80 | 1 |
MDCA Slide12 – Table 4dd
Measure (units) | Range | Rank | Ratio | Weight |
---|---|---|---|---|
Cost | 0.1-1.0 | 1 | 10 | 0.55 |
Bird 1 (pairs) | 100-220 | 3 | 2 | 0.11 |
Flood events (ave #/yr) | 0.15-0.2 | 2 | 5 | 0.28 |
Viewing (index) | One < 5 – both > 5 | 4 | 1 | 0.06 |
MeansEnds – Slide2
ALT. 1 Mechanical Thinning (Site A – Lowland) |
ALT. 2 Prescribed Burning (Site A – Lowland) |
ALT. 3 Mechanical Thinning (Site B – Upland) |
ALT. 4 Prescribed Burning (Site B – Upland) |
ALT. 5 Chemical Cheatgrass Removal (Site C) |
ALT. 6 Chemical Cheatgrass Removal (Site D) |
||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Desired Ecological Condition & Ecosystem Service |
Fuel conditions result in a low threat to community | √ | √ | √ | √ | ||
Visibility and healthy air maintained | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | |
Desired Ecological Condition (identified by managers) | Riparian areas resilient to fire | √ | √ | ||||
Ecosystem Service (identified by community) |
Hunting/wildlife watching opportunities improved | √ | √ | ||||
Hiking/camping opportunities maintained | √ | √ | √ | ||||
Timber harvest sustained | √ | √ | |||||
Habitats/species protected | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ |
MeansEnds – Slide12
Ecosystem Services | Mechanical Thinining (Lowland) | Mechanical Thinning (Upland) |
---|---|---|
Respiratory Health | + | + |
Commuter Visibility | + | + |
Fire Risk Reduction | + | + |
Climate Stability | + | + |
Timber | + | + |
Hiking | + | + |
Camping | + | + |
Recreational Hunting | +/- | +/- |
Wildlife Watching | +/- | +/- |
Biodiversity Existence | ++ | + |
Boating | + | + |
Fishing | - | N/A |
+ Positive impact on service
– Negative impact on service
+/- Positive or negative impact on service
MeansEnds – Slide13
Ecosystem Services | Mechanical Thinining (Lowland) | Prescribed Burning (Lowland) |
---|---|---|
Respiratory Health | + | + |
Commuter Visibility | + | + |
Fire Risk Reduction | + | + |
Climate Stability | + | + |
Timber | + | N/A |
Hiking | + | + |
Camping | + | + |
Recreational Hunting | +/- | +/- |
Wildlife Watching | +/- | +/- |
Biodiversity Existence | +/- | +/- |
Boating | + | + |
Fishing | - | – |
+ Positive impact on service
– Negative impact on service
+/- Positive or negative impact on service
Additional MeansEnds – Slide?
Ecosystem Services | Mechanical Thinining (Upland) | Mechanical Thinining (Lowland) | Prescribed Burning (Lowland) |
---|---|---|---|
Respiratory Health | + | + | + |
Commuter Visibility | + | + | + |
Fire Risk Reduction | + | + | + |
Climate Stability | + | + | + |
Timber | + | + | N/A |
Hiking | + | + | + |
Camping | + | + | + |
Recreational Hunting | +/- | +/- | +/- |
Wildlife Watching | +/- | +/- | +/- |
Biodiversity Existence | + | ++ | ++ |
Boating | + | + | + |
Fishing | N/A | - | – |
+ Positive impact on service
– Negative impact on service
+/- Positive or negative impact on service
Overview – Slide 9
Ecosystem services | Status quo | Mechanical thinning | Prescribed Burning |
---|---|---|---|
Fire-risk reduction | |||
Wildlife-related recreation | |||
Water yield | |||
Cost |
Ecosystem services | Status quo | Mechanical thinning | Prescribed Burning |
---|---|---|---|
Fire-risk reduction | These cells are populated with some measure of the expected change in service and, when possible, a weight or value indicating the importance of that change to stakeholders. |
||
Wildlife-related recreation | |||
Water yield | |||
Cost | These cells are populated with the direct or opportunity costs of each alternative. |
WayPoints – Slide 1
Table 1 Empty matrix based on the Eco Forest Scenario
Ecosystem services | Status quo | Downstream dam | Upstream Release |
---|---|---|---|
Protection of at-risk species | |||
Wildlife Watching | |||
Flood risk reduction | |||
Cost |
Ecosystem services | Status quo | Downstream dam | Upstream Release |
---|---|---|---|
Protection of at-risk species | Each of these cells are populated with some measure of the expected change in service provided and where possible these are subsequeltly updated with measures indicating benefit to people. |
||
Wildlife Watching | |||
Flood risk reduction | |||
Cost | These cells are populated with the costs for each alternative. |
WayPoints – Slide 2
Table 2 Qualitative ecological data/ no data on social preferences
Ecosystem services | Status quo | Downstream dam | Upstream Release |
---|---|---|---|
Protection of at-risk species | 0 | ++ | + |
Wildlife Watching | 0 | + | ++ |
Flood risk reduction | 0 | + | 0 |
WayPoints – Slide 3
Table 3 Quantitative ecological data (E)/ no data on social preference
Ecosystem services | Status quo | Downstream dam | Upstream Release | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
E | ΔE | E | ΔE | E | ΔE | ||
Protection of at-risk species | 200 breeding bird pairs in forest | 0 | 220 breeding bird pairs in forest | +20 breeding bird pairs | 205 breeding bird pairs in forest | +5 breeding bird pairs | |
Wildlife Watching | 1 iconic species seen < 5 times | 0 | 1 iconic species seen < 5 times‚ 1 seen > 5 | +1 iconic species seen > 5 times | Both iconic species seen > 5 times | +1 iconic species seen > 5 times‚ > number of sightings of other iconic species | |
Flood risk reduction | 2 flood events per decade on average | 0 | 1.5 flood events per decade on average | 25% fewer flood events per decade | 2 flood events per decade on average | 0 |
WayPoints – Slide 4
Table 3 Quanlitative or quantitative ecological data (E)/ qualitative social date (S)
Ecosystem services | Status quo | Downstream dam | Upstream Release | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
E | S | ΔE | S | ΔE | S | ||
Protection of at-risk species | 200 breeding bird pairs in forest | Pretty good | +20 breeding bird pairs | better | +5 breeding bird pairs | A little bit better | |
Wildlife Watching | 1 iconic species seen < 5 times | fair | +1 iconic species seen > 5 times | Nice improvement | +1 iconic species seen > 5 times‚ > number of sightings of other iconic species | Could add sig. value, bring in more visitors | |
Flood risk reduction | 2 flood events per decade on average | Significant problem | 25% fewer flood events per decade | Very helpful | 0 | Still significant problem |
WayPoints – Slide 5
Table 5a Qualitative ecological data/ quantitative social preferences (MCDA)
Status quo | Downstream dam | Upstream Release | |
---|---|---|---|
Protection of at-risk species Numbers of breeding pairs (weight) | 200 (0) | 220 (1) | 205 (0.25) |
Wildlife viewing at walkway site Qualitative # sightings/species (weight) | One iconic sp < 5 (0.14) | One iconic sp < 5‚ one > 5 (0.86) | Both > 5 |
Flood risk reduction Flood events/yr (weight) | 0.2 (0) | 0.15 (0.8) | 0.2 (0) |
WayPoints – Slide 6
Table 5b Quantitative ecological data/ quantitative social preferences (monetization)
Ecosystem Services | Downstream dam | Upstream Release |
---|---|---|
Protection of at-risk species | $120k | $30k |
Wildlife watching | $8.5k | $10k |
Flood risk reduction | $750k | $0 |
MCDA Slide 5 – Relative Satisfaction/# breeding pairs of Bird 1
MCDA Slide 6 – Relative Satisfaction/10 year average of annual risk of flood
— Upstream Landowners
— Downstream Landowners
MCDA Slide 6 – Relative Satisfaction/Dollars Gained
— Risk Prone
— Neutral
— Risk Adverse
MCDA Slide 8 – Cumlative weight
• Cost
• Breeding Pairs
• Flooding
• Bird Viewing
Valuation Method | Description | Examples of Ecosystem Services Valued | |
---|---|---|---|
Market Valuationa | Market Analysis and Transactions | Derives value from household’s or firm’s inverse demand function based on observations of use | Fish Timber Water Other raw goods |
Production Function | Derives value based on the contribution of an ecosystem to the production of marketed goods | Crop production (contributions from pollination, natural pest control) Fish production (contributions from wetlands, seagrass, coral) |
|
Revealed Preferences | Hedonic Price Method | Derives an implicit value for an ecosystem services from market prices of goods | Aesthetics (from air and water quality, natural lands) Health benefits (from air quality) |
Recreation Demand Methods | Derives an implicit value of an on-site activity based on observed travel behavior | Recreation value (contributions from: Water quality and quantity Fish and bird communities Landscape configuration Air quality) |
|
Defensive and Damage Costs Avoidedb | Damage Costs Avoided | Value is inferred from the direct and indirect expenses incurred as a result of damage to the built environment or to people. | Flood protection (costs of rebuilding homes) Health and safety benefits (treatment costs) |
Averting Behavior / Defensive Expenditures | Value is inferred from costs and expenditures incurred in mitigating or avoiding damages | Health and safety benefits (e.g., cost of an installed air filtration system suggests a minimum willingness-to-pay to avoid discomfort or illness from polluted air) | |
Replacement / Restoration Cost | Value is inferred from potential expenditures incurred from replacing or restoring an ecosystem services. | Drinking water quality (treatment costs avoided) Fire management |
|
Public Pricing | Public investment serves as a surrogate for market transactions (e.g., government money spent on purchasing easements). | Non-use values (species and ecosystem protection) Open space Recreation |
|
Stated Preference | Contingent Valuation (open-ended and discrete choice) | Creates a hypothetical market by asking survey respondents to state their willingness-to-pay or willingness-to-accept payment for an outcome (open-ended), or by asking them whether they would vote for or choose particular actions or policies with given outcomes and costs (discrete choice). | Non-use values (species and ecosystem protection), Recreation Aesthetics |
Choice Modeling / Experiments | Creates a hypothetical market by asking survey respondents to choose among multi-attribute bundles of goods with associated costs and derives value using statistical models. | Non-use values (species and ecosystem protection), Recreation Aesthetics |