Valuation of Non-Market Services Provided by Gulf of Mexico Habitats

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
1 An overview of the potential of environmental valuation to inform protected area management. Dr Mike Christie University of Wales Aberystwyth ICS-UNIDO.
Advertisements

Presented By: Gareth Leonard (DEP) Presented To: Florida Oceans and Coastal Council Date: October 30, 2012 DRAFT.
Welcome to the World of Investigative Tasks
Recreational Values of Gulf Grouper John Whitehead, Appalachian State University Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council Socioeconomic Panel Miami, Florida.
1) Introduction Prior to the Exxon Valdez oil spill, the estimation of passive use value, was an area of economic research not well known. However, based.
Valuing the Environment What exactly do economists mean when they talk about “valuing the environment” in monetary terms?
Harte Research Institute for Gulf of Mexico Studies David W. Yoskowitz Carlota Santos Harte Research Institute for Gulf of Mexico Studies Texas A&M University.
Economic Value refers to the contribution made to human welfare, measured in terms of each individual’s personal assessment is a comparative concept, defining.
NOPP Regional Ocean Observing Systems Benefits Project: Center for Economic Forecasting and Analysis (CEFA) Economic Impact Analysis of the Gulf of Mexico.
1 Environmental Economics and Valuation Alberto Longo Department of Economics and International Development University of Bath, England
Valuation of improvements in coastal environments.
FSU Center for Economic Forecasting and Analysis (CEFA) Economic Impact Study for the GFMC By Dr. Tim Lynch, Director Dr. Julie Harrington, Asst. Director.
A hybrid approach for an economic valuation of marine and coastal ecosystem services 2nd Meeting of the Expert Group on Marine Research Infrastructure.
Targeted Interventions in Health Care: The case of PROMIN Sebastian Galiani Mercedes Fernandez Ernesto Schargrodsky.
Wild Values: Putting a Price on Nature Steve Colt, Institute of Social and Economic Research Science and Society Lecture Series University of Alaska Anchorage.
Ecosystem Valuation Social and Environmental Aspects Kathryn Benson CE 397 November 25, 2003.
LaDon Swann and Tracie Sempier Mississippi-Alabama Sea Grant Consortium February 24, 2010.
NOAA Restoration Center Implementing the Gulf Regional Sediment Management Master Plan …responding to an ongoing emergency, improving responses to new.
CPRA Financing Corporation December 18, 2012 Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill.
Copyright © 2009 Pearson Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved. Chapter 3 Valuing the Environment: Methods.
Value of Time for Commercial Vehicle Operators in Minnesota by David Levinson and Brian Smalkoski University of Minnesota.
DEEPWATER HORIZON $1B EARLY RESTORATION AGREEMENT Governor’s Advisory Commission May 11, 2010.
SUSTAINING ENVIRONMENTAL CAPITAL (SEC) INITIATIVE Providing resources for applying ecosystem services in public land & water management.
OCEAN STUDIES BOARD An Ecosystem Services Approach to Assessing the Impacts of the DWH Oil Spill in the Gulf Of Mexico Kim Waddell, Ph.D Ocean Studies.
Public Awareness and Support for Coastal Restoration Craig A. Miller Warnell School of Forestry and Natural Resources University of Georgia.
Results Conditional Logit and Mixed Logit Regression Results: Willingness to Pay Results: Wind Energy in Your Community: Choice Experiment Will Scott &
Landscape Conservation Cooperative (LCC) Supported Assessment Tools Gulf of Mexico Alliance Tools Café June 2016 Southeast Aquatic Connectivity Assessment.
Yandell - Econ 216 Chap 1-1 Chapter 1 Introduction and Data Collection.
© 2001 South-Western, a division of Thomson Learning
Market research THE TIMES 100.
COSA Committee Meeting
Frank Lupi, Michael D. Kaplowitz, John P. Hoehn
Chapter 9 Fundamentals of Hypothesis Testing: One-Sample Tests
Student Preferences in Housing: Towards Individual Accommodations – A Discrete Choice Experiment using JMP® Roselinde Kessels, FWO postdoctoral research.
Preferences for Coral Reef and Fishery Management in Okinawa, Japan
Sampling.
Chapter 1: An Economic Way of Thinking
Hurricane Katrina Evacuees In Texas: A Comprehensive Needs Assessment
Stephanie F. Stefanski Duke University
How may bike-sharing choice be affected by air pollution
A Quick Intro to Non-Market Valuation
Reduce Recycle Reuse Ana Wood Polk County Solid Waste Director
From Practice to Action
Oil Spill Program.
Willingness to Pay for Reliability in Road Freight Transportation:
Valuing cultural services: Including the value of time?
AP Statistics Comparing Two Proportions
Table 1: NHBS HET3 Participant Characteristics
Factors influencing customer behavior
SAMPLING (Zikmund, Chapter 12.
Determining and Scaling Habitat Services
Coastal Protection Models: Past, Present and Future
Wildlife Conservation
Preferences for Timing of Wetland Loss Prevention in Louisiana
U.S.-Japan Opinion Survey 2017 January 8, 2018 Brookings Institution
Tabulations and Statistics
Demographics Belief & Behaviors.
Current conditions.
Norman Washington Garrick CE 2710 Spring 2016 Lecture 07
Reynolds Farley The University of Michigan Population Studies Center
Household Financial Fragility: Evidence and Implications
Frank Lupi, Michael D. Kaplowitz, John P. Hoehn
Who is your Target Market?
CLEANER COOKONG CAMP Presentation
Challenges of Natural Resource Economics & Policy May 22, 2007
Making the Business Case for an IT System
2019 Planning & Progress Study
FUNDS PROVIDED TO TEXAS
Chul-Oh Shin · Won-Keun Chang Korea Maritime Institute
Chapter 12 Income Distribution, Poverty, and Discrimination
Presentation transcript:

Valuation of Non-Market Services Provided by Gulf of Mexico Habitats Cristina Carollo David Yoskowitz, Alan Krupnick, Juha Siikamäki, Lauren Hutchison ACES 2014 Washington, D.C. December 10, 2014

The geographic location of the study is the US Gulf of Mexico coast

People engage in different activities along the US Gulf coast % Over the last 5 years have you done any of the following activities along the US Gulf coast? % that responded yes. Activities

Quantify preferences of ecosystem services provided by marshes, mangroves, and oyster reefs Source: NOAA Objectives: Isolate biophysical and ecological functions of target habitats; Identify ecosystem services that are salient to the public and easily measured; Quantify preferences (in monetary terms) of identified ecosystem services; Develop and provide decision support tool to end users; Develop and implement education/outreach activities and materials. Water Quality Aesthetic and existence Spiritual and historic Source: oysterrestoration.org Source: USGS

People think environmental conditions are worse now than in the past % How do you think environmental conditions have changed habitats on the US Gulf Coast? There are 3 graphs here! You can see them in slide show mode LA respondents have an especially negative perspective

Quantify preferences of ecosystem services provided by marshes, mangroves, and oyster reefs Habitat Water Quality Aesthetic and existence Spiritual and historic Recreation Passive use value Objectives: Isolate biophysical and ecological functions of target habitats; Identify ecosystem services that are salient to the public and easily measured; Quantify preferences (in monetary terms) of identified ecosystem services; Develop and provide decision support tool to end users; Develop and implement education/outreach activities and materials. Water Quality Aesthetic and existence Spiritual and historic Source: NOAA Source: oysterrestoration.org Source: USGS

Passive use values are not associated with any direct use of the ecosystem; they cannot be estimated using information on actual behavior Source: Diagram courtesy of the Integration and Application Network University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science. Nutrient regulation Spiritual and historic Estimating passive use values requires using stated preference valuation techniques. Source: B. Blomberg

The technique for eliciting and estimating passive use values employs choice experiments This implicitly requires tradeoffs, since no single alternative will perform better on all attributes In each choice, the respondent compares available alternatives and chooses the one with the best configuration of the individual attributes.

Mark the box at the bottom to indicate which program you would vote for What would you be willing to pay for the conservation of % of habitats? Marshes and mangroves: 5, 10, and 15% Oyster reefs: 3, 7, and 10%

The quality of valuation estimates from a choice experiment critically depends on the quality of the survey Number of respondents: 1274 Florida: 316 Alabama/Mississippi: 318 Louisiana: 297 Texas: 343 Rigorously developed respondent panel used broadly for academic research Representative samples at the state level Computerized survey Background information on marshes, mangroves, and oyster reefs: Distribution; Benefits; Status and threats; Conservation methods. Paying mechanism and voting: No further action; Program x. The purpose of the weights is to construct representative estimates along the following dimensions Gender (Male/Female) Age (18–29, 30–44, 45–59, and 60+) Race/Hispanic ethnicity (White/Non-Hispanic, Black/Non-Hispanic, Other/Non-Hispanic, 2+ Races/Non-Hispanic, Hispanic) Education (Less than High School, High School, Some College, Bachelor and beyond) Census Region (Northeast, Midwest, South, West) Household income (under $10k, $10K to <$25k, $25K to <$50k, $50K to <$75k, $75K to <$100k, $100K+) Home ownership status (Own, Rent/Other) Metropolitan Area (Yes, No) Internet Access (Yes, No)

Willingness to pay for improved habitat protection by habitat type and state (WTP per household per year per %-point change in the habitat area). A 90-percent confidence interval is indicted by vertical brackets. Estimation results from a multinomial logit model, which incorporates both observable and unobservable forms of heterogeneity (Model 3, see Table 2 below). We exclude each respondent who indicated that he/she: Voted differently from how he/she would vote in an actual ballot Did not understand that the program would increase the utility bill Would pay any amount for the program (infinite WTP) Voted NO for the program because he/she is against new government programs, not necessarily opposed to improved protections of coastal habitat Estimation uses individual weights to produce representative estimates at the state-level. Random parameter is estimated using Halton draws (n=100)

WTP for improved habitat protection decreases with increasing distance from the Gulf Coast Keeping everything else constant From Alan I met the guy who heads the Alabama Oil and Gas Commission and is a lifelong Alabamiam. I told him about our results. He said Alabama’s short coast has the most beautiful white sand and “everyone” in Alabama has a vacation place down there. And they rarely if ever go to the beach out of state. Big family tradition. So this could explain the lack of a distance gradient. He also said that Mississippi has mudflats rather than abeach. So he thinks we should split them up. Although having an undesirable beach could also account for a flat distance gradient, but WTP would be lower in Miss.

Preserving the environment for future generations is the primary driver % Aside from costs, which of the following was most important in making your decision about what program to vote for? Drivers

DWH oil spill did not affect respondents’ willingness to pay % When you voted, did considerations about the Deepwater Horizon oil spill affect your desire to pay for a program?

Project sponsors Thank you Cristina.Carollo@tamucc.edu

Survey Development 5 focus groups: Final survey testing Pilot survey: 2 Washington D.C. (pre-survey) 2 Texas 1 Mississippi/Alabama Final survey testing Mississippi/Alabama 6 surveys and 4 follow up one-on-one interviews Pilot survey: 50 in Mississippi/Alabama 50 in Florida Texas 2 with FWI and SLR

Survey Development - Voting “Please think carefully about how you would actually vote in these situations. We urge you to respond as though costs for your household really would go up if the program were implemented.” “Please take time to consider both the benefits of the program and the costs to your household.” “Paying the costs means your household would have less money to spend on other things such as food, clothes, trips, and even towards resolving other environmental problems you care about.”