Valuing the Protection of Ecological Systems and Services Report

More documents

Recommendations

Info

ii focus on the development and use of “ecological production functions” that can estimate how effects on the structure and function of ecosystems will affect the provision of ecosystem services that are directly relevant and useful to the public. Where ecological production functions do not exist, EPA may be able to rely instead on ecological indicators or meta-analysis to provide information about the effects of governmental actions on these services. Third, the Agency should consider the use of a broader suite of valuation methods than it has historically employed, so long as the methods meet appropriate validity and related criteria. The report considers the possible use of not only economic methods, but also measures of attitudes, preferences, and intentions; civic valuation; decision science approaches; ecosystem benefit indicators; biophysical ranking methods; and cost as a proxy for value. EPA could usefully employ some of these methods in identifying services of importance to the public (as recommended above), providing information about multiple sources and concepts of value, and better capturing the full range of contributions stemming from ecosystem protection. EPA can also improve its ecological valuations by carefully evaluating and overseeing its transfer of value information from one site to another and by more fully characterizing and communicating uncertainty. Because uncertainty will always exist, the mere existence of uncertainty should not be an excuse for delaying action, but the Agency should ensure that uncertainty is carefully analyzed and communicated in any valuation that EPA performs. EPA should consider making greater use of ecological valuation in a variety of contexts and throughout the Agency. For this reason, the report discusses how the above recommendations can be implemented in three different contexts: national rule making, regional partnerships, and site-specific decisions. To date, the focus of ecological valuations at EPA has been national rule makings. However, as described in the accompanying report, EPA regional offices may also find valuation useful in setting priorities, such as targeting projects for wetland restoration and enhancement, or in identifying critical ecosystems or ecological resources for attention. Valuation may also be useful to EPA in making decisions about the remediation, restoration, and redevelopment of contaminated land or other sites. In addition, EPA may want to use valuations to assist state and local governments, other federal agencies, and non-governmental organizations in deciding how best to protect lands and resources and in communicating the suitability of particular management approaches. Because valuations in these additional settings are generally subject to fewer legal directives or restrictions than valuations conducted for national rule makings, they may be a particularly appropriate setting in which to test and evaluate the use of a wider range of valuation methods. Finally, the report provides recommendations for how EPA’s research program can help provide the ecological information needed for valuation, develop and test valuation methods, and share data. A number of these recommendations reinforce the research plans already developed by the Office of Research and Development and other Agency groups. The SAB thanks EPA staff in both program and regional offices for their help in the work of the committee and applauds the efforts that the Agency is already taking to improve its ecological valuations. As part of its work, the committee provided an advisory (EPA-SAB-ADV-05-004) for the drafting of EPA’s Ecological Benefits Assessment Strategic Plan, which previewed many of the recommendations in the accompanying report. We appreciate the opportunity to provide advice on this very important topic, and we look forward to receiving your response. The SAB would be pleased to assist EPA in implementing the report’s recommendations, if the Agency would find the support valuable. /Signed/ Dr. Deborah L. Swackhamer Chair Science Advisory Board Sincerely, /Signed/ Dr. Barton H. Thompson, Jr. Chair SAB Committee on Valuing the Protection of Ecological Systems and Services /Signed/ Dr. Kathleen Segerson Vice-Chair SAB Committee on Valuing the Protection of Ecological Systems and Services
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Science Advisory Board Committee on Valuing the Protection of Ecological Systems and Services CHAIR Dr. Barton H. (Buzz) Thompson, Jr., Robert E. Paradise Professor of Natural Resources Law at the Stanford Law School and perry L. Mccarty, director, Woods institute for the environment, Stanford University, Stanford, cA VICE-CHAIR dr. Kathleen Segerson, professor, department of economics, University of connecticut, Storrs, ct MEMBERS dr. William Louis Ascher, donald c. McKenna professor of Government and economics, claremont McKenna college, claremont, cA Dr. Gregory Biddinger, Coordinator, Natural Land Management Programs, Toxicology and Environmental Sciences, ExxonMobil Biomedical Sciences, Inc., Houston, TX dr. Ann Bostrom, Associate dean of Research and Associate professor, daniel J. evans School of public Affairs, University of Washington, Seattle, WA Dr. James Boyd, Senior Fellow, Director, Energy & Natural Resources Division, Resources for the Future, Washington, dc dr. Robert costanza, Gordon and Lulie Gund professor of ecological economics and director, Gund institute for ecological economics, Rubenstein School of environment and natural Resources, the University of vermont, Burlington, vt dr. terry daniel, professor of psychology and natural Resources, department of psychology, environmental perception Laboratory, University of Arizona, tucson, AZ Dr. A. Myrick Freeman, William D. Shipman Professor of Economics Emeritus, Department of Economics, Bowdoin College, Brunswick, ME dr. dennis Grossman, Senior policy Advisor, international Government Relations, the nature conservancy, Arlington, vA dr. Geoffrey heal, paul Garrett professor of public policy and Business Responsibility, columbia Business School, Columbia University, New York, NY dr. Robert huggett, consultant and professor emeritus, college of William and Mary, Williamsburg, vA dr. douglas e. MacLean, professor, department of philosophy, University of north carolina, chapel hill, nc dr. harold Mooney, paul S. Achilles professor of environmental Biology, department of Biological Sciences, Stanford University, Stanford, cA dr. Louis f. pitelka, professor, Appalachian Laboratory, University of Maryland center for environmental Science, frostburg, Md dr. Stephen polasky, fesler-Lampert professor of ecological/environmental economics, department of Applied economics, University of Minnesota, St. paul, Mn Dr. Paul G. Risser, Chair and Chief Operating Officer, University Research Cabinet, University of Oklahoma, norman, oK dr. holmes Rolston, University distinguished professor, department of philosophy, colorado State University, fort collins, co iii
Page 1: Science Advisory Board Office of th
Page 6 and 7: dr. Joan Roughgarden, professor, Bi
Page 8 and 9: Dr. George Lambert, Associate Profe
Page 10 and 11: NOTICE This report has been written
Page 12 and 13: x 4.2.3 Civic valuation . . . . . .
Page 14 and 15: xii Lists of Figures, Tables, and T
Page 16 and 17: 2 Executive Summary epA’s Science
Page 18 and 19: 4 o Involve staff throughout EPA, a
Page 20 and 21: 6 document valuation efforts and sh
Page 22 and 23: 8 1 Introduction The mission of the
Page 24: 10 4 examines a variety of methods
Page 27 and 28: may be important to identify whethe
Page 29 and 30: feels society as a whole - rather t
Page 31 and 32: of surveys (see “Survey issues fo
Page 33 and 34: cost qualitatively” (p. 10). 17 T
Page 35 and 36: for preparing the analysis and repo
Page 37 and 38: decision contexts not governed by O
Page 39 and 40: decisions regarding priorities and
Page 41 and 42: existing knowledge base, while othe
Page 43 and 44: Not surprisingly, ecologists often
Page 45 and 46: effect on habitat and foraging beha
Page 47 and 48: At the moment, the important point
Page 49 and 50: policy, and regulatory mandates. If
Page 51 and 52: chosen indicators should also be ac
Page 53 and 54: o EPA should seek to use ecological
Page 55 and 56:
4.1.1 Suggested criteria While not
Page 57 and 58:
Table 3: Methods considered by the
Page 59 and 60:
models studies of risk communicatio
Page 61 and 62:
Hedonic pricing Cropper, M.L, L. De
Page 63 and 64:
Alvarez-Farizo, B., and N. Hanley.
Page 65 and 66:
The second group of biophysical met
Page 67 and 68:
U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospher
Page 69 and 70:
cultural characteristics of the com
Page 71 and 72:
and assumptions of each, would be h
Page 73 and 74:
is important that such deliberative
Page 75 and 76:
uncertainties have been characteriz
Page 77 and 78:
action outweigh the value of attemp
Page 79 and 80:
5.4 Conclusions and recommendations
Page 81 and 82:
Second, in some cases, an assessmen
Page 83 and 84:
they vary substantially both within
Page 85 and 86:
In both the CAFO and aquaculture as
Page 87 and 88:
Fertilizers Pesticides Figure 4: Ec
Page 89 and 90:
Some of the valuation methods discu
Page 91 and 92:
elevant combinations of biophysical
Page 93 and 94:
4: Southeast has developed a tool f
Page 95 and 96:
addressing birds, mammals, reptiles
Page 97 and 98:
Wilderness has devoted most of its
Page 99 and 100:
and in communicating consequences o
Page 101 and 102:
scale analysis of the value of ecos
Page 103 and 104:
Figure 5: Integration of valuation
Page 105 and 106:
Text Box 5 - DuPage County Landfill
Page 107 and 108:
that hazardous substances have been
Page 109 and 110:
uses. Recreational and aesthetic se
Page 111 and 112:
Figure 6: Framework for net environ
Page 113 and 114:
eforestation projects, including th
Page 115 and 116:
impact analyses (RIAs) for proposed
Page 117 and 118:
7.5.3 Communication of valuation in
Page 119 and 120:
level. Such research should include
Page 121 and 122:
• Non-market methods - revealed p
Page 123 and 124:
Boyd, J., D. King, and L. Wainger.
Page 125 and 126:
Gregory, R., J.L. Arvai, and T. McD
Page 127 and 128:
Mitchell, R., and R. Carson. 1989.
Page 129 and 130:
Stoms, D.M., P.J. Comer, P.J. Crist
Page 131 and 132:
Endnotes 1. Laws include: the Clean
Page 133 and 134:
30. In theory, one can value a fina
Page 135 and 136:
with a quantitative scale changes i
Page 137 and 138:
Photos by Eric Vance and other phot
show all

Valuing the Protection of Ecological Systems and Services Report

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?