Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Partnerships for Ecosystem Services Research:
three examples
Steve Colt & Aaron PoeUAA & Chugach National Forest
[email protected] & [email protected] EPSCoR 2012 All-hands
May 24, 2012
Challenges of ES Research“the benefits people obtain from ecosystems” (MEA)
Challenges: multiple disciplines
“the benefits people obtain from ecosystems”
Eco-nomics(social science)
Eco-logy(natural science)
More challenges
• Multiple entities– science providers (FS, FWS, UAA, UAF…)– mgmt jurisdictions (FS, FWS, NPS, …)– funding sources – stakeholders / users / decision-makers
(…) –
Example 1:
Chugach & KenaiClimate Vulnerability Assessment
Chugach National ForestUAA – ISER, ENRI, AKNHP
Kenai National Wildlife RefugeForest Service Research - PNW
UAF - SNAPNational Park Service – SW AK Network
USGS Climate Science CenterState and Private Forestry
NOAA – NMFS Habitat Conservation
Steve Colt Aaron Poe Greg Hayward
Classrooms for ClimateMay 4 -7, 2011
A Symposium on the changing Chugach, northernecosystems and the implications for
science & society
www.uaa.alaska.edu/classroomsforclimate
C Pat and Greg Hayward
Project Purpose: Assess vulnerability of key ecosystem and social/economic services
Useful to managers – set adaptation prioritiesUseful to constituents – make business decisions
Historical 1960-99Projected 2050-2059Projected 2090-2099
It’s getting hot in here…
Adaptation
LCC boundaries as Sub-regions of Analysis
Vulnerability Assessmnt
SENSITIVITYDegree to which asset is likely to be impacted
EXPOSURETypes and amounts of stress experienced by asset
Potential Impact
Changes that may occur without adaptation action
Adaptive Capacity
Ability to cope with expected change
CLIMATE CHANGE
Projections and trendsDownscale Models
Describe Vulnerability
Economic/Social/Ecological
Characteristics
Coasts and Sea-scapes Tourism, productive systems
Snow and Ice Snow sports, visuals, hydrology, etc.
Cultural Resources sites, historic districts and practices
Salmon A defining ecological service of the region
Vegetation and Species biome shift through lens of key tree species, important ungulates, and invasive species
Five Emphasis Areas…
Common Analysis Parameters..
• A2 and A1B emission scenarios• Down-scaled climate data for 20, 40, and 60 year
horizons from SNAP • 1969-1990 historical range for baseline of observed• Focus on means and extremes…
Forest Service ‘knows’ UNCERTAINTY…
• FS experienced managing stressed -- ecosystems
Northwest Forest Plan, Tongass LMP, Grassland management
Therefore, FS is well positioned to play-- leadership role in management of wildlands
• Managing in face of climate change -- WILL be different
Different form of uncertaintyNeed different expertiseNeed careful ID of prioritiesCritical need for partnerships
Our first steps toward Forest Plan Revision…
• Climate Vulnerability Assessment
• Distinct Roles and
Contributions --a landscape-values analysis with Dr. Shannon Donovan
Example 2 (2 min):ES in Mat-Su Borough
The Nature ConservancyUAA-ISEREarth Economics, USFWS, Bulliitt Foundation, Greatland Trust, MSB Planning
1. Relationship of property values to ES2. Fiscal impacts of alternative land use policies
3. Choice experiment
Which services do people value, and how much?
Example 3 (2 min):Valuation of saltwater charter sport
fishing in Southeast Alaska
Ginny Fay, Darcy Dugan, Steve ColtInstitute of Social and Economic Research
University of Alaska AnchorageUAA-CNF Climate Symposium
May 5, 2011
AK Conservation Fdn, Moore Fdn, BP-CP UA Fdn, Wilderness Society, ADF&G, UAA-ISER, UAF-SNAP
Helicopter-based dog mushing excursions, Juneau
Interruption: Quiz:What SE Alaska tourism sub-industry generated $16 million in revenue from one activity in 2006?
Back to sport fishing
How much revenue from charter sport fish operations?
Which communities get it?• ADF&G pre-existing (but dormant!) data
– Quantity (fishing effort by area fished)
• Interviews & Web– Price information
• Business licenses & Web– associated reality checks
Results:
Total SE AK:
143,000 clients
37,560 trips
$73.5 million gross revenue
Example of geographic specificity
Variation in revenue per square km
-
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
160,000
1 11 21 31 41 51 61 71 81 91 101
111
121
131
141
151
161
171
181
191
201
211
221
231
Revenue per square km, by stat areaaverage = $2,023
Highest revenue per square km:
Logbook Areas 101451 and 101452 averaged together
$49,294 per square km
So What?• Collaboration can be same-time, same-place
– Needs effort and commitment– Especially from middle-upper mgmt. of science
provider institutions– (Got Match?)
• Can also be asynchronous, “virtual”– Use existing data in new ways– Requires sharing– (Got Data?)
• Funders pay piper; can call tune
References• N. Raheema, , , S. Coltb, , E. Fleishmanc, m, 1, , J. Talberthd, , P. Swedeene, , K.J. Boylef, ,
M. Ruddg, , R.D. Lopezh, 2, , D. Crockeri, , D. Bohanj, , T. O'Higginsk, , C. Willerl, , R.M. Boumansm, . 2012. Application of non-market valuation to California's coastal policy decisions. Marine Policy. Available online 23 February 2012. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2012.01.005
• Fay, G.; Dugan, D.; Fay-Hiltner, I.; Wilson, M.; Colt, S. 2007. Testing a methodology for estimating the economic significance of saltwater charter fishing in Southeast Alaska. Anchorage: ISER. http://www.iser.uaa.alaska.edu/Publications/EconSE_Saltwater_Charter_Fish_070530.pdf
