protected species valuation research at nmfs · protected species valuation research at nmfs office...
TRANSCRIPT
Protected Species Valuation Research
at NMFSKristy Wallmo, TitleOffice of
Science and Technology
NMFS Economics and Social Analysis Program ReviewSeptember 26-28, 2017
Silver Spring, MD
Outline of Talk
Introduction & Background
Economics and Social Analysis (ST5) multi-species valuation survey
Using the multi-species survey to advance the field
Strengths and Weaknesses
Challenges and Opportunities
U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | NOAA Fisheries | Page 2
PR Non-market Valuation Research UtilityNMFS has stewardship for157 endangered or threatened marine species
U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | NOAA Fisheries | Page 3
• 31 mammals• 26 turtles and marine reptiles• 72 marine and anadromous fish
• 27 marine invertebrates• 1 plant
Under Protected Resources Strategic Plan (G3)
PR Non-market Valuation Research UtilityAnalyses in support of ecosystem-based management, Integrated Ecosystem Assessments, coastal and marine spatial planning decisions
• Trade-off, benefit-cost analyses• Bio-economic models
Inclusion in ESA via regulatory analyses
• Critical habitat designation• Alternative recovery strategy evaluation
Natural Resource Damage Assessments
• Determination of compensation
U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | NOAA Fisheries | Page 4
NMFS PR Valuation Studies (2000 forward)
U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | NOAA Fisheries | Page 5
Species Date fielded Scale Initiatingregion
Cook Inlet beluga whale 2013 Alaska households Alaska(AFSC)
Klamath river species: • coho salmon• wild chinook salmon
& steelhead trout• shortnose &
Lost River suckers
2011National, with oversampling in Klamath river area and oversampling in the rest of Oregon and California
Southwest(SWFSC)
Multi-species (16) 2010 Phase 12011 Phase 2 National HQ
Steller sea lion 2007Two samples: 1. Non-Alaska U.S. households 2. Alaska households
Alaska(AFSC)
North Atlanticright whale
Instrument developed; not yet fielded National Northeast
(NEFSC)
NMFS PR Valuation Studies (2000 forward)
U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | NOAA Fisheries | Page 6
Species Date fielded Method Mode
Cook Inlet beluga whale 2013
StatedPreference
ChoiceExperiment
Klamath river species: • coho salmon• wild chinook salmon &
steelhead trout• shortnose &
Lost River suckers
2011 Mail with option to take online
Multi-species (16) 2010 Phase 12011 Phase 2
Online using a standing RDD-recruited web panel
Steller sea lion 2007 Mail
North Atlantic right whale
Instrument developed; not yet fielded Mail
Collaborative Approachto Survey Design and Development
U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | NOAA Fisheries | Page 7
• Protected Species Working Group formed in 2006;participants from all NMFS regions
• NMFS biologists reviewed species information presented in survey
• Survey Development over a 4 year period: • Included 10+ focus groups and 6 sets of cognitive interviews
for survey instrument design• Multiple pre-tests for further instrument revisions and tests of
experimental design
• Survey instrument, experimental design, and econometric model plan reviewed by Center for Independent Experts
Survey Phase I2009 | ~12,000 respondents | 71% completion rate
U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | NOAA Fisheries | Page 8
• North Atlantic right whale• North Pacific right whale• Loggerhead sea turtle• Leatherback sea turtle• Puget Sound Chinook salmon• Upper Willamette River
Chinook salmon• Smalltooth sawfish• Hawaiian monk seal
Survey Phase II2010 | ~11,000 respondents | 65% completion rate
U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | NOAA Fisheries | Page 9
• Humpback whale• Southern resident killer whale• Hawksbill sea turtle• Central California Coast Coho
salmon• Southern California steelhead• Black abalone• Johnson’s seagrass• Elkhorn coral
Mean WTP: Whales & Seals(2009 USD per hh/year for 10 years)
U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | NOAA Fisheries | Page 10
Species Mean WTP to Downlist Mean WTP to Recover
North Atlantic right whale $38.79 (35.44–42.27)
$68.00 (63.96-71.88)
North Pacific right whale $41.72 (38.30–45.24)
$69.46 (65.07-73.85)
Humpback whale NA $60.98 (57.47-64.52)
Southern resident killer whale $48.30(44.38-52.41)
$84.38 (79.15-89.69)
Hawaiian monk seal $36.26 (33.23–39.69)
$62.96 (59.29-66.81)
Mean WTP: Sea Turtles
U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | NOAA Fisheries | Page 11
Species Mean WTP to Downlist Mean WTP to Recover
Loggerhead sea turtle NA $41.52 (39.05-44.08)
Leatherback sea turtle $37.96 (34.89–40.91)
$64.53 (60.64-68.49)
Hawksbill sea turtle $51.17(47.04-55.29)
$85.95 (81.27-90.20)
Mean WTP: Fish
U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | NOAA Fisheries | Page 12
Species Mean WTP to Downlist Mean WTP to RecoverUpper Willamette River Chinook Salmon NA $38.59
(36.07-41.01)Puget Sound Chinook Salmon NA $38.44
(35.99-40.70)
Smalltooth sawfish $32.45 (28.12–36.95)
$49.28 (44.40-54.47)
Central California CoastChinook salmon NA $51.06
(47.59-54.67)Southern California steelhead
$45.71(41.76-49.83)
$71.06 (66.29-75.96)
Mean WTP: Invertebrates, Corals & Plants
U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | NOAA Fisheries | Page 13
Species Mean WTP to Downlist Mean WTP to Recover
Black abalone $39.56(35.62-43.59)
$70.50 (66.19-74.58)
Johnsons seagrass NA $43.83 (40.67-46.87)
Elkhorn coral $38.00(33.93-42.15)
$71.78 (67.30-76.23)
Advancing the NMV Field:Empirical Tests from theMulti-species Survey
U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | NOAA Fisheries | Page 14
Is WTP higher for some species than others?
Compared WTP between species from Phase I and between ESA status improvement levels
Among the suite of charismatic species, economic values for recovery, andin most cases fordown-listing, were indistinguishable (one exception)
Charismatic species were more highly valued than fishes when the magnitude of recovery was the same
U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | NOAA Fisheries | Page 15
Wallmo, K., and Lew, D. 2012. The value of recovering threatened and endangered marine species: a choice experiment approach. Conservation Biology, 26(5): 830-39.Wallmo, K., and Lew, D. 2011. Valuing improvements to threatened and endangered marine species: an application of stated preference choice experiments. Journal of Environmental Management, 92(7): 1793 – 801.
Is WTP sensitive to scope?Split-sample test to assess sensitivity to the number of species and amount of protection
Found majority of 46 tests suggest sensitivity to “scope”
More species affected = higher WTP
Larger improvements (e.g. recovering v. downlisting) = higher WTP
U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | NOAA Fisheries | Page 16
Lew, D., and Wallmo, K. 2011. External tests of scope and embedding in stated preference choice experiments: an application to endangered species valuation. Environmental and Resource Economics, 48(1): 1 – 23.
Is WTP temporally stable?
Conducted tests for stability ofU.S. household preferences and WTP
Preferences and WTP weregenerally temporally stable over 17 month period
U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | NOAA Fisheries | Page 17
Lew, D.K., and Wallmo, K. 2017. Temporal Stability of Stated Preferences for Endangered Species Protection from Choice Experiments. Ecological Economics, 131: 87 – 97.
Does WTP vary across geographic regionsof the US?• WTP estimated at two different spatial scales:
A. a random sampleB. geographically embedded samples of nine U.S. Census regions
• Region-to-region and region-to-nation statistical comparisons show limited spatial variation between national values and regionally embedded samples; more variation among regions
U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | NOAA Fisheries | Page 18
Wallmo, K., and Lew, D.K. 2016. A Comparison of Regional and National Values for Recovering Threatened and Endangered Marine Species in the United States. Journal of Environmental Management, 179: 38 – 46.Wallmo, K., and Lew, D. 2015. Public preferences for endangered species: an examination of geospatial scale and non-market values. Frontiers in Marine Science, doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2015.00055.
Do spatial patterns of WTP exist in the US?• Identify hot/cold
spots for WTP using tools common for geographical analysis
• Counter to distance-decay hypothesis
U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | NOAA Fisheries | Page 19
Johnston, R., Jarvis, D., Wallmo, K., and Lew, D. 2015. Multi-Scale Spatial Pattern in Nonuse Willingness to Pay: Applications to Threatened and Endangered Marine Species. Land Economics, 91(4): 739-61.
Frontiers in Marine Science Protected Species Economics: Concepts in Research and Management
U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | NOAA Fisheries | Page 20
Collaboration with over 20 authorson a range of topics related to protected species economics• Not limited to valuation
Strengths: Study Specific
U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | NOAA Fisheries | Page 21
• Collaborative
• Rigorous study, CIE review
• Empirical tests built into design to advance technique, theory, state of knowledge
• Large, national sample
Strengths: Programmatic• Increased in-house expertise on valuation
• Helped in building larger PR economics program
• Led to additional human dimensions research• Pienaar, E., Lew, D.K., and Wallmo, K. 2017. Intention to Pay for the Protection of Threatened and Endangered
Marine Species: Implications for Conservation Program Design. Ocean and Coastal Management, 138: 170-180.
• Pienaar, L., Lew, D., and Wallmo, K. 2015. The Importance of Survey Content: Testing for the Context Dependency of the New Ecological Paradigm Scale. Social Science Research, 51: 338 – 49.
• Farrow, K., Brinson, A., Wallmo, K., and Lew, D. 2015. Environmental Attitudes in the Aftermath of the Gulf Oil Spill. Ocean and Coastal Management, 119 – 134.
• Pienaar, L., Lew, D., and Wallmo, K. 2013. Are environmental attitudes influenced by survey context? Social Science Research, 42: 1542-54.
U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | NOAA Fisheries | Page 22
Weaknesses: Study Specific• Attribute non-attendance
• Some respondents focus on doing something for all species vs more (or less) for preferred (less preferred) species
• Respondents want to know what are the ecosystem impacts of a species decreasing or going extinct
• Uncertainty not explicitly incorporated
• 8 species model: full substitution effects not captured; other species assumed to be at status quo levels
• Aggregation of values across population(s)
U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | NOAA Fisheries | Page 23
Weaknesses: Programmatic• Non-market valuation methods not without controversy
• Matching values to policy needs
• Studies are expensive and time-intensive
• Ecosystem level values may be important for futureagency needs
U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | NOAA Fisheries | Page 24
Challenges & Opportunities• Values often used contextually (MMC website),
management use has been limited • Some disincentives to using non-use values
• As Agency continues moving to EBFM, IEAs,the use of non-market values could increase
• OMB & conducting non-market valuation(particularly for non-use)• Sample and implementation issues• Using non-market results
• Second “Blue Ribbon Panel”(last one was 1993, focused on contingent valuation)
U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | NOAA Fisheries | Page 25
Questions?
U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | NOAA Fisheries | Page 26