1. Ecosystem Service Valuation Workshop, July 2013 C Expert Elicitation and the Value of Natural Systems in Florida Barbara Wyse, Cardno ENTRIX

2.  Develop a valuation framework for the Ecosystem Services provided by District land: >Develop estimates of value for four mission areas –Water Supply –Water Quality –Flood Protection –Natural Systems >Use available GIS data >Develop screening-level estimate of value, considering current and alternative land uses with and without District ownership/regulations Project Scope: Valuing Ecosystem Services on Lands of the Southwest Florida Water Management District

3. Protecting water-related natural systems increases the District’s ability to carry out its responsibilities. Goal: To preserve, protect, and restore natural systems in order to support their natural hydrologic and ecologic functions. Natural Systems Core Mission

4. >Deciding whose values to use >Estimating values independent of other Core Mission Benefits >Defining natural systems and the units of measurement Challenges In Valuing Natural Systems

5. >Most prevalent valuation method is contingent valuation >Surveys of the general public about the value of complex ecosystem services are unlikely to be reliable >Studies often bundle or double count benefits –Few disaggregate benefits by service >Huge variation in results –Wetland WTP is $0.41 - $ 6,494 per acre >Few studies for Florida, mostly focusing on wetlands (Milon) –Values aren’t District specific or specific to natural systems Challenges In Using Benefits Transfer

6. >Multi-criteria Decision Analysis –Obtain values of experts familiar with resources >No Need to Directly Estimate Dollar Values >Tailored Values: Natural Systems Benefit of District Land Ownership >Cost Efficient Pilot >Can Reduce Double Counting of Benefits Expert Elicitation Approach

7. Survey

8. >Groundwater supply >Potential Habitat Richness >Natural Community Type >FL Ecological Greenways Network Score Natural System Metrics Lesson Learned: Clear definitions of known, independent metrics.

9. >Reviewed available natural systems GIS data from the Critical Lands and Water Inventory Project (CLIP 2.0) >Consulted with Cardno ENTRIX ecologists to determine which are reasonably independent >Examined spatial correlations between the selected metrics How The Metrics Were Chosen Lesson Learned: Actual and perceived independence of metrics are both important.

10. Tradeoff Analysis - Example Attributes-Property AProperty B Groundwater Supply (MGD) 0.150.42 Potential Habitat Richness2 – 4 focal species4 – 6 focal species Natural Community LevelInsufficiently protectedUnaltered native cover Ecological Greenways Network 93 Which Property Will Best Meet the District's Core Missions? A is Much Better than B A is Better than B Neither B is Better than A B is Much Better than A ○●○○○

11. 62 Responses out of 117 invitations (53%) Survey Demographics

12. Parameter Estimates: Per Unit Importance Lesson Learned: District’s perceived and actual preferences differed.

13. Capitalized Value per Unit-Acre (30 Years at 4%) Lesson Learned: Natural systems appear to be primarily valued for water-related services.

14. >Based on experts >Trading-off water supply for real agency decision making is more realistic than trading off hypothetical >Natural system values are still embedded in water supply (can’t get water supply without getting natural systems) Why Are The Values Much Lower Than Other CV Studies?

15. >Sensitivity analysis –Do natural system values affect rankings? –Only differences matter >Debrief with participants about how they answered questions >Test with alternate metrics Next Steps