Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Federal Resource Management and Ecosystem Services Guidebook nespguidebook.com The Federal Resource Management and Ecosystem Services Guidebook NON-MONETARY.

Published byElwin Sharp Modified over 9 years ago

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Federal Resource Management and Ecosystem Services Guidebook nespguidebook.com The Federal Resource Management and Ecosystem Services Guidebook NON-MONETARY."— Presentation transcript:

1 Federal Resource Management and Ecosystem Services Guidebook nespguidebook.com The Federal Resource Management and Ecosystem Services Guidebook NON-MONETARY VALUATION: MULTI-CRITERIA EVALUATION ACES Workshop 2014 Dean Urban, PhDLynn Maguire, PhD Professor of Landscape EcologyProfessor of the Practice of Senior Associate DeanEnvironmental Decision Analysis Nicholas School of the EnvironmentNicholas SchoolDuke University

2 M ULTI -C RITERIA E VALUATION Federal Resource Management and Ecosystem Services Guidebook | nespguidebook.com Structured Decision-Making  Encompasses much/most of the assessment framework outlined for FRMES: – Stakeholder engagement, desired outcomes – Management and ecological outcomes – Stakeholder preferences for outcomes  Levels of performance on a single service  Trade-offs among competing services – Aggregated information for decision support

3 M ULTI -C RITERIA E VALUATION Federal Resource Management and Ecosystem Services Guidebook | nespguidebook.com SDM vs. Alternatives  Relative to benefit-relevant indicators: – Directly engages stakeholders  Relative to monetization: – Does not require monetary valuation – Can be applied to benefits that are hard to monetize – Values options relative to the best option on the table (not necessarily business as usual)

4 M ULTI -C RITERIA E VALUATION Federal Resource Management and Ecosystem Services Guidebook | nespguidebook.com Structured Decision-Making This illustration:  Multi-attribute utility theory (MAUT)  Steps: – Engage stakeholders, identify desired outcomes – Select empirical indicators for desired outcomes – Identify management means to achieve ends – Elicit stakeholder preferences for levels of performance (per service) – Elicit preferences for services

5 M ULTI -C RITERIA E VALUATION Federal Resource Management and Ecosystem Services Guidebook | nespguidebook.com Objectives Hierarchy The objectives hierarchy:  Declares what outcomes are valuable to stakeholders  Outlines relationships among desired outcomes: – Categories (independent) – Nestedness – Final vs intermediate goods and services  Identifies empirical indicators for the final outcomes

6 M ULTI -C RITERIA E VALUATION Federal Resource Management and Ecosystem Services Guidebook | nespguidebook.com Objectives Hierarchy

7 M ULTI -C RITERIA E VALUATION Federal Resource Management and Ecosystem Services Guidebook | nespguidebook.com Objectives Hierarchy Topology:  Left side: categories of services (independent)  Middle: refinement  Right side: “final” goods and services, with measurement units

8 M ULTI -C RITERIA E VALUATION Federal Resource Management and Ecosystem Services Guidebook | nespguidebook.com Means-Ends Model

9 M ULTI -C RITERIA E VALUATION Federal Resource Management and Ecosystem Services Guidebook | nespguidebook.com Means and Ends The objectives hierarchy and means-end models are overlapping constructs …  Objectives hierarchy: a static depiction of desired outcomes and how they will be measured  Means-ends models: a depiction of dynamics via which management might effect these outcomes  The right-hand side of the M-E models is the left-hand side of an objectives hierarchy  These are elaborated simultaneously

10 M ULTI -C RITERIA E VALUATION Federal Resource Management and Ecosystem Services Guidebook | nespguidebook.com Alternatives Matrix (1) MeasuresAlternative actions Status quoDownstream damUpstream release Numbers of bird 1 (breeding pairs on forest) 200220205 Wildlife viewing at walkway site (qualitative scale) One iconic sp < 5One iconic sp 5 Both >5 Flood events (annual average) 0.20.150.2 Cost ($MM NPV)0.11.00.8

11 M ULTI -C RITERIA E VALUATION Federal Resource Management and Ecosystem Services Guidebook | nespguidebook.com Stakeholder Preferences Preferences for levels of performance …  Given different expectations from management alternatives (the options on the table): – Which option provides the least satisfaction? – Which is the best/most preferred? – How to other (intermediate) options compare, relative to the endpoints?

12 M ULTI -C RITERIA E VALUATION Federal Resource Management and Ecosystem Services Guidebook | nespguidebook.com Utility 0.0 1.0 worst Performance best

13 M ULTI -C RITERIA E VALUATION Federal Resource Management and Ecosystem Services Guidebook | nespguidebook.com Alternatives Matrix (2) Status quoDownstream damUpstream release Numbers of bird 1 (breeding pairs on forest) 200 (0) 220 (1) 205 (0.25) Wildlife viewing at walkway site (qualitative scale) One iconic sp < 5 (0.14) One iconic sp 5 (0.86) Both >5 (1) Flood events (annual average) 0.2 (0) 0.15 (0.8) 0.2 (0) Cost ($MM NPV)0.1 (1) 1.0 (0) 0.8 (0.6)

14 M ULTI -C RITERIA E VALUATION Federal Resource Management and Ecosystem Services Guidebook | nespguidebook.com Preferences Across Services  Which services are preferred by stakeholders?  Which are they willing to trade off against other services?  For which are they willing to accept losses or reduction of services?  Competing services implies that preferences for some require sacrifices on others

15 M ULTI -C RITERIA E VALUATION Federal Resource Management and Ecosystem Services Guidebook | nespguidebook.com Preferences Across Services

16 M ULTI -C RITERIA E VALUATION Federal Resource Management and Ecosystem Services Guidebook | nespguidebook.com Alternatives Matrix (3) Measures (Weights)Alternatives Status quoDownstream damUpstream release Numbers of bird 1 (breeding pairs on forest) (w = 0.11) 200 (0) 220 (1) 205 (0.25) Wildlife viewing at walkway site (qualitative scale) (w = 0.06) One iconic sp < 5 (0.14) One iconic sp 5 (0.86) Both >5 (1) Flood events (annual average) (w = 0.28) 0.2 (0) 0.15 (0.8) 0.2 (0) Cost ($MM NPV) (w = 0.55) 0.1 (1) 1.0 (0) 0.8 (0.6) Overall value0.560.390.42

17 M ULTI -C RITERIA E VALUATION Federal Resource Management and Ecosystem Services Guidebook | nespguidebook.com Decision Support  At this point: stakeholder preferences for outcomes, weighted by preferred criteria (services) and by preferences for different levels of performance for each criterion (utility).  This information should inform the decision.

18 M ULTI -C RITERIA E VALUATION Federal Resource Management and Ecosystem Services Guidebook | nespguidebook.com But …  What is embedded in the utilities?  How consistent are stakeholder preferences?  How to reconcile heterogeneous preferences among stakeholder factions? → unpack and explore the elicitation process …

19 M ULTI -C RITERIA E VALUATION Federal Resource Management and Ecosystem Services Guidebook | nespguidebook.com Exercise  Utility: – Bird population numbers (context) – Wildlife viewing (qualitative scales) – Flood risk (asymmetric stakeholders)  Preferences across criteria: – Heterogeneous stakeholder populations

20 M ULTI -C RITERIA E VALUATION Federal Resource Management and Ecosystem Services Guidebook | nespguidebook.com Utility (1) Bird populations:  What is the relative value of these population levels? Option:Status QuoDownstream DamUpstream Release Birds (#)200220205

21 M ULTI -C RITERIA E VALUATION Federal Resource Management and Ecosystem Services Guidebook | nespguidebook.com Utility (1) 0.0 0.25 1.0 Option A: Linear interpolation

22 M ULTI -C RITERIA E VALUATION Federal Resource Management and Ecosystem Services Guidebook | nespguidebook.com Utility (1)  Option A: Interpolation … What if? the range were 200-500? 200 500 there was a minimum viable population size of 500? 200 500

23 M ULTI -C RITERIA E VALUATION Federal Resource Management and Ecosystem Services Guidebook | nespguidebook.com Utility Estimates How might we estimate these curves?  Linear (or nonlinear) interpolation  Model-based (e.g., utility = survival likelihood)  Elicitation (of stakeholder, by expert)  Survey (with attention to sampling frame!)

24 M ULTI -C RITERIA E VALUATION Federal Resource Management and Ecosystem Services Guidebook | nespguidebook.com Utility (2) Wildlife viewing:  How to rate preferences for qualitative measures? Option:Status QuoDownstream DamUpstream Release Wildlife viewing1 spp, < 51 spp < 5, 1 < 5both spp, > 5

25 M ULTI -C RITERIA E VALUATION Federal Resource Management and Ecosystem Services Guidebook | nespguidebook.com Utility (2) Option B: the Ratio method for qualitative data …  Step 1: list all possible observations (cases) Category (obs)RatioPointsUtility Neither 1 spp, < 5x 1 spp, > 5x Both spp, < 5x 1 spp 5x Both spp, > 5x

26 M ULTI -C RITERIA E VALUATION Federal Resource Management and Ecosystem Services Guidebook | nespguidebook.com Utility (2) Option B: Ratio method …  Step 2: rate each case relative to the worst case Category (obs)RatioPointsUtility Neither(worst) 1 spp, < 5x2x 1 spp, > 5x2.5x Both spp, < 5x5x 1 spp 5x7x Both spp, > 5x8x

27 M ULTI -C RITERIA E VALUATION Federal Resource Management and Ecosystem Services Guidebook | nespguidebook.com Utility (2) Option B: Ratio method …  Step 3: multiply ratios by worst-case base score (10) Category (obs)RatioPointsUtility Neither(worst)10 1 spp, < 5x2x20 1 spp, > 5x2.5x25 Both spp, < 5x5x50 1 spp 5x7x70 Both spp, > 5x8x80

28 M ULTI -C RITERIA E VALUATION Federal Resource Management and Ecosystem Services Guidebook | nespguidebook.com Utility (2) Option B: Ratio method …  Step 4: divide through: (points-min)/(max-min) Category (obs)RatioPointsUtility Neither(worst)100.00 1 spp, < 5x2x200.14 1 spp, > 5x2.5x250.21 Both spp, < 5x5x500.57 1 spp 5x7x700.86 Both spp, > 5x8x801.00

29 M ULTI -C RITERIA E VALUATION Federal Resource Management and Ecosystem Services Guidebook | nespguidebook.com Utility (3) Flood risk reduction:  How might different stakeholder groups value these options? Option:Status QuoDownstream DamUpstream Release Flood risk (avg)0.200.150.20

30 M ULTI -C RITERIA E VALUATION Federal Resource Management and Ecosystem Services Guidebook | nespguidebook.com Utility (3)

31 M ULTI -C RITERIA E VALUATION Federal Resource Management and Ecosystem Services Guidebook | nespguidebook.com Utility Utility estimates are dependent on:  Range of options on the table  Extremes of this range (worst, best cases)  Which stakeholders are engaged – Who (which groups/factions) – Where (geographic location and extent)  Timing of the ratings, including – Immediate temporal context – Planning horizon

32 M ULTI -C RITERIA E VALUATION Federal Resource Management and Ecosystem Services Guidebook | nespguidebook.com Preferences Across Services

33 M ULTI -C RITERIA E VALUATION Federal Resource Management and Ecosystem Services Guidebook | nespguidebook.com Preferences Across Services Eliciting weights for services …  “Slider bar” method: – Forces the weights to add up properly to 1.0  Ratio method: – Rank services from least to most preferred – Assign ratios relative to least preferred – Compute scores and relativize to sum to 1.0

34 M ULTI -C RITERIA E VALUATION Federal Resource Management and Ecosystem Services Guidebook | nespguidebook.com Preferences Across Services  Ratio method across services:

35 M ULTI -C RITERIA E VALUATION Federal Resource Management and Ecosystem Services Guidebook | nespguidebook.com Alternatives Matrix Measures (Weights)Alternatives Status quoDownstream damUpstream release Numbers of bird 1 (breeding pairs on forest) (w = 0.11) 200 (0) 220 (1) 205 (0.25) Wildlife viewing at walkway site (qualitative scale) (w = 0.06) One iconic sp < 5 (0.14) One iconic sp 5 (0.86) Both >5 (1) Flood events (annual average) (w = 0.28) 0.2 (0) 0.15 (0.8) 0.2 (0) Cost ($MM NPV) (w = 0.55) 0.1 (1) 1.0 (0) 0.8 (0.6) Overall value0.560.390.42

36 M ULTI -C RITERIA E VALUATION Federal Resource Management and Ecosystem Services Guidebook | nespguidebook.com Extensions & Caveats  Uncertainty: – Set ranges of values to bound uncertainty – Recompute alternatives matrix for range – Does the favored outcome vary?  All of this is localized to the decision context: – Which services, range of values, stakeholders, location, timing – None of this is likely to be very transferable  Heterogeneity of stakeholders? – Alternative alternatives matrices – Use difference to frame further discussion

37 M ULTI -C RITERIA E VALUATION Federal Resource Management and Ecosystem Services Guidebook | nespguidebook.com Conclusions  This approach can be applied in a wide variety of decision contexts, to a wide variety of services  The results are context-dependent  The mechanics are simple but not easy – Get help! (Help is increasingly available)

38 nespguidebook.com For more information, contact Lydia Olander: lydia.olander@duke.edu Federal Resource Management and Ecosystem Services Guidebook nespguidebook.com

Download ppt "Federal Resource Management and Ecosystem Services Guidebook nespguidebook.com The Federal Resource Management and Ecosystem Services Guidebook NON-MONETARY."

Similar presentations

Modellistica e Gestione dei Sistemi Ambientali 2007-2008 A tool for multicriteria analysis: The Analytic Hierarchy Process Chiara Mocenni University of.

Modellistica e Gestione dei Sistemi Ambientali A tool for multicriteria analysis: The Analytic Hierarchy Process Chiara Mocenni University of.
Implementing information on the costs and benefits of adaptation in a portfolio –based decision framework Alistair Hunt Department of Economics, University.

Implementing information on the costs and benefits of adaptation in a portfolio –based decision framework Alistair Hunt Department of Economics, University.
5/30/2014 Aosta, May 24th 2012 SESAMO: a decision support system for the Multi Criteria Analysis Fiorella GRASSO, Stefano MARAN (PP3) Project Final Meeting.

5/30/2014 Aosta, May 24th 2012 SESAMO: a decision support system for the Multi Criteria Analysis Fiorella GRASSO, Stefano MARAN (PP3) Project Final Meeting.
Multi-Attribute Utility Theory (MAUT)

Multi-Attribute Utility Theory (MAUT)
McGraw-Hill/Irwin Copyright © 2007 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. 5S Decision Theory.

McGraw-Hill/Irwin Copyright © 2007 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. 5S Decision Theory.
Federal Resource Management and Ecosystem Services Guidebook nespguidebook.com ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT: MEANS-ENDS DIAGRAMS ACES Workshop 2014 Christy Ihlo,

Federal Resource Management and Ecosystem Services Guidebook nespguidebook.com ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT: MEANS-ENDS DIAGRAMS ACES Workshop 2014 Christy Ihlo,
ISMT 161: Introduction to Operations Management

ISMT 161: Introduction to Operations Management
Multiobjective Value Analysis.  A procedure for ranking alternatives and selecting the most preferred  Appropriate for multiple conflicting objectives.

Multiobjective Value Analysis.  A procedure for ranking alternatives and selecting the most preferred  Appropriate for multiple conflicting objectives.
Departments of Medicine and Biostatistics

Departments of Medicine and Biostatistics
Elements of Decision Problems

Elements of Decision Problems

Copyright © 2006 Pearson Education Canada Inc. 13-1 Course Arrangement !!! Nov. 22,Tuesday Last Class Nov. 23,WednesdayQuiz 5 Nov. 25, FridayTutorial 5.

Copyright © 2006 Pearson Education Canada Inc Course Arrangement !!! Nov. 22,Tuesday Last Class Nov. 23,WednesdayQuiz 5 Nov. 25, FridayTutorial 5.
A METHODOLOGY FOR MEASURING THE COST- UTILITY OF EARLY CHILDHOOD DEVELOPMENTAL INTERVENTIONS Quality of improved life opportunities (QILO)

A METHODOLOGY FOR MEASURING THE COST- UTILITY OF EARLY CHILDHOOD DEVELOPMENTAL INTERVENTIONS Quality of improved life opportunities (QILO)
458 Estimating Extinction Risk (the IUCN criteria) Fish 458; Lecture 24.

458 Estimating Extinction Risk (the IUCN criteria) Fish 458; Lecture 24.
Operations Management Decision-Making Tools Module A

Operations Management Decision-Making Tools Module A
1 Mutli-Attribute Decision Making Eliciting Weights Scott Matthews Courses: 12-706 / 19-702.

1 Mutli-Attribute Decision Making Eliciting Weights Scott Matthews Courses: /
Introduction to Management Science

Introduction to Management Science
Lecture 10 Comparison and Evaluation of Alternative System Designs.

Lecture 10 Comparison and Evaluation of Alternative System Designs.
On Fairness, Optimizing Replica Selection in Data Grids Husni Hamad E. AL-Mistarihi and Chan Huah Yong IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON PARALLEL AND DISTRIBUTED SYSTEMS,

On Fairness, Optimizing Replica Selection in Data Grids Husni Hamad E. AL-Mistarihi and Chan Huah Yong IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON PARALLEL AND DISTRIBUTED SYSTEMS,
AGEC 608 Lecture 17, p. 1 AGEC 608: Lecture 17 Objective: Review the main aspects of cost- effectiveness analysis (CEA) and cost-utility analysis (CUA).

AGEC 608 Lecture 17, p. 1 AGEC 608: Lecture 17 Objective: Review the main aspects of cost- effectiveness analysis (CEA) and cost-utility analysis (CUA).

Similar presentations

Ads by Google