A Comparison of the Social Valuation of Ecosystem Services in Urban and Rural Contexts

Transcription

1 A Comparison of the Social Valuation of Ecosystem Services in Urban and Rural Contexts Jarrod L. Loerzel College of Charleston Zachary D. Cole University of Florida

2 Presentation Map 1. What is SolVES? 2. Contextual differences 3. Methods Online survey development Model decisions and analysis choices 4. Results 5. Discussion

3 Sherrouse et al Social Values of Ecosystem Services (SolVES) Application within a GIS to use public attitude and preference data to assess, map, and quantify social values across landscapes. 1. Users identify values and locations. 2. Values and locations are entered into a database 3. SolVES calculates and maps a value index representing the relative perceived social values of ecosystem services (for example, recreation and biodiversity) for various groups of ecosystem stakeholders. 4. Models relationships between mapped Value Index and underlying environmental variables.

4 Why SolVES Assessment? Ecological Assessment Mgmt. and Planning Social Assessment Economic Assessment Total Total Impact Ecosystem Assessment Services Value (objectives, plan, goals, (tradeoffs, etc.) cost/benefit)

5 Greater Sarasota Bay, FL

6 ACE Basin, SC (Ashepoo, Combahee, and Edisto)

7 SolVES Input Strongly Strongly Amount RECREATIONAL Value (abbrev.) ACTIVITIES Definition of the value. Favor Neutral Oppose Favor Oppose Aesthetic Value (A) I value Wekiva River because I enjoy the sights, $ Recreational boat fishing sounds, and smells. Motorized recreational boating $ Non-motorized Recreation recreational Value boating (R) I value Wekiva River because it provides a place for my favorite outdoor recreation activities (e.g. canoes, kayaks, SUPs) $ Personal watercrafts Cultural Value (i.e. jet (C) skis) I value Wekiva 5 River because 4 it 3 represents 2 a place for 1 Birdwatching passing down wisdom, knowledge, 5 and traditions $ Walking/Jogging Spiritual/Novel along bank Experience Value 5 (SN) I 4 value Wekiva 3 River 2 because 1 it Picnicking represents a sacred, religious, unique, 5 deep, and 4 profound 3 place 2 where 1 Swimming reverence/respect for nature is felt/experienced $ Hiking Learning Value (L) I value Wekiva 5 River 4 because we 3 can learn 2 about the 1 COMMERCIAL, environment INDUSTRIAL, through scientific AND Strongly exploration, observation, discovery, and Strongly Favor Neutral Oppose RESIDENTIAL experimentation. USES Favor Oppose $ Agricultural Biodiversity land use (e.g. Value crops, (B) I value Wekiva 5 River 4 because 3 it provides 2 a variety 1 orchards, nurseries, and abundance ranching) of fish, wildlife, and plant life. $ Commercial Wilderness rafting/kayaking Value (W) I value Wekiva 5 River 4 because 3 it represents 2 minimal 1 Commercial human forestry impact and/or intrusion into 5 natural environment $ Boat ramps Historic Value (H) I value Wekiva 5 River because 4 it 3 provides places 2 and 1 Private dock things development of natural and human history 5 that matter 4 to me ECOLOGICAL AND Strongly Strongly $ Future Value (F) I value Wekiva River because Favor it Neutral allows future Oppose generations ENVIRONMENTAL OPPORTUNITIES Favor Oppose to know and experience healthy, productive, and sustainable coastal Conservation easements environments. Fish/wildlife habitat expansion $ Economic Value (E) I value Wekiva River because it provides fisheries Commercial fisheries regulations (commercial), minerals, and tourism resources that support livelihoods. Recreational fisheries regulations $ Access (AC) I value Wekiva River as a place of common property free from Development setbacks to sustain natural shoreline access for restrictions protection or exclusive from ownership/control Total: erosion. Additional comments: $ Value Allocation: weight social values 2. Value Mapping: locate social values 3. Use Preference: subgroup respondents

8 Online Survey Development Freeware HTML PHP MySQL JavaScript Google map

9 Model Decisions Analysis Choices Spatial layers SB: DEM, land cover, bathymetry, DTT, benthic habitat ACE: DEM, forest cover/fragmentation, bathymetry Future: distance to boat ramps, reefs, bait shops, etc. Values Aesthetic Access Biodiversity Cultural Economic Future Historic Identity Intrinsic Learning Life Sustaining Recreation Spiritual Subsistence Therapeutic Wilderness User groups (respondents) Familiarity with geographic area of interest SB sample of residents ACE sample of resource users

10 Results Sarasota Bay findings: Top 3 values mapped Recreation (21%)* Aesthetic (15%) Biodiversity (10%) Top 3 values allocated Recreation (61%) Biodiversity (53%) Life Sustaining (52%) ACE Basin findings: Top 3 values mapped Recreation (32%) Aesthetic (24%) Wilderness (11%) Top 3 values allocated Biodiversity (76%) Learning (67%) Aesthetic (65%)

11 Comparative Results Sarasota Bay ACE Basin

12 Discussion Coastal Zone The most developed and populated areas globally Trends show no signs of slowing USA: In 2010, nearly 70% of urban land <150 mi. from a coast Complex interactions, unique gradient ecosystems under greatest anthropogenic (and nonanthropogenic) vulnerability (e.g. development/sealevel rise) i.e. areas needing the greatest degree of understanding (and protection)

13 Next Steps Model refinement Additional data layer development and integration More primary data Additional application contexts Value transfer ACE to SB, vice versa ACE and SB to other contexts ***matching environmental data layers

14 Thank You Questions/Comments Jarrod Loerzel Zac Cole Special thanks to Alisa Coffin, USGS Susan Lovelace, NOAA Ben Sherrouse, USGS Bob Swett, UF-Sea Grant ACE Basin NERR Sarasota Bay Estuary Program