Hi Warren, Have a look at (e.g.) http://mnp.nl/mnc/i-en-1119.html http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/toolbox/templates/pubs/habitat-hectares.pdf http://www.naturalcapitalproject.org/about.html for some similar projects for quantifying the overall ecological value of larger areas.
We are also currently working on a similar story for Hungary -- but just providing aggregated relative habitat values (actually NCIs), without translating them into monetary terms. However building indicators like yours (and also ours) is always a thin ice, as the question might arise: an indicator of what exactly? To avoid such criticisms, I think that large scale habitat capital evaluation should preferably be based on ecological survey / monitoring data. Furthermore, such indicators should ideally be placed in a context of ecosystem services -- since there is no single value capable of describing all the (major) contexts in which natural and semi-natural ecosystems support and sustain our society, there could potentially be also more than one habitat evaluations for the different aspects, like carbon storage, maintenance of environmental stability or species diversity. I think that your simple evaluation based on ownership and primary land use would not work too well for Hungary -- there are too many "exceptions" where e.g. privately owned, actively managed ecosystems harbor more diversity than unmanaged / abandoned ones -- similarly to Grey's examples from California. On the other hand, in the absence of appropriate data, I admit that "quick and dirty" evaluating schemes may also exert an advantageous policy impact, even by the simple fact that it can help this topic to penetrate more into daily political exchange. Simple orientating policy indicators are probably still better than having no indicators. So I think, altogether, that your work, as all work in this field, is very important -- and I am really interested in all the details as well as the future outcomes of it. Best regards, Bálint -- Bálint Czúcz Institute of Ecology and Botany of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences H-2163 Vácrátót, Alkotmány u. 2-4. HUNGARY Tel: +36 28 360122/157 +36 70 7034692 On Sat, Jun 14, 2008 at 4:56 PM, Grey Hayes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi Warren, > > Your work valuing ecosystems is very interesting, and I'm looking forward to > seeing more.? I want to suggest one caveat for your work to see if you might > be able to integrate it. > > > On California's coast, according to my and others' research, it appears that > privately owned, cattle grazed grasslands might be valued in your schema more > highly than publicly owned, ungrazed grasslands.? > > I understand some of the same ecological processes might be at work in your > state where unmanaged (eg., 'wilderness') areas often have some of the major > disturbance regimes suppressed, negatively impacting disturbance-dependent > native plant species. > > In California's vernal pool systems of the Sacramento Valley, research > suggests a similar story, but also more clearly affecting native wildlife > populations. > > And so, your valuation system might need to address (especially) grassland > ecosystems where privately managed land might be able to maintain some > elements of biodiversity more than on underfunded public lands. > > Grey Hayes, PhD > Coastal Training Program Coordinator > Elkhorn Slough National Estuarine Research Reserve > Moss Landing, California, USA > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Warren W. Aney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [email protected] > Sent: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 10:31 pm > Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Ecosystems and faux ecosystems Re: [ECOLOG-L] > Wetland creation > > > Wayne, Bill, Andy, Amartya, et al., I'm in the process of relating all this > discussion to a project I am currently working on and I have found our > exchanges helpful. > > The basic question I've been working on is: how do we determine the actual > per land unit value of habitat (= ecosystem) that is modified or destroyed? > To put it most simply, if, in a given area, broadly defined wildlife related > activities each year create $2 billion in economic activity and we have 50 > million land units of habitat, then each land unit is worth $40 in terms of > annual economic activity. However, different categories of land have > different habitat values: A natural (or restored) wetland will have more > value than a created wetland, and this will have more value than a drained > wetland. A late successional forest will have more habitat value than a > tree farm, which will have more habitat value than a golf course, which will > have more habitat value than a housing development. > > So, for this project I arbitrarily assigned relative habitat values by land > category: > > RHV 1.0: Protected natural areas (ecosystems in Late Successional Forest > Reserves, Wilderness Areas, National Wildlife Refuges, National Parks and > Monuments, state wildlife areas, etc.). A protected natural wetland or late > successional forest would fall into this category. > > RHV 0.90: Managed resource lands (rangeland, public and private forestland, > etc.). A restored wetland might fall into this category. > > RHV 0.70: Pasture/rangeland (mostly privately owned). A tree farm might > fall into either this or the previous category, depending on how it is > managed. A created wetland might also fall into this category. > > RHV 0.50: Farm cropland (harvested and pastured farm land). A golf course > might also fall into this category. > > RHV 0.05: Urban built-up area (residential, industrial, commercial, > institutional land, etc.). > > RHV 0.00: Roads and railroads. > > Using these relative habitat values, the total economic activity generated > in the state of Oregon by wildlife (and fish) related activities in a recent > year, and the state acreage in each of the above land categories, I came up > with the following per acre per year values: > > $40.56 for each acre of protected natural areas > $36.50 for each acre of managed resource lands > $28.39 for each acre of pasture/rangeland > $20.28 for each acre of farm cropland > $2.03 for each acre of built-up areas > $0 for each acre of roads and railroads > > (These figures, multiplied by total land area in each category, sum up to > the total economic activity of $2,074 million.) > > How can these figures be put to use? Let's say that one acre is changed > from managed resource lands to a built-up area. The reduction in wildlife > habitat value is $34.47 (the difference between $36.50 and $2.03). In order > to provide $34.47 per year in repayment value, at an annual interest rate of > 6% this developer could contribute or mitigate a total one-time dollar value > of $574.50 per acre. > > These figures and categories are for the purpose of initiating discussion > and will probably be changed and refined if the process takes hold. But I > think the basic concept has merit and can be useful when assessing the > economic effect of land use changes when wildlife habitat is either degraded > or improved. There is one caveat I've tried to remember: if this system is > to be used and understood by a wide variety of decision makers, > administrators and land managers, it has to be kept reasonably simple. > > If anyone wants more details, I'll be glad to share a more detailed write-up > and the actual spreadsheet with formulas. Meanwhile, I'd be pleased to > receive your reactions, suggestions and criticisms (I know you're all good > at the latter). Does this seem to have merit? Is anyone aware of similar > attempts along this line by others? > > > Warren W. Aney > Senior Wildlife Ecologist > Tigard, OR 97223 > (503) 246-8613 phone > (504) 539-1009 mobile > (503) 246-2605 fax > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >> >> > > > > >
