Sere gut!
Oh, well, I reckon there might be a few issues worth discussing . . .
The elephant in the room, it seems to me, is "actual." And the roaring
mouse might be "simple." That is, are there any devils or gods in the
details? What about watershed value? Fisheries? Damage compensation? Ad
infinitum . . .
Seems the valuations are low . . .
I do hope this is classified TOP SECRET--NTK EYES ONLY! Just in case your
boss sees it and runs with it.
WT
----- Original Message -----
From: "Warren W. Aney" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, June 13, 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]
