Thanks, Wayne, I guess.... Anyway, I didn't give enough information on where I got the economic data. The total economic activity value of $2,074 million is an "apples and pears" concoction from the 2006 US Fish and Wildlife Service survey of hunters, anglers and wildlife viewers, plus a somewhat different estimate of commercial fishing dollars. So it only accounts for dollars changing hands because of these wildlife-related activities, not the host of other ecosystem values. The goal is to evaluate wildlife (including fish) related values, perhaps under some naive prospect that changes of land use might somehow result in some form of compensation that will serve to perpetuate these values. That could be the real mouse-stomping elephant in the room.
Warren W. Aney Tigard, Oregon -----Original Message----- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Wayne Sent: Saturday, June 14, 2008 19:14 To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: [ECOLOG-L] ECOSYSTEMS Value analysis RHVs Re: [ECOLOG-L] Ecosystems and faux ecosystems Re: [ECOLOG-L] Wetland creation 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: <ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU> 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] > > >> >>
