A structured decision approach for assessing the value of ecological systems and services

1. A structured decision approach for assessing the value of ecological systems and services Joseph Arvai The Ohio State University Decision Research

2. The Case of Water Use Planningin British Columbia • Work with B.C. Hydro on a comprehensive, stakeholder-based development of revised operating plans at all major hydroelectric facilities. • In response to increasing, competing demands on provincial water resources

3. Scale Issues Adapted from Ohlsen 2003; unpublished

4. Scale Issues

5. The Case of Water Use Planningin British Columbia • Multiple Objectives: • *Electricity generation/trade • *Environmental quality • Water, land, & air • *Recreation opportunities • *Cultural values • Public and employee safety • Foster stakeholder-based initiatives • Learn over time; reduce uncertainty * Attributes of “value” associated with the ecological system and its services.

6. The Case of Water Use Planningin British Columbia • The challenges were to: • assess the “value” of the system under competing water management options (including, in some cases, a “restore natural conditions” option) and, • take into consideration multiple objectives (and measures). http://www.bchydro.com/wup/

7. Decision Aiding in Brief • “Value” is ascribed to systems in the context of doing (e.g., development) or not doing (e.g., preservation) something to them; i.e., options. • While we might apply different weights to its various elements, the “value” of ecological systems and services is multiattribute in nature. • Based on the notion that the “value” of ecological systems and services is driven by people’s knowledge, perceptions, and their objectives.

8. Decision Aiding in Brief • The approach emphasizes: • Eliciting objectives from various stakeholders. • Identifying options for management (e.g., preservation, sustainable extraction, development, etc.). • Establishing attributes of/measures for each objective. • Generating a matrix across these objectives and options and addressing the tradeoffs that selecting one option over another entails.

9. Decision Aiding in Brief • A note about attributes and measures: • Natural Measures - Direct measures of an attribute • e.g., monetary value of electricity generated ($) • Constructed Measures - Measures created for an attribute • e.g., annual probability of a flood severe enough to damage homes • Proxy Measures - Indirect measures of an attribute • e.g., habitat quality as a measure of the health of salmonid populations

10. Why this approach? • Legislative mandate • Process-oriented objectives: • Comprehensive approach • “Workable” decision tasks (Simon) • Enhanced stakeholder understanding and participation • Outcome-oriented objectives: • High level of consent to operate (BC Hydro) • Long-lasting results

11. Water Use Planning in B.C.Participants • BC Hydro (Crown Corporation) • Federal Government • Provincial Government • Local Government • First Nations • Community Stakeholders • Home owners, business operators, etc.

12. Water Use Planning in B.C.Objectives, Attributes, Measures *May use multiple methods to obtain data

13. Water Use Planning in B.C.e.g., Financial Objectives & Attributes Adapted from Ohlsen 2003; unpublished

14. Water Use Planning in B.C.e.g., RecreationObjectives & Attributes Adapted from Ohlsen 2003; unpublished

15. Water Use Planning in B.C.Assessing Value Consequence Table Adapted from Ohlsen 2003; unpublished

16. Water Use Planning in B.C.Assessing Value Elicited from stakeholders

17. Water Use Planning in B.C.Assessing Value Established through consultations with technical experts

18. Water Use Planning in B.C.Assessing Value Predictive Measurable Understandable Practical

19. Water Use Planning in B.C.Assessing Value Established through consultations with stakeholders and technical experts

20. Water Use Planning in B.C.Assessing Value MEASURES Predictive Measurable Understandable Practical

21. Water Use Planning in B.C.Assessing Value

22. Water Use Planning in B.C.Assessing Value “Value” is not a function of any one measure

23. Water Use Planning in B.C.Assessing Value Nor is it just the function of some composite score

24. Water Use Planning in B.C.Assessing Value Instead, the value of a given option exists in the tradeoffs that people are willing to make across not just their objectives, but also the level of achievement with respect to them.

25. Water Use Planning in B.C.Assessing Value

26. 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 RISK PROFILES Nat Sum Probability Range of Values Nat 60 40 100 Sum 80 10 140 140 20 60 100 Expected Low High Expected Value Water Use Planning in B.C.Risk & Uncertainty Adapted from Ohlsen 2003; unpublished

27. Water Use Planning in B.C. Adapted from Ohlsen 2003; unpublished

28. Water Use Planning in B.C. Adapted from Ohlsen 2003; unpublished

29. Water Use Planning in B.C. Adapted from Ohlsen 2003; unpublished

30. Methodological Notes • Data types and sources? • Economic assessments - BC Hydro, independent consultants • Environmental assessments - BC Hydro, WLAP, DFO, University Scientists, independent consultants • Recreation impacts - local residents, user groups • Cultural impacts - tribal representatives, university researchers • Interdisciplinary? • Fully integrates ecological and economic models; engages experts and non-experts

31. Methodological Notes • Results published/peer-reviewed? • Yes • Case studies • Experimental trials • Results used? • Approach originally conceived as a pilot project at a single site • Now implemented at 23 sites province wide (18 Water Use Plans completed to date) • Mandated review periods (e.g., 5 and 11 years for the Bridge River plan)

32. Methodological Notes • Strengths • Takes into account multiple dimensions of value • Explicitly addresses key sources of uncertainty • Links choice of methods with the objectives of key stakeholders • Explicit about the need to make tradeoffs • Weaknesses • Time and effort intensive (2-3 days to 2-3 years) • Varying costs • Best suited to cases with a single decision maker • Elements of “art” and “science”

33. Methodological Notes • Transferability of the approach? • Practical Examples • Cedar River, WA • Tillamook Bay Estuary, OR • Snohomish Basin, WA • Portland Harbor Superfund, OR • Alum Creek, OH • Many non-environmental contexts • Experimental Approaches • Water Use Planning • Contaminated site cleanup • Wildlife management

34. Sample References • Gregory, R. 2000. Using stakeholder values to make smarter environmental decisions. Environment, 42: 34-44. • Gregory, R., J. L. Arvai, and T. McDaniels. 2001. Value-focused thinking for environmental risk consultations. Research in Social Problems and Public Policy, 9: 249-275. • Gregory, R. and K. Wellman. 2001. Bringing stakeholder values into environmental policy choices: A community-based estuary case study. Ecological Economics, 39: 37-52. • Gregory, R. and L. Failing. 2002. Using decision analysis to encourage sound deliberation: Water use planning in British Columbia, Canada. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 21: 492-499. • McDaniels, T., R. Gregory, and D. Fields. 1999. Democratizing risk management: Successful public involvement in local water management decisions. Risk Analysis, 19: 497-510.

35. Major Practitioners Bob Clemen, Duke Robin Gregory, UBC/Decision Research Ralph Keeney, USC Tim McDaniels, UBC Lynne Maguire, Duke Detlof von Winterfeldt, USC Trent Berry, Compass Resource Management Lee Failing, Compass Resource Management Dan Ohlsen, Compass Resource Management Will Trousdale, EcoPlan International Joseph Arvai, Ohio State/Decision Research