1 / 27

Instream Flow Literature and Policymaking

Instream Flow Literature and Policymaking. Recreation, Fisheries, Water Quality, and Nonuse Values Kasia Patora Washington State Department of Ecology. Overview. Instream flows provide multiple services Policy analysis relies on accurate instream flow valuation Degree of analytic use varies

hao
Télécharger la présentation

Instream Flow Literature and Policymaking

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Instream Flow Literature and Policymaking Recreation, Fisheries, Water Quality, and Nonuse Values Kasia Patora Washington State Department of Ecology

  2. Overview • Instream flows provide multiple services • Policy analysis relies on accurate instream flow valuation • Degree of analytic use varies • Literature allows some quantification • How can benefit transfer be improved for policy analysis?

  3. Multiple functions Groundwater recharge Navigation Nutrient transport/recharge Existence and bequest Biological habitat (incl. fish) Recreation and aesthetics Dilution (water quality) Instream Flow

  4. Literature • Periodically summarized • By valuation method (Wilson & Carpenter, 1999) • By ecological function (within papers) • In policy context (Douglas & Johnson, 1993)

  5. Recreation, Fish, Water Quality, and Nonuse Literature • Predominantly recreation • Diverse • Location • Methodology • Function • Value reporting

  6. Valuation Methods • Replacement cost • The cost of replacing the instream function with alternative technology • e.g., chemical and mechanical treatment replacing dilution function • Contingent valuation & stated preference • Survey of willingness to pay for hypothetical maintenance/improvement, or preference for a particular bundle or scenario • e.g., WTP entrance fees for increase in river water for recreation

  7. Valuation Methods (cont.) • Revealed preference • Implied WTP based on actual expenditures and behavior • e.g., travel cost to fishing or recreation • Hedonic pricing • Implied WTP based on differential contribution to the value of another good • e.g., contribution of water recreation access to nearby property values, net of other characteristics • Mixed

  8. Pros and Cons • Replacement cost • Based on market values • Full replacement may not be viable • Contingent valuation & stated preference • Does not require market/behavioral data • Hypothetical; sensitivity to constraints, information, methodology

  9. Pros and Cons (cont.) • Revealed preference • Based on actual behavior (non-hypothetical) and some market values • High data requirement for consumption determinants • Hedonic pricing • Flexible in functional form; Based on market data • High data requirement

  10. Value of Instream Flow to Recreation, Fisheries, Water Quality, Nonuse

  11. Value of Instream Flow to Recreation, Fisheries, Water Quality, Nonuse • 53 collected studies • Total 159 observations suitable for comparison • Reported as $ / AF per year • Converted to $ / AF per year

  12. Value of Instream Flow to Recreation, Fisheries, Water Quality, Nonuse

  13. Value of Instream Flow to Recreation, Fisheries, Water Quality, Nonuse

  14. Value of Instream Flow to Recreation, Fisheries, Water Quality, Nonuse

  15. Value of Instream Flow to Recreation, Fisheries, Water Quality, Nonuse

  16. Value of Instream Flow to Recreation, Fisheries, Water Quality, Nonuse

  17. Value of Instream Flow to Recreation, Fisheries, Water Quality, Nonuse

  18. Instream Flow Regulation • Balance instream and out-of-stream functions • Minimum flow requirements • Adjusted for availability and demand shifts • Required analysis

  19. Quantified Out-of-stream uses Households Municipalities/Business Agriculture Some recreation Location-specific Some fishery Unquantified Recreation Fishery Water quality Navigation Groundwater recharge Existence & bequest Policy Analysis

  20. When analyses don’t quantify values of certain instream flow functions • Applicability • Insufficient information for valuation • Confidence and defensibility • Availability/access • Site-specific valuation? • Time constraints • Limited financing

  21. Instream Flow Policy Analysis • Currently 20 analyses of instream flow regulations • 1998 to present • Western US and National • Government agencies • Plans to enter additional analyses • Preliminary observations

  22. Instream Flow Policy Analysis: Fishery • 56% quantified; 19% qualitative; 25% none • Majority of quantified funded in-state flow valuation study and/or state-specific methodology • Travel Cost, Contingent Valuation, or both • Minority of quantified used benefit transfer, noting lack of information to determine comparability • Own literature survey or database • Qualitative discussion primarily cites lack of confident estimates and applicability

  23. Instream Flow Policy Analysis: Recreation • 44% quantified; 38% qualitative; 19% none • Majority of quantified funded in-state studies • Travel Cost or Contingent Valuation • Minority of quantified use CV benefit transfer • Own literature survey or database • One suggests performing own study for better data • Qualitative discussion cites “lack of confidence” in estimation, due to local data limitations and unclear comparability

  24. Instream Flow Policy Analysis: Water Quality • 13% quantified; 19% qualitative; 69% none • Regional meta-analysis of previously funded CV and Travel Cost studies • One suggests funding site-specific study • Qualitative discussion cites difficulties in applicability, lack of comparative data • Majority omit water quality values altogether • Policy change?

  25. Instream Flow Policy Analysis:Nonuse Values • 13% quantified; 50% qualitative; 38% none • Quantified all used benefit transfer (2-3 papers) • Contingent valuation • Qualitative discussion typically “difficult” or unquantifiable • One analysis notes that it could not use most regionally-applicable study values—value only for specified program

  26. Benefit Transfer Literature • Recent comments and analyses: Rosenberger & Loomis (2000); Loomis & Rosenberger (2006); Honey-Rosés(2007); Allen & Loomis (2008) • More complete documentation, esp. demographics • Extending/improving value repositories • Standardized welfare measure • Choice of own study versus benefit transfer • Functional forms to account for site-specific differences

  27. Further Recommendations • Broader range and reporting of econometric techniques • Roles and collaboration • Local/site-specific valuation • Broader regional valuation • Break down of ecological science and economic components • Standardized values or functions? • Updating and communication

More Related