Partnerships for Ecosystem Services Research:

three examples

Steve Colt & Aaron PoeUAA & Chugach National Forest

sgcolt@uaa.alaska.edu & apoe@fs.fed.usAlaska EPSCoR 2012 All-hands

May 24, 2012

Challenges of ES Research“the benefits people obtain from ecosystems” (MEA)

Challenges: multiple disciplines

“the benefits people obtain from ecosystems”

Eco-nomics(social science)

Eco-logy(natural science)

More challenges

• Multiple entities– science providers (FS, FWS, UAA, UAF…)– mgmt jurisdictions (FS, FWS, NPS, …)– funding sources – stakeholders / users / decision-makers

(…) –

Example 1:

Chugach & KenaiClimate Vulnerability Assessment

Chugach National ForestUAA – ISER, ENRI, AKNHP

Kenai National Wildlife RefugeForest Service Research - PNW

UAF - SNAPNational Park Service – SW AK Network

USGS Climate Science CenterState and Private Forestry

NOAA – NMFS Habitat Conservation

Steve Colt Aaron Poe Greg Hayward

Classrooms for ClimateMay 4 -7, 2011

A Symposium on the changing Chugach, northernecosystems and the implications for

science & society

www.uaa.alaska.edu/classroomsforclimate

C Pat and Greg Hayward

Project Purpose: Assess vulnerability of key ecosystem and social/economic services

Useful to managers – set adaptation prioritiesUseful to constituents – make business decisions

Historical 1960-99Projected 2050-2059Projected 2090-2099

It’s getting hot in here…

Adaptation

LCC boundaries as Sub-regions of Analysis

Vulnerability Assessmnt

SENSITIVITYDegree to which asset is likely to be impacted

EXPOSURETypes and amounts of stress experienced by asset

Potential Impact

Changes that may occur without adaptation action

Adaptive Capacity

Ability to cope with expected change

CLIMATE CHANGE

Projections and trendsDownscale Models

Describe Vulnerability

Economic/Social/Ecological

Characteristics

Coasts and Sea-scapes Tourism, productive systems

Snow and Ice Snow sports, visuals, hydrology, etc.

Cultural Resources sites, historic districts and practices

Salmon A defining ecological service of the region

Vegetation and Species biome shift through lens of key tree species, important ungulates, and invasive species

Five Emphasis Areas…

Common Analysis Parameters..

• A2 and A1B emission scenarios• Down-scaled climate data for 20, 40, and 60 year

horizons from SNAP • 1969-1990 historical range for baseline of observed• Focus on means and extremes…

Forest Service ‘knows’ UNCERTAINTY…

• FS experienced managing stressed -- ecosystems

Northwest Forest Plan, Tongass LMP, Grassland management

Therefore, FS is well positioned to play-- leadership role in management of wildlands

• Managing in face of climate change -- WILL be different

Different form of uncertaintyNeed different expertiseNeed careful ID of prioritiesCritical need for partnerships

Our first steps toward Forest Plan Revision…

• Climate Vulnerability Assessment

• Distinct Roles and

Contributions --a landscape-values analysis with Dr. Shannon Donovan

Example 2 (2 min):ES in Mat-Su Borough

The Nature ConservancyUAA-ISEREarth Economics, USFWS, Bulliitt Foundation, Greatland Trust, MSB Planning

1. Relationship of property values to ES2. Fiscal impacts of alternative land use policies

3. Choice experiment

Which services do people value, and how much?

Example 3 (2 min):Valuation of saltwater charter sport

fishing in Southeast Alaska

Ginny Fay, Darcy Dugan, Steve ColtInstitute of Social and Economic Research

University of Alaska AnchorageUAA-CNF Climate Symposium

May 5, 2011

AK Conservation Fdn, Moore Fdn, BP-CP UA Fdn, Wilderness Society, ADF&G, UAA-ISER, UAF-SNAP

Helicopter-based dog mushing excursions, Juneau

Interruption: Quiz:What SE Alaska tourism sub-industry generated $16 million in revenue from one activity in 2006?

Back to sport fishing

How much revenue from charter sport fish operations?

Which communities get it?• ADF&G pre-existing (but dormant!) data

– Quantity (fishing effort by area fished)

• Interviews & Web– Price information

• Business licenses & Web– associated reality checks

Results:

Total SE AK:

143,000 clients

37,560 trips

$73.5 million gross revenue

Example of geographic specificity

Variation in revenue per square km

-

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

160,000

1 11 21 31 41 51 61 71 81 91 101

111

121

131

141

151

161

171

181

191

201

211

221

231

Revenue per square km, by stat areaaverage = $2,023

Highest revenue per square km:

Logbook Areas 101451 and 101452 averaged together

$49,294 per square km

So What?• Collaboration can be same-time, same-place

– Needs effort and commitment– Especially from middle-upper mgmt. of science

provider institutions– (Got Match?)

• Can also be asynchronous, “virtual”– Use existing data in new ways– Requires sharing– (Got Data?)

• Funders pay piper; can call tune

References• N. Raheema, , , S. Coltb, , E. Fleishmanc, m, 1, , J. Talberthd, , P. Swedeene, , K.J. Boylef, ,

M. Ruddg, , R.D. Lopezh, 2, , D. Crockeri, , D. Bohanj, , T. O'Higginsk, , C. Willerl, , R.M. Boumansm, . 2012. Application of non-market valuation to California's coastal policy decisions. Marine Policy. Available online 23 February 2012. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2012.01.005

• Fay, G.; Dugan, D.; Fay-Hiltner, I.; Wilson, M.; Colt, S. 2007. Testing a methodology for estimating the economic significance of saltwater charter fishing in Southeast Alaska. Anchorage: ISER. http://www.iser.uaa.alaska.edu/Publications/EconSE_Saltwater_Charter_Fish_070530.pdf