Protected Species Valuation Research at NMFS · Protected Species Valuation Research at NMFS Office...

Protected Species Valuation Research

at NMFSKristy Wallmo, TitleOffice of

Science and Technology

NMFS Economics and Social Analysis Program ReviewSeptember 26-28, 2017

Silver Spring, MD

Outline of Talk

Introduction & Background

Economics and Social Analysis (ST5) multi-species valuation survey

Using the multi-species survey to advance the field

Strengths and Weaknesses

Challenges and Opportunities

U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | NOAA Fisheries |

PR Non-market Valuation Research UtilityNMFS has stewardship for157 endangered or threatened marine species


• 31 mammals• 26 turtles and marine reptiles• 72 marine and anadromous fish

• 27 marine invertebrates• 1 plant

Under Protected Resources Strategic Plan (G3)

PR Non-market Valuation Research UtilityAnalyses in support of ecosystem-based management, Integrated Ecosystem Assessments, coastal and marine spatial planning decisions

• Trade-off, benefit-cost analyses• Bio-economic models

Inclusion in ESA via regulatory analyses

• Critical habitat designation• Alternative recovery strategy evaluation

Natural Resource Damage Assessments

• Determination of compensation


NMFS PR Valuation Studies (2000 forward)


Species Date fielded Scale Initiatingregion

Cook Inlet beluga whale 2013 Alaska households Alaska(AFSC)

Klamath river species: • coho salmon• wild chinook salmon

& steelhead trout• shortnose &

Lost River suckers

2011National, with oversampling in Klamath river area and oversampling in the rest of Oregon and California

Southwest(SWFSC)

Multi-species (16) 2010 Phase 12011 Phase 2 National HQ

Steller sea lion 2007Two samples: 1. Non-Alaska U.S. households 2. Alaska households

Alaska(AFSC)

North Atlanticright whale

Instrument developed; not yet fielded National Northeast

(NEFSC)

NMFS PR Valuation Studies (2000 forward)


Species Date fielded Method Mode

Cook Inlet beluga whale 2013

StatedPreference

ChoiceExperiment

Mail

Klamath river species: • coho salmon• wild chinook salmon &

steelhead trout• shortnose &

Lost River suckers

2011 Mail with option to take online

Multi-species (16) 2010 Phase 12011 Phase 2

Online using a standing RDD-recruited web panel

Steller sea lion 2007 Mail

North Atlantic right whale

Instrument developed; not yet fielded Mail

Collaborative Approachto Survey Design and Development


• Protected Species Working Group formed in 2006;participants from all NMFS regions

• NMFS biologists reviewed species information presented in survey

• Survey Development over a 4 year period: • Included 10+ focus groups and 6 sets of cognitive interviews

for survey instrument design• Multiple pre-tests for further instrument revisions and tests of

experimental design

• Survey instrument, experimental design, and econometric model plan reviewed by Center for Independent Experts

Survey Phase I2009 | ~12,000 respondents | 71% completion rate


• North Atlantic right whale• North Pacific right whale• Loggerhead sea turtle• Leatherback sea turtle• Puget Sound Chinook salmon• Upper Willamette River

Chinook salmon• Smalltooth sawfish• Hawaiian monk seal

Survey Phase II2010 | ~11,000 respondents | 65% completion rate


• Humpback whale• Southern resident killer whale• Hawksbill sea turtle• Central California Coast Coho

salmon• Southern California steelhead• Black abalone• Johnson’s seagrass• Elkhorn coral

Mean WTP: Whales & Seals(2009 USD per hh/year for 10 years)


Species Mean WTP to Downlist Mean WTP to Recover

North Atlantic right whale $38.79 (35.44–42.27)

$68.00 (63.96-71.88)

North Pacific right whale $41.72 (38.30–45.24)

$69.46 (65.07-73.85)

Humpback whale NA $60.98 (57.47-64.52)

Southern resident killer whale $48.30(44.38-52.41)

$84.38 (79.15-89.69)

Hawaiian monk seal $36.26 (33.23–39.69)

$62.96 (59.29-66.81)

Mean WTP: Sea Turtles



Loggerhead sea turtle NA $41.52 (39.05-44.08)

Leatherback sea turtle $37.96 (34.89–40.91)

$64.53 (60.64-68.49)

Hawksbill sea turtle $51.17(47.04-55.29)

$85.95 (81.27-90.20)

Mean WTP: Fish


Species Mean WTP to Downlist Mean WTP to RecoverUpper Willamette River Chinook Salmon NA $38.59

(36.07-41.01)Puget Sound Chinook Salmon NA $38.44

(35.99-40.70)

Smalltooth sawfish $32.45 (28.12–36.95)

$49.28 (44.40-54.47)

Central California CoastChinook salmon NA $51.06

(47.59-54.67)Southern California steelhead

$45.71(41.76-49.83)

$71.06 (66.29-75.96)

Mean WTP: Invertebrates, Corals & Plants



Black abalone $39.56(35.62-43.59)

$70.50 (66.19-74.58)

Johnsons seagrass NA $43.83 (40.67-46.87)

Elkhorn coral $38.00(33.93-42.15)

$71.78 (67.30-76.23)

Advancing the NMV Field:Empirical Tests from theMulti-species Survey


Is WTP higher for some species than others?

Compared WTP between species from Phase I and between ESA status improvement levels

Among the suite of charismatic species, economic values for recovery, andin most cases fordown-listing, were indistinguishable (one exception)

Charismatic species were more highly valued than fishes when the magnitude of recovery was the same


Wallmo, K., and Lew, D. 2012. The value of recovering threatened and endangered marine species: a choice experiment approach. Conservation Biology, 26(5): 830-39.Wallmo, K., and Lew, D. 2011. Valuing improvements to threatened and endangered marine species: an application of stated preference choice experiments. Journal of Environmental Management, 92(7): 1793 – 801.

Is WTP sensitive to scope?Split-sample test to assess sensitivity to the number of species and amount of protection

Found majority of 46 tests suggest sensitivity to “scope”

More species affected = higher WTP

Larger improvements (e.g. recovering v. downlisting) = higher WTP


Lew, D., and Wallmo, K. 2011. External tests of scope and embedding in stated preference choice experiments: an application to endangered species valuation. Environmental and Resource Economics, 48(1): 1 – 23.

Is WTP temporally stable?

Conducted tests for stability ofU.S. household preferences and WTP

Preferences and WTP weregenerally temporally stable over 17 month period


Lew, D.K., and Wallmo, K. 2017. Temporal Stability of Stated Preferences for Endangered Species Protection from Choice Experiments. Ecological Economics, 131: 87 – 97.

Does WTP vary across geographic regionsof the US?• WTP estimated at two different spatial scales:

A. a random sampleB. geographically embedded samples of nine U.S. Census regions

• Region-to-region and region-to-nation statistical comparisons show limited spatial variation between national values and regionally embedded samples; more variation among regions


Wallmo, K., and Lew, D.K. 2016. A Comparison of Regional and National Values for Recovering Threatened and Endangered Marine Species in the United States. Journal of Environmental Management, 179: 38 – 46.Wallmo, K., and Lew, D. 2015. Public preferences for endangered species: an examination of geospatial scale and non-market values. Frontiers in Marine Science, doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2015.00055.

Do spatial patterns of WTP exist in the US?• Identify hot/cold

spots for WTP using tools common for geographical analysis

• Counter to distance-decay hypothesis


Johnston, R., Jarvis, D., Wallmo, K., and Lew, D. 2015. Multi-Scale Spatial Pattern in Nonuse Willingness to Pay: Applications to Threatened and Endangered Marine Species. Land Economics, 91(4): 739-61.

Frontiers in Marine Science Protected Species Economics: Concepts in Research and Management


Collaboration with over 20 authorson a range of topics related to protected species economics• Not limited to valuation

Strengths: Study Specific


• Collaborative

• Rigorous study, CIE review

• Empirical tests built into design to advance technique, theory, state of knowledge

• Large, national sample

Strengths: Programmatic• Increased in-house expertise on valuation

• Helped in building larger PR economics program

• Led to additional human dimensions research• Pienaar, E., Lew, D.K., and Wallmo, K. 2017. Intention to Pay for the Protection of Threatened and Endangered

Marine Species: Implications for Conservation Program Design. Ocean and Coastal Management, 138: 170-180.

• Pienaar, L., Lew, D., and Wallmo, K. 2015. The Importance of Survey Content: Testing for the Context Dependency of the New Ecological Paradigm Scale. Social Science Research, 51: 338 – 49.

• Farrow, K., Brinson, A., Wallmo, K., and Lew, D. 2015. Environmental Attitudes in the Aftermath of the Gulf Oil Spill. Ocean and Coastal Management, 119 – 134.

• Pienaar, L., Lew, D., and Wallmo, K. 2013. Are environmental attitudes influenced by survey context? Social Science Research, 42: 1542-54.


Weaknesses: Study Specific• Attribute non-attendance

• Some respondents focus on doing something for all species vs more (or less) for preferred (less preferred) species

• Respondents want to know what are the ecosystem impacts of a species decreasing or going extinct

• Uncertainty not explicitly incorporated

• 8 species model: full substitution effects not captured; other species assumed to be at status quo levels

• Aggregation of values across population(s)


Weaknesses: Programmatic• Non-market valuation methods not without controversy

• Matching values to policy needs

• Studies are expensive and time-intensive

• Ecosystem level values may be important for futureagency needs


Challenges & Opportunities• Values often used contextually (MMC website),

management use has been limited • Some disincentives to using non-use values

• As Agency continues moving to EBFM, IEAs,the use of non-market values could increase

• OMB & conducting non-market valuation(particularly for non-use)• Sample and implementation issues• Using non-market results

• Second “Blue Ribbon Panel”(last one was 1993, focused on contingent valuation)


Questions?


Protected Species Valuation Research at NMFS · Protected Species Valuation Research at NMFS Office...

Documents

Transcript of Protected Species Valuation Research at NMFS · Protected Species Valuation Research at NMFS Office...