Grantee Research Project Results
Final Report: Assessing the Contribution of Small Streams to Use and Non-use WaterQuality Values Using Modeling, Stakeholder Participation, and Decision Theory
EPA Grant Number: R836169Title: Assessing the Contribution of Small Streams to Use and Non-use WaterQuality Values Using Modeling, Stakeholder Participation, and Decision Theory
Investigators: Borsuk, Mark E. , Howarth, Richard B. , Rogers, Shannon H. , Chen, Celia Y , Zuidema, Shan
Institution: Dartmouth College , Plymouth State University , University of New Hampshire
EPA Project Officer: Packard, Benjamin H
Project Period: April 1, 2016 through March 31, 2021 (Extended to March 31, 2022)
Project Amount: $798,337
RFA: Water Quality Benefits (2015) RFA Text | Recipients Lists
Research Category: Water
Objective:
The goal of this project was to develop a transferable framework for linking the health of small streams to water quality indicators, ecosystem services, and social preferences. The project aimed to combine a spatially distributed modeling framework for gauging the determinants of water quality with two complementary valuation methods, deliberative multicriteria analysis and choice modelling. The project focused on the Cocheco and Lamprey River watersheds of Southeastern New Hampshire in the broader statewide context of New Hampshire.
Summary/Accomplishments (Outputs/Outcomes):
The project proceeded in a sequence of phases as described in the initial project proposal.
I. Hydrological Modeling
In the first phase of the project, we added new components to the FrAMES hydrological model, including long-term groundwater storage of chloride, road salt loading, dissolved oxygen and temperature response to riparian canopy cover, and fecal coliform. The resulting model was tested against a compilation of physical and water quality data from the University of New Hampshire, the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services, and the US Geological Survey. FrAMES is a widely used, transferrable model. One outcome of this project was to enhance this model’s capabilities.
II. Biophysical Modeling
Next, we constructed a new Bayesian Network model that translates the hydrological outputs generated by FrAMES into biological indicators of ecosystem health. Methodologically, this project element was based on a detailed statistical analysis of the abundance of three orders of benthic macroinvertebrates – Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Tricoptera (together called “EPT”).
Our work established that EPT abundance is a function of hydrological disturbances, temperature variations, and land use type throughout New Hampshire. These relationships are consistent with those found in previous studies. In addition, the model has reasonable predictive power given the - 2 - data set employed in our analysis. This model can then be used to extrapolate ecosystem health across the entire FrAMES network for current and possible future conditions.
III. Indicators Development In this part of the project, we used our biophysical models to develop three variables that were applied in our valuation work. These included:
a. The frequency of major floods, measured as the relative probability of a 100-year flood event as this term is characterized based on historical data.
b. The EPT indicator, which represents the ecological health of a given stream.
c. A measure of “swimming days,” corresponding to the number of days per summer in which water bodies are free from E. coli outbreaks that lead to beach closures.
For each indicator, we compared the status quo with alternative scenarios (based on past research) of land use and development patterns.
IV. Deliberative Multicriteria Evaluation In this centrally important part of the project, we developed and applied a novel version of Deliberative Multicriteria Evaluation (DMCE) to gauge public preferences concerning water quality. In pursuit of this goal, we organized and implemented four full-day stakeholder workshops that were structured as follows:
a. Lay citizens were recruited from the Lamprey and Cocheco watersheds.
b. Each workshop began with a morning session in which scientific experts presented and discussed each indicator in plenary session, allowing for questions and engagement from the participants.
c. Each participant completed an initial preference elicitation survey in which they assigned scores to a set of alternative choice options.
d. Participants were then placed in small groups and asked to deliberate over a set of choice options, coming to consensus as a group on their respective scores. e. A final survey was conducted at the individual level to see if group deliberation led to changes in individual preferences.
Our DMCE experiment produced the following principal results. First, we established that the general structure of our workshop methodology succeeded in bridging the gap between the formal criteria generated by our biophysical models and stakeholders’ ability to reach grounded value judgements. All eight stakeholder groups (two per workshop) were able to reach consensus on the respective value that should be assigned to each attribute considered in our analysis. Most - 3 - groups placed the highest weight on river health (as measured by our EPT indicator) and the lowest weight on the costs of water quality improvements.
Second, in our stakeholder workshops, participation in group-level deliberation led to statistically significant and numerically large increases in individuals’ willingness to pay for improvements in river health, the number of swimming days per year, and for reductions in flood risks. This is important, because theoretical considerations suggest that deliberative processes generate higher-quality preference judgement that can be more informative to policy analysis and management decisions.
Finally, our study conducted qualitative analysis of data derived from the workshops to gauge how and why participating in group deliberation led to preference change. The key finding is that individuals shifted from a focus on personal values towards a concern for a shared public interest. This is consistent with other studies in the field of deliberative valuation and governance.
V. The Choice Experiment
In the final year of the project, we conducted a standard discrete choice experiment at the statewide scale in New Hampshire. The survey was administered by the University of New Hampshire Survey Center with attention focused on developing a representative sample. The survey presented introductory material on the four attributes considered in the analysis:
a. Flood risks.
b. Swimming days.
c. The percentage of streams gauged to be of “high,” “medium,” and “low” river health as captured by our study’s EPT indicator.
d. The incremental cost of paying for better environmental quality, measured relative to the status quo. Our analysis of the data generated by this survey is ongoing. Our preliminary observations, however, are as follows.
First, the choice experiment generated estimates of willingness-to-pay for river health, swimming days, and flood risk reductions that we regard as plausible. This is important because it signals that we were able to communicate to respondents how future environmental conditions might change under multiple scenarios derived from our biophysical modeling – and that respondents were able to translate that information into grounded preference judgments.
Second, the data suggest that willingness to pay for increased environmental quality may be lower at the statewide scale than the results we obtained from our DMCE experiment. One possibility is that the choice experiments come closest to measuring citizen’s true preferences based upon standard methods from economic analysis. On the other hand, small group - 4 - deliberation is commonly applied in community-based decision-making in ways that are supported by the literature from environmental politics. That body of literature stresses the importance of engagement across difference and the value of coming to consensus when that is possible. It may be that stated preference surveys are unable to replicate the advantages of the deliberative approach.
Journal Articles on this Report : 1 Displayed | Download in RIS Format
Other project views: | All 9 publications | 6 publications in selected types | All 6 journal articles |
---|
Type | Citation | ||
---|---|---|---|
|
Mavrommati G, Borsuk M, Kreiley A, Lacrosse C, Rogers S, Buford K, Howarth R. A methodological framework for understanding shared social values in deliberative valuation. ECOLOGICAL ECONOMICS 2021;190. |
R836169 (2020) R836169 (Final) |
Exit Exit |
Progress and Final Reports:
Original AbstractThe perspectives, information and conclusions conveyed in research project abstracts, progress reports, final reports, journal abstracts and journal publications convey the viewpoints of the principal investigator and may not represent the views and policies of ORD and EPA. Conclusions drawn by the principal investigators have not been reviewed by the Agency.
Project Research Results
- 2020 Progress Report
- 2019 Progress Report
- 2018 Progress Report
- 2017 Progress Report
- 2016 Progress Report
- Original Abstract
6 journal articles for this project