Grantee Research Project Results
2007 Progress Report: Improved Valuation of Ecological Benefits Associated with Aquatic Living Resources: Development and Testing of Indicator-Based Stated Preference Valuation and Transfer
EPA Grant Number: R832420Title: Improved Valuation of Ecological Benefits Associated with Aquatic Living Resources: Development and Testing of Indicator-Based Stated Preference Valuation and Transfer
Investigators: Johnston, Robert J. , Besedin, Elena , Schultz, Eric , Segerson, Kathleen
Institution: University of Connecticut
EPA Project Officer: Hahn, Intaek
Project Period: October 1, 2005 through September 30, 2008
Project Period Covered by this Report: October 1, 2006 through September 30, 2007
Project Amount: $405,154
RFA: Valuation for Environmental Policy (2004) RFA Text | Recipients Lists
Research Category: Environmental Justice
Objective:
The proposed work will develop and test Indicator-Based Stated Preference Valuation (ISPV) for aquatic living resources and assess implications for benefits transfer. Objective 1: Integrate ecological models, economic theory, and qualitative research to develop candidate indicators of aquatic living resources for use in valuation surveys, as a foundation for indicator-based stated preference valuation and transfer. Objective 2: Develop choice experiment surveys to systematically test indicator-based valuation methods, models and results. Objective 3: Assess implications for indicator-based benefits transfer. Objective 4: Develop transferable templates and guidelines for indicator-based stated preference (SP) valuation of aquatic living resources.
Progress Summary:
Work during year two has emphasized the completion of objectives one, two and three, with particular emphasis on the development and testing of stated preference survey instruments. Diadromous fish passage has been chosen as the policy area through which the proposed valuation methods will be developed and tested. That is, the proposed methods will be applied to the estimation of use and nonuse values for the restoration of passage for diadromous fish species, using stated preference (choice experiment) methods. This policy area was chosen based on its timeliness and relevance to New England stakeholders and policymakers, as well as its suitability for the proposed indicator-based valuation methods. We are targeting two Rhode Island watersheds for testing and development of the proposed valuation and benefit transfer methods—the Pawtuxet Watershed in central Rhode Island and the Wood-Pawcatuck Watershed in southwest Rhode Island. In addition, a leveraged research project is applying a similar approach to the Saugatuck Watershed in southwestern Connecticut.
Year one progress included the design of conceptual models related to the estimation of values for aquatic habitat restoration and a theoretical framework underlying the proposed valuation approach. This approach, denoted Indicator-Based Stated Preference Valuation (ISPV), seeks to provide more appropriate modeling of aquatic ecosystem condition and change within stated preference valuation, through a more systematic grounding in ecological models and established indicators. Choice experiment survey instruments will allow the estimation of total (use and nonuse) values for multi-attribute fish passage restoration projects in New England case study watersheds, as well as the transferability of values among selected systems. Year one activities also included development and testing of indicators for use within the proposed valuation instruments, as well as consultations with experts in applied aquatic ecology and restoration throughout New England states. Ecological research components emphasized the identification of both multi- and single metric indicators that are both readily understood by potential respondents and provide an accurate representation of the condition of ecological systems both before and after fish passage restoration. Of particular concern was the tradeoff between: 1) the potential usefulness of multi-metric indicators to communicate ecosystem condition to laypersons and 2) the difficulties and ambiguities associated with the measurement and communication of ecosystem conditions using a single consolidated indicator.
Year two activities have emphasized development, testing, and iterative revision of the stated preference survey instrument that will be implemented in 2008. Nine focus groups (70 total participants) have been held in different Rhode Island and Connecticut locations, in addition to individual pretests with selected respondents. Focus group and pretest results have led to enhancements and changes to the survey instrument. Templates for the survey are now in the final stages of testing and development, and it is anticipated that final surveys will be completed and ready for implementation during the first few months of 2008. Additional year two work has established ranges of realistic baselines and levels for the choice experiment attributes (ecological indicators), as a necessary initial step in the experimental design. This has involved an extensive survey of available ecological data for watersheds in Rhode Island and elsewhere, as well as contacts with ecological experts nationwide, in order to ensure that baselines and levels for choice experiment attributes are grounded in appropriate ecological data. Focus groups have also provided insight into relative marginal utilities associated with different ecological attributes and levels in potential respondents’ utility functions, providing additional information that will be used in the experimental design for choice experiment surveys.
The project will implement multiple stated preference survey variants in order to test hypotheses related to the impact of different indicator sets and presentations on survey responses and estimated preferences. These will include surveys that include different types of ecological indicators to communicate key attributes that focus groups have revealed as relevant to respondents’ preferences for fish passage restoration. These comprise indicators that communicate impacts on direct, population-level impacts on migratory fish species as well as those that reflect impacts on broader ecosystem condition. The latter, for example, might be communicated through a multi-metric indicator such as an index of biotic integrity (IBI). Preliminary theory has also been developed that, when complete, will provide insights into assumptions made by respondents regarding certain types of ecological attributes when related attributes are omitted from survey scenarios. Combined results from the different survey variants will provide insight into the interpretation and use of ecological information and indicators within stated preference surveys, as well as the types of attributes which determine respondents’ values for aquatic ecological improvements.
Year two work has also included development of formal guidelines for the use of ecological indicators in stated preference surveys. The proposed valuation approach is designed to generate welfare measures that can be unambiguously linked to models of ecosystem function, are based on measurable outcomes, and can be more easily incorporated into benefit cost analysis. To ensure these properties, project researchers have developed a set of systematic criteria for survey attributes that are unique to ISPV. These criteria are in addition to the well-known guidance for survey attributes provided by the stated preference literature.
Preliminary (primary) data collected to date include qualitative focus group and interview results. These results provide insight into public perceptions of aquatic habitat, fish passage and related issues; preferences for associated policy changes and restoration actions; and the common language used by respondents to communicate such issues. Focus group results also provide findings regarding subjects’ reactions to draft versions of survey materials and ecological indicators. These data are in the form of notes taken during focus group sessions by project PIs, and recordings of some focus group sessions. Preliminary data also include notes from survey pretests and interviews with ecological experts, as well as responses to preliminary expert surveys to gather ecological data and insights regarding survey attributes.
Preliminary project results have been presented at a number of scholarly and stakeholder meetings, with feedback used to further develop the proposed methods. Finally, partnerships have been established with a number of user and stakeholder groups, including Save the Bay (Rhode Island), the Waterkeepers Alliance, the Nature Conservancy, and the Saugatuck Watershed Partnership. These partnerships—along with coordination with government agency staff in New England states—will ensure that the proposed methods generate useful and relevant results for policymakers and stakeholders.
Future Activities:
The major activities for upcoming project year three will include: 1) finalization of the choice experiment survey instrument and associated research methods, including final development and testing of ecological indicators to be incorporated into choice experiment scenarios, informational materials to be provided to respondents (including video presentations for an in-person, “high information” version of the survey), and survey administration methods; 2) completion of the experimental design of attribute levels; 3) completion of sampling designs for survey implementation and development of mailing lists for sampled regions in Rhode Island; 4) compilation and printing of final survey booklets and completion of supporting survey materials (e.g., letters, postcards, etc.); 5) survey implementation and data analysis. Finally, project PIs will complete a number of presentations and submit papers addressing research results.
Journal Articles:
No journal articles submitted with this report: View all 7 publications for this projectSupplemental Keywords:
Media: marine, estuary, Ecosystem Protection: ecosystem, indicators, restoration, aquatic, habitat, Public Policy: public policy, decision making, cost benefit, conjoint analysis, nonmarket valuation, contingent valuation, survey, preferences, public good, willingness-to-pay, Scientific Disciplines: social science, ecology, Methods/Techniques: modeling, analytical, surveys, measurement methods, Geographic Areas: northeast, Atlantic coast, Rhode Island (RI), Connecticut(CT), Massachusetts(MA), EPA Region I, Other Keywords: anadromous, catadromous, herring, alewife, shad, impoundment, index of biotic integrity, choice modeling, fish ladder, population viability analysis, assessment endpoints, measurement endpoints, nonuse value, benefit transfer, welfare analysis, dam, hydropower, river, fish passage, migratory,, RFA, Scientific Discipline, Economic, Social, & Behavioral Science Research Program, decision-making, Ecology and Ecosystems, Social Science, Economics & Decision Making, benefits transfer, contingent valuation, ecosystem valuation, valuation, decision analysis, decision making, environmental decision making, environmental priorities, indicator based stated preference valuation, environmental values, environmental policy, aquatic resources, comparative study, stated preference, willingness to payProgress 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.