California Pilot Test of the Ecological Approaches to Environmental Protection Developed in Capacity Research Projects C06A and C06B (2013) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
Pages 77-103
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 77... ...
71 APPENDIX B Credit and Valuation Approach Summary Describing credits for different transportation and ecological actions was an intent of C06 and the C21 test of C06. No specific methods were described in C06, so we limited our investigations to conceptual discussions of crediting and valuation with transportation and other stakeholders.
|
From page 78... ...
72 planning. Because of the unique potential for wetland restoration in the State Route (SR)
|
From page 79... ...
73 and values of wetlands. Then we will present valuation methods and why they cannot be implemented in our project.
|
From page 80... ...
74 Source: Turner et al.
|
From page 81... ...
75 Valuation Methods Three valuations methods that we could use to value wetlands are revealed and stated preference methods, contingent analysis, or benefit transfers. REVEALED AND STATED PREFERENCE APPROACHES The two main types of valuation for non-market goods (wetland services, in our case)
|
From page 82... ...
76 Since contingent valuation method would be time and resource consuming, benefit transfers were considered for our study. However, "A recent review by Heimlich et al.
|
From page 83... ...
77 6e. Evaluate local market opportunities for ecosystem services.
|
From page 84... ...
78 Also, the aim of our study is to help decision making by stakeholders through a better knowledge of impacts, and indicators might be a better approach as they are more transparent and can be easily understood, unlike economic valuation. Economic valuation is made through methods like contingent valuation and then uses concepts such as discounting which are not as easy to understand as a range of indicators.
|
From page 85... ...
79 Figure B.2. Application of C06B framework for Step 6 to SR 37 study.
|
From page 86... ...
80 In order to get a global image of ecological and social setting, we developed a matrix divided into themes, objectives (or criteria) , and indicators (Figure B.3)
|
From page 87... ...
81 Condition-Based Measurements Condition based measurements focus on quantifying changes in the status of the regulated resource. For instance, species of concern would be measured through population surveys.
|
From page 88... ...
82 condition-based measures in our study: for instance, species of concern would be measured through population surveys. Step 6c: Select or develop units and rules for crediting.
|
From page 89... ...
83 have is that some impacts like water quality appear at different points of the diagram (for instance, as a consequence of runoff water or as a consequence of vehicles emissions)
|
From page 90... ...
84 stakeholders. Defining alternatives earlier could be useful because it can help determine objectives and needed data.
|
From page 91... ...
85 place a unique opportunity of wetland restoration for the Bay Area and this nationally-important estuary. Therefore, since the ecosystem is unique, banking systems or PES might not be a satisfying approach for this project because they imply that mitigation or restoration projects can be equivalent to the impacts, which is not the case for unique systems.
|
From page 92... ...
86 The construction of alternatives will also necessitate the involvement of stakeholders, because of the various issues that have to be addressed. Stakeholders at this point will help in constructing better alternatives because they can share their own expertise that other stakeholders may not have.
|
From page 93... ...
87 • Relevance The relevance of data is a qualitative assessment of the value contributed by these data. Value is characterized by the degree to which statistics meet current and potential needs of the users.
|
From page 94... ...
88 might be more important to see how far each objective is reached with different alternatives than how many times an indicator was used. Also we can consider that double counting is useful to some extent because if a resource is a valid indicator for different objectives, then maybe it should be counted twice because it serves two different objectives.
|
From page 95... ...
89 • Indicators above or below the mean: this transformation considers the indicators which are above and below an arbitrarily defined threshold, p, around the mean Xexpected: Simple and efficient to compare alternatives. Reduced impact of extreme values.
|
From page 96... ...
90 Positive versus Negative Count of Impacts Another question here is to choose how we want the indicator to be read: more is better or less is better? The appreciation by stakeholders might be different for some indicators.
|
From page 97... ...
91 Table B.3. Advantages and Disadvantages of Some Weighting Methods Weighting method Advantages Disadvantages Hierarchical Weighted Total (aggregation on tree)
|
From page 98... ...
92 Analytic Hierarchy Process Pairwise comparisons of indicators are made and then the relative weights of the individual criteria are calculated using an eigenvector. • Can be used both for qualitative and quantitative data.
|
From page 99... ...
93 We cannot suppress the subjective factor of our evaluation and the message given by the final evaluation results is determined by these choices. The uncertainty test aims to quantify the overall uncertainty in themes rankings as a result of the uncertainties in the model input.
|
From page 100... ...
94 • Figure B.6. Example of spider diagram for themes.
|
From page 101... ...
95 The combination of these two levels will give a good sense of how each alternative is performing and it will also make it easier to discern benefits and dis-benefits. The use of spider diagrams like these is clear and it permits one to see how different alternatives are performing on multiple criteria and clearly distinguish strong and weak points of each alternative.
|
From page 102... ...
96 References San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) , Draft Staff Report.
|
From page 103... ...
97 Mogridge, M
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.