Estimating Non-Market Values for Fish Passage:  A Workshop 

Robert J. Johnston, Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of Connecticut

Eric T. Schultz, Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Connecticut

Kathleen Segerson, Economics, University of Connecticut

Elena Y. Besedin, Abt Associates, Inc.

Jessica B. Kukielka, Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of Connecticut

Deepak Joglekar, Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of Connecticut 

Estimation of public preferences and non-market economic values associated with the restoration of fish passage in New England waterways can help ensure that projects obtain maximum public support and provide the greatest possible social value. Economic approaches to valuation of ecological restoration often include the use of stated preference (SP) survey techniques to estimate public willingness to pay for changes in ecological services.  Natural scientists are sometimes skeptical of these approaches, however, given often ambiguous linkages between SP valuation methods and established models of ecosystem function.

This interactive, participatory workshop will engage participants in the development of improved ecological-economic approaches for the valuation of fish passage restoration. These interdisciplinary methods better model and communicate aquatic ecosystem change within SP valuation, thereby allowing more defensible estimation of economic values for diadromous fish restoration.  This is based on more concrete linkages between models for economic valuation and underlying models and indicators of ecosystem function.

The workshop will proceed as follows. First, moderators will present mechanisms underlying SP valuation of fish passage restoration, including underlying linkages between economics and ecology. Participants will then engage in an interactive demonstration of survey-based valuation—experiencing the same types of information and questions that will be presented to actual survey respondents.  Valuation instruments and methods will then be discussed in a participatory forum that will both provide information to participants and help researchers improve the proposed valuation methods.  Finally, researchers will discuss how research results will be used to inform restoration policy decisions in New England.

This workshop will provide participants with first-hand experience in the process by which preferences and values will be elicited from New England residents. Participants will in turn furnish critical input in this ongoing research project, including assistance in the development of survey and informational materials. Through this interactive experience, participants will gain an improved understanding of ecological-economic methods used to estimate non-market values, and will assist in the estimation of these values for  New England waterways.

Note:  This workshop and research is supported by the EPA Science to Achieve Results (STAR) Program, Grant #RD 83242001.  Opinions and findings are those of the authors, and do not imply endorsement of the funding agency.

i-Tree: An Urban and Community Forestry Analysis Tool

David Bloniarz, Project Coordinator, USDA Forest Service Northern Research Station, Amherst, MA

John Parry, Urban Forester, USDA Forest Service Northern Research Station, Durham, NH

This workshop will present an introduction to i-Tree, a state-of-the-art, peer-reviewed software suite that provides tools for urban and community forestry analysis and benefits assessment, tree inventory, storm damage assessment and other tools.  i-Tree can be used by communities of all sizes to analyze their urban and community forestry resources and then use the information gained for urban forest management and for policy and planning. It can also be used by state forestry agencies, municipal foresters, non-profit tree advocates, commercial arborists, environmental consultants, planners, and others interested in their community forests and the environmental benefits they produce.

Developed by USDA Forest Service Research, State and Private Forestry, and other cooperators, i-Tree is in the public domain and available by request. The Forest Service, Davey Tree Expert Company, the National Arbor Day Foundation, and the Society of Municipal Arborists have entered into a Cooperative Partnership to disseminate and provide technical support and training for the suite.

REALIZING THE POTENTIAL IN CONNECTICUT’S COMMUNITY-BASED EFFORTS

Guided Discussion led by Brendan Hanrahan,

Director, The Connecticut Earth Network  

Community-based environmental management is known to hold great promise, but in practice fundamental barriers often stand in the way of local groups’ progress.  This workshop is a guided discussion about the great range of expertise residing in Connecticut’s community groups and opportunities to empower their efforts to resolve diverse issues such as smart growth, land conservation, environmental justice and air, water and wildlife protection. Led by Brendan Hanrahan, participants will explore the range of initiatives undertaken by community-based groups in the state, the challenges they encounter, and the potential for the local groups to innovate, lead and support positive change.  Mr. Hanrahan is Executive Director of The Connecticut Earth Network (CT EarthNet) and has for the past several years tracked the activities of Connecticut’s community-based groups. Mr. Hanrahan will sketch a landscape view of community-based environmental management in Connecticut.  His remarks will describe how CT EarthNet estimates there are some 500 local groups active in the state today, arrayed across a full spectrum of environmental issues and representing diverse constituencies. Research has repeatedly affirmed the potential for such initiatives to serve as proving grounds for new approaches to otherwise intransigent issues, foster volunteer stewardship ethics that are reflective of local values and sensitivities, and succeed where “top-down” regulatory approaches or organizations bog down. Yet, fundamental obstacles—lack of funds, lack of staff and lack of political clout—often hobble local groups’ efforts. For the promise of community-based environmental initiatives in Connecticut to be realized—with time short and much riding on their success or failure—there is a need to support local groups, facilitate communication and speed their progress. Participants will be invited to discuss how such diverse resources might find ways to collaborate toward shared objectives, what new approaches and products might result, and how a resource such as CT EarthNet can facilitate such interaction. CT EarthNet is working to establish a dynamic network resource designed to address needs of community-based organizations and support informed environmental management in Connecticut on a fast-track basis.

Decision making in Connecticut: Metrics to Move Us

Nathan Bixby, President and Founder, Network for a Sustainable New Haven, Inc.

David Heiser, Head of Education and Outreach, Yale Peabody Museum of Natural History

In 1987, humanity passed a critical point in its relationship to the carrying capacity of Earth – our demand finally exceeded our supply, and the gap widens each year. This sobering fact was exposed by a peer-reviewed, comprehensive resource accounting method known as Ecological Footprint analysis.  This method totals the land and water area required to continuously produce the food, fiber and energy (including transportation) we consume; plus the area needed to absorb the wastes from this consumption (including CO2), and then compares this total to the actual land available in key categories of pasture land, cropland, forests, fishing grounds, and built-up areas. In this way the Ecological Footprint analysis compares our consumption to the natural resources available and calculates the balance. It clearly identifies our most consumptive habits, and what our natural resource shortfalls will be if we don’t change our patterns of consumption.

Siberian forests sequester our excess CO2, while Brazilian rainforests are cleared for pasture, while Connecticut farms are turned into residential developments and we import more and more of our food and wood – the aggregate of local and global land use by Connecticut citizens is surprisingly large.  Unconscious of the basic facts of the aggregate impact of land use, decision making is impoverished at all levels – from the backyard and kitchen to the voting booth, from the zoning boards and land trusts to the State House. It is only through a using a common language and accounting for land use that timely, creative and synergistic win-win solutions will emerge. Without these solutions, quality of life will be adversely affected, not only in Connecticut but also around the world, for a whole range of ecosystem services.

The Yale Peabody Museum of Natural History and Network for a Sustainable New Haven are developing outreach materials to connect the dots for an increasingly wide range of decision makers in CT.  We will start the workshop with “Extreme Life,” a presentation for high school students, which introduces the concepts of sustainability and the ecological footprint, and relates the students’ career choices and development to these 21st century realities.  This will be followed by "My Connecticut Footprint," a customizable, web-based, interactive Flash movie that seeks to provide context and a common language to inform personal and public decisions regarding a whole range of natural resource issues, including life-style, sprawl and associated regulation, smart growth initiatives, land use changes, zoning, open space preservation, land trusts, biodiversity and global warming impacts.

We will lead a group discussion that we hope will serve to guide us as we tailor our products to a wider range of CT decision makers. Some possible discussion questions include:

• Could a common language and accounting system help clarify many of our more challenging decisions?
• Would it be helpful to inventory the range of decisions and initiatives affecting our most basic natural resource--the land itself?
• Would it be helpful to inventory of the challenges faced by participants in their work and brainstorm how these tools may or may not help?
• How might these tools help you be more effective in relating your area of concern to a broader public, reaching common understandings and finding win/win solutions?