tropical river ecosystem services

Transcription

1 The economic value of Australia s The economic value of Australia s tropical river ecosystem services

2 Who is on the team? Project team Anna Straton, Sue Jackson and Nick Abel, CSIRO Kerstin Zander, Stephen Garnett and Adam Drucker, CDU Mark Kennard, Griffith University it Sharna Palmer, April Mirindo, Marceil Lawrence, Rowena Parkes Primary funding bodies LWA The Myer Foundation TRaCK receives major funding for its research through the Australian Government's Commonwealth Environment Research Facilities initiative; the Australian Government's Raising National Water Standards Program; Land and Water Australia; the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation and dthe Queensland dgovernment's Smart tstate t Innovation Fund.

3 What did we do? Assessed how changes in four tropical river ecosystem services would impact on community welfare Community welfare means a gain or loss in benefit Measured through the notion of willingness- to-pay If I benefit more, I am willing-to- pay more

4 Estimated impact on community welfare in dollar terms using a method of economic valuation choice modelling Marginal benefit our dollar values are for changes in the quantity or quality of an ecosystem service, not for the overall value of a river

5 Which river catchments?

6 What are ecosystem services?

7 Which ecosystem services did we choose for this study? Provision of floodplain habitat in good environmental quality Provision of good conditions for recreational fishing Provision i of species and habitat t important t to Aboriginal customary activity at waterholes Provision of income from irrigated agriculture

8 How did we do it? Questionnaire mailed to people Catchments: Daly, Fitzroy/Mardoowarra and Mitchell Capital cities: Darwin, Perth and Brisbane Southern cities: Sydney, Melbourne and Canberra

9 Questionnaire delivered face-to-face with Indigenous people in the catchment William Shaw being interviewed by April Mirindo at Gillarong community, Fitzroy/Mardoowarra catchment

10 How many people responded? Response rate of 34.8% 3086 questionnaires mailed / interviews requested 1073 returned / answered 45-54% are very interested in the future of the river system 37-47% are a little bit interested

11 Potential bias in our sample 50.8% tend to favour preservation and development equally 42% tend to favour preservation of the environment; 5% tend to favour development 43.2% ranked Preserving Australia s tropical rivers for biodiversity and natural habitat as the most important management issue Providing food for Australia - 27% Preserving Australia s tropical rivers for the people p who live there and visitors % Developing northern Australia - 6% Providing food for the world - 36% 3.6%

12 Respondents characteristics Non-urban sample Whole sample Urban sample Catchment sample Aboriginal faceto-face sample No. respondents Male 49% 46% 49% 59% Mean age Age range Respondents with children 83% 81% 82% 91% Either live in or have visited Aust s s tropical rivers region 70% 64% have visited 100% 100%

13 What were people asked?

14 Floodplain in good environmental condition WTP for change in area of floodplain in good environmental condition WTP ($/hous sehold) Low to medium level l Low to high level Residents Indigenous residents Perth and Melbourne e Residents Indigenous residents Darwin and Sydney Brisbane and Canberra a Fitzroy Daly Mitchell

15 Quality of the river for recreational fishing WTP for change in quality of river for recreational fishing WTP ($/hou usehold) Low to medium level Low to high level Residents s Indigenous residents Perth and Melbourne e Residents s Indigenous residents Darwin and Sydney Brisbane and Canberra a Fitzroy Daly Mitchell

16 Condition of waterholes important to Aboriginal people WTP for change in condition of waterholes important to Aboriginal people hold) WTP ($/house Low to medium level Low to high level 0 Residents Indigenous residents Perth and Melbourne Residents Indigenous residents Darw in and Sydney Brisbane and Canberra Fitzroy Daly Mitchell

17 Income from irrigated agriculture WTP for change in income from irrigated agriculture WTP ($/house ehold) Low to medium level Low to high level 0 Residents Indigenous residents Perth and Melbourne Residents Indigenous residents Darw in and Sydney Brisbane and Canberra Fitzroy Daly Mitchell

18 Average WTP for change in ecosystem services 350 usehold) Average WTP ($/ho Low to medium floodplain Low to high floodplain Low to medium river Low to high river Low to medium waterholes Low to high waterholes Low to medium income Low to high income

19 Where to from here? These findings can be used to help calculate the benefits / costs of investing in certain projects or development scenarios, e.g. To estimate the benefits of a project to improve the condition of waterholes, or To estimate the costs of a proposal that will impact negatively on floodplain quality

20 Take home messages People from around Australia are interested in the future of our tropical rivers. People from around Australia are willing-to-pay for improvements / increases in tropical river ecosystem services.

21 On average, people are prepared to pay more for rivers with the best possible environmental, recreational and cultural outcomes. When it comes to water being used for agricultural activity, people generally prefer moderate rather than large scale use.

22 Of all the river services, respondents are prepared to pay the most to see the rivers provide high quality outcomes for waterholes important to Indigenous people.

23 There are some differences but more similarities in the preferences of catchment, urban, Indigenous and non-indigenous people. p

24 Ecosystem Sciences Anna Straton Research Scientist Phone: anna.straton@csiro.au au Web: Thank you Contact Us Phone: or Enquiries@csiro.au Web:

25 Possible extra slides

26 What do respondents think are issues/priorities for Australia s s tropical rivers? Management issue / priority for Australia s s tropical rivers Fitzroy River respondents who rank it most important (%) Daly River respondents who rank it most important (%) Mitchell River respondents who rank it most important (%) Preserving Australia s s tropical rivers for biodiversity and natural habitat Providing food for Australia Preserving Australia s rivers for those who live there and visitors Developing northern Australia Providing food for the world

27 Characteristics of respondents 50.8% tend to favour preservation and development equally 42% tend to favour preservation of the environment; 5% tend to favour development 42.2% ranked Preserving Australia s tropical rivers for biodiversity and natural habitat as the most important management issue Providing food for Australia -27% Preserving Australia s tropical rivers for the people who live there and visitors % Developing northern Australia - 6% Providing food for the world - 3.6%

28 What were the levels of each ecosystem service for the Daly? For change from each ecosystem service at its lowest quantity / quality to: Medium quantity / quality, and Highest quantity / quality Ecosystem service Lowest quantity Medium quantity Highest quantity / quality / quality / quality Area of floodplain in good environmental condition 2,513 km 2 3,518 km 2 5,035 km 2 Quality of the river for recreational fishing 1-star 3-star 4-star Condition of waterholes important to Poor Ok Good Aboriginal people Income from irrigated agriculture per year $36m $68m $100m

29 How can these results be used in decision-making? 1. Aggregate value Estimate the value of an improvement in each ecosystem service to people living in a particular location, e.g. Darwin, the Daly catchment or Sydney 2. Value of improvements in a bundle of ecosystem services Estimate the value of changes in all 4 ecosystem services at once

30 1. Aggregate value ($million)

31 For example,