Jean Daniels writes: >I have been assigned to come up with several different ways to value (with >dollars) one red-cockaded woodpecker. Obviously, the value of foregone timber >harvest is one way but does anyone know of other methods or studies? I am >doing a benefit/cost economic analysis from society's point of view and >any information is appreciated. Norm Cimon comments: >Strongly suggest you inform yourself on the ecology of the bird >itself. Does it plant seeds? Does it excavate cavities for >other birds/small mammals that plant trees? Does it provide >any sort of habitat (via its excavations) for the micro-fauna >and/or micro-flora that form part of the nutrient recycling >pathway in the forest which it inhabits? These and many more >questions like them are the primary determinants of the "value" >of the bird over the long term. This sounds like it could open an interesting discussion. Here's what I think: Cimon's suggestion addresses the qualitative value of the bird to a society interested in or dependent on ecological processes and productivity (though I'm not sure his examples are very applicable to RCWs), but they don't go to Daniels' main question, concerning how to determine the ECONOMIC value to society. I think of ECONOMIC VALUE simply as what someone would pay for their existence (whether they were really going to get an economic return, or just liked having them around), if they knew as much as possible about the consequences of their extinction. I think the best way to determine that value would be to survey a whole lot of people and ask them how much they'd be willing to pay to maintain the existence of the RCW species, assuming it had no federal protection. Before they answered, you'd want to explain as much as you could about any societal benefits provided by the birds (see Cimon's concerns), as well as any costs (e.g. damage to large pine sawtimber? increased susceptibility to wind breakage?) Let's ignore costs due to current ESA regulations, since we're also assuming no federal protection. Take the average amount specified in the survey, divide by an estimate of the population of RCWs, and that could be our estimate of the economic value of one RCW. My guess is you would get a much different (lower) estimate if you asked participants to put a value on the species assuming present federal regulations. They would be willing to pay less, since presumably they're ALREADY paying something in tax dollars, increased cost of forest products, etc. and the costs (whether real or perceived) of having the things around under ESA protection can be rather high for people who own commercial forest land. I think this estimate would be distorted and less defensible. Also, simply using the value of timber harvest forgone to save a bird (mentioned by Daniels) seems to presume that present federal regulations (ESA) fairly reflect the value of RCWs to society. I strongly doubt that is the case. Again, to do a true valuation it makes more sense to me if you ignore the implications of current regulations (which IMPLY an economic value arbitrarily). One last thought: I think the economic value of a species like the RCW is not as important as the economic value of the ecosystem it depends on. I personally would be willing to pay a lot more money to preserve fire-adapted fire-maintained longleaf pine ecosystems, simply because they're neat places (whether the RCWs are part of them or not), than I would just to preserve the RCW considered separately. Sometimes these are the same thing (i.e. the system depends on the species), but I figure they aren't necessarily. --wade harrison-- (not a resource economist, not a bird biologist, and not a policy analyst,
Mail converted by
MHonArc 1.1.0