"Synthesis" at the GEER Conference/WRAC

ALL:

FYI, A new Development at the GEER Conference: The Science Coordination Group and Working Group will hold joint sessions at the GEER Conference, Wednesday July 14. The SCG/WG agenda can be found here: http://www.sfrestore.org/wg/wgminutes/2010meetings/14july2010/agenda.pdf

A major part of the SCG/WG agenda is dedicated to identification and discussion of key science management questions related to Synthesis of Everglades Restoration and Ecosystem Services. (see synthesis defined below; should the discussion start with what SCG/WG means by synthesis?)

Connecting the dots on Synthesis and Ecosytem Services: Given the definition of synthesis, The Constanza, et al, calculations provide a synthesis about as good as science gets in terms of Ecosystem Services Valuation (ESV). As the NRC 2005 notes in general, there are too few visible applications of ESV. The result is frequently reported as the tragedy of the commons.

On Synthesis of Everglades Restoration and Ecosystem Services (SERES). There is nothing like a new acronym to stimulate the discussion. Five Arthur R. Marshall Summer interns are presenting a GEER poster paper on the Ecosystem Services Value of Restoring the River of Grass. The paper uses the Costanza, et al, synthesis to calulate the benefits of six configurations evolving from the River of Grass Workshop. The result provides an analysis of alternatives in the form benefit:cost (B/C) ratios for the six configurations. We note that the B/C ratios are also an optimization tool, in terms identifying maximum benefits at least cost, long term. This provides scientific and economic synthesis for decision-support. A read of the Costanza report provides considerable comfort for taking the ESV approach. See http://www.uvm.edu/giee/publications/Nature_Paper.pdf

We invite attendees at the GEER Conference to visit this Poster Paper for additional discussion with our five Arthur R. Marshall Summer Interns.

Can't make the GEER conference: The Poster Paper will be presented at the Thursday, July 8 WRAC meeting about 12:30 PM at a working lunch session, also webcast at www.SFWMD.gov.

Please consider this preliminary public comment for the July 14, 2010, SCG/WG meeting.

Thanks for your consideration. Have a great 4th of July weekend.

John Arthur Marshall
http://www.artmarshall.org/

----------------------------------
Synthesis Defined:
Main Entry (Wikpedia): syn•the•sis [Button]
Pronunciation: \ˈsin(t)-thə-səs\Function: noun; Inflected Form(s): plural syn•the•ses [Button]\-ˌsēz\
Etymology: Greek, from syntithenai to put together, from syn- + tithenai to put, place — more at do
Date: 1589
1 a : the composition or combination of parts or elements so as to form a whole b : the production of a substance by the union of chemical elements, groups, or simpler compounds or by the degradation of a complex compound c : the combining of often diverse conceptions into a coherent whole; also : the complex so formed 2 a : deductive reasoning b : the dialectic combination of thesis and antithesis into a higher stage of truth
3. Webster's Thesaurus/Dictionary: Combination of separate Ideas, parts, or chemical elements of compounds, into a new unit, e.g. photosynthesis.
Since all these definitions are somewhat esoteric, how about something that reflects SCG/WG intent? (From brainstorming by the summer interns and their mentors):
4. Synthesis: a. The reduction of a huge amount of information to a format usable for decision-support, i.e. b. taking a huge amount of information to a usable application in Everglades Restoration; c. combination of separate thoughts into a whole
Next question for debate: Do these definitions fit the Costanza, et al, synthesis? --- The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital. See http://www.uvm.edu/giee/publications/Nature_Paper.pdf

Short report on the EvCo Conference & comments made to the ROG Workshop

SHORT REPORT ON EVERGLADES COALITION CONFERENCE, Jan 7 – 10, 2010
(Public Comment to River of Grass Workshop, SFWMD, January 28, 2010)
RIVER OF GRASS Plenary & VALUING ECOSYSTEM SERVICES Break-out Session

Most everyone participating in the River of Grass Plenary Panel (Shannon Estonez, Tom Van Lent, Shelly Vana, and a few of the questioners) attributed significant value to restoring the missing link to revitalize the River of Grass, by taking a step in this direction in acquiring land owned by U.S. Sugar Corp, per the conference program: …provides an unprecedented opportunity to fully restore the Everglades. Underlining to beg the question: How much value?

The answer to this question was addressed in the Valuing Ecosystem Services breakout session, Ronnie Best moderator, with a power point presentation by Carl Shapiro: Ecosystem Services Valuation - Informing Land and Resource Management Decisions. (See handout for details)

Closing out the session, John Marshall proposed a notional River of Grass application using two factors: The first would be based on the first CERP Goal/Objective - Increasing the spatial extent of natural area. The second would be based on improving (enhancing) the state of the estuaries, from present degraded state; 50% degradation assumed. Costanza, et al, placed a value of wetlands at $7,924 per acre per year, and for estuaries, $9,240 per acre per year.

For the straight-forward KISS notional example of (1) a restoration and (2) enhancement, assume:
1. ROG restores X acres of some combination of natural wetlands including forested wetlands, flow-ways, and STA’s at $7,924 per acre per year; CERP life cycle is 40 years
2. Estuaries degraded at 50% have present value of $4,620 per acre per year (0.5 x $9240) and can be 90% restored to increase the value of the estuary acreage by $3696 per acre per year.

The notional ESV (KISS simplified) for each configuration is calculated by:
1. ESV (increased spatial extent) = X acres * $7924 per acre per year * 40 years = $Big1
2. ESV (improved estuary acres) = Y acres * $3696 per acre per year * 40 years = $Big 2
TOTAL VALUE OF CONFIGURATIONS (i to n) = SUM of BIG $ VALUE = $BIG

The Catskills watershed “model” was cited as an example. The tradeoff was $1 billion to restore the watershed, or $6 - $8 Billion water treatment plant to provide water to NYC. Cost avoidance, also a benefit, resulted in a cost benefit ratio of 6 to 8. Relates to CERP because restoring the natural system avoids a lot of salt water intrusion, reverse osmosis, desalinization plants etc.

Final notes: Avoid not valuing ecosystem services and thus placing zero value on them; this results in bad environmental decision making.
Does the resulting approach to benefit: cost analysis result in quintessential synthesis for decision making. TBD by implementation, implementers, and stakeholders.

__________________________________________________________________
1. Notional for a KISS example; actual application ought to be expanded per the NRC recommended Total Economic Valuation (TEV) approach. Another challenge is to avoid a valuation of zero to natural resources of high value. This is consistent with previous info presented to the Gov Board May 14, 2009.
2. Despite some controversy in peer reviewed literature, these economic valuations appear good enough for relative valuation of multiple configurations proposed in ROG plans; no need to reinvent the wheel. Costanza holds that the 1999 values are conservative. See http://www.uvm.edu/giee/publications/Nature_Paper.pdf
3. Of course given the TEV approach, all 17 of the ESV functions used in the Costanza et al, study should be considered as economic benefits, and compared to costs, to get to a benefit/cost ratio, and a single number synthesis.