Digital Commons@Center for the Blue Economy
Not a member yet
256 research outputs found
Sort by
Aligning Natural Resource Conservation, Flood Hazard Mitigation, and Social Vulnerability Remediation in Florida
Get PDFFlooding continues to be the most common and damaging of all natural disasters in the United States. In 2016, twelve individual weather and climate events caused more than 17 billion in damages. Currently, more than 5.5 million active policies under the National Flood Insurance Program, underwrite more than 38 billion in claims – nearly 30% was paid to the 1% of properties classified as “repetitive loss properties” (RLPs).
Flood impacts are determined by a complex interaction between physical hazards, the vulnerability of a society or social-ecological system, and its exposure to such hazards. The extent and severity of impacts are amplified by challenging socioeconomic dynamics, including poorly planned urban development, lack of access to resources, social vulnerability, and poverty.
Addressing this complex interaction between hazards, exposure and social vulnerability, this study identifies and prioritizes land in Florida, where multiple management benefits can be achieved: flood exposure reduction, habitats restoration, and social vulnerability remediation. In a targeted case-study, our model identified 144 RLPs in Miami-Dade County located in areas where high social vulnerability, high flood exposure, and natural habitats coexist. Collectively, these 144 RLPs filed at least 320 claims against NFIP between 1978 and 2011.
The multiple benefits of the presented approach include: reduction of flood exposure; reduction of NFIP’s financial impact; restoration of the floodplain to a more natural condition; and the identification of efficient application of federal funds. We argue that government funded buyouts, followed by structure demolition and/or relocation, and the restoration of floodplain habitats, can support social, environmental, and economic objectives, as long as such projects are executed in a thoughtful and fair manner
The Application and Usefulness of Economic Analyses for Water Quality Management in Coastal Areas
Get PDFEconomic studies are increasingly sought as tools to contribute to water quality management in estuaries and coastal communities, yet little is known about how the results from existing studies have been received and utilized by the organizations who solicited them. We interviewed managers from eight organizations who solicited economic studies over the past 15 years to understand how useful the studies were to their organizations and what economic research would be most helpful for their management needs. In terms of utility for coastal managers, there are a number of limitations in the studies. These include lack of site-specific data, the high cost of thorough studies, the appropriate application of methods, and receiving highly technical information that can be difficult to translate to the appropriate stakeholder audiences. Despite these drawbacks, we found the managers to be extremely positive about the usefulness of the economic studies, but in need of more research and localized data. Managers who embark upon economic analyses should take care to engage trained economists who can identify and implement appropriate methodologies to answer management questions, and who can help managers to interpret and communicate the findings. The coastal managers also identified specific areas of research that are most salient for their programs. These range from broad applications of economic analysis as a communication tool, to specific applications such as cost-effectiveness analyses of management actions. Overall, the interviews revealed great interest and utility in economic analyses, and also opportunities for conducting specific economic analyses to improve coastal decision making
Considerations of Socio-Economic Input, Related Challenges and Recommendations for Ecosystem-Based Maritime Spatial Planning: A Review
Get PDFSocio-economics in an ecosystem-based Marine Spatial Planning (MSP) process cover a wide range from specifying socio-economic objectives, respective indicators, organising stakeholder engagement, to data, methods and tools (e.g., environmental valuation and cost-benefit analysis) for example to identify issues, assess ecosystem services, provide an insight on human behaviour and compare alternative marine plans with potentially competing goals. In addition, social principles such as that of social equity have an important role to play in achieving sustainability in marine management. However, the use of socio-economics in making the ecosystem-based MSP framework operational, poses certain challenges to researchers, regulators and policy-makers. The purpose of this paper is first to present a brief overview of socio-economic input needs, with a special emphasis on the role of environmental valuation related to ecosystem services as a mean to integrate the ecosystem approach into marine planning and management, and related challenges as identified by planners and researchers. Then, conclusions and recommendations are offered overall regarding socio-economic input and in particular environmental valuation. Finally, it is noted that although, the focus of the paper is mainly European, most of the issues discussed apply equally to other locations
The Impact of Climate Change on Marine Recreational Fishing with Implications for the Social Cost of Carbon
Get PDFWe estimate the effects of temperature and precipitation on marine recreational fishing days over a 20 year time period. The data are from the National Survey of Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife-Associated Recreation. Our results suggest that temperature and precipitation have positive effects on marine recreational fishing days in the United States. To determine changes in economic value we simulate the effects of climate change on fishing days with changes in U.S. average temperature and precipitation developed from climate models. We use benefit transfer to estimate the value of fishing days. Considering a 4.5F temperature change and a 7% precipitation change, we find that marine recreational fishing days will increase by 27% and the welfare change is $2.5 billion. This suggests that impacts of climate change on marine recreational fishing could have implications for accurate estimation of the social cost of carbon
Phragmites Removal Increases Property Values in Michigan’s Lower Grand River Watershed
Get PDFThe presence of Phragmites australis, an invasive wetland plant, negatively affects coastal property values and home prices rise with distance from Phragmites. Home prices increased as distance to Phragmites increased at a rate of 1,500. Removing all Phragmites within 400 m of any property results in a total property value impact of 13,457-687/ha. Removing the approximately 36 ha of Phragmites in the area would cost about $25,041. Future treatments would likely be less than that of the first year. The estimated cost of the first year of Phragmites removal is less than the estimated two years of annual property tax revenue increases
Financing Natural Infrastructure for Coastal Flood Damage Reduction
Get PDFThis paper explores financial tools for investing in natural infrastructure to reduce current and future risks from flooding. The key conclusions are:
1) There is a large and growing pool of funding for natural infrastructure, but the availability is geographically uneven and providing sufficient resources will require significant actions by industry, government, scientists, and communities. There are both public and private sources that can fund natural infrastructure for flood risk reduction. Approaches vary among the U.S., Europe, and international development organizations. For example, funding for natural flood control infrastructure is a byproduct of other purposes in the U.S., but recognized as a specific purpose in Europe and by development organizations. The opportunities for investments in natural infrastructure are shaped by various factors, including local geography, type and extent of ecosystems, knowledge about local flood risks, approaches to funding ecosystem conservation, the capacity of financing systems, and the socioeconomic status of communities. The types and amounts of funding for natural infrastructure can be expected to grow because of innovations such as catastrophe bonds, but current institutional structures are often ill-suited to take advantage of existing and emerging opportunities and are not prepared to meet increasing risk.
2) There is no single appropriate financing mechanism for natural infrastructure. Financing should reflect the distribution of public or private benefits of flood protection through the payment mechanism as determined by specific local conditions. The appropriate funding approach will depend on several factors, including local natural conditions (geography, ecosystems), local governance (including the socioeconomic status of communities), the condition of national financial systems (including the robustness of public or private property insurance markets), and public policies that explicitly support the use of natural infrastructure. We identify the key characteristics of these factors that should influence decisions on appropriate funding mechanisms.
3) he largest opportunities for funding are in the redirection of post-disaster recovery funds to pre-disaster investments in risk reduction. Flood risk reduction should be undertaken before the flood occurs, but we currently spend much more on recovery efforts than on risk reduction. The greatest opportunities to increase resources for risk reduction lie in combining funds for risk reduction with funds for flood recovery. These investments will further reduce damages to lives, properties, and communities over time. • Recent innovations such as catastrophe and resilience bonds offer potential approaches to combining recovery and risk reduction, while green bonds may provide pre-disaster financing under appropriate conditions.
4) The largest barriers for securing adequate resources are: identifying locations where natural infrastructure can play a significant role in flood risk reduction; developing the experience and standards to overcome institutional biases in favor of “proven” gray infrastructure; and developing institutional arrangements capable of matching available funding with the needs of individual situations. To develop new financing, it is critical to develop a body of experience that would expand the existing foundation of natural systems management, risk assessment, and valuation analysis of natural infrastructure, and increase its acceptance and use. The identification of viable projects for nature based risk reduction is critical for expanding pools of available funds. The identification of specific projects- including the location, the ecosystem restoration methods, the expected benefits, and the regulatory feasibility- will often need to be included in the up-front costs of the development of new financing vehicles. Infrastructure banks are an example of institutions that can be structured to match funders with specific needs. These banks can pool the funding needs of different natural infrastructure projects to make them attractive to private capital markets. It will be necessary to create special purpose organizations that can capture the benefits of risk reduction in ways that support market-based finance.
The funding strategy to be used for any specific project will depend primarily on the geographic, economic, and institutional circumstances in each location. But it is possible to create a general framework to catalogue the different approaches to financing, from which locally-determined funding strategies can be formed. This paper proposes such a framework, then outlines and examines the options currently available under the framework, and concludes with an assessment of how funding may expand in the future
Aligning Decision-making and Key Behaviors with Effective Fisheries Management
Get PDFAt least two-thirds of global fish stocks are overfished or fully exploited (FAO, 2014). As a result, fisheries are not producing nearly as much food, profit, or livelihood opportunities as they could be. Well implemented and effective Rights Based Management (RBM) can reverse these trends, but designing and implementing such systems is challenging.
There are good design principles based on research and experience for designing RBM systems, focused on ensuring that stakeholders buy into management measures and that fishermen can capture the benefits of their own conservation efforts. However, there are many other decisions that must be made and behaviors that must be exhibited by fishery scientists, resource managers, fishermen, and others to make the entire RBM system effective.
Because managing a fishery is a human enterprise, understanding the decisions and behaviors of fishermen and managers is imperative for achieving sustainability. The fishery management process is complex, involving multiple decisions and behaviors by several actors. Fishery managers, scientists, and fishermen are motivated and affected by a number of internal and external variables. Economic, social, political, cultural, psychological, or other personal factors influence decision-making and can induce undesired or unintended behavioral responses. Therefore, understanding human decision-making processes and their drivers is vital in ensuring the success of effective fishery management strategies.
The purpose of this report is to describe specific behaviors and decisions that have large impacts on the efficacy of fishery management, and generate ideas for interventions that may influence those behaviors such that they become more aligned with effective management. This report does not discredit top-down regulations nor advocate for an entirely behavioral approach. Rather, it seeks to establish a broader context for discussion regarding challenges in fishery management that may be amenable to behavioral interventions. Behavioral interventions deployed as part of a comprehensive management strategy would be anticipated to enhance the efficacy of fishery management, just as they have in other sectors such as health, education, and energy use (Thaler & Sunstein, 2009). Generic interventions suggested in this assessment are for illustrative purposes only, and are neither prescriptive nor a panacea for all fishery management problems. Every fishery is unique and interventions need to be specific to local needs and contexts.
The methodology for this research is a desktop analysis, an extensive literature review of the major challenges and drivers impeding effective fishery management. We begin with a background discussion of human behavior and how behavioral interventions may influence better decision-making. We then outline the fishery management process to describe the stakeholders involved in managing a fishery and the types of decisions that must be taken for its success. We examine three key groups of actors in fisheries management: the fishery management authority, fisheries scientists, and fishermen. Each group is analyzed, including their roles, level of influence within the decision-making process, and currently exhibited behaviors. There are six challenges addressed in this report that appear consistently throughout fisheries management literature and that have a major impact on fishery efficiency and sustainability: (1) resistance to data-limited assessment (2) translating science to management action (3) communicating uncertainty and risk to stakeholders (4) catch misreporting (5) bycatch and discarding and (6) destructive fishing (Peterman, 2004; Hilborn et al., 2005; Daw and Gray, 2005; OECD, 2010; OECD; 2013; Government of Canada, 2011). Drawing on theories from psychology, behavioral economics, and social sciences literature, we investigate the drivers of each challenge and craft illustrative behavioral interventions.
(exerpt from Introduction, download PDF for full introduction.
Northeast Ocean Planning Baseline Assessment: Marine Resources, Infrastructure, and Economics
Get PDFThis document summarizes the status of coastal and marine resources in the Northeast region of the United States, and how these resources generate economic and ecological value. The Northeast region, for ocean planning purposes, includes the coastal counties of Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Connecticut, and the New York counties (bordering Long Island Sound) of Queens, Bronx, Suffolk, Nassau, and Westchester. The coastal and marine natural resources and coastal infrastructure of the Northeast, and the economic activities and cultural/recreational services that rely them, directly and indirectly support more than 500,000 jobs and $40 billion in economic value (GDP) per year (2013 data) in the region. This represents about 2% of the region’s overall economy. In addition, US Navy and Coast Guard activities in the region support more than 10,000 jobs and account for billions of dollars per year in federal expenditures in the region. The region’s coastal and ocean resources also generate significant ecosystem service value in the region and beyond, though these values are not well quantified. Coastal and marine recreation and tourism account for about half of the region’s ocean economy GDP and for more than 70% of ocean economy employment. The maritime transportation sector account for 16% of ocean economy employment and 29% of ocean economy GDP in the region; ship and boat building accounts for 11% of employment and 13% of GDP; and commercial fisheries and seafood processing account for 6% of employment and 8% of GDP. Information about the spatial distribution and status of coastal and marine resources and the economic activities that make use of them inform and support the Northeast ocean planning process
Accounting for the Ocean Economy Using the System of National Accounts
Get PDFThe increasing importance to measure the ocean economy cannot be discounted. A number of countries attempted to measure the ocean economy based on their needs and perceptions. At this point, however, there is no agreed scope and coverage of the ocean economy nor is there an agreed operational definition of the variables needed for its measurement. Moreover, there is no internationally endorsed framework that will guide and lead to comparable estimates across countries or regions.
Utilizing the 2008 System of National Accounts (SNA) as a framework, this paper endeavors to estimate the contribution of the ocean economy in the Philippines using the present Philippine System of National Accounts (PSNA) and taking into consideration the agreement in the Inception Workshop on the Blue Economy Assessment held last 28-30 July 2015 in Manila on the initial list of sectors relevant to the ocean economy. The current PSNA has adopted the 2008 SNA in May 2011 and has incorporated estimates of the “unorganized sector”, which is an approximation of the informal sector in the Philippine economy.
The paper also explores the possibility of utilizing the System of Environmental Economic Accounting (SEEA) and the Experimental Ecosystem Approach being done in the Philippines to complement the existing national accounts estimates.
Key words and Phrases: ocean economy, system of national accounts, industrial classification, unorganized sector, environmental accounting, ecosystem
Measurement of the Ocean Economy From National Income Accounts to the Sustainable Blue Economy
Get PDFThe widespread efforts to incorporate the economic values of oceans into national income accounts have reached a stage where coordination of national efforts is desirable. A symposium held in 2015 began this process by bringing together representatives from ten countries. The symposium concluded that a definition of core ocean industries was possible but beyond that core the definition of ocean industries is in flux. Better coordination of ocean income accounts will require addressing issues of aggregation, geography, partial ocean industries, confidential, and imputation is also needed. Beyond the standard national income accounts, a need to incorporate environmental resource and ecosystem service values to gain a complete picture of the economic role of the oceans was identified. The U.N. System of Environmental and Economic Accounts and the Experimental Ecosystem Service Accounts provide frameworks for this expansion. This will require the development of physical accounts of environmental assets linked to the economic accounts as well as the adaptation of transaction and welfare based economic valuation methods to environmental resources and ecosystem services. The future development of ocean economic data is most likely to require cooperative efforts at development of metadata standards and the use of multiple platforms of opportunity created by policy analysis, economic development, and conservation projects to both collect new economic data and to sustain ocean economy data collection into the future by building capacity in economic data collection and use.