Understanding water in the social-ecological system of the Wind River/Bighorn River Basin, Wyoming and Montana
Authors: Chris Armatas1, Bill Borrie1, Alan Watson2, Neal Christensen3, Tyron Venn4, Dan McCollum5, and Ken Cordell2 Final Report June 2016
U.S. Forest Service Joint Venture Agreement Number: 14-JV-11221639-173
1 The University of Montana, Missoula, Montana, USA 2 Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute, Rocky Mountain Research Station, United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Missoula, Montana, USA 3 Christensen Research, Missoula, Montana, USA 4 University of the Sunshine Coast, Queensland, Australia 5 Rocky Mountain Research Station, United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Fort Collins, Colorado, USA
This research was funded by: The National Natural Resource Economics Research Center, USDA Forest Service, Landscape Restoration and Ecosystem Services Research; Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute, Rocky Mountain Research Station, United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service; Christensen Research; and The University of Montana.
Table of Contents Executive Summary ...... i 1. Introduction ...... 1 2. Understanding a Social-Ecological System ...... 3 2.1. Vulnerability...... 4 2.2. Ecosystem Services ...... 6 2.2.1. Approaches for Valuing Ecosystem Services ...... 9 2.2.1.1. Choice Modeling ...... 11 2.3. The Need for a Holistic Approach ...... 13 3. Study Area ...... 14 3.1. Physical Characteristics...... 15 3.2. Social, Economic, and Cultural Characteristics ...... 18 3.2.1. Threats to the water-based ecosystem services in the Basin ...... 23 3.2.2. Stakeholder perceptions of vulnerability in the Basin ...... 24 4. Methods ...... 27 4.1. Problem definition ...... 28 4.2. Selection of water-based ecosystem services ...... 28 4.3. Defining water-based ecosystem services ...... 30 4.3.1. Defining the status quo ...... 30 4.3.1.1. Angling ...... 31 4.3.1.2. Motorized winter recreation ...... 31 4.3.1.3. River and riverbank biological diversity ...... 32 4.3.1.4. Agricultural Community...... 33 4.3.1.5. Cost ...... 33 4.3.2. Defining the alternate levels ...... 33 4.4. Experimental design and survey instrument development ...... 36 4.4.1. Experimental design...... 36 4.4.2. Survey instrument development ...... 37 4.5. Defining the population to be surveyed ...... 38 4.6. Data Collection ...... 39 4.7. Data analysis and interpretation of results ...... 40 5. Results ...... 41 5.1. Demographic characteristics of the respondents ...... 42 5.2. Respondent attitudes toward the Basin, and opinions on importance of WESs, threats to important WESs, and management and policy of natural resources ...... 44 5.3. Respondent opinions on survey instrument, and preferences for water-based ecosystem services ...... 48 6. Discussion...... 53 References ...... 56 Appendix A. Choice Modeling Survey Questionnaire ...... 65
i
Executive Summary Natural resource managers and policy-makers are confronted with the difficult task of addressing the complex interrelationship between ecological and social systems in a way that, to the greatest extent practicable, sustains the broad range of ecosystem services flowing from public land that support human well-being. Both human and natural change (e.g., climate change, land-use change, and drought) can result in an altered flow of ecosystem services to a broad range of beneficiaries, who not only have disparate preferences for ecosystem services, but also differing abilities to adapt and cope with change. In the context of water management in the western United States, this task is particularly difficult as a result of both water scarcity and the competing nature of the many uses of water (e.g., irrigation and instream flow). In order to improve management and policy related to water-based ecosystem services flowing from public land, there is a need to provide better information to natural resource managers and policy- makers about tradeoffs and impacts of management actions on stakeholder benefits derived from water. In support of land management and policy in the western United States, this case study in Wyoming and Montana, USA, provides preliminary results from a choice modeling survey, which required respondents to make explicit tradeoffs between important water-based ecosystem services. This research builds upon previous research that focused on potential changes in ecosystem functions and the perceptions of a broad range of stakeholders regarding the importance of, and threats to, water benefits. Specifically, this report provides: 1) quantitative indicators (i.e., values) regarding four highly relevant water-based ecosystem services (agriculture, river-based angling, motorized winter recreation, and aquatic and riparian biodiversity); 2) social attitudes and values regarding water and public land management; and 3) potential tradeoffs across important water-based ecosystem services (WESs) that may occur due to climate change and land-use change. A choice modeling survey was completed by 310 heads of households, and the data highlight a broad range of attitudes and values associated with water-based ecosystem services in the study area. For instance, nearly 82% of respondents agree that future generations should get the same consideration as current generations in the context of natural resource management, and 65% of respondents support a modification of water law that would allow private land owners to temporarily use existing water rights for the improvement of instream flow. Although the ii primary threat to the future provision of important water-based ecosystem services, according to respondents, was too much government regulation and management, other threats including climate change, oil and natural gas extraction, and mining were perceived as threatening by many respondents. Like most choice modeling studies, respondents had a tendency to select the current state of the environment; however, there were several instances where respondents appeared willing to pay for an increase in the provision of water-based ecosystem services. That is, given a choice between three different sets of management outcomes, the majority of respondents chose ‘No Change in Management’. However, a good number of respondents appear willing to pay a substantial increase in annual costs to their household where there are significant increases in benefits received such as increased river and riverbank biological diversity, more land open to motorized winter recreation, and increases in the number of acres irrigated for agriculture. Since most Forest Service planning offices do not have accurate, scientifically proven estimates of ecosystem service values associated with federal lands in the U.S., this study offers a unique opportunity for National Forest managers to be responsive to current efforts, through the Final Planning Rule, to incorporate a broad range of values into planning efforts. In addition, the methodological framework, of which this study is a part, contributes to an understanding of how to perform complex vulnerability assessments regarding pervasive stressors such as climate change and land-use change. Such research can be used to inform upcoming revisions of the National Forest Management Plans and Wilderness Stewardship Plans, and in making large and small-scale management decisions that affect the flow of benefits to stakeholders. Furthermore, knowledge about the full range of market, non-market and qualitative benefits related to management alternatives for National Forest planning is required for meeting the new Forest Planning Rule directive regarding considerations of ecological, social, and economic sustainability in management plans. Such considerations require public input and the best available scientific information to inform plan decisions on all 155 national forests, 20 grasslands, and 1 prairie. This research can help meet the needs of forest planners, who are tasked with protecting and enhancing water resources, restoring land and water systems, and providing ecological conditions to support the diversity of plant and animal communities, while providing for ecosystem services and multiple uses. 1
1. Introduction
It has been argued that water will be the most important resource for supporting human health and well-being in the near future (National Research Council 2004; Hundley Jr. 2009). Issues pertaining to water are particularly visible in the western United States, where water related decision- and policy-making is historically complex, primarily as a result of the inherent difficulties associated with meeting endless human demands for water in a predominantly arid environment. The ‘traditional’ approach to inadequate water supplies included building dams, canals, and wells to support out-of-stream uses such as domestic needs and agriculture, but it was done at the expense of in-stream uses such as aquatic habitat and opportunities for outdoor recreation (Frederick and Gibbons 1986). Following the prolific water development years that dominated much of the 20th century (see Reisner (1986) for a thorough account), there was a gradual shift to a more holistic water management approach that focused less on expanding population and agriculture capacity and more on sustaining water quantity and quality for the myriad of human uses (MacDonnell 1999). Sustaining multiple uses of water is especially difficult, however, as the provision of one benefit (e.g., commercial irrigation) is often in direct competition with other benefits (e.g., in-stream flow for recreation and biological diversity), and such benefits are valued differently by broad stakeholder groups at diverse spatial and temporal scales. Compounding the difficulty of managing water in the western United States is the uncertain climate that, in the recent past, has delivered especially hostile conditions. The 21st century brought with it the most severe and widespread drought over the past 800 years in the western United States, and projections suggest that such ‘megadroughts’ will be commonplace through the end of the century (Schwalm et al. 2012). In addition to more frequent and severe drought, there is much confidence that the western United States will experience higher temperatures that are expected to alter snowfall and snowmelt dynamics (National Research Council 2004). Although the past cannot definitively serve as a harbinger of what is to come, as temperatures in the second half of the 20th century gradually rose the following impacts were documented in the western United States: a shift in timing of snowmelt (Cayan et al. 2001; Barnett et al. 2005; Hamlet et al. 2005; United States Geological Service 2005; Pederson et al. 2010), an earlier onset of spring (Cayan et al. 2001), a longer frost-free season (Easterling 2002), longer growing season (Feng and Hu 2004), a shrinking of glaciers (Marston et al. 1989; Cable et 2 al. 2011) and of quantity of snowpack (Mote et al. 2005; Watson et al. 2009), a change in wintertime precipitation from snow to rain (Knowles et al. 2006; Abatzoglou 2011) and an increase in the occurrence of extreme temperature and precipitation events (Kunkel et al. 1999; DeGaetano and Allen 2002; Gleason et al. 2008). Adding another layer of complexity to water resource management in the western United States is the fact that the water crisis will not culminate in one catastrophic event, but as an aggregation of hundreds or thousands of water problems that occur at regional and local scales (National Research Council 2004). Navigating changes to social-ecological systems, driven both by human actions (e.g., over-allocation of water) and ecological change (e.g., melting glaciers), is a difficult task that has been characterized as ‘wicked’. That is, natural resource managers and policy-makers are confronted with ‘wicked problems’, where science is uncertain, and a broad range of stakeholder values and attitudes result in multiple perspectives related to the problem and its solutions (Rittel and Webber 1973; Allen and Gould 1986). Consequently, addressing such problems is not done with single, objectively correct solutions, but with solutions on a continuum from good to bad, which are informed by science, politics, and an understanding of the biophysical and social relationships that define the multiple interests involved (Allen and Gould 1986; McCool and Stankey 2003; Balint et al. 2011). A reality of such situations is that choices made by managers and policy-makers will result in tradeoffs and, as a result, ‘winning’ and ‘losing’ stakeholders. Considering the highly interconnected and subjective nature of wicked problems, many have advocated for improved knowledge related to the vulnerability of social-ecological systems and the relationships between ecosystem services and human well-being (e.g. Turner et al. 2003; Kumar et al. 2011; Armatas et al. 2016; Bennett et al. 2016). According to Turner (2010:571), understanding how ecosystem services support human well-being can highlight those qualities that make social-ecological systems “less vulnerable or more resilient to the multitude of forces (i.e., disturbances, stressors, perturbations) acting upon them.” Ecosystem services are commonly described as benefits people receive from the environment. These benefits include water, food, spiritual and cultural values, recreation, aesthetics, mitigation of climate change impacts, protection against flood, drought and disease, and maintenance of biodiversity. Vulnerability is defined generally as a measure of the susceptibility of a natural or social system to harm when exposed to a hazard. 3
In an ongoing effort to understand social-ecological vulnerability in the Wind River/Bighorn River Basin (Basin) in Wyoming and Montana, USA, this report presents an example non-market valuation study (i.e., a choice modeling survey) of water-based ecosystem service (WES) values. This report complements past research, which identified biophysical vulnerabilities (Rice et al. 2012) and four major perspectives regarding the importance of WESs and the threats to those WESs (Armatas 2013; Armatas et al. 2016). Specifically, this report provides the following knowledge to further our understanding of the social-ecological system in the Basin: 1) quantitative indicators (i.e., values) regarding four highly relevant WESs (agriculture, river-based angling, motorized winter recreation, and aquatic and riparian biodiversity); 2) social attitudes and values regarding water and public land management; and 3) potential tradeoffs of important WESs that may occur in the face of climate change and land-use change. This report proceeds as follows: section two briefly reviews literature related to ecosystem service valuation and vulnerability; section three describes the Basin in terms of its physical, cultural, and socio-economic characteristics; section four presents the specific methodology for quantitatively assessing important ecosystem service values; section five discusses basic descriptive results; section six synthesizes the results presented here and future analysis to improve understanding of the social-ecological system in the Basin and the implications of such an understanding for policy and management; and section seven concludes with an overview of important findings, a discussion of limitations, and suggested directions for future research.
2. Understanding a Social-Ecological System To effectively convey the purpose and implications of this non-market valuation study, a brief overview of the vulnerability and ecosystem services concepts is required. In addition, a short discussion regarding the need for a holistic approach is included, because even though economic valuation of ecosystem services is a useful tool for aiding decision-making, in that it provides relatable and understandable values, it “does not imply that other perspectives for better management of the environment have to be neglected” (Ninan 2014:5). Indeed, other perspectives should be embraced, as a sole reliance on the application of particular economic approaches (e.g., cost-benefit analysis) in the context of sustainable natural resource 4 management is often critiqued for a number of reasons, including that it infrequently accounts for “nonmaterial aspects of human welfare” (O'Brien and Wolf 2010:232), and favors current generations over those of the future (Anderson et al. 2015).
2.1. Vulnerability The myriad of terms discussed in vulnerability literature (e.g., vulnerability, sensitivity, exposure, resilience, stressor, driver, hazard, adaptive capacity, adapting, coping, etc.) can be confounding, because they may be used interchangeably or as opposites, and interpreted and defined differently depending on context and author (Brooks 2003; Gallopín 2006; Hinkel 2011). The lack of consensus and resulting confusion can largely be attributed to the fact that these concepts were first developed and debated in relatively separate intellectual lineages (i.e., ecology, natural hazards, climate change adaptation), and have only relatively recently been discussed together in multidisciplinary approaches to vulnerability assessment (Eakin and Luers 2006; Janssen et al. 2006; Renaud and Perez 2010). To provide clarity for the remainder of the report, a short overview of vulnerability concepts and the potential approaches for understanding vulnerability is required. Vulnerability is generally defined as a measure of the susceptibility of a system to harm when exposed to a hazard, where susceptibility is a function of exposure, sensitivity, and adaptive capacity (Metzger et al. 2008). Exposure refers to the likelihood that a hazard will have repercussions on a system (Fischer et al. 2013) or, similarly, “the extent to which the system is physically in harm’s way” (Engle 2011:649). Sensitivity has been defined as the degree to which a system will respond to an external hazard (Luers 2005). It has also been suggested that sensitivity is an attribute within the system, existing prior to the occurrence of a disturbance, which is defined by the characteristics that affect the degree of impact resulting from a hazard (Gallopín 2006; Fischer et al. 2013). Adaptive capacity refers to a system’s ability to evolve, both through shock absorption and self-organization, in order to adjust to environmental hazards and social changes (Adger 2006). Oftentimes, these vulnerability-related concepts are discussed in the context of ‘biophysical’ and ‘social’ vulnerability. Biophysical vulnerability focuses on outcomes, and is often viewed as the potential impact that a hazard event (e.g., drought) has on a biological (e.g., crop yield) and/or human (e.g., mortality rate) component of a system; whereas social 5 vulnerability may be seen as a preexisting state, determined by properties independent of a hazard (e.g., infrastructure, location, and per capita income) that influences the outcome of a hazard (Brooks 2003). Using this conceptualization, biophysical vulnerability is viewed as the “damage resulting from the interaction of hazard and social vulnerability” (Brooks 2003:5). However, a focus solely on biophysical or social vulnerability is becoming less common because, as Adger (2006:268) asserted, “human action and social structures are integral to nature and hence any distinction between social and natural systems is arbitrary.” Currently, the prevailing sentiment appears to be if vulnerability research is to benefit management and policy decision-making, then it should focus on the integrated social-ecological system. Assessing vulnerability can be done with ‘outcome’, ‘contextual’, or ‘value-based’ approaches (O'Brien and Wolf 2010). Outcome approaches, conducive to understanding biophysical vulnerability, focus on reducing vulnerability by mitigating specific damages resulting from a biophysical change, often as a result of climate change (e.g., reducing impacts of drought through advances in irrigation technology) (O'Brien and Wolf 2010). Outcome approaches, sometimes referred to as ‘impacts-led’ approaches or ‘top-down’ approaches, typically include modeling potential changes in specific parameters such as temperature or rainfall under different climate scenarios with a consideration about how such changes may impact human exposure (e.g., number of people at risk in the case of a flooding event) (Brooks 2003; Adger et al. 2004). Contextual approaches to vulnerability focus on how social system characteristics (e.g., race, class, institutional structures) influence levels of exposure to biophysical changes (O'Brien et al. 2007; O'Brien and Wolf 2010). Contextual approaches would rely primarily on what Fischer et al. (2013) refer to as ‘profile information’, which is often quantitative characteristics of communities including educational attainment, and the reliance of the population on particular economic sectors. According to O'Brien and Wolf (2010:237), both outcome and contextual approaches are limited in that they do not consider cultural, psychological, religious, or spiritual factors and, consequently, lack an understanding about “what the effects of climate change mean for what people value, for example, their cultural identity and way of life, their sense of place, their visions for the future, and their human security.” In order to gain a nuanced understanding that captures these types of factors, O'Brien and Wolf (2010) advocate a ‘values-based’ approach to understanding vulnerability, which integrates 6 multiple perspectives on human values using a broad range of methodological approaches. Such an approach is potentially beneficial in that it inherently acknowledges both the existence of multiple perspectives (none of which are objectively correct), and the importance of understanding the cultural context in which adaptation measures to climate change or other hazards are being proposed. For example, in reference to the challenge of maintaining food security, O'Brien and Wolf (2010) noted that “food is more than just calories, tonnes per hectare, or market exchange rates. It is an integral part of culture, identity, and it plays a role in social relations, rituals, and celebrations.” Therefore, adaptation strategies that pursue technological adaptations, such as new crops, may be met with opposition because they fail to account for qualitative aspects of food (O'Brien and Wolf 2010). In order to obtain an understanding of cultural, psychological, religious, and spiritual factors, there is likely a need for ‘process information.’ According to Fischer et al. (2013), process information “concerns the relations among people and organizations and between people and landscapes that influence people’s perceptions of their own well-being and capacity to act.” A values-based approach can potentially add nuance to the understanding of social- ecological system vulnerability by complementing an understanding of objective measures, such as community reliance on particular economic sectors, or the percentage of a population living in a floodplain and the associated risk of flood occurrence. Those who apply such approaches are, increasingly, incorporating the ecosystem services concept, which can effectively illustrate how biophysical systems (e.g., a forest) contribute to the well-being of humans (e.g., timber and recreation) and, consequently, how a multitude of drivers of change could potentially interrupt those contributions and lead to damaged social-ecological systems (Kumar et al. 2011; Stratford et al. 2011; Micheli et al. 2014). Understanding these nuanced relationships can contribute to a holistic assessment of social-ecological systems, whereby ecosystem services can be effectively measured, modeled, valued and managed (Zhang et al. 2014).
2.2. Ecosystem Services
Ecosystem functions are deemed ‘ecosystem services’ when human values are implied (de Groot et al. 2002). For example, a functioning forest provides several services including timber, recreation opportunities, and climate regulation via carbon sequestration. In other words, 7 the ecosystem services concept helps to link ecology and society. Ecosystem services have been categorized in several ways (e.g. de Groot et al. 2002; Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2003; Hein et al. 2006). The approach taken by Hein et al. (2006) categorized ecosystem services into production, regulation, and cultural services. Production services are tangible products obtained from ecosystems (e.g., food, timber, water), regulation services are benefits reaped from the maintenance of ecosystems (e.g., climate regulation, water purification), and cultural services are benefits that typically do not require physical extraction of natural resources (e.g., recreation, symbolic values). Another category of ecosystem services recognized is supporting services, which are those benefits that that support all other services such as soil formation, nutrient cycling, and primary production (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2003). Ecosystem services values can serve as quantitative indicators, which can help to describe the state of the social-ecological system and, in addition, be modeled under different future scenarios to understand how potential management decisions could impact ecosystem service values and the stakeholders that value them. For instance, if a particular segment of forestland provides $50,000 in timber receipts, $25,000 in forest recreation value, and $10,000 in biodiversity benefits on an annual basis under current management and climate conditions, then the impact of different climate regimes and management decisions on such ecosystem service values could be investigated and used to inform potential management or adaptation strategies. Deriving ecosystem service values can be challenging, however, as many nature-based benefits are not traded on markets and are comprised of different types of values. Figure 1 illustrates one conceptualization regarding the different types of values that comprise the total economic value of an ecosystem. Direct use values refer to benefits such as timber harvested and fish caught by anglers, and indirect use values include benefits like carbon sequestration. Option values include the value that people place on the potential to reap benefits at a later date, but incomplete information is available about the future need of that service (Hein et al. 2006). For example, the option value of rare plant species may be particularly high, because there is the potential that they could be used for a future disease vaccine. Non-use values (also referred to as passive use values) include existence values, altruistic values, and bequest values, and they encompass the value that consumers attach to knowing that something exists, other people benefit from some service, and that current populations value future generations realizing a benefit (Kolstad 2000).
8
Figure 1. Ecosystem valuation framework – use types
Ecosystem
Production Regulation Cultural services services services
Direct use Indirect use Option values Non-use
values values values
Total value
Source: Adapted from Hein et al. (2006:211).
Another way to conceptualize the total value of an ecosystem is illustrated in Figure 2, and it categorizes the benefits derived from ecosystem services in terms of ecological, socio- cultural, and economic values (de Groot et al. 2002). Ecological value includes the benefit that ecosystem functions provide to humans by sustaining the environment and, thus, also contributing to human survival (de Groot et al. 2002; Farber et al. 2002). For example, carbon sequestration, which regulates climate and is integral to human survival, has particularly high ecological value when compared to an ecosystem service such as river recreation. Socio-cultural value captures the benefit that ecosystem services provide in terms of equity and fairness (e.g., existence and bequest values), and economic values correspond with the market value of ecosystem services such as agricultural sales and the economic impact of recreation services (e.g., guiding angling trips). There are several parallels between the framework suggested by Hein et al. (2006) and de Groot et al. (2002). For example, there are clear similarities between indirect use values and ecological value, and non-use values appear to be well aligned with the benefit captured by socio-cultural value.
9
Figure 2. Ecosystem valuation framework – value types
Ecological Values
Based on ecological sustainability
Ecosystem Goods Socio-cultural & Values Total Services Based on equity and Value cultural perceptions
Economic Values
Based on efficiency and cost-effectiveness
Source: Adapted from de Groot et al. (2002:394)
Regardless of how the total value of ecosystems is conceptualized, it is important that decision-makers, to the greatest extent possible, consider the broad range of benefits that ecosystem services provide to humans. To that end, estimating both market (e.g., hydropower) and non-market (e.g., homesteading culture entwined in the agricultural community in the western United States) values associated with ecosystem services is likely needed.
2.2.1. Approaches for Valuing Ecosystem Services
An ecosystem services approach using valuation methods can provide quantitative values, even for particular benefits that were traditionally assigned no value such as biodiversity conservation (Daily 1997). Understanding the values of ecosystem services can assist decision- makers by highlighting the quantitative benefits, or costs, likely to be realized in the case of a policy change, management action, or environmental change. Estimating values of ecosystem services can be done using several methods, and often the preferred method will depend on the 10 ecosystem services of interest. In situations where markets are available for a particular benefit (e.g., crops), then market prices constitute marginal prices and changes in ecosystem service benefits can be calculated using market prices and quantities sold. In cases where markets are not existing, as is common with environmental goods, then estimating values requires a different approach. Non-marketed goods are typically measured using revealed preference or stated preference approaches. Revealed preference approaches, including the travel cost method and the hedonic pricing method, highlight the demand of ecosystem services by examining behavior of people as it relates to the purchase of related goods (Garrod and Willis 1999). The travel cost method is primarily used to estimate the demand curve of a recreation site by analyzing the costs (e.g., gas money or cost of missing work) incurred by visitors to access the site. Although the recreation site is often free, in that there is no cost of entry, collecting data from visitors via surveys on the costs of traveling to that site and the recreation benefits provided, one can “infer the demand for a recreation site because in economic terms they are weakly complementary to on-site recreation” (Garrod and Willis 1999:55). The hedonic price method is based on consumer theory, which suggests goods are valued for their characteristics or attributes (Lancaster 1966). For instance, the price of a house is dictated not only by the number of bedrooms it has, but also by the distance to the city center or the quality of air in its neighborhood. The public’s willingness to pay for housing, understood through real estate transactions, is the most common application of the hedonic pricing method, and under the assumption that each property has a distinct combination of attributes one is able to derive the marginal value of a change in a given attribute (Garrod and Willis 1999). Performing a hedonic price study to understand the value of environmental amenities typically requires both real estate transaction data and data related to the environmental amenities. For example, data related to air quality for each property, or at the very least a specific neighborhood, would be needed to understand the marginal value of a change in air quality. To estimate both use and non-use values, a stated preference technique is required. Stated preference techniques, such as contingent valuation and choice modeling, are based upon answers to surveys asking respondents their stated willingness to pay. Contingent valuation is the most frequently used and oldest stated preference technique, which asks respondents to decide between “with versus without” scenarios (Holmes and Adamowicz 2003). For example, a contingent valuation survey may consider policy change proposals by asking respondents their 11 willingness to pay for a nature preserve ‘with versus without’ a mine, or a river canyon ‘with versus without’ a dam. Although contingent valuation, as a stated preference approach, can provide information about ecosystem service values for both use and non-use values, it is difficult to infer the values of specific aspects of the environmental good being valued. In other words, contingent valuation provides limited information about the specific aspects of the nature reserve (e.g., do respondents have a willingness to pay to prevent a dam, or remove a dam, because they value recreational values such as fishing, or because they value the biologically diverse aquatic environment in the river canyon, or both?) In order to obtain a nuanced understanding of preferences, an ‘attribute-based approach’ (e.g., choice modeling) that provides a “multi-dimensional response surface” is needed (Holmes and Adamowicz 2003:172).
2.2.1.1.Choice Modeling A brief overview of the choice modeling valuation survey technique, more generally, is required since it is the method applied in this study. For a thorough description of the method, both in theory and in application, see Bennett and Blamey (2001), Hensher et al. (2005), and Holmes and Adamowicz (2003). Choice Modeling (CM) allows for the estimation of “economic values for a technically divisible set of attributes of an environmental good” (Holmes and Adamowicz 2003:171). For example, an environmental good such as a narrow river canyon high in the Rocky Mountains can provide recreation opportunities (e.g., whitewater kayaking), refuge for cold water fisheries (e.g., native trout species), vistas for activities such as nature-based photography, and opportunities for hydropower generation. A CM survey would ask individuals to compare hypothetical environmental scenarios to the current state of the environment. Both the current and hypothetical environmental scenario are associated with different levels of achievement of several (usually four to six) important socio-economic and environmental attributes (WESs in this study). Respondents are instructed to select their preferred scenario. If a ‘cost’ attribute is included, then willingness to pay (WTP) estimates can be statistically derived. Continuing the above example regarding the narrow river canyon, a CM survey could present different scenarios where the levels of whitewater recreation in miles of class IV whitewater (one attribute), pounds per mile of a native trout species (second attribute), access points where vistas for photography are clear of man-made structures (third attribute), and number of homes powered by hydro-electricity (fourth attribute) vary in relation 12 to the amount a person pays in monthly electricity bills (fifth attribute). By analyzing the preference that respondents have for the hypothetical scenarios, it is possible to understand tradeoffs among attributes and to derive WTP estimates for each individual attribute. The following seven steps provide a framework for discussing the specific methodological concerns when conducting a CM study (Louviere et al. 2000; Holmes and Adamowicz 2003):
1. Define the decision problem and study objectives; 2. Identify and describe the attributes via qualitative study; 3. Develop survey instrument and complete experimental design; 4. Define the sample to be surveyed; 5. Collect data; 6. Estimate model; and 7. Interpret results within the context of policy and management decision-making.
Like most research, the initial step of a CM study requires the investigator to clearly define the issue of interest, and the goals of the study that, if met, will provide beneficial information for addressing the issue. In the context of addressing complex environmental issues, Holmes and Adamowicz (2003) suggested that the geographic and temporal scope related to the change in environmental quality must be considered in tandem with the types of values that may be influenced by the change in environmental quality. For example, if a dam is being proposed, then the change in water quality and quantity, and in the river canyon scenery is likely to happen quickly, when compared to the potential impact to water quality and quantity that may occur as the result of gradual residential development or climate change. Similarly, the values that may be influenced by a change in water quality and quantity may be different depending on the driver of environmental change (e.g., dam or climate change). The second step requires that the attributes of interest be identified and described. Often this step is done with focus groups, individual interviews, or both (Louviere et al. 2000; Holmes and Adamowicz 2003). During this step, input from the study population and experts is critical for defining the attributes in a way that is understandable to the potential respondent universe, relevant for policy-makers, and as accurate as possible. It is at this time that the number of attributes to be included, and the levels of each attribute are decided (Holmes and Adamowicz 13
2003). For instance, if river recreation is an attribute likely to be affected by a change in environmental quality, then a river recreation experience may be defined using ‘poor’, ‘fair’, and ‘excellent’ levels. Not only do the units of this attribute need to be defined (e.g., number of fish caught, percentage of time that swimming is possible), but also the levels (e.g., 5, 20, and 35 fish correspond with ‘poor’, ‘fair’, and ‘excellent’ fishing, respectively). Keeping these attributes as simple as possible is important, as such surveys can become difficult for the respondent if too complex (Holmes and Adamowicz 2003). Although steps one and two are critical to the success of the CM study, they are often given relatively little attention (Holmes and Adamowicz 2003; Armatas et al. 2014). Steps three, four, and five involve the development and implementation of a survey instrument. Developing the survey instrument should include extensive input from potential respondents and relevant experts. Experimental design is the process used to construct the alternatives that will be included in the survey in a way that provides sufficient variation to permit effective data analysis (Holmes and Adamowicz 2003). Survey implementation requires clear definition of the study area, and the population to be surveyed, and the methods used to distribute the survey should be established and tested, such as those developed by Dillman et al. (2014). Step six involves estimating a model using a range of econometric analysis techniques, which are described in detail by Holmes and Adamowicz (2003) and Louviere et al. (2000). Step seven requires the interpretation of results for the benefit of policy and management decision- makers. If a price attribute is included, then CM studies yield willingness to pay estimates, which can be incorporated into cost-benefit analysis. This important step will depend on the goals and objectives of the study.
2.3. The Need for a Holistic Approach
Understanding the vulnerability of social-ecological systems and the relationships between ecosystem services and human well-being cannot be completed with a single “silver- bullet” methodological approach. There will likely be a need to incorporate both natural science approaches, such as those that predict the potential impacts of stressors on natural resources (e.g. Schneider and Root 2002; Mendizabal and Stuyfzand 2011; Rice et al. 2012), and social science 14 approaches, such as those that investigate the potential impact of stressors on communities through surveys and focus groups (e.g. de Chazal et al. 2008; Larsen et al. 2011; Ainuddin and Routray 2012; Armatas et al. 2016). It has also been suggested that such assessments require many years of coordination, and should span multiple disciplines and methods combining qualitative narratives regarding conditions of vulnerability with quantitative assessment (e.g., ecosystem service valuation) and modeling (Downing 2004; Schröter et al. 2005; Carpenter et al. 2009). A holistic approach can facilitate the communication of the link between natural and human systems, an explicit examination of tradeoffs, and the inclusion of diverse stakeholder knowledge (Granek et al. 2010; Davies et al. 2015). Furthermore, such an approach implicitly suggests that an economic accounting of nature, such as ecosystem service valuation, only provides part of the story. This acknowledgement is important, as many are concerned that ecosystem service valuation will do little to improve management in the context of contested social-ecological issues or, worse, lead to the commodification of nature to the detriment of the marginalized and to the benefit of the already empowered (Cook and Spray 2012). Even though there are methods available for estimating benefits traditionally assigned an arbitrary, or even zero, value; such value estimates are meant to support decision-making by providing relatable and understandable monetary values. Natural resource decision-makers still need to consider issues such as equity, cultural relevance and environmental justice when involved in adaptation planning.
3. Study Area This study measures the marginal value of specific WESs in the Wind River/Bighorn River Basin (henceforth referred to as the “Basin”), as identified in a previous study (Armatas 2013). As a study area, the Basin was selected because of the reliance that local communities have on water flowing from federally protected national forest lands. Rice et al. (2012) completed a vulnerability assessment of the biophysical systems on the Shoshone National Forest, and suggested that water resources in the study area are particularly vulnerable, because warmer temperatures are projected to reduce snowpack, induce an earlier spring runoff, increase evaporation and evapotranspiration, extend the growing season, and increase the extent and 15 severity of wildfire on the landscape. Rice et al. (2012) highlighted negative implications for several WESs, including agricultural production, trout habitat, hydropower generation, and winter recreation. This study was performed, in part, to better understand how these biophysical changes may impact social systems. With a primary focus on water, this section discusses the physical, social, economic, and cultural characteristics of the study area.
3.1. Physical Characteristics The total area of the Wind River/Bighorn River Basin, located in Wyoming and Montana as shown in Figure 3, is 14,646,058 acres (22,884 square miles). The Basin is named after the prominent Wind River Mountain Range (bordering the west side of the Basin) and the Bighorn Mountains (flanking the east side of the Basin). The Wind River flows southeast through the Wind River Indian Reservation before turning north to fill the Boysen Reservoir. After flowing from the Boysen Reservoir and into Wind River Canyon, the Wind River’s name changes to the Bighorn River at the “Wedding of the Waters” just south of Thermopolis, WY. The Bighorn flows north through the Basin collecting water from several rivers originating high in the mountains before meeting the Yellowstone River east of Billings, MT. The topography within the study area ranges from rugged high elevation mountains to sagebrush flats. Within the Shoshone National Forest in the Wind River Mountains, the highest point of elevation is atop Gannett Peak at 13,804 ft (4,207 m), and the lowest point of elevation is at the mouth of the Bighorn River where it meets the Yellowstone River at 2,687 ft (819 m). The water resources and varied topography within the study area support a diverse range of vegetation. The alpine vegetation zone (above 10,500 ft) is typically composed of rugged, rocky terrain, which predominately supports shrubs, grass and forb species and is characterized by alpine tundra and a lack of trees (United States Department of Agriculture 2009; Rice et al. 2012). The sub-alpine vegetation zone (9000 – 10,500 ft) support a number of tree species, including whitebark pine (Pinus albicaulis), subalpine fir (Abies lasiocarpa), Engelmann spruce (Picea engelmannii), and lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta), and the montane vegetation zone (6000- 9000 ft) is characterized by Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) (United States Department of Agriculture 2009; Rice et al. 2012). Lower elevation areas toward the valley floor, where the majority of residential development exists, are populated by grasses and sagebrush; however, the riparian areas that 16 exist within the river corridors and surrounding lakes and reservoirs are composed of relatively lush vegetation, which include cottonwood trees (Populus deltoids), willows and, the invasive species, Russian olive and salt cedar. The study area also has a high concentration of peatlands, which (Heidel et al. 2010:1) described as “a specific type of wetland with water-saturated soils where dead, undecomposed organic material (peat) accumulates.” Peatlands thrive under cool annual temperatures, humid conditions, and a limited growing season, and can support a disproportional high number of rare plant species and vegetation types (Heidel et al. 2010). The climate within the study area varies as a result of its diverse topography, but the study area can generally be described as a high-elevation semi-arid desert. Annual precipitation amounts can range from merely 5 inches in areas on the valley floor to as much as 70 inches, much of which comes in the form of snow during the winter months, in the higher elevation forest lands (MWH Americas Inc et al. 2010; Rice et al. 2012). According to MWH Americas Inc et al. (2010:16), “the Wind River and Absaroka Mountain Ranges block the flow of moisture from the west, while the Bighorn Mountains block the flow of moisture from the east.” Temperature patterns within the study area vary with average annual temperatures ranging from near freezing in the high elevation mountain locations to around 50 degrees F on the valley floor (Rice et al. 2012). 17
Figure 3. Map of the Wind River/Bighorn River Basin 18
3.2. Social, Economic, and Cultural Characteristics The study area has a population of about 100,000 people, which is sparsely populated with about 5 people per square mile. The study area encompasses, in whole or in part, the following counties: Fremont (WY), Hot Springs (WY), Washakie (WY), Park (WY), Big Horn (WY), Carbon (MT), Big Horn (MT) and Yellowstone (MT). About 72 percent of land in the study area is under federal jurisdiction, most of which is managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service (USFS), and the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). Private ownership within the study area accounts for 25 percent of all land, and the final 3 percent of land in the study area belongs to the States of Wyoming and Montana. The major population centers in the study are Riverton, WY (10,615), Cody, WY (9,520), Lander, WY (7,487), Powell, WY (6,314), Hardin, MT (3,505) and Thermopolis, WY (3,009). There are relatively large population centers outside of the study area boundaries but nearby, such as Billings, MT (105,845), Cheyenne, WY (59,466) and Laramie, WY (30,816). Figure 4 illustrates unemployment and per capita income statistics for the study area (calculated by averaging the county statistics of the counties within the study area), the states of Wyoming and Montana, and the United States. Compared to the states of Wyoming and Montana, the Basin has a relatively high unemployment rate, which may be due to a lack of industrial diversity. The Basin is more reliant on agriculture and mining than average, and the lack of diversity within the economic sector can make the area vulnerable, particularly during economic downturns (MWH Americas Inc et al. 2010). In addition, the Basin has lower per capita income when compared to the state of Wyoming but, when compared to Montana and the United States as a whole, per capita income is similar. The high per capita income in Wyoming is, in part, due to the impact of Teton County, a wealthy county including Jackson Hole with a per capita income of $194,485 (Bureau of Economic Analysis 2014a). There are three national forests in the Basin (Shoshone National Forest, Bighorn National Forest, and the Custer National Forest), which provide water to nearby communities via a system of free flowing rivers, lakes, and glaciers. The water resources in the Basin support local communities and human well-being via a broad range of WESs, including commercial irrigation, river-based fishing, cultural and spiritual values, biodiversity conservation, hydropower, and drinking water. Table 1 lists 34 WESs identified by Armatas (2013), which support communities 19
in the Basin by contributing to economic, cultural, and environmental well-being. For instance, several WESs contribute to the Basin’s economy by creating jobs, generating income, and attracting dollars from outside the region. River-based fishing, for example, draws large crowds of visitors each year for the experience of fishing for a broad range of native fish species. The Basin has a reputation as a world-class fly fishery and, indeed, several watersheds in the study area are crucial habitats for “blue ribbon sport” fishing (Wyoming Game and Fish 2008). A recent study found that anglers spent more than $464 million in Wyoming, with nearly ten percent of those expenditures on the Shoshone River watershed in the study area (Trout Unlimited 2005; U.S. Department of Interior 2011). The angling industry not only supports local guides and fishing outfitters, but also the accommodation and food service industries.
Figure 4. Unemployment Rates and Per Capita Income
Unemployment Rates Per Capita Income for 2014 for April 2016 $60,000 8.0% $50,000 $40,000 6.0% $30,000 4.0% $20,000 2.0% $10,000 0.0% $0 Study Area Wyoming Montana United States Study Area Wyoming Montana United States
Sources: Bureau of Labor Statistics (2016), Bureau of Economic Analysis (2014a).
Commercial irrigation and water for stock support the agricultural industry in the Basin, which, according to United States Department of Agriculture Census of Agriculture (2007:251- 253), accounted for about $246 million in market sales in 2007. The top contributor to the Basin economy in terms of sales is the oil and natural gas industry, with sales valuing $850 million and $45 million in 2011, respectively; accounting for 17.5% of total state production of oil and gas by value (Economic Analysis Division 2011; Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission 2011).
20
Table 1. Water-Based Ecosystem Services (WESs) supporting the Basin Ecosystem service title Ecosystem service definition Regulating services “Regulation services result from the capacity of ecosystems to regulate climate, hydrological and bio-chemical cycles, earth surface processes, and a variety of biological processes” (Hein et al. 2006:212). 1. Water quality The water in and flowing from the Shoshone National Forest (SNF) is purified and filtered by natural systems like beaver ponds and wetlands resulting in clean water. 2. In-stream flow The water from the SNF that is not drawn from the river can help to create and maintain healthy aquatic habitats. For example, a certain amount of water in the stream can maintain channel form and function, and regulate water temperature. 3. Conservation of The water within the study area helps to support important plant and keystone (critical) wildlife species. For example, the whitebark pine, beaver, and cutthroat species trout are considered keystone species of the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (GYE), which means they are important for the conservation of a host of other species. 4. Conservation of rare Wetlands within the study area support a number of rare plant species. The plant species rare plants may have some use that is unknown to humans at this time, but they could be beneficial in the future. 5. Biodiversity Aquatic and riparian areas fed by the SNF provide habitat for a diversity of conservation species, and genetic variation within species. Species diversity may help maintain ecosystem structure, processes and functions. 6. Gradual discharge of Water released into streams and rivers is naturally regulated by glaciers, stored water wetlands, riparian areas, and aquifers, which provides a reliable flow of water throughout the year, even during the warmest summer months. 7. Natural flood control The storage of SNF water in glaciers, wetlands, riparian areas, and aquifers provides natural flood control, which avoids flooding damage costs. 8. Glacier-based services The glaciers in the SNF are of the largest concentration in the lower 48 states, and they provide unique services like stream-water temperature regulation, summertime skiing, and glacier sightseeing. 9. Nutrient cycling and The water flowing from the SNF helps to cycle nutrients and transport sediment transport sediment. Nutrients cycled throughout the natural system helps to maintain healthy and diverse aquatic habitats. The transport of sediment helps to create floodplains and riparian areas. Production Services “Production services reflect goods and services produced in the ecosystem” (Hein et al. 2006:212). 10. Household/Municipal Water in the study area, both surface water and groundwater, can be used water for drinking, washing, and other in-house use. 11. Hydropower Water provided by the SNF can be used to generate hydropower. 12. Commercial irrigation The water in the study area, both surface water and groundwater, can be used to irrigate commercial crops, which could include hay, sugar beets, corn, grain, barley, and beans. These crops could be sold on the market and/or used to support ranching activities. 13. Personal irrigation The water in the study area, both surface water and groundwater, can be used to fill private ponds, and irrigate gardens and lawns. 14. Water for stock Water provided by the SNF can be used for the watering of stock. 15. Manufacturing and The water in the study area, both surface water and groundwater, can be industrial used for manufacturing and industrial purposes. 16. Oil and natural gas The water in the study area, both surface water and groundwater, can be extraction, and mining used for the extraction of natural gas and oil, and to a lesser extent, in the mining of coal, bentonite, uranium and gypsum. Water is also used in these industries for dust control on roads. 17. Fighting forest fires Water provided by the SNF can be used for the fighting of forest fires. Table continued on next page… 21
18. Supporting of Water provided by the SNF facilitates land-based recreational activities. commercial land-based For example, the watering of golf courses, the water used to make snow for recreation the Sleeping Giant Ski Area, and the water used for amusement parks. Cultural Services “Cultural services relate to the benefits people obtain from ecosystem through recreation, cognitive development, relaxation, and spiritual reflection” (Hein et al. 2006:212). 19. River-based fishing The rivers throughout the study area can be used for fishing, both for sport and the harvesting of fish for personal consumption. 20. Lake/Reservoir fishing The lakes and reservoirs in the study area provide the opportunity for fishing, both for sport and the harvesting of fish for personal consumption. 21. Lake, reservoir, and The lakes, reservoirs, and rivers throughout the study area provide river-based hunting opportunities for hunting waterfowl from the water in a boat. 22. Land-based hunting The water resources in the study area provide habitat for game and, as a result, watercourses and wetlands can be used for land-based hunting.= 23. River recreation The rivers flowing in and out of the SNF can be used for both whitewater and scenic recreational activities. Some include: rafting, kayaking/canoeing, stand-up paddle boarding, tubing, body boarding, surfing, river-access hiking, and bird watching. 24. Lake/Reservoir The lakes and reservoirs in the study area provide opportunities for recreation recreational activities. Some include: water skiing, wakeboarding, kneeboarding, skurfing, tubing, sailing, motorboating, parasailing, canoeing, kayaking, and kiteboarding. 25. Commercial water- Outfitted whitewater rafting trips and guided-fishing trips are two examples based recreation of commercial water-based recreation sold on the market. Both opportunities are provided by the water resources in the study area. 26. Motorized ice and snow The ice and snow within the study area can be used for motorized winter based recreation recreational activities like snowmobiling. 27. Non-motorized ice and The ice and snow within the study area can be used for a number of non- snow based recreation motorized winter recreational activities. Some include: skiing, snowboarding, ice climbing, winter camping, and snowshoeing. 28. Recreation/Leisure For example, the experience of wildlife viewing and hiking could be done activities done near in close proximity to a water resource within the study area. Additionally, water reflective recreational activities like introspective thought may be done near water. 29. Physically and mentally The water environments within the study area can provide opportunities for challenging recreation physically and mentally challenging recreational opportunities. 30. Education, management The aquatic habitats and water-based ecosystem processes within the study and science area can be studied with the goal of improving both management and objective knowledge of natural and social sciences, which include biology, botany, hydrology, and history. 31. Native American The water resources in the study area have special meaning to Native cultural and spiritual Americans, and can be used for cultural, spiritual, religious and ceremonial values purposes. 32. Non-Native American The water resources in the study area have special meaning to Non-Native cultural and spiritual Americans, and can be used for cultural, spiritual, religious and ceremonial values purposes. 33. Preserving livelihoods, The water flowing from the SNF is used to support healthy agricultural lifestyles, and landscapes communities and large working farms and ranches. 34. Inspirational and The rivers and lakes in an around the SNF can provide inspiration and aesthetic values enjoyment. For example, a scenic water vista can provide the motivation for an artist’s work, and the beauty, smell, and sound of water can provide enjoyment. Source: (Armatas 2013; Armatas et al. 2016) 22
A significant portion of all jobs in the Basin are supported by its water resources, as shown in Figure 5 illustrating six major employment sectors reliant on water. As of 2014, the leading sector of employment related to water is accommodation and food services1. The overall contribution of water-related industries to employment within the study area is 27.3% percent of all jobs, which is larger than Wyoming, Montana, and the United States. In terms of employment, farming contributes more in the Basin (7.1% of all jobs) than in the state of Wyoming (3.5% of all jobs) and Montana (4.6% of all jobs). The importance of mining, quarrying, and oil and gas extraction within the study area is also significant, as 5.9% of all jobs in the Basin are derived from these industries, which is higher than the state of Montana (1.7%) and the United States (0.9%).
Figure 5. Number of jobs created by water-related industries in 2014 at different spatial scales
100%
7.90% 7.30% 8.40% 95% 8.60%
2.50% 2.20% 90% 1.80% 3.10% 3.10% 3.00% 0.40% 7.00% 0.10% 0.60% 3.60% 85% 0.50% 5.90% 0.90% 2.30% 1.40% 0.50% 8.70% 1.20% 80% 0.80% 4.60% 0.70% 7.10% 75% 80.60% 3.50% 76.30% 72.30% 73.10% 70% Study Area United States Wyoming Montana Other Employment Farm Forestry, fishing, and related activities Mining, quarrying, and oil and gas extraction Utilities Manufacturing Arts, entertainment, and recreation Accommodation and food services Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis (2014b)
1 Accommodation and food services was included as a water-related industry for two reasons: (1) the reliance of the industry on water for everyday operations; and (2) the water resources within the study area are part of the attraction for the tourist industry (e.g., river-based fishing), which is directly supported by accommodation and food services. 23
Several WESs in the Basin have cultural importance. For instance, agriculture is a significant part of the region’s identity that is entwined with the pioneering history of the Basin dating back to the homesteaders of the late 1800’s (Armatas 2013). The identity of many members of three Native American tribes (i.e., Crow, Eastern Shoshone, and Northern Arapaho) in the Basin are also highly dependent on clean water for sacred ceremonies and in-stream flows for the provision of culturally-important plants (Armatas 2013). In addition, the Basin is part of the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (GYE), which is of national and international importance for many reasons, including it being a premier tourist destination, home to pristine and unique ecosystems and the nation’s first national park. There are a number of WESs in the Basin that are high in ecological value, including conservation of rare plant species and nutrient cycling and sediment transport. As of 2010, only 105 of the over 300 peatland sites in the Basin have been inventoried which, according to Heidel et al. (2010), presents the potential for the existence of rare plant species yet to be discovered. There is no telling what benefits could be yielded by undiscovered plant species. Another WES high in ecological value is glacier-based services, which contribute a significant portion of stream flow in late summer months. According to Cheesbrough et al. (2009), between 4% and 10% of streamflow between July and October in watersheds in the Wind River Range can be attributed to glacier melt. This contribution is not only important for sustaining out-of-stream uses such as agriculture, but also for regulating stream temperature for cold water fisheries.
3.2.1. Threats to the water-based ecosystem services in the Basin Although the human well-being in the Basin is highly dependent on WESs, the provision of such benefits is threatened by both human activity and ecological change. Human activity can impact the provision of WESs through degradation of water quality. For example, irrigation ditch malfunctions have led to sediment plumes that resulted in large fish die-offs, and several reaches of river have been added to the 303(d) list of impaired waters for fecal coliform because of irrigation return flows and cattle grazing along the river (Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality 2012). Oil and natural gas extraction may be affecting water quality and quantity through the discharge of produced water onto the landscape, with one report showing that 83 % of produced water samples exceeded the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality acceptable levels criteria for particular chemicals (Ramirez 2002). 24
Another threat to the WESs in the Basin is potential for the conversion of agricultural land to residential land. American Farmland Trust (2002) asserted that large open spaces in the study area, which are important to residents and are supported by a healthy agricultural community, are at risk of being lost as a result of residential development. Park and Big Horn counties are both ranked in the top 20 (out of 263 counties in the Rocky Mountain West) in terms of risk of conversion of ‘prime ranchland’ to residential development by 2020. The threat of residential development is concerning to particular stakeholders, as it has the potential to degrade agricultural livelihoods that are important for both the economy and the culture of the study area (Armatas 2013). According to a recent survey of Wyoming voters, ‘loss of family farms and ranches’, ‘availability of water for farming and ranching’, and the splitting up of ranchlands to new development are among the most concerning conservation issues (Freedman and Korfanta 2014). Currently, agriculture dominates both private land use in the study area (accounting for 86-96% of private land in select counties, Taylor et al. (2012)), and water consumption (92% of all water diversion, MWH Americas Inc et al. (2010)). In addition to threats to WESs resulting from human activity, ecological change threatens human well-being. The Basin is in a region historically prone to post-fire debris flows, and pose a threat to water quality, property, and human life (Meyer and Wells 1997; Meyer and Pierce 2003; Cannon et al. 2010). Climate scenarios in the future are also projected to have adverse effects on WESs, as a result of several factors including decreased water quantity and changes in the timing of snowmelt (Rice et al. 2012). Among the conclusions reached by Rice et al. (2012), those related to water included a potential for: a reduction in water quality, higher stream temperatures with a potential to decrease quality of aquatic habitat, increased cost of water treatment, reductions in summer streamflow as a result of glacier melting, earlier stream runoff in the spring, and a reduction in snow recreation opportunities (especially at low elevations), loss or reduction of wetlands.
3.2.2. Stakeholder perceptions of vulnerability in the Basin Identifying the potential tradeoffs among WESs and potential ecological changes that threaten important WESs is critical for understanding the social-ecological system in the Basin. The biophysical assessment by Rice et al. (2012) highlighted several occurring and potential ecological impacts in the Basin, and Armatas (2013) and Armatas et al. (2016) investigated how 25
a broad range of stakeholders perceived important water benefits and the threats, both social and ecological, relevant to those important water benefits. Using Q-methodology, Armatas (2013) and Armatas et al. (2016) identified and described four major perspectives regarding the importance of WESs in the Basin. The details of this study are thoroughly explained and discussed in Armatas (2013) and Armatas et al. (2016), but the basic process involved statistical analysis (i.e., factor analysis) of a rank ordering exercise and qualitative analysis of follow-up interviews with 96 stakeholders from diverse interest groups and backgrounds. The rank ordering exercise, known as the Q-sort, required stakeholders to rank order the 34 WESs in Table 1 from ‘most important’ to ‘most unimportant’ onto the Q-board. Figure 6 illustrates the Q-board, the instructions given to each of the 96 stakeholders, and a picture of a respondent completing a Q- sort. In addition to the written instructions included below, it was explained to each respondent that only the columns, not rows, denoted different values. Therefore, each respondent needed to choose two WESs of ‘+4’, three WESs of ‘+3’, and so on.
Figure 6. Q-board, Q-sort instructions, and picture of respondent completing exercise
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4 Most Unimportant Most Important Please rank the statements on the cards from most important to most unimportant from your perspective. Each statement represents a water-based ecosystem service derived from the Shoshone National Forest 26
Factor analysis of the 96 response sets yielded four major perspectives, which are represented by factor arrays highlighting the importance of the 34 WESs rank ordered. Figure 7 illustrates the factor arrays for each perspective, which were dubbed the ‘environmental perspective’, ‘agricultural perspective’, ‘Native American perspective’, and ‘recreation perspective’ based upon the WESs that were most important to each perspective. The numbers in the factor array correspond with the number of WESs in Table 1. For example, the environmental factor array shows that water quality and biodiversity conservation were ‘most important’ to those aligning with the environmental perspective.
Figure 7. Factor arrays illustrating the relative importance of water-based ecosystem services to participants who hold the: (a) Environmental Perspective; (b) Agricultural Perspective; (c) Native American Perspective; and (d) Recreation Perspective.
Notes: 1) Regulation services are in black boxes; production services are in grey boxes; and cultural services are in white boxes; and 2) the numbers in the factor arrays correspond with the water-based ecosystem services in Table 1. Source: Armatas et al. (2016) 27
In conjunction with each factor array, qualitative data collected from each participant following the rank ordering exercise provide nuanced stakeholder perspectives about the importance of WESs and the perceived threats to the provision of such services. For example, the environmental perspective considered the WESs for oil and natural gas extraction as ‘most unimportant’ (as denoted by a ‘-4’ value on the factor array), and perceived oil and gas industries as a major threat to important WESs such as biodiversity conservation. One participant aligning with the environmental perspective suggested, “‘if we have increased oil and gas production on the Shoshone [National Forest in the Basin], I think there is possibility with extracted water and effluent holding ponds...[and] the entire extraction process has the ability to disrupt appropriate [nutrient] cycling and sediment transport’” (Armatas 2013:248). Impacts on water quality were concerning to the ‘Native American’ perspective, who considered both oil and gas development and increased recreation opportunities as threatening to important benefits such as cultural and spiritual use of water (Armatas 2013; Armatas et al. 2016). Identifying the potential tradeoffs among WESs and threats to those important benefits provides an understanding of social vulnerability (Armatas 2013; Armatas et al. 2016). Combining such an understanding with knowledge about potential ecological change (Rice et al. 2012) is important for understanding the social-ecological system in the Basin and, consequently, informing management and policy-making related to water. However, quantifying how potential ecological change could impact important social values is not provided by any previous study. Therefore, understanding the marginal value, in monetary terms, of changes in the provision of relevant WESs via a CM study could further inform water-related decision-making.
4. Methods This study uses the choice modeling (CM) non-market valuation survey technique, an approach that: 1) quantifies the value of specific WESs, which were previously identified as highly relevant to a broad range of stakeholders in the Basin; 2) investigates the perspectives of Basin residents regarding opinions and attitudes related to water management, and threats to WESs; and 3) will allow categorization of survey respondents into four dominant perspectives (previously identified by Armatas (2013) and Armatas et al. (2016)) and a subsequent examination of what WESs they value and the magnitude of such values. This section discusses 28 the CM approach employed within the context of an ongoing study of the vulnerability of the social-ecological system in the Basin.
4.1. Problem definition
This CM study contributes to a long-term study focused on the social-ecological vulnerability of water-based ecosystem services (WESs) flowing from National Forest land in the Basin. In the face of threats such as land-use and climate change, an assessment of the impacts that climate change could potentially have on natural resources on the Shoshone National Forest (SNF) was completed by Rice et al. (2012). It was concluded that changes in water quality and quantity, and other changes to the hydrologic cycle such as the timing of snowmelt, may occur in the future and, consequently, impact the provision of WESs. With potential ecological changes on the horizon for the Basin, Armatas (2013) identified the broad range of WESs in the Basin and investigated the importance of those benefits to a diversity of stakeholder interests. As discussed in Section 3.2.2, four distinct perspectives related to the importance of WESs and the various threats to those important WESs were identified and described in detail. These different perspectives illuminate different vulnerabilities of each perspective and highlight tradeoffs among WESs that are important; however, it was not possible to know how each perspective was distributed across the population, and the WESs were not measured quantitatively. Therefore, to provide policy and management decision-makers with additional understanding about the magnitude of importance of select WESs, a CM study was performed where WESs supported by water quality and quantity were valued.
4.2. Selection of water-based ecosystem services
The most common method for selecting attributes (henceforth referred to as WESs) of an environmental good to be included in a CM study is focus groups and individual interviews, and it is often a task that is given inadequate attention (Armatas et al. 2014). For the current study, Q- methodology was employed prior to the CM survey development and, in conjunction with a focus group and several one-on-one discussions with a broad range of stakeholders in the Basin, four WESs were selected for inclusion in the CM study: ‘agricultural community’, ‘angling’, 29
‘motorized winter recreation’, and ‘river and riverbank biological diversity’. The benefits of a thorough pre-survey investigation for developing a CM survey, such as identifying and defining those ecosystem services that are most relevant to respondents, are detailed by Armatas et al. (2014). The four WESs which are supported or influenced by water quality and quantity and its management, were included in this CM study because they were highly relevant, either positively or negatively, to the four major perspectives identified by Armatas (2013) and Armatas et al. (2016). For instance, the Native American perspective, named for the importance assigned to Native American cultural and spiritual values by those who helped define the perspective, considered particular recreation activities, including motorized winter recreation, as a threat to the WESs most important to them. As a further example, the environmental perspective assigned a high level of importance to aquatic biodiversity, but those who helped define the perspective were concerned about the focus that water management has on fulfilling agricultural needs. In addition to tradeoffs among WESs, the research by Armatas (2013) and Armatas et al. (2016) highlighted potential threats that each perspective considered relevant to their most important WESs. For instance, those that aligned with the environmental perspective were concerned that climate change may impact water quality and, consequently, damage aquatic biodiversity and the viability of important native trout species, the latter of which is critically important to the angling industry and the recreation experiences of local residents. Those subscribing to the agricultural perspective considered efforts to maintain in-stream flows for conservation and recreation purposes were a threat to their most important WESs (i.e., commercial irrigation, water for stock, and preserving lifestyles, livelihoods, and landscapes). These sentiments were the basis of selecting WESs for inclusion in this CM study. The highly polarizing nature of motorized winter recreation, as it was very important to the recreation perspective, but negatively important to the other three perspectives, was the reason for its inclusion in the CM study. Even though motorized winter recreation may appear to be unrelated to water quality and quantity, this study was focused on the water cycle, thus included ice and snow based ecosystem services. Furthermore, understanding the preferences for motorized winter recreation, and other WESs such as commercial irrigation may be beneficial because management at a landscape scale could impact the two seemingly unrelated WESs. For example, under a future scenario where extended drought occurs, managers may need to consider drastic 30 measures such as boosting short term river flows through increased forest harvesting. Under such a scenario, it is possible that new terrain previously not accessible to motorized winter use would become available. The interconnected nature of land and water management, and the focus on water in all its forms, permitted the inclusion of motorized winter recreation.
4.3. Defining water-based ecosystem services
Following the selection of the WESs to be included in the survey, each WES was defined. The CM survey method requires respondents to make choices between different environmental states with regard to the selected WESs. Those environmental states are comprised of: (1) the current status quo; and (2) several potential hypothetical scenarios. The status quo levels make up the environmental state as it exists today, and the hypothetical changes represent potential effects of natural and human forces in the future. This section discusses how each WES was qualitatively defined, and the quantitative status quo and alternative levels for each WES.
4.3.1. Defining the status quo
Before quantifying the levels, the WESs must be defined in some way. For instance, should the CM survey measure angling as number of fish caught, pounds of fish per river mile, or different number of species that could potentially be caught? Once the unit of each WES is defined, then it is possible to derive the status quo. It is important to note that the levels, including the status quo, do not need to be completely accurate but, instead, it is more important that the levels are believable to survey respondents. It is common to see status quo levels rounded as well, because, in general, it seems that round numbers are easier for respondents to understand. As a result, round numbers may decrease cognitive burden and help improve the number of respondents completing the survey.
31
4.3.1.1. Angling
Defining the angling experience for purposes of a CM survey required that the unit be understandable to respondents and relevant to decision-makers. The qualitative inquiry prior to survey development suggested that measuring angling as the percentage of streams in the Basin with excellent angling would be effective. Defining ‘excellent’ was done using different approaches based on available data in the Wyoming and Montana portions of the Basin. For Wyoming, those stream segments that are defined as “blue ribbon” and “red ribbon” by state fisheries managers and experts were considered excellent, and the quantity of such stream segments was calculated using GIS. For Montana, excellent stream segments were those categorized in the 75th percentile for “game fish quality” by state fisheries managers and experts, which were also calculated using GIS. The 75th percentile, or the highest 25%, refers to the quality of fishing in Montana, as defined by a point system accounting for several aspects of the fishing experience. Among those aspects accounted for are fish size, relative fish abundance, and angler preference. The full description of the point system is outlined in (Montana Fish 2015). The justification for the 75th percentile cutoff is two-fold: (1) the percentage of streams that are in the 75th percentile is approximately equal to the percentage of streams classified as ‘blue ribbon’ and ‘red ribbon’; and (2) blue and red ribbon streams are classified as ‘special resources’ by Wyoming natural resource managers, which is a designation that gives these streams additional recognition for the purposes of management. This additional recognition is consistent with the recognition given to the stream segments in the 75th percentile. The status quo level for angling in both Wyoming and Montana was calculated at approximately 7% of total stream length, but for purposes of the survey it was rounded up to 10%. Choice set alternatives are discussed in subsequent sections, after status quo levels are presented for each WES and the annual cost to household.
4.3.1.2. Motorized winter recreation
Motorized winter recreation was defined as the percentage of national forest land in the study area open to winter motorized recreation. Table two details each national forest in the Basin, and the categories of land use as it relates to motorized recreation. The calculated status 32 quo was 39% or 1.3M acres of National Forest Land in the study area open to Motorized winter recreation. For the purposes of the survey, the status quo was rounded up to 40%.
Table 2. Motorized-use in the Basin
Non-Wilderness National Closed to Open to Non-Forest Forest Wilderness Motorized Use Motorized Use Service Total
Shoshone 1,366,046 279,350 792,633 30,195 2,468,224 Custer Gallatin 135,668 34,062 134,978 0 304,708 Bighorn 92,741 82,606 377,021 0 552,368 Total 1,594,455 396,018 1,304,632 30,195 3,325,300 Note: “Non-Forest Service” land are those parcels that are privately owned inholdings. Such parcels are, gradually, being swapped or purchased by the Federal Government.
4.3.1.3. River and riverbank biological diversity
The WES for river and riverbank biological diversity is meant to elicit preferences for river segments that are ecologically fully functioning, have a high level of biodiversity, and are resilient to natural and human disturbances. Therefore, ‘river and riverbank biological diversity’ was defined as the percentage of stream miles in the Basin considered biologically diverse. A focus on both the river and its immediate riparian area was based on the interconnection between the two. In Montana, the state wildlife agency, Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks, collects data on stream miles that may be referred to as biologically healthy. The data for ‘fish native species richness’, includes the number of stream miles “high in species richness”, which are ecological stable and resilient and account for “native biodiversity as an important aquatic resource value” (Montana Fish 2015:17). For the Montana portion of the Basin, about 15% of stream miles were categorized as having high biological diversity. Although such data was unavailable for the state of Wyoming, discussions with aquatic biologists in the Wyoming Game and Fish department suggested that the percentage of streams in Wyoming that are biologically diverse was likely similar to the percentage calculated for Montana.
33
4.3.1.4. Agricultural Community
Agricultural community was a WES included to capture the benefits of the agricultural industry in the Basin, which may not be captured by the market benefits such as the sales of crops. Such benefits include the culture and lifestyle that agriculture promotes, dating back to the homesteading culture that settled in the Basin during the 1800s, as well as the protection that it provides against development and, consequently, the benefit it provides for preserving the landscape of wide-open space in the Basin. ‘Agricultural community’ was defined as the total number of acres irrigated in the Basin, as other options (e.g., number of farming related jobs, number of large farms) were deemed less satisfactory during focus group and individual discussions. Computing the irrigated acres in the Basin was done using GIS, and the estimate of 550,000 acres currently irrigated was supported by the 2007 Census of Agriculture (United States Department of Agriculture Census of Agriculture 2007), and the Wind/Bighorn Water Management Plan (MWH Americas Inc et al. 2010).
4.3.1.5. Cost
The final attribute is cost, which is required in choice modeling surveys to estimate WTP. Cost in this study is represented by the average annual cost of water to a typical four-person household. The average annual cost of domestic water was calculated by averaging the cost of 5000 gallons of water per month for several municipalities in the Basin with the cost of installing and maintaining a well over 30 years. The status quo cost to household was found to be about $540 annually, or $45 per month.
4.3.2. Defining the alternate levels
After the status quo levels are established, then alternate levels for each WES and the annual household cost of water must be developed. Selecting the alternate levels requires both assigning values to the alternative levels and choosing the number of alternate levels. By mapping ‘part-worth utility’, Hensher et al. (2005) nicely illustrated that as the number of levels increased, so does the level of nuance with regard to understanding the utility that respondents 34 derive from each WES. As they show, having more than two levels allows a non-linear understanding of the utility relationship. Four to five levels, including the status quo, is common in CM studies. The deviation from the status quo must be large enough for respondents to perceive a change in benefit (Hensher et al. 2005). For example, the difference between 10% (status quo) and 11% of streams with excellent angling may not be different in terms of respondent utility. Perhaps more obvious, the difference in utility to the respondent between 550,000 acres irrigated (status quo) and 550,001 acres irrigated is likely to be zero. On the other hand, when identifying ‘extreme ranges’ or ‘end-points’ of WESs, the levels must be realistic, because unrealistic levels may result in the respondent taking the choice task less seriously (Hensher et al. 2005). For example, increasing the portion of national forest land in the study area open to motorized winter recreation to 100% is likely to be unrealistic for a number of reasons, including the fact that much of the land is designated as wilderness and, consequently, only subject to motorized recreation in the unlikely scenario that an act of Congress changes the designation. Table 3 below shows the status quo and alternative levels of each WES and the annual cost to household. The intervals between the levels are not all equal, which is justifiable because it allows the use of realistic alternatives and in no way impedes data analysis. Developing alternative levels of WESs, which are large enough to elicit feelings of changed utility and are not too large to be deemed unrealistic, was completed by consultation with experts and similar studies in the research literature. The process mostly included identification of the WESs ‘end- points’, as the intermediate alternate levels were typically close to an average between the status quo and the extreme levels. It has been suggested that potential agricultural development scenarios in the Basin could include the irrigation of an additional 210,000 acres, though the most likely scenario for additional irrigation was adding about 69,000 acres (BRS Inc. et al. 2003; MWH Americas Inc et al. 2010). Although it is possible that the endpoint and intermediate levels could be higher than those included in Table 3, a conservative estimate was used based upon feedback from agricultural experts2 that suggested that a large increase in irrigated acres was unlikely. The low endpoint was based upon a ‘low’ growth scenario, which projected the number of irrigated acres to decrease by about 60,000 acres (MWH Americas Inc et al. 2010).
2 Agricultural experts include irrigation district managers, farmers, and natural resource managers. 35
For consistency, this was rounded to the nearest 100,000 and dictated the low endpoint of 450,000.
Table 3. Status quo and alternative levels of the WESs and cost to household included in the choice modeling survey Levels WESs and cost to Lower 2 Lower 1 Status Quo Upper 1 Upper 2 Upper 3 Upper 4 household
Agricultural X 450,000 550,000 600,000 700,000 X X Community (acres)
Angling (percent of X 5% 10% 20% 30% X X stream miles)
River and riverbank X 5% 15% 25% 40% X X biological diversity (percent of stream miles)
Motorized winter 20% 30% 40% 50% X X X recreation (percent of national forest land open to motorized winter recreation)
Cost (annual cost to X $300 $540 $840 $1080 $1380 $1620 household for water)
The high endpoint for angling was based solely on discussions with Game and Fish employees in Montana and Wyoming. Increasing the number of streams that are ‘excellent’ is feasible, but experts suggested that there are some barriers (such as carrying capacity in the case of blue and red ribbon designation) that would make a very large increase difficult. The low endpoint is based upon the high priority that managers place on ‘excellent’ streams, which suggests that a low endpoint of 0% is unlikely. The endpoints for river and riverbank biological diversity were also obtained through discussions with Game and Fish employees in Montana and Wyoming, and similar logic applies to the endpoints for this WES. 36
For motorized winter recreation, all Wilderness designated land was removed from consideration when deciding on the potential deviation from the status quo. Although Wilderness land can be un-designated, it would require an act of Congress. Land that is non-Wilderness, but closed to motorized winter recreation, is subject to management on the local level. Such land may be closed for a variety of reasons, including wildlife management, Tribal agreements, and reducing conflict with other recreation users such as skiers. It is this land, which is open to interpretation by management and often the focus during forest planning, that is subject to trade- offs with land currently open to winter motorized use. Based upon this rational, the high endpoint was decided by considering all national forest land that is non-wilderness (50%). For the low endpoint, 20% was chosen based upon the possibility that a fifty percent reduction in land open to motorized winter recreation could take place as the result of management, loss of possible terrain as a result of less snow, or both. The endpoints for the average annual cost of water to household were based upon discussions with survey pilot testers, and upon the goal to include price changes that were realistic to respondents. It appeared unlikely that the annual cost of water could be reduced much below $300, and the high endpoint was selected as an annual cost that is attainable, but rarely chosen.
4.4. Experimental design and survey instrument development
Experimental design and survey instrument development follow the establishment of water-based ecosystem services definitions and levels.
4.4.1. Experimental design
Experimental design involves the statistical and systematic inclusion of variables in the survey to facilitate the understanding of the effect of independent variables on the dependent, or response variable (Hensher et al. 2005). For this study, the cost to household and the four WESs with their corresponding levels prohibited a ‘full-factorial design’ (i.e., a design that presents all combinations to respondents) of 1,536 alternatives. Instead, a ‘fractional-factorial design’ was adopted and developed primarily based upon the instruction provided by Kuhfeld (2010). Using 37
SAS statistical analysis software, the following process resulted in the completion of experimental design. First, a reasonable size for the experimental design, which is typically dictated by expected sample size and common practice, was determined. The four WESs with four levels, in addition to the cost to household with 6 levels, resulted in two design sizes (i.e., 48 and 96 alternatives) with zero violations of orthogonality, which provide the potential to create a 100% efficient design (a standard measure of the goodness of an experimental design, based on the errors of the parameter estimates in the linear model). The design with 48 alternatives was chosen because it would reduce the number of survey versions required and, consequently, the cost of data collection. The experimental design created had an associated relative D-efficiency measure of 59.7, and 24 choice sets with 2 non-status quo alternatives per choice set. The 24 choice sets were divided into six blocks, each of which contained 4 choice sets. That is, each questionnaire would present four choice sets, with 6 different versions of the survey questionnaire. The choice sets were then manually inspected for dominant pairs in which a rational respondent would always prefer one of the alternatives to the others. In cases where a dominant alternative existed, manual adjustments were made to create a more useful tradeoff. For instance, if all WESs levels increased while the cost to household decreased, the cost was adjusted to represent a more realistic scenario. In addition, each block was inspected to ensure that each WES and cost level appeared at least once. Therefore, each survey respondent was presented with all WESs and cost levels somewhere in the choice sets.
4.4.2. Survey instrument development
Developing a CM survey instrument required extensive knowledge of the Basin and its resident population for several reasons. First, CM surveys are cognitively complex, as respondents are required to provide preferences for complex environmental goods based upon their own knowledge and that provided in the survey. Therefore, presenting the most relevant information in terms understandable to a broad range of potential participants is paramount, as is limiting the total amount of detail respondents are given to read. The final survey instrument, illustrated in Appendix A, was developed based upon past research (i.e. Armatas 2013; Armatas 38
et al. 2014; Armatas et al. 2016), discussions with stakeholders, scientists, and natural resource managers in the Basin, and pilot tests with stakeholders and potential survey recipients. Part 1 of the survey included questions related to important WESs, the threats to those important WESs, and attitudes and opinions about water management in the Basin. Such questions provide important information for identifying both potential protest responses based on a rejection of the hypothetical market and, for this study, different segments of the population with different preference structures. The latter is important for latent class modeling, a data analysis technique whereby respondents are placed into different segments based upon their difference preferences (Holmes and Adamowicz 2003). Part 2 of the survey provided the respondents with background information about why the data was being collected, and how natural resources could be managed to impact the outcomes of the four WESs. Part 3 of the survey explains and presents the choice sets, which is the preference elicitation task that is analyzed to understand marginal rates of exchange among the WESs and cost to household. It is from this information that the willingness to pay estimates are statistically derived. Finally, part 4 of the survey includes questions about the survey and respondent demographics.
4.5. Defining the population to be surveyed
The population surveyed were adult household heads, who are at least 18 years old, within the zip codes that overlap, either wholly or partially, with the Wind River and Bighorn River Watersheds (“The Basin” in Figure 3). This population was selected because it includes households within the region that primarily benefit from water, both in its solid and liquid form, in the Basin. In addition, this population was the focus of previous work by Armatas (2013) and Armatas et al. (2016). The biophysical system in the Basin was also the focus of work by Rice et al. (2012). The households in the Basin are said to primarily benefit from water because, by virtue of geographic location, they are likely to be most affected by changes in water benefits due to natural or human forces. In other words, changes in the provision of water benefits is likely to impact this region most immediately and in perpetuity, relative to areas outside of the study area. The head of the household was selected, as opposed to a random adult in each home, because this study was interested in a representative sample of people in the Basin that are 39 primarily involved in economic decision-making, and most likely to be engaged in, and aware of, issues pertaining to water management. That is, this study was interested in a representative sample of households, and those who manage the household are most likely to be aware of the costs and tradeoffs that a household faces. There are likely to be biases in who self-selects to respond as head of the household. It is likely they would be older than younger. While young adults may be living in a particular household, in many cases they wouldn’t consider themselves the head of the household if an older person were present. It is also more likely that heads of households would be married, since never married or separated people may be more likely to live in shared households. In conservative areas, men may be more likely to be heads of households. Such self-selection issues present difficulties for evaluating whether or not the sample of households is representative of those in the Basin, because comparing demographic statistics of respondents with Census data is insufficient, as the latter collects information on all citizens. However, there is limited data on households (e.g., income) collected by the Census, thus allowing some comparison and checking for representativeness. In addition, ensuring household representativeness was of secondary importance to gaining insight about the preferences and attitudes of the primary household decision-maker related to water management.
4.6. Data Collection
The methods for data collection, to the greatest extent practicable, followed the multiple contact method developed and revised in Dillman et al. (2014). The following subsections discuss, in detail, the four mailing contacts and other important aspects of improving response rates. Data collection was completed by Christensen Research using a random sample of address lists purchased from a firm with a up-to-date database of mailing addresses in the Basin. Adult household heads were asked to complete the survey, which means that the individuals in the household decided who could complete the survey. Data collection proceeded as follows. The initial mailing took place on March 17th, 2016, and it included a 9x12 inch envelope stuffed with a cover letter, questionnaire, and a postage paid 6x9 inch return envelope (henceforth known collectively as a survey packet). All postage in this mailing, and subsequent mailings, employed real stamps, as opposed to metered postage or business reply postage. The use of real stamps not only adds a personalized element, but it also creates a social exchange that 40 builds trust between the researcher and respondent as the researcher is trusting the respondent to fill out the survey and return it, even though they could use the stamped envelope for another purpose (Dillman et al. 2014). Furthermore, society has evolved in a way that discourages wasting money, even if that money is in the form of a $0.71 stamp as was the case in this study (Dillman et al. 2014). All cover letters were printed in color, and personalized in a manner that weighed documented benefits to response rates and available funding and labor resources. The letter was addressed to the household name (e.g., “Dear Smith Household”). Although the full name for each address was available (e.g., John Smith), addressing the letter to the household more generally was more consistent with our target respondent (i.e., “a head of household”). This approach is more personal than a general salutation to ‘Basin Residents’, and it also mitigates a concern that arises when the full name is used. In the context of a household selection method, Dillman et al. (2014:368) suggested that using specific names is inadvisable because it “encourages the named person to take ownership of and answer the questionnaire rather than following the within-household selection instructions.” Even though this survey did not provide selection instructions (e.g., adult with next birthday), it did leave flexibility in which adult completed the survey (i.e., head of household). The cover letter was also personalized with a blue, computerized signature, a choice based on labor constraints. The second mailing was sent out a week after the first mailing, and it consisted of a single postcard, which thanked those respondents who completed the first survey, and reminded those who hadn’t to please return the first survey. The third mailing sent out two weeks after the second mailing included a survey packet with a revised cover letter appealing to those who had not returned the initial survey following the postcard reminder. The fourth mailing sent out a month after the third mailing included a final survey packet and cover letter. The cover letter for this mailing was the most forceful, using guidelines established by Dillman et al. (2014).
4.7. Data analysis and interpretation of results Data analysis was done using STATA, a statistical package appropriate for choice modeling data sets. For this report, a basic set of study results are presented, as data analysis is ongoing. Descriptive statistics regarding the data set are presented. 41
Future analysis will include more extensive results, including an estimation of the social tradeoff matrix for basic models and more complex models using multinomial logit models fitted by maximum likelihood, as described by Holmes and Adamowicz (2003). In addition, a latent class approach will be used. The latent class approach assumes that the population being sampled can be broken into classes, which allows for the sources of preference heterogeneity to be explored. However, it can be difficult to generalize the sample to the greater population because the investigator must define the classes a priori with respect to the target population, and one typically does not know how those “out-of-sample” individuals would answer attitudinal questions (Boxall and Adamowicz 2002:442). In the case of this proposed study, the researchers are well positioned to define these classes a priori because the research by Armatas (2013) identified, using factor analysis, four major perspectives in the study area regarding the importance of water benefits (environmental, agricultural, Native American, and recreation). These perspectives were discovered using Q-methodology and, although the method does not identify the proportion of the population that adopt each perspective, it can confidently be stated that those four perspectives encompass a full range of attitudes regarding the importance of water benefits in the Basin. Such knowledge will be valuable when employing a latent class approach. Results interpretation will also be limited in this report, given the need for additional data analysis. However, future publications will include a thorough discussion of research implications for management and policy, including the benefit of understanding how the four major perspectives value WESs, the threats that could potential impact those WESs values, and the general attitudes that the population has toward natural resource management in the Basin.
5. Results
With data analysis and model building ongoing, this report presents basic descriptive statistics of the data set, including demographic statistics, opinions regarding important water benefits and water management, and a summary of choice set selections. Table 4 summarizes each mailing with its corresponding date, the number of sent, returned, and undeliverable surveys for each mailing. A total of 1200 households in the Basin were contacted with the survey mailings, and 310 surveys were returned either partially or wholly completed. Twelve households refused participation, and an additional 184 mailings were returned as undeliverable. 42
Refusals were received over the phone (as each cover letter provided both email and phone contact information), in the form of a returned survey left completely blank or accompanied with a refusal note, or as an unopened ‘return to sender’ envelope categorized as ‘refused’. The final response rate was 30.5%. The following descriptive statistics are based upon all 310 returned surveys; however, because each question was not answered by all respondents, the number of respondents answering each question is included in the results tables.
Table 4. Survey mailings: returned, undelivered, Survey Mailing and date initiated Number of Number Undeliverable surveys sent Returned 1st Mailing (3/24/16) 1200 210 141 2nd Mailing (4/15/16) 911 72 32 3rd Mailing (5/12/16) 761 28 11 Total 2872 310 184 Notes: 1) A postcard reminder/thank you was sent to all households a week after the initial mailing on 3/31/16; and 2) There is some discrepancy between the number of surveys sent and the number returned and undelivered in the previous mailing. For example, 911 surveys were sent with the second mailing, even though the table indicates that a total of 351 surveys (210 returned and 141 undeliverable) were accounted for in the first mailing. This discrepancy occurs for two reasons: 1) returned surveys from a previous mailing arriving after a subsequent mailing (e.g., surveys from the 1st mailing returning after the second mailing had taken place); and 2) undeliverable surveys from a previous mailing arriving after a subsequent mailing.
5.1. Demographic characteristics of the respondents Understanding the demographic characteristics of the respondents is important for assessing whether the household is indicative of the overall population (in the cases where comparable Census data can be obtained), and for future phases of data analysis that will consider whether willingness-to-pay for particular WESs is impacted by respondent characteristics such as income and education. Table 5 includes the percentage of the sample with regard to age, race, and marital status. Table 6 provides additional demographic characteristics, such as educational attainment and current work status. As shown in Table 6, 45% of the sample was retired, which is ten percentage points higher than the 35% of the Basin population that is not in the work force (United States Census Bureau 2014). This result is consistent with the large number of people over 60 years old responding to the survey, which may be due to older people being more likely 43 to select as the head of household or, perhaps, having additional free time to fill out a survey. Table 7 includes the final demographic characteristics collected by the survey, which are compared to the household statistics for the Basin, according to United States Census Bureau (2014). Table 7 highlights that the survey sample was less represented by low income households, when compared to the Basin population. A higher portion of homeowners, and a lower portion of renters, are represented by the survey sample.
Table 5. Demographic characteristics of the sample: age, race/ethnicity, marital status Demographic Characteristic (n=response number out of 310 surveys Percentage of returned) survey sample Gender (n=295) Male 63.5% Female 35.5% Age (n=292) 18-29 years 2.0% 30-39 years 7.5% 40-49 years 10.5% 50-59 years 15.0% 60-69 years 35.0% 70-79 years 22.0% 80 years and over 8.0% Race/Ethnicity (n=290) Not Hispanic or Latino One Race American Indian and Alaska Native 2.5% Asian 0.5% Black or African American 0.0% White or Caucasian 94.0% Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander 0.0% Two or more races White; American Indian and Alaskan Native 2.0% Hispanic or Latino 1.0% Marital Status (n=296) Now married 77.0% Never married 4.0% Divorced 8.0% Separated 0.5% Widowed 10.5%
44
Table 6. Demographic characteristics of the sample: Educational attainment, current work status Demographic Characteristic (n=response number out of 310 surveys Percentage of returned) survey sample Highest level of education (n=294) Less than high school diploma 2.5% High school diploma or GED 27.0% Associates degree 12.5% Bachelor’s degree 19% Graduate or professional degree 24% Some graduate education 15% Current Work Status (n=295) Employed 54.5% Unemployed 0.5% Retired 45.0% Table 7. Demographic characteristics of the sample: Income, household size, and home occupancy status Demographic Characteristic (n=response number out of Percentage of Percentage of 310 surveys returned) survey sample Basin population Home occupancy status (n=296) Own 89.5% 71% Rent 9.0% 29% Other 1.5% - Income (n=269) Less than $25,000 8.0% 22.0% $25,000 - $49,999 26.5% 26.0% $50,000 - $74,999 24.0% 21.0% $75,000 - $99,999 15.0% 13.0% $100,000 - $149,999 17.0% 12.5% $150,000 - $199,999 3.5% 3.0% $200,000 - $224,999 6.0% 2.5% Average household size (n=287) 2.32 persons 2.62 persons
5.2. Respondent attitudes toward the Basin, and opinions on importance of WESs, threats to important WESs, and management and policy of natural resources The attitudes and opinions of respondents with regard to the Basin and its management of water provides supporting information for model building, defining classes of respondents who may have different preferences for WESs, and better understanding those aspects of WESs that provide utility to respondents. Such information provides nuance and context for better understanding the vulnerability of Basin, which can assist managers and policy-makers addressing water issues in the Basin. 45
Table 8 illustrates the percentage of survey respondents that selected particular water benefits as their 1st, 2nd, and 3rd most important. Unsurprisingly, 78% of the sample selected household/drinking water as their most important. The sample clearly considered agricultural based WESs as important, as commercial irrigation and water for stock were by far the most selected as the 2nd most important water benefit. Hydropower and river fishing were also commonly selected as the 2nd most important water benefit.
Table 8. Opinions related to most important water benefits
Water Benefit 1st Most 2nd Most 3rd Most Important Important Important (n=291) (n=288) (n=280) Household/drinking 78.0% 8.5% 4.5% Commercial irrigation 10.5% 24.5% 19.0% River fishing 2.0% 11.0% 17.0% Conservation of aquatic biological diversity 2.0% 7.5% 7.5% Water for stock 2.0% 23.5% 16.0% Cultural and spiritual use 1.5% 1.0% 1.0% Hydropower 1.0% 13.0% 7.5% Cycling of nutrients and sediment 1.0% 1.5% 6.0% Lake and reservoir recreation 1.0% 6.0% 10.5% Other* 1.0% 1.0% 3.0% Oil and natural gas extraction, and mining 0.0% 3.0% 7.0% Motorized winter recreation 0.0% 0.5% 1.0% Notes: 1. Rounding to nearest half percent may result in columns being unequal to zero; 2. The survey questionnaire asked respondents to rank their top three most important benefits, specifically: “Rank the benefits related to water MOST important to you”. Respondents were asked in a separate question which benefits were their three least important. Table 9 summarizes those benefits that were least important to the sample. The least important WESs for the sample were cultural and spiritual use, motorized winter recreation, and oil and natural gas extraction, and mining. Motorized winter recreation, a WES included in the survey, was mostly unimportant to respondents. On the other hand, river fishing, and agricultural WESs were not often chosen as least important. Respondents were then asked which three factors they considered most threatening to their important water benefits. Table 10 highlights the concerns many Basin residents have about “too much government regulation and management”, as 35% of respondents considered it to be the factor most threatening to their important WESs. Climate change, oil and natural gas extraction, and Native American treaty rights were also concerning to some residents in the 46
Basin. Although not often the primary threat, residential development and invasive species are considered threatening factors to some Basin residents.
Table 9. Opinions related to least important water benefits Water Benefit 1st Least 2nd Least 3rd Least Important Important Important (n=290) (n=285) (n=280) Cultural and spiritual use 36.0% 17.0% 14.0% Motorized winter recreation 26.0% 33.5% 15.5% Oil and natural gas extraction, and mining 16.0% 12.5% 12.0% Conservation of aquatic biological diversity 5.5% 7.5% 10.5% Cycling of nutrients and sediment 3.0% 8.5% 12.0% Hydropower 3.0% 5.5% 7.0% Lake and reservoir recreation 3.0% 6.5% 18.0% Commercial irrigation 3.0% 4.0% 4.0% River fishing 3.0% 1.5% 4.0% Water for stock 1.5% 2.5% 2.5% Household/drinking 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% Other* 0.0% 0.5% 0.5% Notes: 1. Rounding to nearest half percent may result in columns being unequal to zero; 2. The survey questionnaire asked respondents to rank their three least important benefits, specifically: “Rank the benefits related to water LEAST important to you”.
Table 10. Opinions related to factors most threatening to important water benefits Threatening factor 1st Most 2nd Most 3rd Most Threatening Threatening Threatening (n=291) (n=283) (n=268) Too much government regulation and management 35.0% 15.5% 11.0% Climate change 21.0% 8.5% 11.5% Oil and natural gas extraction 11.5% 9.0% 7.5% Native American treaty rights 8.5% 15.5% 8.0% Residential development 6.5% 13.5% 14.0% Agricultural water rights 5.0% 4.5% 5.0% Instream flow rights 4.5% 9.0% 12.5% Invasive species 3.0% 11.5% 15.5% Agricultural return flows 2.5% 7.5% 6.5% Other 1.5% 0.0% 2.0% Too little government regulation and management 1.0% 4.0% 2.5% Water-based recreation 0.0% 2.0% 4.0% Notes: 1. Rounding to nearest half percent may result in columns being unequal to zero; 2. The survey questionnaire asked respondents to rank the three factors most threatening to their importance water benefits, specifically: “What three factors do you believe are MOST threatening to you important water benefits?”.
47
A number of questions were then asked related to the natural resources in the Basin, and Table 11 shows the attitudes of respondents toward natural resource management. Among household heads, the majority agree that natural resources should be managed for future generations with the same considerations as current generations. However, the majority of respondents disagree that natural resources should be managed in a way that impacts peoples’ welfare. A strong sense of identity with the Basin is evident in that the majority of respondents are emotionally attached to the area, and the majority of respondents consider themselves as ‘being’ from the Basin. The anthropocentric nature of natural resource use in the Basin is evident in the majority agreement that management of natural resources should be for human use.
Table 11. Opinions about attitudes related to the Basin
Statement Strongly Somewhat Neutral Somewhat Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Disagree Natural resources in the Basin should primarily 22.0% 38.5% 15.0% 18.0% 6.0% be managed for human use. (n=302) We should protect natural resources in the Basin, even if it means peoples’ welfare will 3.0% 27.5% 13.0% 30.5% 25.5% suffer. (n=304) When managing natural resources in the Basin, future generations should get the same 41.0% 40.5% 12.0% 6.0% 0.5% consideration as current generations. (n=302) A strong agricultural community is important because it protects the Basin from residential 26.0% 33.0% 21.5% 15.5% 4.0% development. (n=306) I do NOT think of myself as being from the 9.0% 7.0% 16.5% 12.5% 54.5% Basin. (n=293) I have an emotional attachment to the Basin- it 40.0% 25.5% 25.0% 5.0% 4.0% has meaning to me. (n=306) I am willing to make financial sacrifices for the 8.5% 30.0% 33.0% 15.0% 14.0% sake of the Basin. (n=305)
Table 12 highlights opinions and knowledge of Basin residents with regard to management and policy of natural resources. There is a high level of support for modifying water law to allow greater flexibility of instream flows for conservation. There is also concern that the desired amount of WESs will not be available in the future, and over half of the residents in the Basin are opposed to additional wilderness designation.
48
Table 12. Opinions about management and policy of natural resources Statement Yes No Don’t know Would you support a proposal to modify water law to allow private land owners to 65.0% 12.5% 22.5% voluntarily, on a temporary basis, use existing water rights to improve stream health on their own property? (n=304) Do you support replacing some irrigated land (farming) with livestock production 34.5% 35.0% 30.5% (ranching) to maintain agricultural communities while also using less water? (n=303) Do you support a payment system where landowners are given money in exchange 37.0% 42.0% 20.5% for providing conservation outcomes like leaving more water in the river? (n=302) Do you support the construction of more dams and reservoirs in the Basin? 42.0% 31.5% 26.5% (n=303) Do you support more oil and natural gas extraction and mining in the Basin? 51.5% 31.5% 17.0% (n=306) Do you support more wilderness designated land in the Basin? (n=305) 29.5% 57.5% 13.0% Are you aware of cost-share programs that assist land owners with conservation 44.0% 42.0% 14.0% and restoration? (n=306) Do you think return flows from agricultural irrigation provide enough instream 26.0% 31.0% 43.0% flow to maintain healthy rivers? (n=306) Are you concerned that your most important water benefits will not be available in 53.5% 34.5% 12.0% the desired amounts and quality in your lifetime? (n=304) Do you think access to public land and water in the Basin is too restrictive? 32.5% 48.5% 19.0% (n=306)
5.3. Respondent opinions on survey instrument, and preferences for water-based ecosystem services
The primary purpose of a CM survey is to understand preferences for, and tradeoffs among, the WESs of interest. Statistical derivation of willingness to pay (WTP) estimates is completed through analysis of the choice sets using multiple regression techniques. Although this report will not report WTP estimates, a basic description of how respondents answered the choice sets is included to highlight the influence of the WESs and annual cost to household in the choices made. In addition, description of opinions regarding the survey instrument is included, which is important information for understanding if respondents were provided reliable and valid responses. Lastly, this section highlights how important respondents considered each WES and the cost to household to be when making choice set decisions, which is useful information for both checking consistency among those completing the survey (e.g., did respondents favor 49 agriculture in both the choice sets and this question?), and for understanding the general attitudes toward each WES and the cost to household. Table 13 lists the percentage of respondents that selected each of the alternatives and the status quo for all six versions of the survey. The status quo is always the most selected option within each choice set, which is unsurprising in CM surveys, as respondents typically gravitate toward the current state of the environment. However, there are several alternatives that were popular among respondents. For example, nearly 41% of respondents selected ‘alternative E’ in version F which, when compared to the status quo, had increases in agricultural community and angling and a decrease in motorized recreation. This alternative included an increase in cost to household of $300 more per year from the status quo. Respondents appear willing to pay a substantial amount for particular alternatives if there are significant increases in the WESs. For instance, 29% of respondents chose alternative C, version B, which included an $840 increase in annual cost to household for an increase in angling by 20 percentage points, river and riverbank biological diversity by 10 percentage points, and motorized winter recreation by 10 percentage points. A similar story can be found in alternative B, version C, where nearly 24% of respondents chose an increase of $1080 per year cost to household for an additional 150,000 acres irrigated, 20 percentage points of angling, and 25 percentage points of river and riverbank biological diversity. On the other hand, respondents did not appear willing to pay in situations where WESs decreased or remained unchanged. For example, the least popular non-status quo choice was alternative C, version C, which was only selected by 2% of respondents. This alternative offered an increase of $840 in annual cost to household, and included an increase of 10 percentage points in motorized recreation, but a decrease of 100,000 irrigated acres, and 5 percentage points of angling and no change in river and riverbank biological diversity.
50
Table 13. Respondent selection of alternatives SURVEY VERSION ALTERNATIVE WITH CORRESPONDING OUTCOME LEVELS PERCENTAGE OF AND CHOICE SET RESPONDENTS Choice Alternative A: 550,000 acres; 5% angling; 5% biodiversity; 50% motorized; $300 annual cost 22.8% Set 1 Status Quo: 550,000 acres; 10% angling; 15% biodiversity; 40% motorized; $540 annual cost 56.1% (n=57) Alternative B: 600,000 acres; 10% angling; 25% biodiversity; 20% motorized; $840 annual cost 21.1% Version A Choice Alternative C: 600,000 acres; 30% angling; 40% biodiversity; 40% motorized; $1380 annual cost 25.5% (n=63 Set 2 Status Quo: 550,000 acres; 10% angling; 15% biodiversity; 40% motorized; $540 annual cost 63.6% (n=55) Alternative D: 700,000 acres; 20% angling; 15% biodiversity; 30% motorized; $1080 annual cost 10.9% surveys Choice Alternative E: 550,000 acres; 20% angling; 40% biodiversity; 30% motorized; $1620 annual cost 24.1% returned of Set 3 Status Quo: 550,000 acres; 10% angling; 15% biodiversity; 40% motorized; $540 annual cost 53.7% this version) (n=54) Alternative F: 600,000 acres; 10% angling; 25% biodiversity; 20% motorized; $1080 annual cost 22.2% Choice Alternative G: 550,000 acres; 20% angling; 40% biodiversity; 20% motorized; $1380 annual cost 29.1% Set 4 Status Quo: 550,000 acres; 10% angling; 15% biodiversity; 40% motorized; $540 annual cost 58.2% (n=55) Alternative H: 450,000 acres; 10% angling; 5% biodiversity; 50% motorized; $300 annual cost 12.7% Choice Alternative A: 450,000 acres; 10% angling; 40% biodiversity; 30% motorized; $1620 annual cost 12.2% Set 1 Status Quo: 550,000 acres; 10% angling; 15% biodiversity; 40% motorized; $540 annual cost 68.3% (n=41) Alternative B: 700,000 acres; 20% angling; 5% biodiversity; 40% motorized; $300 annual cost 19.5% Version B Choice Alternative C: 550,000 acres; 30% angling; 25% biodiversity; 50% motorized; $1380 annual cost 29.3% (n=47 Set 2 Status Quo: 550,000 acres; 10% angling; 15% biodiversity; 40% motorized; $540 annual cost 56.1% (n=41) Alternative D: 450,000 acres; 10% angling; 40% biodiversity; 30% motorized; $300 annual cost 14.6% surveys Choice Alternative E: 450,000 acres; 20% angling; 15% biodiversity; 20% motorized; $1080 annual cost 22.0% returned of Set 3 Status Quo: 550,000 acres; 10% angling; 15% biodiversity; 40% motorized; $540 annual cost 73.2% this version) (n=41) Alternative F: 600,000 acres; 5% angling; 5% biodiversity; 30% motorized; $840 annual cost 4.9% Choice Alternative G: 700,000 acres; 5% angling; 25% biodiversity; 40% motorized; $840 annual cost 7.3% Set 4 Status Quo: 550,000 acres; 10% angling; 15% biodiversity; 40% motorized; $540 annual cost 65.9% (n=41) Alternative H: 600,000 acres; 30% angling; 5% biodiversity; 50% motorized; $540 annual cost 26.8% Choice Alternative A: 550,000 acres; 5% angling; 25% biodiversity; 30% motorized; $1380 annual cost 7.3% Set 1 Status Quo: 550,000 acres; 10% angling; 15% biodiversity; 40% motorized; $540 annual cost 69.1% (n=55) Alternative B: 700,000 acres; 30% angling; 40% biodiversity; 40% motorized; $1620 annual cost 23.6% Version C Choice Alternative C: 450,000 acres; 5% angling; 15% biodiversity; 50% motorized; $1380 annual cost 1.9% (n=57 Set 2 Status Quo: 550,000 acres; 10% angling; 15% biodiversity; 40% motorized; $540 annual cost 59.3% (n=54) Alternative D: 550,000 acres; 20% angling; 25% biodiversity; 30% motorized; $840 annual cost 38.9% surveys Choice Alternative E: 450,000 acres; 30% angling; 40% biodiversity; 40% motorized; $1620 annual cost 18.2% returned of Set 3 Status Quo: 550,000 acres; 10% angling; 15% biodiversity; 40% motorized; $540 annual cost 65.5% this version) (n=55) Alternative F: 700,000 acres; 5% angling; 15% biodiversity; 20% motorized; $300 annual cost 16.4% Choice Alternative G: 550,000 acres; 30% angling; 40% biodiversity; 20% motorized; $1080 annual cost 25.5% Set 4 Status Quo: 550,000 acres; 10% angling; 15% biodiversity; 40% motorized; $540 annual cost 63.6% (n=55) Alternative H: 600,000 acres; 10% angling; 5% biodiversity; 30% motorized; $300 annual cost 10.9% Table continued on next page… 51
Choice Alternative A: 550,000 acres; 20% angling; 40% biodiversity; 50% motorized; $1620 annual cost 18.6% Set 1 Status Quo: 550,000 acres; 10% angling; 15% biodiversity; 40% motorized; $540 annual cost 53.5% (n=43) Alternative B: 600,000 acres; 30% angling; 15% biodiversity; 20% motorized; $1080 annual cost 27.9% Version D Choice Alternative C: 550,000 acres; 5% angling; 5% biodiversity; 20% motorized; $300 annual cost 10.0% (n=46 Set 2 Status Quo: 550,000 acres; 10% angling; 15% biodiversity; 40% motorized; $540 annual cost 62.5% (n=40) Alternative D: 700,000 acres; 20% angling; 25% biodiversity; 50% motorized; $1380 annual cost 27.5% surveys Choice Alternative E: 700,000 acres; 5% angling; 15% biodiversity; 50% motorized; $1620 annual cost 12.5% returned of Set 3 Status Quo: 550,000 acres; 10% angling; 15% biodiversity; 40% motorized; $540 annual cost 72.5% this version) (n=40) Alternative F: 450,000 acres; 20% angling; 5% biodiversity; 40% motorized; $540 annual cost 15.0% Choice Alternative G: 450,000 acres; 5% angling; 25% biodiversity; 30% motorized; $540 annual cost 12.2% Set 4 Status Quo: 550,000 acres; 10% angling; 15% biodiversity; 40% motorized; $540 annual cost 75.6% (n=41) Alternative H: 700,000 acres; 10% angling; 5% biodiversity; 20% motorized; $840 annual cost 12.2% Choice Alternative A: 600,000 acres; 5% angling; 40% biodiversity; 40% motorized; $1380 annual cost 4.9% Set 1 Status Quo: 550,000 acres; 10% angling; 15% biodiversity; 40% motorized; $540 annual cost 73.2% (n=41) Alternative B: 450,000 acres; 30% angling; 15% biodiversity; 30% motorized; $840 annual cost 22.0% Version E Choice Alternative C: 550,000 acres; 10% angling; 25% biodiversity; 50% motorized; $840 annual cost 35.9% (n=46 Set 2 Status Quo: 550,000 acres; 10% angling; 15% biodiversity; 40% motorized; $540 annual cost 46.2% (n=39) Alternative D: 700,000 acres; 5% angling; 5% biodiversity; 30% motorized; $300 annual cost 17.9% surveys Choice Alternative E: 550,000 acres; 30% angling; 5% biodiversity; 20% motorized; $540 annual cost 32.4% returned of Set 3 Status Quo: 550,000 acres; 10% angling; 15% biodiversity; 40% motorized; $540 annual cost 51.4% this version) (n=37) Alternative F: 600,000 acres; 20% angling; 25% biodiversity; 40% motorized; $1080 annual cost 16.2% Choice Alternative G: 700,000 acres; 30% angling; 25% biodiversity; 30% motorized; $1620 annual cost 10.5% Set 4 Status Quo: 550,000 acres; 10% angling; 15% biodiversity; 40% motorized; $540 annual cost 57.9% (n=38) Alternative H: 600,000 acres; 20% angling; 15% biodiversity; 50% motorized; $840 annual cost 31.6% Choice Alternative A: 600,000 acres; 5% angling; 40% biodiversity; 20% motorized; $540 annual cost 26.5% Set 1 Status Quo: 550,000 acres; 10% angling; 15% biodiversity; 40% motorized; $540 annual cost 71.4% (n=49) Alternative B: 700,000 acres; 30% angling; 5% biodiversity; 40% motorized; $1080 annual cost 2.0% Version F Choice Alternative C: 700,000 acres; 10% angling; 40% biodiversity; 30% motorized; $1380 annual cost 10.2% (n=51 Set 2 Status Quo: 550,000 acres; 10% angling; 15% biodiversity; 40% motorized; $540 annual cost 75.5% (n=49) Alternative D: 450,000 acres; 5% angling; 25% biodiversity; 40% motorized; $540 annual cost 14.3% surveys Choice Alternative E: 600,000 acres; 20% angling; 15% biodiversity; 30% motorized; $840 annual cost 40.8% returned of Set 3 Status Quo: 550,000 acres; 10% angling; 15% biodiversity; 40% motorized; $540 annual cost 55.1% this version) (n=49) Alternative F: 700,000 acres; 10% angling; 40% biodiversity; 50% motorized; $1620 annual cost 4.1% Choice Alternative G: 600,000 acres; 30% angling; 15% biodiversity; 30% motorized; $1080 annual cost 21.3% Set 4 Status Quo: 550,000 acres; 10% angling; 15% biodiversity; 40% motorized; $540 annual cost 61.7% (n=47) Alternative H: 450,000 acres; 20% angling; 5% biodiversity; 20% motorized; $300 annual cost 17.0%
52
Table 14 summarizes respondent opinions about the survey instrument. Although 56% of respondents found the survey confusing, a greater portion of the respondents were confident in the answers they provided to the choice sets. About 65% agreed they needed more information than was provided, and 54% agreed “the outcomes of some alternatives were unrealistic.” In addition, over half of the respondents felt as though they already pay enough for other things in life, and therefore could not afford more payments for water management.
Table 14. Opinions on survey instrument Statement Strongly Somewhat Somewhat Strongly Don’t Agree Agree Disagree Disagree Know I need more information than was 21.0% 45.5% 17.0% 5.0% 11.5% provided in the survey. (n=300) The survey was confusing. (n=304) 15.5% 40.5% 25.0% 13.5% 5.5% The outcomes of some alternatives were 16.5% 37.5% 13.0% 3.5% 29.5% unrealistic. (n=296) There are other outcomes of water 7.5% 23.5% 22.0% 8.0% 39.5% management that are at least as important as agricultural community, motorized winter recreation, angling, and river and riverbank biological diversity that were not included in the choice sets. If you agree, please list*: (n=256) The information presented in this survey 7.5% 25.5% 20.0% 13.5% 33.0% was biased. (n=297) I already pay enough for other things and 28.0% 34.0% 24.0% 10.0% 5.0% I cannot afford additional payments for water management. (n=302) I am confident in the answers given for 26.5% 41.5% 13.5% 3.0% 15.5% the choice sets. (n=299) *Note: Among the ‘other outcomes’ of water management that were considered important were “water quality”, “fracking”, “water for wildlife”, “upland soil erosion”, “grazing”, and “contamination from herbicides, pesticides, and fertilizers”.
Respondents were asked one last set of questions to validate and categorize their choice set responses. Table 15 highlights how important respondents considered each WES and cost to be when making decisions for the choice sets. This information is similar to the importance of agricultural-based WESs in Table 7, as respondents overwhelming expressed the importance of agricultural community. The general unimportance or neutrality assigned to motorized winter 53 recreation is also consistent with motorized winter recreation being least important in Table 8. The annual cost to household was also clearly an important consideration for respondents.
Table 15. Importance of choice set WESs and cost to household Outcome Very Somewhat Neutral Somewhat Very unimportant unimportant important important Agricultural community 9.0% 6.0% 12.5% 29.5% 42.5% (n=300) Angling (n=298) 6.0% 10.5% 24.0% 45.0% 14.0% River and riverbank 5.5% 8.5% 29.0% 34.0% 23.0% biological diversity (n=297) Motorized winter recreation 27.5% 28.0% 25.0% 13.5% 6.5% (n=297) Annual cost to my 8.5% 7.5% 19.5% 30.0% 35.0% household (n=301)
6. Discussion A thorough understanding of the vulnerability of social-ecological systems can, according to Adger (2006:268), provide a “powerful analytical tool for describing states of susceptibility to harm, powerlessness, and marginality of both physical and social systems, and for guiding normative analysis of actions to enhance well-being through reduction of risk.” Completion of analysis of the data set summarized above will represent an important step toward achieving such an analytical tool in the Basin, because natural resource managers and policy- makers will have access to enhanced understanding of how a broad range of stakeholders make tradeoffs between important WESs supported by water quality and quantity in the Basin. For example, the CM data presented here will yield an understanding stakeholder preferences for trading off an additional unit of excellent angling for additional acres of irrigated land in the Basin, or whether stakeholder groups are willing to pay for additional acreage of national forest land open to motorized winter recreation. In addition, the importance of increased river and riverbank biological diversity to Basin residents, reflected in the willingness to increase annual household costs, will be derived from this study. With an understanding of quantitative tradeoffs of highly relevant WESs, and the broad and qualitative understanding of tradeoffs among WESs perceived by four major perspectives in the Basin achieved by Armatas (2013) and Armatas et al. (2016), the impact of climate change and land-use change can be better understood and, consequently, those stakeholders that may be 54 more or less vulnerable to future changes in the social-ecological system of the Basin. That is, as impacts upon WESs become clear, the groups who value particular WESs can be identified, as well as the level to which they value those particular WESs. For instance, the loss of glacier melt water that may result under future climate scenarios is likely to reduce the amount of streamflow in particular areas, which could reduce angling and river and riverbank biological diversity if current out-of-stream water uses persist. Without any change to agricultural practices, those stakeholders who highly value angling and aquatic biodiversity are likely to see a reduction in well-being, and the potential magnitude of such a reduction could be derived by combining the results from this CM study with predictions related to ecological change. For example, if a loss of glacial melt water reduces the number of ‘excellent’ angling stream miles by three percentage points, then multiplying that loss by average household willingness to pay for a marginal change in angling provides an estimation of reduction in well-being for those who value the WES. However, to fully understand the vulnerability of those who align to the agricultural, environmental, recreation, and Native American perspective, additional information regarding the capacity to adapt to a loss in ecosystem function (e.g., streamflow) is required. For instance, do current water laws or forest policies provide mechanisms to sustain stream flows? If not, those who value WESs reliant on robust stream flows may be more vulnerable than those who value out of stream WESs (e.g., commercial irrigation). Understanding such vulnerability, and the potential tradeoffs that may occur under different scenarios provides relevant information for policy-makers and managers focused on adaptive planning. There is a need to provide better information to natural resource managers and policy-makers about tradeoffs and impacts of management actions on stakeholder benefits derived from water, particularly in the case of non-marketed benefits, which are difficult to estimate. Since most Forest Service planning offices do not have accurate, scientifically proven estimates of ecosystem service values associated with federal lands in the U.S. (nor to whom those values are most important), this study offers a unique opportunity for National Forest managers in the Basin, and possibly other National Forests in the West, to be responsive to current efforts, through the Final Planning Rule (FPR), to incorporate all values into planning efforts. In addition, the methodological framework, of which this study is a part, is of national interest, because it contributes to an understanding of how to perform complex vulnerability assessments regarding pervasive stressors such as climate change and land-use change. There is a 55 great deal of interest in such research, as it can be used to inform upcoming revisions of the National Forest Management Plans, Wilderness Stewardship Plans, the adaptation aspect of the Forest Service Climate Change Performance Scorecard (United States Department of Agriculture 2011), and in making large and small-scale management decisions that affect the flow of benefits to stakeholders. Furthermore, knowledge about the full range of market, non-market and qualitative benefits related to management alternatives for National Forest planning are required by law (NEPA 1969; NFMA 1976). The FPR requires that management plans (which are required under (NFMA 1976)) provide for ecological sustainability and contribute to social and economic sustainability, using public input and the best available scientific information to inform plan decisions on all 155 national forests, 20 grasslands, and 1 prairie. The FPR emphasizes protecting and enhancing water resources, restoring land and water systems, and providing ecological conditions to support the diversity of plant and animal communities, while providing for ecosystem services and multiple uses. In addition to the benefits that this study can provide management and policy-makers in the Basin, the results from this research may be applicable to other regions throughout the western United States. The climate, topography, vegetation, social and economic characteristics of the Basin are similar to other areas throughout the eastern front of the Rocky Mountains in the states of Colorado, Wyoming and Montana (Whitlock and Bartlein 1993; Wenger et al. 2011). For example, the range of water-based ecosystem services (WESs) provided by nature in the study area (e.g., trout habitat, irrigation, and oil and gas extraction), the headwater streams in steep forested mountain landscapes at risk from uncharacteristically severe wildfire and debris flows, ‘politically charged’ debate about water rights including the presence of treaty rights and the active engagement of Native American tribes in water rights disputes, the economic importance of agriculture in arid, established in-stream flow rights, lower elevation parts of the catchment, the reliance on human-made water storage to manage seasonal runoff and supply urban centers with municipal water; conversion of agricultural land to residential purposes, and the active consideration of additional reservoir capacity. Consequently, we expect findings from this study to inform water system management over a much greater area, and the methods developed in this study will be appropriate and transferable throughout the eastern front of the Rocky Mountains.
56
References Abatzoglou JT (2011) Influence of the PNA on declining mountain snowpack in the Western United States. International Journal of Climatology 31:1135-1142. doi:10.1002/joc.2137
Adger WN (2006) Vulnerability. Global Environmental Change 16:268-281. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2006.02.006
Adger WN, Brooks N, Bentham G, Agnew M, Eriksen S (2004) New indicators of vulnerability and adaptive capacity: Technical Report 7. Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, United Kingdom
Ainuddin S, Routray JK (2012) Community resilience framework for an earthquake prone area in Baluchistan. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 2:25-36. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2012.07.003
Allen GM, Gould EM (1986) Complexity, wickedness, and public forests. Journal of Forestry 84:20-23.
American Farmland Trust (2002) Strategic Ranchland in the Rocky Mountain West: Mapping the Threats to Prime Ranchland in Seven Western States. American Farmland Trust, Fort Collins, CO
Anderson M, Teisl M, Noblet C, Klein S (2015) The incompatibility of benefit–cost analysis with sustainability science. Sustain Sci 10:33-41. doi:10.1007/s11625-014-0266-4
Armatas C, Venn T, Watson A (2016) Understanding social–ecological vulnerability with Q- methodology: a case study of water-based ecosystem services in Wyoming, USA. Sustainability Science:1-17. doi:10.1007/s11625-016-0369-1
Armatas CA (2013) The importance of water-based ecosystem services derived from the Shoshone National Forest. The University of Montana
Armatas CA, Venn TJ, Watson AE (2014) Applying Q-methodology to select and define attributes for non-market valuation: A case study from Northwest Wyoming, United States. Ecological Economics 107:447-456. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.09.010
Balint PJ, Stewart RE, Esai A, Walters LC (2011) Wicked Environmental Problems: Managinig Uncertainty and Conflict. Island Press, Washington, DC, USA
Barnett TP, Adam JC, Lettenmaier DP (2005) Potential impacts of a warming climate on water availability in snow-dominated regions. Nature 438:303-309.
Bennett J, Blamey R (2001) The Choice Modeling Approach to Environmental Valuation. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK
Bennett NJ, Blythe J, Tyler S, Ban NC (2016) Communities and change in the anthropocene: understanding social-ecological vulnerability and planning adaptations to multiple interacting exposures. Reg Environ Change 16:907-926. doi:10.1007/s10113-015-0839-5 57
Boxall P, Adamowicz W (2002) Understanding Heterogeneous Preferences in Random Utility Models: A Latent Class Approach. Environ Resource Econ 23:421-446. doi:10.1023/A:1021351721619
Brooks N (2003) Vulnerability, risk and adaptation: A conceptual framework. Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, University of East Anglia, United Kingdom
BRS Inc., MWH Americas Inc, Lidstone and Associates, TriHydro Corporation, Donnell and Allred Inc, Water Rights Services LLC (2003) Wind/Bighorn River Basin Plan Final Report: prepared for the Wyoming Water Development Commission. Available at URL: http://waterplan.state.wy.us/plan/bighorn/2003/finalrept/final_report.pdf. Accessed on June 14, 2016.
Bureau of Economic Analysis (2014a) Personal Income Summary: Personal Income, Population, Per Capita Personal Income. Regional Data: GDP & Personal Income. U.S. Department of Commerce, http://www.bea.gov/iTable/
Bureau of Economic Analysis (2014b) Total Full-Time and Part-Time Employment by Industry. Regional Data: GDP & Personal Income. U.S. Department of Commerce, http://www.bea.gov/iTable/
Bureau of Labor Statistics (2016) Employment, Hours, and Earnings - State and Metro Area. BLS Data Finder 08. United States Department of Labor http://beta.bls.gov/dataQuery/search
Cable J, Ogle K, Williams D (2011) Contribution of glacier meltwater to streamflow in the Wind River Range, Wyoming, inferred via a Bayesian mixing model applied to isotopic measurements. Hydrological Processes 25:2228-2236. doi:10.1002/hyp.7982
Cannon SH, Gartner JE, Rupert MG, Michael JA, Rea AH, Parrett C (2010) Predicting the probability and volume of postwildfire debris flows in the intermountain western United States. Geological Society of America Bulletin 122:127-144. doi:10.1130/b26459.1
Carpenter SR, Mooney HA, Agard J, Capistrano D, DeFries RS, Díaz S, Dietz T, Duraiappah AK, Oteng-Yeboah A, Pereira HM, Perrings C, Reid WV, Sarukhan J, Scholes RJ, Whyte A, Clark WC (2009) Science for Managing Ecosystem Services: Beyond the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 106:1305-1312. doi:10.2307/40272373
Cayan DR, Dettinger MD, Kammerdiener SA, Caprio JM, Peterson DH (2001) Changes in the Onset of Spring in the Western United States. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 82:399-415. doi:10.1175/1520-0477(2001)082<0399:CITOOS>2.3.CO;2
Cheesbrough K, Edmunds J, Tootle G, Kerr G, Pochop L (2009) Estimated Wind River Range (Wyoming, USA) Glacier Melt Water Contributions to Agriculture. Remote Sensing 1:818.
Cook BR, Spray CJ (2012) Ecosystem services and integrated water resource management: Different paths to the same end? Journal of Environmental Management 109:93-100. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.05.016 58
Daily GC (1997) Nature's Services: Societal Dependence on Natural Ecosystems. Island Press, Washington, D.C.
Davies KK, Fisher KT, Dickson ME, Thrush SF, Le Heron R (2015) Improving ecosystem service frameworks to address wicked problems. Ecology & Society 20:470-480. doi:10.5751/ES-07581-200237 de Chazal J, Quétier F, Lavorel S, Van Doorn A (2008) Including multiple differing stakeholder values into vulnerability assessments of socio-ecological systems. Global Environmental Change 18:508-520. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2008.04.005 de Groot RS, Wilson MA, Boumans RMJ (2002) A typology for the classification, description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services. Ecological Economics 41:393-408. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(02)00089-7
DeGaetano AT, Allen RJ (2002) Trends in Twentieth-Century Temperature Extremes across the United States. Journal of Climate 15:3188-3205. doi:10.1175/1520- 0442(2002)015<3188:TITCTE>2.0.CO;2
Dillman DA, Smyth JD, Christian LM (2014) Internet, Phone, Mail, and Mixed-Mode Surveys: The Tailored Design Method. Fourth Edition ed. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New Jersey, USA
Downing TE (2004) What have we learned regarding a vulnerability science? In: Leary N (ed), Science in Support of Adaptation to Climate Change: 10th Session of the Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Government of Argentina and the United Nations Environment Programme, Buenos Aires, Argentina
Eakin H, Luers AL (2006) Assessing the Vulnerability of Social-Environmental Systems. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 31:365-394. doi:doi:10.1146/annurev.energy.30.050504.144352
Easterling DR (2002) Recent Changes in Frost Days and the Frost-Free Season in the United States. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 83:1327-1332. doi:10.1175/1520- 0477(2002)083<1327:RCIFDA>2.3.CO;2
Economic Analysis Division (2011) Gross Domestic Product for Wyoming by Industry (NAIcS): 1997-2011. Available at URL: http://eadiv.state.wy.us
Engle NL (2011) Adaptive capacity and its assessment. Global Environmental Change 21:647- 656. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.01.019
Farber SC, Costanza R, Wilson MA (2002) Economic and ecological concepts for valuing ecosystem services. Ecological Economics 41:375-392. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0921- 8009(02)00088-5
Feng S, Hu Q (2004) Changes in agro-meteorological indicators in the contiguous United States: 1951–2000. Theor Appl Climatol 78:247-264. doi:10.1007/s00704-004-0061-8 59
Fischer AP, Paveglio T, Carroll M, Murphy D, Brenkert-Smith H (2013) Assessing Social Vulnerability to Climate Change in Human Communities near Public Forests and Grasslands: A Framework for Resource Managers and Planners. Journal of Forestry 111:357-365. doi:10.5849/jof.12-091
Frederick KD, Gibbons DC (1986) Scarce Water and Institutional Change. Resources for the Future, Washington, DC
Freedman KS, Korfanta NM (2014) Public Opinion on Natural Resource Conservation in Wyoming: Wyoming Open Spaces Initiative. Ruckelshaus Institute: A Division of the Haub School of Environment and Natural Resources, Laramie, WY
Gallopín GC (2006) Linkages between vulnerability, resilience, and adaptive capacity. Global Environmental Change 16:293-303. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2006.02.004
Garrod G, Willis KG (1999) Economic Valuation of the Environment: Methods and Case Studies Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK
Gleason KL, Lawrimore JH, Levinson DH, Karl TR, Karoly DJ (2008) A Revised U.S. Climate Extremes Index. Journal of Climate 21:2124-2137. doi:10.1175/2007JCLI1883.1
Granek EF, Polasky S, Kappel CV, Reed DJ, Stoms DM, Koch EW, Kennedy CJ, Cramer LA, Hacker SD, Barbier EB, Aswani S, Ruckelshaus M, Perillo GME, Silliman BR, Muthiga N, Bael D, Wolanski E (2010) Ecosystem Services as a Common Language for Coastal Ecosystem- Based Management Los Servicios del Ecosistema como un Lenguaje Común para el Manejo de Costas Basado en Ecosistemas. Conservation Biology 24:207-216. doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2009.01355.x
Hamlet AF, Mote PW, Clark MP, Lettenmaier DP (2005) Effects of Temperature and Precipitation Variability on Snowpack Trends in the Western United States*. Journal of Climate 18:4545-4561. doi:10.1175/JCLI3538.1
Heidel B, Fertig W, Mellmann-Brown S, Houston KE (2010) Fens in the Beartooth Mountains, Shoshone National Forest - a technical report. Shoshone National Forest, Wyoming Natural Diversity Database, Laramie, WY
Hein L, van Koppen K, de Groot RS, van Ierland EC (2006) Spatial scales, stakeholders and the valuation of ecosystem services. Ecological Economics 57:209-228. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2005.04.005
Hensher DA, Rose JM, Greene WH (2005) Applied Choice Analysis: A Primer. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK
Hinkel J (2011) “Indicators of vulnerability and adaptive capacity”: Towards a clarification of the science–policy interface. Global Environmental Change 21:198-208. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2010.08.002 60
Holmes TP, Adamowicz WL (2003) Attribute-based Methods. In: Champ PA, Boyle KJ, Brown TC (eds). A Primer on Nonmarket Valuation. Kluwer Academic Publishers, London, UK
Hundley Jr. N (2009) Water and the West: The Colorado River compact and the Politics of Water in the American West. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA
Janssen MA, Schoon ML, Ke W, Börner K (2006) Scholarly networks on resilience, vulnerability and adaptation within the human dimensions of global environmental change. Global Environmental Change 16:240-252. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2006.04.001
Knowles N, Dettinger MD, Cayan DR (2006) Trends in Snowfall versus Rainfall in the Western United States. Journal of Climate 19:4545-4559. doi:10.1175/JCLI3850.1
Kolstad CD (2000) Environmental Economics. Oxford University Press, New York
Kuhfeld WF (2010) Marketing Research Methods in SAS: Experimental Design, Choice, Conjoint, and Graphical Techniques. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA
Kumar R, Horwitz P, Milton GR, Sellamuttu SS, Buckton ST, Davidson NC, Pattnaik AK, Zavagli M, Baker C (2011) Assessing wetland ecosystem services and poverty interlinkages: a general framework and case study. Hydrological Sciences Journal 56:1602-1621. doi:10.1080/02626667.2011.631496
Kunkel KE, Andsager K, Easterling DR (1999) Long-Term Trends in Extreme Precipitation Events over the Conterminous United States and Canada. Journal of Climate 12:2515-2527. doi:10.1175/1520-0442(1999)012<2515:LTTIEP>2.0.CO;2
Lancaster KJ (1966) A New Approach to Consumer Theory. Journal of Political Economy 74:132-157.
Larsen RK, Calgaro E, Thomalla F (2011) Governing resilience building in Thailand's tourism- dependent coastal communities: Conceptualising stakeholder agency in social–ecological systems. Global Environmental Change 21:481-491. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2010.12.009
Louviere JJ, Hensher DA, Swait JD (2000) Stated Choice Methods : Analysis and Applications. Cambridge University Press, Port Chester, GB
Luers AL (2005) The surface of vulnerability: An analytical framework for examining environmental change. Global Environmental Change 15:214-223. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2005.04.003
MacDonnell LJ (1999) From Reclamation to Sustainability: Water, Agriculture, and the Environment in the American West. University Press of Colorado, Niwot, CO 61
Marston RA, Pochop LO, Kerr GL, Varuska ML (1989) Recent trends in glaciers and glacier runoff, Wind River Range, Wyoming. In: Woessner WW, Potts DF (eds). Headwaters Hydrology. American Water Resources Association Bathesda, MD. pp 159-169
McCool SF, Stankey GH (2003) Advancing the dialogue of visitor management: Expanding beyond the culture of technical control. George Wright Society Biennial Conference, San Diego, CA
Mendizabal I, Stuyfzand PJ (2011) Quantifying the vulnerability of well fields towards anthropogenic pollution: The Netherlands as an example. Journal of Hydrology 398:260-276. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2010.12.026
Metzger M, Schröter D, Leemans R, Cramer W (2008) A spatially explicit and quantitative vulnerability assessment of ecosystem service change in Europe. Reg Environ Change 8:91-107. doi:10.1007/s10113-008-0044-x
Meyer GA, Pierce JL (2003) Climatic controls on fire-induced sediment pulses in Yellowstone National Park and central Idaho: a long-term perspective. Forest Ecology and Management 178:89-104. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0378-1127(03)00055-0
Meyer GA, Wells SG (1997) Fire-related sedimentation events on alluvial fans, Yellowstone National Park, U.S.A. Journal of Sedimentary Research 67:776-791. doi:10.1306/d426863a- 2b26-11d7-8648000102c1865d
Micheli F, Mumby PJ, Brumbaugh DR, Broad K, Dahlgren CP, Harborne AR, Holmes KE, Kappel CV, Litvin SY, Sanchirico JN (2014) High vulnerability of ecosystem function and services to diversity loss in Caribbean coral reefs. Biological Conservation 171:186-194. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2013.12.029
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2003) Ecosystems and human well-being: a framework for assessment. Washington, DC
Montana Fish WaP (2015) Crucial Areas Planning System (CAPS): Data Layer Documentation and Summary. Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks, Helena, MT
Mote PW, Hamlet AF, Clark MP, Lettenmaier DP (2005) DECLINING MOUNTAIN SNOWPACK IN WESTERN NORTH AMERICA*. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 86:39-49. doi:10.1175/BAMS-86-1-39
MWH Americas Inc, Short Elliot Hendrickson Inc, Harvey Economics (2010) Wind-Bighorn Basin Plan udate: report prepared for the Wyoming Water Development Commission. Available at URL: http://waterplan.state.wy.us/plan/bighorn/2010/finalrept/finalrept.html. Accessed on October 26, 2012. p 201
National Research Council (2004) Adaptive Management for Water Resources Project Planning. The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C.
NEPA (1969) National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. 42 USC 4321-4347, 62
NFMA (1976) National Forest Management Act of 1976. 16 USC 1600,
Ninan KN (2014) Introduction. In: Ninan KN (ed). Valuing Ecosystem Services: Methodological Issues and Case Studies. Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, Cheltenham, UK
O'Brien K, Eriksen S, Nygaard LP, Schjolden ANE (2007) Why different interpretations of vulnerability matter in climate change discourses. Climate Policy 7:73-88. doi:10.1080/14693062.2007.9685639
O'Brien KL, Wolf J (2010) A values-based approach to vulnerability and adaptation to climate change. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change 1:232-242. doi:10.1002/wcc.30
Pederson GT, Gray ST, Ault T, Marsh W, Fagre DB, Bunn AG, Woodhouse CA, Graumlich LJ (2010) Climatic Controls on the Snowmelt Hydrology of the Northern Rocky Mountains. Journal of Climate 24:1666-1687. doi:10.1175/2010JCLI3729.1
Ramirez P (2002) Oil field produced water discharges into wetlands in Wyoming. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Cheyenne, WY: Ecological Services, Wyoming Field Office
Reisner M (1986) Cadillac Desert: The American West and its Disappearing Water. Viking Penguin Inc., New York, NY
Renaud F, Perez R (2010) Climate change vulnerability and adaptation assessments. Sustain Sci 5:155-157. doi:10.1007/s11625-010-0114-0
Rice J, Tredennick A, Joyce LA (2012) Climate Change on the Shoshone National Forest, Wyoming: A Synthesis of Past Climate, Climate Projections, and Ecosystem Implications. . General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-264. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, CO. p 60
Rittel HWJ, Webber MM (1973) Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning. Policy Sciences 4:155-169.
Schneider SH, Root TL (2002) Wildlife Responses to Climate Change: North American Case Studies Island Press, Washington, DC
Schröter D, Polsky C, Patt AG (2005) Assessing vulnerabilities to the effects of global change: an eight step approach Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 10:573-596.
Schwalm CR, Williams CA, Schaefer K (2012) Hundred-Year Forecast: Drought. The New York Times. The New York Times, New York, NY
Stratford CJ, Acreman MC, Rees HG (2011) A simple method for assessing the vulnerability of wetland ecosystem services. Hydrological Sciences Journal 56:1485-1500. doi:10.1080/02626667.2011.630669
Taylor DT, Foulke T, Coupal RH (2012) An economic profile of the Shoshone National Forest. University of Wyoming Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Laramie, WY 63
Trout Unlimited (2005) The Economic Value of Healthy Fisheries in Wyoming. Wyoming Water Project Report, Pinedale, WY
Turner BL (2010) Vulnerability and resilience: Coalescing or paralleling approaches for sustainability science? Global Environmental Change 20:570-576. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2010.07.003
Turner BL, Matson PA, McCarthy JJ, Corell RW, Christensen L, Eckley N, Hovelsrud-Broda GK, Kasperson JX, Kasperson RE, Luers A, Martello ML, Mathiesen S, Naylor R, Polsky C, Pulsipher A, Schiller A, Selin H, Tyler N (2003) Illustrating the coupled human–environment system for vulnerability analysis: Three case studies. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 100:8080-8085. doi:10.1073/pnas.1231334100
U.S. Department of Interior (2011) National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife Associated Recreation. Washington, D.C.
United States Census Bureau (2014) Selected Economic Characteristics. http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/community_facts.xhtml
United States Department of Agriculture (2009) Ecosystem Diversity Report: Shoshone National Forest, Version 4.0. Forest Service, Fort Collins, CO
United States Department of Agriculture (2011) Navigating the climate change performance scorecard: A guide for national forests and grasslands. Forest Service, Washington, D.C. p 104
United States Department of Agriculture Census of Agriculture (2007) Wyoming: State and County Data, Volume 1, Geographic Area Series, Part 50. United States Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Services, Available at URL: http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2007/Full_Report/Volume_1,_Chapter_2_County_L evel/Wyoming/wyv1.pdf. Accessed on October 26, 2012. p 349
United States Geological Service (2005) Changes in streamflow timing in the western United States in recent decades. National Streamflow Information Program U.S. Deparment of the Interior Washtington, D.C.
Watson TA, Anthony Barnett F, Gray ST, Tootle GA (2009) Reconstructed Streamflows for the Headwaters of the Wind River, Wyoming, United States1. JAWRA Journal of the American Water Resources Association 45:224-236. doi:10.1111/j.1752-1688.2008.00274.x
Wenger SJ, Isaak DJ, Luce CH, Neville HM, Fausch KD, Dunham JB, Dauwalter DC, Young MK, Elsner MM, Rieman BE, Hamlet AF, Williams JE (2011) Flow regime, temperature, and biotic interactions drive differential declines of trout species under climate change. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 108:14175-14180. doi:10.1073/pnas.1103097108
Whitlock C, Bartlein PJ (1993) Spatial variations of Holocene climatic change in the Yellowstone Region. Quarternary Research 39:231-238. 64
Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality (2012) Wyoming: Water qaulity assessment and impaired waters list (2012 Integrated 305(b) and 303(d) report). Document #12-0203. Water Quality Division, Cheyenne, WY. p 156
Wyoming Game and Fish (2008) Stream classification and mitigation. Cheyenne, WY
Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (2011) Yearly production by county. Available at URL: http://wogcc.state.wy.us/
Zhang Y, Zhao S, Guo R (2014) Recent advances and challenges in ecosystem service research. Journal of Resources and Ecology 5:82-91.
65
Appendix A. Choice Modeling Survey Questionnaire Version A
Survey of Attitudes toward Water Resource Management in the Wind River/Bighorn River Basin
A study conducted cooperatively by independent researchers from:
66
All the information that you provide in this survey is anonymous and confidential. Your household name and address will not be associated with your answers, and your contact information will be deleted as soon as you return your survey. Your opinion is important and appreciated, but we cannot use your input unless you complete the survey in its entirety. This survey has four parts: o Part 1: Questions on your attitudes toward water management. o Part 2: Background information about water benefits and management. o Part 3: Questions on your preferences for specific water benefits. o Part 4: Questions about you, so we can ensure we have a broad range of resident opinions.
67
PART 1: YOUR OPINIONS ABOUT WATER BENEFITS AND WATER MANAGEMENT
1) Rank the benefits related to water MOST important to you. Place a 1 on the line next to the benefit most important to you; Place a 2 on the line next to the benefit second most important to you; Place a 3 on the line next to the benefit third most important to you. LEAVE ALL OTHER LINES BLANK.
__ River fishing __ Water for stock __ Commercial irrigation Motorized winter recreation __ Cultural and spiritual use __ Cycling of nutrients and sediment __ Lake and reservoir recreation __ Conservation of aquatic biological diversity __ Hydropower __ Oil and natural gas extraction, and mining
__ Household/drinking __ Other (please list ______)
2) Rank the benefits related to water LEAST important to you. Place a 1 on the line next to the benefit least important to you; Place a 2 on the line next to the benefit second least important to you; Place a 3 on the line next to the benefit third least important to you. LEAVE ALL OTHER LINES BLANK. __ River fishing __ Water for stock
__ Commercial irrigation __ Motorized winter recreation __ Cultural and spiritual use __ Cycling of nutrients and sediment
__ Conservation of aquatic biological diversity __ Lake and reservoir recreation
__ Hydropower __ Oil and natural gas extraction, and mining __ Household/drinking __ Other (please list ______)
3) What three factors do you believe are MOST threatening to your important water benefits? Place a 1 on the line next to the MOST threatening factor; Place a 2 on the line next to the second MOST threatening factor; Place a 3 on the line next to the third MOST threatening factor; LEAVE ALL OTHER LINES BLANK.
Agricultural water rights __ Too little government regulation and management __ Climate change __ Too much government regulation and management
Instream flow rights __ Native American treaty rights
Oil and natural gas extraction __ Agricultural return flows Residential development __ Water-based recreation Invasive species __ Other (please list ______)
68
4) Do you agree or disagree with the following attitudes related to the Wind River/Bighorn River Basin (the Basin)? Please check ONE box per statement.
Statement Strongly Somewhat Neutral Somewhat Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Disagree a) Natural resources in the Basin should primarily be managed for human use. b) We should protect natural resources in the Basin, even if it means peoples’ welfare will suffer. c) When managing natural resources in the Basin, future generations should get the same consideration as current generations. d) A strong agricultural community is important because it protects the Basin from residential development. e) I do NOT think of myself as being from the Basin. f) I have an emotional attachment to the Basin – it has meaning to me. g) I am willing to make financial sacrifices for the sake of the Basin.
5) Please answer the following questions related to management and policy of natural resources. Please check ONE box per statement.
Statement Yes No Don’t know a) Would you support a proposal to modify water law to allow private land owners to voluntarily, on a temporary basis, use existing water rights to improve stream health on their own private property? b) Do you support replacing some irrigated land (farming) with livestock production (ranching) to maintain agricultural communities while also using less water? c) Do you support a payment system where landowners are given money in exchange for providing conservation outcomes like leaving more water in the river? d) Do you support the construction of more dams and reservoirs in the Basin?
e) Do you support more oil and natural gas extraction and mining in the Basin? f) Do you support more wilderness designated land in the Basin?
g) Are you aware of cost-share programs that assist land owners with conservation and restoration? h) Do you think return flows from agricultural irrigation provide enough instream flow to maintain healthy rivers? i) Are you concerned that your most important water benefits will not be available in the desired amounts and quality in your lifetime? j) Do you think access to public land and water in the Basin is too restrictive?
Thank you for answering Part 1 of this survey.
69
PART 2: BACKGROUND INFORMATION
THE BENEFITS OF WATER PROVIDED BY THE BASIN
The Basin (see map) is home to tight-knit communities that embrace clean and plentiful water flowing from the headwaters of rivers and streams in nearby National Forests. Water quality and quantity support the Basin’s culture, agricultural lifestyle, and outstanding natural habitat, as well as industries and uses such as farming and ranching, hydropower, manufacturing, oil and natural gas extraction, and household use. Plants and animals rely on water, which provides a setting for tourism and recreation activities like fishing, hunting, boating, hiking, and wildlife watching. In addition, ice and snow provide wintertime recreation opportunities.
These benefits and uses are important for the economy, as shown in the pie chart on employment below. Water is also important for personal identity and the attachment to place experienced by local communities. For example, residents of the Basin have suggested that the homesteading and pioneering history dating back to the early 1800s is a source of pride and dedication to the land that continues today in the farming and ranching community. Local Native American populations have a sacred connection to streams and lakes in the Basin, which supports and preserves cultural and spiritual practices. Some residents also get satisfaction from knowing that the surrounding aquatic environments are functioning well for the benefit of a diverse range of native plants and animals, such as the Yellowstone cutthroat trout.
Employment 2014 Total number of jobs in each industry in Basin [2,268] [1,804] Total Number of Jobs: 73,236 [53,273] [19,963] [4,349] [5,769]
[605] [5,168]
Source: http://www.bea.gov/regional/index.htm
70
HOW CAN WATER QUALITY AND QUANTITY BE AFFECTED BY MANAGEMENT?
In the coming pages, you will be asked to compare potential outcomes of changes in land and water management related to irrigated acres, quality of angling, biological diversity of rivers and riverbanks, and motorized winter recreation. These four benefits were identified as very important during previous discussions with residents in the Basin. You may notice that drinking/household water is not discussed below, which is because it is a benefit that is important to all residents and, consequently, an important focus of management and policy in any case.
We do NOT describe actual management strategies but, instead, we describe potential outcomes of management. However, just for your information, here are a few ways that management could increase the benefits covered in this survey (decreases in benefits could also take place depending on management):
Increasing the number of irrigated acres could be achieved by increasing the amount of available water in late summer with more dams or changing the techniques used for irrigation (switching from flood irrigation to the use of sprinkler systems). Increasing the number of stream miles that are biologically diverse in the Basin could be done by reducing runoff of pollutants and sediment from watersheds and increasing late summer flow levels. Increasing the quality of angling could be done by fixing problems related to invasive species such as Russian olive trees and cheat grass. Increasing the amount of area open to motorized winter recreation could be done by opening previously closed areas on public land through cooperative decisions with federal land managers. In addition, terrain that was once inaccessible could be made accessible through management (for example, timber sales, prescribed burns, or cloud seeding).
Even though particular benefits may not appear to be connected to water management, such as motorized winter recreation, it is important to remember that a landscape approach to natural resource management is common. For example, if prolonged drought requires creative solutions related to providing more water for downstream users, then one option would be to manage the forest with cloud seeding or selective thinning to allow more water to melt into streams and rivers. This management action would support not only downstream water uses, but it could also open up new opportunities for forest recreation like snowmobiling.
Also, if you are questioning whether the outcomes discussed on the next several pages can really change, please notice that we are asking your opinions about outcomes 10 years from now. This timeline gives managers and policy-makers time to make changes if desired by residents.
71
Thank you for reading Part 2 of this survey. We would now like to know what you think about the outcomes of possible water management strategies in the Basin.
72
PART 3: GATHERING YOUR PREFERENCES FOR OUTCOMES OF WATER MANAGEMENT
You will need to understand the “outcomes” listed in the table below to make informed decisions about which water management alternatives to support. Starting on the next page you will be asked to decide between different levels of outcomes.
What will the level How is it measured in this Management Outcomes be under current survey? management?
Agricultural Number of irrigated acres in the Basin community 10 years from now. 550,000 acres irrigated
Percentage of stream miles in the Basin 10% of streams have Angling considered as having excellent1 angling excellent angling 10 years from now.
River and Percentage of stream miles in the Basin riverbank 15% of streams are considered biologically diverse2 10 years biologically diverse biological from now. diversity
Motorized Percentage of national forest land open 40% of national forest winter to motorized winter recreation in the land open to motorized Basin 10 years from now. winter recreation recreation
Annual cost Average annual cost to supply your household with water3 each year for the $540 to my next 10 years. ($45 monthly) household 1 “Excellent” streams are those designated as “blue ribbon” or “red ribbon” in Wyoming, or in the top 25% of fishing quality in Montana. These designations are based on amount of sport fish per mile, types of fish present, and angler preference. 2 “Biologically diverse” streams are those where a diverse range of native fish, amphibians, and plants are present within the stream and on the banks. Often, a specific range of stream temperature contributes to biological diversity. Biological diversity may maintain ecological stability and resilience. 3 The average annual cost of water was calculated by averaging the typical water bill for a four person home in the study area ($41.5 per month or around $500 annually), and the cost of installing a well, and pumping and maintaining that well for thirty years (approximately $580 per year when the upfront cost of a well is spread out over time).
73
Please complete all choice sets. Choice sets have three different options: the outcomes of current management and the outcomes of two alternatives. Starting below, please select the column of outcomes you most prefer for each choice set. You will always have the option to select the “NO CHANGE in Management” column. Each choice set is a separate question. Choice sets should not be directly compared. The changes in outcomes presented are not the result of one impact on the other. For example, more streams with excellent angling does not mean that more rivers will be biologically diverse. When deciding which strategy to select, please keep in mind your available income and all the other things you have to spend your money on, like food, clothes, housing, recreation and savings.
Choice Set 1 Expected outcomes after 10 years
NO CHANGE in Management Outcomes Alternative A Alternative B Management
Agricultural 550,000 acres 550,000 acres 600,000 acres community irrigated irrigated irrigated
Angling 5% of streams are 10% of streams 10% of streams are excellent are excellent excellent
River and 15% of streams riverbank 5% of streams are 25% of streams are are biologically biological biologically diverse biologically diverse diverse diversity
Motorized winter 50% open 40% open 20% open recreation
Annual cost to $300 $540 $840 my household ($25 monthly) ($45 monthly) ($70 monthly)
My household would choose (select one only)
74
Please remember Choice sets 2 through 4 (the next 3 pages) present new combinations of outcomes for land and water management in the Basin. Each choice set is a separate question. Choice sets should not be directly compared to each other.
Choice Set 2 Expected outcomes after 10 years
NO CHANGE Management Outcomes Alternative C Alternative D in Management
Agricultural 550,000 acres 600,000 acres 700,000 acres community irrigated irrigated irrigated
Angling 10% of streams 30% of streams 20% of streams are excellent are excellent are excellent
River and 15% of streams 40% of streams 15% of streams riverbank are biologically are biologically are biologically biological diverse diverse diverse biodiversity Motorized winter 40% open 40% open 30% open recreation
Annual cost $540 $1380 $1080 to my ($45 monthly) ($115 monthly) ($90 monthly) household My household would choose
(check one only)
75
Choice Set 3 Expected outcomes after 10 years
NO CHANGE Management Outcomes Alternative E Alternative F in Management
Agricultural 550,000 acres 600,000 acres 550,000 acres community irrigated irrigated irrigated
Angling 20% of streams 10% of streams 10% of streams are excellent are excellent are excellent
River and 40% of streams 25% of streams 15% of streams riverbank are biologically are biologically are biologically biological diverse diverse diverse diversity Motorized winter 30% open 20% open 40% open recreation
Annual cost $1620 $1080 $540 to my ($135 monthly) ($90 monthly) ($45 monthly) household My household would choose
(check one only)
76
Choice Set 4 Expected outcomes after 10 years
NO CHANGE Management Outcomes Alternative G Alternative H in Management
Agricultural 550,000 acres 550,000 acres 450,000 acres community irrigated irrigated irrigated
Angling 20% of streams 10% of streams 10% of streams are excellent are excellent are excellent
River and 40% of streams 15% of streams 5% of streams riverbank are biologically are biologically are biologically biological diverse diverse diverse diversity Motorized winter 20% open 40% open 50% open recreation
Annual cost $1380 $540 $300 to my ($115 monthly) ($45 monthly) ($25 monthly) household My household would choose
(check one only)
Thank you for answering Part 3 of this survey.
We would now like to know a little about you. This will greatly assist
our analysis of returned surveys, including allowing us to check if we have obtained a representative sample of the population in the Basin.
77
PART 4: INFORMATION ABOUT YOU (ALL ANSWERS ARE CONFIDENTIAL AND ANONYMOUS)
1. Do you agree or disagree with the following statements? Please check one box per statement.
Strongly Somewhat Somewhat Strongly Don’t Statement Agree Agree Disagree Disagree Know
a. I needed more information than was provided in the survey. b. The survey was confusing.
c. The outcomes of the some alternatives were unrealistic. d. There are other outcomes of water management that are at least as important as agricultural community, motorized winter recreation, angling, and river and riverbank biological diversity that were not included in the choice sets. If you agree, please list: ______
e. The information presented in this survey was biased. f. I already pay enough for other things and I cannot afford additional payments for water management. g. I am confident in the answers given for the choice sets.
2. When you were considering the choice sets, how important were each of the outcomes listed below to your decisions? Check ONE box per statement.
Very Somewhat Neutral Somewhat Very Outcome unimportant unimportant important important a. Agricultural community b. Angling c. River and riverbank biological diversity d. Motorized winter recreation e. Annual cost to my household
78
3. How do you get your household water?
Municipal water Well water Other
4. How much do you currently pay for water each month (Or think water costs you per month if not making monthly payments – for example, costs of having a well over time)?
Cost: (dollars per month)
5. What is your gender?
Male Female
6. What is your age?
Age: (years)
7. What is your marital status?
Now Married Divorced Widowed
Never Married Separated
8. Including yourself, how many adults and children (under 18 years old) live in your household?
(number of adults)
(number of children)
9. Do you own or rent the household at which this survey arrived?
Own Rent Other
10. How do you describe yourself? (Check one or more responses)
American Indian or Alaska Native Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander Asian Hispanic or Latino Black or African American Other
White or Caucasian
11. What is the highest level of education you have earned?
Less than high school diploma Some graduate education
High school diploma or GED Master’s degree Associate degree Professional degree (MD, DDS, DVM, LLB, JD, etc.) Bachelor’s degree Doctorate degree (Ph.D. or Ed.D.)
79
12. Which of the following best describes your current work status? (Check one) Employed full or part time Unemployed and not looking for work Active-duty military personnel Unemployed and looking for work Student Retired Homemaker Other (please explain) ______
13. Which of the following most closely represents your total household income in 2015 before taxes?
Less than $25,000 $125,000 to $149,999 $25,000 to $49,999 $150,000 to $174,999 Plants $50,000 to $74,999 $175,000 to $199,999 $75,000 to $99,999 $200,000 to $224,999
$100,000 to $124,999 $225,000 or more
14. Did you derive any of your household income from agricultural activities?
Yes No
15. Are there any comments you would like to make? ______
Thank you for completing this survey. Your time and opinions are very much appreciated!
Note: If you have misplaced the return envelope for the survey, please return it to:
Basin Water Management Project College of Forestry and Conservation Forestry Main Office The University of Montana Missoula, MT 59812