ROSS Appendix F Land Conversion. Ecosystem Services Value Lost from Land Conversion in the Central Puget Sound Region ( )

Transcription

1 Ecosystem Services Value Lost from Land Conversion in the Central Puget Sound Region ( ) 1

2 Purpose The purpose of this study is to estimate, in dollars, the value of annual ecosystem services in the Central Puget Sound region lost to development between 1992 and Valuation methods and data used here are described in detail in Earth Economics' full report, Open Space Valuation of Central Puget Sound. 2

3 Widespread Conversion is Happening Throughout the Region 3

4 Land Conversion in the Tacoma Area 4

5 Land Conversion Near Maple Valley 5

6 More than 68,000 Acres Converted to Development in 20 Years Conversion to Development by County Total Converted to Development (Acres) 20K 15K 10K 5K 0K King Kitsap Pierce Snohomish More Than 100 Square Miles 6

7 Open Space Lost to Development Produced $226M - $482M in Ecosystem Services Annually Converted (Acres) ES Value Year (Low) ES Value Year (High) King 22,823 $75,823,904 $165,883,924 Kitsap 4,972 $14,479,559 $33,874,661 Pierce 21,556 $80,450,385 $153,871,922 Snohomish 19,057 $55,625,861 $128,377,716 Grand Total 68,407 $226,379,709 $482,008,223 7

8 Open Space Lost Within Urban Growth Areas from Produced Ecosystem Services Valued at $170M - $340M Annually Converted (Acres) ES Value Year (Low) ES Value Year (High) Agriculture 3,655 $299,677 $9,191,319 Forest 33,139 $87,394,433 $225,164,169 Grassland/Shrub 4,355 $76,298,614 $76,679,607 Wetlands 606 $6,565,089 $28,205,216 Grand Total 41,755 $170,557,813 $339,240,312 8

9 More Recent Land Conversion to Development has Occurred within Urban Boundaries Urban Conversion Profile 15K Urban Conversion Profile 15K Total Developed (Acres) 10K 5K Total Developed (Acres) 10K 5K 0K King Kitsap Pierce Snohomish 0K King Kitsap Pierce Snohomish Urban Conversion Key Outside Urban Growth Boundaries Inside Urban Growth Boundaries 9

10 Four Categories of Development Tracked Development Type Type of Development (Acres) 7.5K 5K 2.5K Developed, Open Space These areas most commonly include large-lot single-family housing units, parks, golf courses, and vegetation planted in developed settings for recreation, erosion control, or aesthetic purposes. Developed, Low Intensity Impervious surfaces account for 20% to 49% of total cover. These areas most commonly include single-family housing units. Developed, Medium Intensity Impervious surfaces account for 50% to 79% of the total cover. These areas most commonly include single-family housing units. Developed, High Intensity Impervious surfaces account for 80% to 100% of the total cover. Examples include apartment complexes, row houses and commercial/industrial. 0K High Intensity Medium Intensity Light Intensity Dev - Open Space 10

11 More than 40% of Remaining Urban Riparian Area was Converted to Development Between Converted (Acres) Original 1992 (Acres) % Lost ES Value Year (Low) ES Value Year (High) King 799 1, % $2,228,007 $9,508,984 Kitsap % $88,218 $499,006 Pierce % $1,601,296 $4,567,424 Snohomish % $1,019,368 $4,505,149 Grand Total 1,581 3, % $4,936,888 $19,080,563 * Urban riparian area is open space within 50 feet or 100 feet of a stream, creek, or river inside of designated urban growth boundaries. 11

12 Less than Five Percent of Remaining Urban Wetland Area was Converted to Development Between Converted (Acres) Original 1992 (Acres) % Lost ES Value Year (Low) ES Value Year (High) King 253 7, % $2,745,009 $11,787,010 Kitsap % $247,942 $1,065,658 Pierce 158 2, % $1,711,373 $7,354,817 Snohomish 172 4, % $1,860,765 $7,997,731 Grand Total , % $6,565,089 $28,205,216 12

13 Conclusions Loss of ecosystem services comes at a true cost to the economy, local businesses, and taxpayers. Many of the services that nature provides for free, like flood protection, must be replaced by built infrastructure, which is frequently more costly and less resilient. Loss of ecosystem services in urban areas can also increase long-term health costs due to reduced recreation opportunities and increased stress. The value and importance of these ecosystem services lost to development is a critical consideration when prioritizing development and conservation policy alternatives. 13

14 Acknowledgements Authors Matt Chadsey, Program Director Taylor Volz, GIS Lead Zachary Christin, Project Director This study was made possible through funding from The Bullitt Foundation. National Land Cover Database 1992, 2001, 2011 used to determine land cover values. Data references, methods, and background information can be found in the full report, Open Space Valuation for Central Puget Sound. Earth Economics The authors are responsible for the content of this report by Earth Economics. Reproduction of this publication for educational or other non-commercial purposes is authorized without prior written permission from the copyright holder provided the source is fully acknowledged. Reproduction of this publication for resale or other commercial purposes is prohibited without prior written permission of the copyright holder. 14