The Gros Morne National Park Case Study Final Report
Submitted to: National Parks - Parks Canada Submitted by: Wade Locke & Anastasia M. Lintner
Department of Economics
Memorial University of Newfoundland
Executive Summary
1. Introduction 1
2. What is a Protected Area? 2
3. Background on Gros Morne National Park 4
4. What are the Benefits Derived from Protected Areas? 9 4.1 Techniques for Measuring Benefits of Protected Areas 11 4.2 Summary of the Benefit Categories for Valuing Protected
Areas 14
5. What are the Benefits to Canadians of Gros Morne National Park? 17 5.1 Personal Benefits - Use Values for Gros Morne National
Park 17
5.1.1 Direct Use Values 18
5.1.2 Indirect Use Values 19
5.1.3 Future Use Values 20
5.1.4 Option Values 20
5.1.5 Existence Values 21
5.1.6 Bequest Values 22
5.2 Business Benefits 22
5.3.1 Ecological Integrity 23
5.3.1.1 Ecological Process 25
5.3.1.2 Watershed Protection 27
5.3.1.3 Biodiversity 29
5.3.2 Health and Worker Productivity Effects 32 5.3.3 Education and Scientific Effects 34
5.3.4 Business Location 34
6. Summary 36
References 39
Appendix 1 A Summary of the Proposed Framework for Valuing the Benefits of the Protected Areas
Appendix 2 Categories for Valuing Protected Areas
Appendix 3 Detailed Benefits of Gros Morne National Park
Appendix 4 Values Used to Determine the Benefits of Ecological Services Provided by Gros Morne National Park
Appendix 5 Species List Databases - Legends for Appendices 6-8 Appendix 6 Mammals of Gros Morne and Insular Newfoundland Appendix 7 Birds of Gros Morne National Park
Appendix 8 Fish of Gros Morne National Park
THE GROS MORNE NATIONAL PARK CASE STUDY
As part of Canada's contribution to the efforts of the International Union for the
Conservation of Nature (IUCN) to develop a common framework for evaluating protected areas throughout the world, this case study examined the benefits that can reasonably be attributed to protected areas within the boundaries of Gros Morne National Park, Newfoundland, Canada.
This study utilized the Whiting (1996) framework for evaluating the benefits of protected areas which classifies benefits into three broad categories: personal, business, and societal benefits.
The current case study detailed, for Gros Morne National Park, the specific items that ought to be included within the societal benefits category and indicated how these benefits conform to the Whiting (1996) framework. While this study identified the benefits associated with Gros Morne National Park, with emphasis on the societal benefits, it was beyond the study's terms of reference to provide detailed monetary estimates of these societal benefits. Rather, this case study described general guidelines as to how further studies could assign monetary estimates to the societal benefits identified for Gros Morne National Park. As well, some very preliminary monetary estimates of several of these benefits were calculated and presented for illustrative purposes.
As part of this report, the term `protected area' was described in terms of the categories proposed by the United Nations Education, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO).
Gros Morne National Park has the characteristics of a National Park and a Managed Resource- Protected Area, as well as being a UNESCO World Heritage Site. As such, Gros Morne National Park provides protection of the unique ecosystems found on the west coast of Newfoundland, offers recreational and tourism activities, and allows for some resource extractive uses.
A categorization of the benefits that apply generally to protected areas was provided. In general, value is derived from protected areas through the 'use' and 'passive use' of the
ecosystem. Use values are realized through on-site interaction with the protected area. Examples include hiking within the park and sustainable timber harvest. Passive use values are those benefits not related to the activities or behaviour of people. Passive use, while more difficult to express in dollar terms, clearly benefits people. Passive uses will sometimes conflict with other uses and at other times be provided in conjunction with other uses. Consider the following example of oxygen production carried on by plants within a protected area. A conflict exists when timber stands are clear-cut as this activity could severely impair the ability of the forest to produce oxygen. A conflict may not exist between hiking and oxygen production. A hikers experience may be enhanced by the presence of lush forests while hiking within a forested area does not impede the oxygen production capacity of the area. In this project, the use and passive use of Gros Morne National Park were captured within three broad categories: personal,
business, and societal benefits. How this classification related to previous literature was also specified.
The benefit categories and the specific examples relevant to Gros Morne National Park were itemized. Table El contains a summary of the specific items under the three benefit categories, as well as the definitions and the examples pertaining specifically to Gros Morne National Park. As mentioned earlier, societal benefits were the main focus of this project;
however, all benefits were surnmarized to put these societal benefits in the perspective. Personal benefits include use values (direct, indirect and future) and non-use values (option, existence, bequest — or passive personal use). Business benefits include all the tourism spending that is injected into the Canadian economy by nonresidents. The categories of societal benefits included in this study were: ecological integrity, health and worker productivity effects, education and scientific benefits, and business location. Ecological integrity was measured using three functions: ecological processes (primary productivity, energy flow, fixing and cycling of nutrients, soil formation), watershed protection (groundwater recharge, water quality,
erosion/flood control), and biodiversity (community structure, rare species protection, genetic conservation, keystone species). Within the category of societal benefits, the following tasks
have been completed: itemization of all the societal benefits; description of how to quantify each of the items (with actual measures where possible); and proposed methods of converting all societal benefits to a common metric (dollars).
'IVIe-as4reireént Stiggeticïns OfBeitelits:
etailed Benefits of Gros Morne National Par
BENEFITS OF GROS MORNE NATIONAL PARK
PERSONAL BENEFITS
Use Values
direct domestic timber, snaring, fishing transfer market values; ensure that these uses do rot conflict with other uses
indirect hiking, boating, cross-country skiing, kayaking, and swimming
actual payments associated with activity combined with estimation of consumer surplus (revealed market information or contingent- valuation/stated-preference surveys)
future direct and indirect uses enjoyed by future generations
estimate future use value based on present use value; social discount rate required
Non-Use Values
option willingness to pay to preserve the option of enjoying personal use of Gros Morne National Park in the future
contingent-valuation/stated-preference survey required for nonmarket valuation
existence value to Canadians associated with knowing that Gros Morne National Park is a world heritage site and will remain so into the future
contingent-valuation/stated-preference survey required for nonmarket valuation
bequest value to Canadians associated with knowing that Gros Morne National Park is available for future generations to enjoy
contingent-valuation/stated-preference survey required for nonmarket valuation
BUSINESS BENEFITS
Economic Benefits tourism spending from non- residents of Canada (maybe even smaller regional issues) on camping, co-op bookstore
values can be derived from economic impact studies performed previously (care taken to determine the true benefits rot
redistribution); also ensure that there is no double counting associated with personal benefits
BENEFITS OF GROS MORNE NATIONAL PARK
lied Bene rts of Gros Morne >National
Çàteghry of B.eiiefits . .:.:...:.: Measurernetit SukteestiOn• • • • :.. ete...:••••:••• :.:....
SOCIETAL BENEFITS
Ecological Integrity
ecological processes
primary productivity energy captured by the 'base' of the food web
published values for different land uses;
determine the total energy capture and compare to adjacent or other land use — literature survey required
energy flow energy flows through the food web
determine the upper level carnivore biomass in the park versus alternative land uses — literature survey required
fixing of nutrients fixing nutrients calcium, carbon, nitrogen, phosphorus
amount fixed by forest/land use multiplied by the area within that forest/land use and compare to adjacent or other land use — literature survey required
cycling of nutrients cycling of nutrients within a system
nutrient leaching/losses from commercial versus natural forests — literature survey required
soif formation biological activity which creates productive soifs
soit productivity of natural versus commercial forests — literature survey required
watershed protection
annual groundwater recharge estimate groundwater recharge and compare to alternative land uses; data to be obtained from government sources — soif types, land uses/cover and annual rainfall
groundwater recharge
filtration as water moves through soifs
using soif types and scientific data to estimate the amounts of pollutants that can be filtered by the park — literature survey required
water quality
prevention of erosion and flood estimate erosion/runoff and compare to alternative land uses; data to be obtained from government sources — soif types, land uses/cover and annual rainfall
erosion/flood control
a
of GNI ros orne a lona a t' .al
renient Suggestions
• biodiversity
community structure natural species composition examples of plant/animal species and relative abundance; current list needs to be updated protection of species which are
rare or found only within the area
itemize rare species — compare to species lists for alternative land uses; more research needed to identify threatened species
rare species protection
genetic conservation improves fitness and allows for continued survival in the face of stress; more research needed for measurement complexity/diversity within
species
genetic conservation
use of examples to demonstrate the importance of some 'key' species in Gros Morne National Park — Woodland caribou a likely candidate for keystone species
interaction between
species/services provided by one species to others
keystone species
Health and Worker Productivity Effects
trail counter combined with length of trails and transferred estimations of the health tare savings
— overestimate of the contribution provided by Gros Morne National Park specifically; benefits may overlap with persona]
health activities such as hiking and cross-country skiing contribute to reduced hospitalization
recreational activities also contribute to reduced absenteeism and improved productivity
visitor information and transfer of benefit values
— overestimation of the contribution provided by Gros Morne National Park specifically;
benefits may overlap with personal
productivity
Education and Scientific Benefits
numbers of visitors — estimate willingness to pay for educational services; benefits may overlap with non-use personal benefits interpretive program and
educational visits
education
Eiam
quality of life, community cohesion
proximity to Gros Morne National Park important to location decision for business and quality of life
number of doctors per capita; also survey local businesses to determine this impact — may conflict with productivity and health effects
a
Detailéd 13eriefit:of Gros IVIOtie National Park,
ongoing research within Gros Morne National Park is encouraged; particularly that which leads to a better
understanding of the functioning of the ecosystem and the determination of species richness, abundance, and so on
scientific numbers/types of research projects; a significant finding has been the verification of the theory of plate tectonics
Business Location Category efits
The authors would litre to acknowledge the tremendous help provided by Stephen Flemming, Ecosystem Scientist, Gros Morne National Park. This study was substantially enhanced by his assistance and suggestions. In addition, we benefited from comments/suggestions received from Chip Bird, Luc Perron and Dick Stanley. Any errors or omissions remain the sole responsibility of the authors.
THE GROS MORNE NATIONAL PARK CASE STUDY 1. Introduction
As part of Canada's contribution to the efforts of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) to develop a common framework for evaluating protected areas throughout the world, this case study examines the benefits that can reasonably be attributed to protected areas within the boundaries of Gros Morne National Park, Newfoundland, Canada. This study adopts the Whiting (1996) framework for evaluating the benefits of protected areas. As summarized in Appendix 1, the Whiting (1996) approach classifies benefits into three broad categories: personal, business, and societal benefits. Although the Whiting approach is still relatively new, it has already been applied in an assessment of the benefits emanating from the Canadian Heritage Rivers System (CNRS).'
The current case study details, for Gros Morne National Park, the specific items that ought to be included within the societal benefits category and indicates how these benefits conform to the Whiting (1996) framework. While this study identifies the benefits associated with Gros Morne National Park, focusing primarily on the societal benefits, it is beyond the study's terms of reference to provide detailed monetary estimates of these benefits. Rather, this case study describes general guidelines as to how future studies could assign monetary estimates to the societal benefits identified for Gros Morne National Park. As well, some very preliminary monetary estimates of several of these benefits are calculated for illustrative purposes.
This report is organized into six sections. The next section explains how the term `protected area' is to be interpreted in the context of the current study. Section 3 offers a detailed background on Gros Morne National Park. Following that is a categorization of the benefits that apply generally Whiting (1997). This study briefly describes the societal benefits associated with these rivers and attaches monetary estimates to a subset of these benefits.
to protected areas. How this classification relates to previous literature also is spelled out in section 4. Section 5 both itemizes the benefit categories and describes the specific examples relevant to Gros Morne National Park. The final section provides a summary of the key findings of the case study.
2. What is a Protected Area?
While it is possible to think of the earth's surface as consisting of `developed' areas and undeveloped/protected' areas — those areas left in a natural state, such 'a characterization would not be truly reflective of the variation in areas that one observes in today's environment. In actual fact, there is a spectrum of areas, each reflective of a different degree of human interaction with and/or without stressors to ecosystems. In keeping with this reality, the IUCN has — based on the degree of human perturbation of the 'nature ecosystem — defined six protected area categories (see Table 1). In addition, the United Nations Education, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) recognizes two international designations: Biosphere Reserves and World Heritage Sites. Proposais for the latter are evaluated by the IUCN and the International Council on Monuments and Sites.
The protected areas categories range from 'strict nature reserve' to `managed resource- protected area'. A strict nature reserve has the least human interaction as the goal of such a protected area is to protect the ecosystem in an undisturbed state. At the other end of the spectrum is the managed resource-protected area where the objective is to provide services and products from the area and maintain the ecosystem in a sustainable fashion. National parks, which fall Gloser to the undisturbed ecosystem end of the spectrum, provide both ecosystem protection and recreational services. Gros Morne National Park also has some characteristics of a managed resource-protected area in that limited timber harvest and Snowshoe Hare snaring is permitted within its boundaries.
"World Heritage Sites are unique natural and cultural sites considered to be of outstanding
National park Ecosystem protection and recreation National monument Conservation of specific natural features
Objective Strict nature reserve / Wilderness area Science or wilderness protection
Habitat / Species management area Conservation through management intervention Protected landscape / Seascape Conservation and recreation
Managed resource-protected area Sustainable use of natural ecosystems
universal significance."2 Gros Morne National Park enjoys the distinction of being both a Canadian national park and a World Heritage Site. In the next section, details on the characteristics of Gros Morne National Park are described more fully and the specific features which lead to the World Heritage Site designation are highlighted.
Table 13
2 Dixon and Sherman (1990), p. 12.
3 Source: de Freitas (1997), p. 48.
3. Background on Gros Morne National Park
Gros Morne National Park L'Anse aux Meadows reserve was established in 1973.
St. Anthony The creation of the park was with the assistance of a federal provincial 150 km agreement signed under the General Development Agreement that was put in place specifically for the purpose of developing Gros Morne National Park. Currently, the park covers 1,805 square kilometers on the southwestern side of the Great Northern Peninsula in the province of Newfoundland (see Figure 1).
When the park was established, it encompassed 11 existing communities (park enclaves): Cow Head, St. Paul's, Sally' s Cove, Rocky Harbour, Norris Point, Curzon Village, Woody Point, Winterhouse Brook, Shoal Brook, Birchy Head and Glenburnie (see Figure 2). As well, the park boundaries are adjacent to four other communities: Trout River, Wiltondale, Three Mile Rock and Parson' s Pond. The total population of the enclave communities is 3,000 people.
The park was identified in 1987 as a UNESCO World Heritage Site. As one of Canada's most spectacular and unspoiled areas, Gros Morne National Park does play a vital role in the Figure 1: Location of Gros Morne National Park
Source: Gros Morne National Park website Quebec and Labrador
Portaux Basques
l'k Argentp.
1 Ferries to Nova Scotia Port aw Chop
I\ ewfoundiand
Deer Lake ay
t John's
WIltondale
development of
Newfoundland's tourism industry. It adds to the image of the province's appeal as an exotic, high-quality wilderness location. Its unique geological features, which include the Tablelands see Figure 3) — a primary factor in UNESCO declaring the park as a World Heritage Site — the Long Range Mountains and Western Brook Pond (see Figure 4), all
THE TABLELANDS
Curzon yillage ciody Point:
interhouse rook
oal Brook chy Head
Figure 2: Communities of Gros Morne National Park contribute to this image.
Source: adapted image from Gros Morne National Park website
Moreover, the appeal of the park is enhanced by its proximity to L'Anse aux Meadows National Historic Park4, Port aux Choix National Historie Park and the Red Bay Basque Whaling Site.
The park is primarily a hiking park with over 120,000 visitors in 1996, most of which visited during the peak season ofJuly to August. Within the park, there are three major trails: the Western Brook Pond Trail which is the most popular and provides access to boat tours; the James Callaghan Trail that goes to the top of Gros Morne Mountain; and die Green Gardens Trail which is a back country trail to a rugged coastal area. In addition, the park currently operates five campgrounds:
Berry Hill (visited by 6,813 campers in 1996), Green Point (visited by 764 campers in 1996), Shallow Bay (visited by 2,325 campers in 1996), Lomond (visited by 1,523 campers in 1996) and
4 Designated a World Heritage Site in 1978.
Figure 3: Tablelands, Gros Morne National Park Source: Gros Morne National Park website
Trout River (visited by 658 campers in 1996). In 1996, over 12,000 camp sites nights were occupied.
During the winter, the park also operates a system of six cross-country ski trails. In addition, the park has a visitor reception centre (visited by 49,036 in 1994), recreation centre (visited by 28,996 people in 1994), Broom Point Fishing Exhibit (visited by 7,073 people in 1994), Lobster Cove Head Lighthouse Exhibit (visited by 22,924 in 1994), a boat tour at Western Brook Pond (14,139 passengers in 1994) and a boat tour at Trout River (2,457 passengers in 1994). Only 30% of the park visitors are from Newfoundland, with approximately 21% coming from Ontario, 24% from the U.S. and the remaining 25% coming from elsewhere in Canada and the rest of the world.
The park has been and will continue to be an integral part of the economic development strategy of the Bonne Bay area. It functions as a tourism anchor for whole Viking Trail which runs from Cormack to St. Anthony on the west coast of the island. While the tourism and economic development potential are obvious and have been extensively studied in the past,5 Gros Morne National Park has much more to offer. For example, one of the societal benefits of the park is
5 Locke (1996), Gardner and Pinfold (1992).
Figure 4: West Brook Pond, Gros Morne National Park Source: Gros Morne National Park website
protecting and maintaining ecosystem integrity.6 The newly constructed Discovery Centre helps in this regard as an outlet for the dissemination of ecological research results to the public. As well, park officiais promote ecological integrity throughout the whole region. An example of this is the park's involvement in the Model Forest Initiative.' To ensure a more efficient use of resources and enhance the level of information generated, park officiais, in conjunction with other stakeholders, have undertaken a number of studies on the animal population that resides within the park. An example of this is the caribou study undertaken with provincial wildlife officiais.' In addition, the Discovery Centre helps promote and protect the cultural resources of the park and surrounding area through enhanced exhibits and programming. The park officiais facilitate personal interpretation through guided waiks, evening
6 Integrity or health is measured by the structure and function of the ecosystem. This concept is discussed on more detail in Section 5.
7 Under Canada's Green Plan, the Partners in Sustainable Development of Forests program was initiated in 1991. One strategy under this plan was the setup of a Model Forest Network. In 1992, ten sites were selected for this network, including the Western Newfoundland Model Forest (Canada 1993).
This study, which began in January 1993, is an on-going, joint project between Parks Canada and the Newfoundland-Labrador Wildlife Division of Forest Resources and Agrifoods aimed at detexinining a plan for snowmobile use within Gros Morne National park.
programs and extension services. These services and programs provide park visitors, school children and community groups with an opportunity to learn about the park's natural and cultural resources in greater detail. Furthermore, park officiais provide the scientific and professional services required to monitor and protect Gros Morne National Park's ecological resources.
Other use benefits associated with the park are the recreational services generated by the indoor swimming pool constructed near Rocky Harbour. The centre consists of a 25 metre pool and whirlpool and is in operation from June to September, offering a variety of scheduled supervised activities. In addition, the federal-provincial agreement that established the park permitted the harvest of timber within the park boundaries to meet the needs of eligible local residents. The Lobster Cove Had Lighthouse (see Figure 5) has marked the marine approach to Rocky Harbour and the entrance to Bonne Bay for 100 years. While the light is now automated, the keeper's house contains an exhibit on the peoples who have inhabited the coastline for more than 4,000 years. As well, Broom Point is a fishing premise restored in the late 1960s. One of the park's major themes, An Evolving Lifestyle Focused on the Sea, is interpreted at this site.
The characteristics of the site, detailed in this section, outline the potential for benefits provided to Canadians by Gros Morne National Park. The next section describes the benefits
provided by protected areas in general.
Figure 5: Lobster Cove Lighthouse, Gros Morne National Park Source: Gros Morne National Park website
4. What are the Benefits Derived from Protected Areas?
In general, protected areas provide value or benefit through the 'use' and 'passive use' of the ecosystem. Use values are realized through on-site interaction with the protected area. Examples include hiking within the park and sustainable timber harvest. Attaching a monetary value to these types of activities is relatively straightforward. Passive use values are those benefits not related to the activities or behaviour of people. An illustration of passive use benefits provided by protected areas is the preservation and enhancement of biodiversity. Such benefits, while difficult to define in dollar equivalents, obviously affect social well being. As well, passive uses sometimes conflict with other uses while at other times, they may be provided in conjunction with alternate uses.
Consider the following example of oxygen production carried on by plants within a protected area.
A conflict exists when timber stands are clear-cut, as this activity could severely impair the oxygen- generating capacity of the affected area. On the other hand, a conflict may not exist between hiking and oxygen production. A hiker's experience may be enhanced by the presence of lush forests, while hiking itself may not impede the oxygen production capacity of the forested area.
There is a growing literature related to the determination of the benefits of protected areas and their associated ecological services.9 The IUCN Commission on National Parks Protected Areas has prepared a set of generic guidelines for determining the benefits of protected areas (IUCN 1995).
Parks Canada commissioned a review of the IUCN (1995) framework. This resulted in a revised framework which was subsequently applied to the Canadian Heritage Rivers System (Whiting 1996, 1997). The Whiting (1996) approach constitutes the framework adopted in this case study to categorize the specific benefits of Gros Morne National Park. As illustrated in Appendix 1, Whiting (1996) divides the benefits of protected areas into three broad categories: personal, business, and societal benefits.
9 Selected references include: Dixon and Sherman (1990), Faber (1996), Filion and Adamowicz (1994), Jansson et al. (1994), Krishnan et al. (1995), Swanson and Barbier (1992).
Personal benefits are those benefits individuals derive from both use and passive use of the protected area. Although the individual yet to visit the protected area, he or she might be willing to pay some amount to ensure that the option to visit is available in the future. The willingness to pay for this possibility is its 'option' value. As well, individuals may derive satisfaction or value from knowing that a protected area exists even though he or she never intends to visit or otherwise use the area. Benefits derived from the protected areas in this manner are referred to as 'existence' values.
Furthermore, the well-being of some individuals will also be enhanced if future generations will be able to enjoy the protected area. This `bequese value is the benefit attributed with leaving the protected area in its current state to future (potential) users.
Business benefits are the net economic benefits resulting from spending that originates from outside the region of concern. This category is not synonymous with economic impacts. The distinction between net economic benefits and impacts is discussed in detail later.
Any residual benefits that cannot be allocated to the personal or business categories are deemed societal in scope. These societal benefits include: ecological functions, resource integrity, health effects, worker productivity effects, education and scientific benefits, meeting international responsibilities, and business location. Whiting (1996) daims that the proposed framework is structured such that "the benefits derived in each category are additive and not duplicative"1° but also cautions that "when measuring the personal benefits, the analyst cannot be certain of the extent to which respondents include all components of personal benefits."" In this case study, careful attention is paid to those instances where an overlap' of societal and personal benefits exists and where duplication within the societal benefits themselves exists. Those circumstances where this concern is relevant have been highlighted.
Whiting (1996), p. 34.
Whiting (1996), p. 26.
The approach offered by the IUCN (1995) involves eight valuation modules for determining the benefits of protected areas. These are: tourism/recreation, natural services, water production, mitigation of natural disasters, fish spawning and breeding, food and fibre hunting and gathering, financial costs of administration, and commercial activities in the protected area not already considered. The primary criticisms of the IUCN (1995) framework are the missing `nonmarket'12 values and the lack of distinction between the economic impacts (which tend to be redistributional in nature) and the economic benefits (which tend to be efficiency enhancing). For a more detailed comparison of the two approaches, see Whiting (1996).
4.1 Techniques for Measuring Benefits of Protected Areas
There are several ways in which the benefits of protected areas can be measured.13 The first step involves an itemization of the beneficial services derived from protected areas. The second step is to quantify those benefits. The final step is to evaluate these benefits through a common metric
— often dollars.
The monetary measures of benefits can be based on actual market information, related market information, or simulated market information. Market information can be used to estimate actual willingness to pay for an item or service by examining actual market transactions and adjusting for consumer surplus. Related market infolination relies on willingness to pay information obtained in markets that involve either substitutes or complements with the services being evaluated. By
12 Some of the functions of the protected area, such as oxygen production, are not transacted through the marketplace. The benefits (in monetary terms) of such passive uses cannot, in general, be observed from the behaviour of individuals in markets. Hence, these benefits are referred to as nonmarket values and would,,therefore, not be incorporated into the benefits calculation using the IUCN approach.
13 For an overview of different methods for measuring benefits see (for example) Boardman et al. (1996) or Filion and Adamowicz (1994).
Figure 6: Example of Consumer Surplus
controlling for the degree of substitutability of complementarity between these markets, it is possible to obtain an estimate of the benefits associated with the service being evaluated. Simulated markets attempt to determine via surveys and experimental techniques what an individual's willingness to pay would be for a particular service.
Market information provides a direct estimation of the benefits through interaction of individuals in making exchanges. In this case, individuals (jointly) reveal the marginal value of the service through the market place. It should be noted that the market price does not represent the total value to the individual for the good purchased. The price indicates the willingness to pay for the last unit exchanged — Po in Figure 6. To estimate the total value of the service, it is necessary to add up the willingness to pay for each inframarginal unit. The willingness to pay for each unit is represented by the height of the demand line in Figure 6. For example, the marginal willingness to pay for the Ql th unit is PI (ie., Qb). Since the actual price is Po, there is a surplus generated to the consumers of P I Po (or bc) on the Q lth unit consumed. This value in use of, or marginal benefit received on, the Qi th unit (OP1 ) over and above the value in exchange or the purchase price (0P0 ) is referred to as the consumer surplus. The total consumer surplus on 0Q0 units is the sum of the extra value or willingness to pay over and above the market price, as represented by the area PmPoa in Figure 6.
These benefits — the amount actually paid plus consumer surplus — can be estimated using observed market behaviour.
Related markets estimation utilizes information revealed in other markets to estimate the benefits of a nonmarket good or service. An example is the travel cost method.14 Since the true
`price' of a recreational experience enjoyed at a protected area exceeds the entry fee, it is possible to estimate the consumer surplus associated with the amount individuals were actually willing to pay (travel costs) to visit the site. The travel cost method assumes that as individuals travel from further distances, their willingness-to-pay for the services provided by the protected area increases. Through estimation of travel costs, and associated background surveys, the lower bound on the consumer surplus for a nonmarket good, such as recreational activity, can be determined.
Simulated markets include contingent-valuation or stated-preference surveys. Under each of these approaches, a hypothetical market is set up and individuals state their willingness to pay for different scenarios (contingent valuation) or reveal their preferences by ranking or choosing between alternatives (stated preference).' From these responses, it will be possible to estimate consumer surplus or total willingness to pay.
If a market does not exist, an alternative is to set up an experimental market and observe the behaviour of individuals. This method has been used to estimate willingness to pay for tradeable emission permits (Godby et al. 1997) and presumably could be used for other nonmarket valuations.
In some cases, it will not be possible to derive a finite estimate of the total value. An example of this might be biodiversity. Presumably there is some minimum level of biodiversity that is necessary for the continued existence of life on earth — represented by Q„, in Figure 7. Below the threshold level for which life is maintained, the willingness to pay may well become infinite. Hence, it is not possible to estimate the total value of biodiversity. It is possible, however, to use nonmarket
14 For a more detailed and comprehensive discussion of the travel cost method, see Freeman (1979), Chapter 8.
15 Refer to Boardman et al. (1996) for a more detailed discussion of these techniques.
Willingness to pay for biodiversity
Marginal benefit per unit
MB
MB°
Q.
Quantity(of biodiversity)
Figure 7: Example of Consumer Surplus for Biodiversity
valuation techniques to estimate the willingness to pay, or marginal benefit, for changes in biodiversity or compare biodiversity of protected areas versus developed areas within the same ecoregion.
The total monetary benefit associated with a change in the quantity of biodiversity from Q1 to Q0 is represented by the area Q1 baQ0 in Figure 7.16
Finally, an alternative that may be used to make policy decisions when it is not possible to determine finite monetary measures of the total value is the safe minimum standard. This is particularly important when decisions are irreversible — such as complete development of a protected area that is the habitat of a rare species. Applying this to the Pine Marten, an endangered species, the safe minium standard would be measured by the minimum habitat area required to ensure its existence.
4.2 Summary of the Benefit Categories for Valuing Protected Areas
The benefits of protected areas categories, `streamlined' for the purposes of this case study,
16 It is not possible to quantify biodiversity in the manner suggested by this simple example. However, the illustration is valid for any particular measure of biodiversity such as community structure.
are outlined in Appendix 2. Under personal benefits are the use and non-use" values. Use values can be direct or indirect. Direct uses of the protected area involve consumptive activities such as fishing or collecting wood for a fire plus non-consumptive activities such as birdwatching, hiking, or photography. Indirect uses, as specified in Whiting (1996, p.28), are "benefits enjoyed by individuals who may have visited/used the asset being assessed, but whose current benefits are derived from offsite activities or deliberations." These would include benefits derived from reading, watching movies or enjoying art about the protected area. Also incorporated under use values is the direct and indirect use of the protected area by future generations. Non-use values are associated with individuals who do not actually visit the protected area. These include option, existence and bequest values.
Business benefits are the net economic benefits attributed to the protected area. This category of benefits is not synonymous with the economic impacts. Many economic impacts tend to be redistributional in nature, meaning that the spending is not an additional benefit but rather has been diverted from another source of spending. In defining the business benefits, care must taken in specifying the social entity from whose perspective the analysis is being evaluated. For example, the business benefits to Canadians of a specific National Park should not include spending by Canadians themselves since this spending will have been redirected from other types of spending within the Canadian economy. In this situation, the economic impacts of spending at the park will be an overestimate of the corresponding economic benefits. However, if the region of consideration is narrowed, to say the provincial level, then spending by Canadians who do not live within the province in which the protected area is located should be included in the calculation of the economic benefits to that province. As the evaluation perspective becomes even narrower, the economic benefits of the protected area correspond more closely to the economic impacts associated with that area. Hence, care must be taken when interpreting the business benefits that are attributable to a
17 Personal non-use benefits are what was referred to earlier as the passive uses attributed to individuals.
protected area. These benefits include nonresident spending on tourism and recreational activities.
The final category of benefits is the societal benefits. These benefits can be divided into four major classifications: ecological integrity (a combination of the ecological processes and the future maintenance of those processes or natural resource integrity), health and worker productivity effects, education and scientific benefits, and business location. The classification of international responsibilities has been dropped from this case study because, although it is true that protected areas such as Gros Morne National Park allow Canada to meet its responsibilities under such agreements as the Convention on Biodiversity, the World Heritage Convention and the Convention on Climate Change, the benefits derived by Canadians from meeting these responsibilities are captured already under the other passive use values such as existence value and ecological integrity.
The categories of benefits for protected areas are: personal, business, and societal. The next section itemizes benefits, within each of these categories, which are attributable to Gros Morne National Park specifically.
5. What are the Benefits to Canadians of Gros Morne National Park?
Appendix 3 summarizes the benefits derived from Gros Morne National Park. The proceeding sections describe in detail each of the specific benefits. Considered under the personal benefits category are: 1) direct use values, 2) indirect use values, 3) future use values, 4) option values, 5) existence values, and 6) bequest values. As well, the interpretation of what constitutes legitimate business benefits is clearly specified in this section. In the final and more comprehensive section, societal benefits are considered. Included in this discussion are: 1) ecological integrity — which is divided into three subclassifications — 1 a) ecological processes (primary productivity, fixing of nutrients, cycling of nutrients, and soil formation), 1 b) watershed protection (groundwater recharge, water quality, and erosion/flood control), and 1c) biodiversity (community structure, rare species protection, genetic conservation, and keystone species), 2) health and worker productivity effects, 3) education and scientific benefits, and 4) business location.
5.1 Personal Benefits - Use Values for Gros Morne National Park
Gros Morne National Park falls under a federal-provincial agreement restricting the types of development activities allowed within its boundaries. These uses, managed by the park staff, consist of recreation, tourism services, and some hunting and gathering activities. In general, individuals demonstrate their willingness to pay for the recreational services at Gros Morne National Park by the expenses that were incurred visiting the park. For a visitor to Gros Morne National Park this would include the cost of travel to the site and entrance or other relevant fees. Since these expenditures are discretionary, it reveals that the individual, in his or her own assessment, expects to receive benefits that are at least as large as the associated expenses. However, someone who will never visit Gros Morne National Park but derives benefits from knowing that it is a World Heritage Site has no obvious way of revealing his or her willingness to pay to maintain the park. In addition, to get a true measure of the personal use benefits, consumer surplus must be included. These surplus
values cal-mot be observed directly through any one individual's action but can be inferred by considering the information revealed by the travel costs associated with ail individuals or through contingent-valuation/stated-preference surveys.
5.1.1 Direct Use Values
Direct consumptive use is allowed through the limited harvest of timber and snaring snowshoe hares on designated blocks of land, as well as fishing. In 1996, 198 permits were issued for timber cutting which resulted in a total of 529 cords of wood being harvested.' This had a per annum value of approximately $40,000.19 To date, there are no available statistics on the number of hares and fishes caught; however, this statistical deficiency is expected to be remedied by park staff These direct use activities may conflict with other uses and passive uses of the park. If there are tradeoffs required between competing uses, the inclusion of timber harvest as an opportunity cost is warranted if the alternative use is permitted in lieu of the timber harvest.2° If there is no conflict, then the harvesting activities permitted within the park will provide personal benefits. Caution must be taken in the contemporaneous inclusion of conflicting use and passive use values as benefits. As such, it is not appropriate to look at one category of benefits without putting it into context with the overall benefits of the park.
Direct non-consumptive uses include recreational opportunities and tourism services that
18 Both the level of harvest and the number of permits issues in 1996 was clown significantly from previous years. For example, an average of 348.6 permits per annum were issued from 1991 to 1995 with an associated harvest of 1,476.2 cords per annum.
19 This estimate is based on a value of $75 per cord of wood from commercial sales in Newfoundland. The $75 per cord estimate was provided by officiais of provincial forestry.
20 On the other hand, if timber harvest is permitted, then the foregone benefits associated with these competing uses will represent an opportunity cost to the timber harvest that ought to be considered in calculating the net benefits of the timber harvest.
abound in Gros Morne National Park. The park is open year-round and offers activities such as hiking, boating, cross-country skiing, kayaking and swimming. Tourism services include campground, and boat and road tours. Here there will be potential overlap and double counting if each recreational use was evaluated independently for inclusion in the personal benefits category.
As an illustration, suppose that a head count of individuals participating in each activity was taken.
Further suppose that the benefit transfer approach' was employed to estimate the benefits of each activity. In this situation, an overestimation of the true benefits occurs to the extent that some individuals were involved in multi-purpose trips. Also, benefit transfer may lead to over- or under- estimates of the true benefits if the original survey of users is not representative of the users of the site which is currently under study. To determine the indirect personal use benefits of Gros Morne National Park, a combination of revealed- and stated-preference surveys would provide the most complete and accurate information. An example of estimating the indirect use benefits for individuals is the recent contingent-valuation study perfouned for wilderness canoeing experiences in Ontario.'
5.1.2 Indirect Use Values
As explained above, these indirect use values involve benefits derived from activities or deliberations that occur away from the park. This would include the pleasure that people receive from looking at art and photography featuring aspects of Gros Morne National Park. It would also encompass benefits derived from reading about the park or watching television shows or movies that feature key components of the park.
21 Benefit transfer refers to the use of similar studies (ie., using estimates of consumer surplus from hiking in another national park) to provide an estimation of the monetary value of the item under consideration in the current study.
22 It was determined that the mean willingness to pay per person per trip was $66.40 in 1993 (Rollins et al. 1995).
By their very nature, it is extremely difficult to obtain information on the extent of these types of activities. Moreover, the problem of defining these benefits in dollar equivalents is even more difficult. On technique that might prove useful in this regard is contingent-valuation/stated preference surveys of a represented sample of Canadian households. In carrying out these surveys one would have to be very careful to distinguish between these indirect benefits and the option and existence values discussed below.
5.1.3 Future Use Values
As a starting point, it seems reasonable to assume that the current use values found for Gros Morne National Park are representative of the benefits that future generations will receive from the continued existence of the protected area. Of course, these monetary estimates will have to be adjusted for the time value of money and population changes to make them comparable to the benefits and costs occurring at the present time. To determine the present value of benefits received at future points in time, a social discount rate is required. The social discount rate represents society's rate of time preference and is required to compare future benefits to current benefits. While there is no consensus on a single social discount rate, Burgess (1981) and Jenkins (1981) offer suggestions on estimating such a value for Canada. Their work indicates that a real discount rate between 7% and 10% may be appropriate for Canada.
5.1.4 Option Values
The benefit to Canadians of preserving the option of potential future visits to Gros Morne National Park can be determined through contingent-valuation/stated-preference surveys of a representative sample of Canadian households. Stephens et al. (1991) found passive use values through stated preference surveys for several different species of wildlife, including Bald Eagles, Wild Turkeys and Atlantic Aalmon. They demonstrated that option value tends to be a small portion
of the passive use value.23
5.1.5 Existence Values
The benefits to Canadians of knowing that Gros Morne National Park is a protected area and a World Heritage Site can also be determined using contingent-valuation/stated-preference surveys.
Stephens et al. (1991) found substantial existence value for different species of wildlife. Using stated preference surveys, the annual mean willingness to pay per person in 1991 was $22.28, $13.70 and $9.16 for the Bald Eagle, Wild Turkey and Atlantic Salmon respectively.24 An example of existence value estimation is provided by Condon and Adamowicz (1995) for the Newfoundland Pine Marten. The annual mean willingness-to-pay per person in 1991 was $28.38 which compares favourably with other willingness to pay estimates (Condon and Adamowicz 1995:7). After adjusting for inflation and extending to the population of Canada over 20 years of age, the benefits in 1996 of the Fine Marten were $673,447,680.25 This may overestimate or underestimate the benefits to Canada to the extent that the Newfoundland sample is not representative of the country as a whole. It is more likely to be an overestimate as the willingness to pay for the existence of wildlife tends to increase with specific knowledge of the species and, presumably, Newfoundlanders have a better appreciation for or knowledge about the Pine Marten.26
For the purpose of protecting Canadian Heritage, Parks Canada has set the goal of
23 When asked to attribute their total willingness to pay to option and existence values, respondents only assigned 15 percent of these benefits to their own potential future use (Stephens et al. 1991).
24 Converted from sus in the survey using the 1991 exchange rate of 1.1555 $CDN/$US.
25 Projected population 21,957,863 from Cansim matrix 6367; 8 percent inflation from 1991 to 1996.
26 See, for example, Kirchhoff et al. (1997).
establishing a national park in each of Canada's 39 natural regions. Each natural region is distinguished by unique physiography, vegetation, wildlife, and environmental conditions.' Recently, a survey was completed to measure the willingness to pay for the completion of this national parks system in Canada. Preliminary results indicate that Canadians perceive substantial benefits from completing the national parks system. Moreover, these perceived benefits do not seem to be linked solely to their desire or intention to visit these sites in the future (Rollins and Lyke 1997).
5.1.6 Bequest Values
Again, the value of leaving a protected area such as Gros Morne National Park to future generations will have to be determined using contingent-valuation/stated-preference surveys. A caveat that ought to be added is: it is unclear the degree to which non-use values overlap when individuals state their willingness to pay for protected areas.
In general, non-use values represent non-marketed benefits. As such, contingent-valuation or stated-preference surveys are required to elicit this information. Presumably, it will be a relatively straightforward task to develop a single stated-preference survey to incorporate all of the non-use value categories.
5.2 Business Benefits for Gros Morne National Park
To evaluate the business benefits, it is necessary to consider the tourism spending of non- residents exclusive of the travel costs used in estimating the non-use personal benefits.' It should
27 See the Parks Canada website for details on the natural regions of Canada.
28 Travel costs are to be excluded from the calculation of business benefits because they will be used in the personal use benefits. To incorporate them in this category as well would
be noted again that the business benefits associated with Gros Morne National Park will increase as the region of concern narrows from a Canadian-wide perspective to a more local consideration. For example, the park superintendent may consider the relevant focus to be the communities in the immediate vicinity of the park. In that case, a larger proportion of the total spending within the park and the communities will be representative of the business benefits. On the other hand, if officiais at the head office of Parks Canada took a national focus, very little of park spending would represent Canada-wide business benefits. Rather, they would reflect a redistribution of spending from one part of Canada to another — an alteration of how the pie is sliced with no real change in the size of the pie. Moreover, caution must be used in this category to avoid duplication of tourism benefits.
Spending by Canadians will be included as the minimum (ie., not including consumer surplus) willingness to pay for the personal benefits received from the park. These revenues should not be included again as business benefits. That is, if account has already been taken of the spending of Canadians through the calculation of their personal benefits, then it would be double counting to also include them as part of the business benefits generated by the park. With this caveat in mind, it should be noted that the park raised, in fiscal year 1996/97, in excess of $400,000 in revenues from its users.29
5.3 Societal Benefits of Gros Morne National Park
5.3.1 Ecological Integrity
Quasi-option values involve the benefits of preservation versus development with the possible irreversible destruction of an ecosystem. That is, a quasi-option value relates to uncertainty
constitute double counting.
29 If it were possible to break out this expenditure into that which cornes from
nonresidents versus residents, then it will be possible to distinguish between personal use values and business benefits.
about future impacts on the ecosystem. The procedure for determining the quasi-option value involves determining the expected value of benefits associated with preservation of the ecosystem and the expected value of benefits from developing the site. There is a chance that the development will cause irreversible future damages that may not be revealed until time has passed." The quasi- option value is the benefit of revealed information. This value is always positive. Often in the face of irreversible development, the optimal choice is to delay development in favour of discovering new information to identify the potential benefits of an undisturbed ecosystem. In this role, protected areas provide a buffer against losing this quasi-option value in favour of complete development of a region. The criteria of interest in assessing the informational benefits of protected areas are the benefits associated with ecosystem integrity. An amendment to the National Parks Act in 1988 outlines the specific role of national parks in protecting ecosystem integrity: "Maintenance of ecological integrity through the protection of natural resources shall be the first priority when considering park zoning and visitor use in a management plan.'
There are many ecological services or functions that are performed by ecosystems. In a recent article, Costanza et al. (1997) have attempted to determine the value of the world' s ecological services. They have identified 17 functions; 15 ecological services'', 1 personal benefit (recreation) and 1 other societal value (culture). The ecological services used in the article are quite similar to those suggested in this case study. Using the Costanza et al. (1997) parameters, a rough calculation
3° For example, it is not known currently all of the species present in a particular ecosystem nor each species' potential benefits. With time, and sufficient resources, this informational deficiency can be partially rectified.
3' National Parks Act, Section 5 (1.2).
32 The ecological services used in the Costanza et al. (1997) study are: gas regulation, climate regulation, disturbance regulation, water regulation, water supply, erosion control and sediment retention, soil formation, nutrient cycling, waste treatment, pollination, biological control, refugia (habitat for resident and transient populations), food production, raw materials, and genetic resources.
puts the total annual benefits of Gros Morne National Park's ecological services at $643 million (see Appendix 4). While this estimate has been included for illustrative purposes, much more work needs to be done to refine the estimates of the specific values for the ecosystems present in Gros Morne National Park and, as such, extreme caution should be used in interpreting this estimate.
Ecosystem integrity is defined as "a condition where the structure and function of an ecosystem are unimpaired by stresses induced by human activity and are likely to persist."33 Under this classification of societal benefits is a set of indicators that help to gage ecological integrity. The key functions of the ecosystem are represented by three categories: ecological processes, watershed protection, and biodiversity. Under each of these key functions are several suggested measures.
5.3.1.1 Ecological Processes
Primary Productivity
Primary production is the capture of energy through plants, bacteria, algae; often it is expressed as "the number of grams of carbon that is converted into gross living biomass in any area by all primary producers present".34 This measure is important as primary production provides the energy 'base' to be allocated to the higher trophic levels within an ecosystem. The method of determining the importance of primary productivity in the park is to compare the productivity of specific areas within the park to agricultural or industrial forest lands, as appropriate. This will yield a measure of the extra primary productivity provided by the protected area. It seems reasonable to use the information on the specific land types within the park (see Appendix 4) in combination with
33 Parks Canada (1994).
34 Canadian Museum of Nature (1995), p.27.
productivity numbers on a per hectare basis. The information needed to do this task would require an extensive literature review that would combine various scientific studies.
Energy Flow
Energy flow is the flow of energy through the additional producers (primary, secondary, tertiary, etc.) within the food web. This could be measured by comparing the biomass of different trophic levels within the park to other land uses. The measure should focus on a representative species in each of the trophic levels. If an ecosystem is losing integrity, there will be losses in the higher trophic levels (ie., upper level carnivores). Researchers at Gros Morne National Park are in the process of gathering information that will be useful to this particular measure of ecosystem integrity. It is important to note that any measure of energy flow may not be appropriate for a single protected area as these losses tend to be regional problems, not specific to a particular protected area.
Fixing of Nutrients
This category of ecological processes measures the amount of nutrients — calcium, nitrogen, phosphorus, as well as carbon — that are fixed by the plants within the protected area. An example is the degree to which the protected area is a carbon `sink'.35 The amounts that are fixed by the different types of forest within the park can be compared to an industrial forest. Although the different forest types and areas are known for Gros Morne, an extensive literature review is required to bring together the estimated amount of nutrients fixed.
Cycling of Nutrients
35 During photosynthesis, plants intake carbon dioxide and release oxygen. At other times, the reverse is true. To the extent that more carbon fixing is done than releasing, plants are referred to as carbon sinks.
An example of a relatively simple nitrogen cycle involves: additions to soil from aerial deposition, biological fixation, and plant residues; removal from the soil through plant uptake, volatilization, denitrification, surface runoff, and leaching; and, within the soil, mineralization, nitrification and immobilization. Altered ecosystems tend to lose nutrients through leaching and surface runoff. For example, agricultural land loses nutrients through surface runoff, leaching, and removal of crops. Nutrient Tosses can be determined for the different types of land use within the park and compared to alternative land uses. Once again, with more research it is possible to determine the average amounts of nutrients lost for different types of land use.
Soil Formation
Soil formation is the process of biological activity that creates productive sons. A protected area contains natural plant coverage which leads to more efficient formation of productive soils. In this category, a comparison is made between natural and industrial forests. A suggestion is to use the maximum volume of forest which is attainable in each case. These numbers are not known by park officiais but could be secured with an extensive literature review.
5.3.1.2 Watershed Protection
In general, `natural' watersheds are less prone to erosion and floods, and are more likely to have significant groundwater recharge and higher water quality than `developed' areas such as roads, ditches, etc. In moderating the hydrological functioning of the region, protected areas provide the watershed benefits.
Groundwater Recharge
A protected area can provide a well functioning hydrological system that recharges
groundwater rather than transports water (via surface runoff) into another watershed. With information about the different types of land use within the park and annual rainfall, an estimation of the groundwater recharge can be made. This can be compared to similar measures for land adjacent to the park. For example, given an average rainfall of 1,300 mm annually, and hydrological soil type A,36 the infiltration for good forest cover will be 1,106 mm versus 584 mm for a thin stand of forest.37 For an area of 1,800 km2, there will be 939.6 billion litres more 'recharge' under good forest cover.38 While the average annual rainfall in Gros Morne National Park was not available for this version of the study, it could be easily obtained through a request to Environment Canada. As well, the distribution of specific soil types was not available. These could have been derived from published government sources, such as Agriculture Canada's soil maps. While both of these information requirements could be met with a reasonable degree of time and resources devoted to the task, within the time and resources available for this case study, it was not possible to undertake and complete this task.
Water Quality
Related to groundwater recharge, the improved infiltration provided by 'nature ecosystems allows for the filtering of water as it infiltrates through the soil in the park. It should be possible to estimate and compare as in the previous section. The amounts of pollution that can be absorbed in
36 Soils are categorized by type and the percentages of sand, silt, and clay in the soil. The different types are placed into four categories: A, B, C, and D. In general, A is the most erosive type of soil and D is the least erosive. The makeup of the soil in terms of the percentages of sand, silt and clay will also be a factor in the ability of the soil to retain moisture, allow infiltration, or contribute to runoff.
37 Using the Soil Conservation Service Curve Number approach to estimating runoff and infiltration; see Bedient and Huber (1992):128-9.
38 1,800 km2 x 106 m2/km2 x (1,106 - 584) mm x 10-3 m/mm x 103 L/m3
different soils would have to be gathered from the literature.
Erosion/Flood Control
As in the first item under watershed protection, when simulating the hydrological functioning of the park, it is possible to obtain a measure of the ability of the system to prevent disasters such as floods. With historical information on area rainfall, a frequency of flood conditions can be estimated for the park and compared to alternative land uses within the same ecoregion. Continuing with the previous example, the thin forest cover will lead to more runoff than the good forest cover;
716 mm runoff for the thin cover versus 194 mm for the good forest cover.39
5.3.1.3 Biodiversity
Biodiversity describes, in general, the richness of species and their ability for continued survival within a specific area. This relates to more than just the number of species. The measures of community structure, rare species protection, genetic conservation, and keystone species provide the basis for determining the level of biodiversity. When calculating the benefits of biodiversity, there is likely to be overlap with the existence values determined under the personal benefits category.
Community Structure
The structure of the ecosystem's `community' evolves over very long periods of time. In more stable communities, there are complex ecological functions and high species diversity. To
39 It is assumed that the rainfall that does not infiltrate into the soil will runoff. With total rainfall of 1,300 mm, runoff is (1,300-1,106) mm for good forest cover and (1,300-584) mm for thin forest cover.
