FIGURE 5 ILLUSTRATION OF INDICATOR DEVELOPMENT AND APPLICATION:
IMPROVING FUNCTIONAL CAPACITY AT SITE A vs SITE B
WILDLIFE HABITAT FISHERY SUPPORT NUTRIENT TRAPPING |
||||||
|
SITE A |
SITE B |
SITE A |
SITE B |
SITE A |
SITE B |
FUNCTIONAL CAPACITY INDEX |
1.0 |
1.0 |
1.0 |
1.0 |
1.0 |
1.0 |
CAPACITY UTILIZATION SUBINDEX |
X 1.2 |
X 0.8 |
X 1.2 |
X 0.8 |
X 1.2 |
X 0.8 |
LEVEL OF FUNCTION |
1.2 |
0.8 |
1.2 |
0.8 |
1.2 |
0.8 |
SERVICE CAPACITY SUBINDEX |
X 1.2 |
X 0.8 |
X 1.2 |
X 0.8 |
X 1.2 |
X 0.8 |
LEVEL OF SERVICE |
1.44 |
0.64 |
1.44 |
0.64 |
1.44 |
0.64 |
VALUE OF SERVICE SUBINDEX |
X 1.2 |
X 0.8 |
X 1.2 |
X 0.8 |
X 1.2 |
X 0.8 |
VALUE |
1.73 |
0.51 |
1.73 |
0.51 |
1.73 |
0.51 |
RISK OF SERVICE SUBINDEX |
X 1.2 |
X 0.8 |
X 1.2 |
X 0.8 |
X 1.2 |
X 0.8 |
ADJUSTED VALUE |
2.07 |
0.41 |
2.07 |
0.41 |
2.07 |
0.41 |
Value
Index per unit Functional Capacity and, within limits, per unit change in
Functional Capacity
SITE A 2.074 (1 x 1.2 x 1.2 x
1.2 x 1.2)
SITE B 0.410 (1 x 0.8 x 0.8 x
0.8 x 0.8)
Conclusion: Site A and Site B are identical in size, shape and biophysical characteristics. However, based on differences in landscape context, the ¡¦value¡¦ of Site A is 4 times higher than the ¡¦value¡¦ of Site B [((2.074 ¡¦ 0.410)/0.410)=4.06]. Within limits, increasing the functional capacity at Site A will result in 4 times the economic benefits as increasing the capacity at Site B. If costs per unit of capacity restoration are the same at both sites, the benefit-cost ratio of restoration investments at Site A is 4 times higher than Site B. Note that investments to improve the landscape context of Site B could yield greater payoff than investing directly at either site.