9 Paul Lake
Xingming Li
About Paul Lake
The name of the lake orginated from the nickname of the fur trader Jean Baptiste Lolo (Balf, 1978). Paul Lake is a picturesque destination that captures the attention of all its visitors. Located in the Thompson-Nicola region of BC, a traditional territory of the Secwépemc Indigenous people, it is just a 30-minute drive away from northeast Kamloops (BC Parks, 2022). The lake is easily accessible via two routes, either 5 km along Highway 5 followed by 19 km along Pinantan Road or directly off Highway 1.
Surrounded by beautiful forests of Douglas fir, pine, and aspen, the lake spans 6.1 km in length and 0.48 km in average width, with a surface area of 390 ha and a maximum depth of 55.5 m (BC Parks, 2022). The lake is named after Jean-Baptiste Lolo St. Paul, a French-Canadian Iroquois man who worked as an interpreter at the Hudson’s Bay Company (HBC) during the fur trade era and was given a chief title by HBC in 1841 (Kamloops This Week, 2022).
The lake and its surrounding area offer a unique experience for visitors, allowing them to enjoy the natural beauty of the ecosystem. The site is home to abundant wildlife, including mammals, raptors, songbirds, reptiles, and amphibians (BC Parks, 2022). As a popular recreational destination, it also provides activities such as fishing, hiking, cycling, boating, camping, swimming, and wildlife viewing for visitors. With its variety of potential ecosystem services, this lake delivers tremendous benefits to society and the environment.
Indigenous Value
In BC, lakes hold important cultural, spiritual, and practical value for Indigenous people. Indigenous communities, such as the Secwépemc Nation, deeply connect to the land and its water bodies, using them for sustenance, transportation, and cultural practices. Indigenous perspectives focus on harmony between humans and the environment, recognizing the interconnections of all living beings (Ignace & Ignace, 2017). They believe in maintaining the health and wellbeing of lakes as part of their responsibilities for the land. Indigenous communities also advocate for sustainable practices and responsible resource management, calling for collaboration between Indigenous groups, government agencies, and environmental organizations to address ecological issues that threaten the wellbeing of these lakes (Simms al., 2016).
“My community is one of the 32 traditional campfires that make up the Secwépemc nation. My community is called Simpcw First Nation which means “People of the Rivers” because there are so many lakes and rivers in our territory that we are responsible for. Traditionally, the waterways were our highways, and they kept us connected to other communities and nations.”
— Tina Matthew, Executive Director, Office of Indigenous Education, Thompson Rivers University
Potential Ecological Issues
Paul Lake is also susceptible to the ongoing ecological problems the world faces today. Climate change is one of the most dangerous threats to Paul Lake (Government of British Columbia, n.d.). Increasing temperatures, along with shifting precipitation patterns, can lead to water level imbalances, causing damage to the overall health of the aquatic ecosystem. As a result, the livelihood of native fish species and other aquatic life could decline.
Moreover, Paul Lake could also face the risk of pollution from human activities, such as littering. While Paul Lake is a popular tourist spot for activities such as boating, fishing, and camping, the volume of waste generated by tourists has increased substantially over the years (Kamloops Trails, n.d.b). Recreational trash, including plastic bottles and food wrappers, seriously threatens local species (Government of Canada, 2010). Aquatic life, such as fish, turtles, and waterfowl, may accidentally ingest small pieces of plastic or become entangled in discarded fishing lines.
Invasive species pose another significant ecological challenge for Paul Lake (Government of Canada, 2017). The introduction of non-native plants and animals, either deliberately or accidentally, can lead to the disruption of the native ecosystem. Newcomers may outcompete local species for resources, eventually leading to a decline in biodiversity and a destabilized ecosystem.
Valuation of Paul Lake
In regard to Paul Lake, it is essential to consider its unique ecological makeup, which can provide specific ecosystem services. According to Costanza et al. (1997), 17 potential ecosystem services can be estimated for a lake. For Paul Lake, the most important ones include water regulation and supply, biodiversity and refugia, food production, climate regulation, cultural significance, recreation, and biological control. On the other hand, services such as raw materials and soil formation may not be applicable.
Table 1 briefly explains the inclusion and exclusion of these ecosystem services in the context of Paul Lake.
Table 1: Importance of Paul Lake Ecosystem Services
| Skip Table 1 | ||
| Ecosystem Services | Importance | Reason |
|---|---|---|
| Water Regulation & Supply | Yes | It is quite self-explanatory that lakes can regulate hydrogen flow and provide water for agricultural, industrial, and human needs. |
| Biodiversity & Refugia | Yes | The Paul Lake region and its environs provide a habitat for a wide variety of mammalian, plant, and aquatic species. The area’s diverse range of temperatures and nutrient levels also create favorable conditions for many different types of organisms. |
| Food Production | Yes | Many fish species live in Paul Lake, such as rainbow trout, kokanee salmon, and redside shiner, that are used for food. |
| Climate Regulation | Yes | Paul Lake can regulate local and regional climates by modifying air temperature, humidity, and other climate factors. |
| Culture | Yes | Paul Lake’s ecosystem has educational, aesthetic, and scientific purposes. It can teach people in the community to appreciate the values brought by the lake that support their livelihood. |
| Biological Control | Yes | Paul Lake offers an important setting to form the prey and predator food chain and maintains the population balance among various species. |
| Recreation | Yes | Paul Lake can offer a range of recreational activities, including fishing, hiking, cycling, boating, camping, swimming, and observing wildlife. |
| Raw Materials | No | Paul Lake does not provide a sufficient amount of raw materials for extraction, but its surrounding forests can provide log supplies. |
| Soil Formation | No | Soil is mainly produced by the process of weathering and natural erosion on rocks. |
Note. Adapted from Paul Lake Provincial Park Management Plan by BC Parks (2022).
Total economic value can typically be broken down into use and non-use values. Bastien-Olvera and Moore (2021) noted that use values can arise when natural resources are used as input for economic activities. On the other hand, non-use values (e.g., bequest value — the ability for future generations to benefit from nature, and existence value — the knowledge of the existence of certain species and ecosystems) can arise from knowing or preserving the existence of natural systems and species, regardless of whether they are consumed or not.
Figure 2 shows the general breakdown of total economic value in a tree diagram.
Regarding the direct use value of Paul Lake, the lake can be used for household, livestock, and wildlife consumption. The concept of direct lake usage is pragmatic and illustrates that humans and other species are dependent on the lake for survival or, sometimes, for enjoyment. For instance, the lake can offer a range of recreational activities for humans to enjoy and provide freshwater consumption to alleviate dehydration. However, the indirect value may refer to the utilities an individual may obtain without using the resource (Humphreys & Fowkes, 2006). Flood control, climate regulation, and animal habitat fall under this category. Without these natural barriers from lakes, humans and other species may suffer from the environmental hazards that lakes could have mitigated. In the case of extreme heat during the summertime, animals can resort to the lake to cool themselves down.
Finally, in terms of bequest value, conserving the lake could preserve its historical heritage and leave rich natural resources for future generations to consume. If younger generations can still enjoy a similar level of utility brought by the lake in the future as today, it would ensure that the benefits of the lake are sustained. The existence value could be intrinsic in nature. To the extent that people believe that the ecosystem has intrinsic value, this would partially reflect the existence value they are willing to pay for (Davidson, 2013). For example, Paul Lake has significant scientific research value. As a case study, learning how it functions could be an example applicable to other lake sites. In this regard, ecologists might place a high value on the lake.
Methodology
Lakes provide ecosystem services that are not usually traded in the market, making it challenging to determine their value through the price system (Reynaud & Lanzanova, 2017). Various valuation methods have been developed to help policymakers address losses related to biodiversity and ecosystem degradation. These methods include revealed preference, contingent valuation, and the benefit transfer method (BTM) (Johnston & Rosenberger, 2010). The BTM is the most cost-effective method, relying on information from previous studies to estimate welfare at different sites (Boyle et al., 2010). It employs value or statistical functional transfer approaches, generally favouring equation transfers when valuation sites share similar characteristics (Boyle et al., 2010). Policymakers often utilize the BTM for cost-benefit analysis due to constraints in time and funding (Johnston & Rosenberger, 2010).
In this study, we apply the hedonic benefit transfer function (specifically, the ML3 specification) from Reynaud and Lanzanova (2017) to estimate the use value of Paul Lake, along with the average and median values from the Ecosystem Services Valuation Database (ESVD) to evaluate the total value (Brander et al., 2023). By using both methods, we can obtain a comprehensive understanding of the economic benefits associated with Paul Lake.
Results & Discussion
Paul Lake offers a range of crucial benefits to society and the environment, but accurately estimating their economic value can pose significant challenges due to the complex and interconnected nature of natural ecosystems. These valuations could serve as perpetuities that return money every year. Table A in the appendix presents a conservative estimate of approximately $901,000 per year for the lake’s total use value. However, this value is substantially lower than the total economic value of $6.3 million per year in Table B in the appendix. The low estimate is primarily attributable to the uncertainty and lack of data regarding the characteristics of Paul Lake, which necessitated substituting several variables with a value of zero.
Additionally, this measurement does not account for the non-use value of ecosystem services provided by the lake. In contrast, Table I presents a more extensive study sample size of lake ecosystem services and provides a mean, median, and modified median of the total economic value per hectare. A broad estimation, ranging between $6.3 million and $21 million, can be obtained by multiplying the total lake area by the economic value per hectare value.
Table 2 provides a summary of all of the results described above.
Table 2: Value of Paul Lake as a Natural Asset
| Skip Table 2 | |||
| Value Type | Ecosystem Services per year | 0.1% Discount Rate | 1.5% Discount Rate |
|---|---|---|---|
| Use Value | 901,689 | 901,689,000 | 60,112,600 |
| Average | 6,309,256 | 6,309,256,000 | 420,617,067 |
| Median | 15,470,569 | 15,470569,000 | 1,031,371,267 |
| Modified Median | 21,119,472 | 21,119,472,000 | 1,407,964,800 |
These valuations of Paul Lake can also serve as perpetuity estimations that return a percentage of investment each year. I include both a low discount rate of 0.1% and a high discount rate of 1.5% for the total value estimation. A low discount rate places more emphasis on the value for future generation. At 0.1%, the total value of the lake can range between $901 million and $15 billion, with the median being $6.3 billion. On the other hand, at 1.5%, the total value of the lake can range between $60 million and $1.4 billion, with the median being $420 million.
The research aims to showcase the potential of assigning a monetary value to a lake, considering both tangible and intangible economic values it offers to the surrounding communities. By quantifying a lake’s benefits, the study seeks to raise awareness among local stakeholders about the importance of these natural resources. The investigation reveals two conservative estimates of the lake’s worth: the use value, which encompasses direct and indirect benefits, stands at $1.35 million, while the total value, incorporating the intrinsic and existence values, amounts to an impressive $6.3 million. These findings emphasize lakes’ crucial role in supporting local economies and promoting their overall well-being.
Concluding Remarks
In conclusion, the study of Paul Lake highlights lakes’ diverse ecosystem services and values, including water regulation, biodiversity, food production, cultural significance, recreation, and biological control. The analysis underlines the significance of direct use values, indirect use values, bequest values, and existence values in the economic assessment of these natural resources. The study quantifies these benefits and highlights lakes’ essential role in supporting the environment and local communities. The monetary valuation of Paul Lake ranges from a conservative estimate of $901,000 per year to a more extensive evaluation of up to $21 million per year, emphasizing the importance of incorporating a range of methodologies to capture the complexity of ecosystem services. Moreover, examining ecological challenges, such as climate change, pollution, and invasive species, as well as integrating Indigenous perspectives, adds to the holistic understanding of lake conservation and management.
Appendix
Table A: Hedonic Benefit Transfer Function of Ecosystem Services
| Skip Table A1 | |||
| Ecosystem Services | ML3 | Mean | Product |
|---|---|---|---|
| Constant | 1.40 | 1 | 1.40 |
| Peer Reviewed | -0.78 | 0 | 0 |
| Scenario Improve | 0.56 | 0 | 0 |
| Scenario Location | -1.43 | 0 | 0 |
| Scenario Quality | -0.94 | 0 | 0 |
| Scenario Quantity | -5.45 | 0 | 0 |
| Scenario Ecological | -0.16 | 0 | 0 |
| Scenario View | 3.18 | 0 | 0 |
| Scenario Other | 2.00 | 0 | 0 |
| Substitute Included | 1.80 | 0 | 0 |
| Spatial Model | 0.16 | N/A | 0 |
| Skip Table A2 | |||
| Ecosystem Services | ML3 | Mean | Product |
|---|---|---|---|
| Natural | -0.45 | 0 | 0 |
| [1,20] km2 | -0.2 | 1 | -0.2 |
| [20,1000] km2 | 0.44 | 0 | 0 |
| > 1000 km2 | 1.56 | 0 | 0 |
| UNESCO Heritage | -1.63 | 0 | 0 |
| Special Area | 0.83 | 0 | 0 |
| Skip Table A3 | |||
| Ecosystem Services | ML3 | Mean | Product |
|---|---|---|---|
| In GDP per capita | 0.42 | 10.79 | 4.53 |
| Water Stress | 0.36 | 0 | 0 |
| Drought Index | 0.05 | 0 | 0 |
| In Lake Abundance | 0.19 | 0 | 0 |
| Europe Region | 1.9 | 0 | 0 |
| North America Region | 1.4 | 1 | 1.40 |
| Pacific Asia Region | 1.58 | 0 | 0 |
| Skip Table A4 | |||
| Sum of Product | Value (per unit per year) (in 2020 USD) | # of Properties | Total Recreational Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| 7.13 | 1,248.88 | 722 | 901,689.17 |
Note. Properties located within a 5-mile radius of the lake were gathered using ArcGIS (geoprocessing software). This crosswalk was achieved by placing the centre of the properties within the defined radius. 722 units were successfully located. This information is from ParcelMap BC Parcel Fabric by Data Systems and Services (DataBC) (2016).
Table B: Value of Paul Lake Ecosystem Services
| Skip Table B1 | ||||
| Ecosystem Service | # of Values | Average | Median | Modified Median |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Food | 21 | 1,206 | 136 | 136 |
| Raw Material | 4 | 201 | 191 | 191 |
| Water | 2 | 19,111 | 19,111 | — |
| Total | 27 | 20,517 | 19,437 | 427 |
| Skip Table B2 | ||||
| Ecosystem Service | # of Values | Average | Median | Modified Median |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Maintenance of Genetic Diversity | 1 | 1,050 | 1,050 | — |
| Maintenance of Life Cycle | 2 | 742 | 742 | — |
| Total | 3 | 1,792 | 1,792 | — |
| Skip Table B3 | ||||
| Ecosystem Service | # of Values | Average | Median | Modified Median |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aesthetic Information | 8 | 9,695 | 1,422 | 1,422 |
| Opportunities for Recreation & Tourism | 40 | 33,518 | 21,794 | 21,794 |
| Inspiration for Culture, Art, & Design | 1 | 12,743 | 12,743 | — |
| Total | 49 | 55,956 | 35,959 | 23,216 |
| Skip Table B4 | ||||
| Ecosystem Service | # of Values | Average | Median | Modified Median |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Moderation of Extreme Events | 2 | 538 | 538 | |
| Skip Table B5 | |||
| Total | Average | Median | Modified Median |
|---|---|---|---|
| Value per year | 21,119,472 | 15,470,568 | 6,309,256 |
Note. Adapted from Table I in the Introduction.
Media Attributions
Figure 12: “Paul Lake Provincial Park, British Columbia” by Koppertone (2019), via Wikimedia Commons, is used under a CC BY-SA 4.0 license.
Figure 13: “Breakdown of total economic value” by the author is under a CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
References
Bastein-Olvera, B. A., & Moore, F. C. (2021). Use and non-use value of nature and the social cost of carbon. Nature Sustainability, 4, 101–108. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-020-00615-0
BC Parks. (2022). Paul Lake Provincial Park: Management plan. Government of British Columbia. https://helpshapebc.gov.bc.ca/paul-lake-park-management-planning-project
Boyle, K. J., Kuminoff, N. V., Parmeter, C. F., & Pope, J. C. (2010). The benefit-transfer challenges. Annual Review of Resource Economics, 2, 161–182. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.resource.012809.103933
Brander, L. M., de Groot, R., Guisado Goñi, V., van ‘t Hoff, V., Schägner, P., Solomonides, S., McVittie, A., Eppink, F., Sposato, M., Do, L., Ghermandi, A., and Sinclair, M., Thomas, R., (2023). Ecosystem services valuation database (ESVD). Foundation for Sustainable Development and Brander Environmental Economics. https://www.esvd.net/
Costanza, R., d’Arge, R., de Groot, R., Farber, S., Grasso, M., Hannon, B., Limburg, K., Naeem, S., O’Neill, R. V., Paruelo, J., Raskin, R. G., Sutton, P., & van den Belt, M. (1997). The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature, 387(15), 253–260. https://doi.org/10.1038/387253a0
Data Systems and Services (DataBC). (2016). ParcelMap BC Parcel Fabric. Land Title and Survey Authority of BC – LTSA, Government of British Columbia. https://catalogue.data.gov.bc.ca/dataset/parcelmap-bc-parcel-fabric
Davidson, M. D. (2013). On the relation between ecosystem services, intrinsic value, existence value and economic valuation. Ecological Economics, 95, 171–177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2013.09.002
Government of British Columbia. (n.d.). Climate change. https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/environment/climate-change
Government of Canada. (2010). Water pollution: Causes and effects. https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/water-overview/pollution-causes-effects.html
Government of Canada. (2017). Invasive alien species strategy. https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/biodiversity/invasive-alien-species-strategy.html
Humphreys, M., & Fowkes, A. S. (2006). The significance of indirect use and non-use values in transport appraisal. Rivista Internazionale di Economia dei Transporti / International Journal of Transport Economics, 33(1), 17–35. https://www.jstor.org/stable/42747776
Ignace, M., & Ignace, R. E. (2017). Secwépemc people, land, and laws: Yerí7 re stsq’ey’s-kucw (Vol. 90). McGill-Queen’s University Press.
Johnston, R. J., & Rosenberger, R. S. (2010). Methods, trends and controversies in contemporary benefit transfer. Journal of Economic Surveys, 24(3), 479–510. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6419.2009.00592.x
Kamloops This Week. (2022, March 24). Kamloops history: Looking for Lolo. https://archive.kamloopsthisweek.com/2022/03/24/kamloops-history-looking-for-lolo/
Kamloops Trails. (n.d.b). Paul Lake Provincial Park. https://kamloopstrails.net/trails/paul-lake-provincial-park/
Koppertone. (2019). Paul Lake Provincial Park, British Columbia [Image]. Wikimedia Commons. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Paul_Lake_Provincial_Park,_British_Columbia.jpg
Paul Lake Provincial Park. (2023, January 3). In Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paul_Lake_Provincial_Park&direction=prev&oldid=1151599363
Reynaud, A., & Lanzanova, D. (2017). A global meta-analysis of the value of ecosystem services provided by lakes. Ecological Economics, 137, 184–194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.03.001
Simms, R., Harris, L., Joe, N., & Bakker, K. (2016). Navigating the tensions in collaborative watershed governance: Water governance and Indigenous communities in British Columbia, Canada. Institute for Resources. Geoforum, 73, 6–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2016.04.005
Turner, N. J., Ignace, M. B., & Ignace, R. (2000). Traditional ecological knowledge and wisdom of Aboriginal peoples in British Columbia. Ecological Applications, 10(5), 1275–1287. https://doi.org/10.2307/2641283
Long Descriptions
Figure 2 Long Description: A tree diagram shows the breakdown of total economic value. Starting from the top, Total Economic Value is broken down into Use Value and Non-Use Value. Use Value is broken down into Direct Use Value and Indirect Use Value. For Direct Use, examples include household consumption, livestock consumption, and wildlife consumption. For Indirect Use, examples include flood control, climate regulation, and animal habitat. Back to Non-Use Value, it is broken down into Bequest Value and Existence Value. For Bequest Value, examples include legacy, preservation, and conservation. For Existence Value, examples include aesthetic appreciation, scientific importance, and cultural significance. [Return to Figure 2]
