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 Secwepemc 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 Secwepemc 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 Secwepemc 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.

 

Paul Lake
Figure 12: Paul Lake Provincial Park (Koppertone/Wikimedia Commons) CC BY-SA

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 10 briefly explains the inclusion and exclusion of these ecosystem services in the context of Paul Lake.

Table 10: Importance of Paul Lake Ecosystem Services

Table 10: Importance of Paul Lake Ecosystem Services
Skip Table 10
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 13 shows the general breakdown of total economic value in a tree diagram.

 

A tree diagram breaking down the total economic value of Paul Lake.
Figure 13: Breakdown of total economic value [Long Description]

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 C 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 D 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 1 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 11 provides a summary of all of the results described above.

Table 11: Value of Paul Lake as a Natural Asset

Table 11: Value of Paul Lake as a Natural Asset
Skip Table 11
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 C: Hedonic Benefit Transfer Function of Ecosystem Services

Skip Table C

Table C1: Information on Studies
Skip Table C1
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
Table C2: Characteristics of Study Site
Skip Table C2
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
Table C3: External & Geospatial Variables
Skip Table C3
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
Table C4: Total Recreational Value of Paul Lake
Skip Table C4
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 D: Value of Paul Lake Ecosystem Services

Skip Table D

Table D1: Value of Ecosystem Services — Provisiong (2020 International $/ha/year) 
Skip Table D1
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
Table D2: Value of Ecosystem Services — Habitat (2020 International $/ha/year)
Skip Table D2
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
Table D3: Value of Ecosystem Services — Cultural (2020 International $/ha/year)
Skip Table D3
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
Table D4: Value of Ecosystem Services — Other (2020 International $/ha/year)
Skip Table D4
Ecosystem Service # of Values Average Median Modified Median
Moderation of Extreme Events 2 538 538
Table D5: Total Value of Paul Lake Ecosystem Services (2020 International $/ha/year)
Skip Table D5
Total Average Median Modified Median
Value per year 21,119,472 15,470,568 6,309,256

Note. Adapted from Table 1 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 license.

Figure 13: Breakdown of total economic value by the author is under a CC BY-NC-SA 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 13 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 13]

License

Share This Book