Annual/Termination Reports:

[10/01/2013] [06/01/2014] [06/01/2015] [07/15/2016] [08/21/2017]

Report Information

Participants

Brief Summary of Minutes

W-3133 Business Meeting
The Coeur dAlene Resort, Coeur dAlene, Idaho
Thursday, February 28, 2013
Present: Amy Ando, Kathleen Bell, John Braden, Gerald Fletcher, LeRoy Hansen, Robert Hearne, Steven Hodges, Matthew Interis, Paul Jakus, John Loomis, Frank Lupi, Don McLeod, Klaus Moeltner, Daniel Petrolia, Richard Ready, Randy Rosenberger, Don Snyder, Brent Sohngen, Emi Uchida, Roger Von Haefen, and Matt Winden.
Officers: Kathleen Bell (President), Bob Hearne (Vice-President), Dan Petrolia (Secretary)

1. Don Snyder
a. Don requested that all friends of W-3133 fill out an Appendix E form to establish a formal record of participation, indicating that this would be looked up very favorably.
i. Jerry Fletcher suggested the use of three tiers of participants (members, friends, and acquaintences).
ii. It was then determined that even those participants from non-land-grant institutions can still be considered members (but cannot be elected officers). I.e., any participant can fill out an Appendix E to be a member. Thus, the two tiers of members and friends is sufficient at this time.
iii. These participants need to be send easy-to-follow instructions to encourage them to fill out the Appendix E form.
iv. Roger Von Haefen indicated having difficulties determining membership status. Don indicated that he will check on membership status and Jerry indicated that he will email members as to their status.
b. Don notified the group that the previous 90-day post-meeting period for report submission has been shortened to 60 days.
i. Don indicated that the objectives being worked on is already established on the agenda published by Kathleen for the meeting.
ii. Publications over the past year need to be determined and included.
iii. The Vice-President (Bob Hearne) is responsible for submitting the report.
1. Bob will send out a request for publications and abstracts of meeting presentations.
iv. Don needs to know the groups Impacts/Effects, and will send out information as to what this means. He indicated that much of the needed information is the same as that reported on individual members CRIS reports.
c. Don congratulated Kathleen on having a low-cost meeting this year (relative to past years).
d. Don indicated that three years from now (2016) is when re-chartering work should begin.
e. Dan will input the minutes into the NIMSS system.

2. Kathleen
a. Is done!
b. Congratulations to Kathleen on planning and executing a great meeting.

3. Bob Hearn (incoming President)
a. Nominations for new secretary: Amy Ando nominated and accepted. Winner by acclamation.
i. Amy will be responsible for re-chartering when she assumes the presidency.
b. Next years meeting:
i. Bob is considering sites on the Gulf Coast.
ii. Bob also contacted Dillmans survey group who meets in February in Tucson.

Meeting adjourned at 4:35pm (Pacific Time).

Accomplishments

W-3133: Benefits and Costs of Natural Resources Policies <br /> Affecting Public and Private Lands<br /> <br /> City, county, state and federal governments and agencies as well as non-profit conservation organizations need information on the economic benefits and costs of resource trade-offs they are responsible for managing. In order to assist their decision making, the W-3133 project will address three primary objectives, each of which has associated tasks. These are:<br /> <br /> Objective 1: Land and Water Resource Management in a Changing Environment,<br /> Task 1-1: Economic Analysis of Ag, Forest and Rangeland Resources, Open Space, and WUI Zones, <br /> Task 1-2: Economic Analysis of Natural Hazards (fire, invasive species, climate change);<br /> <br /> Objective 2: Economic Valuation Methods,<br /> Task 2-1: Advances in Stated/Revealed Preference Methods, <br /> Task 2-2: Advances in Benefit Transfer Methods,<br /> Task 2-3: Advances in Spatial/Environmental Nexus;<br /> and <br /> Objective 3: Integrated Ecosystem Services Valuation and Management,<br /> Task 3-1: Economic Analysis of Ecosystem Services Flows,<br /> Task 3-2: Economic Analysis of Recreation Services, <br /> Task 3-3: Economic Analysis of Water Quality. <br /> <br /> ACTIVITIES, OUTPUTS, AND ACCOMPLISHMENTS<br /> <br /> Under Objective 1 (Land and Water Resource Management in a Changing Environment), the following activities, outputs, and accomplishments can be reported.<br /> <br /> 1) Researchers at Oregon State U and the USDA Forest Service developed a model of commercialization of tourism activities. The model was disseminated through conference presentations and publication. <br /> <br /> 2) Researchers at Colorado State U and the USDA Forest Service to estimated how much a person would pay to avoid respiratory symptoms from forest fire smoke associated with wildfires on National Forests in southern California. In cooperation with the City of Fort Collins, Researchers at Colorado State U. completed a study requested on maintaining instream flows of the Poudre River through Fort Collins.<br /> <br /> 3) Researchers at the University of Wyoming: estimated the contribution of environmental amenities to agricultural land values; used experimental economics to assess how subsidy incidence impacts factor markets such as land rental markets; and analyzed the use of conservation easements and their impacts on open space preservation. All of these research activities resulted in publications. <br /> <br /> 4) Researchers at the University of Georgia studied the effects of natural amenities on rural area population migration. Previous studies suggest that significant relationships exist between rural area population growth and the presence of natural amenities. Thus, understanding and predicting domestic migration trends as a function of changes in natural amenities is important for effective regional growth<br /> and development policies and strategies. It is especially important to understand and predict the effects of weather related natural amenity variables which may undergo major variations in the future due to global climate change. In the study, the researchers first estimated an econometric model which showed the effects of natural amenities, such as landscape and weather, on rural population migration patterns in the U.S. between 1990 and 2007. This model was estimated for 2,014 rural counties in the continental U.S. using U.S. Census, USDA Forest Service, Bureau of Economic Analysis, Regional Economic Information System, USDA National Resources Inventory, Bailey's Ecoregion, and other USDA compiled data sets. This model was then used to predict the effects of changes in these variables on rural county net migration and population growth to 2060 under alternative future climate and land use cover projections. Results suggest that people prefer rural areas with mild winters and cooler summers; thus we can expect a direct impact of climate change on population migration when areas associated with these conditions change. For example, we may observe a shift in population migration patterns from the warm and sunny southern U.S. to originally cold northern U.S. regions as temperatures in these regions become warmer (especially in the winter months).<br /> <br /> 5) University of Tennessee researchers analyzed the economic effectiveness of land use policy on private and public lands. Neighborhood spillover effects between rezoning of vacant parcels and housing price were assessed. The findings indicate that the probability of rezoning vacant land is expected to increase as housing price in a neighboring location increases. The rise in the housing price in a neighboring location implies increasing pressure on housing demand. This increased pressure on housing demand likely contributes to greater demands for residential development and commercial development that complements residential use. The finding from this project suggests that different degrees of rezoning pressure are influenced differently by rising housing prices can be used to help update guidelines for rezoning decisions.<br /> <br /> 6) University of Tennessee researchers prepared a case study using cost-benefit analysis to identify priority areas for forest landscape restoration to protect the ridgelines and hillsides in a single county of the southern Appalachian region, which may be applicable to other communities with similar issues. Private and public benefits per dollar spent are estimated for 15 target restoration sites. The results of this study show the potential for increased benefits to the community from reforestation projects, but those benefits can vary greatly depending on a number of factors, including the area of the target reforestation site, the number of houses surrounding the target site, property values, and the proximity of houses to the site. The estimated private, public, and total returns per dollar spent from the second project suggest different levels of effectiveness among the target sites in terms of private, public, and total benefits generated by reforestation. Much of the private benefits fall on those who live close to the site being reforested while public benefits are mainly generated by indirect use values associated with the cleansing of air and water pollutants. Assuming the explicit cost of reforestation is paid by local governments, the sites that generate the highest public return per dollar may be highly prioritized for reforestation for equity purposes. Alternatively, the sites with the highest private return per dollar spent may receive high priority if the payment system allows direct payment for reforestation on private land. In the latter case, if the private return per dollar spent is greater than $1.00, those who potentially gain from reforestation would have economic incentive to gather funds and pay the landowner to plant trees on the ridgeline and/or hillside and not develop the land. This kind of payment system may be possible through a conservation easement program that permits private donations to support the program and restricts the use of the property while ownership remains with the private landowner.<br /> <br /> 7) Utah State University researchers examined how Utah ranchers perceive constraints on their use of future grazing allotments, results were presented to Utah Department of Agriculture and Food (UDAF) personnel.<br /> <br /> 8) Virginia Tech researchers assessed a causal link between wildfire smoke and hospital visits / treatment costs using detailed fire data for the California Sierras and inpatient data for the Reno-Nevada area. Of specific interest is the marginal impact of an additional acre burned by fuel type and distance from the impact area. This will inform fire managing agencies of the benefits of wildfire prevention for areas that have heavy fuel and are located upwind from large population zones. Findings from this research were presented at the 2012 annual meetings of this W2133 Project, and at he 2011 annual meetings of the Agricultural and Applied Economics Association. Findings were also shared with the U.S. Forest Service Rocky Mountains and Southern Research Stations, and the Western Institute for Study of the Environment (W.I.S.E.), a non-profit educational and research facility in Lebanon, Oregon. <br /> <br /> Under, Objective 2 (Economic Valuation Methods), the following activities, outputs, and accomplishments can be reported.<br /> <br /> 1) Virginia Tech researchers examined the potential for inter-activity Benefit Transfer (BT). That is, can knowledge of the benefits (willingness-to-pay, WTP) for time spent on a given recreational activity inform WTP for another, related activity? Understanding and exploiting such links would greatly enhance the efficiency with which aggregate recreation data can be used to predict activity-specific outcomes. The concept of cross-activity BT is completely novel, but holds much promise. Findings from this research were presented at the 2011 annual meetings of this W2133 Project, at the 2012 Annual Meetings of the European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, and at the Department of Statistics at Virginia Tech.<br /> <br /> 2) At the request of USGS, a pilot economic study was conducted by Colorado State University researchers on the economic values of Landsat imagery to federal, state, county, non-profits and private companies was completed. This study demonstrated that the contingent valuation method of non-market valuation could be applied to value this publicly provided product. This study received such a high level of policy relevance that the go ahead for the full study was given to provide generalizable results. USGS and CSU has made a briefing to USGS officials in charge of the Landsat program. A briefing for U.S. Department of Interior officials is planned. The preliminary results of the full survey were presented at a workshop in Colorado.<br /> <br /> 3) With funding provided by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Colorado State University researchers developed and evaluated the performance of a visitor use estimating model. This model used data from the USDA Forest Service. The study became the basis for a student's Master's Thesis and a report provided to BLM. The BLM intends to use this model to reduce the amount of on-site visitor data collection required each year.<br /> University of Rhode Island researchers conducted a literature review on ways to measure demand for ES to assess public values and priorities. The research team met with USDA/NRCS and Providence Water to discuss potential issue regarding water quality in northern Rhode Island as study area for market experiments. We held focus groups with livestock owners and residents of northern Rhode Island to understand manure management and peoples preferences for water quality.<br /> <br /> Under Objective 3 (Integrated Ecosystem Services Valuation and Management), the following activities, outputs, and accomplishments can be reported.<br /> <br /> 1) Oregon State U and USDA Forest Service researchers developed and synthesized of valuation information on economic effects of forest pests. Outputs were disseminated through workshops and publication. <br /> <br /> 2) Research at Michigan State University included analysis of stated choice data for ecosystem mitigation; water pricing for water conservation and the protection of ecosystem services; implementation of a survey of the public's willingness to pay to supply enhanced ecosystem services from agricultural lands through the adoption of low-input practices; evaluation of private financial liabilities from the development of energy resources; the development of hedonic models for the valuation of timber resources within a ecological-economic model of ecosystem service provision from Michigan forests; the development of travel cost valuation models for valuing beaches, beach access, the damages from beach closures on the Great Lakes; the development and analysis of state preference surveys for recycling and energy options at MSU; implementation of a meta-analysis of willingness to pay elasticities for residential water supply; and research on valuing public access to hunting areas for species such as deer and small game. Presentations were given on these topics at the annual meeting of the Agricultural and Applied Economics Association. The researchers completed technical and non-technical reports on the feasibility of region-to-region benefit transfers for national policies<br /> <br /> 3) At the request of, and with funding from, the State of Utah Department of Environmental Quality, researchers from Colorado State University, Utah State University and University of Wyoming, completed a study on the economic benefits of improving water quality in Utah to visitors and the general public. This information will be used by the State of Utah to prioritize which water bodies to clean up and the degree of clean up to meet USEPA nutrient reduction targets. Data analysis is complete. <br /> <br /> 4) Economic benefits of fish stocking at several Colorado State Parks, other public and private lands in Colorado and California were quantified by researchers at Colorado State U. Reports for each State Park were sent to the respective managers, and to Division of Wildlife. Two journal articles were published.<br /> <br /> 5) University of Rhode Island researchers quantified hydrological ecosystem services in Rhode Island: As part of a USDA-funded project, we modeled the Regulating Watershed in RI using the SWAT (Soil and Water Assessment Tool) model. The model was calibrated using historical stream flow data from USGS gages and to the tails of distribution to the observed data. The outputs from the SWAT model (e.g., water flow, phosphorus loading) were then converted to indicators of ecosystem services such as indicators for environmental flow, flood risk, and trophic state index. Researchers then developed several land use change scenarios and simulated changes in ecosystem services and tradeoffs among them. <br /> <br /> 6) University of Rhode Island researchers conducted a literature review to address implementing climate change model outputs with SWAT; compiled a database of GCM runs from the CGCM+CCSM regional climate change model and output from the CGCM 3.1 T.47 downscaled climate model; assessed climate-model output against observed time series using interpolated NCEP data. We developed seven alternative scenarios based the changes in land use, land management and climate change; simulated the impacts of these scenarios for the Beaver River watershed. <br /> <br /> 7) University of Rhode Island researchers examined the tradeoffs across ecosystem services in the Beaver River watershed at the subbasin level by capitalizing on the heterogeneity in producing ES. Cross-scenario tradeoffs were investigated using scatter plots of pair wise comparison of provisional ES (biomass yield) vs. hydrological ES. Spatial tradeoffs were examined using a mapping approach to visualize heterogeneity across space in provision of ES within watershed.<br /> <br /> 8) University of Rhode Island researchers conducted a literature review on optimization algorithms and their applications; constructed conceptual framework and flow chart for the optimization; attended Matlab training. The team cataloged farm management practices pertinent to protecting water quality, the costs of each practice, and associated changes in nutrient emissions at the farm level.<br /> <br /> 9) University of Rhode Island researchers initiated a new research to model land use change in Rhode Island, focusing on the conversion of farmland and forestland to residential and commercial use. Conducted extensive literature review and data compilation.<br /> <br /> 10) North Dakota State University researchers developed a spatial optimized transportation mode l to assess the feasibility of treatment and recycling of fracking flowback water in the Bakken area of western North Dakota. <br />

Publications

PUBLICATIONS<br /> <br /> Adanu, K., and J.P. Hoehn, 2012, Voter Decisions on Eminent Domain and Police Power Reforms, Journal of Housing Economics, 21 (2) 1987-194.<br /> <br /> Cropper, E. D., D. M. McLeod, C. T. Bastian, C. M. Keske, D. L. Hoag, and J. E. Cross. Factors Affecting Land Trust Agents Preferences for Conservation Easements, Journal of Regional Analysis and Policy. 42,2(2012): 88-103. Lead Article. Special issue on market-based environmental management.<br /> <br /> Chadourne, M.H., S. Cho, and R.K. Roberts. 2012. Identifying Priority Areas for Forest Landscape Restoration to Protect Ridgelines and Hillsides: A Cost-Benefit Analysis. Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics 60: 275-294.<br /> <br /> Chen, X., Lupi, F., An, L., Sheely, R., Vina, A., and Liu, J. 2012. Agent-based Modeling of the Effects of Social Norms on Enrollment in Payments for Ecosystem Services. Ecological Modelling 229 16-24.<br /> <br /> Cho, S., J. Kim, R.K. Roberts, and S.G. Kim. 2012. Neighborhood spillover effects between rezoning and housing price Annals of Regional Science 48:301-319.<br /> <br /> Deisenroth, D., C. Bond and J. Loomis. 2012. The Economic Contribution of the Private Recreation-Based Aquaculture Industry in the Western United States. Aquaculture Economics and Management 16:1-21. 2012.<br /> <br /> Ham, C., P. Champ, J. Loomis and R. Reich. 2012. Accounting for Heterogeneity of Public Lands in Hedonic Property Models. Land Economics 88(3): 444-456.<br /> <br /> <br /> Kaplowitz, M., Lupi, F., and Arrello, O. 2012. Local Markets for Payments for Environmental Services: Can Small Rural Communities Self-Finance Watershed Protection? Water Resources Management 26 (13) 3689-3704.<br /> <br /> Kaplowitz, M., and Lupi, F. 2012. Stakeholder Preferences for Best Management Practices for Non-Point Source Pollution and Stormwater Control. Landscape and Urban Planning 104 364-372. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2011.11.013.<br /> <br /> Kaplowitz, M., Lupi, F., Couper, M., and Thorp, L. 2012. The Effect of Invitation Design on Web Survey Response Rates. Social Science Computer Review 30(3) 339-349. doi: doi:10.1177/0894439311419084.<br /> <br /> Kasberg, K. 2012. An Econometric Model of Determinants of Visitor Use on Western National Forests. MS Thesis, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Colorado State University.<br /> <br /> Keeler, B., S. Polasky, K. Brauman, K. Johnson, J. Finlay, A. ONeill, K. Kovacs, B. Dalzell. 2012. Linking water quality and well-being for improved assessment and valuation of ecosystem services, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(45): 18619-18624. <br /> <br /> Keeler, B., S. Polasky, K. Brauman, K. Johnson, J. Finlay, A. ONeill, K. Kovacs, B. Dalzell. 2012. Linking water quality and well-being for improved assessment and valuation of ecosystem services, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(45): 18619-18624. <br /> <br /> Knoche, S., and Lupi, F. 2012. April, 2011 The Economic Value of Publicly Accessible Deer Hunting Land. Journal of Wildlife Management 76(3) 462-470. doi: DOl: 10.1002~wmg.302.<br /> <br /> Kochi, I., P. Champ, J. Loomis, and G. Donovan. 2012.Valuing Mortality Impacts of Smoke Exposure from Major Southern California Wildfires. Journal of Forest Economics 18: 61-75.<br /> <br /> Kobayashi, M., K. Moeltner, K. Rollins, (2012). Latent Thresholds Analysis of Choice Data under Value Uncertainty. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 94(1), p. 189-208<br /> <br /> Kovacs, K. 2012. Integrating Property Value and Local Recreation Models to Value Ecosystem Services from Regional Parks. Landscape and Urban Planning, 108(2), 79-90.<br /> <br /> Lieske, S. D. McLeod, R. Coupal and S. Srivastava. 2012. Determining the relationship between urban form and the costs of public services. Environment and Planning B 39:155-73.<br /> <br /> Loomis, J. 2012. Ways to Make Stated Preference Methods more Valuable to Public Land Managers. Western Economic Forum 9 (1): 22-29.<br /> <br /> Loomis, J. and K. Ng. 2012. Comparing Economic Values of Trout Anglers and Nontrout Anglers in Colorado's Stocked Public Reservoirs. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 32: 202-210.<br /> <br /> Loomis, J., 2012. Comparing Household's Total Economic Values and Recreation Value of Instream Flow in an Urban River. Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy 1(1): 5-17. 2012.<br /> <br /> Loomis, J. and C. Keske. 2012. Did the Great Recession Reduce Visitor Spending and Willingness to Pay for Nature-Based Recreation: Evidence from 2006 and 2009. Contemporary Economic Policy. 30(2):238-246.<br /> <br /> McKenzie, Emily and Amy Rosenthal, Joey Bernhardt, Evan Girvetz, Kent Kovacs, Nasser Olwero, Jodie Toft. Developing scenarios to assess ecosystem service tradeoffs: Guidance and experiences using InVEST, with Prepared for the Natural Capital Project, 2012.<br /> <br /> Ma, S., Swinton, S., Lupi, F., and Jolejole-Foreman, C. 2012. Farmers' Willingness to Participate in Payment-for Environmental-Services Programs. Journal of Agricultural Economics 63 (3) 604-626. doi: 10.1111/j.1477-9552.2012.00358.x.<br /> <br /> McGaffin, Graham H., Donald M. McLeod, Christopher T. Bastian, Catherine M. Keske, Dana L. Hoag. Wyoming Landowners Characteristics and Preferences Regarding Conservation Easements: Results from a Survey, Bulletin B-1241. Cooperative Extension Service, College of Agriculture and Natural Resources, University of Wyoming, Laramie. March, 2013. pp: 1-19. <br /> <br /> McGaffin, G., D. McLeod, C. Bastian, C. Keske, and D. Hoag. 2012. Landowner Preferences or Conservation Easements: A Comparison of Responses from two Intermountain States. Journal of Farm Managers and Rural Appraisers June 13, 2012. http://www.asfmra.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/370_McLeod.pdf<br /> <br /> Nagler, A. M., D. J. Menkhaus, C. T. Bastian, M. Ehmke, and K. T. Coatney. Subsidy Incidence in Factor Markets: An Experimental Approach, Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 45,1(February 2013): 17-33.<br /> <br /> Polasky, S., K. Johnson, B. Keeler, K. Kovacs, E. Nelson, D. Pennington, A. Plantinga, J. Withey. 2012. Are investments to promote biodiversity conservation and ecosystem services aligned? Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 28(1): 139-163.<br /> <br /> Richardson, L., P. Champ and J. Loomis. 2012. The Hidden Costs of Wildfires: Economic Valuation of Health Effects of Wildfire Smoke Exposure in Southern California. Journal of Forest Economics, 18: 14-35.<br /> <br /> Rideout, D., J. Loomis, P. Ziesler and Y. Wei. Comparing Fire Protection and Improvement Values at Four Major US National Parks and Assessing Potential for Generalized Value Categories. 2012. International Journal of Safety and Security Engineering 2(1): 1-12.<br /> <br /> Ritten, J. P., C. T. Bastian, and B. S. Rashford. Profitability of Carbon Sequestration in Western Rangelands of the United States, Rangeland Ecology and Management. 65,4 (2012): 340-350.<br /> <br /> Rosenberger, R.S., Needham, M.D., Morzillo, A.T., Moehrke, C. 2012. Attitudes, willingness to pay, and stated values for recreation use fees at an urban proximate forest. Journal of Forest Economics 18:271-281.<br /> <br /> Rosenberger, R.S., L.A. Bell, P.A. Champ and E.L. Smith. 2012. Nonmarket Economic Values of Forest Insect Pests: An Updated Literature Review. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-275. Fort Collins, CO: US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 46p.<br /> <br /> U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Future of America's Forests and Rangelands. General Technical Report WO-87, U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Washington, D.C., August 2012. Contribution by U of Georgia researchers<br /> <br /> Wasson, J., D. M. McLeod, C. T. Bastian and B. S. Rashford. The Effects of Environmental Amenities on Agricultural Land Values, Land Economics. (Currently in press).<br /> <br /> Yoder, Jonathan & Krista Gebert. 2012. An Econometric Model for ex ante prediction of wildfire suppression costs. Journal of Forest Economics 18(1):76-89. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jfe.2011.10.003.<br /> <br /> Yoder, Jonathan. 2012. Fuel for the fire: Liability and the economics of wildfire risk. Chapter 3 in Wildfire: Economics, Law & Policy, Dean Lueck & Karen M. Bradshaw, Eds. RFF Press. Taylor & Francis. http://routledge-ny.com/books/details/9781933115955/.<br /> <br /> Zegre, S.J., Needham, M.D., Kruger, L E., & Rosenberger, R.S. 2012. McDonaldization and commercial outdoor recreation and tourism in Alaska. Managing Leisure 17(4):333-348.<br /> <br />

Impact Statements

1. The primary impact these scientists will develop will be of value to policy makers by informing their decisions. Under "Land and Water Resource Management in a Changing Environment," scientists have provided new information to policy makers regarding the effects of climate change on fires, agricultural lands, open space, carbon sequestration, and a host of other areas that may be impacted.
2. Under "Economic Valuation Methods," new methods of estimating nonmarket values have been developed to measure the impacts of air pollution from fire, trout versus warm water species, recreational fishing, etc. Much of this work involved meta-data analysis where data from a large number of studies is examined to identify similarities and differences.
3. Under "Integrated Ecosystem Services Valuation and Management," scientists have helped prioritize water cleanup consistent with EPA nutrient requirements, helped farmers identify least-cost manure management practices, and assisted policy makers in a myriad of other ways.

Back to top

Report Information

Participants

Amy Ando, University of Illinois
Kate Silz Carson, US Air Force Academy
Frank Casey, US Geological Survey
Sahan Dissanayake, Colby College
Benjamin Gramig, Purdue University
Robert Hearne, North Dakota State University
Steven Hodges, Virginia Tech
Joonghyun Hwang, Mississippi State University
Matthew Interis, Mississippi State University
Paul Jakus, Utah State University
Maya Jarrad, Reed College RJohnston@clarku.edu
Michael Kaplowitz, Michigan State University
David Lewis, Oregon State University
Lynne Lewis, Bates College llewis@bates.edu
John Loomis, Colorado State University
Frank Lupi, Michigan State University
Dale Manning, Colorado State University
Donald McLeod, University of Wyoming
Nathaniel H. Merrill, University of Rhode Island
Klaus Moeltner, Virginia Tech
Julie Mueller, Northern Arizona University
Noelwah Netusil, Reed College
Jerrod Penn, University of Kentucky
Gregory Poe, Cornell University
Richard Ready, Pennsylvania State University
Kim Rollins, University of Nevada - Reno
Olesya Savchenko, University of Illinois
W. Douglass Shaw, Texas A&M
J. Scott Shonkwiler, University of Georgia

Brief Summary of Minutes

2014 W3133 Business Meeting

February 20, 2014

MINUTES

1) Project Updates

Members discussed work that has been done on the project, and agreed there is value in preparing for the rechartering of the project in advance. To that end, the following efforts will be made:

1. a) Circulate a pdf of the original rechartering document, and have each person report on what they have done towards the project goals.


2. b) Make sure that the tradition of having the agenda organized by objective is continued, and that agendas are saved.


3. c) Add information to agendas about additional collaborators on papers who aren’t necessarily coauthors.


4. d) Highlight cross-institution collaboration on agendas.

2) W3133 Officers

1. a) President

Daniel Petrolia (Mississippi State University, petrolia@agecon.msstate.edu), acting Vice President of W3133, will assume Presidential Duties at the close of the Business Meeting, B.

1. b) Vice-President and Secretary

Amy Ando (University of Illinois, amyando@illinois.edu), current Secretary of W3133, was nominated to assume Vice-Presidential Duties at the close of said meeting. Julie Mueller (Northern Arizona University, julie.mueller@nau.edu) was nominated to serve Secretary of W3133. W3133 members unanimously expressed their support of these nominations.

3) Location and Date of 2015 Meeting

Recommendations for locations of next year’s meeting were made and discussed. Possibilities include New Orleans, Dustin FL, Chattanooga TN, and Point Clear AL. A straw poll was taken to inform the president in the process of making a final decision.

4) Miscellaneous Topics

No other topics were raised.

5) Adjourn

The meeting was adjourned.

 

Papers and Selected Abstracts presented at annual meeting (presenter indicated with *)

1) Impact of Asian Carp on Recreational Fishing Participation

Truong Chau and Richard Ready* (Penn State Univ.)

W3133 Objective 1

Abstract:

Asian Carp were introduced to the United States in the 1970s to control algae growth in aquaculture ponds. They escaped and have gradually spread up the Mississippi River System. They are notable because of their high biomass in some river systems, and for the habit of one species (the Silver Carp) to jump in the air when disturbed by passing boats, occasionally causing injury to boat occupants. We provide an empirical study on the potential impact of Asian Carp on recreational fishing participation, as measured by fishing license sales. Using a Difference-in-Difference approach, we find that the presence of Asian Carp decreases fishing license sales by up to nine percent. This effect is statistically significant when using the standard D-in-D modeling approach, but is not statistically significant when a circular double bootstrap method is used to simulate distributions for parameters.

2) The Effect of Public Land Ownership and Management on County-Level Economic Vitality in the Intermountain West

Paul M. Jakus* (Utah State Univ.), Therese C. Grijalva (Weber State Univ.), and Lassina Coulibaly (Utah State Univ.)

W3133 Objective 1

3) Regionalization of grain production in the Mid-Atlantic region: Geospatial analysis of potential impacts on ecosystem services

Steven Hodges*, Ioannis Kokkinidis, and Pat Donovan (Virginia Tech University)

W3133 Objective 2

4) Controlling the Risk of Cyanobacteria Blooms

Nathaniel H. Merrill*, James Opaluch (Univ. of Rhode Island)

W3133 Objective 1

Abstract: This paper examines the problem of protecting receiving waters from cyanobacteria blooms stimulated by excess nutrients. Cyanobacteria populations can rapidly proliferate when conditions are favorable, creating extensive blooms dominated by a single (or a few) species. Some varieties of cyanobacteria release toxins harmful to ecosystems and humans. Cyanobacteria blooms are challenging to address because they are episodic in nature, highly patchy and difficult to predict, as they depend upon the confluence of a set of factors (e.g., US EPA 2012). Phosphorus is the primary limiting nutrient for cyanobacteria, in part because many are capable of fixing nitrogen from the atmosphere. Phosphorus loads to water bodies are primarily mediated by eroded soil moving in surface runoff (e.g., Morgan, 2001). As a consequence, extreme precipitation events are highly influential in determining transport of phosphorus to water bodies, and hence contributing to conditions favorable to cyanobacteria blooms. This means control efforts focused on mean phosphorus concentrations alone may be ineffective in controlling risk, and indeed measures of mean loads can potentially be misleading indicators of risk, especially give the highly episodic nature of blooms (e.g., Lathrop et al, 1998). Rather, policy within this uncertain context must be effective in controlling phosphorus transport in extreme precipitation events that lie in the tails of the probability distribution. This could be of increasing concern in coming decades, as there are expectations that climate change will result in an increase in high intensity precipitation events (IPCC, 2007, Section 10.3.6.1; Meehl et al, 2005; IPCC 2012; Kunkel et al, 2013).

We examine cost-effective strategies for achieving risk-based safety goals that are based on the probability mass in the upper tail of the distribution of phosphorus loads, which is disproportionately influential in supporting cyanobacteria blooms. We hypothesize that management based on controlling the upper tail of the probability distribution of phosphorus loading implies different efficient management actions, as compared to controlling mean loading. We use the Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) to estimate phosphorus loads and concentrations in the receiving water bodies. SWAT is used to construct a response surface for phosphorus concentrations under different combinations of Best Management Practices. Then we use Matlab’s Global Optimization Toolbox’s Genetic Algorithm (GA) integer optimization routine to find least cost BMPs for achieving probabilistic constraints on phosphorus. Our results confirm the hypothesis that probabilistic constraints lead to different cost-efficient BMPs than do constraints on mean phosphorus concentrations. We apply SWAT with simulated rainfall, which allows us to modify the probability distribution on rainfall (hence phosphorus loads) to simulate scenarios that are representative of expectations for future precipitation patterns in the region under climate change. Climate forecasts for the Northeast region are for somewhat more rainfall overall, but with a larger fraction of rain falling in extreme precipitation events and with longer dry spells in between (e.g., IPCC 2007; IPCC 2012). This could make control of cyanobacteria blooms even more challenging, as it implies a larger probability mass in the tails of the distribution where cyanobacteria blooms are likely to be supported.

References

Davison, P, M. G. Hutchins, S. G. Anthony, M Betson, C. Johnson and E. I . Lord, 2005. “The Relationship between Potentially Erosive Storm Energy and Daily Rainfall Quantity in England and Wales” Science of the Total Environment Vol. 344, pp 15– 25.

Geng S, W.T Frits, P. de Vries, I. Supit, 1986. “A Simple Method for Generating Daily Rainfall Data”, Agricultural and Forest Meteorology Vol. 36 pp 363– 76.

Forbes, Catherine, Merran Evans, Nicholas Hastings, and Brian Peacock, 2010. Statistical Distributions, Wiley Press.

Hudnell, H. Kenneth, 2008. Cyanobacterial Harmful Algal Blooms: State of the Science and Research Needs, Springer.

IPCC, 2007. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Edited by S.D. Solomon, Q.M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M Tigor and H,L. Miller, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA.

IPCC, 2012. “Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation” Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 582 pp. A Special Report of Working Groups I and II of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Edited by C.B. Field, V. Barros, T.F. Stocker, D. Qin, D.J. Dokken, K.L Ebi, M.D. Mastrandrea, K.J. Mach,

G-K Plattner, S.K. Allen, M. Tigor, and P. M. Midgley. 582 pp. Cambrindge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York NY, USA.

Karl, Thomas R., Jerry M. Melillo and Thomas C. Peterson, 2009. Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States, Cambridge University Press 188 pp.

Kunkel, Kenneth E., Thomas R. Karl, David R. Easterling, Kelly Redmond, John Young, Xungang Yin, and Paula Hennon, 2013. “Probably Maximum Precipitation and Climate Change”, Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 40 No. 7, pp 1402 – 1408. DOI: 10.102/grl.50334.

Lathrop, Richard C. Stephen R. Carpenter, Craig A. Stow, Patricia A. Soranno and John C. Panuska, 1998. “Phosphorus Loading Reductions Needed to Control Blue-Green Algal Blooms in Lake Mendota” Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science, Vol. 55 pp 1169- 1178.

Meehl, Gerald A., Julie M. Arblaster, and Claudia Tebaldi, 2005. “Understanding Future Patterns of Increased Precipitation Intensity in Climate Model Simulations” Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 32, L18719.

Morgan RPC., 2001. “A Simple Approach to Soil Loss Prediction: A Revised Morgan–Morgan– Finney Model”. Catena . Vol. 44 pp 305–22.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2012. Cyanobacteria and Cyanotoxins: Information for Drinking Water Systems U.S. EPA Office of Water 4304T EPA-810F11001 July, 2012

5) Characterizing Multi-Scale Spatial Pattern in Nonuse Willingness to Pay: Applicatios to Threatened and Endangered Marine Species

Robert J. Johnston* (Clark Univ.), Daniel Jarvis, Kristy WAllmo, and Daniel K. Lew

W3133 Objective 2

6) Investigating Spatial Effects in Willingness to Pay for Forested Watershed Restoration

Julie M. Mueller* (Northern Arizona University)

W3133 Objective 2

Abstract: While the relationship between ecological restoration and forested watershed health is well established in the literature, funding for restoration remains a significant constraint. Thus, estimates of the benefits of restoration are essential for efficient decision-making. While much research exists estimating the non-market value of wildfire, less research exists estimating the value of forested watershed restoration, and no studies explicitly model Willingness to Pay (WTP) for forested watershed restoration using a spatial probit. We estimate WTP for forested municipal watershed restoration in Flagstaff, AZ, located in an arid region of the southwestern United States. We find policy-relevant differences in estimated WTP when taking into account spatial spillovers. Our results indicate that careful consideration of the spatial dimension of WTP data may be necessary to ensure accurate WTP estimates from dichotomous choice CV models.

7) Single, Repeated, and Simultaneous Best-Worst Elicitation Formats:  Do They Yield the Same Results?

Daniel R. Petrolia, Joonghyun Hwang*, Matthew G. Interis (Mississippi State Univ.)

W-3133 Objective 2

Abstract: We conducted a split-sample choice experiment in Summer 2013, via GfK Custom Research, on a sample of households in five Gulf Coast states. The objective of focus here was to test for differences in responses among single, repeated, and “simultaneous” best-worst elicitation formats. The single choice format presented respondents with a single three-alternative choice set and elicited their most preferred alternative. The repeated choice format presented respondents with four three-alternative choice sets and elicited their most preferred alternative in each choice set. The simultaneous best-worst elicitation format presented respondents with a single three-alternative choice set and elicited, simultaneously, their most and least preferred alternatives. The literature tends to favor the repeated choice format because it yields more information (i.e., responses) per respondent, thus representing a potentially large cost savings.

However, the literature has shown the repeated choice format to suffer from a variety of problems, such as status-quo bias and strategic bias, which can result in biases in welfare estimates. The best-worst elicitation method has recently been introduced into the literature as a format that collects additional information but in a way that is easy for respondents to follow. The main difference between the best-worst elicitation format found in the literature and the one used here is that the one in the literature generally maintains the repeated choice format, presenting respondents with a sequence of choice sets that decrease in the number of alternatives until a full ranking of all alternatives is achieved. In this survey, we use a single question that elicits the best and worst choice simultaneously. We do so to mimic as closely as possible the single choice format and so avoid the potential biases associated with repeated choice. Because our choice sets contain just three alternatives, a full ranking can be obtained in a single question. Responses to each best-worst elicitation question are then re-formatted into two independent choice sets using rank-order explosion. Thus, the single choice format should yield the least information, but avoid the potential biases associated with repeated choice; the repeated choice format should yield the most information but suffer from potential biases; and the best-worst elicitation format should yield an amount of information in between the others, but potentially avoid the biases of repeated choice. The best-worst format may, however, suffer from its own unique biases, which we attempt to uncover here. We test for differences in attribute parameter estimates, WTP, status-quo/action bias, attribute attendance, adherence to the IIA property, and scale.

8) Analyzing Choice Experiment Data in Preference Space vs Willingness-to-Pay Space: Examples from three studies 

T. M. Dissanayake* (Colby College and Portland State Univ.)

W-3133 objective: 2

Abstract: Recent work on estimating the willingness to pay (WTP) from choice experiments surveys have highlighted that estimating the model in preference space (standard linear random utility model) and calculating the WTP by dividing the coefficient estimate of an attribute by the coefficient estimate from the cost term can result in WTP distributions that are structurally incorrect. Specifically Train and Weeks (2005), Scarpa, Thiene and Train (2008), Daly, Hess and Train (2012) and Hole and Kolstad (2012) show that ratios of coefficients can have infinite variances and therefore an estimator compromising of a ratio of coefficients may not have finite moments. An alternative approach is to reformulate the estimation equations from preference space to WTP space which allow the direct estimation WTP. In this paper I compare the estimation of WTP in both preference space and WTP space using data from three different choice experiment studies. The studies come from a variety of applications and geographical locations; specifically preferences for riparian ecosystem services in Oregon, preferences for grasslands in Illinois, and preferences for REDD+ (reducing emissions from deforestation and degradation) contracts in Ethiopia and in Nepal. Preliminary results show that the differences in WTP between estimates arrived at using preference space compared to estimates arrived at using WTP space are a function of the specific distributions used for the random coefficients and also the sample size. Preliminary results from these studies do not show an advantage for estimating the WTP in WTP space results.

References:

Daly, A., Hess, S., and Train, K. (2012). Assuring finite moments for willingness to pay in random coefficient models. Transportation, 39(1), 19-31.

Hole, A. R., & Kolstad, J. R. (2012). Mixed logit estimation of willingness to pay distributions: a comparison of models in preference and WTP space using data from a health-related choice experiment. Empirical Economics, 42(2), 445-469.

Scarpa, R., Thiene, M. and Train, K. (2008). Utility in willingness to pay space: A tool to address confounding random scale effects in destination choice to the Alps. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 90, 94-1010.

Train, K., and Weeks, M. (2005). Discrete choice models in preference space and willingness-to-pay space (pp. 1-16). Springer Netherlands.

9) Ecosystem Services Valuation: Does it Matter Which Ecosystem Provides the Services?

Matt Interis* and Dan Petrolia (Mississippi State Univ.)

W3133 Objective: 3

Abstract: We estimate the value of four ecosystem services – water quality improvement, fisheries support, flood protection, and bird habitat – provided by three distinct habitat types found along the northern coast of the Gulf of Mexico: oyster reefs, mangroves, and salt marsh. Values are estimated based on survey respondents’ stated hypothetical willingness to pay a one-time state tax to fund a program to construct additional acres of these habitats in either of two different geographical regions: Barataria-Terrebonne Estuary, Louisiana, and Mobile Bay, Alabama. Each program proposes to construct 1500 acres of a particular habitat. By comparing value estimates across these two locations we can examine the extent to which service values differ across proposed programs of identical size and types of services delivered but which differ only in terms of geographical location and population sampled. While other studies have compared ecosystem service value estimates across locations, ours is the first that we know of to be conducted in the Gulf of Mexico Region. In addition, we examine whether value estimates for ecosystem services differ depending upon the habitat providing the services. Each habitat we examine provides, to varying degrees, each ecosystem service we examine. As far as we know, ours is the first study to examine whether ecosystem service value estimates differ by providing habitat. We find that ecosystem service values do differ across both location and habitat. We find that ecosystem service value estimates for the same habitat types (both for oyster reef and salt marsh) differ substantially between these two locations, up to three times greater in one than the other, depending on the specific service. Additionally, we find that ecosystem service value estimates can differ dramatically when presented to respondents as being provided by one type of habitat compared to another, even when the geographic location of the proposed project is held constant. These findings highlight the importance of context – population, location, and habitat type – in ecosystem service valuation, and makes clear the need for care to be taken when transferring value estimates from one location – even over the same habitat type – to another, or from one habitat type – even in the same location – to another, such as is done with benefits transfer methods.

10) Distinguishing Preferences from Expectations when Valuing Salient Ecosystem Services

David J. Lewis* (Oregon State Univ.), Bill Provencher (Univ. of Wisconsin-Madison, and Ben Beardmore (Univ. of Wisconsin –Madison)

W-3133 objectives: 1, 2 and 3

Abstract: Natural ecosystems provide many services that are valued by people, though these ecosystem services vary in their saliency to those who benefit from their provision. For example, biological diversity promotes the resiliency of natural ecosystems (Tillman 1996), though the stability of natural systems is not a salient concept to non-scientists. In contrast, aquatic systems provide fish to populations whose magnitude and age structure are extremely salient to recreational anglers. When valuing changes to salient ecosystem services, stated preference analysts face the challenge that respondents may have both expectations and preference over the services they are asked to value. While many surveys simply tell respondents the level of the ecosystem service both with and without some environmental program, this approach will not be appropriate for respondents whose baseline expectations of the service differ from what the researcher states. A respondent’s low willingness-to-pay to prevent an environmental shock could arise from preferences or from an expectation that the shock is unlikely to occur. Evidence of well-formed and heterogeneous baseline expectations have been found in stated preference analyses of aquatic species invasions (Provencher et al. 2012), land development (Papenfus 2011), and climate change mitigation (Lee and Cameron 2008; Cai et al. 2010). Failure to distinguish baseline expectations of ecosystem services from preferences greatly limits the applicability of the analysis because the researcher can only value the program developed in the stated preference scenario, and not the underlying service that is the focus of the program. This paper makes multiple contributions to the problem of distinguishing expectations from preferences when valuing salient ecosystem services. We incorporate expectations by using surveys that explicitly query respondent expectations of baseline ecosystem service changes. First, we develop several extensions that generalize Provencher et al.’s (2012) structural method of valuing binary shocks to ecosystem services when respondents have heterogeneous baseline expectations. We apply the extensions to new survey data and estimate the loss to a set of Wisconsin recreational boaters from Eurasian milfoil invasions of freshwater lakes– a binary ecosystem shock. Since boaters generally do not expect their favorite lakes to be invaded with certainty in the absence of any Milfoil prevention program, their willingness-to-pay for the Milfoil prevention program itself is almost forty percent lower than our estimated $97 welfare loss from a certain species invasion. Second, we consider the considerable challenge of disentangling expectations from preferences in analyses of continuous ecosystem shocks. Using an application that estimates Wisconsin lakeshore property owners’ willingness-to-pay for a fish restoration program – a continuous ecosystem shock – we find that welfare estimates strongly depend on respondents’ stated expectations of future fish populations and range from $99 to $229 per year. Our results show that separately estimating willingness-to-pay across groups of respondent expectations generates substantially different estimates than the more parametric approach of simply including reduced-form expectation measures as right-hand side variables.

References

Cai, B., Cameron, T.A., and G.R. Gerdes. 2010. “Distributional preferences and the incidence of costs and benefits in climate change policy.” Environmental and Resource Economics, 46(4):429-458.

Lee, J.J., and T.A. Cameron. 2008. “Popular support for climate change mitigation: Evidence from a general population mail survey.” Environmental and Resource Economics, 41(2): 223- 248.

Papenfus, M.M. 2009. “Environmental zoning, development moratoriums, and natural amenities: Using nonmarket valuation to improve management of Wisconsin’s north temperate lakes.” Unpublished PhD Dissertation, Environmental Studies-Land Resources, University of Wisconsin-Madison.

Provencher, B., Lewis, D.J., and K. Anderson. 2012. “Disentangling preferences and expectations in stated preference analysis with respondent uncertainty: The case of invasive species prevention.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 64: 169-182.

Tilman, D. 1996. “Biodiversity: Population versus ecosystem stability.” Ecology, 77(2): 350- 363.

11) Principles to Guide Assessments of Ecosystem Service Values: Technical Challenges

Ervin (Portland State Univ.), S. Vickerman (Defenders of Wildlife), F. Casey (USGS)*, S. Dissanayake (Colby College), John Loomis (Colorado State Univ)

W-3133 objectives: 2 and 3

Abstract: Myriad assessments of the value(s) of ecosystem services (ES) are being conducted by public and private organizations. However, the analyses vary in their coverage of effects and the rigor of assessing values. Inconsistent and uneven quality can jeopardize the long-term credibility of ES valuations and diminish their influence in policy circles. The development of common principles based in science to guide ES values assessments could minimize this risk. This is especially important to the federal agencies tasked with implementing the recommendations of the PCAST report. This paper presents findings from an interdisciplinary workshop convened to develop such a set of principles. Thirty scientists and practitioners participated in a facilitated process that produced remarkable alignment on a set of draft principles, which were then subjected to a broader national review. The principles are included at the end of this abstract. The principles have been vetted at multiple briefings in Washington DC and received favorable feedback at high policy levels. The national review included comments from the Office of Science and Technology Policy’s Sub-committee on Ecological Systems, the federal agency assigned to implementing the recommendations of the PCAST report. However, several technical challenges await economists and other scientists in implementing the principles. The primary purpose of this session would be to solicit input and advice from W3133 economists working in nonmarket valuation to help refine the principles, generate ideas, and set up a process on how to best address the following technical challenges: (1) Construct productive collaborations of economists with ecologists and other scientists to assure all relevant values are incorporated. (2) Develop analytical frameworks that allow the consideration of non-monetary (quantitative and qualitative) impacts, such as biodiversity metrics and equity effects. (3) Create methods for analyzing scientific and policy uncertainty confounding ES valuation, including relevant discount rates for long time horizons. (4) Determine the appropriate geographic and time scales at which to cast the ES values assessment. (5) Develop methods for stakeholder involvement that will generate all salient monetary, quantitative nonmonetary, and social ideological values in play. (6) Define a minimum set of “best practices” for public and private agencies employing benefit-transfer methods for valuing ecosystem services and biodiversity.

1. The principles include:


2. Articulate a clear purpose for the assessment and a rationale for the methods used.


3. Reflect a fair and honest effort to represent ecosystems and all of the benefits they provide without intent to produce a predetermined outcome.


4. Identify and engage all interested and affected stakeholders in a transparent, inclusive manner.


5. Use interdisciplinary approaches to address the landscape attributes, ecological functions, and stakeholder perspectives at scales that allow decision makers to understand the full range of benefits, costs, and potential solutions.


6. Assess the full suite of ecological, social, and economic costs and benefits in quantitative and qualitative terms using credible methods, while avoiding the double counting of monetized values.


7. Consider resilience and the ability to maintain biodiversity and sustain ecosystems for current and future generations.


8. Be based on the best scientific information available while disclosing uncertainties that bear on the decision, and provide analysis on the potential effects of those uncertainties.


9. Apply robust methodologies and approaches that strive to be consistent, repeatable, and transparent, while encouraging the improvement of ecosystem services assessment methodologies and tools.


10. Provide a rationale for the exclusion of any social, ecological, or economic attributes


11. relevant to the management decision that were not included in the assessment, and make the full assessment available for technical review.


12. Use language that is relevant to the intended audience and sparing in its use of acronyms and abbreviations to make valuation results accessible for non-technical stakeholders.

12) Estimating Farmers' Willingness to Change Tillage Practices to Supply Carbon Emissions Offsets

B.M. Gramig,* N.J.O. Widmar (Purdue Univ.)

W3133 Objective: Objective 2

Abstract: Wide‐reaching international agreements like the Kyoto Protocol have thus far failed to achieve the global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reductions agreed to by the international community. No successor to Kyoto with binding emissions limits has emerged and a more decentralized approach with individual states, countries or regions enacting GHG emission limits or imposing a carbon tax to incentivize less use of fossil fuels and development of renewable energy technologies. One common element present in voluntary and regulatory carbon markets has been the inclusion of emission offsets that can be sold by entities outside emission caps or not subject to a carbon tax. One particularly low cost means of sequestering atmospheric carbon involves reducing or eliminating tillage of agricultural soils. This research conducts a choice experiment with corn and soybean farmers in Indiana, USA to measure farmers' willingness to change tillage practices to supply carbon offsets by estimating their willingness to pay or willingness to accept payment related to different attributes of active and proposed carbon markets around the world. Understanding farmers' preferences is vital to ensuring that farmers will participate in such schemes so that carbon abatement efforts around the globe can be achieved in the most cost‐effective ways possible.

13) Resident and Tourist Preferences for Stormwater Management Strategies in Oahu

Jerrod Penn*, Wuyang Hu, Linda Cox, Lara Kozloff  (Univ. of Kentucky)

W3133 Objective: Objective 3

Abstract: Hawaii’s economy relies on its global reputation of its coastal marine environments. This paper studies residents’ and tourists’ preferences for stormwater quality management strategies related to recreational beaches in Oahu, Hawaii. Using a Choice Experiment approach, we consider Willingness to pay for Non-Structural and Structural Best Management Practices, Warning and Advisory systems, Testing methods, and educational efforts. Our results show that Rapid testing and educational efforts are most favored by both residents and tourists. There are no differences in Willingness to Pay for the strategies among residents and tourists, such that meeting both groups’ preferences is possible. Further, based on experts’ information on the strategies’ proposed costs, all strategies should be pursued by the Hawaii policymakers.

14) Benefits of Stormwater Management: WTP and Willingness to Help

Catalina Londoño Cadavid (2Escuela de Ingenierıa de Antioquia, Colombia), Amy Ando* (Univ. of Illinois) and Noelwah Netusil (Reed College)

W3133 Objectives: 1, 2

Abstract: Choice experiment (CE) survey methodology [Louviere and Hensher, 1982] has been used widely for decades in marketing and economics to estimate consumers’ WTP for goods or services. This methodology commonly includes the cost of a good as a variable attribute; that permits monetary estimates of value, yielding WTP estimates that are necessarily budget constrained. This research suggests an addition to CE methodology: the inclusion of hours of volunteer time as an attribute alongside monetary cost. This paper tests whether including willingness to help (WTH) yields broader estimates of value where people have differential abilities to pay or volunteer depending on whether their biggest constraint is on money or on time. To explore the characteristics of a valuation method that includes an additional or alternative measure of willingness to pay, we use valuation of stormwater control measures as a case study. Conventional stormwater management has focused primarily on reducing floods with centralized physical infrastructure, but a new generation of decentralized stormwater solutions produces additional benefits [National Research Council, 2009]. Some of these solutions might require widespread landowner willingness to install stormwater controls (e.g. cisterns, rain gardens, green roofs), which then require ongoing decentralized maintenance.

     This research carries out an online CE survey of households in Chicago, Illinois and Portland, Oregon to estimate the values of multiple attributes of stormwater management outcomes (previous research has estimated the values people have for flood reduction and some environmental benefits of stormwater management [Londoño and Ando, 2013].) Each survey asks respondents to choose between stormwater programs with varied levels of flood control, water pollution reduction, and aquatic habitat integrity improvement. One treatment includes monetary cost as an attribute; a second treatment includes variable numbers of hours the respondent would spend helping to maintain stormwater control infrastructure; and a third treatment includes both time and money costs. We find that people place a positive value on improving elements of environmental quality, both water quality and aquatic health. However, flooding reduction is not significant in the treatment in which people are presented with both time and money payments, even after controlling for individual flooding experience. Only 33% of the respondents recall at least one flooding event in the past year and, out of those who did, fewer than 6% experienced more than four flood events.

     We calculated people’s average marginal willingness to pay (monthly $) and willingness to help (monthly hours) to obtain various attributes (flood reduction, environmental improvement). Results suggest that people do not value their time at their wage rate. If time were truly valued according to hourly wages, people reveal themselves willing to pay much more through in-kind contributions of time than through direct payments of money. In addition, current results reveal the surprising result that high income people are willing to pay less money for stormwater improvements; this finding could have multiple explanations. Overall, the findings imply that programs that allow residents to pay both through fees and through helping may be better able to capture a full range of value from residents of diverse financial means.

15) Accuracy of forest damage assessment and geo-coding of residences: Impact on hedonic estimation

Christine Blinn (Virginia Tech. Univ.), Jed Cohen (Virginia Tech. Univ.), Tom Holmes (USDA), and Klaus Moeltner* (Virginia Tech. Univ.)

W3133 Objectives: 1, 2

Abstract: The availability of rich property sales data via commercial vendors and the increasing repertoire of detailed GIS layers for environmental amenities has fostered the use of hedonic approaches for the valuation of environmental quality changes. In applications with large variations in the spatial relationship between homes and environmental impacts the accuracy of both geo-coding property locations and the assessment of property-relevant damages becomes important to avoid measurement errors and biased results on marginal prices and welfare measures. To date, nobody has examined the dual role of geo-coding and accuracy of impact assessment in a hedonic context. We examine the implications of using different damage assessment methods (y-over, satellite, aerial photography) and geo-coding packages (software vendor versus visual coding by expert) on estimation results using as an example the widespread tree damage due to the Mountain Pine Beetle (MPB) outbreak in recent years in the Colorado Front Range.

16) Economic Value of Sustainable Brownfield Redevelopment

Olesya Savchenko* and John B. Braden (Univ. of Illinois Urbana‐Champaign)

W‐3133 objective 2

Abstract: Though the economic benefits of conventional modes of brownfield redevelopment have been studied extensively, little is known about sustainable forms. This study examines the values of nearby properties to determine whether sustainable and conventional modes of redevelopment differ in their neighborhood effects. The main hypothesis tested in this paper is whether sustainable redevelopment of brownfield sites increases nearby property values more than does traditional redevelopment. Sustainable redevelopment incorporates low‐impact features such as efficient building design, recycled materials, water conservation and use of renewable energy that differentiate it from more conventional initiatives, which have no such elements. A sample of fifty‐five redeveloped brownfield sites located in New York, NY is classified according to redevelopment type. House‐level panel data for sale transactions and characteristics for 1989‐2011 allows for analysis at a fine geographic scale and high level of precision, controlling for time‐varying and timeinvariant unobserved heterogeneity. The results indicate that sustainable and conventional forms of brownfield redevelopment both have positive impacts on nearby property values resulting, respectively, in a 2.6% and 1.2% appreciation in property values located within 1 mile of a brownfield site.

17) Urban Watershed Restoration Projects and Property Values: A Repeat-Sale/Hedonic Approach

Maya Jarrad and Noelwah R. Netusil* (Reed College)

W3133 Objective 1, 2, 3

Abstract: The Environmental Protection Agency’s (2013) survey of 1,924 rivers and streams in the United States found that more than half of the sampled sites exhibited poor biological conditions.  Stressors identified in the EPA report include runoff from urban areas, agricultural practices, and wastewater. Stressors associated with urbanization include nutrients, such as nitrogen and phosphorus, bacteria from leaking septic systems, polluted stormwater runoff, and sedimentation due to riparian corridor disturbance. The importance of riparian vegetative cover in achieving water quality goals and reducing flooding (Chang 2007; Levell and Chang 2008; Pratt and Chang 2012; Yeakley 2014) has lead federal, state and local government agencies to prioritize riparian restoration projects. This is especially true in our study area--the Johnson Creek Watershed, Oregon--which has seen over 150 sites restored since the late 1990s. Stated goals of these projects include improving water quality, reducing flooding, enhancing fish and wildlife habitat and providing recreation opportunities. This project combines a database of single-family residential property sales from 1988-2011 in the Johnson Creek Watershed, Oregon with the date and location of the 150 restoration sites included in the City of Portland Bureau of Environmental Service’s database. We use a hybrid repeat sales/hedonic approach to explore the effect of restoration projects on nearby property sale prices and investigate if that effect changes over time and with a property’s distance from a restoration site. A priori expectations include an initial negative effect on sale price due to the noise, disruption, and upturned appearance associated with these sites followed by a positive effect once the project is finished and vegetation matures. We anticipate the initial negative effect to be largest for properties located closest to these sites.

References:

Chang, Heejun. “Comparative Streamflow Characteristics in Urbanizing Basins in the Portland Metropolitan Area Oregon, USA.” Hydrological Processes 21 (2007): 211–222.

Levell, AP, and H. Chang. “Monitoring the Channel Process of a Stream Restoration Project in an Urbanizing Watershed: A Case Study of Kelley Creek, Oregon, USA.” River Research and Applications 24 (2008): 169–182.

Pratt, Bethany, and Heejun Chang. “Effects of Land Cover, Topography, and Built Structure on Seasonal Water Quality at Multiple Spatial Scales.” Journal of Hazardous Materials 209–210 (2012): 48–58.

US Environmental Protection Agency (2013) National rivers and streams assessment 2008–2009: a collaborative survey. EPA/841/D-13-001. US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.

Yeakley, J. Alan. “Water Quality in Pacific Northwest Urban and Urbanizing Aquatic Ecosystems.” In Wild Salmonids in the Urbanizing Pacific Northwest, edited by J. Alan Yeakley, Kathleen G. Maas-Hebner, and Robert M. Hughes, 101–121. New York, NY: Springer New York, 2014. http://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-1-4614-8818-7_8.

18) The value of public versus private provision for reducing expected loss from wildfire risk: How much can they differ?

Laine Christman, Michael Taylor, Kim Rollins* (Univ. of Nevada Reno)

W3133 Objective 1, 2

Abstract: The escalating costs of wildfire suppression experienced in arid regions of the western U.S. can be partially mitigated through creation and maintenance of defensible space – that is, by clearing landscapes within 30-100 feet of homes of flammable vegetation and materials, and use of fire-retarding landscaping, including irrigated lawns and deciduous trees and shrubs.  The costs of wildfire suppression tend to be remarkably higher in and near the wildland-urban interface (WUI) than on public lands in more remote areas.  Defensible space reduces the likelihood that wildfires on public lands will spread to private property.   Defensible space on private land benefits individual property owners while generating spatial spill-over effects that reduce wildfire suppression costs.  Public policies and programs offer financial incentives for at-risk communities to apply for cost-sharing grants to create defensible space strategically on private property and public lands to protect the community as a whole, as well as educational programs for homeowners to encourage private investment on their own properties.

We measure the value of wildfire risk reduction to individual homeowners.  We use an experimental design over a stated preference framework in which the expected value of a risk reduction is given explicitly as a decrease in the probability of loss and loss amount.   We create two alternative means to accomplish the same level of risk reduction per individual:  one through individual investment in defensible space on their own property, and the other through a community-wide program to create and maintain defensible space on strategically targeted private properties and public lands.  Each individual is provided with a single initial probability of loss, amount of loss, and lower probability of loss that is attainable through creation of defensible space at a given dollar amount, with loss amounts, initial and lower probabilities, and dollar valued costs of programs varied systematically.  Our results show that individual mean WTP for the public and private provision of defensible space generally increases with increasing unit probability change and with loss amounts; however, the difference between private and public provision differs by more than ten-fold.  Other than probability change and loss amounts, the most important indicators of WTP for the private provision were the individual’s desire to achieve the peace of mind that in the case of fire, they have done what they can do.  For the public provision, skepticism about public provision, desire to have actions performed on one’s own property/loss of control, concern about conflict in the community, and confidence that insurance would handle losses negatively affected WTP; while desire to reduce risk to the community increased WTP. Our results suggest that efforts to strategically target types and locations of defensible space activities in a given area in the WUI might consider first focusing on individual private incentives to invest, and if necessary, design programs that incrementally increase these incentives beyond what is privately optimal for homeowners in targeted areas, to achieve overall desired levels of community defensible space that provide spatial spill-over effects.  The dramatically lower values for community-level granting programs indicate that the costs of being able to achieve target-levels of defensible space through these programs may be much higher, than for programs that target private homeowners.

19) Exploring the Shelf Life of Travel Cost Methods of Valuing Recreation for Benefits Transfer

Elizabeth Spink (Harvard/Cornell) and Nancy Connelly, Shanjun Li, and Greg Poe* (Cornell)

W3133 Objective 1

Abstract: Non-market valuation methods have matured, and candidate studies for benefits transfers of recreational activities now have various vintages. For example, a recent literature review found that travel cost and contingent valuation estimates of the net value of recreational fishing in the Great Lakes extend as far back as 1967. At issue is the “shelf life” of benefits estimates for intertemporal benefits transfers: are benefit estimates stable across lengthy time periods? The issue of shelf life is of particular concern for recreational activities such as fishing in which the level of activity, and hence the underlying demand, has changed substantially over generations and over time. That fundamental change has occurred over time in recreational fishing is evidenced by the 2006 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Related Recreation, which estimated that Great Lakes recreational fishing declined by 30 percent from 1996 to 2006 (USFWS, 2008, p. 18). Several short-term (two months to two years) contingent valuation “test-retest” type studies have been reported in the literature and we have been able to locate a couple of contingent valuation comparisons estimates for specific recreational activities over longer periods of time (six to 20 years). To our knowledge, however, a parallel body of research has not arisen in the travel cost literature. The objective of this study is to explore the shelf life of travel cost model estimates. This research uses expenditure and effort data collected in the 1988, 1996 and 2007 New York State Angler Surveys (NYSAS) to estimate travel cost demand and associated net benefits of recreational fishing in NYS. These three data collection efforts used the same methods, allowing a consistent model of travel cost demand to be estimated across all three surveys. This will permit tests of the stability of recreational demand and value estimates across an extended period of time ranging from eight (1988 to 1996), to 11 (1996 to 2007), to 19 (1998 to 2007) years. This presentation briefly reports the results of the first survey that has been analyzed thus far, the 2007 NYSAS. A repeated choice, mulitsite travel cost model was estimated using a nested logit framework with decision nodes for participation and site type (Great Lakes or Inland Waters). The estimates from this model are consistent with expectations and utility theory. For individual anglers, net value per day is estimated to be $29 with corresponding seasonal values of $503. Average annual lost per angler for a county closure is about $32. The above results are informative as a demonstration that this data can be used to estimate individual and state-level net values of recreational angling in NY. Of greater importance to the authors is to get feedback ideas of how to best model and compare results across the three survey periods.

20) Benefit Transfer Without Apology: A Decision Theoretic Approach

Olvar Bergland* (Norwegian University of Life Sciences)

W3133 Objective 2

Abstract: Benefit transfer is a collection of methods widely used in cost-benefit analysis and policy analysis to assess environmental values in contexts where original valuation work is deemed too expensive and/or too time-consuming. The essence of benefit transfer is conditional or unconditional prediction of environmental values in a new context. This paper develops a statistical decision theoretic model of project evaluation under informational uncertainty. The model makes explicit the trade-off between either acquiring additional information through costly original valuation work or relying on past studies through some form for benefit transfer analysis. A hierarchical Bayesian model specifies one prior for the parameters governing the distribution of values in a given context and a hyperprior capturing the distribution of these parameters across different, but exchangeable, contexts. The marginal posterior distribution for the hyperparameters can be utilized to construct a posterior predictive distribution of environmental values across new contexts. The estimation of this hierarchical Bayesian model utilizes data from past studies and as such represents the benefit transfer model. Using the posterior predictive distribution, the expected value of a new valuation study can be calculated as the expected value of sample information. The decision criteria is that only when the expected value of sample information exceeds the study costs will original valuation work be justified. If the expected value of sample information is less than the cost of conducting a new valuation study the expected predicted valuation obtained from the posterior distribution is the proper benefit transfer value to use in a cost benefit setting. The method is illustrated with an application to water quality in Norway. A number of past contingent valuation studies, employing different value elicitation methods, are used to obtain the predictive posterior distribution using MCMC simulation with data augmentation. The expected value of information is calculated resulting in recommendation about when a new valuation study is justified or not.

Keywords: Benefit transfer, statistical decision theory, Bayesian models, exchangability.

JEL Classification: Q51, C44, C11, D61.

21) The Distribution of Maximum Utility in the Multinomial Probit Random Utility Model

Scott Shonkwiler* (Univ. of Georgia)

W3133 Objective 2

Abstract: The multinomial probit random utility model has a number of attractive properties and advances in computational power and use of probability simulators like the GHK make application to large multi‐site models feasible. However the multinomial probit RUM has no closed form expression for expected maximum utility. This paper proposes two statistical approaches for calculating expected maximum utility in the multinomial RUM and compares them to the simulation approaches used by Chen & Cosslett (1998). In terms of calculating the distribution of the mean benefit from an amenity change, an approach based on the applying the delta method to the moment generating function of the expected maximum utility is found to be computationally less demanding than simulation approaches.

22) Is status quo bias design-induced?  Rethinking the role of design selection in choice experiments

Katherine Silz Carson* (U.S. Air Force Academy Harvard Univ.), Susan M. Chilton (Newcastle University), W. George Hutchinson (Queen’s University, Belfast), Riccardo Scarpa (Queen’s University, Belfast)

W-3133 objective: 2

Abstract: Practitioners of environmental economics sometimes use repeated trinary choice experiment surveys to estimate the value of environmental policies and programs for use in policy evaluation. These surveys, originally designed to estimate demand for new goods in marketing and transportation, have several advantages over simpler forms of non‐market valuation: (1) they enable researchers to estimate the marginal value of attributes of the good or service in question, making the results useful for benefits transfer; and (2) because respondents make several choices and choose from choice sets containing three options, efficiency of the willingness to pay estimate are improved over one‐shot, binary choice formats. Despite these benefits, such surveys may have incentive properties which cause the resulting value estimates to be biased. This paper presents a theoretical demonstration that subjects often have an incentive to choose the second‐best option in a repeated trinary choice survey. The model shows that due to the nature of factorial choice set design, the second‐best option in the choice set will often be the status quo option. The paper reports a set of experiments designed to test these theoretical predictions in an induced‐value setting. The experimental results are consistent with the theoretical predictions, demonstrating that repeated trinary choice experiment surveys can generate biased value estimates.

23) Discounting the Distant Future: An Experimental Investigation

Therese C. Grijalva (Weber State Univ.), Jayson L. Lusk (OK State Univ.), and W. Douglass Shaw* (Texas A&M Univ.)

W3133 Objective 2

24) The Value of Great Lakes Beaches in Michigan

Frank Lupi*and Michael Kaplowitz (Michigan State Univ.)

W3133 Objective 2

Accomplishments

<p><strong>Under Objective </strong><strong>1 (Land and Water Resource Management in a Changing Environment), the following activities, outputs, and accomplishments can be reported.</strong></p><br /> <p>Researchers at Illinois, Wyoming, Michigan, and UC Santa Barbara completed a paper that estimates the value to agriculture of improved biocontrol of pests in row crop agriculture and applies that model to generate dollar values for two crops (cucumbers and squash); that paper has been submitted to a journal.</p><br /> <p>Economists at Illinois worked with ecologists in Australia to publish a paper that studies the results of conservation policy; the paper couples household decisions regarding how much time to spend foraging in local forests with a model of optimal spatial foraging patterns and biodiversity conservation to simulates how much leakage occurs in response to protected areas placed in different parts of a hypothetical forest landscape and how leakage affects biodiversity and human welfare</p><br /> <p>A collaboration between Illinois and Minnesota has completed new spatial conservation-outcome forecasts for the Prairie Pothole Region and construct spatial data sets suitable for spatial portfolio analysis for two other previously studied conservation problems (Eastern birds, Appalachian salamanders). Those researchers are now using those data sets in work to improve portfolio analysis tools for environmental management under climate change uncertainty. They have also published a paper that demonstrates the dangers of taking shortcuts in using portfolio analysis for spatial conservation planning under climate change uncertainty.</p><br /> <p>Colorado State University (CSU) in cooperation with the USDA Forest Service&rsquo;s Pacific Southwest and Southern Research Stations have two coordinated efforts underway. One is a comparative data and analysis of California and Florida household&rsquo;s willingness to pay for private homeowner (e.g., FIREWISE) versus community fire risk reduction activities. The paper has been accepted for presentation at the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists meeting this summer. The second project is to estimate the costs of fuel reduction treatments (mechanical thinning and prescribed burning) in California. The data collection was performed by the USDA Forest Service and CSU is performing the analysis and development of a field fire specialists cost estimating user interface. The USDA Forest Service will test this and then offer training in the tool developed at CSU.</p><br /> <p>CSU and Northern Arizona University (NAU) completed and published (see Mueller and Loomis, 2014) an analysis of how house prices are affected by wildfires. This research applied quantile regression to determine if there were differential effects of wildfire on house prices depending on the price of the home and hence, the income levels of homeowners. We found such a differential impact, and this information has been provided to the USDA Forest Service.</p><br /> <p>CSU began collaboration with UN-R to model the economy-wide impacts of rural to urban water transfers under different population growth scenarios in the west.</p><br /> <p>CSU has constructed a dynamic programming model to measure the value of stored water under different institutional settings, including the existence of trading, lease markets, and restricted trade.&nbsp; The model is calibrated to the Colorado-Big Thompson project.</p><br /> <p>A collaboration between researchers at Mississippi State University (Miss. State) and the University of Georgia (UGA) completed an analysis of factors that determine households&rsquo; decision to purchase wind hazard insurance when the primary homeowner&rsquo;s policy excludes it in coastal areas, and the extent of wind-hazard mitigation. A paper summarizing this work is forthcoming in <em>Land Economics.</em></p><br /> <p>A collaboration between researchers at Miss. State and Louisiana State University (LSU) completed an analysis of alternative land-reclamation methods for coastal restoration in Louisiana.&nbsp; This analysis focused on cost and benefit trajectories over time, accounting for both time (discounting) and risk.&nbsp; A paper reporting the results of this work has been published in <em>Ecological Economics.</em></p><br /> <p>Researchers at University of Wyoming have investigated the feasibility of trans-basin water transfers to meet growth in the southwest U.S. Under certain energy costs and distance of conveyance under-allocated sources may be sold to areas where demand is exceeding local supply. This pilot effort has implications for trans-basin deliveries in the arid intermountain west as well.</p><br /> <p>Researchers at Wyoming and CSU have used survey instruments to determine landowner preferences for potential land conservation arrangements. Sub samples of landowners hold preferences for conservation that are more likely to outweigh financial inducements. This work has implications for a broad array of public and private conservation programs on private lands.</p><br /> <p>Economists at Oregon State, Minnesota, UC Santa Barbara, and Bowdoin published a paper that shows how to optimally implement the provision of ecosystem services using an incentive-based mechanism under the common problems of spatial dependent environmental benefits and asymmetric information regarding landowner opportunity costs. The auction mechanism derived in this paper can be used with payments-for-ecosystem services programs, or with programs where the government owns the property rights to land, such as forest concessions.</p><br /> <p>Researchers at Oregon State, Washington, Minnesota, Florida International, Wisconsin, Bowdoin, and UC Santa Barbara published a paper that projects land-use change impacts on terrestrial ecosystem services for the lower 48 states. The paper examines food and timber production, carbon sequestration, and wildlife habitat responses to land-use change as a function of various policy and commodity price scenarios.</p><br /> <p>A team at Oregon State, Wisconsin, and UC Santa Barbara combined an economic land use model with ecological models to examine threats to aquatic systems derived from land-use change across the lower 48 states.</p><br /> <p>Researchers at Oregon State, Idaho, and Wisconsin examined the effects of decentralized governance on timber extraction in European Russia using multiple periods of satellite imagery and econometric methods.</p><br /> <p>Researchers at Virginia Tech estimated econometric models on the effect of length of residency on urban residential water demand. Our results indicate that water use increases with residency due to a shift in landscaping preferences. We shared these findings with the local water agency in Reno/Sparks, Nevada, and with peers and practitioners at an urban water workshop at Arizona State University.</p><br /> <p>Researchers at Iowa State University have made progress on several working papers this past year, focused on advancing stated and revealed preference methods used to value environmental amenities. A first working paper draws on unique data from the Iowa Lakes Project and the Iowa Rivers Project, also funded jointly by the USEPA and Iowa Department of Natural Resources. The paper proposes a modeling technique that incorporates omitted sites in a recreational demand model even when one only has partial information about these sites. The paper demonstrates that the aggregation model with partial trip information can recover underlying preferences consistently in a variety of settings, which is an improvement upon conventional models that may lead to biased estimates.</p><br /> <p>A second working paper by researchers at Iowa State investigates the consistency of consumer preferences over time and revealed versus stated preference data. The study draws on data from the Iowa Lakes Project, which provides information on recreational usage patterns over several years and for approximately 130 lakes, along with detailed information on the water quality for each lake. This study investigates the consistency of consumer preferences over time and between actual versus anticipated visitation patterns from the unique panel data.</p><br /> <p>Researchers at the University of Delaware worked with people at various institutions to complete eight papers related land and water resource management in a changing environment that were either published in 2014 or are forthcoming.&nbsp; Several of these papers looked at improving the cost-effectiveness in agri-environmental programs either through the use of reverse auctions, using optimal conservation targeting, or combining the reverse auctions and optimal targeting. Other papers used experimental economics techniques to improve the sustainability of groundwater use.</p><br /> <p>Researchers at the University of Rhode Island (URI) conducted a field experiment with 97 residents in the Scituate Reservoir Watershed in which the "suppliers" of improved water quality and its beneficiaries of those services make decisions through a market-like process on both sides of the market. In this market process, consumers reveal their marginal willingness to contribute payment for improvements in water quality, which is then used to construct an average revenue curve to serve as a demand curve. They also conducted a reverse auction on the supply side, in which livestock owners bid for payments to adopt best management practices for manure management. They used the spatially-explicit Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) model to quantify the effect of on-farm management practices to the resultant changes in water quality. The information from the bids and the resulting changes in water quality from SWAT allow construction of the supply curve for water quality improvements. The average revenue and supply curves combine to determine a market clearing price.</p><br /> <p><strong>Under Objective 2 (Economic Valuation Methods), the following activities, outputs, and accomplishments can be reported.</strong></p><br /> <p>A methodological investigation of strategies to overcome hypothetical bias in stated preference contingent valuation surveys was undertaken and published in 2014 (See Loomis, 2014).</p><br /> <p>A contingent behavior analysis was used to quantify the consumer surplus and predicted electricity bills for rural villages in Rwanda (paper under review).</p><br /> <p>A joint estimation framework was developed to estimate contingent behavior and valuation questions answered by the same individuals. The technique was applied to survey data from rural Rwanda.</p><br /> <p>A collaboration between researchers at Miss. State and LSU is focused on ecosystem service valuation in two Gulf Coastal locations, focused on three habitat types and four ecosystem services provided by those habitats. This work also focuses on differences in elicitation methods.&nbsp; One paper has been submitted to a journal and another is in prep for submission.</p><br /> <p>Researchers at Miss. State examined whether people reveal their unconditionally most-preferred alternative in choice experiments. Results were presented at a departmental seminar at the University of Alabama, Department of Economics, Finance and Legal Studies and the manuscript based on this research is forthcoming in the <em>Journal</em><em> of Environmental Economics and Policy</em>.</p><br /> <p>Researchers at Virginia Tech estimated econometric models to assess the importance of accuracy in geo-coding and tree damage assessment on accurately relating home values to MPB damage. Our finding that both matter in a substantial fashion was shared with the U.S. Forest Service, and presented at Clark University (MA).</p><br /> <p><strong>Under Objective 3 (Integrated Ecosystem Services Valuation and Management), the following activities, outputs, and accomplishments can be reported.</strong></p><br /> <p>Researchers at Illinois and Oregon have refined the statistical analyses of the results of choice experiment surveys conducted to estimate the values people place on reduced flooding, improved water quality, and improved aquatic habitat in and in the Chicago and Portland OR metropolitan areas. They are developing a theoretical model of optimal stormwater management policy.</p><br /> <p>Researchers in North Dakota finalized the assessment of the benefits and costs of a system of wastewater recycling in the Bakken oil production region and revised a paper for publication.</p><br /> <p>Working with CSU Extension Service, members of W3133 collected and analyzed data on agrotourism in Colorado (see publication by Hill, et al, 2015). This analysis provided information to farmers and ranchers about the types of activities sought by agrotourists, how far they would travel, number of trips, and their spending.</p><br /> <p>CSU conducted an analysis of recreational whitewater boating in Colorado. This information estimated not only the economic value of this activity but how the value of that activity changed with instream flows. The paper was presented at the Western Agricultural Economics Association in summer of 2014.</p><br /> <p>CSU, Utah State University (USU), and University of Wyoming undertook a study of the economic value of improving water quality in Utah&rsquo;s lakes and streams. This analysis collected data on household values as well as recreation visitors&rsquo; values for improving water quality. A manuscript has been prepared that received a revise and resubmit from Ecological Economics.</p><br /> <p>Researchers at Iowa State have initiated a new effort to add another year to the Iowa Lakes Project. This continues a panel data set of recreational lake visits for approximately 130 primary lakes in the state of Iowa for the years 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2009, and now 2014. The new data set will reinforce the advantages of panel data in recreational demand modeling and trace Iowan behavior over time along with water quality changes. The data also provides an opportunity to examine how social media data may be leveraged as a new source of recreational visitation data in environmental valuation models.</p><br /> <p>Researchers at the University of Delaware evaluated consumer&rsquo;s willing to pay for ecosystem services, such as pollination provided by honey bees and water filtration provided by oyster aquaculture.</p><br /> <p>In addition to the real-money field experiment which only measured values for water quality improvement, researchers at URI also conducted a hypothetical choice experiment with the same subjects to understand the tradeoffs and values associated with water quality, restoration or preservation, and risk in the delivery of the ecosystem services. To analyze the spatial relationship of the demand for ecosystem services, the choice experiment data were georeferenced with the location of the subjects' residence. A number of spatial statistics were employed to test the extent of spatial correlation. They found that there was a very weak spatial pattern in the preferences for ecosystem services.</p><br /> <p>To measure the supply of ecosystem services, researchers at URI calibrated the InVEST model for the Scituate Reservoir Watershed. InVEST is a decision support tool for ecosystem services developed by The Nature Conservancy, Stanford University, and other institutions. A few scenarios for future land use change were constructed and the predicted changes in ecosystem services were simulated in InVEST for the watershed. The results were shared with NRICD, NRCS, and Providence Water.</p>

Publications

<p>Bastian, C. T., K. T. Coatney, R. Mealor, D. T. Taylor, and P. Meiman. &ldquo;Priority Weighting of Nature Versus Finances in Land Management Attitudes of Rural Exurban Landowners.&rdquo; <em>Landscape </em><em>and Urban Planning: </em>127(July 2014): 65-74.</p><br /> <p>Bode, M., Tulloch, A. I. T., Mills, M., Venter, O. and W. Ando, A. 2014. &ldquo;A Conservation Planning Approach to Mitigate the Impacts of Leakage from Protected Area Networks.&rdquo; <em>Conservation</em><em> Biology</em>. doi: 10.1111/cobi.12434.</p><br /> <p>Caffey, R.H., H. Wang, and D.R. Petrolia. 2014. &ldquo;Trajectory Economics: &nbsp;Assessing the Flow of Ecosystem Services from Coastal Restoration.&rdquo; <em>Ecological</em><em> Economics </em>100: 74-84.</p><br /> <p>Castledine, A., K. Moeltner, M.K. Price, and S. Stoddard. 2014. "Free to Choose: Promoting Conservation by Relaxing Outdoor Watering Restrictions." <em>Journal of Economic Behavior &amp; Organization </em>107(A): 324-343.</p><br /> <p>Dissanayake, S.T.M. and A.W. Ando. 2014. &ldquo;Valuing Grassland Restoration: Proximity to Substitutes and Tradeoffs Among Conservation Attributes.&rdquo; <em>Land Economics </em>90: 237-259.</p><br /> <p>Duke J.D., S.J. Dundas, R.J. Johnston, and K.D. Messer. 2014. &ldquo;Prioritizing Payment for Environmental Services: Using Nonmarket Benefits for Optimal Selection.&rdquo; <em>Ecological</em> <em>Economics.</em> 105: 319-329.</p><br /> <p>Fooks, J., N. Higgins, K.D. Messer, J. Duke, D. Hellerstein, and L. Lynch. <em>Forthcoming. </em>&ldquo;Conserving Spatially Explicit Benefits in Ecosystem Service Markets: Experimental Tests of Network Bonuses and Spatial Targeting&rdquo; <em>American Journal of Agricultural Economics.</em></p><br /> <p>Fooks, J., K.D. Messer, and J. Duke. 2015<em>. </em>&ldquo;Dynamic Entry, Reverse Auctions, and the Purchase of Environmental Services.&rdquo; <em>Land Economics. </em>91(1): 57-75.</p><br /> <p>Hearne, R., S. Shakya and Q. Yin. 2014. &ldquo;The Value of Fracking Wastewater Treatment and Recycling Technologies in North Dakota. <em>Journal</em><em> of Water Reuse and Desalination</em>.&rdquo; In Press, Uncorrected Proof, Available online 5 November, 2014. doi:10.2166/wrd.2014.153.</p><br /> <p>Hill, R., J. Loomis. D. Thilmany, M. Sullins. 2015. Economic Values of Agritourism to Visitors: A Multi-destination Hurdle Travel Cost Model of Demand. <em>Tourism Economics </em>20(5): 1047- 1065.</p><br /> <p>Hodges, A., K. Hansen and D. McLeod. 2014. &ldquo;The Economics of Bulk Water Transport in Southern California.&rdquo; <em>Resources</em> 3(4): 703-720. <a href="http://www.mdpi.com/2079-9276/3/4/703">http://www.mdpi.com/2079-9276/3/4/703</a> Hwang, J., D.R. Petrolia, and M.G. Interis. 2014. &ldquo;Valuation, Consequentiality, and Opt-Out Responses to Stated Preference Surveys.&rdquo; <em>Agricultural</em> <em>&amp; Resource Economics Review </em>43(3): 471-88<em>.</em></p><br /> <p>Interis, M.G., C., Xu, D. Petrolia, and K. Coatney. &ldquo;Examining Unconditional Preference Revelation in Choice Experiments: A Voting Game Approach.&rdquo; <em>Journal</em><em> of Environmental Economics and Policy </em>(forthcoming).</p><br /> <p>Interis, M.G. and D.R. Petrolia. 2014. &ldquo;Consequentiality Effects in Binary- and Multinomial- Choice Settings.&rdquo; <em>Journal of Agricultural &amp; Resource Economics </em>39(2): 1-16.</p><br /> <p>Jeon, Hocheol. 2014. &ldquo;Three Essays on Environmental Economics.&rdquo; PhD dissertation, Iowa State University.</p><br /> <p>Johnston, R. and K. Moeltner. 2014. "Meta-Modeling and Benefit Transfer: The Empirical Relevance of Source-Consistency in Welfare Measures." <em>Environmental and Resource Economics </em>59: 337-361.</p><br /> <p>Lawler, J., Lewis, D.J., Nelson, E., Plantinga, A.J., Polasky, S., Withey, J., Helmers, D., Martinuzzi, S., and V. Radeloff. 2014.&nbsp; &ldquo;Projected Land-Use Change Impacts on U.S. Ecosystem Services.&rdquo; <em>Proceedings</em><em> of the National Academy of Sciences </em>111(20): 7492-7497.</p><br /> <p>Li, J., J. Michael, J. Duke, K.D. Messer, and J. Suter. 2014<em>. </em>&ldquo;Behavioral Response to Contamination Risk Information in a Spatially Explicit Groundwater Environment: Experimental Evidence.&rdquo; <em>Water</em><em> Resources Research. </em>50: 6390-6405.</p><br /> <p>Liu, Z., J. Suter, K.D. Messer, J. Duke, and H. Michael. 2014<em>. </em>&ldquo;Strategic Entry and Externalities in Groundwater Resources: Evidence from the Lab.&rdquo; <em>Resource</em> <em>and Energy Economics. </em>38: 181- 197.</p><br /> <p>Loomis, J. 2014. &ldquo;Strategies for Overcoming Hypothetical Bias in Stated Preference Surveys.&rdquo; <em>Journal</em><em> of Agricultural and Resource Economics </em>39(1): 34-46.</p><br /> <p>Loomis, J. and J. McTernan. 2014. &ldquo;Economic Value of Instream Flow for Non-Commercial Whitewater Boating Using Recreation Demand and Contingent Valuation Methods.&rdquo; <em>Environmental</em><em> Management </em>53(3): 510-519.</p><br /> <p>Mallory, M.L. and A.W. Ando. 2014. &ldquo;Implementing Efficient Conservation Portfolio Design.&rdquo; <em>Resource </em><em>and Energy Economics </em>38: 1-18.</p><br /> <p>Martinuzzi, S., Januchowski-Hartley, S.R., Pracheil, B.M., McIntyre, P.R., Plantinga, A.J., Lewis, D.J., and V.C. Radeloff. 2014. &ldquo;Threats and Opportunities for Freshwater Conservation under Future Land Use Change Scenarios in the United States.&rdquo; <em>Global</em><em> Change Biology </em>20: 113- 124.</p><br /> <p>Messer, K.D., M. Kecinski, R. Hirsch, and X. Tang. <em>Forthcoming.</em> &ldquo;Applying Multiple Knapsack Optimization to Improve the Cost Effectiveness of Land Conservation&rdquo; <em>Land Economics.</em></p><br /> <p>Messer, K.D., J. Duke, and L. Lynch. 2014. <em>&ldquo;</em>Applying Experimental Economics to Land Economics: Public Information and Auction Efficiency in Land Preservation Markets.&rdquo; in the <em>Oxford</em><em> Handbook of Land Economics</em>. J. Duke and J. Wu editors. Oxford Press.</p><br /> <p>Moeltner, K and R.S. Rosenberger. 2014. "Cross-Context Benefit Transfer: A Bayesian Search for Information Pools." <em>American Journal of Agricultural Economics </em>96: 469-488.</p><br /> <p>Mueller, J. and J. Loomis. 2014. &ldquo;Does the Estimated Impacts of Wildfires Vary with Housing Price Distribution? &nbsp;A Quantile Regression Approach.&rdquo; <em>Land Use Policy </em>41: 121-127.</p><br /> <p>Petrolia, D.R. J. Hwang, C.E. Landry, and K.H. Coble. 2015. &ldquo;Wind Insurance and Mitigation in the Coastal Zone.&rdquo; <em>Land Economics </em>91(2): 272-95.</p><br /> <p>Petrolia, D.R., M.G. Interis, J. Hwang. 2014. &ldquo;America&rsquo;s Wetland? &nbsp;A National Survey of Willingness to Pay for Restoration of Louisiana&rsquo;s Coastal Wetlands.&rdquo; <em>Marine Resource</em> <em>Economics</em> 29(1): 17-37.</p><br /> <p>Polasky, S., Lewis, D.J., Plantinga, A.J., and E. Nelson. 2014. &ldquo;Implementing the Optimal Provision of Ecosystem Services.&rdquo; <em>Proceedings</em><em> of the National Academy of Sciences</em>, 111(17): 6248-6253.</p><br /> <p>Wendland, K., Lewis, D.J., and J. Alix-Garcia. 2014. &ldquo;The Effect of Decentralized Governance on Timber Extraction in European Russia.&rdquo; <em>Environmental</em><em> and Resource Economics </em>57: 19-40.</p><br /> <p>Wu, S., J. Fooks, K.D. Messer, and D. Delaney. <em>Forthcoming. </em>&ldquo;Consumer Demand for Local Honey&rdquo; <em>Applied</em><em> Economics.</em></p><br /> <p>Yi, Donggyu. 2014. &ldquo;Three Studies on Environmental Valuation.&rdquo; PhD dissertation, Iowa State University.</p><br /> <p><strong>PRESENTATIONS</strong></p><br /> <p>Ando, A.W. &ldquo;Linking Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services: From Expert Opinion to Prediction &amp; Application.&rdquo; Energy and Environment Forum at Howard H. Baker Jr Center for Public Policy, University of Tennessee. November 2014.</p><br /> <p>Ando, A.W. &ldquo;How Should We Make Environmental Investments When the Future Climate is Uncertain?&rdquo; 1960 Scholars Lecture. Williams College. October 2014.</p><br /> <p>Ando, A.W. &ldquo;A Conservation Planning Approach to Mitigating the Impacts of Leakage from Protected Area Networks.&rdquo; UC Santa Barbara Land Use Workshop. May 2014.</p><br /> <p>Economic Value of Instream Flow for Non-Commercial Whitewater Boating Using Travel Cost and Contingent Valuation Methods. Western Agricultural Economics Association, Colorado Springs, Colorado. June 2014.</p><br /> <p>Interis, M.G. and D.R. Petrolia. &ldquo;Coastal Ecosystem Services of the Gulf of Mexico: Does their Value Depend on the Providing Habitat?&rdquo; Selected paper, 2015 SAEA Annual Meeting, Atlanta, GA, January 31 - February 13 2014.</p><br /> <p>Gill, CA and E Uchida. A Spatial Model of Willingness to Pay for Manure Management in the Scituate Reservoir System. Presented at the 2014 Annual Meeting of the Northeast Agricultural and Resource Economics Association. Morganstown, WV. 2014.</p><br /> <p>Interis, M.G., C., Xu, D. Petrolia, and K. Coatney. &ldquo;Examining Unconditional Preference Revelation in Choice Experiments: A Voting Game Approach.&rdquo; Departmental seminar, <em>Department</em><em> of Economics, Finance and Legal Studies, University of Alabama</em>, October 2014.</p><br /> <p>Kwabena K., D.R. Petrolia, K.H. Coble, A. Harri, and A. Williams.&nbsp; &ldquo;Producer Preferences for Contracts on a Risky Bioenergy Crop.&rdquo; &nbsp;Selected paper, 2015 SAEA Annual Meeting, Atlanta, GA, January 31 - February 13.</p><br /> <p>Lewis, D.J. &ldquo;Does the Conservation of Land Provide a Net Habitat Gain in the Presence of Land Market Feedbacks?&rdquo; Land Use and Ecosystem Services Workshop, UC Santa Barbara. May 2014.</p><br /> <p>Lewis, D.J. &ldquo;Projected Land-Use Change Impacts on U.S. Ecosystem Services&rdquo; Oregon State University Department of Integrated Biology Seminar Series. March, 2014.</p><br /> <p>Merrill, N and J Opaluch. Controlling Risks of Cyanobacteria Blooms. Presented at the 2013 Heartland Environmental and Natural Resource Economics Conference; 2014 Annual Meeting of the New England Water and Environment Association. 2014.</p><br /> <p>Messer, K.D. and P. Ferraro. &ldquo;Vision for the Center for Behavioral and Experimental Agri- Environmental Policy Research.&rdquo; <em>Economic</em> <em>Research</em> <em>Service,</em> Washington, DC, October 2014.</p><br /> <p>Messer, K.D. &ldquo;Preserving More with Less.&rdquo; <em>American</em> <em>Farmland</em> <em>Trust Conference</em>, Hersey, Pennsylvania, May 2014.</p><br /> <p>Moeltner, K. "Length of Residency and Urban Water Use," 3rd Urban Water Roundtable, Global Institute of Sustainability, Arizona State University. February 2015.</p><br /> <p>Moeltner, K. "Accuracy of Forest Damage Assessment and Geo-coding of Residences: Impact on Hedonic Estimation", Clark University, Worcester, MA. October 2014.</p><br /> <p>Petrolia, D.R., J. Hwang, and M.G. Interis. &ldquo;Single-Choice, Repeated-Choice, and Best-Worst Elicitation Formats:&nbsp; Do Results Differ and by How Much?&rdquo; Selected paper, AERE-Session Selected paper, 2014 SEA Annual Conference, Atlanta, November 22-24.</p><br /> <p>Suter, J., S. Collie, J. Duke, K. Messer, and H. Michael. &ldquo;Experiments on Groundwater Policy at the Extensive and Intensive Margins.&rdquo; <em>University</em> <em>of Nebraska, </em>Lincoln, NE, October 2014.</p><br /> <p>Yan, J., Zarghamee, H., K.D. Messer, H.M. Kaiser and W.D. Schulze. &ldquo;Can The Voluntary Contribution Mechanism be Efficient? The Role of Social Norms and Automatic Donation in Charitable Giving&rdquo; <em>Economic Science Association</em>, Fort Lauderdale, FL, October 2014.</p>

Impact Statements

1. The research results on consumer demand for honey and oysters was shared directly with the respective industries to encourage better marketing of these products and industry growth.

Back to top

Report Information

Participants

Dan Petrolia (president), Amy Ando (vice-president), Julie Mueller
(secretary), Kathleen Bell, John Bergstrom, Ben Gramig, LeRoy Hansen, Bob Hearne, Fen Hunt, Matt Interis, Craig Landry, Dale Manning, Don McLeod, Klaus Moeltner, Kim Rollins, Scott Shonkweiler, Roger von Haefen

Brief Summary of Minutes

W-3133 Annual Member’s Meeting Minutes from 26 February, 2015
Hilton Pensacola Beach, Pensacola, Florida
Meeting commenced at 4:15pm
Facilitator: President Dan Petrolia
Members in attendance (17): Dan Petrolia (president), Amy Ando (vice-president), Julie Mueller
(secretary), Kathleen Bell, John Bergstrom, Ben Gramig, LeRoy Hansen, Bob Hearne, Fen Hunt, Matt Interis, Craig Landry, Dale Manning, Don McLeod, Klaus Moeltner, Kim Rollins, Scott Shonkweiler, Roger von Haefen
• The meeting commenced with a discussion of election of the next officer. Ben Gramig of Purdue University was elected.
• Discussion continued regarding the proceedings with Fen Hunt. It was decided that the incoming chair collects accomplishments of members. Members send the incoming chair publications and abstracts and she organizes according to:
o the past year’s accomplishments (impacts), o opportunities, o target audience,
o and any changes in the projects goals or procedures
• The next item of business was next year’s location. The following locations were suggested:
o Austin, TX o Tucson, AZ o Portland, OR o Tempe, AZ
Members emphasized that the incoming chair has the final decision on the venue.
• Fan Hunt wanted to increase member’s awareness of new pre-doc and post-doc funding awards, as well as undergraduate funding opportunities. Discussion continued on the state of USDA and NIFA funding. Funding is increasing as well as competitiveness. Fen encouraged members to incorporate inter-disciplinary work and bring in geographers, hydrologists, and others. Congratulations were in order for those receiving funding this year. Fen also encouraged members to investigate the grants available in the areas of the value of food safety and livestock production (AFRI). She also emphasized that those researchers from land grant institutions should recognize the land grant aspect in acknowledging funding. Finally, if any members have a chance to come to DC to present, she would welcome the opportunity.
• Ben solicited assistance with AAEA nominations
• Meeting adjourned at 5pm.

Accomplishments

ACTIVITIES, OUTPUTS, AND ACCOMPLISHMENTS <br /> <br /> Under Objective 1 (Land and Water Resource Management in a Changing Environment), the following activities, outputs, and accomplishments can be reported. <br /> <br /> Researchers at Illinois, Wyoming, Michigan, and UC Santa Barbara completed a paper that estimates the value to agriculture of improved biocontrol of pests in row crop agriculture and applies that model to generate dollar values for two crops (cucumbers and squash); that paper has been submitted to a journal. <br /> <br /> Economists at Illinois worked with ecologists in Australia to publish a paper that studies the results of conservation policy; the paper couples household decisions regarding how much time to spend foraging in local forests with a model of optimal spatial foraging patterns and biodiversity conservation to simulates how much leakage occurs in response to protected areas placed in different parts of a hypothetical forest landscape and how leakage affects biodiversity and human welfare. <br /> <br /> A collaboration between Illinois and Minnesota has completed new spatial conservation-outcome forecasts for the Prairie Pothole Region and construct spatial data sets suitable for spatial portfolio analysis for two other previously studied conservation problems (Eastern birds, Appalachian salamanders). Those researchers are now using those data sets in work to improve portfolio analysis tools for environmental management under climate change uncertainty. They have also published a paper that demonstrates the dangers of taking shortcuts in using portfolio analysis for spatial conservation planning under climate change uncertainty. <br /> <br /> Colorado State University (CSU) in cooperation with the USDA Forest Service’s Pacific Southwest and Southern Research Stations have two coordinated efforts underway. One is a comparative data and analysis of California and Florida household’s willingness to pay for private homeowner (e.g., FIREWISE) versus community fire risk reduction activities. The paper has been accepted for presentation at the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists meeting this summer. The second project is to estimate the costs of fuel reduction treatments (mechanical thinning and prescribed burning) in California. The data collection was performed by the USDA Forest Service and CSU is performing the analysis and development of a field fire specialists cost estimating user interface. The USDA Forest Service will test this and then offer training in the tool developed at CSU. <br /> <br /> CSU and Northern Arizona University (NAU) completed and published (see Mueller and Loomis, 2014) an analysis of how house prices are affected by wildfires. This research applied quantile regression to determine if there were differential effects of wildfire on house prices depending on the price of the home and hence, the income levels of homeowners. We found such a differential impact, and this information has been provided to the USDA Forest Service. <br /> <br /> CSU began collaboration with UN-R to model the economy-wide impacts of rural to urban water transfers under different population growth scenarios in the west. <br /> <br /> CSU has constructed a dynamic programming model to measure the value of stored water under different institutional settings, including the existence of trading, lease markets, and restricted trade. The model is calibrated to the Colorado-Big Thompson project. <br /> <br /> A collaboration between researchers at Mississippi State University (Miss. State) and the University of Georgia (UGA) completed an analysis of factors that determine households’ decision to purchase wind hazard insurance when the primary homeowner’s policy excludes it in coastal areas, and the extent of wind-hazard mitigation. A paper summarizing this work is forthcoming in Land Economics. <br /> <br /> A collaboration between researchers at Miss. State and Louisiana State University (LSU) completed an analysis of alternative land-reclamation methods for coastal restoration in Louisiana. This analysis focused on cost and benefit trajectories over time, accounting for both time (discounting) and risk. A paper reporting the results of this work has been published in Ecological Economics. <br /> <br /> Researchers at University of Wyoming have investigated the feasibility of trans-basin water transfers to meet growth in the southwest U.S. Under certain energy costs and distance of conveyance under-allocated sources may be sold to areas where demand is exceeding local supply. This pilot effort has implications for trans-basin deliveries in the arid intermountain west as well. <br /> <br /> Researchers at Wyoming and CSU have used survey instruments to determine landowner preferences for potential land conservation arrangements. Sub samples of landowners hold preferences for conservation that are more likely to outweigh financial inducements. This work has implications for a broad array of public and private conservation programs on private lands. <br /> <br /> Economists at Oregon State, Minnesota, UC Santa Barbara, and Bowdoin published a paper that shows how to optimally implement the provision of ecosystem services using an incentive-based mechanism under the common problems of spatial dependent environmental benefits and asymmetric information regarding landowner opportunity costs. The auction mechanism derived in this paper can be used with payments-for-ecosystem services programs, or with programs where the government owns the property rights to land, such as forest concessions. <br /> <br /> Researchers at Oregon State, Washington, Minnesota, Florida International, Wisconsin, Bowdoin, and UC Santa Barbara published a paper that projects land-use change impacts on terrestrial ecosystem services for the lower 48 states. The paper examines food and timber production, carbon sequestration, and wildlife habitat responses to land-use change as a function of various policy and commodity price scenarios. <br /> <br /> A team at Oregon State, Wisconsin, and UC Santa Barbara combined an economic land use model with ecological models to examine threats to aquatic systems derived from land-use change across the lower 48 states. <br /> <br /> Researchers at Oregon State, Idaho, and Wisconsin examined the effects of decentralized governance on timber extraction in European Russia using multiple periods of satellite imagery and econometric methods. <br /> <br /> Researchers at Virginia Tech estimated econometric models on the effect of length of residency on urban residential water demand. Our results indicate that water use increases with residency due to a shift in landscaping preferences. We shared these findings with the local water agency in Reno/Sparks, Nevada, and with peers and practitioners at an urban water workshop at Arizona State University. <br /> <br /> Researchers at Iowa State University have made progress on several working papers this past year, focused on advancing stated and revealed preference methods used to value environmental amenities. A first working paper draws on unique data from the Iowa Lakes Project and the Iowa Rivers Project, also funded jointly by the USEPA and Iowa Department of Natural Resources. The paper proposes a modeling technique that incorporates omitted sites in a recreational demand model even when one only has partial information about these sites. The paper demonstrates that the aggregation model with partial trip information can recover underlying preferences consistently in a variety of settings, which is an improvement upon conventional models that may lead to biased estimates. <br /> <br /> A second working paper by researchers at Iowa State investigates the consistency of consumer preferences over time and revealed versus stated preference data. The study draws on data from the Iowa Lakes Project, which provides information on recreational usage patterns over several years and for approximately 130 lakes, along with detailed information on the water quality for each lake. This study investigates the consistency of consumer preferences over time and between actual versus anticipated visitation patterns from the unique panel data. <br /> <br /> Researchers at the University of Delaware worked with people at various institutions to complete eight papers related land and water resource management in a changing environment that were either published in 2014 or are forthcoming. Several of these papers looked at improving the cost-effectiveness in agri-environmental programs either through the use of reverse auctions, using optimal conservation targeting, or combining the reverse auctions and optimal targeting. Other papers used experimental economics techniques to improve the sustainability of groundwater use. <br /> <br /> Researchers at the University of Rhode Island (URI) conducted a field experiment with 97 residents in the Scituate Reservoir Watershed in which the "suppliers" of improved water quality and its beneficiaries of those services make decisions through a market-like process on both sides of the market. In this market process, consumers reveal their marginal willingness to contribute payment for improvements in water quality, which is then used to construct an average revenue curve to serve as a demand curve. They also conducted a reverse auction on the supply side, in which livestock owners bid for payments to adopt best management practices for manure management. They used the spatially-explicit Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) model to quantify the effect of on-farm management practices to the resultant changes in water quality. The information from the bids and the resulting changes in water quality from SWAT allow construction of the supply curve for water quality improvements. The average revenue and supply curves combine to determine a market clearing price. <br /> <br /> Under Objective 2 (Economic Valuation Methods), the following activities, outputs, and accomplishments can be reported. <br /> <br /> A methodological investigation of strategies to overcome hypothetical bias in stated preference contingent valuation surveys was undertaken and published in 2014 (See Loomis, 2014). <br /> <br /> A contingent behavior analysis was used to quantify the consumer surplus and predicted electricity bills for rural villages in Rwanda (paper under review). <br /> <br /> A joint estimation framework was developed to estimate contingent behavior and valuation questions answered by the same individuals. The technique was applied to survey data from rural Rwanda. <br /> <br /> A collaboration between researchers at Miss. State and LSU is focused on ecosystem service valuation in two Gulf Coastal locations, focused on three habitat types and four ecosystem services provided by those habitats. This work also focuses on differences in elicitation methods. One paper has been submitted to a journal and another is in prep for submission. <br /> <br /> Researchers at Miss. State examined whether people reveal their unconditionally most-preferred alternative in choice experiments. Results were presented at a departmental seminar at the University of Alabama, Department of Economics, Finance and Legal Studies and the manuscript based on this research is forthcoming in the Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy. <br /> <br /> Researchers at Virginia Tech estimated econometric models to assess the importance of accuracy in geo-coding and tree damage assessment on accurately relating home values to MPB damage. Our finding that both matter in a substantial fashion was shared with the U.S. Forest Service, and presented at Clark University (MA). <br /> <br /> Under Objective 3 (Integrated Ecosystem Services Valuation and Management), the following activities, outputs, and accomplishments can be reported. <br /> <br /> Researchers at Illinois and Oregon have refined the statistical analyses of the results of choice experiment surveys conducted to estimate the values people place on reduced flooding, improved water quality, and improved aquatic habitat in and in the Chicago and Portland OR metropolitan areas. They are developing a theoretical model of optimal stormwater management policy. <br /> <br /> Researchers in North Dakota finalized the assessment of the benefits and costs of a system of wastewater recycling in the Bakken oil production region and revised a paper for publication. <br /> <br /> Working with CSU Extension Service, members of W3133 collected and analyzed data on agrotourism in Colorado (see publication by Hill, et al, 2015). This analysis provided information to farmers and ranchers about the types of activities sought by agrotourists, how far they would travel, number of trips, and their spending. <br /> <br /> CSU conducted an analysis of recreational whitewater boating in Colorado. This information estimated not only the economic value of this activity but how the value of that activity changed <br /> with instream flows. The paper was presented at the Western Agricultural Economics Association in summer of 2014. <br /> <br /> CSU, Utah State University (USU), and University of Wyoming undertook a study of the economic value of improving water quality in Utah’s lakes and streams. This analysis collected data on household values as well as recreation visitors’ values for improving water quality. A manuscript has been prepared that received a revise and resubmit from Ecological Economics. <br /> Researchers at Iowa State have initiated a new effort to add another year to the Iowa Lakes Project. This continues a panel data set of recreational lake visits for approximately 130 primary lakes in the state of Iowa for the years 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2009, and now 2014. The new data set will reinforce the advantages of panel data in recreational demand modeling and trace Iowan behavior over time along with water quality changes. The data also provides an opportunity to examine how social media data may be leveraged as a new source of recreational visitation data in environmental valuation models. <br /> Researchers at the University of Delaware evaluated consumer’s willing to pay for ecosystem services, such as pollination provided by honey bees and water filtration provided by oyster aquaculture. <br /> <br /> In addition to the real-money field experiment which only measured values for water quality improvement, researchers at URI also conducted a hypothetical choice experiment with the same subjects to understand the tradeoffs and values associated with water quality, restoration or preservation, and risk in the delivery of the ecosystem services. To analyze the spatial relationship of the demand for ecosystem services, the choice experiment data were georeferenced with the location of the subjects' residence. A number of spatial statistics were employed to test the extent of spatial correlation. They found that there was a very weak spatial pattern in the preferences for ecosystem services. <br /> <br /> To measure the supply of ecosystem services, researchers at URI calibrated the InVEST model for the Scituate Reservoir Watershed. InVEST is a decision support tool for ecosystem services developed by The Nature Conservancy, Stanford University, and other institutions. A few scenarios for future land use change were constructed and the predicted changes in ecosystem services were simulated in InVEST for the watershed. The results were shared with NRICD, NRCS, and Providence Water. <br />

Publications

PUBLICATIONS <br /> <br /> Bastian, C. T., K. T. Coatney, R. Mealor, D. T. Taylor, and P. Meiman. “Priority Weighting of Nature Versus Finances in Land Management Attitudes of Rural Exurban Landowners.” Landscape and Urban Planning: 127(July 2014): 65-74. <br /> Bode, M., Tulloch, A. I. T., Mills, M., Venter, O. and W. Ando, A. 2014. “A Conservation Planning Approach to Mitigate the Impacts of Leakage from Protected Area Networks.” Conservation Biology. doi: 10.1111/cobi.12434. <br /> <br /> Caffey, R.H., H. Wang, and D.R. Petrolia. 2014. “Trajectory Economics: Assessing the Flow of Ecosystem Services from Coastal Restoration.” Ecological Economics 100: 74-84. <br /> <br /> Castledine, A., K. Moeltner, M.K. Price, and S. Stoddard. 2014. "Free to Choose: Promoting Conservation by Relaxing Outdoor Watering Restrictions." Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 107(A): 324-343. <br /> <br /> Dissanayake, S.T.M. and A.W. Ando. 2014. “Valuing Grassland Restoration: Proximity to <br /> Substitutes and Tradeoffs Among Conservation Attributes.” Land Economics 90: 237-259. <br /> <br /> Duke J.D., S.J. Dundas, R.J. Johnston, and K.D. Messer. 2014. “Prioritizing Payment for Environmental Services: Using Nonmarket Benefits for Optimal Selection.” Ecological Economics. 105: 319-329. <br /> <br /> Fooks, J., N. Higgins, K.D. Messer, J. Duke, D. Hellerstein, and L. Lynch. Forthcoming. “Conserving Spatially Explicit Benefits in Ecosystem Service Markets: Experimental Tests of Network Bonuses and Spatial Targeting” American Journal of Agricultural Economics. <br /> <br /> Fooks, J., K.D. Messer, and J. Duke. 2015. “Dynamic Entry, Reverse Auctions, and the Purchase of Environmental Services.” Land Economics. 91(1): 57-75. <br /> <br /> Hearne, R., S. Shakya and Q. Yin. 2014. “The Value of Fracking Wastewater Treatment and Recycling Technologies in North Dakota. Journal of Water Reuse and Desalination.” In Press, Uncorrected Proof, Available online 5 November, 2014. doi:10.2166/wrd.2014.153. <br /> <br /> Hill, R., J. Loomis. D. Thilmany, M. Sullins. 2015. Economic Values of Agritourism to Visitors: <br /> A Multi-destination Hurdle Travel Cost Model of Demand. Tourism Economics 20(5): 10471065. <br /> <br /> Hodges, A., K. Hansen and D. McLeod. 2014. “The Economics of Bulk Water Transport in Southern California.” Resources 3(4): 703-720. http://www.mdpi.com/2079-9276/3/4/703 Hwang, J., D.R. Petrolia, and M.G. Interis. 2014. “Valuation, Consequentiality, and Opt-Out Responses to Stated Preference Surveys.” Agricultural & Resource Economics Review 43(3): 471-88. <br /> <br /> Interis, M.G., C., Xu, D. Petrolia, and K. Coatney. “Examining Unconditional Preference Revelation in Choice Experiments: A Voting Game Approach.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy (forthcoming). <br /> <br /> Interis, M.G. and D.R. Petrolia. 2014. “Consequentiality Effects in Binary- and MultinomialChoice Settings.” Journal of Agricultural & Resource Economics 39(2): 1-16. <br /> <br /> Jeon, Hocheol. 2014. “Three Essays on Environmental Economics.” PhD dissertation, Iowa State University. <br /> <br /> Johnston, R. and K. Moeltner. 2014. "Meta-Modeling and Benefit Transfer: The Empirical Relevance of Source-Consistency in Welfare Measures." Environmental and Resource Economics 59: 337-361. <br /> <br /> Lawler, J., Lewis, D.J., Nelson, E., Plantinga, A.J., Polasky, S., Withey, J., Helmers, D., Martinuzzi, S., and V. Radeloff. 2014. “Projected Land-Use Change Impacts on U.S. Ecosystem Services.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 111(20): 7492-7497. <br /> <br /> Li, J., J. Michael, J. Duke, K.D. Messer, and J. Suter. 2014. “Behavioral Response to <br /> Contamination Risk Information in a Spatially Explicit Groundwater Environment: Experimental Evidence.” Water Resources Research. 50: 6390-6405. <br /> <br /> Liu, Z., J. Suter, K.D. Messer, J. Duke, and H. Michael. 2014. “Strategic Entry and Externalities in Groundwater Resources: Evidence from the Lab.” Resource and Energy Economics. 38: 181197. <br /> <br /> Loomis, J. 2014. “Strategies for Overcoming Hypothetical Bias in Stated Preference Surveys.” Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 39(1): 34-46. <br /> <br /> Loomis, J. and J. McTernan. 2014. “Economic Value of Instream Flow for Non-Commercial Whitewater Boating Using Recreation Demand and Contingent Valuation Methods.” Environmental Management 53(3): 510-519. <br /> <br /> Mallory, M.L. and A.W. Ando. 2014. “Implementing Efficient Conservation Portfolio Design.” Resource and Energy Economics 38: 1-18. <br /> <br /> Martinuzzi, S., Januchowski-Hartley, S.R., Pracheil, B.M., McIntyre, P.R., Plantinga, A.J., Lewis, D.J., and V.C. Radeloff. 2014. “Threats and Opportunities for Freshwater Conservation under Future Land Use Change Scenarios in the United States.” Global Change Biology 20: 113124. <br /> <br /> Messer, K.D., M. Kecinski, R. Hirsch, and X. Tang. Forthcoming. “Applying Multiple Knapsack Optimization to Improve the Cost Effectiveness of Land Conservation” Land Economics. <br /> <br /> Messer, K.D., J. Duke, and L. Lynch. 2014. “Applying Experimental Economics to Land Economics: Public Information and Auction Efficiency in Land Preservation Markets.” in the Oxford Handbook of Land Economics. J. Duke and J. Wu editors. Oxford Press. <br /> <br /> Moeltner, K and R.S. Rosenberger. 2014. "Cross-Context Benefit Transfer: A Bayesian Search for Information Pools." American Journal of Agricultural Economics 96: 469-488. <br /> <br /> Mueller, J. and J. Loomis. 2014. “Does the Estimated Impacts of Wildfires Vary with Housing Price Distribution? A Quantile Regression Approach.” Land Use Policy 41: 121-127. <br /> <br /> Petrolia, D.R. J. Hwang, C.E. Landry, and K.H. Coble. 2015. “Wind Insurance and Mitigation in the Coastal Zone.” Land Economics 91(2): 272-95. <br /> <br /> Petrolia, D.R., M.G. Interis, J. Hwang. 2014. “America’s Wetland? A National Survey of Willingness to Pay for Restoration of Louisiana’s Coastal Wetlands.” Marine Resource Economics 29(1): 17-37. <br /> <br /> Polasky, S., Lewis, D.J., Plantinga, A.J., and E. Nelson. 2014. “Implementing the Optimal Provision of Ecosystem Services.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(17): 6248-6253. <br /> <br /> Wendland, K., Lewis, D.J., and J. Alix-Garcia. 2014. “The Effect of Decentralized Governance on Timber Extraction in European Russia.” Environmental and Resource Economics 57: 19-40. <br /> <br /> Wu, S., J. Fooks, K.D. Messer, and D. Delaney. Forthcoming. “Consumer Demand for Local Honey” Applied Economics. <br /> <br /> Yi, Donggyu. 2014. “Three Studies on Environmental Valuation.” PhD dissertation, Iowa State University. <br /> <br /> PRESENTATIONS <br /> <br /> Ando, A.W. “Linking Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services: From Expert Opinion to Prediction & Application.” Energy and Environment Forum at Howard H. Baker Jr Center for Public Policy, University of Tennessee. November 2014. <br /> <br /> Ando, A.W. “How Should We Make Environmental Investments When the Future Climate is Uncertain?” 1960 Scholars Lecture. Williams College. October 2014. <br /> <br /> Ando, A.W. “A Conservation Planning Approach to Mitigating the Impacts of Leakage from Protected Area Networks.” UC Santa Barbara Land Use Workshop. May 2014. <br /> <br /> Economic Value of Instream Flow for Non-Commercial Whitewater Boating Using Travel Cost and Contingent Valuation Methods. Western Agricultural Economics Association, Colorado Springs, Colorado. June 2014. <br /> <br /> Interis, M.G. and D.R. Petrolia. “Coastal Ecosystem Services of the Gulf of Mexico: Does their Value Depend on the Providing Habitat?” Selected paper, 2015 SAEA Annual Meeting, Atlanta, GA, January 31 - February 13 2014. <br /> <br /> Gill, CA and E Uchida. A Spatial Model of Willingness to Pay for Manure Management in the Scituate Reservoir System. Presented at the 2014 Annual Meeting of the Northeast Agricultural and Resource Economics Association. Morganstown, WV. 2014. <br /> <br /> Interis, M.G., C., Xu, D. Petrolia, and K. Coatney. “Examining Unconditional Preference <br /> Revelation in Choice Experiments: A Voting Game Approach.” Departmental seminar, Department of Economics, Finance and Legal Studies, University of Alabama, October 2014. <br /> <br /> Kwabena K., D.R. Petrolia, K.H. Coble, A. Harri, and A. Williams. “Producer Preferences for Contracts on a Risky Bioenergy Crop.” Selected paper, 2015 SAEA Annual Meeting, Atlanta, GA, January 31 - February 13. <br /> <br /> Lewis, D.J. “Does the Conservation of Land Provide a Net Habitat Gain in the Presence of Land <br /> Market Feedbacks?” Land Use and Ecosystem Services Workshop, UC Santa Barbara. May 2014. <br /> <br /> Lewis, D.J. “Projected Land-Use Change Impacts on U.S. Ecosystem Services” Oregon State University Department of Integrated Biology Seminar Series. March, 2014. <br /> <br /> Merrill, N and J Opaluch. Controlling Risks of Cyanobacteria Blooms. Presented at the 2013 Heartland Environmental and Natural Resource Economics Conference; 2014 Annual Meeting of the New England Water and Environment Association. 2014. <br /> <br /> Messer, K.D. and P. Ferraro. “Vision for the Center for Behavioral and Experimental AgriEnvironmental Policy Research.” Economic Research Service, Washington, DC, October 2014. <br /> <br /> Messer, K.D. “Preserving More with Less.” American Farmland Trust Conference, Hersey, Pennsylvania, May 2014. <br /> <br /> Moeltner, K. "Length of Residency and Urban Water Use," 3rd Urban Water Roundtable, Global Institute of Sustainability, Arizona State University. February 2015. <br /> <br /> Moeltner, K. "Accuracy of Forest Damage Assessment and Geo-coding of Residences: Impact on Hedonic Estimation", Clark University, Worcester, MA. October 2014. <br /> <br /> Petrolia, D.R., J. Hwang, and M.G. Interis. “Single-Choice, Repeated-Choice, and Best-Worst Elicitation Formats: Do Results Differ and by How Much?” Selected paper, AERE-Session Selected paper, 2014 SEA Annual Conference, Atlanta, November 22-24. <br /> <br /> Suter, J., S. Collie, J. Duke, K. Messer, and H. Michael. “Experiments on Groundwater Policy at the Extensive and Intensive Margins.” University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE, October 2014. <br /> <br /> Yan, J., Zarghamee, H., K.D. Messer, H.M. Kaiser and W.D. Schulze. “Can The Voluntary <br /> Contribution Mechanism be Efficient? The Role of Social Norms and Automatic Donation in Charitable Giving” Economic Science Association, Fort Lauderdale, FL, October 2014. <br />

Impact Statements

1. The research on the value of biodiversity in agricultural pest control helps entomologists understand what to measure in controlled experiments to facilitate estimates of value, gives producers and ag policy makers an idea of how valuable natural enemy diversity can be, and provides a valuable lesson to the broad community of people who study biodiversity in the importance of which species are protected (not just how many).
2. The paper on household foraging behavior helps conservation agents understand the mechanism through which human behavior can undermine conservation efforts while mitigating the harm that protected areas do to local peoples. The research on spatial conservation portfolio design is already influencing other researchers who work on strategies for environmental management in the face of climate change uncertainty, and is improving the set of tools they have to work with.

Back to top

Report Information

Participants

Brief Summary of Minutes

Accomplishments

<ol><br /> <li>The following work addresses Objective 1: Land and Water Resource Management in a Changing Environment, with</li><br /> </ol><br /> <ul><br /> <li>Task 1-1: Economic Analysis of Ag, Forest and Rangeland Resources, Open Space, and WUI Zones</li><br /> <li>Task 1-2: Economic Analysis of Natural Hazards (fire, invasive species, climate change).</li><br /> </ul><br /> <p>A large body of research from the University of Maine with other collaborators addresses Objective <strong>1. </strong>Hart et al (2015) employ a sustainability science approach, and summarize the complexity of and opportunities for addressing land and water resource management issues in changing environments, markets, and cultures. In a multi-state collaboration with Maine, Connecticut, Ohio, Oregon, and Wisconsin, Morzillo et al (2015) raises awareness of changing land use and land cover, economic, and social factors in rural forested communities throughout the U.S. By calling attention to three common community development trajectories, they advance a framework to guide future meta-analyses and synthesis research of changing rural areas. This framework and supporting spatial data layers provide improved support for resource management and community development decisions. In another collaboration between Maine and Oregon that also involved USA EPA and USFS stakeholders, Latta et al (2015) provide improved understanding of interactive effects between land use, forest, and carbon offset policies enhances support of federal, state, and local natural resource management decision-making. Levesque et al (2015) summarize key steps that were taken in developing an interdisciplinary, collaborative working group to integrate ecological and economics research and support the development of market-based tools for managing vernal pools. Johnson et al (2015) combine economics and psychological research to assess the impact of reading about future scenarios on willingness to participate in land use planning processes. Their results suggest scenario narratives increase willingness to participate and perceived self-efficacy.</p><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> <p>Researchers from Michigan state addressed Objective <strong>1 </strong>though peer reviewed publications investigating landscape prediction and mapping of game fish biomass (Esselman et al 2015), and willingness to participate in a filter strip program for watershed protection (Yeboah et al 2015).</p><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> <p>Researchers at Illinois addressed Objective <strong>1 </strong>through several peer reviewed articles, including investigation of competing land uses (Shah and Ando, 2016), the economics of conservation and finance (Ando and Shah, 2016), and climate change uncertainty (Shah and Ando, 2016). A multi-state collaboration involving researchers from Illinois, Wyoming, and Minnesota addressed spatially correlated risk in reserve site selection (Hamaide et al., 2016). Finally, a multi-national work investigates leakage from protected area networks (Bode et al, 2015).&nbsp;</p><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> <p>Wyoming research addressing Objective <strong>1 </strong>reflects the importance of land use planning on the cost of public services to rural amenity rich areas (Scofield et al, 2015) as well development impacts on open space and related amenities (Liekse at al, 2015; Bastian et al., 2015; Keske et al, 2015).</p><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> <p>Multi-state work from Virginia and Nevada addresses Objective <strong>1 </strong>showing that residential water use increases with length of residency by households in the arid west, controlling for watering rules and compliances, as well as social spillover effects (Vinoles et al, 2015).</p><br /> <p>Collaborations from Virginia Tech and USDA Forest service addressing Objective <strong>1 </strong>show that the widespread infestation of pine forests in the Colorado front range by the Mountain Pine Beetle over the last decade had significant negative impacts on home values (Cohen et al, 2016).</p><br /> <p>University of Georgia members produced manuscripts addressing Objective <strong>1 </strong>through wind insurance mitigation (Petrolia et al, 2015), as well as a presentation on coastal hazard insurance.</p><br /> <p>Publications by researchers at Colorado State University in the area of Land and Water Resource Management focus on climate change adaptation and mitigation and therefore contribute in the areas of Objective <strong>1</strong>, tasks 1 and 2.&nbsp; See Hamm et al. (2015), Manning and Hadrich (2015), Maas et. al (2015) and Manning and Taylor (2015).</p><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> <p>Tabatabaei and Loomis address Objective <strong>1</strong>, task 2, through investigating potential effects of wildfire in beetle-killed trees.</p><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> <ol start="2"><br /> <li>The following word addresses Objective <strong>2</strong>: Economic Valuation Methods, with</li><br /> </ol><br /> <ul><br /> <li>Task 2-1: Advances in Stated/Revealed Preference Methods,</li><br /> <li>Task 2-2: Advances in Benefit Transfer Methods</li><br /> <li>Task 2-3: Advances in Spatial/Environmental Nexus.</li><br /> </ul><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> <p>Researchers at Colorado State University produced several publications related to Objective <strong>2</strong>, Task 2, that advanced benefit transfer models, including Richardson et al. (2015), Manning et al. (2015), and Manning and Loomis.</p><br /> <p>University of Georgia members researched Objective <strong>2 </strong>with a paper on anchoring (Alevy et al, 2015), as well as a several presentations at both the Southern Economic Association Meetings and the American Economic Association meetings.</p><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> <p>A group of researchers from Illinois, Wyoming, California, and Michigan addressed Objective <strong>2 </strong>by estimating the value of changes in biodiversity for biological pest control in agriculture (Letourneau et al, 2015).</p><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> <ol start="3"><br /> <li>The following work addresses Objective <strong>3</strong>: Integrated Ecosystem Services Valuation and Management, with</li><br /> </ol><br /> <ul><br /> <li>Task 3-1: Economic Analysis of Ecosystem Services Flows,</li><br /> <li>Task 3-2: Economic Analysis of Recreation Services, Task 3-3: Economic Analysis of Water Quality.</li><br /> </ul><br /> <p>A multistate manuscript regarding improvements in water quality using nutrients addressed Objective <strong>3</strong>, Task 3 (Nelson et al. 2015).</p><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> <p>Objective <strong>3 </strong>was addressed by University of Georgia researchers in a manuscript regarding pollinators (Barfield et al, 2015).</p><br /> <ol start="4"><br /> <li>The following work addresses multiple objectives:</li><br /> </ol><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> <p>Researchers at Mississippi State University (Interis and Petrilia, 2016) participated in a study that was part of larger, funded project with researchers at Louisiana State University, addressing Objectives <strong>2</strong> and <strong>3</strong>.</p><br /> <p>A multi-state collaboration for Iowa and Michigan addressing Objectives <strong>2 </strong>and <strong>3 </strong>identifies the conditions under which the willingness to pay (WTP) &ndash; willingness to accept (WTA) divergence is consistent with neoclassical utility theory and when it is not. In cases where it is not, the authors provide guidance on whether the WTP measure or the WTA measure is more appropriate for use in a benefit-cost analysis (Kim et al, 2015).</p><br /> <p>A multi-state collaboration with Iowa, Minnesota, and Washington evaluates the degree to which data collected from photos posted to social media sites can be used to understand recreational behavior (Keeler et al, 2015). By comparing data from social media postings with data from a random population sample, a better understanding of the quality of the social media for understanding recreation demand can be achieved, addressing both Objectives <strong>2 </strong>and <strong>3. </strong></p><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> <p>A report by Iowa State describes efforts to conduct an Iowa lakes recreational valuation survey, addressing Objectives <strong>2 </strong>and <strong>3 </strong>(Jeon et al 2015).</p><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> <p>A policy brief from Iowa describes the Iowa lakes recreational valuation survey that was performed each year from 2002 to 2005, 2009, and 2014 and addresses Objectives <strong>2</strong> and <strong>3</strong>. This survey is used in conjunction with econometric models and economic theory to measure the benefits of improved water quality at lakes within the state of Iowa (Jeon et al, 2015).</p>

Publications

<p><strong>Publications </strong>(including peer reviewed articles, chapters, bulletins and policy briefings)<strong>:</strong></p><br /> <p>Alevy, J., C. E. Landry, and J.A. List. 2015. &ldquo;Field Experiments on Anchoring of Economic Valuations&rdquo; <strong><em>Economic Inquiry</em></strong> 53(3): 1522-38.&nbsp;</p><br /> <p><strong>Ando</strong>, A.W. and P.S. Shah. In press. &ldquo;The Economics of Conservation and Finance: A Review of the Literature.&rdquo; <em>International Review of Environmental and Resource Economics</em>. Balukas, J. 2015. Economic and ecological analyses of vernal pool conservation in urbanizing landscapes (M.S. Thesis), School of Economics, University of Maine, Orono.</p><br /> <p>Barfield, A.S., J.C. <strong>Bergstrom</strong>, S. Ferreira, A.P. Covich, and K.S. Delaplane. &ldquo;An Economic Valuation of Biotic Pollination Services in Georgia&rdquo;. <strong><em>Journal of Economic Entomology</em></strong>. 108, 2 (2015).&nbsp;&nbsp; <strong>Bastian,</strong> C., C. Keske, D.Hoag and D. <strong>McLeod</strong>.&nbsp; &ldquo;Landowner and Land Trust Agent Preferences for Conservation Easements.&rdquo;&nbsp; Revised and resubmitted with Landscape and Urban Planning, March 2016.</p><br /> <p>Bode, M., Tulloch, A., Mills, M., Verter, O., and <strong>Ando</strong>, A.W. 2015. &ldquo;A Conservation Planning Approach to Mitigating the Impacts of Leakage from Protected Area Networks.&rdquo; <em>Conservation Biology</em> 29(3): 765-774.</p><br /> <p>Cohen, J., C. Blinn, K. Boyle, T. Holmes, K. <strong>Moeltner</strong> (2016). Hedonic Valuation with Translating Commodities: Mountain Pine Beetles and Host Trees in the Colorado Front Range. Environmental and Resource Economics, 63(3), 613-642</p><br /> <p>Esselman, P., R. Stevenson, F. <strong>Lupi,</strong> C. Riseng, M Wiley. 2015. Landscape prediction and mapping of game fish biomass, an ecosystem service of Michigan rivers.&nbsp; <em>N. Amer. J. of Fish. Mgmt</em>. 35:302-320.</p><br /> <p>Ham, C., <strong>J. Loomis,</strong> and P. Champ. 2015. Relative Economic Values of Open Space Provided by National Forest and Military Lands Surrounding Communities. <em>Growth and Change</em> Vol 46(1): 81-96.</p><br /> <p>Hamaide, B., H.J. Albers, G. Busby, A.W. <strong>Ando</strong>, and S. Polasky. 2016. &ldquo;Spatially-Correlated Risk in Nature Reserve Site Selection.&rdquo; <em>PLOS ONE</em> DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0146023.</p><br /> <p>Hart, D., <strong>Bell</strong>, K.P., Lindenfeld, L., Johnson, T., Ranco, D., Jain, S., and B. McGill. 2015. Strengthening the role of universities in addressing sustainability challenges, <em>Ecology and Society</em> 20(2):4 http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-07283-200204</p><br /> <p><strong>Interis</strong>, M., &amp; D. <strong>Petrolia</strong>. 2016. "Location, Location, Habitat: How the Value of Ecosystem Services Varies across Location and by Habitat." <em>Land Economics</em>&nbsp;92(2): 292-307.</p><br /> <p>Jeon, H., Y. Ji, and C.L. Kling. &ldquo;A Report to the Iowa Department of Natural Resources: The Iowa Lakes Valuation Project 2014 Summary and Findings&rdquo; February 2016.</p><br /> <p>Jeon, H., C.L. Kling, and Y. Ji. &ldquo;Degraded Water Quality in Lakes: Consequences for Use&rdquo; Fall 2015, <em>CARD Agricultural Policy Review</em>.</p><br /> <p>Johnson, M.L., <strong>Bell</strong>, K.P., and M. Teisl. 2014. Does imagining future land use changes affect citizen engagement with land use planning ? <em>Land Use Policy 57: </em>44-15 DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.05.007</p><br /> <p>Keeler, B., S. Wood, S. Polasky, C. Kling, C. Filstrup, and J. Downing. &ldquo;Recreational Demand for Clean Water: Evidence from Geotagged Photographs by Visitors to Lakes&rdquo; <em>Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment</em> 13 (2015): 76-81.</p><br /> <p>Keske, C. M., P. Bixler, C. T. <strong>Bastian</strong>, and J. Cross.&nbsp; &ldquo;Are Population and Land Use Changes Perceived as Threats to Sense of Place in the New West? A Multilevel Modeling Approach,&rsquo;&rdquo; <span style="text-decoration: underline;">Rural Sociology</span>. (Currently in Review &ndash; Revised and Resubmitted).</p><br /> <p>Kim, Y., C. Kling, J. Zhao. &ldquo;Understanding Behavioral Explanations of the WTP-WTA Divergence through a Neoclassical Lens: Implications for Environmental Policy,&rdquo; <em>Annual Review of Resource Economics</em> 7 (2015): 169-187.</p><br /> <p>Knoche, S., F. <strong>Lupi,</strong> A. Suiter. 2015. Harvesting benefits from habitat restoration: Influence of landscape position on economic benefits to pheasant hunters. <em>Ecological Economics.</em> 113: 97-105.</p><br /> <p>Latta, G.S., Adams, D.M., <strong>Bell,</strong> K.P., and J.D. Kline. 2016. Evaluating land-use and private forest management responses to a potential forest carbon offset sales program in western Oregon (USA), <em>Forest Policy and Economics</em> 65: 1-8, ISSN 1389-9341, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2016.01.004">http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2016.01.004</a></p><br /> <p>Letourneau, D., A.W. <strong>Ando</strong>, A. Narwani, J. Jedlicka, and E. Barbier. 2015. &ldquo;Simple-but-Sound Methods for Estimating the Value of Changes in Biodiversity for Biological Pest Control in Agriculture.&rdquo; <em>Ecological Economic</em>s 120: 215-225.&nbsp; DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.10.015.</p><br /> <p>Levesque, V.R., Calhoun, A.J.K., <strong>Bell</strong>, K.P., and T. Johnson. 2016. Turning contention into collaboration: Engaging power, trust, and learning in collaborative networks, <em>Society &amp; Natural Resources</em>, published online 25 May 2016,&nbsp; DOI:10.1080/08941920.2016.1180726</p><br /> <p>Lieske S., R. Coupal and D. <strong>McLeod</strong>. &ldquo;Political jurisdiction, reputation and urban form: a more complete specification of public service costs.&rdquo; <span style="text-decoration: underline;">Journal of Urban Economics</span>. In Review September 2015.</p><br /> <p>Maas, Alex, Andre Dozier, Dale <strong>Manning</strong>, and Christopher Goemans.&nbsp; 2015. &ldquo;The Value of Stored Water and Trading in the West: Lessons from the Colorado-Big Thompson Project.&rdquo; <em>&nbsp;Colorado Water</em>. Volume 32, Issue 1 pp.5-7.&nbsp;</p><br /> <p><strong>Manning</strong>, D. T., and J. C. Hadrich. "An evaluation of the social and private efficiency of adoption: Anaerobic digesters and greenhouse gas mitigation." <em>Journal of environmental management</em> 154 (2015): 70-77.</p><br /> <p><strong>Manning</strong>, Dale T., and J. Edward Taylor. "Agricultural Efficiency and Labor Supply to Common Property Resource Collection: Lessons from Rural Mexico." <em>Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics</em> 40.3 (2015): 365-386.</p><br /> <p><strong>Manning</strong>, Dale T., Peter Means*, Daniel Zimmerle, Kathleen Galvin, John Loomis, Keith Paustian. &ldquo;Using contingent behavior analysis to measure benefits from rural electrification in developing countries: an example from Rwanda.&rdquo; &nbsp;<em>Energy Policy</em>, Volume 86, November 2015, Pages 393-401.</p><br /> <p><strong>Manning, Dale T. and John Loomis.&nbsp; </strong>Comparing WTP for Infrastructure using Contingent Behavior and Contingent Valuation, accepted at <em>Environment and Development Economics</em></p><br /> <p><strong>McLeod,</strong> D. &nbsp;and R. Coupal. 2015. &ldquo;The land-use change and spatially explicit fiscal impacts of regional water development.&rdquo; <span style="text-decoration: underline;">Applied Spatial Analysis and Policy</span><em>. <strong>Invited special issue: Planning Support Systems</strong></em>. 8(2): 113-130.</p><br /> <p>Melstrom, R., F. <strong>Lupi</strong>, P. Esselman, R.J. Stevenson. 2015. Valuing recreational fishing quality at rivers and streams. <em>Water Resources Research</em>, <em>51</em>, 140&ndash;150.&nbsp;</p><br /> <p>Morzillo, A.T., Colocousis, C., Munroe, D., <strong>Bell</strong>, K.P., Martinuzzi, S., Van Berkel, D.B., Lechowicz, M., Rayfield, B., and B. McGill. 2015. Forests in the middle: interactions between drivers of change and place-based characteristics in rural forest communities, <em>Journal of Rural Studies (</em>December<em>)</em>: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0743016715300231.</p><br /> <p>Nelson, N. <strong>J. Loomis, </strong>P. Jakus, M Kealy, N Stackelburg, and J. Ostermiller. 2015. Linking Ecological Data and Economics to Estimate the Total Economic Value of Improving Water Quality by Reducing Nutrients. <em>Ecological Economics </em>118: 1-9. 2015.&nbsp;</p><br /> <p><strong>Petrolia</strong>, D., J.Hwang, C.E. <strong>Landry</strong>, and K. Coble. 2015. &ldquo;Wind Insurance and Mitigation in the Gulf Coastal Zone&rdquo; <strong><em>Land Economics </em></strong>91(2): 272-95.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><br /> <p>Richardson, L., <strong>J. Loomis, </strong>T. Kroeger and F. Casey. 2015. The Role of Benefit Transfer in Ecosystem Service Valuation. <em>Ecological Economics</em> 115: 51-58.&nbsp;</p><br /> <p>Scofield, A., B. Rashford, D. <strong>McLeod</strong>, S. Lieske, R. Coupal, and S. Albeke. "The Impact of Residential Development Pattern on Wildland Fire Suppression Expenditures." <span style="text-decoration: underline;">Land Economics</span>. Accepted and forthcoming November 2016.</p><br /> <p>Scofield, A., B. Rashford, D. <strong>McLeod</strong> and R. Coupal. 2015. &ldquo;Managing the spatial pattern of residential development could reduce the cost of fighting wildfires.&rdquo;&nbsp; <span style="text-decoration: underline;">Reflections</span>. College of Agriculture and Natural Resources. University of Wyoming.</p><br /> <p>Scofield, A., B. Rashford, D. <strong>McLeod</strong>, R. Coupal and S. Lieske. 2015. &ldquo;Wildfire Suppression Costs &ndash; The Role of Residential Development Pattern.&rdquo; <span style="text-decoration: underline;">Open Spaces Bulletin,</span> ENR and AGEC. University of Wyoming.</p><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> <p>Shah, P. and A.W. <strong>Ando</strong>. Accepted. &ldquo;Permanent and Temporary Policy Incentives for Conservation under Stochastic Returns from Competing Land Uses.&rdquo; <em>American Journal of Agricultural Economics</em>.</p><br /> <p>Shah, P. and A.W. <strong>Ando</strong>. 2015. &ldquo;Downside versus Symmetric Measures of Uncertainty in Natural Resource Portfolio Design to Manage Climate Change Uncertainty.&rdquo; <em>Land Economics</em> 91(4): 664-687.</p><br /> <p>Tabatabaei, M. , <strong>J. Loomis,</strong>&nbsp; and D. McCollum. 2015. Non-Market Benefits of Reducing Environmental Effects of Potential Wildfires in Beetle Killed Trees: A Contingent Valuation Study. <em>Journal of Sustainable Forestry</em> 34(8): 720-737.</p><br /> <p>Vinoles, V., K. <strong>Moeltner</strong>, S. Stoddard (2015). Length of Residency and Water Use in an Arid Urban Environment, Water Resources and Economics, 12(Oct.), 52-66</p><br /> <p>Yeboah, F., F. <strong>Lupi</strong>, M. <strong>Kaplowitz</strong>. 2015. Agricultural landowners&rsquo; willingness to participate in a filter strip program for watershed protection. <em>Land Use Policy.</em> 49: 75&ndash;85.</p><br /> <p><strong>Presentations: </strong></p><br /> <p>Ahmadiani, M. and C.E. <strong>Landry</strong>. 2015. &ldquo;Economic Value of Multi-peril Coastal Hazard Insurance&rdquo; Selected paper SEA Meetings, New Orleans, LA.</p><br /> <p>Albeke. W-3133 Meetings: <em><span style="text-decoration: underline;">Benefits and Costs of Natural Resources Policies Affecting Ecosystem Services on Public and Private Lands</span></em>.&nbsp; Pensacola, FL</p><br /> <p>Champ, P., L. Richardson and <strong>J. Loomis.</strong> February 25-26, 2016. &ldquo;Public Health Messages and Wildfire Smoke Exposure&rdquo; W-3133 Meetings: <em><span style="text-decoration: underline;">Benefits and Costs of Natural Resources Policies Affecting Ecosystem Services on Public and Private Lands</span></em>.&nbsp; Portland, OR.</p><br /> <p><strong>&nbsp;</strong></p><br /> <p><strong>Manning, Dale</strong>, Chris Goemans and Alex Mass. July 2015.&nbsp; &ldquo;Climate Change and US Agriculture: Accounting for Surface Water Irrigation.&rdquo;&nbsp; San Francisco, CA.</p><br /> <p><strong>Manning</strong>, Dale, Jordan Suter, Chris Goemans, and Aaron Hrozencik. February 25-26, 2016. &nbsp;&ldquo;A Basin-wide Spatially-explicit Model of Groundwater Use in the Ogallala Aquifer&rdquo; W3133 Meetings: <em><span style="text-decoration: underline;">Benefits and Costs of Natural Resources Policies Affecting Ecosystem Services on Public and Private Lands</span></em>.&nbsp; Portland, OR.</p><br /> <p><strong>Landry</strong>, C.E. and T. Allen. 2016. &ldquo;Hedonic Property Prices and Coastal Beach Width&rdquo; Selected paper SEA Meetings, New Orleans, LA.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;</p><br /> <p><strong>Landry,</strong> C.E., A.R. Lewis, and H. Vogelsong. 2015. &ldquo;Economic Value and Economic Impact of Visitation to Cape Hatteras National Seashore: Addressing Onsite Sampling&rdquo;,&nbsp;Selected paper Southern Ag Econ Assoc. Meetings, Atlanta, GA.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;</p><br /> <p><strong>Landry</strong>, C.E.&nbsp; and J. Whitehead&nbsp;2015"Economic Values of Coastal Erosion Management: Combining Recreation Demand and Contingent Valuation Data",&nbsp;Selected paper AAEA Meetings, San Francisco, CA. &nbsp;&nbsp;</p><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> <p>Scofield, A., D. <strong>McLeod,</strong> B. Rashford, R. Coupal, S. Lieske and S. &ldquo;The Impact of Residential Development Pattern on Wildland Fire Suppression Expenditures.&rdquo; February 26-27, 2015.</p><br /> <p><strong>Shonkwiler</strong>, J. S.&nbsp; and A. Barfield&nbsp;2015"Recreation Survey Response Data: Patterns and Problems",&nbsp;Selected paper AAEA Meetings, San Francisco.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;</p><br /> <p>Todd, L., C. <strong>Bastian</strong>, D. <strong>McLeod,</strong> C. Keske and D. Hoag. &ldquo;Factors and prices affecting Colorado and Wyoming landowner&rsquo;s willingness to accept a conservation easement..&rdquo; W-3133 Meetings: <em><span style="text-decoration: underline;">Benefits and Costs of Natural Resources Policies Affecting Ecosystem Services on Public and Private Lands</span></em>.&nbsp; Portland, OR.</p>

Impact Statements

1. Research from Michigan State contributes to managers understanding of the effect of landscape characteristics and phosphorous loadings affect fish abundance in rives, and provides river fish abundance models that can be directly linked to valuation models. Other work contributes to managers understanding of who will enroll in filter strip programs to protect water quality and how program characteristics and payments affect participation.

Back to top

Report Information

Participants

See attachment

Brief Summary of Minutes

[Attachment: Annual meeting program, last page is business meeting agenda]

The annual meeting was called to order by outgoing chair Julie Mueller.

Julie was recognized for her service planning the annual meeting, but more importantly for doing the lionshare of the work to write and submit the proposal for W-4133. Incoming president Ben Gramig and vice-president Dale Manning were recognized.

Roll was taken from amongst those on the meeting program.

Open Issues

1) John Tanaka was present at the meeting and offered a brief update on the re-chartering process that was underway. He indicated that regional review was taking place and that we might expect to hear someing in the next 45-60 days about requested revisions or further instructions. John reminded the group that a final report for W-3133 was due within 60 days after the close of the annual meeting.

2) Election of a new officer -- There was discusion and Craig Landry was nominated to serve as secretary (2017-2018), provided our W-4133 proposal is ultimately successful.

3) Incoming chair solicted location suggestions for the 2018 meeting. Suggestions received: Santa Fe, NM, Tucson, AZ, or the coast of NC. Members emphasized the tradition of, first and foremost, the meeting organizer/incoming president selecting a location where they want to hold the meeting they will plan.

4) Recruiting new members to the regional project was discussed

New Business

1) The group decided to leave the standing model for handling inter-annual carryover of project funds in placegoing forward.

2) Julie Mueller suggested that the group try to formalize some guidelines for writing future annual meeting reports, and indicated that she would draft some suggestions to passed along to future officers.

3) Julie led a discussion of how to handle the re-chartering process in the future in order to ease the disproportionate burden that it placed on her over the previous year. The group thanked her again for her outstanding leadership and service to W-3133. The members accepted Julie's recommendation that there be a dedicated session at the annual meeting prior to the year when a re-charter proposal is due, led by the then-president, to establish new objectives and set in motion a plan to deliver the re-charter proposal by January 15 of the year when (proposed) W-4133 is set to expire. This would mean having a dedicated session at the 2020 annual meeting to organize the re-chartering process so that the application is ready to be submitted by January of 2021, prior to the 2021 annual meeting in the final year of (proposed) W-4133.

The meeting was adjourned.

 

Accomplishments

<p><span style="text-decoration: underline;"><strong>Accomplishments</strong></span>&nbsp;</p><br /> <p>North Carolina State University, Michigan State University, and University of Maryland economists assessed the recreational natural resource damages associated with the 2010 Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill, the largest spill ever in US waters.&nbsp;</p><br /> <p>Conservation easement (CE) markets have become an important public/private land conservation tool in addition to standard land use controls. Stated choice analysis using a random utility model and mixed logit estimation techniques indicated differences between Colorado and Wyoming landowner preferences for conservation easement programs. It also indicates that land trusts have different missions that influence the types of Conservation Easements they would pursue. This research has policy ramifications as per NRCS&rsquo;s and FSA&rsquo;s CPGL, CRP, CSP, EQIP, FRPP, GRP, WRP, WHIP; USFS&rsquo;s Forest Legacy, Stewardship and Land Enhancement Programs; USF&amp;W&rsquo;s Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund and Partnership with Private Landowners for fish and wildlife habitat conservation; LT&rsquo;s and Public PACE programs. The work also has implications for state, county and municipal land use planning efforts as well as property owners, rural communities and developers. Outcomes provide perspectives as per landowner preferences for conservation easements as well as land trust concerns for initiating conservation easement agreements. The research is designed to improve the decision making environment for program provider and participants. These results are being shared with the academic community, extension educators, land trusts and producer groups.&nbsp;</p><br /> <p>Economists in Wyoming and neighboring states have examined:</p><br /> <ul><br /> <li>The consequences of local land use decisions on federal lands management. Federal fire suppression costs have risen dramatically as ex-urban development (on former agricultural lands) has occurred in the Wildland Urban Interface (WUI).</li><br /> <li>Land use decisions and resource management that affects and is affected by water allocation in the face of competing demands and limited supplies. There is a continuing effort to collect data relevant to land use for valuation of parcel attributes and to track development trends.</li><br /> </ul><br /> <p>We reached landowners, land use planners, land trusts, federal, state and local agency personnel, other researchers, elected official, taxpayers and concerned citizens in the Mountain West to offer insights into how land use decisions may affect the provision of public services in rural communities and ultimately affects community budgets and development decisions. Public service provision can be shown to be dependent, in part, on the patterns of rural development. Exurban sprawl and landscape fragmentation continue to be critical issues with respect to resource management, local governance and rural community development.</p><br /> <p>Economists at Oregon State, UC Santa Barbara, and USDA ERS published an analysis of how urbanization affects water withdrawals in the face of population growth and climatic change (Bigelow et al. 2017).</p><br /> <p>Economists at Oregon State, Penn State, and Wisconsin published an analysis examining how protected open-space affects the spatial structure of land development (Zipp et al. 2017).</p><br /> <p>Economists at Oregon State published a paper that estimates the effect of the Federal Northwest Forest Plan on community level measures of economic growth in Oregon (Chen et al. 2016).</p><br /> <p>Economists and natural scientists at Oregon State, Idaho, Colorado State and Wisconsin published a series of papers examining the effects of decentralized governance and protected areas on timber extraction in European Russia using multiple periods of satellite imagery and econometric methods (Jones and Lewis 2015; Wendland et al. 2015; Wendland et al. 2014).&nbsp;</p><br /> <p>Economists at Oregon State published a paper that examines the microeconomic foundation for land-use policies that to provide spatially-dependent ecosystem services (Lewis and Wu 2015).&nbsp;</p><br /> <p>Economists at Oregon State, Minnesota, UC Santa Barbara, and Bowdoin published a paper that shows how to optimally implement the provision of ecosystem services using an incentive-based mechanism under the common problems of spatial dependent environmental benefits and asymmetric information regarding landowner opportunity costs (Polasky et al. 2014).</p><br /> <p>Economists and natural scientists at Oregon State, Washington, Minnesota, Florida International, Wisconsin, Bowdoin, and UC Santa Barbara published a series of papers that project land-use change impacts under alternative economic and policy scenarios on terrestrial ecosystem services for the lower 48 states (Lawler et al. 2014; Martinuzzi et al. 2014; Beaudry et al. 2013; Martinuzzi et al. 2013; Hamilton et al. 2013; Radeloff et al. 2012).</p><br /> <p>Economists at Colorado State and Univerity of Nevada-Reno (UNR) developed water-based computable general equilbrium models of western cities dealing with increasing water scarcity to inform resource allocation</p><br /> <p>Economists at Colorado State are:</p><br /> <ul><br /> <li>Analyzing previous survey on the impact of research-based information provision on support for groundwater conservation</li><br /> <li>Evaluating the impact of productive use interventions on electricity demand and socioeconomic outcomes in rural Rwanda.</li><br /> <li>Examining optimal investment in R&amp;D in the control of an invasive species with an application to the Brown Tree Snake in Guam.</li><br /> <li>Quantifying the quasi-option value that drives local hydraulic fracking bans in the presence of uncertainty and learning about environmental risks.</li><br /> <li>Evaluating the impact of land and water quality on enrollment in the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program.</li><br /> </ul><br /> <p>Economists from the University of Illinois and Ando and U. Minnesota have translated portfolio diversification tools from finance into the world of environmental investments, showing conservation agents how to harness relatively safe bets and the presence of negative correlations between future outcomes in different parts of the landscape to pick a mixture of conservation sites in a landscape that will be effective long into the future. Climate change means we don&rsquo;t know where high quality habitat or species populations will be in the future. Thus, places protected now for nature may fail as sanctuaries in the future as species and ecosystems change location. How can we reduce future uncertainty in conservation outcomes associated with climate change? This research is influencing the work of other conservation scientists, and helping conservation agents to inform their own efforts to develop conservation plans that are robust to climate change.</p><br /> <p>Economists at Oregon State and Wisconsin published a pair of stated preference analyses which quantify shoreline property owners and boaters&rsquo; willingness to pay to prevent aquatic species invasions on Wisconsin lakes (Lewis et al. 2015, Provencher et al. 2012).&nbsp;</p><br /> <p>Economists at Colorado State are:</p><br /> <ul><br /> <li>Conducting a Contingent Valutaion survey to value groundwater conservation beyond profit impacts</li><br /> <li>Running a coupled hydro-economic model of groundwater use to guide decision-making in eastern Colorado</li><br /> <li>Working with an 8-state team to model test areas across the Ogallala region using the DSSAT crop growth simulation and SWAT-MODFLOW hydrological models imbedded in an economic optimization framework to analyze planting and irrigation decisions.</li><br /> </ul><br /> <p>Economists at the University of Illinois and coauthors from Arizona and Michigan estimated the value of additional plant biodiversity in grasslands through the additional carbon those plants store in biomass. This research helps policymakers think about how much more to incentivize grassland planting that is biodiverse in programs such as the Conservation Reserve Program, and helps utility companies and departments of transportation who are voluntarily planting biodiverse grasslands in rights-of-way to develop a business model for that activity.</p><br /> <p>Economists at Purdue University have developed free web-based decision support tools for farmers and farm advisors in the 12 state Corn Belt region to evaluate (i) the economics and risk associated with splitting nitrogen fertilizer applications at planting and (ii) the NPV of investment in center pivot irrigation in maize-based cropping systems. The tools are being used to evaluate investments in specialized fertilizer application equipment and changing management practices in ways that are more profitable and reduce loss of N to waterways that contribute to hypoxic zone in the Gulf of Mexico.</p><br /> <p>Economists at Iowa State University&nbsp;have made progress on several key aspects of environmental valuation methodologies. In particular,&nbsp;how sensitive recreational benefit estimates are to the metric used to measure water quality. These results will help inform policy makers of the implications of using various water quality metrics for cost-benefit analyses. A second project tests the stability of welfare estimate from revealed preference methods using a unique panel of recreational visits to lakes within the state of Iowa. This research informs policy makers of the implications of using benefit estimates from a single cross-section to value long-term water quality improvements.&nbsp;</p><br /> <p>Economists at iowa State And Middlebury have developed an integrated assessment model of water pollution in the Upper Mississippi and Ohio Tennessee watersheds. This model will help analyze land use and water quality policies that affect a wide range of water uses such as drinking water and water-based recreational use.</p><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> <p><span style="text-decoration: underline;"><strong>Outputs</strong></span> (includes decision support tools, published data sets and other products not subjected to journal peer review or currently under review)</p><br /> <p>Chamberlain, J.L., Frey, G.E., Ingram, D., <strong>Jacobson, M.G.</strong>, and Downes, C.M.S.. Provisioning of Non-Timber Forest Products. In: Sills, E.O. and Mercer, D.E. <span style="text-decoration: underline;">Valuation of Ecosystem Services in Southern Forests</span>.&nbsp;</p><br /> <p>Ehrlich, O., <strong>X. Bi.</strong>, T. Borisova, S. Larkin. &ldquo;A Latent Class Analysis of Public Attitudes toward Water Resources with Implications for Recreational Demand." Revise and resubmit.</p><br /> <p>Frey, G.E., Blatner, K.A., <strong>Jacobson, M.G.</strong>, Downes, C.M.S., Sills, E.O., Mercer, D.E., Alexander, S.J., Chamberlain, J.L., Gold, M.A., Godsey, L.D., Emery, M.R., Coffin, A.W., Barlow, R.J., and Lohr, L. "Economics of Non-Timber Forest Products in the United States." In: Chamberlain, J.L, Patel-Weynand, T., and Emery, M.R., eds. <span style="text-decoration: underline;">US Assessment of Non-Timber Forest Products</span>. Under Review.&nbsp;.&nbsp;</p><br /> <p><strong>Gramig, BM</strong>, R Massey and L Biehl. 2016 (v2). <em>Corn Split-N Decision Support Tool</em>.&nbsp;<a href="http://mrcc.isws.illinois.edu/U2U/splitn/">http://mrcc.isws.illinois.edu/U2U/splitn/</a></p><br /> <p>Guilfoos, Todd and <strong>Emi Uchida</strong>. 2016. &ldquo;Special Issue on Economics of Water Quality: Challenges, Policies, and Behavioral Mechanisms.&rdquo; Agricultural and Resource Economics Review 45 (02), 209-216</p><br /> <p>Jacobson, M. Y. Shr, F, Delamans, C. Magaju, and R. Cianella. 2017. "Using a Choice Experiment Approach to Assess Production Tradeoffs for Developing the Croton Value Chain in Kenya." Under review, <em>Forest Policy and Economics</em>.</p><br /> <p>Jarrad, Maya, <strong>Noelwah R. Netusil</strong>, <strong>Klaus Moeltner</strong>, Anita Mozillo, and J. Alan Yeakley. Urban Stream Restoration Projects: Does Project Age, Type and Proximity Affect Nearby Property Sale Prices?&nbsp;</p><br /> <p>Ji, Yongjie, <strong>David A. Keiser</strong>, and Catherine L. Kling. 2017. &ldquo;Temporal Reliability of Welfare Estimates from Revealed Preferences.&rdquo; Mimeo, Iowa State University.</p><br /> <p>Lieske S., R. Coupal and <strong>D. McLeod</strong>. &ldquo;Political jurisdiction, reputation and urban form: a more complete specification of public service costs.&rdquo; Submitted to <em>Quantitative Economics</em>. Under review.</p><br /> <p>Liu, Tingting, James Opaluch and <strong>Emi Uchida</strong>. 2017. &ldquo;Home values affected by Narragansett Bay water quality. 41N Winter, Rhode Island Sea Grant Program &amp; URI Coastal Institute, p.9.</p><br /> <p>Londono, Catalina, <strong>Amy Ando</strong>, and <strong>Noelwah R. Netusil</strong>. "Willingness to Pay and Willingness-to-Do: Estimating the Benefits of Stormwater Management."</p><br /> <p>Mutandwa, E., R.K. Grala, and <strong>D.R. Petrolia</strong>. &ldquo;Estimates of willingness to accept compensation to provide ecosystem services from private forest land.&rdquo; In review.</p><br /> <p>Smith, Elizabeth C and <strong>Emi Uchida</strong>. 2017. &ldquo;Narragansett Bay Watershed: The value of an ecosystem.&rdquo; 41N Winter, Rhode Island Sea Grant Program &amp; URI Coastal Institute, Pp.38-39.</p><br /> <p>Van Dop, M, <strong>BM Gramig&nbsp;</strong>and L Biehl. 2016. <em>Irrigation Investment Calculator</em> online decision support tool.&nbsp;<a href="http://mrcc.isws.illinois.edu/U2U/irrigation/">http://mrcc.isws.illinois.edu/U2U/irrigation/</a></p><br /> <p>Yun, S. D., <strong>Gramig, B.M.</strong> (2017).<em>&nbsp;Agro-Climatic Data by County, 1981-2015</em>. Purdue University Research Repository.&nbsp;<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.4231/R72F7KK2" target="_blank" rel="external">doi:10.4231/R72F7KK2</a></p><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> <p><span style="text-decoration: underline;">Presentations</span> to research and outreach audiences that disseminated research findings during the final reporting period.</p><br /> <table><br /> <tbody><br /> <tr><br /> <td rowspan="2" width="480"><br /> <p><strong>Author, details&nbsp;<br /></strong>(bolded author(s) are W-3133 members for multi-authored works)</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" colspan="3" width="92"><br /> <p><strong>Objective(s)</strong></p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" rowspan="2" width="52"><br /> <p><strong>Multi-state</strong></p><br /> </td><br /> </tr><br /> <tr><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="30"><br /> <p><strong>1</strong></p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="30"><br /> <p><strong>2</strong></p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="32"><br /> <p><strong>3</strong></p><br /> </td><br /> </tr><br /> <tr><br /> <td width="480"><br /> <p>A.W. Ando. &ldquo;Uncertainty in and Distribution of the Benefits of Conservation.&rdquo; <em>Keynote address</em>, 18th Annual Bioecon Conference, Kings College, Cambridge. September 2016.</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="30"><br /> <p>X</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="30"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="32"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="52"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> </tr><br /> <tr><br /> <td width="480"><br /> <p><strong>A.W. Ando</strong>, Jennifer Fraterrigo, Glenn Guntenspergen, Aparna Howlader Mindy Mallory, Jennifer H. Olker, and Samuel Stickley. &ldquo;Reducing Climate-Related Uncertainty in Outcomes of Investments: When Does Spatial Conservation Portfolio Diversification Work Best?&rdquo; World Bank, Washington D.C. March 2017.</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="30"><br /> <p>X</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="30"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="32"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="52"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> </tr><br /> <tr><br /> <td width="480"><br /> <p><strong>A. W. Ando</strong>, Jennifer Fraterrigo, Glenn Guntenspergen, Aparna Howlader Mindy Mallory, Jennifer H. Olker, and Samuel Stickley. &ldquo;Reducing Climate-Related Uncertainty in Outcomes of Investments: When Does Spatial Conservation Portfolio Diversification Work Best?&rdquo; AERE Summer Conference, Pittsburgh, PA. May 2017.</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="30"><br /> <p>X</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="30"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="32"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="52"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> </tr><br /> <tr><br /> <td width="480"><br /> <p><strong>A.W. Ando</strong>. &ldquo;Diversifying Risk in Multiple Environmental Objectives under Climate Uncertainty.&rdquo; Keynote talk, NAREA Workshop on Climate Change and Land Conservation/Restoration, Washington D.C. June 2017.</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="30"><br /> <p>X</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="30"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="32"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="52"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> </tr><br /> <tr><br /> <td width="480"><br /> <p>Aryal, Ballav, <strong>J. Yoder</strong>, R. G. Taylor &ldquo;Effects of Drought on Farm Revenues: Ten Western US States.&rdquo; Annual Western Snow Conference, April 2017, Boise, ID.</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="30"><br /> <p>X</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="30"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="32"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="52"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> </tr><br /> <tr><br /> <td width="480"><br /> <p>Crofton, K and <strong>DT Manning</strong>.&rdquo;A Spatial-Dynamic Economic Analysis of Groundwater Management Policies: Impact of Population Growth on Water Allocation and Pricing in the West.&rdquo; Ohio State University, Seminar Series, 4/7/2017.</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="30">X&nbsp;</td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="30">&nbsp;</td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="32">&nbsp;</td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="52">&nbsp;</td><br /> </tr><br /> <tr><br /> <td width="480"><br /> <p>Dundas, S. &ldquo;How do Multiple Natural Hazards Affect the Value of Housing? Evidence from the Oregon Coast&rdquo;, AERE Summer Conference, June 2017, Pittsburgh, PA.</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="30"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="30"><br /> <p>X</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="32"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="52"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> </tr><br /> <tr><br /> <td width="480"><br /> <p>Dundas, S. &ldquo;A transdisciplinary approach to valuing ecosystem services from coastal natural infrastructure&rdquo;, Ecological Society of America Annual Meeting, August 2017, Portland, OR.</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="30"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="30"><br /> <p>X</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="32"><br /> <p>X</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="52"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> </tr><br /> <tr><br /> <td width="480"><br /> <p><strong>Gramig, B.M.</strong> &ldquo;Behavioral insights from qualitative and quantitative research on agricultural conservation adoption and stated preferences,&rdquo; Land, Water &amp; Environment (ENV) track session, 2017 AAEA Annual Meeting, Chicago, IL.</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="30"><br /> <p>X</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="30"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="32"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="52"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> </tr><br /> <tr><br /> <td width="480"><br /> <p>He, X., <strong>B.M. Gramig</strong>, M. Zischke, B. Dickinson, C. Roswell. &ldquo;Least-cost Travel Cost Estimation Using a Multi-site User Intercept Survey of Southern Lake Michigan Anglers,&rdquo; Selected poster, 2017 AAEA Annual Meeting, Chicago, IL</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="30"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="30"><br /> <p>X</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="32"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="52"><br /> <p>IL, IN</p><br /> </td><br /> </tr><br /> <tr><br /> <td width="480"><br /> <p>Landry, C.E. "Economic Values of Coastal Erosion Management" SEC Academic Conference, The Future of Water: Regional Collaboration on Shared Climate, Coastlines, and Watersheds: Starkville, MS, 2017.</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="30"><br /> <p>X</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="30"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="32"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="52"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> </tr><br /> <tr><br /> <td width="480"><br /> <p>Landry, C.E. "Addressing Onsite Sampling in Recreation Research", National Environment &amp; Recreation Research Symposium: Annapolis, MD, 2017</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="30"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="30"><br /> <p>X</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="32"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="52"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> </tr><br /> <tr><br /> <td width="480"><br /> <p>Manning, DT . &ldquo;Impact of Resource Availability on Preferences for Resource Conservation&rdquo;, W3133, 2017 annual meeting, Carlsbad, CA.</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="30"><br /> <p>X</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="30"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="32"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="52"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> </tr><br /> <tr><br /> <td width="480"><br /> <p>Suter , J and<strong> DT Manning</strong>. &ldquo;Explaining Producer Preferences for Conservation&rdquo;, 2017 AAEA annual meeting, Chicago, IL.</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="30"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="30"><br /> <p>X</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="32"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="52"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> </tr><br /> <tr><br /> <td width="480"><br /> <p>Mueller, Julie M. (2017) &ldquo;Can Environmental Attributes Influence Protected Area Designation? A Case Study Valuing Preferences for Springs in Grand Canyon National Park.&rdquo; Universities Council on Water Resources Annual Meeting, Fort Collins, Colorado.</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="30"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="30"><br /> <p>X</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="32"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="52"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> </tr><br /> <tr><br /> <td width="480"><br /> <p>Mueller, Julie. M. (2017) &ldquo;Restore the Forest, but Not My Trees: Willingness to Pay For Forest Restoration as a Function of Proximity.&rdquo;. Western Agricultural Economics Association Annual Meeting, Lake Tahoe, Nevada.</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="30"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="30"><br /> <p>X</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="32"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="52"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> </tr><br /> <tr><br /> <td width="480"><br /> <p>Netusil, NR. Urban Stream Restoration Projects: Does Project Age Affect Property Sale Prices? W-3133 meeting, Carlsbad, California, 2017.</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="30"><br /> <p>X</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="30"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="32"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="52"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> </tr><br /> <tr><br /> <td width="480"><br /> <p>Netusil, NR. Urban Stream Restoration Projects in Johnson Creek: Does Project Age Affect Property Sale Prices? 25 Years of Johnson Creek Watershed Restoration: A Synthesis of Scientific and Economic Impacts. Portland, Oregon. 2017.</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="30"><br /> <p>X</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="30"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="32"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="52"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> </tr><br /> <tr><br /> <td width="480"><br /> <p>Bryan Nguyen, Qianyan Wu, and <strong>Xiang Bi</strong>. Using the TCM to Estimate Fresh-Water Based Recreation in North Central Florida. Selected poster, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, Chicago, July 30-Aug 2, 2017.</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="30"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="30"><br /> <p>X</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="32"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="52"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> </tr><br /> <tr><br /> <td width="480"><br /> <p>Nian, Y., Q. Huang, <strong>K. Kovacs</strong>, C. Henry. &ldquo;Factors that influence the adoption and continued use of irrigation technologies and water management practices.&rdquo;, Invited Presentation, Arkansas Water Resources Center Annual Watershed and Research Conference, Fayetteville, AR, 2017, July 25th-26th.</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="30"><br /> <p>X</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="30"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="32"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="52"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> </tr><br /> <tr><br /> <td width="480"><br /> <p>Rimsaite, R., <strong>K.A. Fisher-Vanden</strong>, and S.M. Olmstead. &ldquo;How efficient are U.S. water rights markets among other natural resource markets?&rdquo; Paper presentation, AAEA Annual Meeting, July 30-August 1, 2017, Chicago, IL</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="30"><br /> <p>X</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="30"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="32"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="52"><br /> <p>PA, TX</p><br /> </td><br /> </tr><br /> <tr><br /> <td width="480"><br /> <p>Rimsaite, R., <strong>K.A. Fisher-Vanden</strong>, and S.M. Olmstead. &ldquo;How efficient are U.S. water rights markets among other natural resource markets?&rdquo; Paper presentation, AERE Summer Conference, May 31-June 2, 2017, Pittsburgh, PA</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="30"><br /> <p>X</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="30"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="32"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="52"><br /> <p>PA, TX</p><br /> </td><br /> </tr><br /> <tr><br /> <td width="480"><br /> <p><strong>J.S. Shonkwiler</strong> and Jiahui Ying. "Calculating Willingness to Pay in Mixed Logit Models." Selected poster. 2017 Meetings of the Agricultural and Applied Economics Assn., Chicago, IL</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="30"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="30"><br /> <p>X</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="32"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="52"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> </tr><br /> <tr><br /> <td width="480"><br /> <p>Steele, Amanda Harker, J.W. Burnett, and <strong>J.C. Bergstrom</strong>. &ldquo;Gone with the Wind&rdquo;: The Unintended Consequences of Increasing the Capacity of Intermittent Renewable Resources Used for Electricity Generation.&rdquo; Selected Paper, Annual Meetings of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists. Pittsburgh, PA, June, 2017</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="30"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="30"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="32"><br /> <p>X</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="52"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> </tr><br /> <tr><br /> <td width="480"><br /> <p>Sun, S., <strong>B.M. Gramig</strong>, M. Delgado and J.P. Sesmero. "Spatial spillovers and temporal dynamics: heterogeneous impacts of agricultural cropland allocation and crop rotation on water quality," Selected poster, 2017 AAEA Annual Meeting, Chicago, IL.</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="30"><br /> <p>X</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="30"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="32"><br /> <p>X</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="52"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> </tr><br /> <tr><br /> <td width="480"><br /> <p>Sun, S., <strong>B.M. Gramig</strong>, M. Delgado and J.P. Sesmero. "Measuring the effectiveness of agricultural conservation expenditures on water quality," Poster presentation, 2017 AERE Summer Conference, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="30"><br /> <p>X</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="30"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="32"><br /> <p>X</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="52"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> </tr><br /> <tr><br /> <td width="480"><br /> <p>von Haefen, Roger H. &ldquo;The Nationwide Loss of Recreational Ecosystem Services from the BP Gulf Oil Spill.&rdquo; Property and Environment Research Center, Bozeman, MT, 7/17/17.</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="30"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="30"><br /> <p>X</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="32"><br /> <p>X</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="52"><br /> <p>MD, MI, NC</p><br /> </td><br /> </tr><br /> <tr><br /> <td width="480"><br /> <p>von Haefen, Roger H. &ldquo;Costs of Endangered Species Protection on Public Lands: Evidence from Cape Hatteras National Seashore,&rdquo; Presented at the European AERE Annual Meetings, Athens, Greece, 6/29/17.</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="30"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="30"><br /> <p>X</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="32"><br /> <p>X</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="52"><br /> <p>NC, OR</p><br /> </td><br /> </tr><br /> <tr><br /> <td width="480"><br /> <p>von Haefen, Roger H.&nbsp; &ldquo;A zonal travel cost approach to estimating recreational damages from the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill,&rdquo; Presented at the W3133 Annual Meetings in Carlsbad, CA, 2/24/17.</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="30"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="30"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="32"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="52"><br /> <p>MD, MI, NC</p><br /> </td><br /> </tr><br /> <tr><br /> <td width="480"><br /> <p>von Haefen, Roger H.&nbsp; &ldquo;A zonal travel cost approach to estimating recreational damages from the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill,&rdquo; Presented at the AERE Summer Conference in Pittsburgh, PA, 6/1/17.</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="30"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="30"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="32"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="52"><br /> <p>MD, MI, NC</p><br /> </td><br /> </tr><br /> <tr><br /> <td width="480"><br /> <p>Yoder, Jonathan. 2017. State of Washington Water Research Center Contributes to the debates over the Yakima Basin IWRM plan. National Institutes for Water Resources Meetings. Washington D.C., February.</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="30"><br /> <p>X</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="30"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="32"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="52"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> </tr><br /> <tr><br /> <td width="480"><br /> <p>Rui Zhang and <strong>J.S. Shonkwiler</strong>. "Bias Correction of Welfare Measures in Non-Market Valuation: Comparison of the Delta Method, Jackknife and Bootstrap." Selected presentation. 2017 Meetings of the Agricultural and Applied Economics Assn. Chicago, IL.</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="30"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="30"><br /> <p>X</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="32"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="52"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> </tr><br /> </tbody><br /> </table><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> <p><span style="text-decoration: underline;"><strong>Activities</strong></span></p><br /> <p><strong>M.G. Interis</strong> led the organizing committee for the Land, Water, and Environmental Economics section of the AAEA&rsquo;s workshop &ldquo;Water Resources &amp; Policy: Exploring the Risks, Benefits, and Opportunities for Conservation&rdquo; held in Washington, D.C., March, 2017. The workshop brought together representatives from academia, research organizations, government agencies, and congressional staff to discuss the current state of science, critical knowledge gaps, and policy constraints.</p><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> <p><span style="text-decoration: underline;"><strong>Future Work</strong></span></p><br /> <p>This is the final year for W-3133, and we are hopeful that our pending proposal with NIFA will be approved to continue our multi-state project as W-4133 in the years to come.</p>

Publications

<table><br /> <tbody><br /> <tr><br /> <td rowspan="2" width="480"><br /> <p><strong>Author, details<br /></strong>(bolded author(s) are W-3133 members for multi-authored works; FY 16-17 only)</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" colspan="3" width="92"><br /> <p><strong>Objective(s)</strong></p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" rowspan="2" width="52"><br /> <p><strong>Multi-state</strong></p><br /> </td><br /> </tr><br /> <tr><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="30"><br /> <p><strong>1</strong></p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="30"><br /> <p><strong>2</strong></p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="32"><br /> <p><strong>3</strong></p><br /> </td><br /> </tr><br /> <tr><br /> <td width="480"><br /> <p>Ademola, Adenle, <strong>Dale T. Manning</strong>, and Joseph Arbiol. (forthcoming). &ldquo;Mitigating Climate Change in Africa-Barriers to Financing Low-Carbon Development.&rdquo; <em>World Development</em>.</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="30"><br /> <p>X</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="30"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="32"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="52"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> </tr><br /> <tr><br /> <td width="480"><br /> <p><strong>Ando, A.W</strong>. and P.S. Shah. 2016. &ldquo;The economics of conservation and finance: A review of the literature.&rdquo; <em>International Review of Environmental and Resource Economics</em> 8(3-4): 321-357. http://dx.doi.org/10.1561/101.00000072</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="30"><br /> <p>X</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="30"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="32"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="52"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> </tr><br /> <tr><br /> <td width="480"><br /> <p>Bastian, C., C. Keske, <strong>D .McLeod</strong> and D. Hoag. 2017. &ldquo;Landowner and land trust agent preferences for conservation easements:&nbsp; Implications for sustainable land uses and landscapes.&rdquo; <em>Landscape and Urban Planning</em>: 157: 1-13</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="30"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="30"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="32"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="52"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> </tr><br /> <tr><br /> <td width="480"><br /> <p>Bauer, DM, <strong>KP Bell</strong>, EJ Nelson, and AJK Calhoun. 2017. Managing small natural features: a synthesis of emergent economic issues and opportunities, <em>Biological Conservation</em> 211 (Part B): 80-87, DOI: doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2017.01.001.</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="30"><br /> <p>X</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="30"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="32"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="52"><br /> <p>&nbsp;MA, ME</p><br /> </td><br /> </tr><br /> <tr><br /> <td width="480"><br /> <p><strong>Bergstrom, J.C., and J. B. Loomis</strong>. 2017. Economic Valuation of River Restoration: An Analysis of Valuation Literature and Its Uses in Decision-making. <em>Water Resources and Economics</em> 17 (2017): 9-19. 2)</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="30"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="30"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="32"><br /> <p>X</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="52"><br /> <p>CO, GA</p><br /> </td><br /> </tr><br /> <tr><br /> <td width="480"><br /> <p>Bigelow, D.P., Plantinga, A.J., <strong>Lewis, D.J.</strong>, and C. Langpap. 2017. &ldquo;How Does Urbanization Affect Water Withdrawals? Insights from an Econometric-Based Landscape Simulation.&rdquo;&nbsp; <em>Land Economics</em>, 93(3): 413-436.</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="30"><br /> <p>X</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="30"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="32"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="52"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> </tr><br /> <tr><br /> <td width="480"><br /> <p>Booth, Pamela, Todd Guilfoos, <strong>Emi Uchida</strong>. (2016) &ldquo;Loss aversion and water quality.&rdquo; <em>Agricultural and Resource Economics Review</em> 45 (02), 338-366.</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="30"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="30"><br /> <p>X</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="32"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="52"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> </tr><br /> <tr><br /> <td width="480"><br /> <p>Tatiana Borisova<strong>, Xiang Bi</strong>, and Sherry Larkin. 2016(October). &ldquo;Assessing Nature-Based Recreation to Support Economic Development and Environmental Sustainability Extension Programs.&rdquo; <em>Journal of Extension</em>, 15191RIB, https://joe.org/joe/2016october/rb1.php</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="30"><br /> <p>X</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="30"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="32"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="52"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> </tr><br /> <tr><br /> <td width="480"><br /> <p>Calhoun AJK, Mushet DM, <strong>Bell KP</strong>, Boix D, Fitzsimons JA, Isselin-Nondedeu F.&nbsp; 2017. Temporary wetlands:&nbsp; challenges and solutions for protecting a "disappearing" ecosystem, <em>Biological Conservation</em> 211 (Part B):3-11, DOI: doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2016.11.024</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="30"><br /> <p>X</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="30"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="32"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="52"><br /> <p>international&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> </tr><br /> <tr><br /> <td width="480"><br /> <p>Calvin, K., <strong>K. Fisher-Vanden</strong>. 2017. &ldquo;Climate Change Impacts on Agriculture: The role of Integrated Assessment Models,&rdquo; in press, <em>Environmental Research Letters</em>, https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aa843c</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="30"><br /> <p>X</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="30"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="32"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="52"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> </tr><br /> <tr><br /> <td width="480"><br /> <p>Chen, Y., <strong>Lewis, D.J.</strong>, and B. Weber. 2016. &ldquo;Conservation Land Amenities and Regional Economies: A Post-Matching Difference-in-Differences Analysis of the Northwest Forest Plan.&rdquo; <em>Journal of Regional Science</em>, 56(3): 373-394.</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="30"><br /> <p>X</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="30"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="32"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="52"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> </tr><br /> <tr><br /> <td width="480"><br /> <p>Davlasheridze, M., <strong>K. Fisher-Vanden</strong>, A. Klaiber, 2017, &ldquo;The Effects of Adaptation Measures on Hurricane Induced Property Losses,&rdquo; <em>Journal of Environmental Economics and Management</em>, 81:93-114.</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="30"><br /> <p>X</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="30"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="32"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="52"><br /> <p>OH, PA</p><br /> </td><br /> </tr><br /> <tr><br /> <td width="480"><br /> <p>Dundas, S.J. 2017. Benefits and Ancillary Costs of Natural Infrastructure: Evidence from the New Jersey Coast. <em>Journal of Environmental Economics and Management</em>. 85: 62-80.</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="30"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="30"><br /> <p>X</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="32"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="52"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> </tr><br /> <tr><br /> <td width="480"><br /> <p><strong>Dundas, Steven, Roger H. von Haefen</strong> and Carol Mansfield. &ldquo;Costs of Endangered Species Protection on Public Lands: Evidence from Cape Hatteras National Seashore,&rdquo; <em>Marine Resource Economics, </em>forthcoming.</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="30"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="30"><br /> <p>X</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="32"><br /> <p>X</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="52"><br /> <p>NC, OR</p><br /> </td><br /> </tr><br /> <tr><br /> <td width="480"><br /> <p>Fernando, F. and <strong>R. Hearne</strong>. In press. &ldquo;Housing for Essential Service Workers during an Oil Boom: Opportunities and Policy Implications.&rdquo; <em>Journal of Housing and the Built Environment</em>. DOI 10.1007/s10901-016-9539-9. November 2016.</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="30"><br /> <p>X</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="30"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="32"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="52"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> </tr><br /> <tr><br /> <td width="480"><br /> <p>Garnache, C., S. Swinton, J. Herriges, <strong>F. Lupi</strong>, J. Stevenson, 2016. Solving the phosphorus pollution puzzle: Synthesis and directions for future research. <em>American J. of Agricultural Economics</em>. 98: 1314&ndash;1333.</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="30"><br /> <p>X</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="30"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="32"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="52"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> </tr><br /> <tr><br /> <td width="480"><br /> <p>Sathya Gopalakrishnan, <strong>Craig E. Landry</strong>, and Martin Smith. 2017. &ldquo;Coastal Climate Adaptation: A Grand Challenge for Resource and Environmental Economists.&rdquo; <em>Review of Environmental Economics and Policy</em>, forthcoming.</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="30"><br /> <p>X</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="30"><br /> <p>X</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="32"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="52"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> </tr><br /> <tr><br /> <td width="480"><br /> <p><strong>Gramig, BM</strong>, R Massey and SD Yun. "Nitrogen Application Decision-making under Climate Risk in the U.S. Corn Belt". <em>Climate Risk Management</em> 15:82-89, 2017.</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="30"><br /> <p>X</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="30"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="32"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="52"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> </tr><br /> <tr><br /> <td width="480"><br /> <p>Hamaide, B., H.J. Albers, G. Busby, <strong>A.W. Ando</strong>, and S. Polasky. 2016. &ldquo;Spatially-correlated risk in nature reserve site selection.&rdquo; <em>PLOS ONE</em> doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0146023.</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="30"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="30"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="32"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="52"><br /> <p>IL, MN, WY</p><br /> </td><br /> </tr><br /> <tr><br /> <td width="480"><br /> <p>Horan, R. D., &amp; <strong>J.S. Shortle</strong>. (2017). Endogenous risk and point-nonpoint uncertainty trading ratios<em>. American Journal of Agricultural Economics</em>, 99(2), 427-446.</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="30"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="30"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="32"><br /> <p>X</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="52"><br /> <p>MI, PA</p><br /> </td><br /> </tr><br /> <tr><br /> <td width="480"><br /> <p>Huang, Q., Y. Xu, <strong>K. Kovacs</strong>, G. West. 2017. &ldquo;Analysis of factors that influence the use of irrigation technologies and water management practices in Arkansas<em>.&rdquo; Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics</em>, 49(2): 159-185.</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="30"><br /> <p>X</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="30"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="32"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="52"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> </tr><br /> <tr><br /> <td width="480"><br /> <p>Hunter, ML Jr., V Acu&ntilde;a, DM Bauer, <strong>KP Bell</strong>, AJK Calhoun, MR Felipe-Lucia, JA Fitzsimons, E Gonz&aacute;lez, M Kinnison, D Lindenmayer, C Lundquist, R Medellin, EJ Nelson, and P Poschlod. 2017. Conserving small natural features with large ecological roles: a synthetic overview, <em>Biological Conservation</em> 211 (Part B): 88-95, DOI: 10.1016/j.biocon.2016.12.020.</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="30"><br /> <p>X</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="30"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="32"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="52"><br /> <p>&nbsp;MA, ME</p><br /> </td><br /> </tr><br /> <tr><br /> <td width="480"><br /> <p>Hungate, Bruce A., Edward B. Barbier, <strong>Amy W. Ando</strong>, Samuel P. Marks, Peter B. Reich, Natasja van Gestel, G. David Tilman, Johannes M.H. Knops, David U. Hooper, Bradley J. Butterfield, Bradley J. Cardinale. 2017. &ldquo;The economic value of grassland species for carbon storage.&rdquo; <em>Science Advances</em> 3(4): e1601880. doi: 10.1126/sciadv.1601880.</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="30"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="30"><br /> <p>X</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="32"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="52"><br /> <p>CO, IL, MN</p><br /> </td><br /> </tr><br /> <tr><br /> <td width="480"><br /> <p><strong>Interis, M</strong>., and <strong>D. Petrolia</strong>. 2016. &ldquo;Location, Location, Habitat: How the Value of Ecosystem Services Varies Across Location and by Habitat.&rdquo; <em>Land Economics </em>92(2): 292-307.</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="30"><br /> <p>X</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="30"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="32"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="52"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> </tr><br /> <tr><br /> <td width="480"><br /> <p><strong>Interis, M.</strong>, C. Xu, <strong>D. Petrolia</strong>, and K. Coatney. 2016. &ldquo;Examining Unconditional Preference Revelation in Choice Experiments: A Voting Game Approach.&rdquo; <em>Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy</em> 5(1): 125-142</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="30"><br /> <p>X</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="30"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="32"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="52"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> </tr><br /> <tr><br /> <td width="480"><br /> <p>Jessoe, Katrina, <strong>Dale T. Manning</strong> and J. Edward Taylor (2017). &ldquo;Climate change and labor allocation in Mexico: Evidence from annual fluctuations in weather.&rdquo; <em>Economic Journal</em>.</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="30"><br /> <p>X</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="30"><br /> <p>X</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="32"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="52"><br /> <p>CA, CO</p><br /> </td><br /> </tr><br /> <tr><br /> <td width="480"><br /> <p><strong>Keiser, D.A.</strong> and N.Z. Muller. 2017. &ldquo;Air and Water: Integrated Assessment Models for Multiple Media.&rdquo; <em>Annual Review of Resource Economics</em>, 9: 165-184.</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="30"><br /> <p>X</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="30"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="32"><br /> <p>X</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="52"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> </tr><br /> <tr><br /> <td width="480"><br /> <p>Kim, T., J. Opaluch, D.S. Moon, and <strong>D.R. Petrolia</strong>. 2017. &ldquo;Developing a Natural Resource Damage Assessment Procedure for Oil Spill Pollution in Korea using Habitat Equivalency Analysis.&rdquo; Marine Pollution Bulletin 121(1-2): 183-91.</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="30"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="30"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="32"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="52"><br /> <p>MS, RI</p><br /> </td><br /> </tr><br /> <tr><br /> <td width="480"><br /> <p>Knoche, S.,<strong> F. Lupi</strong>. 2016. Demand for fishery regulations: Effects of angler heterogeneity and catch improvements on preferences for gear and harvest restrictions. <em>Fisheries Research</em>. 181: 163-171.</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="30"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="30"><br /> <p>X</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="32"><br /> <p>X</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="52"><br /> <p>MD, MI</p><br /> </td><br /> </tr><br /> <tr><br /> <td width="480"><br /> <p>Kochi, I., P. Champ, <strong>J. Loomis</strong> and G. Donovan. 2016. Valuing Morbidity Effects of Wildfire Smoke Exposure from 2007 Southern California Wildfires. <em>Journal of Forest Economics</em> 25: 29-54.</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="30"><br /> <p>X</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="30"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="32"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="52"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> </tr><br /> <tr><br /> <td width="480"><br /> <p><strong>Kovacs, K.</strong>, A. Durand-Morat. 2017. &ldquo;The influence of on- and off-farm surface water investment on groundwater extraction from an agricultural landscape.&rdquo; <em>Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics</em>, forthcoming.</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="30"><br /> <p>X</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="30"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="32"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="52"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> </tr><br /> <tr><br /> <td width="480"><br /> <p><strong>Kovacs, K.</strong>, G. West, Y. Xu. 2017. &ldquo;The use of efficiency frontiers to evaluate the optimal land cover and irrigation practices for economic returns and ecosystem services.&rdquo; <em>Journal of Hydrology</em>, 547: 474-488.</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="30"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="30"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="32"><br /> <p>X</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="52"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> </tr><br /> <tr><br /> <td width="480"><br /> <p><strong>Kovacs, K.</strong>, M. Mancini. 2017. &ldquo;Conjunctive water management to sustain agricultural economic returns and a shallow aquifer at the landscape level.&rdquo;<em> Journal of Soil and Water Conservation</em>, 72 (2): 158-167.</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="30"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="30"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="32"><br /> <p>X</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="52"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> </tr><br /> <tr><br /> <td width="480"><br /> <p><strong>Kovacs, K.</strong>, G. West. 2016. &ldquo;The influence of groundwater depletion from irrigated agriculture on the tradeoffs between ecosystem services and economic returns&rdquo; <em>PLoS One</em>, 11(12), e0168681.</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="30"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="30"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="32"><br /> <p>X</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="52"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> </tr><br /> <tr><br /> <td width="480"><br /> <p><strong>Kovacs, K.</strong>, Y. Xu, G. West, M. Popp. 2016. "The Tradeoffs between Market Returns from Agricultural Crops and Non-Market Ecosystem Service Benefits on an Irrigated Agricultural Landscape in the Presence of Groundwater Overdraft." <em>Water</em> 8 (11): 501.</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="30"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="30"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="32"><br /> <p>X</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="52"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> </tr><br /> <tr><br /> <td width="480"><br /> <p>Krah, K., <strong>D.R. Petrolia</strong>, A. Williams, K.H. Coble, A. Harri, and R. Rejesus. &ldquo;Producer Preferences for Contracts on a Risky Bioenergy Crop.&rdquo; Forthcoming<em>, Applied Economic Perspectives &amp; Policy</em>.</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="30"><br /> <p>X</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="30"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="32"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="52"><br /> <p>IL, MS, NC</p><br /> </td><br /> </tr><br /> <tr><br /> <td width="480"><br /> <p>Landry, Craig E. 2017. &ldquo;Experimental Methods in Economic Valuation&rdquo; Chapter 10 in <span style="text-decoration: underline;">A Primer on Non-Market Valuation</span>, 2nd Edition, Champ, P., <strong>K. Boyle</strong>, and T. Brown (Eds), Springer: New York, NY.</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="30"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="30"><br /> <p>X</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="32"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="52"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> </tr><br /> <tr><br /> <td width="480"><br /> <p><strong>Landry, Craig E.</strong>, Mona Ahmadiani, and Gregory Colson. 2017. &ldquo;Structural Empirical Analysis of Decisions under Natural Hazard Risk&rdquo; in <span style="text-decoration: underline;">The Future of Risk Management</span>, University of Pennsylvania Press: Philadelphia, PA.</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="30"><br /> <p>X</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="30"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="32"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="52"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> </tr><br /> <tr><br /> <td width="480"><br /> <p>Liu, Tingting, James Opaluch, <strong>Emi Uchida</strong>. The impact of water quality improvement in Narragansett Bay on housing prices. <em>Water Resources Research</em>, Forthcoming</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="30"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="30"><br /> <p>X</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="32"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="52"><br /> <p>OH, RI</p><br /> </td><br /> </tr><br /> <tr><br /> <td width="480"><br /> <p>Lynne Lewis and <strong>Craig E. Landry</strong>. 2017. &ldquo;River Restoration and Hedonic Property Value Analyses: Guidance for Effective Benefit Transfer&rdquo; <em>Water Resources and Economics</em> 17 (January): 20-31. 3)</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="30"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="30"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="32"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="52"><br /> <p>GA,<br /> ME</p><br /> </td><br /> </tr><br /> <tr><br /> <td width="480"><br /> <p>Maas, Alexander, <strong>Dale T. Manning</strong>, Christopher Goemans, and Andre Dozier (2016). &ldquo;Water storage in a changing environment: The impact of allocation institutions on value.&rdquo; <em>Water Resources Research</em> 52. doi:10.1002/2016WR019239</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="30"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="30"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="32"><br /> <p>X</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="52"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> </tr><br /> <tr><br /> <td width="480"><br /> <p>Maas, A.S., Goemans, C.G., <strong>Manning, D</strong>., Kroll, S., Brown, T. (2017). &ldquo;Dilemmas, Coordination and Defection: How Uncertain Tipping Points Induce Common Pool Resource Destruction.&rdquo; <em>Games and Economic Behavior</em>, 104, 760-774.</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="30"><br /> <p>X</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="30"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="32"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="52"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> </tr><br /> <tr><br /> <td width="480"><br /> <p>Maas, Alexander, Christopher Goemans, <strong>Dale Manning</strong>, Stephan Kroll, Mazdak Arabi and Mariana Rodriguez-McGoffina (2017). Evaluating the Effect of Conservation Motivations on Residential Water Demand. <em>Journal of Environmental Management</em> 196 (July): 394-401.</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="30"><br /> <p>X</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="30"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="32"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="52"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> </tr><br /> <tr><br /> <td width="480"><br /> <p>Magzamen, Sheryl, Jennifer Cross, Jordan Suter, Adam Mayer, Stephanie Barr, Lenora Bohren, Brian Dunbar, Joshua Schaeffer, <strong>Dale T. Manning</strong>, and Stephen Reynolds (2017). &ldquo;A multidisciplinary research framework on school environment, occupant health and performance.&rdquo; <em>Journal of School Health</em> 87/5: 376-387.</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="30"><br /> <p>X</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="30"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="32"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="52"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> </tr><br /> <tr><br /> <td width="480"><br /> <p>Maniloff, Peter and <strong>Dale T. Manning</strong> (forthcoming). &ldquo;State Severance Tax Competition and the Division of Natural Resource Rents.&rdquo; <em>Environmental and Resource Economics</em>.</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="30"><br /> <p>X</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="30"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="32"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="52"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> </tr><br /> <tr><br /> <td width="480"><br /> <p><strong>Manning, Dale T.</strong>, Christopher Goemans, and Alexander Maas (forthcoming). &ldquo;Producer responses to surface water availability and implications for climate change adaptation.&rdquo; <em>Land Economics</em>.</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="30"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="30"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="32"><br /> <p>X</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="52"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> </tr><br /> <tr><br /> <td width="480"><br /> <p><strong>Manning, Dale T. and John B. Loomis</strong> (2016). &ldquo;Consumer preferences for fixed versus variable quantities of electricity: Joint estimation of contingent quantity and valuation methods.&rdquo; <em>Environment and Development Economics</em> 21/6: 789-811.</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="30"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="30"><br /> <p>X</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="32"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="52"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> </tr><br /> <tr><br /> <td width="480"><br /> <p><strong>Manning, Dale T.</strong>, and Hirotsugu Uchida (2016). &ldquo;Are two rents better than none? When monopolies correct ill-defined property rights.&rdquo; <em>Marine Resource Economics</em> 31/2: 141-164.</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="30"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="30"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="32"><br /> <p>X</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="52"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> </tr><br /> <tr><br /> <td width="480"><br /> <p><strong>Manning, Dale T.</strong>, J. Edward Taylor and James Wilen (2016). &ldquo;General equilibrium tragedy of the commons.&rdquo; <em>Environmental and Resource Economics</em>. DOI: 10.1007/s10640-016-0066-7.</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="30"><br /> <p>X</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="30"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="32"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="52"><br /> <p>CO, CA</p><br /> </td><br /> </tr><br /> <tr><br /> <td width="480"><br /> <p>Markowski-Lindsay, M., Catanzaro, P., <strong>Bell, K.</strong>, Kittredge, D., Leahy, J., Butler, B., Markowitz, E., Milman, A., Zimmerer, R., Allred, S. and Sisock, M. 2017. Estate planning as a forest stewardship tool: A study of family land ownerships in the northeastern US, <em>Forest Policy and Economics</em> 83:36-44, DOI:10.1016/j.forpol.2017.06.004.</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="30"><br /> <p>X</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="30"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="32"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="52"><br /> <p>MA, ME, <br />NY, VT&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> </tr><br /> <tr><br /> <td width="480"><br /> <p>AS Mase, <strong>BM Gramig</strong>, LS Prokopy. "Climate change beliefs, risk perceptions, and adaptation behavior among Midwestern U.S. crop farmers". <em>Climate Risk Management</em> 15:8-17, 2017</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="30"><br /> <p>X</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="30"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="32"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="52"><br /> <p>IN, WI</p><br /> </td><br /> </tr><br /> <tr><br /> <td width="480"><br /> <p>Miao, Haoran, Jacob Fooks, Todd Guilfoos, Kent Messer, Soni M. Pradhanang, Jordan Suter, Simona Trandafir, <strong>Emi Uchida</strong>. 2016. The impact of information on behavior under an ambient-based policy for regulating non-point source pollution. <em>Water Resources Research</em> 52 (5), 3294-3308.</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="30"><br /> <p>X</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="30"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="32"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="52"><br /> <p>CO, DE, RI</p><br /> </td><br /> </tr><br /> <tr><br /> <td width="480"><br /> <p>Monger, Randall, Jordan Suter, <strong>Dale T. Manning</strong>, and Joel Schneekloth. (forthcoming). &ldquo;Retiring Land to Save Water: Participation in Colorado's Republican River Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program.&rdquo; <em>Land Economics</em>.</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="30"><br /> <p>X</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="30"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="32"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="52"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> </tr><br /> <tr><br /> <td width="480"><br /> <p>Morzillo, Anita, B Kreakie, <strong>Noelwah R. Netusil</strong>, J. Alan Yeakley, Connie Ozawa, and Sally Duncan. 2016. Resident Perceptions of Natural Resources Between Cities and Across Scales in the Pacific Northwest. <em>Ecology and Society</em> 21(3): 14-28.</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="30"><br /> <p>X</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="30"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="32"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="52"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> </tr><br /> <tr><br /> <td width="480"><br /> <p><strong>Mueller, Julie M</strong>., Lima, Ryan, E., and Springer Abraham E. (2017) &ldquo;Can Environmental Attributes Influence Protected Area Designation? A Case Study Valuing Preferences for Springs in Grand Canyon National Park.&rdquo; <em>Land Use Policy</em> 60:196-205.</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="30"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="30"><br /> <p>X</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="32"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="52"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> </tr><br /> <tr><br /> <td width="480"><br /> <p>Palm-Forster, L., <strong>F. Lupi</strong>, M. Chen, 2016. Valuing Lake Erie beaches using value and function transfers.&nbsp; <em>Agricultural and Resource Economics Review</em>. 45(2): 270-292.</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="30"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="30"><br /> <p>X</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="32"><br /> <p>X</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="52"><br /> <p>DE, MI</p><br /> </td><br /> </tr><br /> <tr><br /> <td width="480"><br /> <p>Palm-Forster, L., S. Swinton, <strong>F. Lupi</strong>, R. Shupp, 2016. Too Burdensome to Bid: Transaction Costs and Pay-for-Performance Conservation. <em>American J. of Agricultural Economics</em>. 98: 1334-1359.</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="30"><br /> <p>X</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="30"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="32"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="52"><br /> <p>DE, MI</p><br /> </td><br /> </tr><br /> <tr><br /> <td width="480"><br /> <p><strong>Petrolia, D.R.,</strong> W.C. Walton, and L. Yehouenou. 2017. &ldquo;Is There a Market for Branded Gulf of Mexico Oysters?&rdquo; <em>Journal of Agricultural &amp; Applied Economics</em> 49(1): 45-65.</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="30"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="30"><br /> <p>X</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="32"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="52"><br /> <p>AL, FL, MS</p><br /> </td><br /> </tr><br /> <tr><br /> <td width="480"><br /> <p><strong>Petrolia, D.R., M.G. Interis</strong>, and J. Hwang. 2017. &ldquo;Single-Choice, Repeated-Choice, and Best-Worst Scaling Elicitation Formats: Do Results Differ and by How Much?&rdquo;<em> Environmental &amp; Resource Economics</em>, dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10640-016-0083-6.</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="30"><br /> <p>X</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="30"><br /> <p>X</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="32"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="52"><br /> <p>FL, MS</p><br /> </td><br /> </tr><br /> <tr><br /> <td width="480"><br /> <p>Ranjan, R., &amp; <strong>J. Shortle</strong> (2017). Protecting and restoring aquatic ecosystems in multiple stressor Environments. <em>Water Economics and Policy</em>, 3(02), 1650011.</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="30"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="30"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="32"><br /> <p>X</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="52"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> </tr><br /> <tr><br /> <td width="480"><br /> <p>Scofield, A., B. Rashford, <strong>D. McLeod</strong>, S. Lieske, R. Coupal, and S. Albeke. 2016. "The Impact of Residential Development Pattern on Wildland Fire Suppression Expenditures." <em>Land Economics</em>. 92(4):656-678.</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="30"><br /> <p>X</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="30"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="32"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="52"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> </tr><br /> <tr><br /> <td width="480"><br /> <p>Shah, P.S., M.L. Mallory, <strong>A.W. Ando</strong>, and G. Guntenspergen. 2017. &ldquo;Fine-resolution conservation planning with limited climate-change information.&rdquo; <em>Conservation Biology</em> 31(2):278-289. doi:10.1111/cobi.12793.</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="30"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="30"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="32"><br /> <p>X</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="52"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> </tr><br /> <tr><br /> <td width="480"><br /> <p>Shah, P. and <strong>A.W. Ando</strong>. 2016. &ldquo;Permanent and temporary policy incentives for conservation under stochastic returns from competing land uses.&rdquo; <em>American Journal of Agricultural Economics</em> 98(4): 1074-1094. doi: 10.1093/ajae/aaw032.</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="30"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="30"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="32"><br /> <p>X</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="52"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> </tr><br /> <tr><br /> <td width="480"><br /> <p>Shortle, J. (2017).&nbsp; Policy Nook: Economic Incentives for Water Quality Protection, <em>Water Economics and Policy</em>, Vol. 3, No. 2 (2017) 1771004</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="30"><br /> <p>X</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="30"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="32"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="52"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> </tr><br /> <tr><br /> <td width="480"><br /> <p><strong>Shortle, J.</strong>, &amp; R.D. Horan (2017). Nutrient pollution: A wicked challenge for economic instruments. <em>Water Economics and Policy</em>, 3(02), 1650033.</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="30"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="30"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="32"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="52"><br /> <p>MI, PA</p><br /> </td><br /> </tr><br /> <tr><br /> <td width="480"><br /> <p><strong>Shortle, J.</strong>, D. Abler, Z. Kaufman, and <strong>K.Y. Zipp</strong> (2016) &ldquo;Simple vs. Complex: Implications of Lags in Pollution Delivery for Efficient Load Allocation and Design of Water Quality Trading Programs&rdquo; <em>Agricultural and Resource Economics Review</em> 45(2):367-393.</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="30"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="30"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="32"><br /> <p>X</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="52"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> </tr><br /> <tr><br /> <td width="480"><br /> <p>Skevas, T., N. Hayden, S. Swinton, <strong>F. Lupi</strong>. 2016. Landowner willingness to supply marginal land for bioenergy production. Land Use Policy, 50, 507-517.</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="30"><br /> <p>X</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="30"><br /> <p>X</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="32"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="52"><br /> <p>MI, MO</p><br /> </td><br /> </tr><br /> <tr><br /> <td width="480"><br /> <p>J Song, <strong>BM Gramig</strong>, R Cibin, I Chaubey. "Integrated economic and environmental assessment of cellulosic biofuel production in an agricultural watershed" <em>BioEnergy Research</em> 10(2):509-524, 2017.</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="30"><br /> <p>X</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="30"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="32"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="52"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> </tr><br /> <tr><br /> <td width="480"><br /> <p>Steinman, A., B. Cardinale, W. Munns, M. Ogdahl, J. Allan, T. Angadi, S. Bartlett, K. Braumang, M. Byappanahalli, M. Doss, D. Dupont, A. Johns, D. Kashian, <strong>F. Lupi</strong>, P. McIntyren, T. Miller, M. Moore, R. Logsdon Muenich, R. Poudel, J. Price, B. Provencher, A. Rea, J. Read, S. Renzetti, <strong>B. Sohngen</strong>, E. Washburn. 2017. Ecosystem services in the Great Lakes, <em>J. Great Lakes Res.</em> 43:161-168</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="30"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="30"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="32"><br /> <p>X</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="52"><br /> <p>MI, OH, WI</p><br /> </td><br /> </tr><br /> <tr><br /> <td width="480"><br /> <p>Swallow, S, C Anderson, <strong>Emi Uchida</strong>. The Bobolink Project: Selling Public Goods From Ecosystem Services Using Provision Point Mechanisms. <em>Ecological Economics</em>, Forthcoming.</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="30"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="30"><br /> <p>X</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="32"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="52"><br /> <p>CT, RI, WA</p><br /> </td><br /> </tr><br /> <tr><br /> <td width="480"><br /> <p>West, G., <strong>K. Kovacs</strong>. 2017. &ldquo;Addressing Groundwater Declines with Precision Agriculture: An Economic Comparison of Monitoring Methods for Variable-Rate Irrigation.&rdquo; <em>Water</em> 9 (1): 28.</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="30"><br /> <p>X</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="30"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="32"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="52"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> </tr><br /> <tr><br /> <td width="480"><br /> <p>Yang, W., D. Hyndman, J. Winkler, A. Vi&ntilde;a, J. Deines, <strong>F. Lupi</strong>, L. Luo, Y. Li, B. Basso, C. Zheng, D. Ma, S., X. Liu, H. Zheng, G. Cao, Q. Meng, Z. Ouyang, J. Liu. 2016. Urban Water Sustainability: Framework and Application. <em>Ecology and Society</em>. 21(40):4</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="30"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="30"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="32"><br /> <p>X</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="52"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> </tr><br /> <tr><br /> <td width="480"><br /> <p><strong>Yoder, Jonathan</strong>, Jennifer Adam, Michael Brady, Joseph Cook, Stephen Katz, Shane Johnston, Keyvan Malek, John McMillan, and Qingqing Yang. 2017. Benefit-Cost Analysis of Integrated Water Resource Management: Accounting for interdependence in the Yakima Basin Integrated Plan. <em>Journal of the American Water Resources Association</em> 1-22. DOI: 10.1111/1752-1688.12507.</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="30"><br /> <p>X</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="30"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="32"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="52"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> </tr><br /> <tr><br /> <td width="480"><br /> <p><strong>Zipp, K.Y., D. J. Lewis</strong>, B. Provencher (2017) &ldquo;Does the conservation of land reduce development? An econometric-based landscape simulation with land market feedbacks&rdquo; <em>Journal of Environmental Economics and Management</em> 81: 19-37</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="30"><br /> <p>X</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="30"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="32"><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> </td><br /> <td style="text-align: center;" width="52"><br /> <p>OR, PA,<br /> WI</p><br /> </td><br /> </tr><br /> </tbody><br /> </table>

Impact Statements

1. We found that households in China are willing to pay to preserve the endangered crane, and that their willingness to pay is positively correlated with their income and pro-environmental attitudes.

Back to top