Annual/Termination Reports:

[10/03/2008] [05/06/2009] [07/09/2010] [09/07/2011] [11/20/2012]

Report Information

Participants

William Breffle Michigan Technical University
John Bergstrom University of Georgia
Craig Bond Colorado State University
Bonnie Colby University of Arizona
Don Dennis USDA Forest Service
Eric English Stratus Consulting, Inc
Jerry Fletcher West Virginia University
Kelly Giraud Cullen (president) University of New Hampshire
Roger von Haefen (treasurer) North Carolina State University
Robert Hearne North Dakota State University
Joe Herriges Iowa State University
John Hoehn Michigan State University
Paul Jakus Utah State University
Mike Kaplowitz Michigan State University
Dan Lew National Marine Fishery Service
John Loomis Colorado State University
Frank Lupi (vice president) Michigan State University
Vishakha Maskey (student) West Virginia University
Doug Morris University of New Hampshire
Dan McCollum USDA, Forest Service
Klaus Moeltner University of Nevada, Reno
Mary Riddel University of Nevada, Las Vegas
Kim Rollins University of Nevada, Reno
Randall Rosenberger Oregon State University
Don Snyder (administrative advisor) Utah State University
Brent Sohngen Ohio State University

Brief Summary of Minutes

W2133 41st Annual Meeting
Hilton Waikoloa Village Resort on the Big Island of Hawaii, Feb 17-20, 2008

Sunday, February 17: Registration Opens

Monday, 8:00 AM12:15 PM: W2133 Presidential Address and Welcome
Paper Session 1: Choosy Respondents: Choice Experiments and Choice Models
Chair: Michael KAPLOWITZ, Michigan State Univ
The Optimal Design: A Guide for Choice Experiment Practitioners. William BREFFLE, Michigan Technological University, Houghton, MI
A Discrete-Choice Model of Annual License Demand. Eric ENGLISH, Stratus Consulting Inc, Boulder, CO
Valuing Additional Protection of Steller Sea Lions Using a Choice Experiment-Based Stated Preference Method: Preliminary Results. Daniel K. LEW, Alaska Fisheries Science Center, National Marine Fisheries Service, Deattle, WA
A Choice Experiments Analysis of Stakeholder Preferences for Water Management Alternative in the Red River Basin. Bob HEARNE, North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND
Incorporating Random Coefficients and Alternative Specific Constraints into Discrete Choice Models: Implication for In-Sample Fir and Welfare Estimates. Roger H. VON HAEFEN, North Carolina State Univ., Raleigh
Meta-Analysis and Benefit Transfer: What do we Gain from Using Individual-level Data? Klaus MOELTNER, Univ Nevada Reno

Monday, 1:30 5:45 PM: Paper Session 2A ~ W-2133/WRSA Joint Paper Session
Chair: Dan MCCOLLUM, U.S. Forest Service, Rocky Mtn Research Station, Ft. Collins, CO
A Panel-Mixed Logit Analysis of Colorado Corn Farmers' Stated Preferences for Private-Public Irrigation System Attributes. Craig BOND, Colorado State Univ., Fort Collins. Discussant: Roger VON HAEFEN, North Carolina State Univ., Raleigh
A Hybrid Individual-Zonal Travel Cost Model for Estimating the Consumer Surplus of Golfing in Colorado. John LOOMIS, Omer TADJION, Philip WATSON, Josh WILSON, Steve DAVIES, and Dawn THILMANY, Colorado State Univ., Fort Collins. Discussant: Robert HEARNE, North Dakota State Univ., Fargo
Selection Effects in Meta-Valuation Function Transfers. Randall ROSENBERGER, Oregon State Univ., Corvallis, and Robert J. JOHNSTON, Univ. Connecticut, Groton. Discussant: John BERGSTROM, Univ. Georgia, Athens
Economic Globalization and Resource Use: Do Growth, Investment, and Trade Encourage Water Use or Water Conservation? John P. HOEHN and Kwami ADANU, Michigan State Univ., East Lansing, MI. Discussant: Kim ROLLINS, Univ. Nevada Reno

Tuesday, 8:00 AM12:00 PM: Paper Session 3: Paper Presentations Land Use: Recreation, Protection Measures, & Policy
Chair: John BERGSTROM, Univ of Georgia, Athens
Estimates and Welfare Analysis in a System of Correlated Count Outcomes. Joseph A. HERRIGES, Iowa State Univ, Ames
Spatial Limits of the TCM Revisited: Island Effects. John B. LOOMIS, Colorado State Univ, Fort Collins
Experiments on Response Rates for Stated Preference Surveys. Michael KAPLOWITZ, Frank LUPI, Michigan State Univ, E. Lansing
The Value of Information from Soil Surveys. Jerry FLETCHER, West Virginia University, Morgantown
An Analysis of Local Stakeholder Values for Tropical Protected Areas in Madagascar. Don DENNIS, Northern Research Station, USDA Forest Service, South Burlington, VT
Montana Challenge: Remaining the Last, Best Place for Fish and Wildlife in the Changing West. Cindy S. SWANSON, Rocky Mountain Research Station, USDA Forest Service, Missoula, MT
Building Wealth Through Ownership: Resident Owned Manufactured Housing Communities in New Hampshire. Kelly GIRAUD CULLEN, University of New Hampshire, Durham, NH

Tuesday 2:30  4:00: Panel Discussion: Publishing in Peer Reviewed Journals Today: A View from the Inside
Chair: Roger VON HEAFEN, North Carolina State Univ, Raleigh
Paul JAKUS, Utah State Univ, Logan, UT, Associate Editor/Editorial Council of J. Agricultural and Resource Economics, Society and Natural Resources, J. Environmental Economics and Management, Water Resources Research
John B. LOOMIS, Colorado State Univ, Fort Collin, Associate Editor/Editorial Council of Water Resources Research, and Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics. Published 170+ Peer Reviewed Articles
Douglas MORRIS, Univ New Hampshire, Durham, Secretary/Treasurer of Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, in charge of Oversight for Agricultural and Resource Economics Review
Randy ROSENBERGER, Oregon State Univ, Corvallis, Associate Editor of Journal of Leisure Research

Tuesday 4:15  5:45 PM: W2133 Business Meeting: Open to all W2133 Members
Chair: Michael Kaplowitz, Incoming W2133 President

Wednesday 8:00-12:00: Paper Session 4: Risk, Water, and Water Based Risk
Chair: Klause MOELTNER, Univ Nevada Reno
Alternative Futures Analysis for the Little Kanawha River Basin in West Virginia. Vishakha MASKEY, West Virginia University, Morgantown
Fire, Carbon, Timber, and Trees: Optimal Forest Management with Carbon Sequestration Credits and Endogenous Fire Risk. Brent SOHNGEN, Ohio State University, Columbus
Incorporating Protests Responses into Valuation Estimates: Willingness to Pay to Prevent Ecosystem Losses from Invasive Species and Wildfire. Kimberly ROLLINS, Univ Nevada Reno
Econometric Analysis of Environmental Water Values in Western U.S. Water Transactions. Bonnie COLBY, University of Arizona, Tuscon
Modeling Perceived Distributions of Mortality Risks from Arsenic Concentrations in Drinking Water. Paul JAKUS, Utah State Univ, Logan

Accomplishments

Short-term Outcomes: Work continues on developing the best methodologies for valuating nonmarket goods--some from a theoretical perspective and some from a practical or data-based perspective.<br /> <br /> Outputs: Most of the outputs of this projects include publications of various types and the primary purpose of the project is to allow a cross-fertilization of individuals who are involved in this work, The list of participants is expansive and this work has provided the basis for many of the techniques presently being used to value nonmarket goods. A complete list of outputs is provided under the publication listing.<br /> <br /> Activities: This project fosters joint research between project participants in the preparation of peer-reviewed manuscripts, but even more importantly, it facilitates discussion between a diverse group of economists whose primary work is in the area of nonmarket valuation. A portion of the meeting is spent discussing theoretical issues surrounding the valuation techniques and part of the meeting is spent dealing with actual data-based issues or problems. <br /> <br /> Milestones: Data collection methods have been collaboratively designed. Primary and secondary data have been collectged, though this is a continuing milestone (inot and beyond 2009) as new issues arise and new data sets and techniques are identified. Publications have also been realized.

Publications

Bell, K.P. 2007. "Session Discussion: Discussant's Response to Preserving Rural Land," Review of Agricultural Economics 29(3): 518-519.<br /> <br /> Bell, K.P., and T. Dalton. 2007. "Spatial Economic Analysis in Data-Rich Environments," Journal of Agricultural Economics, forthcoming.<br /> <br /> Bower, J.M., J.C. Bergstrom and J. Gill. "Estimating the Economic Value and Impacts of Recreational Trails: A Case Study of the Virginia Creeper Trail", Tourism Economics. 13, 2 (2007):241-260.<br /> <br /> Bowker, J.M., D. Murphy, H.K. Cordell, D.B.K. English, J.C. Bergstrom, C.M. Starbuck, C.J. Betz, G.T. Green, P. Reed. "Wilderness Recreation Participation and Consumption: Projections for the Next Half Century." In: Watson, Alan; Dean, Liese; Sproull, Janet, comps. Science and Stewardship to Protect and Sustain Wilderness Values: Eighth World Wilderness Congress Symposium; October, 2005; Anchorage, AK. Proceedings RMRS P 49. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, November, 2007.<br /> <br /> Brown, T.C., J.C. Bergstrom and J.B. Loomis. "Defining, Valuing and Providing Ecosystem Goods and Services", Natural Resources Journal. 47, 2, (2007): 329-376.<br /> <br /> Collins, A.R. and R.S. Rosenberger. 2007. Protest adjustments in the valuation of watershed restoration using payment card data. Agricultural and Resource Economics Review. <br /> <br /> Costanigro, M., J.J. McCluskey, and R.C. Mittelhammer, 2007. Segmenting the Wine Market Based on Price: Hedonic Regression when Different Prices mean Different Products, Journal of Agricultural Economics, 58(3): 454 - 466.<br /> <br /> Deaton, B., Hoehn, J. P., Norris, P. E. (2007). Net Buyers, Net Sellers, and Agricultural Landowner Support for Agricultural Zoning.. Land Economics, 83(2), 45-57.<br /> <br /> Gabe, T.M., Colby, K., and K.P. Bell 2007. "The Effects of Workforce Creativity on Earnings in U.S. Counties," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review 36(1): 71-83.<br /> <br /> Herriges, J. with Subhra Bhattacharjee and Catherine L. Kling. The Status of Women of Environmental Economics, Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, Vol. 1, No. 2, 2007, pp. 212-227. <br /> <br /> Kaplowitz, M.D. and R. Levine. 2007. Class Participation: A Major University Surveys Students as Part of Its Watershed Management Efforts. Watershed & Wet Weather Technical Bulletin 12(2):12-16.<br /> <br /> Kaplowitz, M.D., F. Lupi, and J.P. Hoehn. 2007. What does the public know about wetlands in Michigan? Using focus groups for scoping and exploratory research. Michigan Academician. 37(1-3):19-34.<br /> <br /> Kim, H., W. Douglass Shaw, and Rich Woodward. The Distributional Impacts of Recreational Fees: A Discrete Choice Model with Incomplete Data, Land Economics ,2007, Vol. 83 , No. 4 (November): 561-74.<br /> <br /> Kling, C. with Hongli Feng Hennessy, Lyubov Kurkalova, and Philip Gassman Transfer and Environmental Co-benefits of Carbon Sequestration in Agricultural Soils: Retiring Agricultural Land in the Upper Mississippi River Basin, Climatic Change, 80(2007): 91-107. <br /> <br /> Kling, C. with S. Secchi, P. Gassman, M. Jha, L. Kurkalova, H. Feng, and T. Campbell. The Cost of Cleaner Water: Assessing Agricultural Pollution Reduction at the Watershed Scale, Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 62(2007):10-20.<br /> <br /> Knoche, S. D. and F. Lupi. Valuing Deer Hunting Services from Farm Landscapes. Ecological Economics, 64(2)313-320. 2007.<br /> <br /> Loomis, J with Le Trong and Vu Tien Thinh. Comparing Money and Labour Payment in Contingent Valuation: The Case of Forest Fire Prevention in Vietnamese Context. Journal of International Development 19: 173-185. 2007. <br /> <br /> Loomis, J. Correcting for On-Site Visitor Sampling Bias when Estimating the Regional Economic Effects of Tourism. Tourism Economics 13(1): 41-47. 2007. <br /> <br /> Loomis, J. With A. Gonzalez-Caban, Hayley Hesseln. A Comparison of CVM Survey Response Rates, Protests and Willingness to Pay of Native Americans and General Population for Fuel Reduction Policies. Journal of Forest Economics 13: 49-71. 2007. <br /> <br /> Loomis, J. With Pamela Kaval and Andy Seidl. Willingness-to-pay for prescribed fire in Colorado (USA) wildland urban interface. Forest Policy and Economics 9: 928-937. May 2007. <br /> <br /> Loomis, J. With S. Walker, R. Rideout and R. Reich. Comparing the Value of Fuel Treatment Options in northern Colorados Urban and wildland urban interface areas. Forest Policy and Economics 9: 694-703.. 2007.<br /> <br /> Menkhaus, D. J., O. R. Phillips, C. T. Bastian, and L. B. Gittings. The Matching Problem (and Inventories) in Private Negotiation, American Journal of Agricultural Economics. 89,4(2007): 1073-84.<br /> <br /> Messer, K.D., G.L. Poe, and H.M. Kaiser. 2007. Voluntary Funding for Generic Advertising Using a Provision Point Mechanism: An Experimental Analysis of Option Assurance. Review of Agricultural Economics 29(3):612-31.<br /> <br /> Murray, B.C., B. Sohngen, M.T. Ross. 2007. Economic Consequences of Consideration of Permanence, Leakage and Additionality for Soil Carbon Sequestration Projects. Climatic Change. 80(1-2): 127-143.<br /> <br /> Nagler, A. M., C. T. Bastian, J. P. Hewlett and R. R. Weigel. Risk Management for Ag Families: Evaluation of an Integrated Educational Program for Producers on the High Northern Plains, Journal of Extension. June, Vol. 45, No.3, Article Number 3RIB3 (2007): 1-9; http://www.joe.org/joe/2007june/rb3.shtml .<br /> <br /> Nguyen, T., W. Douglass Shaw, Richard Woodward, Robert Paterson, and Kevin Boyle. An Empirical Study of Option Prices for Moose Hunting Permits: Lotteries and Guarantees Ecological Economics , 2007, Vol. 63 (August): 476-84. <br /> <br /> Patunru, A.A., J.B. Braden, & S. Chattopadhyay. Who Cares about Environmental Stigmas and Does It Matter? A Latent Segmentation Analysis of Property Values. Amer. J. Agric. Econ., 89(3, 2007): 712-726.<br /> <br /> Rose, A., Keith Porter, Nicole Dash, Jawhar Bouabid, Charles Huyck, John C. Whitehead, W. Douglass Shaw, Ronald Eguchi, Craig Taylor, Thomas McLane, Thomas Tobin, Phil Ganderton, David Godschalk, Anne Kiremidjian, Kathleen Tierney, and Carol Taylor West. Benefit Cost Analysis of FEMA Hazard Mitigation Grants. Natural Hazards Review (2007), Vol. 8 (November): 97-111. <br /> <br /> Rosenberger, R.S. 2007. Social and economic issues of global climate change in the western United States. R. Haynes and L. Joyce (eds.). USDA Forest Service, General Technical Report.<br /> <br /> Sedman, J. N., C. T. Bastian, L. J. Held, F. A. Gray, and D. W. Koch. An Economic Analysis of Alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.) Harvest Methods When Infested with Verticillium Wilt, Agronomy Journal. 99 (2007): 1635-39.<br /> <br /> Strager, M.P. and R.S. Rosenberger. 2007. Aggregating high priority landscape areas to the parcel level: An easement implementation tool. Journal of Environmental Management 82:290-298.<br /> <br /> Swain, E., P. Jakus, G. Rice, F. Lupi, P. Maxson, J. Pacyna, A. Penn, S. Spiegel and M. Veiga, Socioeconomic Consequences of Mercury Use and Pollution. AMBIO, 36(1)45-61, 2007.<br /> <br /> Swinton, S. M., F. Lupi, G. P. Robertson, and S. K. Hamilton, Ecosystem services and agriculture: Cultivating agricultural ecosystems for diverse benefits. Ecological Economics, 64(2)245-252. 2007.<br /> <br /> von Haefen, Roger H. Empirical Strategies for Incorporating Weak Complementarity into Consumer Demand Models, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 54(1): 15-31, July 2007.<br />

Impact Statements

1. There are many goods and services that are not priced or valued through normal market operatioins and this project has identified theoretical underpinnings for the evaluation of these goods and services. Methodologies from this project have been used to provide value estimates for a variety of nonmarket goods (wildland use, instream flows, fisheries, etc) and these values have been used in administrative resource allocation decisions by the federal government and state governments. They also provide a basis for resource allocation decisions at the local, state, and federal, and international levels related to nonmarket goods. Just as importantly, this work has better defined the limitations of current nonmarket valuation methodologies in order to prevent over- or under-valuing such resources. Actual examples of this work are many and varied and can be found under the publication list and accomplishments portion of this report.

Back to top

Report Information

Participants

2009 W2133 Meeting Attendees

Michael Kaplowitz, Michigan State;
Patty Champ, Colorado State;
LeRoy Hansen, USDA;
John Bergstrom, University of Georgia;
Kawa Ng; University of Alaska;
Kimberly Rollins, University of Nevada at Reno;
Don McLeod, University of Wyoming;
Dave Gebben, Michigan State University;
Klaus Moeltner, University of Nevada at Reno;
Douglas Shaw, Texas Agrilife Research;
Levan Elbakidze; Texas A&M University;
Bob Hearne, University of Nebraska;
John Hoehn, Michigan State University;
Archana Pradhan, West Virginia;
Tom Brown;
Steve Schultz;
Randy Rosenberger, Oregon State University;
Robert Johnston, University of Nevada at Reno;
Brent Sohngen, Ohio State University;
John Loomis, Colorado State University;
Charlotte Ham;
Leslie Richardson;
Xiangping Liu, North Carolina State University;
Kathleen Bell, University of Maine;
Frank Lupi, Michigan State University
Paul Jakus, Utah State University;
Krishna Paudel, Louisiana State University;
Donald Snyder, Utah State University;
Roger von Haefen, North Carolina State;
Wuyang Hu, University of Kentucky;
John Duffield, University of Montana
Jerry Fletcher, West Virginia;

Brief Summary of Minutes

Accomplishments

Outputs/Activities: <br /> <br /> Brent Sohngen: <br /> A number of researchers have suggested that benefit cost analysis does not apply when there are concerns about irreversibility, such as species extinction. This research shows how benefit-cost analysis can be undertaken when thresholds or irreversibilities exist. <br /> <br /> Paul Jakus: <br /> Arsenic contamination exceeds EPA standards in some rural regions. This study explained the factors that influence households' perceived risk of arsenic contamination of drinking water and the decision to treat drinking water to remove the contaminant. Primary data were collected in Nevada, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Wisconsin during Fall 2006 and Spring 2007. Econometric modeling shows that perceived risks of arsenic contamination of drinking water increase with increases in concentration levels. Scientists have documented that smoking, when combined with arsenic consumption, causes the objective risk to increase; the econometric modeling of perceived risk indicates that people understand the importance of smoking in evaluating the risk arsenic ingestion. A Heckman selection model was used to estimate the effect of perceived risk on the decision to buy bottled water. The more overt characteristics of tap water quality (taste, smell, clarity) dominate the role of perceived risk in the decision to buy any bottled water, but perceived risk is a statistically significant determinant of the amount of money to spend on bottled water. <br /> <br /> W. Douglass Shaw: <br /> Presented instream flow work at "The Instream Flow Workshop" Dept. of Ecology, Washington State. Gathering of some 50 professionals in wildlife and water management from Alaska, Oregon, and Washington State, June 2008. Presented instream flow work at the Brown Bag Invited Speaker Series, Environmental Defense Fund, Boulder, Colorado, July 2008. A collection of EDF employees interested in economic approaches to the instream flow allocation problem. Presented various papers at 12 other universities (for invited seminars), conferences, or workshops.<br /> <br /> Klaus Moeltner: <br /> The simulated models produced the following results and insights: By switching from an aggregate to an individual-level estimation framework, we are also implicitly adopting the more complex and more highly nonlinear properties of the underlying theoretical model structure. This hampers the ability of a linear MRM to produce meaningful BT (beneft transfer) estimates, at least for our simulated application. Conceptually, the structural ILMRM would utilize the original data to directly generate welfare predictions for any desired BT context consistent with a common utility-theoretic framework. In contrast, the reduced-form ILMRM proceeds in two steps: First, raw data are used to generate welfare estimates for each individual. Second, these estimates are then regressed against a set of explanatory variables (as needed for the BT function) in a standard linear meta-regression framework. In theory, the structural ILMRM should be more efficient than the reduced-form ILMRM as it avoids the second estimation step. However, its feasibility hinges crucially on the homogeneity of outcome variables employed in the original studies.<br /> <br /> Randall Rosenberger : <br /> A discrete duration model was developed to evaluate and measure the effect of land use policy changes on economic development. The model was fit with data for wilderness designations in the Appalachian Region of the U.S. Results show a statistically significant positive, but not practical, effect of wilderness designation on local economic development in the eastern U.S. A Bayesian method using model search and model averaging was developed to define the optimal scope of metadata for meta-regression analysis. The Bayesian-derived, scope-augmented metadata are shown to produce more efficient benefit transfer estimates than conventionally defined scope and smaller metadata sets. Use of this model should increase the efficiency of benefit transfers. A survey of recreational visitors to Mt. Jefferson Wilderness area in Oregon was conducted. The survey evaluated the effects of a past wildfire on visitor use patterns, recreational access, and satisfaction levels. Wilderness visitation to the Mt. Jefferson Wilderness area did not change dramatically following the B&B Fires of 2003. Displacement of visitors was minimal. However, changes in policy and management have a greater impact on visitation than natural disasters based on historical visitation records.<br /> <br /> John Loomis: <br /> Research was performed and accepted for publication on pricing options for USDA Forest Service to reduce congestion at 14,000 foot peaks. This information is being used by the USDA Forest Service and the Colorado 14er Initiative. It was also the basis for a successful grant to USDA NRI. Our recreation valuation results were used in a publication for California Department of Boating and Waterways. Our estimates of recreation and scientific economic values were used by the Wilderness Society in their publication this year. These examples suggest significant cost savings are being realized by agencies and non-governmental organizations being able to apply our new and existing studies to emerging natural resource policy issues without having to conduct their own expensive studies and without having to delay management decisions while new economic studies are conducted. In addition to this US impact, the research undertaken has been requested in several countries around the world including The Netherlands, Italy, Jamaica and Thailand.<br /> <br /> Diane Hite:<br /> Based on analysis of survey data from anglers, we found that the baseline value of fishing in Alabama averages about $250 per person. Responses to other questions in the data, such as the types of site characteristics that could enhance individual anglers' experiences will be used to further identify ways in which fishing tourism can be enhanced in the Black Belt. We also found a baseline impact of $135.5m in total value added to the state from recreational fishing, which could potentially be increased to $142.2m. We also estimate a Black Belt baseline value of $38.3m, which could potentially increase to $43.4m with improvements to fishing sites in the region. Policy makers in state tourism will be able to use the information from this project to help guide operators of both public and private fishing venues on ways to increase individual and regional profitability. With respect to climate and agricultural profitability, we found at the watershed level (Kelley Creek in SE AL) that cotton is adversely affected by increasing temperatures, while other crops may perform better than normal; we additionally found that in this watershed, conversion of subwatersheds from forest to agricultural uses would have a negative impact on both water quality and per hectare profitability. Our findings for the Black Belt region suggest ENSO impacts on agricultural profitability can be mitigated somewhat with increased forecasting precision of climate phases. In addition, we are able to use the model to identify which parts of the Black Belt are more adversely impacted than others by ENSO phases; for example, Hale County is much better off in terms of profitability during El Nino, while Choctaw, Macon and Russell counties are much worse off. These findings will play an important role in the strategies employed by agricultural producers to cope with climate change. <br /> <br /> John Braden: <br /> One important finding is that language affinity does have significant effects on welfare estimates derived from survey responses. The results suggest that mail surveys addressing environmental issues that may affect a linguistically diverse population should be designed at the outset with multiple languages in mind. A second finding is that aquatic sites contaminated with hazardous materials are consistently associated with diminished values of nearby properties. Survey research results reveal a positive willingness to pay for cleanup of these sites, but the WTP estimates show much less influence of proximity to the site and may capture expression of "warm-glow" preferences.<br /> <br /> Kathleen Bell: <br /> The research on household decision making, arsenic contamination of drinking water, and invasive forest pests is contributing to a change of knowledge by providing important information to public agencies and private businesses. The results of this research will help promote changes in action by supporting the development of improved risk communication and prevention programs. Such changes can support more cost-effective strategies to maintain human and forest health. The national wildlife refuge study provides a change in knowledge related to the valuation of open space lands by providing evidence that residents value proximity to these lands and highlighting the sensitivity of results to the measurement and classification of open space lands. Research on voting behavior provides a change in knowledge by examining public preferences for land protection over time and space. These advances in knowledge can help citizens, policy-makers, and private businesses make informed decisions about land use and land management. <br /> <br /> Don McLeod:<br /> The projects I have been involved with relate to open space preservation/conservation issues across a variety of natural resource considerations, particularly land and water resources. Exurban sprawl and landscape fragmentation continue to be critical issues with respect to resource management and local governance. The research efforts constitute work in progress or mid project outcomes related to funding. The audiences for the outcomes consist of water policy makers, landowners, land use planners, land trusts, federal and state agency personnel, other researchers, elected official and concerned citizens. Two funded projects (NRI and WWDC) provide additional resources to pursue analysis of emerging conservation easement markets and environmental impacts of public projects. The former is becoming an important public/private tool in addition to standard land use controls. The latter is increasingly relevant due to the infrastructure demands of both exurban residential and energy development. The work is intended to provide decision makers with evidence of land use impacts as well as assist in developing mechanisms to mitigate unwanted or unintended consequences of public policy/projects. WWDC project is chiefly designed to determine the relationship between exurban sprawl and regional water project siting in Wyoming. It is policy relevant as it provides measure, records and data to consider or think about as per regional water project siting choices. I am working with colleagues in the Ruckelshaus Institute of the Environment and Natural Resources as well as the Wyoming Geographic Information Sciences Center to construct a decision support framework for exploiting synergies between water resource planning and land use planning.

Publications

Impact Statements

1. Findings from the meta analysis of benefits from conservation programs in agriculture were used in ERS analyses for the 2008 Farm Bill. (Sohngen)
2. The W-2133 research primarily benefits researchers working in non-market valuation and provides input into policy decision making. Economic values derived from this research have been used in public rule making by the EPA and other Federal Agencies. (Poe)
3. Demonstrating responsiveness to incentive programs for pollution abatement provides support for using these programs in Federal and State policy. (Poe)
4. The US EPA project provides important information to economic theoreticians and policy economists about factors that affect and the effectiveness of ambient-based pollution policies to control non-point pollution. Such policies merit consideration because it is prohibitively costly to measure and regulate runoff from individual parcels. In addition, the work is germane to the increasing reliance on Total Maximum Daily Loads of nutrients at the watershed level. (Poe)
5. Research results on recreation values for fishing and hunting and the demand for these resources have been used by the Department of Natural Resources to inform deer management and fisheries management regulations. Valuation expertise has been given to the State of Michigan Attorney Generals, Department of Environmental Quality and the Department of Natural Resources in support of natural resource damages assessments being conducted in multiple locations in Michigan and the Great Lakes. The input, informed in large part from this project, has helped shape the course of these legal cases. (Lui, Hoehn, Kaplowitz)
6. Research on ecotourism impacts was used to justify budgetary requests by the Standing Rock Sioux Indian Tribe. (Hearne)
7. Results from a discrete duration model show a statistically significant positive, but not practical, effect of wilderness designation on local economic development in the eastern U.S. (Rosenberger)
8. A new methodology developed this year for modeling recreation use is being used by U.S. Bureau of Reclamation for predicting recreation use. (Loomis)
9. An economic analysis of the State of Colorado and Park County&lsquo;s decision to reduce liability to private landowners in exchange for access to three 14,000 foot peaks suggests this opening of access provided 74 tourism related jobs in the county and 85 tourism related jobs in Colorado. (Loomis)
10. Significant cost savings are being realized by agencies and non-governmental organizations being able to apply new and existing studies to emerging natural resource policy issues without having to conduct their own expensive studies and without having to delay management decisions while new economic studies are conducted. (Loomis)
11. We estimate a Black Belt baseline value of $38.3m, which could potentially increase to $43.4m with improvements to fishing sites in the region. Policy makers in state tourism will be able to use the information from this project to help guide operators of both public and private fishing venues on ways to increase individual and regional profitability. (Hite)
12. In the examination of lead contamination, we find that an a 1 mg/kg of soil increase in soil-based lead decreases the average house value by about $240. (Hite)
13. The research on household decision making, arsenic contamination of drinking water, and invasive forest pests is contributing to a change of knowledge by providing important information to public agencies and private businesses. The results of this research will help promote changes in action by supporting the development of improved risk communication and prevention programs. Such changes can support more cost-effective strategies to maintain human and forest health. (Bell)
14. The national wildlife refuge study provides a change in knowledge related to the valuation of open space lands by providing evidence that residents value proximity to these lands and highlighting the sensitivity of results to the measurement and classification of open space lands. (Bell)

Back to top

Report Information

Participants

Paul Jakus (Utah State)
Klaus Moeltner (U Nevada Reno)
Randy Rosenberger (Oregon State)
Joseph Herriges (Iowa State)
John Braden (U. Illinois)
Phil Wandschneider (Washington State)
Fen Hunt (NIFA)
John Loomis (Colorado State)
Don McLeod (U. Wyoming)
Douglass Shaw (Texas A&M)
John Bergstrom (U. Georgia)
Frank Lupi (Michigan State U)
Greg Poe (Cornell)
Richard Ready (Pennsylvania State)
Michael Kaplowitz (Michigan State)
John Hoehn (Michigan State)
Jerald Fletcher (West Virginia)
Kimberly Rollins (U Nevada-Reno)
Brent Sohngen (Ohio State)
Roger von Haefen (North Carolina State)
Donald Snyder (Administrative Advisor, Utah State)

Brief Summary of Minutes

President Roger von Haefen calls the meeting to order (5:05p)

Don Snyder reports
" We will need to present a three year report this year. The report will need to provide evidence that we are making adequate progress on our milestones.
" This report needs to be complete by around April 15.
" Don will provide Brent S. with a template for the information needed. Brent will put the information together in coordination with several recent presidents.
" Don indicated that the new re-chartering, set for 2012 will need to carefully emphasize collaborations that are going on within the group.

Fen Hunt reports on the new NIFA structure. There is now some information available on what the structure looks like and the goals of the new structure, but the new funding RFP has not yet come out. Keep looking for this soon.

Election for new Vice-President: Brent Sohngen nominates Phil Wandschneider, Seconded. Passes unanimously.

See the actual meeting schedule as an attachment.

Accomplishments

Short-term Outcomes: <br /> Markets have been used traditionally to value goods and services. However, many goods in our economy are not traded in markets. Without markets, it is difficult to identify the costs and benefits of alternative policies or actions. This project has focused on the development and application of such methodologies and has been very productive over time. Numerous new and modified approaches used to estimate nonmarket goods have been developed as a direct result of this project.<br /> <br /> Outputs:<br /> Numerous reports and publications have been produced as evidenced by the publication list. More importantly, however, are the actual values estimated for nonmarket goods and services. See the list of impacts for examples of some of these estimates.<br /> <br /> Activities:<br /> Activities include, but are not limited to, joint research projects, joint publications, an annual papers conference, special editions of various journals focusing on nonmarket evaluation methods and results, and joint particpation in professional meetings.<br /> <br /> Milestones:<br /> All milestones projected in the original proposal have already been met, though work is continuing under each as there is much that needs to be done. It is anticipated that demands for nonmarket valuation will continue to increase as more and more nonmarket goods are identified.<br /> <br /> Milestone 1: Data collection methods have been and will continue to be collaboratively designed, and primary and secondary data on use of natural resources for recreation, ecosystem services will be gathered.<br /> <br /> Milestone 2: Initial stated and revealed preference models have been and will continue to be jointly developed, and estimated, economic values derived, and preliminary results shared with stakeholders.<br /> <br /> Milestone 3: Outcomes from this research have been and will continue to be detailed in documents in the form of reports, submitted manuscripts, workshops for agencies, professional meetings, extension publications by participating members available via links on the proposed W1133 website.<br /> <br />

Publications

Acosta, M. and B. Sohngen. 2009. How big is leakage from forestry carbon credits Estimates from a Global Model. Selected Paper. Annual Meetings of the American Agricultural Economics Association. July, 2009. <br /> <br /> Adamowicz, Wiktor , David Bunch, Trudy Ann Cameron, Benedict G.C. Dellaert, Michael Hanemann, Michael Keane, Jordan Louviere, Robert Meyer, Thomas Steenburgh, Joffre Swait, Behavioral Frontiers in Choice Modeling. Marketing Letters Vol. 19, 2008. <br /> <br /> Anderson, C.M., E. Uchida, S.K.Swallow. 2008. A Field Experiment Comparing Mechanisms for the Provision of Nesting Bird Habitat on Active Farm Hayfields. Presented at three conferences: Institute of Social and Economic Research, University of Alaska-Anchorage, November 16, 2007. Southern Economic Association Annual Meeting, New Orleans, LA, November 19, 2007. Annual International Meeting of the Economic Science Association, Pasadena, CA, June 30, 2008. <br /> <br /> Bergstrom, J. 2009. Preserving Multifunctional Agriculture: Discussion. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 91(5), 1375-1376.<br /> Bergstrom, J. C., and R. C. Ready. 2009. What Have We Learned from Over 20 Years of Farmland Amenity Valuation Research in North America Review of Agricultural Economics 31(Spring):21-49. <br /> <br /> Bergstrom, J. and Ready, R. C. (2009). What Have We Learned from Over 20 Years of Farmland Amenity Valuation Research in North America. Review of Agricultural Economics, 31(1), 21-49.<br /> <br /> Bhattarai, G., Diane, H.and David Brasington. 2009. Complements and Substitutes in Public Service Provision: A Two-Stage Hedonic Model for Demand for School Quality, Neighborhood Safety and Environmental Quality. International Journal of Ecological Economics and Statistics 15(9): 34-46.<br /> <br /> Braden, J.B., Brown, D., Dozier, J., Gober, P., Maidment, D.R., Schneider, S.L., Schultz, P.W., Shortle, J.S., Swallow, S.K. and Werner, C.M. 2009. Social Science in a Water Observing System, Water Resources Research,45 (W11301), doi:10.1029/2009WR008216. <br /> <br /> Braden, J.B., Feng, X., Freitas, L. and Won, D. 2010. Meta-functional transfer of hedonic property values: Application to Great Lakes areas of concern. Agricultural and Resource Economics Review (Forthcoming).<br /> <br /> Bruggeman, D., M. Jones, K. Scribner and F. Lupi. Relating Tradable Credits for Biodiversity to Sustainability Criteria in a Dynamic Landscape, Landscape Ecology, 24(6): 775-790, 2009.<br /> <br /> Bond C. A., K. Giraud, and D. M. Larson. Joint estimation of discount rates and willingness to pay for public goods. Ecological Economics 68 (2009) 2751-2759.<br /> <br /> C. Bond, K Giraud Cullen, and D Larson. Joint estimation of discount rates and willingness to pay for public goods. Ecological Economics, 68(11): 2751-2759, Sep 2009.<br /> <br /> Carson, Richard, W. Michael Hanemann and Thomas C. Wegge, A Nested Logit Model of Recreational Fishing Demand in Alaska Marine Resource Economics (forthcoming) <br /> <br /> Chen, X., F. Lupi, G. He, and J. Liu, Linking social norms to efficient conservation investment in payments for ecosystem services. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106 (28):11812-11817, 2009.<br /> <br /> Chen, X., F. Lupi, G. He, Z. Ouyang, and J. Liu, Factors affecting land reconversion plans following a payment for ecosystem service program. Biological Conservation, 142(8):1740-1747, 2009.<br /> <br /> Collins, AR, RS Rosenberger and JJ Fletcher. 2009. Valuing the restoration of acidic streams in the Appalachian Region: A stated choice method. In HW Thurston, MT Heberling and A Schrecongost (eds.), Environmental Economics for Watershed Restoration. Boca Rotan, FL: Taylor & Francis. Pp. 29-52.<br /> <br /> Lew D. K., and D. M. Larson. A Repeated Mixed Logit Approach to Valuing a Local Sport Fishery: The Case of Southeast Alaska Salmon. Working Paper, University of California, Davis, September 2009.<br /> <br /> Lew,D. K., and D. M. Larson. How Do Harvest Rates Affect Angler Trip Patterns Working Paper, University of California, Davis, October 2009.<br /> <br /> Lew,D. K., and D. M. Larson. The Consequences of Value of Time Assumptions in Recreation Demand Analysis: Some Empirical Evidence. Working Paper, University of California, Davis, August 2009.<br /> <br /> Larson, D. K.,. Grogan, and E. Wimberger. Water Quality in California's San Joaquin Valley: Household Perspectives on the Salinity Problem. Chapter 6 in Handbook on Environmental Quality, E. K. Drury and T. S. Pridgen, eds. Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science Publishers, 2009.<br /> <br /> Das, Chhandita, Christopher Anderson and Stephen Swallow. 2009. Direct Estimation of Distributions of Willingness to Pay for Heterogeneous Populations. Southern Economic Journal 75(3):593-610 (RI AES Contr. No. 5145).<br /> <br /> Deisenroth, D., J. Loomis and C. Bond. 2009. Non-Market Valuation of Off-Highway Vehicle Recreation in Larimer County, Colorado: Implications for Trail Closures. Journal of Environmental Management 90(11):3490-3497.<br /> <br /> Douglas Reiter, and David G. Tarboton 2008. Utah's Public Lands <br /> Pienaar E. F. Improving the Performance of Community-Based Wildlife Management Programs: Evidence from Botswana. PhD dissertation, University of California, Davis, March 2009.<br /> <br /> Pienaar E. F., L. S. Jarvis, and D. M. Larson. How Much Will It Take to Encourage Village Conservation Activities In Botswana Working Paper, University of California, Davis, July 2009.<br /> <br /> Lavin, F.V and W.M. Hanemann, Taste Indicators and Heterogeneous Revealed Preferences for Congestion in Recreation Demand, Department of Natural Resources.<br /> <br /> Fenichel, E., F. Lupi, J. Hoehn, and M. Kaplowitz, Split-sample tests of no opinion responses in an attribute based choice model. Land Economics, 85(2): 349-363. 2009.<br /> <br /> Fisher, A., Hanemann, M., Roberts, M., and Schlenker, W. (2009). Potential impacts of climate change on crop yields and land values in U.S. agriculture: Negative, significant, and robust. American Economic Review (pending).<br /> <br /> Fisher, A., Hanemann, M., Roberts, M.J., and Schlenker, W. (2009). Climate change and agriculture reconsidered. Annual Review of Resource Economics (pending).<br /> <br /> Fletcher, S., Kittredge, D. and Stevens, T. 2009. Forest landowner's willingness to sell carbon credits: a pilot study. North. J. Appl. For. 26(1):35-37. <br /> <br /> Gnedenko, E. 2009. Three Essays on the Economics of Open Space. Ph. D. Dissertation, University of Connecticut.<br /> <br /> Golub, A., T. Hertel, H-L Lee, S. Rose, and B. Sohngen. 2009. The opportunity cost of land use and the global potential for greenhouse gas mitigation in agriculture and forestry. Resource and Energy Economics. 31: 299-319 (DOI 1016/j.reseneeco.2009.04.007)<br /> <br /> Golub, A.,T. Hertel, S. Rose, B. Sohngen, M. Avetisyan. 2009. The Relative Role of Land in Climate Policy. Selected Paper. Annual Meetings of the American Agricultural Economics Association. July, 2009. <br /> <br /> Haab, Timothy C., John Whitehead, George Parsons, and Jammie Price. 2010. Effects of Information about Invasive Species on Risk Perception and Seafood Demand by Gender and Race, Resource and Energy Economics, Forthcoming. <br /> <br /> Hanley, N., R. Ready, S. Colombo, F. Watson, M. Stewart and E.A. Bergmann. 2009. The Impacts of Knowledge of the Past on Preferences for Future Landscape Change. Journal of Environmental Management 90(March):1404-1412. <br /> <br /> Hearne, R. 2009. Review of Emerging Markets for Ecosystem Services: A Case Study of the Panama Canal Watershed by Gentry, B., Q. Newcomer, S. Anisfeld, M. Fotos, editors. 2007. American Journal of Agricultural Economics. 91(3):855-857.<br /> <br /> Hite, Diane. 2009. Factors Influencing Differences in Survey and Market-Based Environmental Value Measures. Urban Studies 46(1):117-138.<br /> <br /> Ho, Chau-Sa, and Diane Hite. 2009. Toxic Releases, Health Effects and Labor Productivity. Journal of Community Health 34(6):539-546. Working paper available on SSRN's working paper http://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=1139245. In SSRN's top ten download list for DSHE: Econometrics, August 28, 2008.<br /> <br /> Irwin, E.G., Bell, K.P., Bockstael, N.E., Newburn, D.A., Partidge, M.D., and J. Wu. 2009. The Economics of Urban-Rural Space, Annual Review of Resource Economics (1): 435-462.<br /> <br /> Jakus, P. 2009. Economic Analysis of Fish Consumption Advisories. ERI 2009-05, 27 pp.<br /> <br /> Jakus, P., W.D. Shaw, T. Nguyen, and M. Walker. 2008. Risk Perceptions of Tap Water and Consumption of Bottled Water . Economic Research Institute Paper 2008-10, 30 pp.<br /> <br /> Jakus, P.M., John E. K., Lu, L., and Dale, B. 2009. Off Highway Vehicles and Access to Public Lands. ERI 2009-04, 22 pp.<br /> <br /> Jakus, P.M., D.W Shawand T.N. Nguyen, and Mark Walker 2009. Risk Perceptions of Arsenic in Tap Water and Consumption of Bottled Water.Water Resources Research 45, W05405.<br /> <br /> James, H., and W. M. Hanemann. 2008. The Impact of Water Quality on Southern California Beach Recreation: A Finite Mixture Model Approach, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics Working Paper No. 074, University of California, Berkeley. <br /> <br /> Jauregui, A., and D.Hite. 2009. The Impact of Realtors on House Prices near Environmental Disamenities. Forthcoming: Housing Policy Debate 20(1).<br /> <br /> Jiang, Y., S.K. Swallow, and W.C. Paton. 2007. Designing a Spatial-explicit Nature Reserve Network Based on Ecological Functions: An Integer Programming Approach Biological Conservation. Biological Conservation 140:236-249. (AES Contr. No. 5127). <br /> <br /> Jorge, E. A., J.L.Carmelo and W. M. Hanemann. 2008. Emotions and Decision Rules in Discrete Choice Experiments for Valuing Health Care Programmes for the Elderly. Journal of Health Economics 2008. <br /> <br /> Keith, J.E.,S.W. Burr, Jody Gale, Paul M. Jakus, Richard S. Krannich, Douglas Reiter, and David G. Tarboton 2008. Utah's Public Lands Socioeconomic Baseline Study: Summary Report. Economic Research Institute Paper 2008-06, 50 pp. <br /> <br /> Kim, Soo-Il, and T. C. Haab. 2009. Temporal Insensitivity of Willingness to Pay and Implied Discount Rates. Resource and Energy Economics 31, no. 2: 89-102.<br /> Kim, Y-H and B. Sohngen. 2009. Assessing the Uncertainty of Land Based Carbon Sequestration: A Parameter Uncertainty Analysis with a Global Land Use Model. Selected Paper. Annual Meetings of the American Agricultural Economics Association. July, 2009. <br /> <br /> Lee, Y. 2009. Economics of Sustainable Watershed Management under Alternative Climate Change Scenarios. Ph. D. Dissertation, University of Connecticut.<br /> <br /> Lee, Y., Abou-Zeid, A., Shah, F. 2009. Downstream Environmental Impacts of Reservoir Operations. Agricultural and Resource Economics Review 38:287. Abstract<br /> <br /> Lee, Y., Yoon, T., Shah, F. 2009. Impacts of Climate Change on Reservoir Management and Downstream Watershed. 6th Annual Conference of the Massachusetts Water Resources Research Center, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, April 7,2009.http://www.umass.edu/tei/wrrc/WRRC2004/Conference2009/Abstracts.htm<br /> <br /> Loomis, J. and C. Keske. 2009. Mountain Substitutability and Peak Load Pricing of High Alpine Peaks as a Management tool to Reduce Environmental Damage: A Contingent Valuation Study. Journal of Environmental Management 90: 1751-1760.<br /> <br /> Loomis, J. and C. Keske. 2009. The Economic Value of Novel Means of Ascending High Mountain Peaks: A Travel Cost Demand Model of Pikes Peak Cog Railway riders, automobile users and hikers. Tourism Economics 15(2): 426-436.<br /> <br /> Loomis, J., C. Bond and D. Harpman. 2009. The Potential of Agent Based Modelling for Performing Economic Analysis of Adaptive Natural Resource Management. Journal of Natural Resources Policy Research: 1(1): 1-15.<br /> <br /> Loomis, J., O. Tadjion, P. Watson, J. Wilson, S. Davies and D. Thilmany. 2009. A Hybrid Individual-Zonal Travel Cost Model for Estimating the Consumer Surplus for Golfing in Colorado. Sports Economics 10(2): 155-167.<br /> <br /> Loomis, J., P. Bell, H. Cooney and C. Asmus. 2009. A Comparison of Actual and Hypothetical Willingness to Pay of Parents and Non-Parents for Protecting Infant Health: The Case of Nitrates in Drinking Water. Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 41(3):697-712.<br /> <br /> Malieka Landis, and Kimberly Rollins, The Economic Value of Nevada Big Game Hunting. Abstract in the Proceedings of the International Symposium on Society and Resource Management, Burlington Vermont, June 2008.<br /> <br /> McCluskey, J.J., C.A.Durham, and B.P.Horn. 2009. Consumer Preferences for Socially Responsible Production Attributes across Food Products. Agricultural and Resource Economics Review 39(3):345-356<br /> <br /> Moeltner, K, RJ Johnston, RS Rosenberger and JM Duke. 2009. Benefit transfer from multiple contingent experiments: A flexible two-step model combining individual choice data with community characteristics. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 91(5): 1335-1342. <br /> <br /> Mueller, J., J. Loomis and A. Gonzalez-Caban. 2009. Do Repeated Wildfires Change Homebuyers Demand for Homes in High Risk Areas Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics 38:155-172.<br /> <br /> Murray, B., R. Lubowski, and B. Sohngen. 2009. Including International Forest Carbon Incentives in Climate Policy: Understanding the Economics. Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions, Duke University. Report 09-03. Durham, NC.<br /> <br /> Neumann, B., Boyle, K.J., and K.P. Bell. 2009. Property Price Effects of a National Wildlife Refuge: Great Meadows National Wildlife Refuge in Massachusetts, Land Use Policy 26(4): 1011-1019.<br /> <br /> Nguyen, T.N., P.M. Jakus, W.D. Shaw and M. Riddel 2009. An Empirical Model of Perceived Mortality Risks for Selected United States Arsenic Hot Spots. ERI 2009-02, 31 pp.<br /> <br /> Ortega-Pacheco, D.V., F. Lupi and M.D. Kaplowitz, Payment for environmental services: estimating demand within a tropical watershed. Journal of Natural Resource Policy Research, 1(2) 189-202. 2009.<br /> <br /> Phaneuf, D.J., Carbone, J., and Herriges, J. 2009. Non-Price Equilibria for Non-Marketed Goods. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Vol. 57, No. 1.<br /> <br /> Poe, G.L.. Valuation of Groundwater Quality Using a Contingent Valuation - Damage Function Approach. Water Resources Research 34(12):3627-3633, 1998 in R.Q. Grafton Ed. Economics of Water Resources. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishers, 2009.<br /> <br /> Johnston, R.J. and S.K. Swallow (eds.) 2006. Economics and Contemporary Land Use Policy. Resources for the Future, Washington, D.C. 309pp.<br /> <br /> Randall, A. 2009. Multifunctional Agriculture and Regional Economic Growth. The Role of Knowledge, Innovation and Human Capital in Multifunctional Agriculture and Territorial Rural Development. Proceedings of 113th Seminar, European Association of Agricultural Economists (ed. D. Tomic, Z. Vasiljevic and D. Cvijanovic). 25-38.<br /> <br /> Randall, A. 2009. Reflections on Solow's 1974 Richard T. Ely Address. Journal of Natural Resources Policy Research 1(1):97-101.<br /> <br /> Randall, A. 2009. We Already Have Risk Management-Do We Really Need the Precautionary Principle International Review of Environmental and Resource Economics 3(1): 39-74. <br /> <br /> Richardson, L. and J. Loomis. 2009. The Total Economic Value of Threatened, Endangered and Rare Species: An Updated Meta- Analysis, Ecological Economics 68: 1535-1548.<br /> <br /> Rodriguez, Fabian, Douglas Southgate and Timothy C. Haab. 2009. Is better drinking water valued in the Latin American countryside Some evidence from Cotacachi, Ecuador. Water International, 34, no. 3, 325-334. <br /> <br /> Rollins, Kimberly, Mariah Evans and Darryl Rush Survey of Nevada Big Game Hunters, Report of Methods and Results, 2009.<br /> <br /> Rosenberger, RS, TR Bergerson and JD Kline. 2009. Macro-linkages between health and outdoor recreation: The role of parks and recreation providers. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration 27(3): 8-20. <br /> <br /> Santiago, L. and J. Loomis. 2009. Recreation Benefits of Natural Area Characteristics at El Yunque National Forest. Environmental Planning and Management 52(4): 535-547.<br /> <br /> Sedjo, R.A. and B. Sohngen. 2009. An Inconvenient Truth about Cellulosic Ethanol. Milken Institute Review. 11(4): 50-55. http://www.milkeninstitute.org/<br /> <br /> Sedjo, R.A. and B. Sohngen. 2009. The Implications of Increased Use of Wood for Biofuel Production. Resources For the Future. Issue Brief 09-04. Washington, DC.<br /> <br /> Sidique, S., F. Lupi, and S. Joshi. The effects of behaviors and attitudes on drop-off recycling activities, Resources, Conservation and Recycling, Available online 25 August 2009. <br /> <br /> Sidique, S., S. Joshi, and F. Lupi. Factors influencing the rate of recycling: An analysis of Minnesota counties, Resources, Conservation and Recycling, Available online 22 September 2009.<br /> <br /> Sohngen, B. 2009. Adapting Forests and Ecosystems to Climate Change. Invited Presentation. The Economics of Adaptation to Climate Change. Venice, Italy. April 2-3, 2009.<br /> <br /> Sohngen, B. 2009. An Analysis of Forestry Carbon Sequestration as a Response to Climate Change. Copenhagen Consensus on Climate. http://fixtheclimate.com/.<br /> <br /> Sohngen, B. 2009. Climate Change and Ohio: Threats, Impacts and Opportunities. Invited Presentation. Ashland University (Ohio). February 12, 2009.<br /> <br /> Sohngen, B. 2009. Global Forestry and Land Use Model. Invited Presentation. REDD Modeling Forum and National REDD Reference Case Workshop. Washington, DC. April 21-22, 2009. <br /> <br /> Sohngen, B. 2009. Key Role of REDD in Mitigating Climate Change and Potential Role and Scale of REDD-based GHG Offsets. Invited Presentation. EPRI Greenhouse Gas Emissions Offset Policy Dialogue: Workshop 5-Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD). Washington, DC., May 13, 2009. <br /> <br /> Sohngen, B. 2009. The Economics of REDD Crediting. Invited Presentation. Forests: A Critical Part of the Climate Change Solution. Indianapolis, Indiana. October 23, 2009. <br /> <br /> Sohngen, B. 2009. Water Markets. Invited Webinar Presentation. Environmental Markets: New Approaches for Natural Resources Management. February 23, 2009. (http://www.cfare.org/media events/env markets.php)<br /> <br /> Sohngen, B. and B. Sun. 2009 Optimal Set-Asides for Carbon Sequestration and Co-Benefits of Forestry. Presentation at W-2133 Meeting. Austin, Texas. February 21-22, 2009.<br /> <br /> Sohngen, B. Oral Testimony to the US House of Representatives, Committee on Agriculture, Subcomittee on Conservation, Credit, Energy and Research. Washington, DC. December 3, 2009. <br /> <br /> Southgate, Douglas, Timothy C. Haab, and Fabian Rodriguez. 2009. Payments for Sustainability: A Case Study on Subsistence Farming in Ecuador, Harvard International Review, 31 no. 2.<br /> <br /> Southgate, Douglas, Timothy C. Haab, John Lundine and Fabian Rodriguez. 2010. Payments for Environmental Services and the Rural Poor in Ecuador and Guatemala Forthcoming, Environment and Development Economics, 15 no. 1.<br /> <br /> Southwick, R., Bergstrom, J., Wall, C. (2009). The Economic Contribution of Human Powered Outdoor Recreation to the U.S. Economy. Tourism Economics, 15(4), 709-733. <br /> <br /> Spencer, M.A., S.K.Swallow, J.F. Shogren, and J.A. List. (2009). Rebate Rules in Threshold Public Good Provision. Journal of Public Economics (in press). (AES Contr. No. 5153).<br /> <br /> Stephen Swallow, Chris Anderson, Elizabeth Smith. 2008. Revenue Raising Auction Processes for Public Goods, Provisional Patent Application 61/120,573 filed 12/10/2008. Sponsored by NSF, grant No DEB0621014<br /> <br /> Sun, B. and B. Sohngen. 2009. Set-Asides for Carbon Sequestration: Implications for Permanence and Leakage. Climatic Change. 96:409-419 (DOI 10.1007/s10584-009-9628-9)<br /> <br /> Suter J.F., C.A. Vossler and G.L. Poe, 2009. Ambient-Based Pollution Mechanisms: A Comparison of Homogenous and Heterogeneous Groups of Emitters. Ecological Economics 68:1883-1892.<br /> <br /> Swallow, S.K. 2008. Fire Briefing: An Economists Summary. Presented to U.S. House of Representatives and U.S. Senate staff, June (representing Council on Food, Agricultural and Resource Economics).<br /> <br /> Swallow, S.K., E. Uchida, C. M. Anderson. 2008. Creating a Private Market for Ecosystem Services: Selling Hayfield Services for Grassland Nesting Birds to Ex-Urban Residents in Jamestown, Rhode Island. Presented to A Conference on Ecosystem Services (ACES), December 7-11, Naples, Florida. (Abstract in: ACES: A Conference on Ecosystem Services: 2008: Using Science for Decision Making in Dynamic Systems, p. 160.)<br /> <br /> Swallow, S.K., E. Uchida, C. M. Anderson. 2008. Public Goods Provision through Private Action: Using Auction Market Mechanisms to Sell Ecosystem Services. Presented to the Western Agricultural Economics Association Annual Meeting, Big Sky, MT, June 25-27. (Abstract in Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics December 2008)<br /> <br /> Swallow, S.K., E. Uchida, C.M. Anderson. 2008. Market Approaches for Ecosystem Services: Examples of Grassland Nesting Birds on Hayfields. USEPA Ecosystem Services Research Program Lecture Series, December 1, Narragansett, RI (broadcast by web). Powerpoint slides available at EPA Environmental Science Connector (http://portal.epa.gov/ESC).<br /> <br /> Swallow, Stephen K., Elizabeth C. Smith, Emi Uchida, and Christopher M. Anderson. 2008. Ecosystem Services beyond Valuation, Regulation, and Philanthropy: Integrating Consumer Values into the Economy. Choices 23(2):47-52. (RI AES Contr. No. 5142) http://www.choicesmagazine.org/magazine/article.phparticle=21<br /> Thesis 1: The Value of Hunting and Scouting Nevada Big Game and Trade-offs with Livestock Production (complete summer 2009). University of Nevada  Reno (Supervisor: K. Rollins)<br /> Thesis 2: Regional Economic Impacts from Big Game Hunting in Nevada, and Trade-offs with Livestock Production Impacts (complete Fall 2009). University of Nevada  Reno (Supervisor: K. Rollins)<br /> <br /> Vista, AB, RS Rosenberger and AR Collins. 2009. If you provide it, will they read it Response time effects in a choice experiment. Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics 57:365-377. <br /> <br /> Y.-L. Chien and D. M. Larson. 2009. Valuing Old Growth Forests and Northern Spotted Owls: A Supply-Side Option Price Approach. Chapter 8 in Handbook on Environmental Quality, E. K. Drury and T. S. Pridgen, eds. Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science Publishers.<br />

Impact Statements

1. The combined economic contributions of human-powered recreation to the US economy exceed US$590 billion annually in total gross output, supporting over five million jobs. Other studies estimate that wildlife-based recreation contributes another US$140 billion annually in total gross output to the US economy, making a total contribution of US$730 billion from both human-powered and wildlife-based recreation.
2. Approximately $5.2 billion (2005 dollars) have been lost in residential property values around 23 of the AOCs (Areas of Concern). This compares to estimates that place the cost of remediation of all U.S. AOCs at up to $4.5 billion (2005 dollars).
3. The increase in elk hunting opportunities in Nevada more than offset hunting losses from decreased mule deer opportunities, and that hunting benefits are likely greater than potential productivity losses to ranchers. However, the manner in which the costs and benefits are distributed leaves some groups worse off, and others better off.
4. Consumers are hesitant to adopt alternative energy, specifically solar-thermal hot water heaters, not because they did not trust this new technology, but because consumers are not aware of how quickly they would recoup the costs of installation - and that is the main barrier to adoption.
5. A number of researchers have suggested that benefit cost analysis does not apply when there are concerns about irreversibility, such as species extinction. We have shown how benefit-cost analysis can be undertaken when thresholds or irreversibilities exist.
6. Recent proposals to restrict access to BLM land in several southeastern Utah counties will result in statewide welfare losses in excess of about $1.14 per trip, or a little over $1 million per year for Utah owners of OHVs.

Back to top

Report Information

Participants

Paul Jakus (Utah State)
Klaus Moeltner (U Nevada Reno)
Randy Rosenberger (Oregon State)
Joseph Herriges (Iowa State)
John Braden (U. Illinois)
Phil Wandschneider (Washington State)
Fen Hunt (NIFA)
John Loomis (Colorado State)
Don McLeod (U. Wyoming)
Douglass Shaw (Texas A&M)
John Bergstrom (U. Georgia)
Frank Lupi (Michigan State U)
Greg Poe (Cornell)
Richard Ready (Pennsylvania State)
Michael Kaplowitz (Michigan State)
John Hoehn (Michigan State)
Jerald Fletcher (West Virginia)
Kimberly Rollins (U Nevada-Reno)
Brent Sohngen (Ohio State)
Roger von Haefen (North Carolina State)

Brief Summary of Minutes

Annual meeting of the Multistate Research Project, W2133, "Benefits and Costs of Natural Resources Policies Affecting Public and Private Lands (formerly W1133)" Held at the Hotel Andaluz in Albuquerque, New Mexico, February 23 (6:00 pm) to February 25 (5:00 pm)

Notes from the Business Meeting February 24 (1:30 to 5:00 pm), 2011.

Call to order by Brent Sohngen: 1:30 Feb 24th, 2010


Elections: Kathleen Bell is next officer.
Leaving president (Sohngen) organizes papers.
Vice President (Rollins) organizes papers under objectives, meeting minutes. Annual Report for this meeting is due to Don Snyder 90 days after meeting.

For Rechartering:

Don Snyder: Must recharter this year with a new 5 year plan due January 1, 2012.

Need: list of members, publications (more the better), impact statements.
Everyone needs to provide these for report. Can use impact statements from AD421's.
Randy Rosenberger will reactivate website to gather member information for rechartering.

Problem in the past has been impact statements (examples from Don Snyder)
An output is a publication. Outcomes are research results. Impacts are social, economic, physical, i.e. "this study saves agency A $xxx using these results" (NOT"agency A is using these results"). A problem is that current work won't yield outcomes until the future; so make sure to list current outcomes from past work.

The rechartering report consists of 2 parts: accomplishments and next set of objectives

Proposed new objectives:

1. Advanced in Stated and Revealed Preferences


2. Alternative Energy and Environmental spill-over effects (Adverse impacts)


3. Land and Water Management Under Changing Environments

A paragraph is to be written for each objective.
Once the report is organized, members each fill out Appendix E by October.

Notes submitted by Kim Rollins, VP.

Accomplishments

Objective 1: Natural Resource Management under Uncertainty<br /> <br /> Worked with land use planners to identify and measure efficacy of land use control methods. Results include recommendations about which ecosystem services are important to farmers and insights on effectiveness of tools for engaging farmer cooperation.<br /> <br /> Developed analytical decision support tools for policy-makers and planners to use in identifying priority areas for protection. West Virginia and Oregon, with USDA collaborators developed a multi-criteria analysis tool to aid in the selection of landowner parcels for conservation purposes for a watershed in West Virginia.<br /> <br /> The Center for Environmental and Resource Economic Policy (CEnREP)created an information tool for state and local planners to help manage growth and protect natural resources. The data includes information on habitat, water quality, demographics and economic activity and indicators, all of which are spatially linked. <br /> <br /> Showed that the effect of federal wilderness designation on local economic development in the Appalachian Region of the U.S. is statistically significant, but not large.<br /> <br /> Showed that home-owners living in relatively high fire-risk areas tend to underestimate the expected value of wildfire costs to their households. The undervaluation is mitigated by previous experience with wildfire. <br /> <br /> Showed minimal recreational visitor displacement to a wilderness area after a major wildfire.<br /> <br /> The probability that private forestland owners will enroll in most types of carbon sequestration and easement programs is very low; between 4 and about 30 percent depending on carbon price and program requirements. At current carbon prices the likelihood is about 4 percent.<br /> <br /> Recreation demand modeling quanitified the increased demand for beach and boat ramp access associated with increased temeratures predicted by climate change models.<br /> <br /> Objective 2: Advances in Valuation Methods<br /> <br /> Several innovative benefit transfer data platforms linked directly to policy and management needs for agency use, to provide benefit transfer practitioners with efficient means to access valuation data and derive accurate estimates of non-market values for a variety of resources and policy/management issues. The Benefit Transfer Toolkit is designed for valuing fishing, hunting, wildlife viewing, wetlands and threatened and endangered species, and is posted at the websites of Colorado State University and Defenders of Wildlife. The updated valuation databases for hunting, fishing, wildlife viewing, wetlands and open space help agencies locate studies needed for their benefit cost analysis and benefit transfers. This tool has been used by a variety of Federal and State agencies, as well as universities such as University of Minnesota. This toolkit has saved agencies such as USEPA, significant amounts of money by having data readily available. <br /> <br /> A decision framework for state and federal agencies to determine whether performing benefit transfer is preferred to performing an original study. Factors include the variance in benefit estimates in the benefit transfer analysis, the monetary magnitude of the decision to be made, and the cost of the original study. Colorado provided agencies such as USFWS with an updated meta-analysis of threatened and endangered species values that can be used in benefit transfer for critical habitat decisions, thereby saving them time and money from having to do an original study (Richardson and Loomis 2009).<br /> <br /> A series of outputs to test and improve the validity and efficiency of benefits transfer include: the use of Bayesian methods to address problems of small sample size and for aggregating and evaluating optimal scope of metadata; alternative methods to improve benefit transfers by combining data from multiple primary studies; proposed guidelines to improve broader benefit transfer practice.<br /> <br /> Improvements in valuation methods to improve efficiency and reliability of valuation estimates. Examples include: the use of spatial regression techniques with higher resolution land cover layers to improve valuation estimates; a payment card approach in contingent valuation to reduce protest response bias; new methods to accommodate stated preference data collected with certainty levels to more efficiently use information contained in the data, relative to standard approaches; a new approach for combining stated and revealed preference data; development of multiple-method approaches for designing and testing valuation methods and applied these to fisheries, recycling, and wetland ecosystems; the effects of information and choice sets in survey-based non-market valuation.<br /> <br /> Objective 3: Valuation of Ecosystem Services<br /> <br /> Valuation of the costs and benefits of changes in recreational access and use for a wide variety of recreational activities that occur on various types of public and private lands throughout the U.S. These included: the economic values of hiking peaks of over 14,000 feet above sea level; the value of public access to recreation lands for deer hunting, gamebird hunting, beach uses, boater uses of public ramps, and public access to fishing sites; the value of recreational access for swimming and boating for various user groups using aquatic resources; the value of recreational access for swimming and boating for various user groups using aquatic resources in the Red River Basin (Hearne and Torpen 2010); the value that tourists and locals have for nature trails, bike trails, and tours of a bison herd within the Standing Rock Sioux Tribal Reservation; distributional impacts of fees for recreational fishing in in the Gulf of Mexico; the value of backcountry wilderness access for hiking and canoeing under a variety of activities and site conditions; the economic value and economic impacts of rail-trails; the value of changing lake and reservoir levels in the Tennessee Valley; the economic impacts of human-powered outdoor recreation (e.g., bicycling, hiking, paddling) on the U.S. economy; the economic value of maintaining recreational access for Off Highway Vehicles (OHV) in Colorado and Wyoming; the economic losses associated with more restrictive access to BLM lands under proposed BLM Resource Management Plans.<br /> W2133 members collaborated with the US Forest Service and the Oregon Parks and <br /> <br /> <br /> Development of standardized concepts and a framework for defining and valuing ecosystem goods and services. The framework provides a basis for testing theory and techniques for valuing multi-attribute ecosystem goods. This information has been provided to federal agencies that are interested in valuation of ecosystem services.<br /> <br /> A number of projects conducted studies of specific ecosystem services, including the value of ecosystem services provided by wetlands, floodplains, and moving water of the Red River Basin in North Dakota (Hearne and Torpen 2010); changes in flows of watershed and wetland ecosystem services in Michigan, Ohio, Missouri, and Georgia as well as in Costa Rica (Kaplowitz and Lupi. 2010; Hoehn, Lupi, and Kaplowitz. 2010; Kaplowitz and Bergstrom 2010; Ortega-Pacheco, Lupi, and Kaplowitz. 2009; Glicken et al 2007).<br /> <br /> Ecosystem valuation studies including benefits to water quality, fish, wildlife and climate due to changes in land management. <br /> <br /> <br /> Estimation of the economic values for reducing infant exposure to nitrates in ground water; for restoring streams contaminated by acid mine drainage; spatial and temporal patterns in property value reductions from arsenic contamination of drinking water; how perceived risk of aresenic contamination affects averting behavior. <br /> <br /> <br /> Assessements of various policy mechanisms for maintaining surface and drinking water quality, including assessments of stakeholder preferences for alternative water quality control programs in the Red River Basin of North Dakota; land and water use planning in Wyoming; and payment mechanisms, ecosystem banking and other institutions for environmental service provision. <br /> <br /> <br /> Estimation of the value of efforts to preserve riparian ecosystems and fish populations. Predictions of how households recreation decisions respond to water quality conditions. <br /> <br /> <br /> An on-site and off-site workshop and set of papers with friends and members of W2133 for a special issue of Water Resources Research (in progress). <br />

Publications

The list of citations below consists of W2133 published papers from the 2010-11 year. These are organized by Objective and subtask within each objective.<br /> <br /> <br /> Objective 1: Natural Resource Management under Uncertainty<br /> <br /> Task 1-1: Economic Analysis of Agricultural Land, Open Space and Wildland-Urban Interface Issues<br /> <br /> Bell, K .P. 2010. Public Preferences for Protecting Working Landscapes, in S. Goetz and F. Brouwer (eds.), New perspectives on agri-environmental policies: a multidisciplinary and transatlantic approach, Routledge Publishing, 199-218.<br /> <br /> <br /> Braden, J.B., L.O. Taylor, and D.H. Won. 2010. A Test of Proximity as a Proxy for Environmental Exposure in Hedonic Models. Book of Abstracts, World Congress of Environmental and Resource Economists, Montreal, July 2010, p. 386. <br /> <br /> <br /> Chen, X., F. Lupi, A. Vinas, G. He, J. Liu. 2010. Using Cost-Effective Targeting to Enhance the Efficiency of Conservation Investments in Payments for Ecosystem Services. Conservation Biology. 24(6):1469-78. <br /> <br /> <br /> Cross, J., C. M. Keske, M. G. Lacey, D. L. Hoag and C. T. Bastian. 2011. Adoption of Conservation Easements among Agricultural Landowners in Colorado and Wyoming: The Role of Economic Dependence and Sense of Place. Landscape and Urban Planning. 101,1(2011): 75-83. <br /> <br /> <br /> Freeman, R.C. and K.P. Bell. 2011. Conservation versus cluster subdivisions and implications for habitat connectivity. Landscape and Urban Planning (forthcoming). <br /> <br /> <br /> Hatton-MacDonald, Darla, Neville Crossman, Parvin Mahmoudi, Laura Taylor, David M. Summers, and Peter C. Boxall. 2010. The Value of Public and Private Green Spaces Under Water Restrictions. Landscape and Urban Planning, 95(4), pp 192-200.<br /> <br /> <br /> Miller, A. D., C. T. Bastian, D. M. McLeod, C. M. Keske, and D. L. Hoag. 2011. Factors Impacting Agricultural Landowners Willingness to Enter into Conservation Easements: A Case Study. Society and Natural Resources: An International Journal. 24(1): 65-74.<br /> <br /> <br /> Netusil N.R., S. Chattopadhyay and K. Kovacs. 2010. Estimating the Demand for Tree Canopy: A Second-Stage Hedonic Price Analysis. Land Economics 86(2):281-293.<br /> <br /> <br /> Phaneuf, D., L.O. Taylor, and J.B. Braden. Combining Revealed and Stated Preference Data to Estimate Preferences for Residential Amenities: A GMM Approach. Book of Abstracts, World Congress of Environmental and Resource Economists, Montreal, June 2010, p. 310.<br /> <br /> <br /> Swinton, S., C. Jolejole, N. Rector, F. Lupi. 2011. In Press. Changing farmer choices about how to manage agricultural ecosystems and what ecosystem services to provide.? In press as Chapter 15 in The Ecology of Agricultural Ecosystems: The Quest for Sustainability in Row-Crop Agriculture (eds S. Hamilton et al), Oxford University Press. <br /> <br /> Task 1-2: Economic Analysis of Natural Hazards Issues (Fire, Invasive Species, Natural Events)<br /> <br /> Baker, Justin and W.D. Shaw. 2010. Models of Location Choice and Willingness to Pay to Avoid Hurricane Risks for a Sample of Hurricane Katrina Evacuees.? International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters 28(1/March):87-114. <br /> <br /> <br /> Davis A., K. Moeltner. (2010). Valuing the Prevention of an Infestation: The Threat of the New Zealand Mud Snail in Northern Nevada. Agricultural and Resource Economics Review 39(1):56-74.<br /> <br /> <br /> Holmes, T., Murphy, E., Bell, K.P., and D. Royle. 2010. Property Value Impacts of Hemlock Woolly Adelgid in Residential Forests. Forest Science 56(6): 529-540. <br /> <br /> <br /> Holmes, T., A. Liebhold, K. Kovacs, B. Von Holle. 2010. A Spatial-Dynamic Value Transfer Model of Economic Losses from a Biological Invasion.? Ecological Economics 70(1):86-95. <br /> <br /> <br /> Horan, R., and F. Lupi. 2010. Economics of Managing and Controlling Invasive Species. Resource and Energy Economics 32(4):477-482. <br /> <br /> <br /> Kobayashi, M., K. Rollins and M.D.R. Evans. (2010). Sensitivity of WTP Estimates to Definition of Yes: Reinterpreting Expressed Response Intensity, Agricultural and Resource Economics Review 39(1): 1-17. <br /> <br /> <br /> Kovacs, K., T. Vaclavik, R. Haight, A. Pang, N. Cunniffe, C. Gilligan, R. Meentemeyer.. 2011. Predicting the Economic Costs and Property Value Losses Attributed to Sudden Oak Death Damage in California (2010-2020).? Journal of Environmental Management, forthcoming.<br /> <br /> <br /> Kovacs, K., R. Haight, D. McCullough, R. Mercader, N. Siegert, and A. Liebhold. 2010. Cost of Potential Emerald Ash Borer Damage in U.S. Communities, 2009-2019.? Ecological Economics 69(3):569-578. <br /> <br /> <br /> Moore, C.C., Holmes, T.P., and K.P. Bell. 2011. An Attribute-Based Approach to Contingent Valuation of Forest Protection Programs, Journal of Forest Economics (forthcoming). <br /> <br /> <br /> Rashford, B.S., J.A. Walker, and C.T. Bastian. Economics of Grassland Conversion to Cropland in the Prairie Pothole Region.?Conservation Biology 25(2):276-284.<br /> <br /> Task 1-3: Analysis of Climate Change Issues<br /> <br /> Braden, J.B. and A.W. Ando. 2011. Economic Costs, Benefits, and Achievability of Low-Impact Development Based Stormwater Regulations. In Economic Incentives for Stormwater Control, Ed. H.W. Thurston, Taylor & Francis, Boca Raton, FL. (in press).<br /> <br /> <br /> Mieno, T. and J.B. Braden. Residential Demand for Water in the Chicago Metropolitan Area. Journal of the American Water Resources Association (in press)<br /> <br /> <br /> Ren, X., D. Fullerton, and J.B. Braden. 2011. Optimal Taxation of Externalities Interacting through Markets: A Theoretical General Equilibrium Analysis. Resource and Energy Economics, xx(2011) doi:10.1016/j.reseneeco.2010.10.002 (in press) <br /> <br /> <br /> Ren, X., D. Fullerton, and J.B. Braden. Policy Implications of Interacting Externalities: A Theoretical General Equilibrium Analysis. Book of Abstracts, World Congress of Environmental and Resource Economists, Montreal, June 2010, p. 26. <br /> <br /> <br /> Objective 2: Advances in Valuation Methods<br /> <br /> Task 2-1: Improving Validity and Efficiency in Benefit Transfers<br /> <br /> Braden, J.B., X. Feng, L. Freitas, and D. Won. 2010. Meta-Functional Transfer of Hedonic Property Values: Application to Great Lakes Areas of Concern. Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, 39(1, 2010): 101-113, http://purl.umn.edu/59339. <br /> <br /> <br /> Braden, J.B., X. Feng, and D. Won. 2011. Waste Sites and Property Values: A Meta-analysis. Environmental and Resource Economics (in press).<br /> <br /> <br /> Braden, J.B., L.O. Taylor, and D.H. Won. 2010. A Test of Proximity as a Proxy for Environmental Exposure in Hedonic Models. Book of Abstracts, World Congress of Environmental and Resource Economists, Montreal, July 2010, p. 386. <br /> <br /> <br /> Johnston, R.J. and R.S. Rosenberger. 2010. Methods, Trends and Controversies in Contemporary Benefit Transfer. Journal of Economic Surveys 24(3): 479-510<br /> <br /> <br /> Rosenberger, R.S. and R.J. Johnston. (2011 forthcoming). Benefit transfer. In The Encyclopedia of Resource, Energy, and Environmental Economics.<br /> <br /> <br /> Task 2-2: Improving Valuation Methods and Technology<br /> <br /> Frank, K.A., S. Maroulis, D. Belman, and M.D. Kaplowitz. 2010. The Social Embeddedness of Natural Resource Extraction and Use in Small Fishing Communities, in Sustainable Fisheries: Multilevel Approaches to a Global Problem, eds. W. Taylor and M. Schechter. American Fisheries Society.<br /> <br /> <br /> Hearne, R. and E. Binebe. 2010. The Use of Choice Experiments in Developing Countries: The Central American Experience.?Panorama Socioeconomico. 40:104-115. <br /> <br /> <br /> Hoehn, J., F. Lupi, and M. Kaplowitz, 2010. Complexity in Stated Choice Experiments: The Effect of Information Formats on Estimated Variances and Choice Parameters, Journal of Agriculture and Resource Economics. 35(3):568-590. <br /> <br /> <br /> Jeon, Y. and J. A. Herriges, Convergent Validity of Contingent Behavior Responses in Models of Recreation Demand, Environmental and Resource Economics, Vol. 45, No. 2, 2010, pp. 223-250. <br /> <br /> <br /> Johnston, R.J., J. Sanchirico and D.S. Holland. 2011. Measuring Social Value and Human Well-Being, in Bowen, R.E., M.H. Depledge, C.P. Carlarne and L.E. Fleming, eds. Seas, Society and Human Well Being. Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett Publishers, forthcoming. <br /> <br /> <br /> Johnston, R.J., E.T. Schultz, K. Segerson, E.Y. Besedin and M. Ramachandran. 2011. Enhancing the Content Validity of Stated Preference Valuation: The Structure and Function of Ecological Indicators. Land Economics, in press.<br /> <br /> <br /> Johnston, R.J., E.T. Schultz, K. Segerson, E.Y. Besedin and M. Ramachandran. 2010. Integrating Ecology and Economics: Using Bioindicators in the Valuation of Ecosystem Services. (Abstract) Agricultural and Resource Economics Review 39(2). <br /> <br /> <br /> Kobayashi, M., K. Rollins and M.D.R. Evans (2010). Sensitivity of WTP Estimates to Definition of Yes: Reinterpreting Expressed Response Intensity. Agricultural and Resource Economics Review 39(1): 1-17. <br /> <br /> <br /> Liu,C., J. A. Herriges, C. Kling, and J. Tobias, What are the Consequences of Consequentiality?? Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Vol. 59, No. 1, 2010, pp. 67-81. <br /> <br /> <br /> Messer, K.D., G.L. Poe and W.D. Schulze, The Value of Private Versus Public Risk and Pure Altruism: An Experiential Economic Test. Forthcoming, Applied Economics.<br /> <br /> <br /> Murphy, J, Stevens, T, Yadav, l. 2010. A comparison of Induced and Homegrown Value Experiments. Environmental and Resource Economics, 47(1):111-123 <br /> <br /> <br /> Phaneuf, D., L.O. Taylor, and J.B. Braden. Combining Revealed and Stated Preference Data to Estimate Preferences for Residential Amenities: A GMM Approach. Book of Abstracts, World Congress of Environmental and Resource Economists, Montreal, June 2010, p. 310.<br /> <br /> <br /> Objective 3: Valuation of Ecosystem Services<br /> <br /> Task 3-1: Valuing Changes in Recreational Access<br /> <br /> Gill, J.K., J.M. Bowker, J.C. Bergstrom, S.J. Zarnoch. 'Accounting for Trip Frequency in Importance-Performance Analysis.' Journal of Park and Recreation Administration. 28 ,1 (2010):16-35. <br /> <br /> <br /> Hearne, R. and D. Torpen. 2010. Stakeholder Preferences for Water Management Alternatives in the Red River Basin.?Water International. 36(2):150-164. <br /> <br /> <br /> Kline, J.D., R.S. Rosenberger and E.M. White. (forthcoming). A national assessment of physical activity in US national forests. Journal of Forestry.<br /> <br /> <br /> Knoche, S. D. and F. Lupi. In Press, The Economic Value of Publicly Accessible Deer Hunting Land.? Journal of Wildlife Management, 2011.<br /> <br /> <br /> Task 3-2: Valuing Changes in Ecosystem Services Flows<br /> <br /> Eichman, H., G. Hunt, J. Kerkvliet and A. Plantinga. 2010. Local Employment Growth, Migration, and Public Land Policy: Evidence from the Northwest Forest Plan. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 35(2):316-333.<br /> <br /> <br /> Hearne, R. and D. Torpen. 2010. Stakeholder Preferences for Water Management Alternatives in the Red River Basin.?Water International. 36(2):150-164. <br /> <br /> <br /> Hoehn, J., F. Lupi, and M. Kaplowitz. 2010. Complexity in Stated Choice Experiments: The Effect of Information Formats on Estimated Variances and Choice Parameters, Journal of Agriculture and Resource Economics. 35(3):568-590. <br /> <br /> <br /> Holland, D.S., J. Sanchirico, R.J. Johnston and D. Joglekar. 2010. Economic Analysis for Ecosystem Based Management: Applications to Marine and Coastal Environments. Washington, DC: RFF Press.<br /> <br /> <br /> Kaplowitz, M.D. and J.C. Bergstrom. 2010. Benefits and Costs of Natural Resources Policies Affecting Public and Private Lands: USDAW2133 Regional Research Project Legacy & Current Contributions.? Agricultural and Resource Economics Review. 39(1):1-8. <br /> <br /> <br /> Kaplowitz, M.D., and F. Lupi. 2010. Ecosystem Banking as a Quasi-Market Approach to Conservation: Building on U.S. Wetland Banking Experience, Chapter 11, in Human Dimensions of Soil and Water Conservation: A Global Perspective, ed. Ted Napier. Nova Science Publishers. ISBN: 978-1-61728-957-6.<br /> <br /> <br /> Kovacs, K., T. Vaclavik, R. Haight, A. Pang, N. Cunniffe, C. Gilligan, R. Meentemeyer. 2011. Predicting the Economic Costs and Property Value Losses Attributed to Sudden Oak Death Damage in California (2010-2020).? Journal of Environmental Management, forthcoming.<br /> <br /> <br /> Netusil N.R., S. Chattopadhyay and K. Kovacs. 2010. Estimating the Demand for Tree Canopy: A Second-Stage Hedonic Price Analysis. Land Economics 86 (2) 281-293.<br /> <br /> <br /> Volinskiy, D., J.C. Bergstrom, C.M. Cornwell and T.P. Holmes. 2010. A Pseudo-Sequential Choice Model for Valuing Multi-Attribute Environmental Policies or Programs in Contingent Valuation Applications.?Agricultural and Resource Economics Review 39(1): 9-21.<br /> <br /> <br /> Task 3-3: Valuing Changes in Water Quality<br /> <br /> Boyle, K.J., Kuminoff, N.V., Zhang, C. and K.P.Bell. 2010. Does a Property-Specific Environmental Health Risk Create a 'Neighborhood' Housing-Price Stigma? Arsenic in Private Well Water. Water Resources Research 1-10. <br /> <br /> <br /> Hearne, R. and D. Torpen. 2010. Stakeholder Preferences for Water Management Alternatives in the Red River Basin.?Water International. 36(2):150-164. <br /> <br /> <br /> Kaplowitz, M.D., and F. Lupi. 2010. Ecosystem Banking as a Quasi-Market Approach to Conservation: Building on U.S. Wetland Banking Experience, Chapter 11, in Human Dimensions of Soil and Water Conservation: A Global Perspective, ed. Ted Napier. Nova Science Publishers. ISBN: 978-1-61728-957-6.<br /> <br /> <br /> Johnston, R.J., E.T. Schultz, K. Segerson and E.Y. Besedin. 2011. Bioindicator-Based Stated Preference Valuation for Aquatic Habitat and Ecosystem Service Restoration, in Bennett, J. ed. International Handbook on Non-Marketed Environmental Valuation. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar, forthcoming. <br />

Impact Statements

1. W2133 research results and member expertise formed the basis of the EPA/STAR program synthesis of research related to benefits transfer. This synthesis will affect the direction of future research and agency uses of this method to value ecosystem goods and services.
2. W2133 valuation tools and web-accessible platforms have been used by practitioners from a variety of state and federal agencies and NGOs to generate values of ecosystem goods and services that are affected by policy changes. This ease of access to quality tools has resulted in protection of these goods and services to a level that would otherwise not been achievable.
3. W2133 objectives have been adopted by researchers and research units across the US and in other countries, thereby leveraging the activity among members to a collaborative group that is at least twice again as large as the member groups (as measured by the count of member and non-member authorship on publications).
4. A long term impact of W2133 collaboration with agency scientists and collaborators in the natural sciences (as needed for the applied nature of the project) has resulted in a pool of economists who are experienced working with other disciplines. This human capital is necessary for effective public lands management, and has resulted in numerous active relationships betwen W2133 members and public agencies.

Back to top

Report Information

Participants

Amy Ando (University of Illinois)
Chris Bastian (University of Wyoming)
Kathleen Bell (University of Maine)
John Bergstrom (University of Georgia)
John Braden (University of Illinois)
K.L. Cullen (University of New Hampshire)
Jeff Dorfman (University of Georgia)
Jeff Englin (University of Nevada)
Jerald Fletcher (West Virginia University)
Joseph Herriges (Iowa State University)
Diane Hite (Auburn University)
John Hoehn (Michigan State University)
Fen Hunt (NIFA)
M.G. Interis (Mississippi State University)
Paul Jakus (Utah State University)
Michael Kaplowitz (Michigan State University)
Catherine Kling (Iowa State University)
John Loomis (Colorado State)
Frank Lupi (Michigan State University)
Don McLeod (University of Wyoming)
Klaus Moeltner (Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University)
Krishna Paudel (Louisiana State University)
Daniel Petrolia (Mississippi State University)
Greg Poe (Cornell University)
Richard Ready (Pennsylvania State)
Kimberly Rollins (University Nevada-Reno)
Randy Rosenberger (Oregon State University)
John Schieffer (University of Kentucky)
Farhed Shah (University of Connecticut)
Douglass Shaw (Texas A&M)
Katherine Silz-Carson (US Airforce Academy)
Brent Sohngen (Ohio State University)
Tom Stevens (University of Massachusetts)
Roger von Haefen (North Carolina State)
Phil Wandschneider (Washington State University)
Donald Snyder (Utah State University)

Brief Summary of Minutes

Accomplishments

Objective 1: Natural Resource Management Under Uncertainty <br /> <br /> Valuation of the costs and benefits of changes in open space provision on various types of public and private lands throughout the U.S.; assessment of the implications of relevant uncertainties and irreversibilities for the design of climate change, forest management, and water management policies and delineation of general principles for natural resource, environmental and other decisions under uncertainty; quantification of land-use impacts from climate change and biofuels policies; and improved knowledge of household decision-making under uncertainty related to forest wildfire and residential water demand and management.<br /> <br /> Specific examples of accomplishments include:<br /> Research, in cooperation with the USDA Forest Service, on the economic benefits of different types of open space in Colorado Springs, Colorado. Assessed housing price differentials in proximity to National Forest, Military lands, and county parks and identified differences in price impacts, especially in the impact of Military lands. <br /> Research on the net effect of state-aid on open space preservation by local governments. Concluded that the effectiveness of this approach is context-dependent, varying with underlying market conditions and community characteristics.<br /> Development of a new method for valuation of open-space amenities.<br /> A week-long workshop on the economic benefits of public land natural resources for USDA Forest Service employees at Colorado State University in cooperation with University of Georgia and Portland State University. <br /> A one-day training course on economics of natural resources was help for USGS, USFWS, NPS, Arizona Fish and Game, Bureau of Reclamation and Western Area Power Authority. <br /> Research, in cooperation with the USDA Forest Service, on the economic benefits of health to estimate how much a person would pay to avoid respiratory symptoms from forest fire smoke associated with wildfires on National Forests in southern California. <br /> Development of a watershed simulation model that incorporates the hydrological dynamics caused by dams and found high net benefits from management of instream flow controls.<br /> Assessment of the impacts of climate change on agriculture in several, representative northern and southern U.S. counties. Used climate change projections from the USDA Forest Service to estimate county-by-county changes in agricultural production. <br /> Research on the impacts of climate change on land use throughout the United States.<br /> Examination of the effects of biofuels policies on land use change in Midwestern United States.<br /> Quantification, in cooperation with USDA cooperative extension staff, of the impacts of demographic and management factors on winter cover crops.<br /> Evaluation of the impact of economic growth on environmental pollution (measured by carbon dioxide emissions) in the United States. <br /> Evaluation of the water management concerns associated with oil drilling in western North Dakota.<br /> Development of a water quality simulation model to assess the benefits and costs of alternative in a CEAP Watershed in Ohio.<br /> <br /> Objective 2: Advances in Valuation Methods <br /> <br /> Continued support for a decision framework for state and federal agencies to determine whether performing benefit transfer is preferred to performing an original study. Factors include the variance in benefit estimates in the benefit transfer analysis, the monetary magnitude of the decision to be made, and the cost of the original study. <br /> <br /> Improvements in how people conduct benefit transfers and meta-analyses. Reducing time and monetary costs of such analyses. Improved the conduct of primary and secondary valuation tools and incorporation of information into decision making. Developed databases that are instrumental to deriving information from prior research, making it more readily accessible for analysis and decision-making. Shared databases with key stakeholders such as US EPA, the National Park Service, The Nature Conservancy, and The Trust for Public Land.<br /> <br /> Improvements in valuation methods to improve efficiency and reliability of valuation estimates. Examples include: new methods to combine stated and revealed preference data; development of approaches for designing and testing valuation methods and application of these approaches to contaminated waste sites, lake and coastal recreation demand, open space, and energy policy attributes; new methods for treatment of omitted variable bias in hedonic property models; new methods for treatment of preference heterogeneity; new understanding of the effects of invitation design, survey mode, and protest responses; new methods for the treatment of time, site entry, and reported visitation in recreation demand models; and a new approach for treatment of multiple bid and response options.<br /> <br /> Specific examples of accomplishments include:<br /> Completion of a meta-analysis of willingness to pay elasticities for residential water supply.<br /> Completion of a meta-analysis of the economic impacts of contaminated sites on property values. <br /> Development of two models of river-based recreation in Iowa to advance recreation-demand based valuation approaches. Explored the sensitivity of welfare estimates to distinct treatments of site entry and visitation (i.e., choice probabilities rather than discrete yes/no responses). Revealed differences in welfare valuation estimates across alternative assumptions and specifications based on these improvements.<br /> <br /> Objective 3: Valuation of Ecosystem Services<br /> <br /> Valuation of the costs and benefits of changes in recreational access and use for a wide variety of recreational activities that occur on various types of public and private lands throughout the U.S. These included: outdoor recreation in the South, recreation in the U.S. National Forests, freshwater angling in the Southeast U.S., coastal recreation amenities in the Southeast U.S., urban forests, tourism amenities in Alaska, lake and river recreation in Iowa, the value of changing lake and reservoir levels in the Tennessee Valley, a kayak park on the Poudre River through Fort Collins, fish stocking at multiple Colorado State Parks, and recreational access to beaches on the Great Lakes.<br /> <br /> Continued development of standardized concepts and a framework for defining and valuing ecosystem goods and services. The framework provides a basis for testing theory and techniques for valuing multi-attribute ecosystem goods. This information has been provided to federal agencies that are interested in valuation of ecosystem services. <br /> <br /> Continued research of specific ecosystem services, including the value of ecosystem services provided by lakes, rivers, wetlands, floodplains, and moving water. Progress on ecosystem valuation studies including benefits to water quality, fish, wildlife and climate due to changes in land management. <br /> <br /> Specific examples of accomplishments include:<br /> Development of a recreation demand model to describe visitation to coastal Louisiana. Identified environmental quality, time, and income as key factors influencing the choice of coastal sites visited by recreationists in Louisiana.<br /> Examination of how physical and demographic attributes influence the demand for freshwater angling in the Southeastern United States. <br /> Evaluation, in cooperation with the City of Fort Collins and a Fort Collins conservation organization, of the potential use and economic impact associated with a proposed kayak park on the Poudre River through Fort Collins. <br /> Completion of a study on the economic benefits of improving water quality in Utah to visitors and the general public.<br /> Quantification of the economic benefits of fish stocking at several Colorado State Parks using the travel cost method. <br /> Estimation of the cost savings to Colorado water providers, state and federal agencies from a cooperative approach to endangered fish recovery in the Upper Colorado River at the request of the Colorado Water Conservation Board. <br /> Development of a model of recreation visitation to different types of sites in National Forests (e.g., day use developed sites, overnight use developed sites, wilderness sites, and general forest area sites). This model was applied to National Forest sites in the Southern U.S. The results were initially disseminated to technical and general audiences through presentations at professional meetings, working papers, and a published USDA Forest Service General Technical Report. This work provided input into the Southern Forest Futures Project.<br /> Analyses of visitation to Iowa lakes and provided the Iowa Department of Natural Resources with a comparison of usage patterns over time in the state, indicating a substantial increase in the demand for lake recreation relative to earlier years in the project.<br /> Development of travel cost valuation models for valuing beaches, beach access, and the damages from beach closures on the Great Lakes.<br /> Valuation of public access to hunting areas for species such as deer and small game.<br /> Development of a recreation demand model to assess the welfare impacts of eight water management regimes using data from 39 lakes and reservoirs in the Tennessee Valley Region to inform a TVA Environmental Impact Statement. Model results reveal uneven regional impacts from such regimes, with trip increases and decreases varying across the region.<br /> Assessment of values for alternative mechanisms for ecosystem mitigation.<br /> Evaluation of water pricing for water conservation and the protection of ecosystem services.<br /> Evaluation of how to supply enhanced ecosystem services from agricultural lands through the adoption of low-input practices.<br /> Evaluation of the private financial liabilities from the development of energy resources.<br /> Development of hedonic models for the valuation of timber resources within a ecological-economic model of ecosystem service provision from Michigan forests.<br /> Development and analysis of stated preference surveys for recycling and energy options at Michigan State University.<br /> Completion, in cooperation with USGS, of a pilot economic study on the economic values of Landsat imagery to federal, state, county, non-profits and private companies. <br /> Evaluation of alternative stormwater management policies and completion of a review analysis of recent government studies. Concluded that, in light of emerging information about infiltration-focused methods of stormwater management, construction-phase costs would not be significantly increased and long-term system costs could be reduced by policies that encourage those methods from the outset.<br /> Completion of a review of agricultural producers' participation in water policy programs and evaluated the feasibility of a tradable permit program allowing agricultural producers to participate via offset credits for implementing best management practices.<br />

Publications

Published articles:<br /> The list of citations below consists of W2133 published papers from the 2011-12 year. These are organized by Objective and subtask within each objective. <br /> Objective 1: Natural Resource Management under Uncertainty <br /> <br /> Task 1-1: Economic Analysis of Agricultural Land, Open Space and Wildland-Urban Interface Issues <br /> <br /> Ellingson,L. A. Seidl, and J.Loomis. 2011. Comparing Tourist's Behavior and Values of Land Use Changes. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 54(1): 55-69.<br /> Johnston, R.J. and J.C. Bergstrom. Valuing Farmland Protection: Do Empirical Results and Policy Guidance Depend on the Econometric Fine Print. Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy. (Winter 2011) 33(4): 639-660.<br /> Keske, C.D., Hoag, D., McLeod, D., Bastian, C., and M. Lacy. 2011. Using mixed methods research in environmental economics: the case of conservation easements. International Journal of Mixed Methods in Applied Business and Policy Research 1(1): 16-28.<br /> McGaffin, G., McLeod, D., Bastian, C., Keske, C., and D. Hoag. 2012. Landowner preferences for conservation easements: a comparison of responses from two intermountain states. Journal of Farm Managers and Rural Appraisers.<br /> <br /> Task 1-2: Economic Analysis of Natural Hazards Issues (Fire, Invasive Species, Natural Events) <br /> <br /> Bergtold, Jason S, Patricia A Duffy, Diane Hite and Randy L. Raper. 2011. Demographic and Management Factors Affecting the Adoption and Perceived Yield Benefit of Winter Cover Crops in the South-east. Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics. In press.<br /> Grijalva, T.; R.P. Berrens; W. D. Shaw. Species Preservation versus Development: An Experimental Investigation under Uncertainty. Ecological Economics, 2011, 70 (5/March): 995-1005.<br /> Lee, Y., T. Yoon, and F. A. Shah (2011), Economics of Integrated Watershed Management in the Presence of a Dam. Water Resources Research, 47, W10509, doi:10.1029/2010WR009172.<br /> Mishra, A. and Paudel, K. 2011. Income and wealth accumulation of U.S. farm households. Applied Economics 43:1521-1533.<br /> Poudel, B., Paudel, K. and Zilberman, D. 2011. Agriculture productivity convergence: myth or reality. J. Agricultural and Applied Economics 43:143-156.<br /> Rosenberger, RS, Bell, LA, Champ, PA, and Smith, EL. 2012. Nonmarket economic values of forest insect pests: An updated literature review. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-275WWW. Fort Collins, CO: USDA, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. <br /> Shaw, W.D. and R.T. Woodward. Water Management, Risk and Uncertainty: What Water Resource Managers Wish They Knew in the 21st Century. Western Economic Forum, 2010, 9 (2/Fall) -- published online April, 2011.<br /> <br /> Task 1-3: Analysis of Climate Change Issues <br /> <br /> Choi, S, B. Sohngen, and R. Alig. 2011. An assessment of the influence of bioenergy and marketed land amenity values on land uses in the Midwestern US. Ecological Economics. 70: 713-720<br /> Doremus, H. and W. Michael Hanemann, "Clean Air Act Federalism as a Template for Climate-Change legislation" Chapter 9 in Edella C. Schlager, Kirsten H. Engel and Sally Rider (eds) Navigating Climate Change Policy, University of Arizona press 2011(in press).<br /> Fisher, A., Michael Hanemann, Michael Roberts and Wolfram Schlenker, "The Economic Impacts of Climate Change: Evidence from Agricultural Output and Random Fluctuations in Weather: Comment" American Economic Review 2011(in press).<br /> Haim, D., R.J. Alig, A.J. Plantinga, B. Sohngen. 2011. Climate Change and Future Land Use in the United States: An Economic Approach. Climate Change Economics 2(1): 27-51.<br /> Hanemann, M., Xavier Labandeira and Maria L. Loureio, Climate Change, Energy and Social preferences on Policies: Exploratory Evidence for Spain. Climatic Research 2011(in press).<br /> Rose, S. and B. Sohngen. 2011. Global Forest Carbon Sequestration and Climate Policy Design. Journal of Environment and Development Economics. 16(4): 429-454.<br /> <br /> Objective 2: Advances in Valuation Methods <br /> <br /> Task 2-1: Improving Validity and Efficiency in Benefit Transfers <br /> <br /> Gonzalez, J.M. and J. Loomis. 2011. Are Benefit Transfers Using a Joint Revealed and Stated Preference Model More Accurate than Revealed and Stated Preference Data Alone In Whitehead, Haab and Huang, eds. Preference Data for Environmental Valuation: Combining Revealed and Stated Preference Approaches. Routledge, NY.<br /> <br /> Task 2-2: Improving Valuation Methods and Technology <br /> <br /> Abbott, J.K. and Klaiber, H.A, 2011. An Embarrassment of Riches: Confronting Omitted Variable Bias and Multi-Scale Capitalization In Hedonic Price Models. The Review of Economics and Statistics, Vol 93.<br /> Braden, J.B., Feng, X. and Won, D. 2011. Waste sites and property values: A meta-analysis. Environmental and Resource Economics, 50(2, 20-11): 175-201, DOI: 10.1007/s10640-011-9467-9.<br /> Kaplowitz, M.D., Lupi, F., Couper, M., and Thorp, L. 2011. The Effect of Invitation Design on Web Survey Response Rates. Social Science Computer Review.<br /> Kobayashi, Mimako, Klaus Moeltner and Kimberly Rollins 2012, Latent Threshold Analysis of Choice Data with Multiple Bids and Response Options, American Journal of Agricultural Economics 94(1):189-208 <br /> Klaiber, H.A. and V.K. Smith, 2011. Developing General Equilibrium Benefit Analyses for Social Programs: An Introduction and Example. Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis. In Press.<br /> Klaiber, H.A. and Smith. V.K., 2011. Preference Heterogeneity and Non-Market Benefits: The Roles of Structural Hedonics and Sorting Models. In Jeff Bennett, editor, International Handbook on Non-Market Environmental Valuation, Edward Elgar.<br /> Kling, C.; List J. and J. Zhao. 2011. A Dynamic Explanation of the Willingness to Pay and Willingness to Accept Disparity. Economic Inquiry 49: doi: 10.1111/j.1465-7295.2011.00368.x.<br /> Komarek, T.A., F. Lupi. M.D. Kaplowitz. 2011. Valuing Energy Policy Attributes for Environmental Management: Choice Experiment Evidence from a Research Institution. Energy Policy. 39: 5105-5115.<br /> Loomis, J., A. Gonzalez-Caban and J. Champ. 2011. Testing the Robustness of Contingent Valuation Estimates of WTP to Survey Mode and Treatment of Protest Responses. In J.Bennett, ed. International Handbook on Non-Market Environmental Valuation. Edward Elgar.<br /> Loomis, J. 2011. What's to Know about Hypothetical Bias in Stated Preference Valuation Surveys. Journal of Economic Surveys 25(2)L 363-370.<br /> Loomis. J. 2011. Incorporating Distributional Issues into Benefit Cost Analysis. Journal of Benefit Cost Analysis 2(1). Berkely Electronic Press.<br /> Loomis, J. 2011. A New Approach to Value Urban Recreation Using Visitors' Time Allocations. Urban Public Economic Reviews 14: 12-24.<br /> Messer, K.D., G.L. Poe and W.D. Schulze, 2011. The Value of Private Versus Public Risk and Pure Altruism: An Experiential Economic Test. Applied Economics 45:1089-1097. (Published on-line Dec. 2011)<br /> Poe, G.L. and C.A. Vossler, 2011. Consequentiality and Contingent Values: An Emerging Paradigm in J. Bennett ed., International Handbook on Non-Market Valuation. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishers.<br /> <br /> Objective 3: Valuation of Ecosystem Services <br /> <br /> Task 3-1: Valuing Changes in Recreational Access <br /> <br /> Bowker, J.M., A. E. Askew, H.K. Cordell, J.C. Bergstrom. 2011. Outdoor Recreation in the South: Projections to 2060. In, Wear, D.N. and J.G. Greis, eds. The Southern Forest Futures Project: Technical Report. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-xxx. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station. (in press)<br /> Chen, X., Lupi, F., An, L., Sheely, R., Vina, A., Liu, J. 2011. Agent-based modeling of the effects of social norms on enrollment in payments for ecosystem services. Ecological Modeling.<br /> Kline, J.D, Rosenberger, R.S. and E.M. White. 2011. A National Assessment of Physical Activity in US National Forests. Journal of Forestry 109(6):343-351.<br /> Knoche, Scott, Lupi, Frank. 2011. The Economic Value of Publicly Accessible Deer Hunting Land. Journal of Wildlife Management. doi: DOI: 10.1002/jwmg.302<br /> Majumdar, Suman., Yaoqi Zhang., Diane Hite. 2011. State attributes and destination choice by freshwater anglers: An analysis of the southeast United States. Tourism Economics. In press.<br /> Paudel, K., Caffey, R. and Devkota, N. 2011. An evaluation of factors affecting the choice of coastal recreational activities. Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 43:167-179.<br /> Rosenberger, RS, Needham, MD, Morzillo, AT, and 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 /> Zegre, SJ, Needham, MD, Kruger, LE, and Rosenberger, RS. 2012. McDonaldization and commercial recreation and tourism in Alaska. Managing Leisure 17:333-348.<br /> <br /> Task 3-2: Valuing Changes in Ecosystem Services Flows<br /> <br /> Braden, J.B. and Ando, A.W. 2012. Economic costs, benefits, and achievability of low-impact development based stormwater regulations. In Economic Incentives for Stormwater Control, Ed. H.W. Thurston, Taylor & Francis, Boca Raton, FL., 2012, pp. 45-70.<br /> Cordell, H.K., V. Heboyan, F. Santos and J.C. Bergstrom. Natural Amenities and Rural Population Migration: A Technical Document Supporting the Forest Service 2010 RPA Assessment. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-146. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station, December, 2011.<br /> Hoehn, J. P. 2011. Economic Principles for Water Conservation Tariffs and Incentives. In: Jha Manoj, Water Conservation, InTech Publications, 2011.<br /> Jakus, P. M., Bergstrom, J. C., Phillips, M., & O'Brien, K. (2011). Preference Data for Environmental Valuation, In John Whitehead, Tim Haab, and Ju-Chin Huang (Ed.), Modeling Behavioral Changes in Reservoir Operations in the Tennessee Valley Region.. Routledge, New York, NY, p. 253-272. (Published).<br /> Paudel, K., Poudel, B., Bhandari, D. and Johnson, T. 2011. Examining the role of social capital in the environmental Kuznets curve estimation. Global J. Environmental Science and Technology 1:16.<br /> Dickinson,B.,Stevens,T.H.,Lindsay,M.M.,Kittredge,D.B. (2011),Estimated participation in US carbon sequestration programs:a study of NIPF landowners in Massachusetts, Journal of Forest Economics.<br /> <br /> Task 3-3: Valuing Changes in Water Quality <br /> <br /> Jakus, P.M., J.C. Bergstrom, M. Phillips and K. OBrien. Modeling Behavioral Response to Changes in Reservoir Operations in the Tennessee Valley Region Chapter17 in Whitehead, J., T. Haab and J-C Huang (Editors) Preference Data for Environmental Valuation, Routledge: London and New York, 2011.<br />

Impact Statements

1. W2133 research results and member expertise formed the basis of the EPA/STAR program synthesis of research related to benefits transfer. This synthesis will affect the direction of future research and agency uses of this method to value ecosystem goods and services.
2. W2133 valuation tools and web-accessible platforms have been used by practitioners from a variety of state and federal agencies and NGOs to generate values of ecosystem goods and services that are affected by policy changes. This ease of access to quality tools has resulted in protection of these goods and services to a level that would otherwise not been achievable.
3. W2133 objectives have been adopted by researchers and research units across the US and in other countries, thereby leveraging the activity among members to a collaborative group that is at least twice again as large as the member groups (as measured by the count of member and non-member authorship on publications).
4. A long term impact of W2133 collaboration with agency scientists and collaborators in the natural sciences (as needed for the applied nature of the project) has resulted in a pool of economists who are experienced working with other disciplines. This human capital is necessary for effective public lands management, and has resulted in numerous active relationships between W2133 members and public agencies.

Back to top