SAES-422 Multistate Research Activity Accomplishments Report

Sections

Status: Approved

Basic Information

Participants

W3133-Participant-List-2016.docx
W3133_2016_BusinessMtg_Minutes.docx

Accomplishments

  1. The following work addresses Objective 1: Land and Water Resource Management in a Changing Environment, with
  • Task 1-1: Economic Analysis of Ag, Forest and Rangeland Resources, Open Space, and WUI Zones
  • Task 1-2: Economic Analysis of Natural Hazards (fire, invasive species, climate change).

A large body of research from the University of Maine with other collaborators addresses Objective 1. Hart et al (2015) employ a sustainability science approach, and summarize the complexity of and opportunities for addressing land and water resource management issues in changing environments, markets, and cultures. In a multi-state collaboration with Maine, Connecticut, Ohio, Oregon, and Wisconsin, Morzillo et al (2015) raises awareness of changing land use and land cover, economic, and social factors in rural forested communities throughout the U.S. By calling attention to three common community development trajectories, they advance a framework to guide future meta-analyses and synthesis research of changing rural areas. This framework and supporting spatial data layers provide improved support for resource management and community development decisions. In another collaboration between Maine and Oregon that also involved USA EPA and USFS stakeholders, Latta et al (2015) provide improved understanding of interactive effects between land use, forest, and carbon offset policies enhances support of federal, state, and local natural resource management decision-making. Levesque et al (2015) summarize key steps that were taken in developing an interdisciplinary, collaborative working group to integrate ecological and economics research and support the development of market-based tools for managing vernal pools. Johnson et al (2015) combine economics and psychological research to assess the impact of reading about future scenarios on willingness to participate in land use planning processes. Their results suggest scenario narratives increase willingness to participate and perceived self-efficacy.

 

Researchers from Michigan state addressed Objective 1 though peer reviewed publications investigating landscape prediction and mapping of game fish biomass (Esselman et al 2015), and willingness to participate in a filter strip program for watershed protection (Yeboah et al 2015).

 

Researchers at Illinois addressed Objective 1 through several peer reviewed articles, including investigation of competing land uses (Shah and Ando, 2016), the economics of conservation and finance (Ando and Shah, 2016), and climate change uncertainty (Shah and Ando, 2016). A multi-state collaboration involving researchers from Illinois, Wyoming, and Minnesota addressed spatially correlated risk in reserve site selection (Hamaide et al., 2016). Finally, a multi-national work investigates leakage from protected area networks (Bode et al, 2015). 

 

 

Wyoming research addressing Objective 1 reflects the importance of land use planning on the cost of public services to rural amenity rich areas (Scofield et al, 2015) as well development impacts on open space and related amenities (Liekse at al, 2015; Bastian et al., 2015; Keske et al, 2015).

 

Multi-state work from Virginia and Nevada addresses Objective 1 showing that residential water use increases with length of residency by households in the arid west, controlling for watering rules and compliances, as well as social spillover effects (Vinoles et al, 2015).

Collaborations from Virginia Tech and USDA Forest service addressing Objective 1 show that the widespread infestation of pine forests in the Colorado front range by the Mountain Pine Beetle over the last decade had significant negative impacts on home values (Cohen et al, 2016).

University of Georgia members produced manuscripts addressing Objective 1 through wind insurance mitigation (Petrolia et al, 2015), as well as a presentation on coastal hazard insurance.

Publications by researchers at Colorado State University in the area of Land and Water Resource Management focus on climate change adaptation and mitigation and therefore contribute in the areas of Objective 1, tasks 1 and 2.  See Hamm et al. (2015), Manning and Hadrich (2015), Maas et. al (2015) and Manning and Taylor (2015).

 

Tabatabaei and Loomis address Objective 1, task 2, through investigating potential effects of wildfire in beetle-killed trees.

 

  1. The following word addresses Objective 2: Economic Valuation Methods, with
  • Task 2-1: Advances in Stated/Revealed Preference Methods,
  • Task 2-2: Advances in Benefit Transfer Methods
  • Task 2-3: Advances in Spatial/Environmental Nexus.

 

Researchers at Colorado State University produced several publications related to Objective 2, Task 2, that advanced benefit transfer models, including Richardson et al. (2015), Manning et al. (2015), and Manning and Loomis.

University of Georgia members researched Objective 2 with a paper on anchoring (Alevy et al, 2015), as well as a several presentations at both the Southern Economic Association Meetings and the American Economic Association meetings.

 

 

A group of researchers from Illinois, Wyoming, California, and Michigan addressed Objective 2 by estimating the value of changes in biodiversity for biological pest control in agriculture (Letourneau et al, 2015).

 

  1. The following work addresses Objective 3: Integrated Ecosystem Services Valuation and Management, with
  • Task 3-1: Economic Analysis of Ecosystem Services Flows,
  • Task 3-2: Economic Analysis of Recreation Services, Task 3-3: Economic Analysis of Water Quality.

A multistate manuscript regarding improvements in water quality using nutrients addressed Objective 3, Task 3 (Nelson et al. 2015).

 

Objective 3 was addressed by University of Georgia researchers in a manuscript regarding pollinators (Barfield et al, 2015).

  1. The following work addresses multiple objectives:

 

Researchers at Mississippi State University (Interis and Petrilia, 2016) participated in a study that was part of larger, funded project with researchers at Louisiana State University, addressing Objectives 2 and 3.

A multi-state collaboration for Iowa and Michigan addressing Objectives 2 and 3 identifies the conditions under which the willingness to pay (WTP) – willingness to accept (WTA) divergence is consistent with neoclassical utility theory and when it is not. In cases where it is not, the authors provide guidance on whether the WTP measure or the WTA measure is more appropriate for use in a benefit-cost analysis (Kim et al, 2015).

A multi-state collaboration with Iowa, Minnesota, and Washington evaluates the degree to which data collected from photos posted to social media sites can be used to understand recreational behavior (Keeler et al, 2015). By comparing data from social media postings with data from a random population sample, a better understanding of the quality of the social media for understanding recreation demand can be achieved, addressing both Objectives 2 and 3.

 

A report by Iowa State describes efforts to conduct an Iowa lakes recreational valuation survey, addressing Objectives 2 and 3 (Jeon et al 2015).

 

A policy brief from Iowa describes the Iowa lakes recreational valuation survey that was performed each year from 2002 to 2005, 2009, and 2014 and addresses Objectives 2 and 3. This survey is used in conjunction with econometric models and economic theory to measure the benefits of improved water quality at lakes within the state of Iowa (Jeon et al, 2015).

Impacts

  1. Wyoming’s work related to open space and conservation easements should help policy makers better allocate resources to the preservation of open spaces from agricultural lands and the distribution of residential development on rural lands
  2. The Land Economics paper by Mississippi State researchers contains primary estimates of the benefits of coastal habitat restoration in Louisiana and Alabama and an analysis of the quality of benefits transfer estimates both across locations and across habitats, all of which are of use to decision-makers charged with assessing the desirability of restoring coastal habitat.
  3. The Colorado Water paper has been read by a large interdisciplinary group and emphasizes the need to align institutional settings around water management with changing societal benefits of water.
  4. Research by CSU members related to public issues related to wildfire smoke health messages and public preferences for forest fuel reduction practices should help USDA Forest Service better allocate budgetary resources to wildfire prevention efforts in residential developments on wildland urban interface lands.
  5. Current and prior research by CSU researchers (e.g., Benefit-Transfer Toolkit, and Richardson and Loomis T&E Species Meta analysis) is being used by the USDA Forest Service for natural resource damage assessments in Wyoming and by CH2MHill in work for California Dept of Water Resources. The ability of the agencies to rely upon our prior research saves them several months and thousands of dollars in having to conduct their own literature reviews and statistical analysis.
  6. Members’ papers on using valuation methods to value electricity in un-electrified areas of Rwanda has extended valuation methods while informing off-grid policy in the Ministry of Infrastructure of Rwanda. It has also provided information used as inputs in acquiring grant funding for larger rural electrification experiments.
  7. The results of multi-state research on nutrients in water saw immediate impact even before formal publication. The study was a joint regional research project (CO, UT, WY) with Utah Dept of Environmental Quality, the Division of Water Quality. The study was designed for and used by them to quantify the benefits of improving water quality and to compare to the costs of improvements in water quality. The information in this valuation study was utilized in developing their “Benefit-Cost Calculator” that will be a continuing tool applied on a large number of future permitting and retrofitting projects affecting water quality.
  8. The large body of research from Illinois has several impacts, including helping inform policymakers considering alternatives to permanent fee—simple purchase as a conservation tool, and providing information to researchers in the areas of conservation to understand the landscape of research on conservation finance. Additional work also demonstrates estimation methodology of the value of diversity in natural enemies to non-economists. Further work improves conservation portfolio methodology. In addition, research from Illinois can help conservation planners to optimize protected area siting to achieve an efficient balance between human well-being and protection of nature.
  9. Research on water demand from Nevada and Virginia has important implications for future water demand planning, given the expected "aging" of the general population in that area.
  10. Research on home values from Virginia Tech and the USDA forest service, will affect local property tax bases for many years to come, and communities will have to plan ahead accordingly.
  11. Given the critical role that benefit-cost analysis plays in regulatory decision making, the improved basis for choosing between the two measures from the Michigan and Iowa collaboration has the potential to directly affect outcomes of these analyses.
  12. The information from the Iowa, Minnesota, and Washington collaboration can better inform policies that target improvements at recreational sites.
  13. An Iowa State report informs state and federal water quality policies by measuring the economic benefits of water quality improvements to recreationists. These estimates are used by policy makers to target improvements that result in the greatest net benefits to lake users.
  14. The Iowa policy brief is important to inform state and federal policy makers regarding the benefits of clean water that can be compared against costs of water quality improvement programs.
  15. Research from Maine and other collaborators has had several impacts. Collaborative, flexible, and multi-disciplinary approaches proved central to tackling challenges related to infrastructure and climate change, development of tidal power, and invasive forest pests. Second, the developed framework and supporting spatial data layers provide improved support for resource management and community development decisions. Target audiences for this research and data layers include federal, state, and local officials. Input from USFS staff provided valuable guidance throughout the project. Simulation results demonstrate potential for offset policies to reduce forest land loss to development in western Oregon. Project research and results are informing the design of new natural resource management approaches in Maine that encourage development in designated growth areas and prioritize conservation in designated conservation areas. These findings have implications for public processes employed by land managers, planning officials, and other organizations to improve public and private decisions. Moreover, they also have implications for researchers who employ scenario narratives as part of valuation and other policy research.
  16. Research from Michigan State contributes to managers understanding of the effect of landscape characteristics and phosphorous loadings affect fish abundance in rives, and provides river fish abundance models that can be directly linked to valuation models. Other work contributes to managers understanding of who will enroll in filter strip programs to protect water quality and how program characteristics and payments affect participation.

Publications

Publications (including peer reviewed articles, chapters, bulletins and policy briefings):

Alevy, J., C. E. Landry, and J.A. List. 2015. “Field Experiments on Anchoring of Economic Valuations” Economic Inquiry 53(3): 1522-38. 

Ando, A.W. and P.S. Shah. In press. “The Economics of Conservation and Finance: A Review of the Literature.” International Review of Environmental and Resource Economics. Balukas, J. 2015. Economic and ecological analyses of vernal pool conservation in urbanizing landscapes (M.S. Thesis), School of Economics, University of Maine, Orono.

Barfield, A.S., J.C. Bergstrom, S. Ferreira, A.P. Covich, and K.S. Delaplane. “An Economic Valuation of Biotic Pollination Services in Georgia”. Journal of Economic Entomology. 108, 2 (2015).   Bastian, C., C. Keske, D.Hoag and D. McLeod.  “Landowner and Land Trust Agent Preferences for Conservation Easements.”  Revised and resubmitted with Landscape and Urban Planning, March 2016.

Bode, M., Tulloch, A., Mills, M., Verter, O., and Ando, A.W. 2015. “A Conservation Planning Approach to Mitigating the Impacts of Leakage from Protected Area Networks.” Conservation Biology 29(3): 765-774.

Cohen, J., C. Blinn, K. Boyle, T. Holmes, K. Moeltner (2016). Hedonic Valuation with Translating Commodities: Mountain Pine Beetles and Host Trees in the Colorado Front Range. Environmental and Resource Economics, 63(3), 613-642

Esselman, P., R. Stevenson, F. Lupi, C. Riseng, M Wiley. 2015. Landscape prediction and mapping of game fish biomass, an ecosystem service of Michigan rivers.  N. Amer. J. of Fish. Mgmt. 35:302-320.

Ham, C., J. Loomis, and P. Champ. 2015. Relative Economic Values of Open Space Provided by National Forest and Military Lands Surrounding Communities. Growth and Change Vol 46(1): 81-96.

Hamaide, B., H.J. Albers, G. Busby, A.W. Ando, and S. Polasky. 2016. “Spatially-Correlated Risk in Nature Reserve Site Selection.” PLOS ONE DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0146023.

Hart, D., Bell, K.P., Lindenfeld, L., Johnson, T., Ranco, D., Jain, S., and B. McGill. 2015. Strengthening the role of universities in addressing sustainability challenges, Ecology and Society 20(2):4 http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-07283-200204

Interis, M., & D. Petrolia. 2016. "Location, Location, Habitat: How the Value of Ecosystem Services Varies across Location and by Habitat." Land Economics 92(2): 292-307.

Jeon, H., Y. Ji, and C.L. Kling. “A Report to the Iowa Department of Natural Resources: The Iowa Lakes Valuation Project 2014 Summary and Findings” February 2016.

Jeon, H., C.L. Kling, and Y. Ji. “Degraded Water Quality in Lakes: Consequences for Use” Fall 2015, CARD Agricultural Policy Review.

Johnson, M.L., Bell, K.P., and M. Teisl. 2014. Does imagining future land use changes affect citizen engagement with land use planning ? Land Use Policy 57: 44-15 DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.05.007

Keeler, B., S. Wood, S. Polasky, C. Kling, C. Filstrup, and J. Downing. “Recreational Demand for Clean Water: Evidence from Geotagged Photographs by Visitors to Lakes” Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 13 (2015): 76-81.

Keske, C. M., P. Bixler, C. T. Bastian, and J. Cross.  “Are Population and Land Use Changes Perceived as Threats to Sense of Place in the New West? A Multilevel Modeling Approach,’” Rural Sociology. (Currently in Review – Revised and Resubmitted).

Kim, Y., C. Kling, J. Zhao. “Understanding Behavioral Explanations of the WTP-WTA Divergence through a Neoclassical Lens: Implications for Environmental Policy,” Annual Review of Resource Economics 7 (2015): 169-187.

Knoche, S., F. Lupi, A. Suiter. 2015. Harvesting benefits from habitat restoration: Influence of landscape position on economic benefits to pheasant hunters. Ecological Economics. 113: 97-105.

Latta, G.S., Adams, D.M., Bell, K.P., and J.D. Kline. 2016. Evaluating land-use and private forest management responses to a potential forest carbon offset sales program in western Oregon (USA), Forest Policy and Economics 65: 1-8, ISSN 1389-9341, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2016.01.004

Letourneau, D., A.W. Ando, A. Narwani, J. Jedlicka, and E. Barbier. 2015. “Simple-but-Sound Methods for Estimating the Value of Changes in Biodiversity for Biological Pest Control in Agriculture.” Ecological Economics 120: 215-225.  DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.10.015.

Levesque, V.R., Calhoun, A.J.K., Bell, K.P., and T. Johnson. 2016. Turning contention into collaboration: Engaging power, trust, and learning in collaborative networks, Society & Natural Resources, published online 25 May 2016,  DOI:10.1080/08941920.2016.1180726

Lieske S., R. Coupal and D. McLeod. “Political jurisdiction, reputation and urban form: a more complete specification of public service costs.” Journal of Urban Economics. In Review September 2015.

Maas, Alex, Andre Dozier, Dale Manning, and Christopher Goemans.  2015. “The Value of Stored Water and Trading in the West: Lessons from the Colorado-Big Thompson Project.”  Colorado Water. Volume 32, Issue 1 pp.5-7. 

Manning, D. T., and J. C. Hadrich. "An evaluation of the social and private efficiency of adoption: Anaerobic digesters and greenhouse gas mitigation." Journal of environmental management 154 (2015): 70-77.

Manning, Dale T., and J. Edward Taylor. "Agricultural Efficiency and Labor Supply to Common Property Resource Collection: Lessons from Rural Mexico." Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 40.3 (2015): 365-386.

Manning, Dale T., Peter Means*, Daniel Zimmerle, Kathleen Galvin, John Loomis, Keith Paustian. “Using contingent behavior analysis to measure benefits from rural electrification in developing countries: an example from Rwanda.”  Energy Policy, Volume 86, November 2015, Pages 393-401.

Manning, Dale T. and John Loomis.  Comparing WTP for Infrastructure using Contingent Behavior and Contingent Valuation, accepted at Environment and Development Economics

McLeod, D.  and R. Coupal. 2015. “The land-use change and spatially explicit fiscal impacts of regional water development.” Applied Spatial Analysis and Policy. Invited special issue: Planning Support Systems. 8(2): 113-130.

Melstrom, R., F. Lupi, P. Esselman, R.J. Stevenson. 2015. Valuing recreational fishing quality at rivers and streams. Water Resources Research, 51, 140–150. 

Morzillo, A.T., Colocousis, C., Munroe, D., Bell, K.P., Martinuzzi, S., Van Berkel, D.B., Lechowicz, M., Rayfield, B., and B. McGill. 2015. Forests in the middle: interactions between drivers of change and place-based characteristics in rural forest communities, Journal of Rural Studies (December): http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0743016715300231.

Nelson, N. J. Loomis, P. Jakus, M Kealy, N Stackelburg, and J. Ostermiller. 2015. Linking Ecological Data and Economics to Estimate the Total Economic Value of Improving Water Quality by Reducing Nutrients. Ecological Economics 118: 1-9. 2015. 

Petrolia, D., J.Hwang, C.E. Landry, and K. Coble. 2015. “Wind Insurance and Mitigation in the Gulf Coastal Zone” Land Economics 91(2): 272-95.  

Richardson, L., J. Loomis, T. Kroeger and F. Casey. 2015. The Role of Benefit Transfer in Ecosystem Service Valuation. Ecological Economics 115: 51-58. 

Scofield, A., B. Rashford, D. McLeod, S. Lieske, R. Coupal, and S. Albeke. "The Impact of Residential Development Pattern on Wildland Fire Suppression Expenditures." Land Economics. Accepted and forthcoming November 2016.

Scofield, A., B. Rashford, D. McLeod and R. Coupal. 2015. “Managing the spatial pattern of residential development could reduce the cost of fighting wildfires.”  Reflections. College of Agriculture and Natural Resources. University of Wyoming.

Scofield, A., B. Rashford, D. McLeod, R. Coupal and S. Lieske. 2015. “Wildfire Suppression Costs – The Role of Residential Development Pattern.” Open Spaces Bulletin, ENR and AGEC. University of Wyoming.

 

Shah, P. and A.W. Ando. Accepted. “Permanent and Temporary Policy Incentives for Conservation under Stochastic Returns from Competing Land Uses.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics.

Shah, P. and A.W. Ando. 2015. “Downside versus Symmetric Measures of Uncertainty in Natural Resource Portfolio Design to Manage Climate Change Uncertainty.” Land Economics 91(4): 664-687.

Tabatabaei, M. , J. Loomis,  and D. McCollum. 2015. Non-Market Benefits of Reducing Environmental Effects of Potential Wildfires in Beetle Killed Trees: A Contingent Valuation Study. Journal of Sustainable Forestry 34(8): 720-737.

Vinoles, V., K. Moeltner, S. Stoddard (2015). Length of Residency and Water Use in an Arid Urban Environment, Water Resources and Economics, 12(Oct.), 52-66

Yeboah, F., F. Lupi, M. Kaplowitz. 2015. Agricultural landowners’ willingness to participate in a filter strip program for watershed protection. Land Use Policy. 49: 75–85.

Presentations:

Ahmadiani, M. and C.E. Landry. 2015. “Economic Value of Multi-peril Coastal Hazard Insurance” Selected paper SEA Meetings, New Orleans, LA.

Albeke. W-3133 Meetings: Benefits and Costs of Natural Resources Policies Affecting Ecosystem Services on Public and Private Lands.  Pensacola, FL

Champ, P., L. Richardson and J. Loomis. February 25-26, 2016. “Public Health Messages and Wildfire Smoke Exposure” W-3133 Meetings: Benefits and Costs of Natural Resources Policies Affecting Ecosystem Services on Public and Private Lands.  Portland, OR.

 

Manning, Dale, Chris Goemans and Alex Mass. July 2015.  “Climate Change and US Agriculture: Accounting for Surface Water Irrigation.”  San Francisco, CA.

Manning, Dale, Jordan Suter, Chris Goemans, and Aaron Hrozencik. February 25-26, 2016.  “A Basin-wide Spatially-explicit Model of Groundwater Use in the Ogallala Aquifer” W3133 Meetings: Benefits and Costs of Natural Resources Policies Affecting Ecosystem Services on Public and Private Lands.  Portland, OR.

Landry, C.E. and T. Allen. 2016. “Hedonic Property Prices and Coastal Beach Width” Selected paper SEA Meetings, New Orleans, LA.       

Landry, C.E., A.R. Lewis, and H. Vogelsong. 2015. “Economic Value and Economic Impact of Visitation to Cape Hatteras National Seashore: Addressing Onsite Sampling”, Selected paper Southern Ag Econ Assoc. Meetings, Atlanta, GA.           

Landry, C.E.  and J. Whitehead 2015"Economic Values of Coastal Erosion Management: Combining Recreation Demand and Contingent Valuation Data", Selected paper AAEA Meetings, San Francisco, CA.   

 

Scofield, A., D. McLeod, B. Rashford, R. Coupal, S. Lieske and S. “The Impact of Residential Development Pattern on Wildland Fire Suppression Expenditures.” February 26-27, 2015.

Shonkwiler, J. S.  and A. Barfield 2015"Recreation Survey Response Data: Patterns and Problems", Selected paper AAEA Meetings, San Francisco.       

Todd, L., C. Bastian, D. McLeod, C. Keske and D. Hoag. “Factors and prices affecting Colorado and Wyoming landowner’s willingness to accept a conservation easement..” W-3133 Meetings: Benefits and Costs of Natural Resources Policies Affecting Ecosystem Services on Public and Private Lands.  Portland, OR.

Back
Log Out ?

Are you sure you want to log out?

Press No if you want to continue work. Press Yes to logout current user.

Yes
Report a Bug
Report a Bug

Describe your bug clearly, including the steps you used to create it.