download stats 2017 W3133 presentation   Valuation of USDA conservation programs' impacts on ecosystem services: Challenges and opportunities
Valuing the effects of conservation policies on ecosystem services is of growing interest across the Federal government, including the USDA (see the appendix for some examples). Currently, ERS and NIFA are jointly interested in developing a research agenda that develops useful tools and methods to generate benefit estimates that can be used in policy design and analysis, (e.g., regulatory impact assessments and designing optimal targeting schemes), and that can provide an aggregate assessment of the benefits broadly arising from conservation programs.

Developing approaches that can provide aggregate benefits estimates raises considerable and challenging methodological and empirical issues—challenges that may be somewhat new to the environmental and natural resource economics community. Which lead us to ask: is the science of valuation, in the broadest sense, ready and able to tackle this challenge? We need your help in assessing what is known, not known, and might be developed with an effective research agenda. We seek your input to help inform a potential research agenda that could be advanced through ERS’ and NIFA’s support and research efforts .

Hence this questionnaire! We are reaching out to you as the research community that is most experienced and knowledgeable because you can help us assess the state of the art of nonmarket benefit valuation with an eye toward aggregate benefit measures. You'll find opportunities to comment, raise questions, and make suggestions throughout the questionnaire. Any feedback is appreciated; no feedback is required.

Answers to these question are publically available immediately (by default, names and emails are not revealed). So if you are curious about what your colleagues are thinking -- feel free to use the download and stats buttons at the top of the screen!
In the following questions, clicking on (or moving your mouse over) technical terms will display a definition in a pop-up box. Or would you like to of these definitions?
General questions
For each of the following 4 questions, please select which of the three answers you most agree with. You can also indicate whether you agree, strongly agree, or tepidly agree with your answer.
Question 1:
The state of the art in ecosystem service valuation
Do you with your answer ?
Commentary/thoughts on this question:
Question 2:
Methodological concerns
Do you with your answer ?
Commentary/thoughs on this question:
Question 3:
Using stated preference
Do you with your answer ?
Commentary/thoughts on this question:
Question 4:
Using national recreation surveys (such as NSRE and FHWAR)
Do you with your answer ?
Commentary/thoughts on this question:
Questions that vary by ecosystem services.
Each of the following four questions contains 3 parts: one for water related ecosystem services, one for wildlife related ecosystem serices, and one for other ecosystem services. For each part, chose either ①, ② or ③ -- where each choice refers to an answer described at the top of the question box.
By other, we mean all ecosystem services that you would not classify under water or wildlife. Perhaps this is too broad, but we figure it is sensible to include a catchall category.
Question 5:
Coverage of existing studies for national program analyses
  • ① Few benefit estimates, applicable to ecosystem services affected by agriculture, are available. Often times, available benefit estimates cannot be linked to agricultural activities. The gaps are not likely to be overcome anytime soon, even with considerable research funding.
  • ② A number of benefit estimates exists, but there are large gaps. A useful first step is a careful consideration of where & what services have not been measured -- but are important both in terms of the size of benefits, and the likelihood of research success.
  • ③ We have a rich -- though not complete -- body of ecosystem service benefits estimates. Where values are not available, application of moderately sophisticated meta-analysis should succeed at filling most of the gaps.
In each row, chose either ①, ② or ③ -- see above for the answers these correspond to!
Wildlife
Water
Other
Commentary/thoughts on this question:
Question 6:
The use of benefit relevant indicators
  • ① It is not wise to use benefit relevant indicators to evaluate the effects of conservation programs. They are difficult to combine, and individuals are likely to misinterpret them. There is no good shortcut to measuring and reporting the values of ecosystem services that people care about.
  • ② Benefit relevant indicators can be helpful when valuing ecosystem services benefits. However, these indicators should be subject to testing and validation -- to verify that the level of ecosystem services summarized by the indicator reflects what people care about.
  • ③ For purposes of ecosystem service valuation, rough indicators are often sufficient. And, with the growing availability of GIS data and advances in biophysical sciences, it is not particularly difficult for teams of economists & biophysical scientists to develop useable indicators.
In each row, chose either ①, ② or ③ -- see above for the answers these correspond to!
Wildlife
Water
Other
Commentary/thoughts on this question:
Question 7:
Non-marginal vs marginal estimates
  • ① With current theory and methodology: it is easier to estimate non-marginal values than marginal values.
  • ② With current theory and methodology: estimating non-marginal values and marginal values. is equally difficult
  • ③ With current theory and methodology: it is harder to estimate non-marginal values than marginal values.
In each row, chose either ①, ② or ③ -- see above for the answers these correspond to!
Wildlife
Water
Other
Commentary/thoughts on this question:
Question 8:
Biophysical models vs. economic models
  • ① At this time, bio-physical models are more mature than economic models; it is easier to generate accurate measures of how policies effect ecosystem services, than it is to generate a value for these effects.
  • ② At this time, as a general rule, bio-physical models and economic models are equally uncertain.
  • ③ At this time, there is a greater uncertainty in the ecosystem service outputs of bio-physical models than in our ability to assign values to these outputs.
In each row, chose either ①, ② or ③ -- see above for the answers these correspond to!
Wildlife
Water
Other
Commentary/thoughts on this question:
a few more...
Please check which of the following statements you agree with. You can check more than one (you could agree with all of them)!
Question 9:
What do you think of a valuation journal 		Check all the boxes that you believe are correct (you can click on 0, 1, 2, or more boxes) ...
Had there been such a journal, how many papers might have you submitted over the last five years?

Commentary/thoughts on these questions:
Some personal questions ...
  • How many valuation studies have you conducted:

  • Do you work for: │ │ │ │ │

  • optional Name:
    Email:
    Note: if you provide an email, we can remove you from the send-reminders-to list!

    Comments?

Check this box if it is okay to include your email and name in the downloadable data.? If you don't check, this personal information will not be publicly viewable.
↕ Appendix: federal interest in ecosystem service valuation
A question of increasing poignancy to USDA (as well as other agencies, such as OMB and EPA) is 'what have we gotten for all these investments in conservation policy?' Or, more generally, what are the values of changes in conservation policy?. To provide any kind of objective answer, more/better fundamental research that strengthens economists' ability to value ecosystem services (aka non-market benefits) is crucial.

Examples of interest in ecosystem valuation:

Each report/workshop/analysis of the above discusses limits to economists' ability to value conservation programs' effects on ecosystems services Note that research in this area poses unique challenges including 1) an ability to link changes in land uses to changes in benefit relevant indicators, 2) measures of the public's willingness to pay for changes in benefit relevant indicators, 3) an ability to account for spatial differences in bio-physical effects and economic values, 4) etc. What's more, a single change in a program is likely to affect multiple ecosystems across the country.
...