Nonmarket Valuation
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Prepared in cooperation with the Bureau of Land Management’s Socioeconomics Program and National Operations Center Facilitating the Inclusion of Nonmarket Values in Bureau of Land Management Planning and Project Assessments—Final Report Open File Report 2016–1178 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Facilitating the Inclusion of Nonmarket Values in Bureau of Land Management Planning and Project Assessments— Final Report By Chris Huber and Leslie Richardson Prepared in cooperation with the Bureau of Land Management’s Socioeconomics Program and National Operations Center Open-File Report 2016-1178 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Department of the Interior SALLY JEWELL, Secretary U.S. Geological Survey Suzette M. Kimball, Director U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2016 For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment—visit http://www.usgs.gov or call 1–888–ASK–USGS. For an overview of USGS information products, including maps, imagery, and publications, visit http://store.usgs.gov/. Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. Although this information product, for the most part, is in the public domain, it also may contain copyrighted materials as noted in the text. Permission to reproduce copyrighted items must be secured from the copyright owner. Suggested citation: Huber, Chris, and Richardson, Leslie, 2016, Facilitating the inclusion of nonmarket values in Bureau of Land Manage- ment planning and project assessments—Final report: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2016-1178, 79 p., http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/ofr20161178. ISSN 2331-1258 (online) iii Acknowledgments The authors would like to thank Josh Sidon with the Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM’s) National Operations Center, and Rebecca Moore and Rob Winthrop with the BLM’s Socioeco- nomics Program for their input and contributions to this report. The authors also acknowledge the support of John Loomis at Colorado State University and Randy Rosenberger at Oregon State University. Special thanks are given to the BLM field staff at each of the four pilot sites, including Marietta Eaton, Dave Kiel, Brad Higdon, and Zack Pratt, for their willingness to volun- tarily engage in this study, and for their thoughtful and constructive comments on the practical application of nonmarket valuation. The authors would also like to acknowledge Kawa Ng with the U.S. Forest Service and Brian Quay with the U.S. Geological Survey for their constructive reviews of the paper. Contents Acknowledgments ........................................................................................................................................iii Executive Summary .......................................................................................................................................1 Objective..........................................................................................................................................................1 Methods...........................................................................................................................................................2 Pilot Site Identification .........................................................................................................................2 Initial Document Describing Nonmarket Values Associated With Each Pilot Site ....................3 Web-Based Presentation and Meeting ............................................................................................3 In-Person Meeting ................................................................................................................................6 Projects...................................................................................................................................................7 Canyons of the Ancients National Monument ........................................................................7 Red Cliffs and Beaver Dam Wash National Conservation Areas ........................................8 Taos Field Office ...........................................................................................................................8 Tuscarora Field Office .................................................................................................................8 Benefit Transfer Toolkit ........................................................................................................................8 Nonmarket Valuation Reference for Field Staff .............................................................................16 Limitations of the Four Pilot Site Projects ................................................................................................16 Lessons Learned and Future Research ...................................................................................................21 A Unique Example of a Primary Study Conducted for BLM ..................................................................23 Conclusions...................................................................................................................................................23 References Cited..........................................................................................................................................24 Appendix 1. Correspondence Used in Pilot Site Selection—Example From the Red Cliffs and Beaver Dam Wash National Conservation Areas .............................................................28 Appendix 2. Review of Nonmarket Valuation Studies Focused on Cultural, Archaeological, and Historic Sites ...........................................................................................................................29 Appendix 3. Nonmarket Values Associated With Each Pilot Site .......................................................32 Appendix 4. Example of Presentation Used for the Web-Based Presentation and Meeting.........47 Appendix 5. Example of Presentation Used for the In-Person Meeting ............................................52 Appendix 6. Nonmarket Valuation Reference ........................................................................................65 iv Figures 1. Screen shot of the Benefit Transfer Toolkit homepage ........................................................10 2. Screen shot of the “Full Dataset” tab for hunting in the Benefit Transfer Toolkit ...........11 3. Screen shot of the “Individual Studies” tab for hunting in the Benefit Transfer Toolkit ............................................................................................................................................12 4. Screen shot of the “Average Values” tab for hunting in the Benefit Transfer T oolkit ..............................................................................................................................................13 6-1. Diagram showing the components of total economic value ...............................................66 6-2. Timeline showing issuance dates of guidance on nonmarket valuation used for Bureau of Land Management planning (BLM, Bureau of Land Management; IM, Instruction Memorandum) ........................................................................................................67 6-3. Illustration of an example contingent valuation question with a payment card format (BLM, Bureau of Land Management) .........................................................................69 6-4. Diagram showing benefit transfer approaches. Source: Adapted from Rosenberger and Loomis (2001) .......................................................................................................................70 6-5. Map of regions used for average values ................................................................................74 6-6. Illustration showing an example of a meta-regression function transfer for hunting ....75 Tables 1. Table used to facilitate discussion of resources, resource uses, and nonmarket values associated with the pilot sites .......................................................................................4 2. Summary of pilot site information ..............................................................................................5 3. Number of studies and observations included in the Benefit Transfer Toolkit ..................9 4. Explanatory variables tested in meta-regression models ...................................................14 5. Meta-regression function for hunting .....................................................................................17 6. Meta-regression function for wildlife viewing ......................................................................18 7. Meta-regression function for fishing ......................................................................................19 8. Meta-regression function for trail use ....................................................................................20 3-1. Identifying resources with nonmarket values at the Canyons of the Ancients National Monument ....................................................................................................................34 3-2. Identifying resources with nonmarket values at the Red Cliffs National Conservation Area ......................................................................................................................36