Comments on Direct Valuation of Complex Environmental Goods:\
A Perspective from NSF

Jeryl L. Mumpower^1^

Program Director

Decision, Risk, and Management Science Program

SBER, Room 995

National Science Foundation

4201 Wilson Boulevard

Arlington, VA 22230

phone: 703-306-1757

fax: 703-306-0485

e-mail: <jmumpowe@nsf.gov>

Prepared for *Workshop on Alternatives to Traditional CVM in
Environmental Valuation*, Vanderbilt University, October 15-16, 1998

^1^ Views and opinions expressed here are those of the author and do not
necessarily reflect those of the U.S. National Science Foundation.

NSF is different from the other agencies represented at this workshop.
Although all of us at this workshop are interested in advancing the
state-of-the-art, other agency representatives are able to discuss needs
from the perspective of their agency's mission. For example, EPA needs
reliable and valid estimates of the value of environmental policies and
programs to conduct the types of regulatory impact analyses that are
required by executive order, statute, or simply the dictates of good
practice.

NSF's only mission, however, is to support the best possible basic and
applied research. NSF is not a "customer." To the best of my knowledge,
no one in NSF has ever conducted a contingent valuation study, or any of
the various alternatives thereto, for any agency-related purpose. In
this domain, we have no "agency needs."

The Decision, Risk, and Management Science Program (DRMS) did provide
financial support for this workshop. The primary reason was to promote
good scientific research on the valuation of complex environmental
resources. A secondary purpose was to obtain guidance about what type of
future research is most important to support: What are the key emerging
issues and topics relating to the valuation of complex environmental
resources? What are the opportunities for making significant
advancement? Where are the problems so tough and intractable that they
constrain the field?

It would be surpassingly peculiar to support a workshop that poses such
questions, only to come here and try to answer them ourselves. If we
already knew the answers, we could have stayed home, talked to
ourselves, and saved our money.

What kind of contribution to this workshop, then, can an NSF
representative make? Perhaps the most valuable function that I can play
is to provide a little historical perspective. I will try to provide a
little ancient history, a bit more recent history that I hope gives us
something to reflect on, and say just a few personal words about some
possible directions for the near future.

# Ancient History

I feel a little like Rip van Winkle. I was affiliated with the National
Science Foundation at an earlier time in my career. During that earlier
stint, in 1981, President Ronald Reagan issued Executive Order 12291,
which called for a detailed regulatory analysis of all major rules. A
key stipulation of E.O. 12291 was that regulatory objectives should be
chosen to maximize the net benefits to society.

Arguably, E.O. 12291 simply codified what was at the time already best
practice in some of the agencies, but it extended the scope and
underscored the importance of regulatory benefit-cost analyses. It also
gave a considerable impetus to the art and science of benefits
assessment. The Office of Management and Budget gave NSF's Division of
Policy Research and Analysis the assignment of managing a study that
would establish a theoretically rigorous foundation for guidance about
how to carry out the types of analyses required by E.O. 12291.

The results were a volume, edited by Judy Bentkover, Vince Covello and
myself (Bentkover et al. 1986), entitled *Benefits Assessment: The State
of the Art*. The book featured an outstanding roster of contributing
authors: Lisa Bendixen, Tony Cox, Ron Cummings, Baruch Fischhoff, Howard
Kunreuther, Rick Freeman, Kerry Smith, and Kip Viscusi. The project was
guided by a distinguished advisory board, which included Lester Lave,
Kenneth Arrow, Michael Baram, Robert Dorfman, Ward Edwards, and Aaron
Wildavsky.

Awakening from my nearly van Winklian 14 years of slumber to return to
NSF, I found DRMS supporting this workshop, which seemed to hark back to
earlier themes. The first things I did was to go to my bookshelf and
take down our 1986 book. If I'm honest, I must admit that I secretly
hoped to be able to say, "Not much has changed. We had it all figured
out way back then."

I can't do that, however. We didn't have it all figured out way back
then. All the contributors were really smart, extraordinarily capable
folks. As I re-read the volume, I was extremely impressed by the breadth
and depth of their vision about what we knew at that time and what were
the critical issues for the future that we would need to grapple with.
But, even to someone like me, who only follows the field as an
interested observer, and is personally neither a researcher nor
practitioner in the field, it is clear that much has been gained during
the past 10 or 15 years. The state-of-knowledge has advanced. We have a
much better sense of the capabilities and limitations of the methods and
approaches that are used.

# More Recent History

The organizers have asked us not to provide a summary of the now
considerable body of recent research on respondents' values for
environmental goods. I thought it might spur reflection and discussion,
however, to assemble for this workshop the information appearing in
Table 1. Table 1 presents a list of NSF-supported basic research
projects relating to the assessment of values and preferences for
complex environmental goods. It covers roughly the last decade and
contains research supported by various NSF programs, primarily DRMS, as
well as projects supported under the NSF/EPA Joint Partnership for
Environmental Decision making and Valuation. In this latter program,
projects may be supported either by NSF or EPA, so I have included them
all, regardless of which agency funded them. The list includes no other
projects supported by EPA, however, although some should surely be
added, if we wished to make the list comprehensive.

I developed this table because discussions about future directions ought
to be informed by a reasonably good assessment of the status quo.
Although many attendees may have a good idea already about much of the
research presently being done in the field, results from some of the
projects in the current compilation have yet to be published or
presented in public forums, so universal familiarity seems unlikely.

Several points ought to be made about the information contained in this
table. First, it is surely not exhaustive. I performed a series of
keyword searches of NSF databases, but probably did not find all the
relevant research that NSF has supported. (Persons at this workshop are
responsible for much of the listed research. If additional NSF-supported
research projects, conducted by you or others, should be included in
this list, please let me know.)

Second, I am sure that there are additional basic research projects on
environmental valuation, supported by other federal agencies or private
foundations. I don't know how to locate them readily, but would be
willing to add them to the roster if someone brings them to my
attention.

Third, the table is arbitrary. It is arbitrary in terms of which
projects I included in the listing, and it is arbitrary in terms of how
I have grouped them

Fourth, the brief abstracts of the research projects clearly cannot do
justice to any of the projects. To the extent possible, I have directly
quoted the principal investigators' descriptions of their own projects.
The materials available to me were generally written prospectively,
prior to initiation of the project. Not infrequently, however, the
research enterprise takes us rather far from our originally intended
destination.

These caveats aside, let me summarize some of the key points about the
information in Table 1. It identifies 63 research projects. I have
grouped them into eight categories, which correspond roughly, but not
exactly, to categories that have been used in past or present NSF/EPA
environmental decision making and valuation competitions.
(Pathologically observant readers may note that at times I have
re-assigned projects to categories other than those to which they were
originally assigned at the time of funding.)

I have categorized 11 awards as dealing with *Fundamental Concepts*.
Many critical issues in valuation, including psychological perceptions
and comprehension, cultural norms and methodological issues of social
value, require contributions from a broad range of social and behavioral
science disciplines. These projects involve fundamental research on
concepts, analytical constructs, and measurement and enlist economists,
psychologists, philosophers, and anthropologists, among others.

A number of the NSF-supported research projects are related to stated
preference methods for estimation of passive use. Projects in the area
seek to further the scientific basis for stated preference methods and
to increase their usefulness, reliability, validity, and decrease their
cost. Seven of the projects focus on improving *Contingent Valuation*
methods. Thriteen additional projects are assigned to a category called
*Stated Preference Methods Other than CV*. These projects focus on
conjoint analysis, laboratory experiments, group processes,
multi-attribute utility analysis, and decision analysis, among others. I
assigned four other projects to the category *Stated Preference Methods
(CV vs. Other)*, because their primary focus appeared to be on comparing
the strengths and weaknesses of CV approaches and alternative methods.
Five projects focused on innovative hedonic models or other revealed
preference methods applied in environmental valuation contexts; these
were assigned to the category *Estimating Costs or Benefits Using
Methods Based on Revealed Preferences*.

The NSF/EPA competition has also supported awards on *Ecosystem
Valuation and Protection*. Research in this area focuses on better
understanding the interconnectedness among social, economic, physical
and biological systems and on the measurement of critical ecosystem
changes in terms of social welfare. EPA/NSF has also supported research
on the topic *Valuing Environmental Resources in National Economic
Accounts*, with a focus on developing valuation methods for national
environmental assets. Table 1 combines these into one category that
contains eight research projects.

Finally, Table 1 divides the research projects that focus more
specifically on decision making processes into two categories. The first
category *Environmental Decision and Policy Making -- Methods and
Processes* contains eight awards, focusing on methods and processes that
help to understand and improve environmental policies and programs. The
second category, *Factors Affecting Environmental Decision and Policy
Making*, as the name implies, focuses more on substantive factors that
may impede, promote, or otherwise influence decisions about or outcomes
of environmental policies and programs; it contains seven awards.

# A Thought for the Future

Clearly, there are significant differences between where we stand
presently with respect to valuing complex environmental goods and the
state-of-the-art when I began my van Winkle-like siesta. The most
salient to me is the growing recognition that there is no "silver
bullet." No single method or approach --whether some version of CV or an
alternative thereto -- will be appropriate everywhere, everytime, for
all varieties of environmental valuation problems. In many contexts,
single methods may not do the job at all. Multiple methods may be
required to capture the full value of a complex environmental good for
individuals or groups.

We are still far from being able to articulate a comprehensive
contingency theory that links methods to problems. Developing such a
theory will require further conceptual and empirical study to assess the
comparative strengths and weaknesses of alternative methods. Rather than
trying to establish the superiority of one method over all others in an
intellectual survival-of-the-fittest contest, we ought to work toward
developing multi-method approaches that use a variety of approaches to
fill in the inevitable gaps in conceptual or empirical coverage that
result from relying on any single method.

Even if we succeed in developing an intellectually compelling
contingency theory that incorporates multiple methods, there will remain
plenty of work to be done. Secondary questions will arise about whether
supplementary methods offer sufficient additional information to justify
their additional cost. Even if these benefit-cost analyses are
favorable, questions will arise about the political feasibility of
multiple methods in a governmental context. If a government agency uses
different methods that yield variable estimates of the benefit of the
same environmental policy or program, various stakeholders will surely
point to whichever best supports their arguments in favor of their
preferred policy objectives. For purposes of decision making, it is not
clear that the government could use multiple methods, when each can
potentially be used for purposes of second-guessing or discrediting the
other.

**Reference**

Bentkover, J., Covello, V. T., & Mumpower, J. L. (eds.) *Benefits
Assessment: The State* of the Art. Dordrecht, Netherlands: D. Reidel,
1986.

TABLE 1. Research on Environmental Decision Making and Valuation (NSF
Projects and Projects Supported under the Joint EPA/NSF Partnership by
Either Agency)

####### Fundamental Concepts

+---+------------+-----------------+------------------------------------+
| * | **PI/INS   | # TITLE         | **ABBREVIATED ABSTRACT**           |
| * | TITUTION** |                 |                                    |
| F |            |                 |                                    |
| Y |            |                 |                                    |
| * |            |                 |                                    |
| * |            |                 |                                    |
+---+------------+-----------------+------------------------------------+
| 9 | **Clifford | 9709092:        | This workshop brings together      |
| 7 | Russell**  | *Workshop on    | researchers involved in the study  |
|   |            | Evolving        | of valuing complex environmental   |
|   | ### V      | Approaches to   | services and amenities.            |
|   | anderbilt  | Complex         | Participants include experts in    |
|   | University | Environmental   | the use of different valuation     |
|   |            | Valuation       | approaches -- contingent           |
|   |            | Problems to be  | valuation, small-group value       |
|   |            | held the Fall   | structuring, laboratory            |
|   |            | of 1997 at      | experiments and deliberative       |
|   |            | Vanderbilt      | polling, as well as critics. The   |
|   |            | University*     | workshop addresses the             |
|   |            |                 | shortcomings of these various      |
|   |            |                 | methods and explores alternative   |
|   |            |                 | methods.                           |
+---+------------+-----------------+------------------------------------+
| 9 | **Clifford | 9727376         | This research investigates the     |
| 7 | Russell**  | (NSF/EPA):      | possibility that some people may   |
|   |            | *Citizen's      | have available two or more         |
|   | ### V      | Preferences for | preference orderings over          |
|   | anderbilt  | Environmental   | unfamiliar environmental options.  |
|   | University | Options:        | It tests the hypothesis that by    |
|   |            | Evidence on     | stressing one or another of        |
|   |            | Existence and   | several "themes" for the questions |
|   |            | Triggering*     | can trigger predictably different  |
|   |            |                 | response patterns across           |
|   |            |                 | subsamples.                        |
+---+------------+-----------------+------------------------------------+
| 9 | **Carol    | EPA Award:      | The Salt Lake City/County          |
| 7 | Werner**   | *Promoting      | Household Hazardous Waste Facility |
|   |            | Proper Use of a | (HHW Facility) is used as an       |
|   | ##         | Household       | opportunity to study attitude,     |
|   | # Universi | Hazardous Waste | motivation, and behavior change.   |
|   | ty of Utah | Facility: A     | The project uses a combination of  |
|   |            | Systems         | individual persuasion and small    |
|   |            | Approach*       | group involvement to effect change |
|   |            |                 | and support the change on a        |
|   |            |                 | long-term, internalized basis.     |
+---+------------+-----------------+------------------------------------+
| 9 | **Theresa  | 9602155;        | This project will attempt to       |
| 6 | Sa         | NSF/EPA:        | improve methods for values         |
|   | tterfield, | *Distinguishing | elicitation. Contemporary          |
|   | Stephen    | Values from     | techniques such as WTP and cost    |
|   | Johnson**  | Valuation in a  | benefit analysis provide a narrow  |
|   |            | Policy-Relevant | economic measure of value and fail |
|   | *Decision  | Manner*         | to include emotional or moral      |
|   | Science    |                 | content that is at the core of any |
|   | Research   |                 | value. This research will develop  |
|   | Institute* |                 | and utilize three experimental     |
|   |            |                 | techniques for eliciting values    |
|   |            |                 | embedded in narratives and         |
|   |            |                 | discourse, and rich in moral and   |
|   |            |                 | emotional context.                 |
+---+------------+-----------------+------------------------------------+
| 9 | ## **      | EPA Award:      | Recent philosophical research on   |
| 6 | *Mark H Sa | *Aggregative    | democracy and deliberative         |
|   | goff, Davi | and             | processes sees the individual,     |
|   | d A. Crock | Deliberative    | rather than serving simply as a    |
|   | er, Paul C | Contexts for    | bearer of prior preferences, as    |
|   | . Stern*** | Valuation: A    | joining in a social process in     |
|   |            | Philosophical   | which public values are            |
|   | ## Univer  | Contribution to | constructed. The present research  |
|   | sity of Ma | Experimental    | attempts to assess the extent to   |
|   | ryland, Co | Research in     | which the valuation of             |
|   | llege Park | Environmental   | environmental goods can benefit    |
|   |            | Decision        | from discursive, information-rich, |
|   |            | Making*         | and deliberative experimental      |
|   |            |                 | methods.                           |
+---+------------+-----------------+------------------------------------+

####### Fundamental Concepts (cont.)

+---+------------+-----------------+------------------------------------+
| 9 | #          | 9511977:        | The research makes use of four     |
| 5 |  Max H Baz | *Environmental  | streams of experiments to examine  |
|   | erman, Jea | Degradation:    | the apparent discrepancy between   |
|   | nne M. Bre | Benign          | the pro-environmental attitudes    |
|   | tt, David  | Attitudes and   | that people express and their less |
|   | M. Messick | Destructive     | than pro-environmental behaviors.  |
|   |            | Decisions*      |                                    |
|   | *No        |                 |                                    |
|   | rthwestern |                 |                                    |
|   | U          |                 |                                    |
|   | niversity* |                 |                                    |
+---+------------+-----------------+------------------------------------+
| 9 | # Jona     | *9520288;*      | A theory of values and their       |
| 5 | than Baron | NSF/EPA:        | measurement is developed on the    |
|   |            | *Development of | basis of two distinctions among    |
|   | *          | a Theory of     | types of values: protected values  |
|   | University | Values and      | vs. well-behaved values, and       |
|   | of         | Their           | fundamental vs. proxy values.      |
|   | Pen        | Measurement*    | Protected values, in contrast to   |
|   | nsylvania* |                 | well-behaved values, resist        |
|   |            |                 | tradeoffs with other values and    |
|   |            |                 | concern means rather than ends.    |
|   |            |                 | Proxy values are stand-ins for     |
|   |            |                 | fundamental values, to which they  |
|   |            |                 | are related through beliefs (often |
|   |            |                 | uncertain).                        |
+---+------------+-----------------+------------------------------------+
| 9 | Thomas     | EPA Award:      | An embedded experiment in a        |
| 5 | Dietz,     | *Towards a      | national survey manipulates        |
|   | Gregory A. | Social          | question wording to focus          |
|   | Guagnano,  | Psychology of   | respondents on different values    |
|   | Paul C.    | Stated          | for some relatively familiar and   |
|   | Stern      | Preferences*    | some relatively unfamiliar         |
|   |            |                 | problems. The research             |
|   | ### Geo    |                 | investigates whether different     |
|   | rge Mason  |                 | cues contained in the context of   |
|   | University |                 | questions highlight different      |
|   |            |                 | values and lead to different       |
|   |            |                 | stated preferences.                |
+---+------------+-----------------+------------------------------------+
| 9 | Baruch     | EPA Award:      | The research involves both         |
| 5 | Fischhoff, | *Eliciting      | theoretical (analyses of existing  |
|   | George     | Environmental   | studies, integrative essays,       |
|   | Lo         | Values: A       | conceptual analyses) and empirical |
|   | ewenstein, | Constructivist  | approaches (focus group            |
|   | Hadi       | Approach*       | discussions, structured open-ended |
|   | D          |                 | interviews, experiments) to        |
|   | owlatabadi |                 | address three foci: (1) how to     |
|   |            |                 | compose complex questions, (2) how |
|   | ### Carneg |                 | to help respondents produce the    |
|   | ie Mellon  |                 | best answers possible, and (3) how |
|   | University |                 | to characterize the definitiveness |
|   |            |                 | of the resulting responses.        |
+---+------------+-----------------+------------------------------------+
| 9 | Baruch     | 9309428: *What  | The research investigates the      |
| 4 | Fischhoff, | is a World      | steps in the elicitation process   |
|   | Hadi       | Worth? Value    | necessary for meaningfully         |
|   | Do         | Elicitation for | involving the views of the public  |
|   | wlatabadi, | Global          | in decision making about global    |
|   | Patrick K. | Environmental   | environmental problems. These      |
|   | Stroh,     | Problems*       | include formulating a coherent     |
|   | Lester B.  |                 | policy issue; explicating the      |
|   | Lave, M.   |                 | implications of different options; |
|   | Granger    |                 | designing and standardizing the    |
|   | Morgan     |                 | response mode; and evaluating the  |
|   |            |                 | procedure.                         |
|   | ### Carneg |                 |                                    |
|   | ie Mellon  |                 |                                    |
|   | University |                 |                                    |
+---+------------+-----------------+------------------------------------+
| 9 | # Jona     | 9223015: *The   | The research conducts              |
| 3 | than Baron | Measurement and | questionnaire studies designed to  |
|   |            | Expression of   | isolate crucial feature of WTP     |
|   | *          | Values for      | with particular attention to moral |
|   | University | Public Goods*   | norms. Alternative elicitation     |
|   | of         |                 | methods, such as direct rating,    |
|   | Pen        |                 | are explored. Variables for        |
|   | nsylvania* |                 | investigation include provision of |
|   |            |                 | context, type of choice rule, type |
|   |            |                 | of good (consumer vs.              |
|   |            |                 | environmental), number of people   |
|   |            |                 | affected, fairness of payment      |
|   |            |                 | vehicle, and expectation of        |
|   |            |                 | others' responses.                 |
+---+------------+-----------------+------------------------------------+

# Stated Preference Methods (CV)

+---+------------+-----------------+------------------------------------+
| 9 | Alan J.    | EPA Award: *The | The project uses the               |
| 8 | Krupnick,  | Valuation of    | dichotomous-choice CV approach to  |
|   | Maureen    | Mortality Risk  | administer in person one of two    |
|   | Cropper,   | Reductions:     | alternative instruments to a       |
|   | Anna       | Application of  | sample of 2,000 adults. Major      |
|   | Alberini,  | Two New Survey  | objectives are (i) to develop and  |
|   | Robert     | Instruments*    | test methods for estimating WTP    |
|   | Belli,     |                 | for mortality risk reductions over |
|   |            |                 | a person's life cycle; and (ii) to |
|   | ###        |                 | provide the policy community with  |
|   | ##### Reso |                 | credible estimates for use in      |
|   | urces for  |                 | benefits assessments.              |
|   | the Future |                 |                                    |
+---+------------+-----------------+------------------------------------+
| 9 | Thomas A.  | 9525533:        | This study addresses the embedding |
| 7 | Heberlein, | *Embedding and  | problem in CV. Employing a social  |
|   | Nora C.    | Attitude        | psychological perspective, this    |
|   | Shaeffer,  | Theory: An      | research considers the contingent  |
|   | Richard C. | Empirical Test* | values estimated on questionnaires |
|   | Bishop     |                 | by WTP as one component of         |
|   |            |                 | attitude called behavioral         |
|   | *          |                 | intention. The goal is to specify  |
|   | University |                 | the social psychological variables |
|   | of         |                 | that influence CV assessments.     |
|   | Wisconsin, |                 |                                    |
|   | Madison*   |                 |                                    |
+---+------------+-----------------+------------------------------------+
| 9 | # Ja       | EPA Award:      | The goal is to reduce the problem  |
| 6 | mes Hammit | *Valuation of   | of insensitivity to magnitude      |
|   |            | Risks to Human  | variation in CV methods relating   |
|   | *Harvard   | Health:         | to health and environmental        |
|   | U          | Insensitivity   | studies. Two different survey      |
|   | niversity* | to Magnitude?*  | methods and various communication  |
|   |            |                 | tools are being tested.            |
+---+------------+-----------------+------------------------------------+
| 9 | # Ronald G | EPA Award:      | Two new designs for CV surveys     |
| 5 | . Cummings | *Valuing        | were developed and tested in       |
|   |            | Environmental   | laboratory experiments. They were  |
|   | ### Geor   | Damages with    | found to elicit responses to       |
|   | gia State  | Stated          | hypothetical valuation questions   |
|   | University | Preference      | that are indistinguishable from    |
|   |            | Methods*        | parallel valuation questions       |
|   |            |                 | requiring actual payment.          |
+---+------------+-----------------+------------------------------------+
| 9 | Alan       | EPA Award:      | The research focuses on the effect |
| 5 | Krupnick   | *Mortality Risk | of current age and age of life     |
|   |            | Valuation and   | extension on WTP. An explicit CV   |
|   | ### Reso   | Stated          | instrument, administered in-person |
|   | urces for  | Preference      | with visual aids and a             |
|   | the Future | Methods: An     | "think-aloud" protocol, is used to |
|   |            | Exploratory     | help to reveal how individuals     |
|   |            | Study*          | process and interpret key concepts |
|   |            |                 | (such as small probabilities,      |
|   |            |                 | tradeoffs, mortality risks, hazard |
|   |            |                 | rate etc.) in valuing mortality    |
|   |            |                 | risk reductions.                   |
+---+------------+-----------------+------------------------------------+
| 9 | **Gregory  | EPA Award: *Can | The objective is to address        |
| 5 | L. Poe,    | Contingent      | questions about the ability of CV  |
|   | William D. | Valuation       | responses to accurately predict    |
|   | Schulze**  | Measure         | actual behavior by comparing       |
|   |            | Passive-Use     | alternative CV elicitation methods |
|   | #          | Values?*        | (open ended, payment card,         |
|   | # Cornell  |                 | dichotomous choice, multiple       |
|   | University |                 | bounded discrete choice, and       |
|   |            |                 | conjoint/stated preference) with   |
|   |            |                 | actual participation in a utility  |
|   |            |                 | green pricing program.             |
+---+------------+-----------------+------------------------------------+
| 9 | **Robin S. | 9022952:        | This research is designed to       |
| 1 | Gregory**  | *Improving      | improve the use of expressed WTP   |
|   |            | Contingent      | measures of resource value. The    |
|   | **Sarah    | Valuation       | first study examines how much, and |
|   | Lich       | Methods*        | what kind of, information should   |
|   | tenstein** |                 | be provided to respondents as part |
|   |            |                 | of a CV study. The second study    |
|   | *Decision  |                 | explores linkages between CV       |
|   | Science    |                 | methods and the multiattribute     |
|   | Research   |                 | utility approaches commonly used   |
|   | Institute* |                 | in the decision sciences.          |
+---+------------+-----------------+------------------------------------+

#  

# Stated Preference Methods Other than CV

+---+------------+-----------------+------------------------------------+
| 9 | **L. Robin | EPA Award:      | The research applies               |
| 8 | Keller,    | *Assessing      | multi-attribute utility analysis   |
|   | Thomas     | Preferences for | to examine time preferences;       |
|   | Eppel**    | Environmental   | expands previous research on       |
|   |            | Decisions with  | discount rates for monetary        |
|   | *          | Long-Term       | consequences to non-monetary       |
|   | University | Consequences*   | consequences; conducts             |
|   | of         |                 | experimental studies to find out   |
|   | C          |                 | what factors have an impact on     |
|   | alifornia, |                 | monetary and non-monetary discount |
|   | Irvine*    |                 | rates; cross-validates the         |
|   |            |                 | experimental results with a study  |
|   |            |                 | of professional analysts; and      |
|   |            |                 | develops sound assessment          |
|   |            |                 | procedures to help policy makers   |
|   |            |                 | determine appropriate discount     |
|   |            |                 | factors.                           |
+---+------------+-----------------+------------------------------------+
| 9 | **Joseph   | EPA Award: *An  | The research (1) investigates      |
| 8 | A.         | Examination of  | modeling, specification, and       |
|   | Herriges,  | Utility         | econometric issues associated with |
|   | Catherine  | Consistent      | utility consistent corner solution |
|   | L. Kling,  | Approaches to   | models in recreation demand; (2)   |
|   | Daniel J.  | Modeling Corner | compares traditional approaches of |
|   | Phaneuf**  | Solutions in    | modeling recreation demand to he   |
|   |            | Recreation      | utility consistent methods; and    |
|   | *Iowa      | Demand*         | (3) applies utility consistent     |
|   | State      |                 | methods to data sets describing    |
|   | U          |                 | recreation use of the Wisconsin    |
|   | niversity* |                 | Great Lakes Region and Iowa        |
|   |            |                 | Wetlands.                          |
+---+------------+-----------------+------------------------------------+
| 9 | Bryan      | 9729229;        | This project explores a new        |
| 7 | Norton,    | NSF/EPA: *A     | approach to ecosystem valuation by |
|   | Anne       | Multi-Criteria, | developing a multi-criteria system |
|   | Shepherd   | Dynamic, and    | of environmental valuation for use |
|   |            | Place-Based     | within locally based ecosystem     |
|   | *Georgia   | Approach to     | management processes. The research |
|   | Institute  | Ecosystem       | examines linkages between emerging |
|   | of         | Valuation*      | theories of multi-criteria         |
|   | T          |                 | decision making and new,           |
|   | echnology* |                 | iterative, and participatory       |
|   |            |                 | processes for identifying,         |
|   |            |                 | clarifying, and reconciling        |
|   |            |                 | competing values.                  |
+---+------------+-----------------+------------------------------------+
| 9 | ###        | EPA Award: *A   | The research develops a            |
| 7 | ## Charles | Decision        | comprehensive framework for the    |
|   |  M. Harvey | Analysis        | evaluation of alternative          |
|   |            | Framework for   | strategies for the cleanup and     |
|   | # *Un      | Groundwater     | containment of pollution at a      |
|   | iversity o | Remediation*    | contaminated groundwater site. The |
|   | f Houston* |                 | framework includes both the        |
|   |            |                 | identified physical processes and  |
|   |            |                 | the identified issues of social    |
|   |            |                 | values. Decision analysis models   |
|   |            |                 | are linked to groundwater          |
|   |            |                 | hydrology models.                  |
+---+------------+-----------------+------------------------------------+
| 9 | #          | 9613045;        | This project will determine        |
| 6 |  Barbara J | NSF/EPA:        | optimal attribute levels and       |
|   | . Kanninen | *Optimal        | choice sets for conjoint analysis  |
|   |            | Experimental    | questions that, given a fixed      |
|   | *          | Design for      | number of observations, will       |
|   | University | Conjoint        | provide the most information       |
|   | of         | Analysis*       | possible about parameter           |
|   | Minnesota, |                 | estimators of interest such as     |
|   | Twin       |                 | mean or median WTP. This research  |
|   | Cities*    |                 | will extend the existing           |
|   |            |                 | literature on optimal design of    |
|   |            |                 | conjoint analysis surveys.         |
+---+------------+-----------------+------------------------------------+
| 9 | # Stephen  | EPA Award:      | The objectives are to identify     |
| 6 | Swallow, P | *Stated         | critical ecosystem attributes of   |
|   | eter Paton | Preference      | forested wetlands that contribute  |
|   |            | Valuation Using | to the quality of life and         |
|   | *          | Real Money for  | ecological quality, to develop a   |
|   | University | Forested        | model of public preferences for    |
|   | of Rhode   | Wetlands*       | alternative attributes and to      |
|   | Island*    |                 | estimate money measures of value   |
|   |            |                 | for wetland attributes by survey   |
|   |            |                 | method which calibrates            |
|   |            |                 | hypothetical dollar value to real  |
|   |            |                 | dollar value.                      |
+---+------------+-----------------+------------------------------------+

#  

# Stated Preference Methods Other than CV (cont.)

+---+------------+-----------------+------------------------------------+
| 9 | ## **      | EPA Award:      | The overall goal of this research  |
| 6 | *Joseph He | *Updating Prior | is to develop techniques for       |
|   | rriges***  | Methods for     | combining and transferring         |
|   |            | Non-Market      | nonmarket valuations. The project  |
|   | ## I       | Valuation: A    | will develop and test Bayesian     |
|   | owa State  | Bayesian        | procedures for combining disparate |
|   | University | Approach to     | sources of nonmarket valuations    |
|   |            | Combining       | and lay a foundation for applying  |
|   |            | Disparate       | Bayesian techniques to nonmarket   |
|   |            | Sources on      | valuation.                         |
|   |            | Environmental   |                                    |
|   |            | Values*         |                                    |
+---+------------+-----------------+------------------------------------+
| 9 | ## ***     | EPA Award:      | This research develops and         |
| 6 | George Van | *Valuing        | evaluates a methodology for        |
|   | Houtven*** | Reductions in   | assessing the magnitude of human   |
|   |            | Environmental   | values associated with reducing    |
|   | ## Researc | Sources of      | infertility risks from             |
|   | h Triangle | Infertility     | environmental sources. The         |
|   |  Institute | Risk Using the  | research uses focus groups and     |
|   |            | Efficient       | other techniques to test           |
|   |            | Household       | hypotheses about how measures of   |
|   |            | Framework*      | economic welfare based on          |
|   |            |                 | households' observed or stated     |
|   |            |                 | decisions relate to the            |
|   |            |                 | preferences of the individual      |
|   |            |                 | adult members living in that       |
|   |            |                 | household.                         |
+---+------------+-----------------+------------------------------------+
| 9 | #          | 9525582;        | The research investigates two      |
| 5 | Robin S. G | NSF/EPA:        | environmental survey approaches:   |
|   | regory, Pa | *Methods        | the decision pathways approach,    |
|   | ul Slovic, | Development in  | which asks respondents a series of |
|   |  Jim Flynn | Using           | interrelated questions, each of    |
|   |            | Constructive    | which has several answers, and the |
|   | *Decision  | Survey          | value integration approach, which  |
|   | Science    | Approaches to   | identifies the components of value |
|   | Research   | Value Nonmarket | relevant to the issue and assists  |
|   | Institute* | Environmental   | respondents to make informed       |
|   |            | Resources*      | tradeoffs.                         |
+---+------------+-----------------+------------------------------------+
| 9 | # Davi     | EPA Award:      | The general research objective of  |
| 5 | d Brookshi | *Preference     | this interdisciplinary project is  |
|   | re, et al. | Formation and   | to investigate the interaction     |
|   |            | Elicitation in  | between value formation and value  |
|   | ### Univ   | Valuing         | elicitation. The methods employed  |
|   | ersity of  | Non-Market      | in this research include a unique  |
|   | New Mexico | Goods*          | combination and sequencing of      |
|   |            |                 | field surveys and laboratory       |
|   |            |                 | experiments.                       |
+---+------------+-----------------+------------------------------------+
| 9 | Carol      | EPA Award:      | In a survey, respondents are       |
| 5 | Mansfield  | *Improving the  | offered three options: receipt of  |
|   |            | Responses to    | cash as compensation for allowing  |
|   | ### Duke   | Willingness to  | a decline in environmental         |
|   | University | Accept          | quality, receipt of a public good  |
|   |            | Questions Using | as compensation, or a choice       |
|   |            | Alternate Forms | between cash or the public good.   |
|   |            | of              | Results will indicate whether      |
|   |            | Compensation*   | difficulties in eliciting WTA are  |
|   |            |                 | due to perceptions of cash as a    |
|   |            |                 | bribe, difficulties in mentally    |
|   |            |                 | trading cash for public goods, or  |
|   |            |                 | other psychological reactions to   |
|   |            |                 | cash.                              |
+---+------------+-----------------+------------------------------------+
| 9 | # J        | EPA Award:      | The research investigates conjoint |
| 5 | ames Opula | *Developing     | analysis with respect to two       |
|   | ch, Stephe | Conjoint Stated | questions: 1) the usefulness of    |
|   | n Swallow  | Preference      | valuation methods that do not rely |
|   |            | Methods for     | exclusively on money-measures of   |
|   | *          | Valuation of    | value; and 2) the potential to     |
|   | University | Environmental   | extend available methods of        |
|   | of Rhode   | Resources       | resource valuation when            |
|   | Island*    | within their    | individuals face cognitive limits. |
|   |            | Ecological      |                                    |
|   |            | Context*        |                                    |
+---+------------+-----------------+------------------------------------+
| 9 | **David S  | 9122189:        | This study conducts a series of    |
| 2 | Br         | *Existence      | laboratory experiments to measure  |
|   | ookshire** | Values and      | the use, option, and existence     |
|   |            | Option Prices   | values associated with             |
|   | **Michael  | for             | environmental amenities and to     |
|   | McKee**    | Environmental   | provide estimates of the bounds on |
|   |            | Public Goods:   | the values arising from existence  |
|   | #### U     | Laboratory      | and option components of total     |
|   | niversity  | Investigations* | value.                             |
|   | of Wyoming |                 |                                    |
+---+------------+-----------------+------------------------------------+

#  

# Stated Preference Methods (CV vs. Other)

+---+------------+-----------------+------------------------------------+
| 9 | **Gregory  | 9727375:        | The first objective is to use      |
| 7 | L. Poe,    | *Demand         | laboratory experiments to develop  |
|   | William D. | Revealing       | a better public goods auction      |
|   | Schulze**  | Mechanism for   | mechanism that can be used as a    |
|   |            | Contingent      | criterion for public goods         |
|   | #          | Validity Tests: | validity tests. The second         |
|   | # Cornell  | An Experimental | objective is to provide a more     |
|   | University | Approach Using  | realistic test of the single shot  |
|   |            | Appropriate     | provision point mechanism in field |
|   |            | Populations*    | settings with more appropriate     |
|   |            |                 | populations of the type usually    |
|   |            |                 | solicited in CV research, a more   |
|   |            |                 | realistic commodity, and with      |
|   |            |                 | realistic stakes of a magnitude    |
|   |            |                 | similar to those reported in CV    |
|   |            |                 | research.                          |
+---+------------+-----------------+------------------------------------+
| 9 | **John M.  | EPA Award: *A   | This study examines means of       |
| 7 | Halstead,  | Comparison of   | determining how one aspect of air  |
|   | Thomas H.  | Direct Methods  | quality                            |
|   | Stevens,   | for Valuing     | change\--visibility\--affects      |
|   | L. Bruce   | Environmental   | consumer surplus and the regional  |
|   | Hill**     | Policies: A     | economy, and provides a direct     |
|   |            | Case Study in   | comparison between two of the      |
|   | *          | New             | primary methods of direct          |
|   | University | Hampshire\'s    | valuation, the contingent          |
|   | of New     | White           | valuation method (CVM) and         |
|   | Hampshire* | Mountains*      | conjoint analysis (CA).            |
+---+------------+-----------------+------------------------------------+
| 9 | # Jason    | 9796008:        | This research examines how the     |
| 6 | F. Shogren | *Valuing Risk   | economic value of risk is affected |
|   |            | under           | by alternative reduction           |
|   | ### U      | Alternative     | strategies and two different       |
|   | niversity  | Reduction       | elicitation mechanisms --          |
|   | of Wyoming | Strategies and  | experimental auction markets and   |
|   |            | Elicitation     | CV surveys.                        |
|   |            | Methods*        |                                    |
+---+------------+-----------------+------------------------------------+
| 9 | #          | EPA Award:      | This project investigates a number |
| 5 | Richard T. | *Comparative    | of stated preference approaches to |
|   |  Carson, T | Statistics of   | eliciting information useful for   |
|   | heodore Gr | Approaches to   | estimating the economic value of a |
|   | ove, Mark  | Eliciting       | change in an environmental         |
|   | J. Machina | Economic        | amenity, ranging from an           |
|   |            | Values*         | open-ended question which directly |
|   | ### Unive  |                 | elicits agents\' WTP for the       |
|   | rsity of C |                 | change to a binary discrete choice |
|   | alifornia, |                 | question which simply asks agents  |
|   |  San Diego |                 | whether they are willing to pay    |
|   |            |                 | the stated cost of the change. The |
|   |            |                 | research also examines a number of |
|   |            |                 | other common approaches, including |
|   |            |                 | payment cards, bidding games,      |
|   |            |                 | double-bound discrete choice, and  |
|   |            |                 | discrete choice conjoint analysis. |
|   |            |                 | Elicitation methods based on       |
|   |            |                 | ratings and complete rankings are  |
|   |            |                 | also considered.                   |
+---+------------+-----------------+------------------------------------+

# Estimating Costs or Benefits Using Methods Based on Revealed Preferences

+---+------------+-----------------+------------------------------------+
| 9 | # James    | EPA Award:      | The research develops a framework  |
| 8 | J. Opulach | *Environmental  | for identifying cost savings from  |
|   | , Di Jin,  | Policy and      | environmental policy that          |
|   | Thomas A.  | Endogenous      | encourages innovation and applies  |
|   | Grigalunas | Technical       | it to the offshore oil industry.   |
|   |            | Change: A       |                                    |
|   | # *Univers | Theoretical and |                                    |
|   | ity of Rho | Empirical       |                                    |
|   | de Island* | Analysis*       |                                    |
+---+------------+-----------------+------------------------------------+

#  

# Estimating Costs or Benefits Using Methods Based on Revealed Preferences (cont.)

+---+------------+-----------------+------------------------------------+
| 9 | # Brent    | EPA Award:      | The project develops methods for   |
| 8 |  Sohngen,  | *Estimating the | estimating the welfare impacts of  |
|   | Robert Men | Cost of Carbon  | alternative forestry strategies    |
|   | delsohn, R | Sequestration   | for mitigating carbon dioxide      |
|   | oger Sedjo | in Global       | emissions. The specific objectives |
|   |            | Forests*        | are to (1) develop a model of the  |
|   | # *Oh      |                 | marginal cost of carbon            |
|   | io State U |                 | sequestration in forests; (2)      |
|   | niversity* |                 | develop a global carbon storage    |
|   |            |                 | database for forested Biomes; (3)  |
|   |            |                 | develop alternative strategies for |
|   |            |                 | carbon sequestration in forests    |
|   |            |                 | and estimate costs.                |
+---+------------+-----------------+------------------------------------+
| 9 | # V. Kerr  | EPA Award: *The | The research has three objectives: |
| 8 | y Smith, H | Role of         | (1) to extend the spatial          |
|   | olger Sieg | Locational      | equilibrium estimator (SEE)        |
|   |            | Equilibria and  | framework to include environmental |
|   | # *Duke U  | Collective      | public goods and to allow for a    |
|   | niversity* | Behavior in     | more detailed characterization of  |
|   |            | Measuring the   | sources of heterogeneity in        |
|   |            | Benefits of Air | household preferences; (2) to      |
|   |            | Pollution       | apply the SEE framework along with |
|   |            | Policies*       | conventional hedonic property      |
|   |            |                 | value and multinomial logit        |
|   |            |                 | frameworks in the Los Angeles      |
|   |            |                 | area; (3) to compare the benefit   |
|   |            |                 | estimates (and sensitivities)      |
|   |            |                 | implied by each framework for a    |
|   |            |                 | set of policy alternatives.        |
+---+------------+-----------------+------------------------------------+
| 9 | # Gord     | EPA Award:      | The hedonic price technique is     |
| 7 | on Rausser | *Stigma of      | used to test for stigma from       |
|   |            | Environmental   | environmental damage on            |
|   | *          | Damage on       | residential property values. Level |
|   | University | Residential     | of environmental quality can be    |
|   | of         | Property        | considered to be a qualitative     |
|   | C          | Values*         | characteristic of a differentiated |
|   | alifornia, |                 | good market. Consumers can choose  |
|   | Berkeley*  |                 | the level of environmental quality |
|   |            |                 | through their choice of house.     |
|   |            |                 | Housing prices may include         |
|   |            |                 | premiums for locations in areas    |
|   |            |                 | with high environmental quality;   |
|   |            |                 | price differentials may be viewed  |
|   |            |                 | as implicit prices for different   |
|   |            |                 | levels of environmental quality.   |
+---+------------+-----------------+------------------------------------+
| 9 | #          | EPA Award:      | The research critically examines   |
| 7 |  Mark Thay | *Improving Air  | the relative importance of data    |
|   | er, James  | Quality Benefit | aggregation, attribute tradeoffs,  |
|   | Murdoch, K | Estimates from  | and variation caused by space and  |
|   | urt Berson | Hedonic Models* | time within a hedonic benefit      |
|   |            |                 | study using a single, pooled       |
|   | *San Diego |                 | cross-section, time-series data    |
|   | State      |                 | set. The primary focus is on the   |
|   | U          |                 | hedonic price of air quality.      |
|   | niversity* |                 |                                    |
+---+------------+-----------------+------------------------------------+

# Ecosystem Valuation and Protection / Valuing Environmental Resources in National Economic Accounts

+---+------------+-----------------+------------------------------------+
| 9 | James      | EPA Award:      | A team of economists, ecologists   |
| 8 | Salzman,   | *Improved       | and legal scholars are working to  |
|   | Paul       | Ecosystem       | transform research on ecosystem    |
|   | Ehrlich,   | Management      | services into practically useful   |
|   | Gretchen   | through         | and significant decision making    |
|   | Daily,     | Ecosystem       | models that can be used in the     |
|   | Herman     | Service         | contexts of CERCLA site            |
|   | Daly,      | Valuation: A    | remediation, wetlands banking, and |
|   | Dennis     | Legal,          | natural resource damages.          |
|   | King, J.   | Economic, and   | Empirical research tests the       |
|   | B. Ruhl    | Scientific      | hypothesis that ecosystem services |
|   |            | Decision Making | are generally not explicitly       |
|   | ###        | Model*          | valued in agency decision making   |
|   |  American  |                 | procedures.                        |
|   | University |                 |                                    |
+---+------------+-----------------+------------------------------------+

#  

# Ecosystem Valuation and Protection / Valuing Environmental Resources in National Economic Accounts, cont.

+---+------------+-----------------+------------------------------------+
| 9 | #          | EPA Award:      | The first goal of the research is  |
| 7 | Jhih-Shyan | *Cost-benefit   | to model the ozone non-attainment  |
|   | g Shih, Al | and Uncertainty | problem by integrating a           |
|   | an Krupnic | Analysis for    | stochastic photochemical model of  |
|   | k, Armiste | Ambient Ozone   | ozone formation into an economic   |
|   | ad Russell | Reductions:     | framework for controlling emission |
|   |            | Development and | of the precursors of ozone under   |
|   | ### Reso   | Demonstration   | uncertainty. The second objective  |
|   | urces for  | of an           | is to demonstrate how to conduct   |
|   | the Future | Integrated      | analyses of alternative ozone      |
|   |            | Model and       | reduction policies using this      |
|   |            | Framework*      | modeling approach and integrating  |
|   |            |                 | stochastic multi-objective         |
|   |            |                 | programming models.                |
+---+------------+-----------------+------------------------------------+
| 9 | # Charles  | EPA Award:      | The objective of this research is  |
| 7 | ReVelle, J | *Delineating    | to develop a methodology for       |
|   | ohn Boland | Optimal Wetland | systematically identifying and     |
|   |            | Habitat         | evaluating alternative             |
|   | ### Joh    | Corridors for   | configurations of wetland habitat  |
|   | n Hopkins  | Inclusion in    | sites which could be set aside as  |
|   | University | Migratory       | protected migration habitat        |
|   |            | Flyways*        | corridors within the Atlantic      |
|   |            |                 | flyway.                            |
+---+------------+-----------------+------------------------------------+
| 9 | ## ***Jac  | EPA Award:      | The economic and ecological costs  |
| 6 | queline Ge | *Ecosystem      | and benefits of a number of        |
|   | oghegan*** | Valuation:      | proposed government policies are   |
|   |            | Policy          | estimated, using the joint         |
|   | ## Clark   | Applications    | Ecological Economics Patuxent      |
|   | University | for the         | Watershed Mode. This linked        |
|   |            | Patuxent        | ecological and economic model      |
|   |            | Watershed       | makes possible inquiry into issues |
|   |            | Ecolo           | of ecosystem valuation.            |
|   |            | gical-Economics |                                    |
|   |            | Model*          |                                    |
+---+------------+-----------------+------------------------------------+
| 9 | # Gordo    | EPA Award:      | The project derives formulas for   |
| 5 | n Rausser  | *Deriving       | computing biodiversity option      |
|   |            | Biodiversity    | values within a dynamic model of   |
|   | *          | Option Value    | biotechnological innovation. The   |
|   | University | Within a Model  | approach employs formal economic   |
|   | of         | of              | models and rigorous methods of     |
|   | California | Biotechnology   | analysis to clarify the economic   |
|   | at         | Research and    | effects of introducing new goods,  |
|   | Berkeley*  | Development*    | the role of genetic materials as   |
|   |            |                 | an input to the research and       |
|   |            |                 | development process, and the       |
|   |            |                 | imputed option value of the        |
|   |            |                 | existing stock of genetic          |
|   |            |                 | resources.                         |
+---+------------+-----------------+------------------------------------+
| 9 | # C        | EPA Award:      | This project experiments with the  |
| 5 | lifford Ru | *Innovation in  | use of Multi-attribute Utility     |
|   | ssell, Vir | the Valuation   | (MAU) methods as a basis for       |
|   | ginia Dale | of Ecosystems:  | structuring direct surveys of WTP  |
|   |            | A Forest        | to maintain ecosystems in          |
|   | *          | Application*    | particular conditions. Results     |
|   | Vanderbilt |                 | from MAU methods are compared to a |
|   | U          |                 | more conventional CV approach.     |
|   | niversity* |                 |                                    |
+---+------------+-----------------+------------------------------------+
| 9 | # Grah     | EPA Award:      | The objectives are to assess and   |
| 5 | am Davis,  | *Valuing the    | critique methods of valuing the    |
|   | Imad Elhaj | Stock and Flow  | stock and depletion of commercial  |
|   |            | of Mineral and  | mineral resources, and to improve  |
|   | ### Colo   | Renewable       | on and supplement these methods    |
|   | rado Schoo | Assets in       | for producing valuation            |
|   | l of Mines | National Income | methodologies that take into       |
|   |            | Accounting*     | account price, stock, and          |
|   |            |                 | development uncertainty.           |
+---+------------+-----------------+------------------------------------+
| 9 | Nicholas   | EPA Award:      | The objective is to develop a      |
| 5 | Flores     | *Environmental  | basic theoretical model using      |
|   |            | Values and      | economic preference and production |
|   | ### U      | National        | theory to determine the            |
|   | niversity  | Economic        | environment's contribution to      |
|   | of Colorad | Accounts: A     | overall economic welfare.          |
|   | o, Boulder | Theoretical     |                                    |
|   |            | Inquiry*        |                                    |
+---+------------+-----------------+------------------------------------+

####### Environmental Decision and Policy Making -- Methods and Processes

+---+------------+-----------------+------------------------------------+
| 9 | Claire     | EPA Award:      | The research combines biological   |
| 8 | M          | *Land           | models of wildlife population      |
|   | ontgomery, | Management with | dynamics and of timber stand       |
|   | Jeffrey L. | Biological and  | growth with a financial evaluation |
|   | Arthur,    | Economic        | of timber harvest in a unified     |
|   | Stephen    | Objectives*     | framework that can be used by land |
|   | Polasky    |                 | managers to assist in developing   |
|   |            |                 | effective management decisions.    |
|   | ### Ore    |                 |                                    |
|   | gon State  |                 |                                    |
|   | University |                 |                                    |
+---+------------+-----------------+------------------------------------+
| 9 | Alex Mayer | EPA Award:      | The objective of the research is   |
| 8 |            | *               | to develop, apply and test new     |
|   | ### Mic    | Multi-Objective | algorithms to solve                |
|   | higan Tech | Decision Making | multi-objective groundwater        |
|   | nological  | for             | remediation problems. The work     |
|   | University | Environmental   | focuses on objectives of           |
|   |            | Remediation*    | minimizing cost, risk, and time.   |
+---+------------+-----------------+------------------------------------+
| 9 | **Paul A   | 9815471;        | This project investigates: 1)      |
| 8 | Sabatier,  | NSF/EPA: *When  | whether consensus-based            |
|   | James F    | Do Watershed    | negotiations are more successful   |
|   | Quinn**    | Stakeholder     | than conventional methods in       |
|   |            | Negotiations    | designing and implementing         |
|   | ### U      | Work? A         | specific management projects. 2)   |
|   | niversity  | Multiple Lens   | the relative ability of three      |
|   | of Califor | Approach*       | theoretical frameworks-to explain  |
|   | nia, Davis |                 | whether watershed negotiations     |
|   |            |                 | reach and implement                |
|   |            |                 | legally-binding agreements. Data   |
|   |            |                 | will come from personal interviews |
|   |            |                 | and surveys of participants in 60  |
|   |            |                 | watershed negotiations.            |
+---+------------+-----------------+------------------------------------+
| 9 | ## **      | 9815382:        | The investigators will examine the |
| 8 | *Robin S.  | *Prescriptive   | theory of group decision           |
|   | Gregory*** | Group Decision  | processes, in order to assist      |
|   |            | Processes for   | stakeholders participating in risk |
|   | *Decision  | Risk            | or environmental management        |
|   | Science    | Management*     | controversies to provide useful    |
|   | Research   |                 | input to the design of actions and |
|   | Institute* |                 | policies. In addition, they will   |
|   |            |                 | test the effectiveness of these    |
|   |            |                 | recommendations by establishing    |
|   |            |                 | criteria for measurement of a      |
|   |            |                 | "better" decision and designing    |
|   |            |                 | experiments to test and compare    |
|   |            |                 | various approaches to group        |
|   |            |                 | decision making.                   |
+---+------------+-----------------+------------------------------------+
| 9 | ## *       | 9815876;        | Fifty localities that have been    |
| 8 | **Thomas D | NSF/EPA: *Local | recognized by national             |
|   | ietz, Troy | Environmental   | organizations for their adoption   |
|   |  D Abel*** | Decision        | of voluntary environmental         |
|   |            | Making:         | policies are being compared to     |
|   | *George    | Non-Mandated    | localities without voluntary       |
|   | Mason      | Environmental   | policies in the same state or      |
|   | U          | Policies and    | region. The research examines how  |
|   | niversity* | Public          | social, economic, and political    |
|   |            | Participation*  | factors influence the adoption of  |
|   |            |                 | voluntary, innovative local        |
|   |            |                 | environmental policies.            |
+---+------------+-----------------+------------------------------------+
| 9 | ## ***Jo   | 9815473;        | The research investigates          |
| 8 | hn T Schol | NSF/EPA:        | community-based environmental      |
|   | z, Mark Sc | *Negotiating    | protection agreements in U.S.      |
|   | hneider*** | For Sustainable | watersheds. The research uses a    |
|   |            | Development: An | transaction cost framework to      |
|   | *SUNY      | Evaluation of   | analyze the factors constraining   |
|   | Stony      | the CBEP        | and facilitating cooperation among |
|   | Brook*     | Decision        | the administrators, politicians,   |
|   |            | Process*        | and interest groups that negotiate |
|   |            |                 | policy agreements cutting across   |
|   |            |                 | many political jurisdictions.      |
+---+------------+-----------------+------------------------------------+
| 9 | ##         | 9613626;        | This research explores the factors |
| 6 |  ***Thomas | NSF/EPA:        | that influence the decision of     |
|   |  Webler*** | *Factors        | local government officials to      |
|   |            | Influencing     | participate in national and        |
|   | ##         | Participation   | regional policy making and         |
|   |  Social/En | of Local        | implementation efforts, examining  |
|   | vironmenta | Governmental    | particularly decisions about       |
|   | l Research | Officials in    | whether or not and how to          |
|   |  Institute | Environmental   | participate in environmental       |
|   |            | Policy Making   | policy making initiatives          |
|   |            | and             | sponsored by EPA.                  |
|   |            | Implementation* |                                    |
+---+------------+-----------------+------------------------------------+

#######  

####### Environmental Decision and Policy Making -- Methods and Processes (cont.)

+---+------------+-----------------+------------------------------------+
| 9 | ##         | 9511840:        | This project refines and tests a   |
| 5 |  ***Thomas | *Evaluating     | process evaluation methodology and |
|   |  Webler*** | Public          | uses it to improve understanding   |
|   |            | Participation   | of peoples' expectations for       |
|   | ## S       | Processes by    | public decision making processes.  |
|   | UNY Albany | Combining       | The methodology integrates         |
|   |            | Perspectives    | perspectives of planners,          |
|   |            | from Planners,  | participants, and normative        |
|   |            | Participants,   | theory.                            |
|   |            | and Normative   |                                    |
|   |            | Theory*         |                                    |
+---+------------+-----------------+------------------------------------+

####### Factors Affecting Environmental Decision and Policy Making

+---+------------+-----------------+------------------------------------+
| 9 | #          | EPA Award: *The | The objective is to identify the   |
| 8 | #### Nancy | Impact of       | features of farmland preservation  |
|   |  Bockstael | Farmland        | programs that increase the         |
|   |            | Preservation    | likelihood of landowner            |
|   | ### Un     | Programs*       | participation. Given a specific    |
|   | iversity o |                 | set of program features, the       |
|   | f Maryland |                 | resulting spatial pattern of       |
|   |            |                 | preservation can then be           |
|   |            |                 | predicted.                         |
+---+------------+-----------------+------------------------------------+
| 9 | ##### Mari | EPA Award:      | The research analyzes survey data  |
| 8 | o F. Teisl | *Environmental  | to measure the effects of          |
|   |            | Labeling of     | providing environmental            |
|   | ###        | Electricity:    | information on electricity         |
|   |  Universit | Label Design    | purchase behavior. Primary         |
|   | y of Maine | and             | objectives are to identify the     |
|   |            | Performance*    | types of environmental information |
|   |            |                 | that consumers find useful and     |
|   |            |                 | understand factors that influence  |
|   |            |                 | the ability to comprehend and      |
|   |            |                 | utilize information,.              |
+---+------------+-----------------+------------------------------------+
| 9 | **Leonard  | 9815472: *The   | Case studies, published materials, |
| 8 | A Shabman, | Contribution of | and agency guidelines will be used |
|   | Kurt       | Economic        | to develop a model of causal       |
|   | St         | Information to  | relationships between analytical   |
|   | ephenson** | Environmental   | results and final decision         |
|   |            | D               | outcomes. The preliminary model    |
|   | ### V      | ecision-Making* | will be refined through interviews |
|   | irginia Po |                 | with analysts, lawyers, and public |
|   | lytechnic  |                 | officials involved in the relevant |
|   | Institute  |                 | decision process. The pattern      |
|   | and State  |                 | model will be used to identify how |
|   | University |                 | specific economic information      |
|   |            |                 | affects final decision outcomes.   |
+---+------------+-----------------+------------------------------------+
| 9 | ##         | EPA Award:      | This study uses mail survey        |
| 7 |  ***Craig  | *Planned        | methods to examine attitudes and   |
|   | Trumbo, Ga | Behavior,       | behaviors toward water             |
|   | rrett J. O | Environmental   | conservation throughout the        |
|   | \'Keefe*** | Values and      | Truckee River Watershed in         |
|   |            | Domestic Water  | California and Nevada.             |
|   | #          | Conservation: A | Understanding how the diverse set  |
|   | # Cornell  | Longitudinal    | of interests                       |
|   | University | Case Study of   |                                    |
|   |            | the             | within the watershed can cooperate |
|   |            | Ca              | to share a vital, highly variable, |
|   |            | lifornia-Nevada | and ultimately limited resource    |
|   |            | Truckee River   | will offer valuable lessons.       |
|   |            | Watershed*      |                                    |
+---+------------+-----------------+------------------------------------+
| 9 | ## **      | 9613035;        | This research is on the            |
| 6 | *Michael A | NSF/EPA: *The   | development and adoption of green  |
|   | . Toman*** | Transition to   | technology policy tools. This      |
|   |            | \'Green\'       | project consists of dynamic        |
|   | ## Reso    | Technology:     | modeling                           |
|   | urces for  | Implications of |                                    |
|   | the Future | Irreversibility | of technology adoption decisions   |
|   |            | and             | taking into account sunk costs,    |
|   |            | Nonconvexity*   | uncertainty and the potential for  |
|   |            |                 | multiple equilibria.               |
+---+------------+-----------------+------------------------------------+

#######  

####### Factors Affecting Environmental Decision and Policy Making, cont.

+---+------------+-----------------+------------------------------------+
| 9 | ## ***Max  | EPA Award:      | This project will evaluate the     |
| 6 |  J Pfeffer | *Policy, Norms, | role of values in environmental    |
|   | , John W S | and Values in   | behavior, contrasting experiences  |
|   | chelhas*** | Forest          | in Costa Rica and Honduras. The    |
|   |            | Conservation:   | objectives are: 1) to determine    |
|   | #          | Protected Area  | the sources of environmental norms |
|   | # Cornell  | Buffer Zone     | and values in economically         |
|   | University | Management in   | less-developed settings; 2) to     |
|   |            | Central         | specify relationships between      |
|   |            | America*        | environmental norms and values and |
|   |            |                 | forest conservation behaviors in   |
|   |            |                 | protected area buffer zones; 3) to |
|   |            |                 | evaluate outcomes of self-reported |
|   |            |                 | forest conservation behaviors with |
|   |            |                 | objective measures of forest       |
|   |            |                 | management and change; 4) to       |
|   |            |                 | develop policy recommendations on  |
|   |            |                 | protected area buffer zone         |
|   |            |                 | management.                        |
+---+------------+-----------------+------------------------------------+
| 9 | ##         | NSF and EPA     | This project examines the          |
| 6 | ***Dallas  | Award:          | economics of various approaches to |
|   | Burtraw*** | *Effective      | environmental policy, taking into  |
|   |            | Environmental   | account their interaction with     |
|   | ## Reso    | Policy in the   | preexisting taxes in the US        |
|   | urces for  | Presence of     | economy. The theoretical and       |
|   | the Future | Distorting      | numerical models developed in the  |
|   |            | Taxes*          | project are applied to the U.S.    |
|   |            |                 | electric utility industry. The     |
|   |            |                 | project investigates the use of    |
|   |            |                 | tax revenues to subsidize          |
|   |            |                 | investments in more efficient or   |
|   |            |                 | less polluting technologies.       |
+---+------------+-----------------+------------------------------------+