Ecological Benefits Assessment

Strategic Plan

//www.epa.gov/economics/

Economics (1809T)

trator

on Agency

nue, NW

460

per that contains a minimum 

cessed chlorine free.
Recreational birding(Massachusetts):In 2001, more than66 million adultAmerican wildlifewatchers, includingnearly 46 millionbirders, spent $38.4billion on equipmentand recreationaltrips.

Timber harvest(Mississippi):Continued timber harvest depends on sound and sustainable management of forested ecosystems.

Outdoor photographer(North Carolina):In 2001, nearly 14 million Americansphotographed wildlife near theirhomes and another 8 million took trips tophotograph wildlife.

Black Rat Snake(Virginia):An importantprovider of naturalrodent pest control.
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

WASHINGTON, DC 20460

EPA-240-R-06-001

OCTOBER 2006

Ecological Benefits Assessment

Strategic Plan
Notice

This report has been subjected to peer and internal reviews and has been approved for publication as an EPA document. 

It describes policy-relevant actions and recommendations that were developed by a cross-Agency workgroup to assist EPA

Offices. These actions and recommendations do not constitute Agency policy or represent formal EPA strategic planning.

Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.

This document should be cited as:

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2006. Ecological Benefits Assessment Strategic Plan. EPA-240-R-06-001. Office of the

Administrator, Washington, DC. Online publication at http://www.epa.gov/economics/. 
FOREWORD

ECOLOGICAL BENEFITS ASSESSMENT STRATEGIC PLAN III

Given the increasingly complex tradeoffs inherent in environmental protection, the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recognizes the need to improve its ability to assess

the potential ecological benefits of its environmental policy decisions. Towards this end,

EPA has developed this Ecological Benefits Assessment Strategic Plan (hereafter referred to as

the EBASP or “the Plan”). 

The EBASP has been developed by a workgroup involving management and staff from several EPA offices. Participating offices include the Office of Policy, Economics, and Innovation

(OPEI); Office of Research and Development (ORD); Office of Water (OW); Office of Air and

Radiation (OAR); Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances (OPPTS); and the

Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER). The EBASP has undergone broad

internal Agency review, and a preliminary version of the Plan was reviewed by EPA’s Science

Advisory Board (SAB) Committee on Valuing the Protection of Ecological Systems and

Services. 

The EBASP promotes an integrated process for assessing ecological benefits that requires sustained interdisciplinary work by both natural and social scientists. It highlights important

actions that would help the Agency achieve steady improvement in the ecological benefits

assessments it conducts to support its environmental decisionmaking. The EBASP focuses

on institutional and technical considerations that arise most often in national-level ecological benefits assessments and where there are statutory requirements for conducting benefitcost analyses (BCA). Hence, the intended primary audience of the EBASP includes EPA managers and staff in offices conducting ecological benefits assessments and those engaged in

research that supports such assessments. Rather than articulating specific research projects

or committing Agency program offices to particular courses of action, the Plan is intended to

inform the development of office-specific Action Plans and Multi-Year Plans for research.

Broad institutional actions are described to facilitate cooperation across offices to improve

Agency benefits assessments. 

Completion of this Plan is the first of several steps intended to improve EPA’s ability to

assess the ecological benefits of its policies. Importantly, its development already has promoted increased communication across offices and between ecologists and economists in

the Agency. The actions outlined herein should help to build on this momentum, providing

the basis for sustained improvement in the Agency’s ability to account fully for the ecological benefits of its environmental policy decisions.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ECOLOGICAL BENEFITS ASSESSMENT STRATEGIC PLAN V

Page

Foreword . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii

Lists of Figures and Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii

Workgroup and Steering Committee Members . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix

Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi

List of Acronyms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xiii

Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xv

1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

1.1 Goal and Objectives of the Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

1.2 Intended Audience and Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

2 Agency Ecological Benefits Assessments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

2.1 Focus on Ecological Benefits. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

2.2 Nature of the Challenge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

2.3 An Interdisciplinary Ecological Benefits Assessment Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

3 Improving Ecological Benefits Assessments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

3.1 Institutional Arrangements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

3.2 Interdisciplinary Research To Support Ecological Benefits Assessment . . . . . . . . . 14

3.2.1 Overarching Issues. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

3.2.2 Impacts of Policy on Stressors. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

3.2.3 Impacts of Changes in Stressors on Ecological Endpoints . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

3.2.4 Impacts of Changes in Ecological Endpoints on Social Welfare . . . . . . . . . 20

3.2.5 Supplemental Approaches. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

3.3 Coordination With Partners . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

4 Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

4.1 Institutional Structure. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

4.1.1 Oversight Committee. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

4.1.2 Ecological Benefits Assessment Forum. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

4.2 Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

4.2.1 Program Office Action Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

4.2.2 ORD and OPEI Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

4.3 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Appendices

A: Current State of Agency Practice of Ecological Benefits Assessments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-1

B: Past and Current EPA Efforts To Improve Ecological Benefits Assessments . . . . . . . . . . . B-1

LIST OF FIGURES

ECOLOGICAL BENEFITS ASSESSMENT STRATEGIC PLAN VII

Page

Figure 1: Representation of the benefits assessment process indicating where 

some ecological benefits may remain unrecognized, unquantified, 

or unmonetized . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Figure 2: Interdisciplinary approach for ecological benefits assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Figure 3: Research planning and implementation relationships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Page

Table E-1: Agency actions to improve ecological benefits assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xvi

Table 1: Definitions of ecological benefits terms used in the EBASP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Table 2: Types of ecological benefits categorized by benefits type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Table 3: Ecological benefits of the Clean Air Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Table 4: Selected ecological benefits of reductions in air pollutants identified 

in the analysis of the Clean Air Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

LIST OF TABLES

WORKGROUP AND STEERING COMMITTEE MEMBERS

ECOLOGICAL BENEFITS ASSESSMENT STRATEGIC PLAN IX

The Ecological Benefits Assessment Strategic Plan was authored by a cross-Agency workgroup

under the general direction of a steering committee that represents offices involved with

ecological benefits assessment.

WORKGROUP

Office of Policy, Economics, and

Innovation

Nicole Owens (Chair)

National Center for Environmental

Economics

Rich Iovanna

National Center for Environmental

Economics

Sabrina Lovell

National Center for Environmental

Economics

Steve Newbold

National Center for Environmental

Economics

Office of Research and Development

Randall J.F. Bruins

National Center for Environmental

Assessment

Wayne R. Munns, Jr.

National Health and Environmental Effects

Research Laboratory

William Wheeler

National Center for Environmental Research

Office of Air and Radiation

Linda Chappell

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards

Office of Solid Waste and Emergency

Response

David Charters

Office of Superfund Remediation and

Technology Innovation

Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic

Substances

Lynne Blake-Hedges

Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics

T.J. Wyatt

Office of Pesticide Programs

Office of Water

Joel Corona

Water Policy Staff

Douglas Norton

Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds

Contractor Support

Margaret McVey

ICF Consulting

STEERING COMMITTEE

David Charters

Office of Superfund Remediation and

Technology Innovation

Office of Solid Waste and Emergency

Response

Sharon Hayes

Water Policy Staff

Office of Water

Robert Lee

Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics

Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic

Substances

Al McGartland

National Center for Environmental

Economics

Office of Policy, Economics, and Innovation

Nicole Owens

National Center for Environmental

Economics

Office of Policy, Economics, and Innovation

Michael Slimak

National Center for Environmental

Assessment

Office of Research and Development

David Widawsky

Office of Pesticide Programs

Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic

Substances

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

ECOLOGICAL BENEFITS ASSESSMENT STRATEGIC PLAN XI

The workgroup thanks the many individuals who participated in discussions and information gathering meetings in the early stages of the Plan’s development in 2002 and 2003.

These include EPA ecologists, economists, and managers, and staff from other federal

agencies. Appreciation also extends to the many Agency staff who reviewed earlier drafts

of the Plan.

In addition to EPA staff who became authors of the EBASP or members of the EBASP steering committee, many EPA staff members participated in the early informational meetings

that helped to inform this Plan. These included staff from the Office of Air (OAR); the

Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances (OPPTS); the Office of Policy,

Economics, and Innovation (OPEI); the Office of Research and Development (ORD); the

Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER); and the Office of Water (OW). 

Numerous staff from other federal agencies also contributed to the informational meetings, including staff from the U.S. Department of the Interior (U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, the U.S. Geological Service, and the Bureau of Land Management), the U.S.

Department of Commerce (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration), the U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (U.S. Forest Service and

Natural Resources Conservation Service). Valuable comments on early drafts of the EBASP

were provided by EPA staff from across the Agency. The workgroup also would like to

thank EPA’s Science Advisory Board Committee on Valuing the Protection of Ecological

Systems and Services for their detailed review of a preliminary draft of portions of the

Plan.

The workgroup would like to thank G. Tracy Mehan, III (former Assistant Administrator,

OW), Thomas Gibson (former Associate Administrator, OPEI), Paul Gilman (former

Assistant Administrator, ORD), Lee Mulkey (former Associate Director for Ecology, ORD

National Risk Management Research Laboratory), as well as Al McGartland (Director,

National Center for Environmental Economics [NCEE]) and Elisabeth LaRoe (former

Director, Water Policy Staff) for their instrumental roles in the initiation and continued

support of the development of the Plan.

Sabrina Lovell of OPEI, NCEE, served as the EPA Task Order Manager for the EBASP contractor support provided by ICF Consulting under the direction of Beth Binns. Margaret

McVey of ICF Consulting provided extensive assistance throughout the development of the

plan. George Van Houtven of Research Triangle Institute assisted in developing the EBASP

Bibliography (available from http://yosemite.epa.gov/ee/epa/eerm.nsf/vwRepNumLookup/

EE-0485A?OpenDocument), and Peter Bonner of ICF Consulting facilitated the information

gathering meetings. Sandra Seymour of ICF provided logistical support. For further information, please contact Sabrina Lovell.1

1Ise-Lovell.Sabrina@epa.gov

LIST OF ACRONYMS

ECOLOGICAL BENEFITS ASSESSMENT STRATEGIC PLAN XIII

ACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

BCA benefit-cost analysis

CAA Clean Air Act

EBAF Ecological Benefits Assessment Forum

EBASP Ecological Benefits Assessment Strategic Plan

EERS Environmental Economics Research Strategy

EMAP Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

ETV Environmental Technology Verification

GEAE generic ecological assessment endpoints

HAP hazardous air pollutant

ICR information collection request

NCEE National Center for Environmental Economics

NRC National Research Council

OAR Office of Air and Radiation 

OMB Office of Management and Budget

OMEP Office of Marine and Estuarine Protection

OPA Office of Policy Analysis

OPEI Office of Policy, Economics, and Innovation

OPPE Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation

OPPTS Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances

ORD Office of Research and Development 

OSWER Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response

OW Office of Water

RABA Risk Assessment for Benefits Analysis

SAB Science Advisory Board

SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act

STAR Science To Achieve Results

WTA willing to accept

WTP willing to pay

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

ECOLOGICAL BENEFITS ASSESSMENT STRATEGIC PLAN XV

The ecological benefits of environmental policies depend on the effects of those policies on the activities of

individuals, households, and firms, and other public and private groups. These in turn affect ecosystem

functions and services, such as drinking water supply, commercial and game fish, food and fiber, timber, natural pollination and pest control, outdoor recreation, energy and nutrient cycling, pollutant filtration, and

protection of property from weather extremes. 

In principle, economic valuation methods can estimate the net benefits—benefits minus costs—of any environmental policy in monetary terms. This facilitates comparisons among policy alternatives to support decisionmaking. In practice, however, ecological benefits, which are the contributions to social welfare derived

from ecosystems, are notoriously difficult to evaluate. Several factors contribute to this challenge, including

a limited understanding of the linkages between ecological and economic systems. 

The overall goal of this Ecological Benefits Assessment Strategic Plan (EBASP or “Plan”) is to help improve

Agency decisionmaking by enhancing EPA’s ability to identify, quantify, and value the ecological benefits of

existing and proposed policies. The Plan’s intended primary audience includes managers and analysts in

EPA Program Offices, and natural and social scientists across the Agency. It focuses primarily on opportunities to improve ecological benefits assessments conducted at a national level. The Plan also communicates

priority research needs to EPA’s principal natural and social science organizations, ORD and OPEI. The specific objectives of the Plan are to:

1. Identify the major technical and institutional advancements that would facilitate performance of 

rigorous and comprehensive ecological benefits assessments on a routine basis;

2. Describe a road map of specific actions that the Agency can take to promote those advancements; and

3. Describe mechanisms to facilitate the adaptive implementation of the EBASP, including periodic adjustments to reflect progress in the state of knowledge.

Table E-1 summarizes the actions recommended and described more fully in Chapter 3 of the EBASP. The

table also recommends a timeframe for initiating each action, in terms of the short, medium, and long run.

Short-run actions should be initiated first—for example, during the next 1 to 2 years. Medium- and longterm actions either are lower priority or may require some results from one or more of the short- or mediumterm actions, respectively, before commencing. We fully expect that different offices will want to implement

different actions as dictated by their specialized goals and needs. In some cases, it may be advantageous for

multiple EPA offices to pool their resources to support actions that are mutually beneficial. 

The Plan does not specify which office should implement each action; those decisions must be made by

present and future office management and staff. In Chapter 4, implementation activities are described that

will help EPA initiate the actions and activities discussed in Chapter 3. These include the formation of an

Agency oversight committee, an Agency-wide ecological benefits assessment forum, and individual office

action plans. These strategic activities should help ensure that continued progress on improving ecological

benefits assessment occurs in the years ahead.
XVI ECOLOGICAL BENEFITS ASSESSMENT STRATEGIC PLAN

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

TABLE E-1: AGENCY ACTIONS TO IMPROVE ECOLOGICAL BENEFITS ASSESSMENT.

ACTION TIMING 

(Short, Medium, 

or Long Term)

Action 3.1-1: Promote formal and informal opportunities for improving Short and ongoing

communication among disciplines.

Action 3.1-2: Provide basic training in the fundamentals of other disciplines. Short to Medium

Action 3.1-3: Increase interdisciplinary participation in assessing Short and ongoing

ecological benefits.

Action 3.1-4: Expand the use of ecological risk assessment information in Short

economic benefits assessments.

Action 3.1-5: Conduct program-specific problem formulation workshops. Short

Action 3.1-6: Develop guidelines for planning and conducting ecological Medium

benefits assessments.

Action 3.1-7: Review and update Agency guidelines for developing Short

Analytic Blueprints.

Action 3.1-8: Develop generic ecological benefits assessment endpoints. Medium

Action 3.2.1-1: Revise environmental monitoring programs to include Medium to Long

indicators relevant for benefits assessments.

Action 3.2.1-2: Increase coordination of long-term, large-scale data collection Medium

efforts across the Agency, and identify new efforts where needed.

Action 3.2.1-3: Develop methods for using information from short-duration Medium to Long

and localized monitoring programs in ecological benefits assessments of 

long-term, large-scale policies. 

Action 3.2.1-4: Develop improved methods to measure inherent variability Long

in ecological benefits assessments.

Action 3.2.1-5: Develop improved methods to identify and reduce knowledge Medium

uncertainties in ecological benefits assessments.

Action 3.2.2-1: Incorporate and improve consideration of behavioral Medium

responses to environmental policies.

Action 3.2.2-2: Identify priority areas where trade-offs between risks are Medium

critical and enhance capacity for relative risk assessments.

Action 3.2.2-3: Invest in research on methods to estimate expected stressor Medium

reductions from ecologically based pollution controls.

Action 3.2.2-4: Increase and improve ex-post analysis of the effects of Medium to Long

EPA policy, including remediation or restoration projects.
ECOLOGICAL BENEFITS ASSESSMENT STRATEGIC PLAN XVII

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Action 3.2.3-1: Develop capacity for population modeling applicable to Medium

ecological benefits assessment.

Action 3.2.3-2: Improve linkages between stressor exposure data and Medium

effects on populations.

Action 3.2.3-3: Identify and develop critical community-level Medium

modeling capacity.

Action 3.2.3-4: Develop capacity to model ecosystem processes for ecological Medium

benefits assessment.

Action 3.2.3-5: Improve ability to measure and to model changes in Long

ecological endpoints across spatial scales.

Action 3.2.3.-6: Expand use of linked ecological-economic models in Medium

ecological benefits assessment.

Action 3.2.4-1: Support research to adapt and apply economic valuation Medium

methods that are best suited for valuing changes in ecological goods 

and services.

Action 3.2.4-2: Improve survey methods by expanding pre- and post-survey Long

validity testing.

Action 3.2.4-3: Improve capacity and methods for benefit transfer for Medium

ecological goods and services.

Action 3.2.5-1: Evaluate rating and ranking procedures to complement Long

economic valuation.

Action 3.2.5-2: Evaluate analytical methods based on ecological-economic Medium

system properties.

Action 3.2.5-3: Conduct trial applications of hybrid decision approaches in Long

future benefits assessments.

Action 3.3-1: Provide direct support to studies relevant to Agency ecological Medium to Long

benefits assessments. 

Action 3.3-2: Improve communication with outside researchers about the Short

Agency’s needs for ecological and economic research.

Action 3.3-3: Increase coordination of data collection, monitoring programs, Medium to Long

and research with other agencies.

Action 3.3-4: Explore approaches for facilitating approval of information Medium

collection requests (ICRs) related to collecting information from the public 

for use in ecological benefits assessments. 

1 INTRODUCTION

ECOLOGICAL BENEFITS ASSESSMENT STRATEGIC PLAN 1

Society benefits from both a healthy environment and a strong economy, but difficult and complex tradeoffs

are inherent in these and other sometimes competing goals. EPA recognizes the need to improve its ability

to evaluate the benefits and costs of its environmental policy decisions. Ecological benefits, which are the

contributions to social welfare derived from ecosystems, are especially difficult to evaluate. The Agency has

developed the EBASP to improve its ability to identify, quantify, and value the ecological benefits of its policies to provide decisionmakers with better information for choosing among policy alternatives.

The EBASP is the most recent in a series of efforts designed to improve the methods and data available for

evaluating Agency policies. In 1998, the Agency published Guidelines for Ecological Risk Assessment (USEPA

1998). In 2000, EPA published its Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analyses (USEPA 2000a), an update and

expansion of its Guidelines for Performing Regulatory Impact Analyses (USEPA 1983, 1991). The Economic

Guidelines acknowledge that the current state-of-the-science is sometimes insufficient to characterize many

of the impacts of Agency policies accurately or to value those impacts in monetary terms for comparison

with expected costs. In 2002, EPA published A Framework for the Economic Assessment of Ecological

Benefits (USEPA 2002a), which draws from both the Ecological Risk Assessment Guidelines and Economic

Guidelines to assist EPA analysts in conducting economic assessments of ecological benefits.

Implementation of these guidelines, however, requires appropriate methods, models, and data, the availability of which are limited for many types of ecological benefits. The complexity of interacting ecological and

economic systems creates substantial conceptual and technical difficulties for estimating ecological benefits.

Thus, much work remains before rigorous, comprehensive, and interdisciplinary evaluations of the ecological

benefits of EPA policies can be performed on a more routine basis.

1.1 GOAL AND OBJECTIVES OF THE PLAN

The overall goal of the EBASP is to help improve Agency decisionmaking by enhancing EPA’s ability to identify, quantify, and value the ecological benefits of existing or proposed policies. Our vision is one of rigorous,

comprehensive, and interdisciplinary ecological benefits assessments supporting the design and selection of

policy alternatives.

The specific objectives of the Plan are to:

1. Identify the major technical and institutional advancements that would facilitate performance of 

rigorous and comprehensive ecological benefits assessments on a routine basis;

2. Describe a road map of specific actions that the Agency can take to promote those advancements; and

3. Describe mechanisms to facilitate adaptive implementation of the EBASP, including periodic adjustments

to reflect progress in the state of knowledge.

The Plan is organized as follows. The remainder of this section describes the intended audience and scope

of the Plan. Section 2 describes current ecological benefits assessment practices at EPA, the nature of the

challenge facing the Agency, and an integrated approach to ecological benefits assessment that emphasizes
2 ECOLOGICAL BENEFITS ASSESSMENT STRATEGIC PLAN

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

interdisciplinary collaboration. Section 3 describes a variety of key institutional and technical actions that

would help the Agency improve its ability to conduct comprehensive and accurate ecological benefits assessments on a more routine basis. The Plan concludes by proposing a structure and a process to implement and

adapt the EBASP (Section 4). Information about the state-of-practice of ecological benefits assessment in the

Agency, and about previous efforts focusing on ecological benefits assessment, is provided in two appendices.

1.2 INTENDED AUDIENCE AND SCOPE

The EBASP emphasizes the role of benefits assessments in designing and evaluating proposed or existing

Agency policies. We define “policies” broadly as encompassing all actions that the Agency may take. The

Plan is primarily focused on the rule-making or regulatory process at the national level where BCAs often are

required. Ecological benefits assessment in this context arguably requires the greatest rigor in predicting the

biophysical and economic impacts of each policy alternative and the valuation (generally in monetary terms)

of these impacts. Other decisionmaking contexts may not require a formal BCA as considered here.

However, the usefulness of improved methods for quantifying and valuing the ecological benefits of EPA

policies will not be limited to situations requiring BCA, and so the actions proposed in this Plan will have

implications beyond the narrow scope defined here.

The Program Offices of EPA are largely responsible for developing and evaluating Agency policies that apply

nationwide, so the managers and analysts in those offices are a key audience for the Plan. In addition, the

substantial advances needed in the science that supports ecological benefits assessment require the concerted effort of EPA’s natural and social science researchers, located largely in ORD and OPEI. These audiences

can use the priorities communicated in the Plan to help guide their internal planning processes and to

inform external partners of EPA’s research needs. Although not among the Plan’s primary target audiences,

the EBASP also may be of value to EPA Regional Offices, other federal agencies, and state and local decisionmakers.
2 AGENCY ECOLOGICAL BENEFITS ASSESSMENTS

ECOLOGICAL BENEFITS ASSESSMENT STRATEGIC PLAN 3

Virtually all government policies, including environmental policies, have both advantages and disadvantages.

When the advantages and disadvantages of a policy are obvious to all concerned, few will debate the appropriate course of action. However, ecological benefits may come about through indirect pathways, they may

be distributed widely across the population, or there may be little agreement about their value. In these situations, quantifying ecological benefits can play an important role in the decisionmaking process. Clear articulation of the benefits derived from EPA policies can help communicate the rationale for taking action and

promote consensus by providing more information about the advantages and disadvantages of various alternatives.

BCA is an accepted economic approach for comparing the advantages and disadvantages of policies in a consistent format to help decisionmakers make more informed choices (Arrow et al., 1996). Support for BCA has

increased over time, as reflected in Executive Order 12866, the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), and in parts

of the Clean Air Act (CAA). BCA estimates the net benefits to society as a whole by comparing the expected

benefits accruing to those made better off by a policy to the expected costs imposed on those made worse

off. BCA can be used prospectively to provide information to decisionmakers for choosing among proposed

alternative policies. It also can be applied retrospectively to determine whether a policy has been successful,

to learn from any unintended consequences, or to determine whether further action is needed. Furthermore,

the results of BCAs can be useful for communicating to the public the value of EPA’s regulatory programs and

for providing guidance for its voluntary programs.

Formal BCA is not required in all regulatory contexts, such as when Congress legislates specific pre-determined

environmental policy objectives. In fact, certain statutes prohibit consideration of benefit-cost information

in regulatory decisions. For example, the Food Quality Protection Act requires the Agency to set limits on

pesticide residues in food, without regard to the cost of meeting those standards. Yet even when BCA is not

required, quantifying the benefits of policy provides important information. Situations where quantified

benefits are critical include allocating limited resources across restoration projects to obtain the greatest

impact and measuring the Agency’s performance in meeting its strategic goals.

This plan is premised on the belief that the Agency faces a new and growing demand for more rigorous and

comprehensive ecological benefits assessments. Meeting this need will require concerted, interdisciplinary

efforts. This section explains why we focus on ecological benefits, discusses the nature of the challenge in

measuring those benefits, and presents a simple conceptualization of an interdisciplinary approach to assessing the ecological benefits of EPA policies.

2.1 FOCUS ON ECOLOGICAL BENEFITS 

In the EBASP, ecological benefits refer to the contributions to social welfare derived from ecosystem goods

and services (Table 1 provides definitions of these and related terms used throughout the Plan). EPA policies

may discourage or restrict activities that are harmful to theenvironment, may encourage or require activities

to restore damaged ecosystems, or may combine these approaches. The ecological benefits of such policies

depend on how the policies influence the behavior of individuals, households, and other public or private

groups, which in turn affect the quantity, flow, and timing of stressors in the environment. Reductions in 
4 ECOLOGICAL BENEFITS ASSESSMENT STRATEGIC PLAN

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

TABLE 1: DEFINITIONS OF ECOLOGICAL BENEFITS TERMS USED IN THE EBASP.

Ecological benefitsa: Contributions to social welfare of ecological goods and services. In the EBASP, the

term applies specifically to net improvements in social welfare that result from changes in the quantity or

quality of ecological goods and services attributable to EPA policy.

Ecological functions or processesa

: Characteristic physical, chemical, and biological activities that influence

the flows, storage, and transformations of materials and energy within and through ecosystems, such as the

uptake of nitrogen from soil by vegetation.

Ecological goods and servicesa

: Outputs of ecological functions or processes that directly or indirectly contribute to social welfare or have the potential to do so in the future. Some outputs may be bought and sold,

but most are not marketed (Table 2).

Social welfare: Human well-being, measured at some aggregate level.

Stressors: By-products of human activity that impact ecological functions or processes, including past activities that leave ecosystems in a degraded condition.

Ecological Benefits Assessment: Evaluation of the expected changes in social welfare resulting from EPA

policies via changes in ecological functions or processes; outcomes are described qualitatively and are quantified in physical and monetary terms when possible.

Quantification: Expression of benefits in numerical units.

Valuation: Process of estimating the worth, merit, or desirability of something. In the EBASP, the term is

used more specifically to mean estimating the worth of a wide variety of environmental conditions in common units that can be aggregated and compared.

Monetization: Valuation in monetary (dollar) terms. Also “economic valuation” or “monetary valuation.”

Ecological Risk Assessmentb is an evaluation of the likelihood that adverse ecological effects may occur or

are occurring as a result of exposure to one or more stressors. 

EPA policies are any plans, actions, or guiding principles, adopted by EPA to reduce environmental risks by

implementing, encouraging, or discouraging particular activities that affect the environment. Policies can

include regulations, formal guidances, permits, funding decisions, educational initiatives, and environmental

management plans, among others.

a

Adapted from Freeman (2003), Daily (1997, 2000), King (1997), and Whigham (1997).

b

USEPA 1998.

c

USEPA 2000a.

stressors should improve ecological functions or processes and lead to increases in ecosystem goods and

services enjoyed by society at large. Table 2 lists examples of ecosystem goods and services, categorized

according to the types of economic benefits they provide: market or non-market and direct-use, indirect-use,

or non-use. 
ECOLOGICAL BENEFITS ASSESSMENT STRATEGIC PLAN 5

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

The focus in this Plan is on the value of changes in ecosystem goods and services that result from EPA policies (as defined in Table 1). In this document, “ecological benefits assessment” refers to both the quantification of relevant ecological outcomes in physical terms and to the estimation of the social value of those outcomes. Further, the term “ecological benefits” refers to the net ecological benefits of an EPA policy, considering any negative as well as positive changes in ecological services that might result. A benefits assessment

should begin with qualitative descriptions of ecological outcomes. Because changes in social welfare are difficult to quantify directly, changes in the condition of ecosystems per se may be taken as measures of benefits when the relationship between ecosystem conditions and social welfare is conceptually clear. The Plan

recognizes the importance of nonmonetary measures of social value in many situations and proposes

research into supplemental assessment approaches.

TABLE 2: TYPES OF ECOLOGICAL BENEFITS CATEGORIZED BY BENEFITS TYPE.

Benefit Category Explanation Examples

Market Generally relate to primary • Food and water sources: commercial fish and

products that can be bought or livestock, game fish and wildlife, drinking water

sold as factors of production or • Building materials: timber

final consumption products • Fuel: methane, wood

• Clothing: leather, fibers

• Medicines: nature-derived pharmaceuticals

Non- Direct-use Directly sought and used or • Consumptive recreational: fishing, hunting

market enjoyed by society; includes • Nonconsumptive recreational: boating,

both consumptive uses and swimming, camping, sunbathing, walking,

nonconsumptive uses climbing, bird watching, sightseeing, enjoyment

of visual amenities

Indirect- Indirectly benefit society; may • Maintenance of biodiversity

use be valued because they support • Maintenance and protection of habitat

offsite ecological resources or • Pollination of crops and natural vegetation

maintain the biological and/or • Dispersal of seeds

biochemical processes required • Protection of property from floods and storms

for life support • Water supply (e.g., groundwater recharge)

• Water purification

• Pest and pathogen control

• Energy and nutrient exchange

Non-use Benefit does not depend on • Perpetuation of an endangered species

current use or indirect benefits; • Wilderness areas set-aside for future generations

individuals might value the 

resource without ever intending 

to use it or might have a sense 

of environmental stewardship; 

includes bequest value, existence 

value, and cultural/historic value

Sources: Principe (1995), Daily et al. (1997), and USEPA (2000b, 2002a). 
6 ECOLOGICAL BENEFITS ASSESSMENT STRATEGIC PLAN

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

2.2 NATURE OF THE CHALLENGE

Assessing the broad variety of ecological benefits potentially affected by EPA policies is challenging. Despite

significant advances made by natural scientists in understanding ecosystem services and the natural processes that provide them, knowledge of these complex systems remains incomplete. Likewise, economists regularly confront problems when estimating the benefits of proposed policies, in part because the values of ecological goods and services are difficult to estimate, particularly when the effects of policy changes cannot be

articulated clearly, and in part because the data and methods needed for benefits assessments often are limited. Even the institutional characteristics of the Agency can impede effective collaboration among the

Agency’s natural and social scientists in addressing these issues. Opportunities for improving the ecological

benefits assessments that the Agency conducts can be identified by examining these challenges more closely.

Current Agency benefits assessments often are incomplete with respect to identifying, quantifying, and valuing changes in ecological goods and services, as illustrated in Figure 1. During the early stages of an assessment (i.e., planning and problem formulation), some benefits may go unrecognized because complex ecosystems and their interactions with economic systems are not understood completely. As the assessment proceeds, recognized benefits may remain unquantified, much less monetized, because of methodological 

Figure 1: Representation of the benefits assessment process indicating where some ecological benefits may

remain unrecognized, unquantified, or unmonetized.

Goods and services

monetized

Goods and services 

quantified

Ecological goods and services

affected by the action

Ecosystems

EPA action

Goods and services

identified

Planning and problem formulation

Ecological analysis

Economic analysis

Goods and 

services not 

identified

Identified 

goods and 

services not 

quantified

Quantified 

goods and 

services not 

monetized
ECOLOGICAL BENEFITS ASSESSMENT STRATEGIC PLAN 7

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

and data limitations. Tables 3 and 4 illustrate how the diversions shown in Figure 1 can limit the Agency’s

ability to estimate the value of the ecological benefits of policies to protect air quality. The strategy communicated in this Plan is intended to help reduce these diversions and improve the rigor and comprehensiveness of ecological benefits assessments at EPA.

TABLE 3: ECOLOGICAL BENEFITS OF THE CLEAN AIR ACT.

In The Benefits and Costs of the Clean Air Act: 1990 to 2010 (USEPA 1999), EPA presented an extensive

assessment of the outcomes of regulations that addressed many sources of air pollution. Under the Clean

Air Act (CAA), EPA established regulations that set maximum ambient air quality levels for several types of

pollutants. The Agency, supported by independent panels of physical and social scientists and public health

experts, conducted an extensive assessment of the impacts of these regulations, including estimates of the

ecological benefits (USEPA 1999).

To assess the benefits of CAA regulations, analysts developed conceptual models linking the reduction in pollutants to ecological benefits. Some of these benefits are identified in Table 4. The complete list of benefits

can be found in Appendix E of the report (USEPA 1999). Generally, analysts need to assess the effectiveness

of EPA actions in achieving reductions in pollutants. Control technologies and emission limits specified in

EPA’s CAA regulations have several directly measurable effects, but other effects would need to be estimated.

Reductions in ambient concentrations of pollutants over particular ecological systems, including water bodies, forests, and agricultural areas, would need to be estimated with the aid of air dispersion models.

Ambient concentrations of certain pollutants directly influence some ecological benefits, such as visibility at

national parks. For most situations, however, the relationship between pollutant concentrations and ecological goods and services depends on ecological functions. For example, analysts first would need to estimate

how reductions in atmospheric pollutants affect timber and crop growth, or fish and wildlife mortality and

morbidity, to quantify changes in production or populations. For the CAA assessment, if changes in ecological goods and services could be quantified, analysts could attempt to estimate the value of those changes to

society.

The third column in Table 4 lists the benefits of regulations under the CAA that analysts were able to quantify in physical units, such as additional tons of timber per acre harvested or the additional number of days of

clear viewing at national parks. For example, analysts were able to estimate the relationship between reductions in ozone and increased timber growth. On the other hand, due to data limitations, analysts were

unable to quantify the relationship between reduced acid deposition and timber growth. Of those benefits

that were quantified, even fewer could be measured in monetary terms, as shown by the last column in

Table 4. 

The regulatory assessment experience with the CAA illustrates some of the challenges of determining the

effect of EPA policies on ecological outcomes and benefits. If plausible connections between emission

sources and ecological changes cannot be quantified, the outcomes of the policy cannot be estimated in physical or dollar terms. Estimating the relationships between changes in emissions and changes in ecosystem

processes, ecological goods and services, and the value of those services, requires appropriate ecological and

economic data, much of which currently is not available. 
8 ECOLOGICAL BENEFITS ASSESSMENT STRATEGIC PLAN

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

TABLE 4: SELECTED ECOLOGICAL BENEFITS OF REDUCTIONS IN AIR POLLUTANTS 

IDENTIFIED IN THE ANALYSIS OF THE CLEAN AIR ACT.

Pollutant reduced Ecological benefits identified Quantified? Monetized?

Particulate matter Improved visibility at national parks yes yes

Acidic deposition Improved recreational freshwater fishing yes yesa

Increased productivity of commercial forests (e.g., no no

timber and non-timber forest products)

Improved commercial freshwater fishing no no

Reduced watershed damages (e.g., improved water no no

filtration and flood control)

Improved recreational amenities in terrestrial no no

ecosystems (e.g., forest aesthetics and nature study)

Maintained existence value and option values for no no

ecosystems impacted by acid deposition 

Nitrogen deposition Reduced nitrogen deposition for eastern estuaries yes no

Increased productivity of commercial fishing, decreased no no

productivity of agriculture and forests

Reduced watershed damages (e.g., improved water no no

filtration and flood control)

Improved recreation in estuarine ecosystems (e.g., no no

recreational fishing, aesthetics, and nature study)

Maintained existence value and option values for no no

ecosystems impacted by nitrogen deposition

Tropospheric ozone Increased commercial timber yieldsb yes yes

Increased tons of carbon sequestered in forests yes no

Increased agricultural yieldsc yes yes

Improved recreational amenities in terrestrial ecosystems no no

(e.g., forest aesthetics and nature study)

Maintained existence value and option values for no no

ecosystems impacted by ozone

Hazardous air Improved commercial and recreational fishing no no

pollutants (HAPs)

deposition Maintained existence value and option values for no no

ecosystems impacted by HAPs (e.g., biodiversity values)

Source: USEPA (1999), adapted from Tables 7-5 and 7-11.

a

Analysis was restricted to the Adirondacks. 

b

Analysis was restricted to a limited set of timber species. 

c

Analysis was restricted to a limited set of agricultural crops. 
ECOLOGICAL BENEFITS ASSESSMENT STRATEGIC PLAN 9

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

2.3 AN INTERDISCIPLINARY ECOLOGICAL BENEFITS ASSESSMENT PROCESS

Improving Agency ecological benefits assessments will require a new approach that emphasizes interdisciplinary teamwork. Traditionally, natural scientists at EPA have focused primarily on assessing risks, while economists have focused primarily on assessing the costs and benefits of regulations (Appendix A). Because ecological risk assessments typically are designed to address questions different from those addressed by ecological benefits assessments, the immediate value of risk assessment results to benefits assessments often is

limited. Benefits assessments at the Agency historically have been the responsibility of economists, receiving limited input from the natural scientists. Increased collaboration among EPA’s natural and social scientists and analysts will improve ecological benefits assessments at the Agency in several ways, including helping to identify appropriate ecological endpoints, collecting the necessary data, and developing and applying

the appropriate methods to quantify and value changes in those endpoints. 

Figure 2: Interdisciplinary approach for ecological benefits assessment.

Figure 2 depicts a collaborative approach for ecological benefits assessment that builds on the conceptual

foundations of the Agency’s ecological risk assessment framework and borrows from its terminology (USEPA

1998). The assessment approach emphasizes collaborative interaction among Agency decisionmakers, social

scientists, natural scientists, and analysts throughout the process. Such collaboration should begin at the

earliest stages of the process, with identification of the need to evaluate alternative policy options for a decision. The options under consideration may be defined partly by the statutory and legal context under which

EPA operates, information from existing risk assessments, and technological and socioeconomic considerations. The best science available would then be applied to understand how each policy option would change

the environmental stressors they are intended to control, to forecast changes in the affected ecosystems and

the services they provide, and to estimate the economic value of the change in those services.

Statutory &

legal context

Existing risk

assessments

Technology

options

Sociocultural

context

(values)

Synthesize and

communicate

results to

decisionmakers

When feasible

Problem

formulation

Identify

management

alternatives

Estimate changes

in stressors

(for each

alternative)

Estimate changes in

ecosystem services

Monetize changes

Ecological knowledge, methods, models, and data from economics and

other social sciences

Ecological knowledge, methods, models, and data from ecology and

other natural sciences
10 ECOLOGICAL BENEFITS ASSESSMENT STRATEGIC PLAN

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

The first step of the assessment is problem formulation: defining the scope of the problem and potential

relationships among policy alternatives, stressors, and ecological changes. Both social and natural sciences

are critical in developing the conceptual model of how policy ultimately impacts social welfare and identifying the appropriate benefits assessment endpoints. Analysts next determine the extent to which alternative

policies reduce the quantity, flow, and timing of stressors into the environment. This phase also depends on

multiple disciplines. Social sciences are needed because EPA policy impacts human activity, and firms and

individuals will respond to those policies in ways that may enhance or mute the impact. Natural sciences

are needed to evaluate the technical effectiveness of the policies. Given changes in stressors, analysts next

estimate the changes in ecosystem processes and changes in the output of ecological goods and services.

This is primarily the domain of ecology and natural sciences. Where possible and appropriate, the changes

in social welfare resulting from changes in the quantity or quality of ecological goods and services are estimated. This primarily is the domain of the social sciences. Even in these later phases, however, interdisciplinary teamwork is important, and both disciplines are required to synthesize and communicate findings to

decisionmakers. The output of the process is a comprehensive package of synthesized information that supports selection of the best policy alternative. Although outlined linearly in Figure 2, the new approach for

ecological benefits assessment is iterative to help ensure that decisions are made with the best information

available. For example, the assessment itself might identify other policy options, or different linkages

between stressors and ecosystem changes—information that could be incorporated in a subsequent pass

through the process. 

Successful implementation of this approach will require new mechanisms to enhance the collaboration that

is so critical for comprehensive assessments. Increased research attention at the intersection of natural and

social sciences can provide the advanced tools and information needed to ensure the rigor of those assessments. The Agency has identified the priority actions needed in these areas to realize the goals of this Plan.

These actions and a road map for sustained progress toward improved ecological benefits assessment are

described in the following two sections.
3 IMPROVING ECOLOGICAL BENEFITS ASSESSMENTS

ECOLOGICAL BENEFITS ASSESSMENT STRATEGIC PLAN 11

EPA can reach its goal of improving decisionmaking by conducting rigorous, interdisciplinary assessments of

the ecological benefits resulting from its policies. This section discusses a variety of strategic actions,

grouped into three main areas, that should enhance EPA’s ability to identify, quantify, and value the ecological benefits of its policies. The areas of focus are:

■ Institutional arrangements that foster interdisciplinary analyses and provide analysts with appropriate

guidance and tools;

■ Interdisciplinary research that directly supports ecological benefits assessments, including broad

methodological development and specific studies about resources, stressors, localities, and policies; and 

■ Coordination of efforts with external partners.

The actions described below respond to institutional opportunities within EPA and the evolving sciencebased needs of environmental decisionmaking. Although this list does not exhaust the possibilities for

improvements in this area, these actions were judged to be among the most important and promising

avenues for EPA to pursue in the coming years. The importance of these actions was recognized through

reviews of existing practices in EPA (Appendix A) and other agencies, consideration of previous efforts to

improve ecological benefits assessment (Appendix B), evaluation of feedback from staff within EPA, and consideration of input from EPA’s SAB Committee on Valuing the Protection of Ecological Systems and Services.

The actions in the next section are intended to provide a general direction for the Agency. Specific actions

are to be developed by EPA’s Program Offices, ORD, and OPEI according to their individual needs and capabilities (as described in Section 4). 

3.1 INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS

Rigorous ecological benefits assessments require collaboration between many disciplines and specialties.

Professionals in engineering, chemistry, hydrology, and atmospheric sciences are needed to evaluate the

effectiveness of control measures and the fate and transport of stressors through the environment.

Biologists and ecologists are needed to estimate how changes in stressors affect ecological conditions and

processes. Economists and other social scientists are needed to assess the value that society places on

changes in the goods and services that affected ecosystems provide and to predict how people respond to

policies. Policymaker participation is critical for establishing objectives and placing the assessment in context. Their participation also is important to make certain that they understand how to interpret and use the

information provided by the assessment. For this collaboration to work effectively, EPA must ensure communication among all of the participants in the process. Two specific actions that can help facilitate communication are:

Action 3.1-1: Promote formal and informal opportunities for improving communication among disciplines.

EPA can stimulate communication between natural and social scientists by promoting greater interaction

within the Agency and through grants supporting interdisciplinary research. 
12 ECOLOGICAL BENEFITS ASSESSMENT STRATEGIC PLAN

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Suggested activities include:

■ Organized workshops, symposia, and seminars to encourage the transfer of knowledge and skills;

■ Exchange of personnel through temporary staff assignments (details) among offices to immerse staff in

the culture and practices of other disciplines, and to educate them about missions and needs of other

parts of the Agency; and

■ Creation of an interdisciplinary Web site with reference information about the basics of both economics

and ecology to foster information exchange.

Action 3.1-2: Provide basic training in the fundamentals of other disciplines. In the near-term, analysts, scientists, and policy staff involved in ecological benefits

assessments should be provided crossdisciplinary training. Such training would enhance understanding of the

concepts, approaches, and methods of others involved in

the assessment process, improving the effectiveness of

communication supporting benefits assessments.

True collaboration among natural and social scientists in

planning and executing assessments helps to ensure

that those assessments are rigorous and comprehensive.

Collaboration begins and is especially crucial in the overall planning stage of the action development process and

assessment formulation. Throughout the assessment

process, continued collaboration is needed to evaluate and interpret interim results and to ensure that any

needed changes in focus or direction of the assessment are recognized. Three actions that can promote

crossdisciplinary collaboration during planning and performance of ecological benefits assessments are:

Action 3.1-3: Increase interdisciplinary participation in assessing ecological benefits. From the outset of

each assessment, policy analysts, economists, and natural and social scientists should be assembled into

interdisciplinary teams to conduct the assessment. Social scientists should participate in the development of

conceptual models describing the causal relationships between stressors, endpoints, and human welfare, and

natural scientists should participate in the development of valuation studies, especially if surveys are used to

elicit social values. Broad participation can be ensured through better use of Analytic Blueprints (see Action

3.1-7 on the next page). 

Action 3.1-4: Expand the use of ecological risk assessment information in economic benefits assessments.

Although Agency risk assessments and benefits assessments often differ in their purposes and objectives,

they share many data and methodological needs. EPA should initiate an effort similar to the Risk

Assessment for Benefits Analysis (RABA) project focused on ecological benefits. RABA was conducted under

the Agency’s Risk Assessment Forum to evaluate methods for expanding the use of human health risk assessment information in economic benefits analysis. The interdisciplinary nature of RABA has been key to its

success. Like RABA, the first step in the new effort would be to conduct one or more case studies for quantifying and monetizing ecological benefits. The case studies would require collaboration among analysts from

different fields and should provide valuable insights for making interdisciplinary collaboration routine.

Institutional Actions To Promote

Interdisciplinary Assessments

Facilitate communication among disciplines

Provide crossdisciplinary training

Ensure interdisciplinary participation

Expand the use of ecological information

Conduct problem formulation workshops
ECOLOGICAL BENEFITS ASSESSMENT STRATEGIC PLAN 13

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Action 3.1-5: Conduct program-specific problem formulation workshops. The Agency’s approach for ecological risk assessment provides a successful model for planning benefits assessments—problem formulation.

Problem formulation workshops would allow those involved in an ecological benefits assessment to consider

the complex relationships among policy alternatives, stressors, and ecosystem goods and services. A primary

product of these workshops will be a set of conceptual models, relating policy alternatives to ecological benefits, which should help identify the full range of ecological benefits that may result from each alternative.

Led by ORD and OPEI in conjunction with a program office, these workshops also would foster interdisciplinary collaboration and highlight specific research needs. They could form a basis on which program offices

could build assessment teams, as well as provide valuable information useful for the development of assessment guidelines (see Action 3.1-6).

The rigor of EPA’s benefits assessments can be improved by providing clear standards for analysts to follow

and for managers to use to judge the quality of assessments. Three actions that can address this issue are:

Action 3.1-6: Develop guidelines for planning and conducting ecological benefits assessments. Clear guidelines assist practitioners in meeting the standards of the Agency and assist decisionmakers in evaluating the

appropriateness and quality of the planned analysis and final assessment. An interoffice and interdisciplinary workgroup would be necessary to develop guidelines that address key issues in implementing the

approach shown in Figure 2. These issues include:

■ Construction of conceptual models linking policy alternatives to changes in ecological endpoints, ecosystem goods and services, and ecological benefits; 

■ Identification of appropriate and consistent temporal and spatial scales of analyses;

■ Selection of appropriate analytical tools; and

■ Development of approaches for reducing and describing uncertainty in estimates of ecological changes

and the value of those changes.

The new guidelines should build on A Framework for the Economic Valuation of Ecological Benefits (USEPA

2002a). This effort could be supported by issue papers, topically oriented workshops and instructive case

studies. Guidelines development could be overseen by a newly created Ecological Benefits Assessment

Forum (described in Section 4).

Action 3.1-7: Review and update Agency guidelines for

developing Analytic Blueprints. EPA develops an

Analytic Blueprint at the start of each new regulation

development to guide the analysis of policy alternatives

(USEPA 2003b). Scientific and economic analyses are

addressed separately in the current Blueprint approach.

Revising the guidelines for preparing Analytic Blueprints

to encourage greater integration and interdisciplinary

analysis throughout the regulatory development process

would be an important step toward improving the

Agency’s benefits assessment approach.

Institutional Actions To Promote

Rigorous and Comprehensive

Assessments

Develop assessment guidelines 

Update guidelines for Analytic Blueprints

Develop generic ecological benefits assessment endpoints
14 ECOLOGICAL BENEFITS ASSESSMENT STRATEGIC PLAN

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Action 3.1-8: Develop generic ecological benefits assessment endpoints. EPA recently published its Generic

Ecological Assessment Endpoints (GEAEs) for Ecological Risk Assessment (USEPA 2003a) to guide consideration of endpoints potentially important for all of its ecological risk assessments. Developing a similar set of

ecological benefits assessment endpoints that encompass key ecosystem goods and services for routine consideration in ecological benefits assessments would provide analysts with an initial list to consider in constructing conceptual models (see Action 3.1-6).

3.2 INTERDISCIPLINARY RESEARCH TO SUPPORT ECOLOGICAL BENEFITS ASSESSMENT

EPA is committed to basing its environmental protection decisions on good science. Greater emphasis on

research to fill critical gaps in the understanding of natural and social systems also would help improve the

Agency’s ability to conduct rigorous and comprehensive ecological benefits assessments on a more routine

basis. Although the intention of this Plan is to support the evaluation of policies, in the broad sense, much

of the research described below may support other situations in which the estimation of the benefits of ecological changes or conditions is important.

The research actions recommended in this section focus on two overarching issues and three key points of

connection between policy and social welfare. The overarching issues are: (1) establishing baseline scenarios; and (2) characterizing uncertainties in assessments. The points of connection are: (1) how EPA policies

alter the exposure of ecological systems to stressors; (2) how changes in stressors influence ecological functions and outputs; and (3) how changes in ecological outputs influence social welfare. Several research

actions on the use of supplemental approaches that help characterize, rank, and/or measure the effects of

policy are recommended.

3.2.1 OVERARCHING ISSUES

A primary objective of ecological benefits assessment is to support the selection of the best policy among

alternatives. Policy impacts are measured against the baseline case, in which ecological systems are left to

develop without the influences of new EPA policy. Monitoring programs can provide information to document current ecosystem conditions and to track trends in those conditions through time. Monitoring programs are key to improving EPA’s ability to measure and characterize natural variability in ecosystems. Many

of EPA’s existing monitoring efforts are designed to assess compliance in a policy context and may be localized or of short duration. Others, such as ORD’s Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program

(EMAP), were initiated to provide information about the status and trends of the nation’s ecosystems generally (USEPA 2002b). Three actions that can improve the usefulness of monitoring programs for ecological

benefits assessments are:

Action 3.2.1-1: Revise environmental monitoring programs to include indicators relevant for benefits assessments. EPA periodically should evaluate the indicators used in its monitoring programs for their relevance to

ecological benefits assessment. Working within the context of those programs, the Agency should seek

opportunities to incorporate new or modified indicators that are informative of relationships among Agency

policies and changes in valued ecosystem goods and services. Recommendations for new indicators should

be based on the recent considerations highlighted by the National Academy of Science in its report on

Valuing Ecosystem Services (NRC 2000). The most useful indicators will be those that either measure the

flow of ecosystem goods or services directly or can be combined with other environmental or economic indicators to measure such flows, and those that are at least potentially responsive to EPA policies.
ECOLOGICAL BENEFITS ASSESSMENT STRATEGIC PLAN 15

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Opportunities should be sought to expand the use of multi-metric indices that condense information on

ecosystem conditions to reflect net changes and that can simplify analytic resource requirements for ecological benefits assessments. Indicators should be developed to reflect the generic ecological benefits assessment endpoints recommended in Action 3.1-8.

Action 3.2.1-2: Increase coordination of long-term, large-scale data collection efforts across the Agency, and

identify new efforts where needed. Filling the gaps that occur among the environmental data collection

activities of EPA’s programs will improve the Agency’s ability to assess the effects of its policies. This can be

done by increasing support for large-scale data collection efforts that provide critically needed information

about ecosystems, especially about those currently under-represented in EPA’s ongoing monitoring efforts,

such as terrestrial systems. Increasing the available information on current ecological conditions and

processes in these systems will lead to more accurate and robust estimates of benefits. Support should be

leveraged by coordinating with the monitoring efforts of other agencies (see Action 3.3-3).

Action 3.2.1-3: Develop methods for using information from short-duration and localized monitoring programs in ecological benefits assessments of long-term, large-scale policies. The Agency and others devote

substantial resources to short-term and focused data collection efforts. These efforts provide valuable

insights about ecosystem condition and processes and are critical for tracking and evaluating policy performance. However, the data derived from these efforts could be better utilized in ecological benefits assessments of larger scale policies, including those at the national level. The Agency should explore methods to

aggregate data collected in short duration and localized monitoring efforts to estimate trends in ecosystem

conditions, measure natural variability, and track performance on larger scales.

A critical element of a rigorous benefits assessment is the sensitivity of results to alternative assumptions

about the functions of ecological systems and social values. EPA seeks to reduce uncertainties in its estimates

of ecological benefits where possible, and to characterize

accurately the uncertainties that exist. Two sources of

uncertainty often are recognized that require different

characterization strategies. Virtually all ecological and

economic processes are subject to “inherent variability”

(also referred to as “natural variability” or “stochasticity”), that cannot be reduced but can be accounted for

with appropriate computational tools. More difficult to

address is “knowledge uncertainty,” including errors or

gaps in estimation methods that arise either from a lack

of knowledge or mistaken assumptions about relationships between policy changes, ecological conditions, and

social welfare. Two actions that can help EPA improve

its ability to characterize and reduce uncertainties in its

ecological benefits assessments are:

Action 3.2.1-4: Develop improved methods to measure

inherent variability in ecological benefits assessments.

To improve characterizations of variability in ecological

benefits assessments, the Agency should invest in

Supporting Research: Overarching Issues 

Incorporate relevant indicators in environmental monitoring programs

Increase coordination and development of

long-term, large-scale environmental monitoring

Develop methods for aggregating data from

short-term and local monitoring programs 

Develop improved methods to measure

inherent variability and characterize uncertainty

Develop improved methods to identify and

reduce knowledge uncertainties in ecological benefits assessments
16 ECOLOGICAL BENEFITS ASSESSMENT STRATEGIC PLAN

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

research to refine methods for incorporating probabilistic outcomes into benefits assessments using Monte

Carlo techniques, interval mathematics, and other approaches. EPA’s ongoing environmental monitoring

efforts can provide valuable information about the frequency and magnitude of apparently random changes

in ecological systems (see Actions 3.2.1-1, -2, and -3).

Action 3.2.1-5: Develop improved methods to identify and reduce knowledge uncertainties in ecological

benefits assessments. Issues of model misspecification and uncertainties in parameter estimates are wellknown in both ecological and economic fields. Some of these effects can be measured or characterized.

Special focus is needed on uncertainties associated with linkages between ecological and economic models,

as these have received relatively less attention in previous research. As part of all of the actions described in

the following sections, EPA should investigate sources of uncertainty and methods for characterizing and

measuring it.

3.2.2 IMPACTS OF POLICY ON STRESSORS

The effectiveness of any policy is influenced by two key factors: the behavioral responses of individuals and

groups affected by the policy, and the technical efficacy of their responses. In addition to traditional command-and-control regulations, EPA policies include economic incentives, performance standards, information

campaigns, and voluntary programs. Information on how the targeted communities respond to different

policies helps to predict how those policies influence stressors in the environment. Sometimes, behavioral

responses result in a substitution of the original environmental risks with different risks, such as increases

in another stressor or a change in media through which a stressor passes. 

Action 3.2.2-1: Incorporate and improve consideration

of behavioral responses to environmental policies. EPA

should ensure consideration of behavioral responses to

regulation in its development of guidance for benefits

assessments and by revising the guidelines for Analytical

Blueprints. EPA also should support applied studies that

characterize and quantify behavioral responses to a variety of regulatory strategies, including traditional command-and-control, economic incentives, voluntary programs, and information campaigns. 

Action 3.2.2-2: Identify priority areas where trade-offs

between risks are critical and enhance capacity for relative risk assessments. EPA should revise the guidelines

for development of Analytic Blueprints to reflect the

importance of identifying when analyses of trade-offs

among risks are needed in the development of policy (i.e., when one or more policy options may decrease

some risks while increasing others). Increased training of risk assessors and the development of new methods for evaluating relative risks among stressors and pathways also would improve the Agency’s ability to

account for risk-risk trade-offs that may arise from indirect human behavioral responses to policies.

Technical efficacy concerns the extent to which the measures taken are effective in reducing stressors. EPA

often has relied on mechanical technologies for pollution control, and the Agency’s Environmental

Supporting Research: Policy Impacts 

on Stressors

Improve consideration of behavioral

responses to environmental policy

Enhance capacity for relative risk assessment

Support research to quantify the effectiveness of ecologically based pollution controls

Increase and improve ex-post analysis
ECOLOGICAL BENEFITS ASSESSMENT STRATEGIC PLAN 17

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Technology Verification (ETV) Program (USEPA 2006) has a long history of research on the effectiveness of

such technologies. The more recent emphasis on performance-based regulations has broadened the scope of

pollution control to include many ecologically based measures, such as maintenance of vegetative buffers or

rehabilitation of damaged ecological structure or function. 

Action 3.2.2-3: Invest in research on methods to estimate expected stressor reductions from ecologically

based pollution controls. Estimating reductions in stressors is necessary for predicting the extent of changes

in ecological benefits assessment endpoints and requires the use of atmospheric, hydrologic, and other fate

and transport models. Whereas some of these models are well developed, others require further refinement

for specific situations, regions, and scales. In some cases, research on the influence of key parameters is

required. For example, models may need to account for the effects of scale-related parameters, such as the

location of a restoration project within a watershed, width of vegetation buffers, or shape of habitat patches.

Research also should address sources of variability and uncertainty, especially those contributing to downside risk or irreversibilities.

Action 3.2.2-4: Increase and improve ex-post analysis of the effects of EPA policy, including remediation or

restoration projects. Evaluation of policy alternatives across EPA programs could be improved by stronger

firsthand evidence and a firm understanding of the past effectiveness of similar actions, including the extent

of successfully restoring lost goods and services. Improving ex-post analyses involves identifying and tracking appropriate indicators (see Action 3.2.1-1) and supporting applied research to detect and measure sitespecific changes in the quantity, flow, and timing of stressors and ecological responses in the environment.

EPA should increase available empirical data by making post-project monitoring and reporting a condition of

project funding (see Action 3.3-1). In the longer term, the Agency should analyze results of individual policies and projects to identify patterns and conditions that determine the effectiveness of policies across

regional scales. Related research, which would support and benefit from more and better ex-post analysis,

includes methodologies to synthesize data from different environments and monitoring efforts (see Action

3.2.1-3), measurement of the effectiveness of ecologically mediated controls (see Action 3.2.2-3), and

improvements in fate and transport models. 

3.2.3 IMPACTS OF CHANGES IN STRESSORS ON ECOLOGICAL ENDPOINTS

Rigorous benefits assessments require understanding and quantifying how ecological systems will respond to

changes in stressors. A substantial portion of the Agency’s ecological research portfolio addresses how environmental stressors affect ecological systems. This provides valuable information for risk assessments, some

of which is pertinent to benefits assessment. A reorientation of some ecological research according to two

concepts, however, could further improve EPA’s benefits assessments. First, research should be more interdisciplinary. Including social scientists in ecological research projects can help improve the applicability of

the research in benefits assessment. Second, more research should apply a “production function” perspective. This approach views certain socially important ecological goods and services as outputs of ecological

processes, analogous to the way that human-made goods and services are outputs of industrial or service sector processes. The five actions that could help the Agency implement these two concepts as it adapts its ecological research portfolio are:

Action 3.2.3-1: Develop capacity for population modeling applicable to ecological benefits assessment.

Biological populations may be valued by society as marketable commodities for a variety of uses, including

hunting and fishing; non-consumptive recreational uses; pollination, seed dispersal, and other indirect uses;
18 ECOLOGICAL BENEFITS ASSESSMENT STRATEGIC PLAN

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

and simply their existence. Many population models exist, particularly for commercial fish and forestry

species. Models for other species of interest to the Agency, however, are lacking. In the ecological research

community as a whole, attention increasingly is being paid to collecting data and developing models for

more species in more locations. EPA should take advantage of this opportunity to incorporate population

modeling more rigorously into its decision-support systems. A comparative survey of available population

modeling approaches and their relative strengths and weaknesses for use in ecological benefits assessments

would be an important first step. Gaps in existing modeling approaches should become priorities for new

research. On one side, research should link model parameters, such as reproduction and mortality, to exposure to stressors. On the other side, research should align population model outputs with economic models

of social welfare.

Action 3.2.3-2: Improve linkages between stressor exposure data and effects on populations. As indicated

in Action 3.2.3-1, a critical requirement for expanding the use of population modeling is the linkage between

key population parameters and exposure to stressors. In this way, analysts can estimate how changes in the

quantity, flow, or timing of stressors lead to changes in a population. EPA ecological risk assessments often

are based on laboratory experiments that determine lethal doses or lethal concentrations, but these metrics

generally cannot be translated directly into changes in population abundances or viabilities. Further, they do

not always account for sublethal effects that might significantly alter population dynamics. A more complete

understanding of how stressors impact population dynamics would account for both the direct (lethal and

sublethal) effects of stressors on organisms, and their effects on intra- and interspecific interactions between

organisms. Expanded use of both laboratory- and field-derived data in population models could help to predict a wider range of potential effects.

Action 3.2.3-3: Identify and develop critical community-level modeling capacity. Two situations call for more

extensive ecological modeling. First, the proximal

impact of stressors is often on species that do not affect

social welfare directly, but which contribute to the production of species that are valued directly, such as harvested species. EPA should support further development of models of species interactions (known as community or food web models) so that indirect effects of

changes in stressors on social welfare may be better

quantified. Second, society often values species assemblages that are highly diverse, independently of the

value derived from the abundances of particular species

within the assemblage, as often is the case with bird

watching activities. EPA should adapt existing models,

and develop more models as needed, that explicitly

include community-level attributes, such as species richness or other measures of diversity, as state variables for

use in ecological benefits assessments.

Action 3.2.3-4: Develop capacity to model ecosystem

processes for ecological benefits assessment. Many

environmental policies may produce ecological benefits through changes in ecosystem processes. Examples

Supporting Research: Stressor Exposure

on Ecological Endpoints

Develop capacity for population modeling

Improve linkage between stressor exposure

and population model parameters

Develop capacity for community-level modeling

Identify and develop critical communitylevel modeling capacity

Improve ability to measure and to model

changes in ecological endpoints across spatial scales.

Expand use of bioeconomic models
ECOLOGICAL BENEFITS ASSESSMENT STRATEGIC PLAN 19

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

of ecosystem processes that generate ecological goods or services valued by society are groundwater filtration, which may improve the purity of drinking water (a marketable commodity), and groundwater recharge,

which can help maintain the persistence of wetlands and thereby support recreational hunting activities

through otherwise dry seasons. One way to account for ecosystem processes in benefits assessments is to

treat them as production functions that may be influenced by the presence of stressors (e.g., a degraded environment produces fewer services or lower quality goods). Research in this area should focus on the current

limitations in EPA’s ability to describe the influence of the quantity, flow, or timing of stressors on ecosystem

processes. Research in this area should:

■ Identify the ecological goods and services of importance to society and the processes that support them;

■ Survey existing approaches for modeling these ecosystem processes as production functions;

■ Focus on critical inputs and parameters affected by stressors responsive to EPA policies; 

■ Develop both mechanistic and statistical approaches, as well as approaches applicable at multiple geographic scales;

■ Conceptually model critical ecosystem processes as production functions, identifying inputs and parameters affected by stressors under EPA authority; and

■ Identify the most important remaining gaps and support data collection and research to develop

improved or new approaches to fill these gaps.

Action 3.2.3-5: Improve ability to measure and to model changes in ecological endpoints across spatial

scales. Measures of changes in ecological endpoints can vary depending on the spatial scale that is under

consideration, from field plots and streams to river basins or larger scales. Extrapolating across scales could

lead to under- or overestimation of the benefits of a policy. Given the variation and interconnectedness of

ecosystems, EPA should invest in geospatial approaches that collect spatially referenced data to improve

models of the impacts of changes in stressors on ecological endpoints, which generally are not distributed

uniformly over space. In addition to those that can account for spatial heterogeneity, models are needed that

are designed specifically for applications at a variety of scales, including watersheds, regions, and the entire

country, because many EPA policies are implemented at those scales. Such models should be able to characterize baseline ecosystem conditions and the natural variability of ecosystems at different scales as well as predict

potential impacts caused by policy alternatives.

Action 3.2.3.-6: Expand use of linked ecological-economic

models in ecological benefits assessment. Models of 

ecological processes and economic models of human

behavior can sometimes be linked. An advantage of such

linked models, sometimes called “bioeconomic models,”

is that they can provide the ability to account for ecological dynamics and human behavioral feedbacks that may

result from policy changes in an integrated manner. A

variety of bioeconomic models have been developed for

use in forestry and fishery applications, but there is

Supporting Research: Ecological

Endpoints and Social Welfare

Develop and apply valuation methods to

address EPA needs

Improve survey methods through pre- and

post-survey validity testing

Improve capacity and methods for benefit

transfer
20 ECOLOGICAL BENEFITS ASSESSMENT STRATEGIC PLAN

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

opportunity for making wider use of this approach in EPA benefits assessments. Particular areas of need

include:

■ Bioeconomic models that relate EPA policies to changes in stressors, ecological processes, and socially

valued goods and services;

■ Adapting or developing models that incorporate recreational uses activities, including nonconsumptive

use; and

■ Incorporating non-use values into bioeconomic models.

Bioeconomic models can also be useful for identifying critical ecological and economic data to be collected in

research supporting ecological benefits assessment.

3.2.4 IMPACTS OF CHANGES IN ECOLOGICAL ENDPOINTS ON SOCIAL WELFARE

Understanding the relative values that society places on ecosystem goods and services is critical for designing

effective and efficient environmental policies. Economists have developed a variety of methods for estimating the value of environmental changes. Some economic valuation methods may be more appropriate for

certain situations, but all have limitations that may hinder analysts’ abilities to estimate values. A key difficulty arises from the fact that few ecological goods and services are linked directly to a market, which otherwise would provide some information about social value.

When evaluating different policy options, EPA may undertake original valuation studies, or as more often is

the case, may transfer results from previous valuation studies to estimate the value of new policies. This latter practice is known as “benefit transfer.” Enhancing EPA’s ability to estimate the economic value of ecological changes in benefits assessments requires supporting applied, interdisciplinary valuation research and

methods development. Three actions that could help the Agency make improvements in this area are:

Action 3.2.4-1: Support research to adapt and apply economic valuation methods that are best suited for

valuing changes in ecological goods and services. Research is needed that combines both stated preference

approaches and revealed preference approaches to take advantage of their combined strengths. Other promising areas for advancement include:

■ Adapting hedonic pricing models to estimate the implicit value of a wider variety of environmental

amenities and conditions;

■ Adapting random utility models to estimate the value of a wider variety of ecological goods and services

from observed demand for similar or related market goods and services, or for nonmarket activities, such

as outdoor recreation;

■ Estimating explicit production function models to incorporate indirect effects (see Action 3.2.3-3); and

■ Applying mathematical optimization techniques to estimate the value of ecological resources and to

design more cost-effective strategies for targeting ecological restoration and protection activities.

Research in these areas also should examine sources of uncertainty in these methods and means of measuring variability.
ECOLOGICAL BENEFITS ASSESSMENT STRATEGIC PLAN 21

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Action 3.2.4-2: Improve survey methods by expanding pre- and post-survey validity testing. In addition to

estimating values for particular policy changes, stated preference surveys can provide a better understanding

of the kinds of changes in the environment that are most meaningful to the public in general. This in turn

can help identify ecological endpoints on which to focus in EPA’s environmental monitoring programs. Two

key factors influence the quality of information obtained from surveys to estimate values of ecological goods

and services: (1) how well the respondents comprehend the good or service being valued (i.e., the attributes

of the ecological resources that may change under alternative policy scenarios); and (2) how well the

researcher can interpret respondents’ answers to survey questions. In conducting original studies, EPA

should use accepted survey design methods, including focus groups and pre-testing, to address the first factor. More importantly, however, natural and social scientists should design the survey together so that it

appropriately bridges the outputs of ecological data and models to potentially valuable ecological goods and

services. The second factor calls for rigorously testing various hypotheses about the motivations underlying

survey responses. Expanded use of techniques developed through research in the psychology of decisionmaking, including focus groups, debriefing, and experimental design protocols, could be helpful here. EPA

should review these techniques and compile a guidance document for benefits assessment practitioners.

Action 3.2.4-3: Improve capacity and methods for benefit transfer for ecological goods and services.

Conducting original studies in support of specific benefits assessments often is not feasible. EPA can pursue

a number of strategies to improve assessments that rely on information from studies conducted outside of

the policy context in question with a specific focus on ecological goods and services. Examples of such strategies are:

■ Conduct and support interdisciplinary valuation studies to cover a larger variety of ecological endpoints,

including generic ecological benefits assessment endpoints (see Action 3.1-8), and situations;

■ Assess the influence of both the changes in ecological and economic variables and the features of the

policies that bring about those changes so that transferred estimates of value may be adjusted appropriately for new policy scenarios; and 

■ Support research to characterize sources of variability and uncertainty in benefit transfer.

Increased research on integrative benefit transfer methods, such as meta-analysis, and their application also

should improve the Agency’s ability to synthesize results from multiple studies for more accurate and precise

transfers to new cases.

3.2.5 SUPPLEMENTAL APPROACHES

Monetizing benefits is useful in part because it allows different types of benefits to be combined and compared directly to costs, or to the benefits of alternative policies. Furthermore, dollars are a familiar medium

of exchange and may be more easily understood by the public than unfamiliar biophysical measures of benefits. However, because combining different benefits into a single unit of measurement can mask critical differences that may be important to policymakers and stakeholders, approaches that explicitly rate or rank

multiple attributes of different policy options are sometimes preferred. For example, experts might be asked

to rate policy alternatives according to attributes such as expected cost and feasibility as well as predicted

ecological, health, and social outcomes. Policymakers or stakeholders then might be asked to weight the relative importance of these attributes. 
22 ECOLOGICAL BENEFITS ASSESSMENT STRATEGIC PLAN

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Whether ecological benefits are to be given a relative weight or be fully monetized, a preference elicitation

process often is required. Because choices involving ecological relationships tend to be unfamiliar, procedures that allow for the construction of these preferences may have advantages over those that assume they

are formed already. Preference construction techniques may involve, for example, embedding iterative cognitive tasks within a survey or conducting structured group discussions prior to administering a survey. Group

discourse also may encourage individuals to form preferences that reflect public policy concerns to a larger

degree as compared to surveys of individuals. 

Some have argued that the complexity and indispensable life-support role of ecological systems are sufficient

reasons to develop valuation approaches that are founded on biophysical analysis rather than individual welfare. Policy analysis using models of material or energy flows through linked, ecological-economic systems

may be a useful complement to standard economic analysis. Three actions that could improve EPA’s ability

to apply supplemental valuation approaches in ecological benefits assessments are:

Action 3.2.5-1: Evaluate rating and ranking procedures to complement economic valuation. EPA should

determine the usefulness of rating and ranking approaches, including multi-attribute approaches, as supplemental methods for valuing ecological changes. This evaluation should consider the internal consistency and

robustness of values elicited by each approach, the

degree to which each approach is consistent with democratic processes, and the ability of each approach to

describe long-term ecological, financial, and social outcomes of policy alternatives objectively.

Action 3.2.5-2: Evaluate analytical methods based on

ecological-economic system properties. Various biophysical approaches for measuring ecological changes in nonmonetary terms have different strengths and weaknesses. These approaches should be reviewed and compiled

to develop a reference document for benefits analysis

practitioners and to identify areas where additional

research is needed. Special attention should be paid to

the unique assumptions underlying each approach and how directly each approach can be related to policy.

Action 3.2.5-3: Conduct trial applications of hybrid decision approaches in future benefits assessments.

The supplemental approaches referred to above are not mutually exclusive, nor are they necessarily incompatible with monetary valuation methods. Various hybridizations of standard economic approaches with

constructive, discourse-based or systems-based approaches also can be useful for policy analysis. Hybrid

approaches can be developed and their performance evaluated to determine their usefulness for Agency decisionmaking.

Supporting Research: Supplemental

Approaches

Evaluate rating and ranking procedures

Evaluate biophysical approaches to 

valuation

Apply hybrid decision approaches in 

field trials
ECOLOGICAL BENEFITS ASSESSMENT STRATEGIC PLAN 23

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

3.3 COORDINATION WITH PARTNERS

The challenges EPA faces in improving ecological benefits assessments are substantial, as are the opportunities for major advancement, especially if Agency efforts can be combined with those of partners in other

organizations and academia. Because EPA relies heavily on science and best practices developed outside of

the Agency, better communication and coordination of research efforts will be crucial to improve Agency benefits assessments. EPA also could increase its influence on the direction of outside research and leverage

additional resources for internal activities through better communication. Actions that could help improve

Agency coordination with outside partners include:

Action 3.3-1: Provide direct support to studies relevant to Agency ecological benefits assessments. Grant

programs, such as the ORD’s Science To Achieve Results (STAR) program, provide funding to external

research institutions to address the Agency’s needs for ecological, economic, and interdisciplinary research.

Requests for proposals through such programs could be designed to help promote the actions outlined in

this Plan, especially by:

■ Applying a production function approach that links changes in stressors to changes in ecological goods

and services of relevance to the Agency; and 

■ Emphasizing the transferability and scalability of results across ecoregions, geographic and temporal

scales, and landscape contexts.

Action 3.3-2: Improve communication with outside researchers about the Agency’s needs for ecological and

economic research. Increased communication with academic researchers will help encourage more policyrelevant studies that EPA can use in benefits assessments (see Action 3.2.4-3). Some key points to communicate include the importance of:

■ Using generic ecological benefits assessment endpoints (see Action 3.1.7) and other priority endpoints

for both ecological and economic studies;

■ Establishing baseline conditions and trends in ecosystems of concern; 

■ Using standardized indicators and other measures to

quantify policy-relevant endpoints (see Actions 3.1-8

and 3.2.1-1); and

■ Focusing on incremental changes in stressors, ecological goods and services, and social welfare.

Methods for communicating needs include: participation by EPA staff in professional meetings; publication

of position papers, press releases, and journal articles;

and support for new venues, including print or online

journals, books, and workshop proceedings for highquality applied research. Development of standard

methods for under-represented ecological endpoints

Coordination With Partners

Support studies relevant to Agency policies

Improve communication of Agency research

needs

Increase coordination of data collection and

research across agencies

Expedite procedures for collecting information about public values 
24 ECOLOGICAL BENEFITS ASSESSMENT STRATEGIC PLAN

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

could help fill some of the knowledge gaps that exist in Agency benefits assessments and currently are filled

through applications of benefit transfer and best professional judgment. 

Action 3.3-3: Increase coordination of data collection, monitoring programs, and research with other agencies. The quality and quantity of data supporting ecological benefits assessment can be enhanced by leveraging EPA’s efforts and resources with those of other agencies. EPA can work with its partners to coordinate

and consolidate ecological data collection and socioeconomic surveys. Promising opportunities for leveraging

resources include:

■ Continued support for the international Earth Observation System of Systems

(http://www.epa.gov/geoss/index.html); 

■ Coordination with domestic partners to leverage resources for the long-term monitoring of a wider array

of ecosystems; and

■ Coordination of collection and sharing of data to reduce duplication.

Action 3.3-4: Explore approaches for facilitating approval of information collection requests (ICRs) related to

collecting information from the public for use in ecological benefits assessments. The ability to complete rigorous ecological benefits assessments will be enhanced by incorporating more information about the values

society places in ecosystem goods and services. An efficient approval process for EPA’s ICRs would help

ensure that surveys and other data collection instruments can be administered in a timely and effective manner. EPA should coordinate with other federal agencies to explore options that facilitate more rapid review

and approval of ICRs.

Implementing the actions described in this section will require a sustained effort, one that is fully coordinated throughout the Agency and with its external partners. An overall approach to implement these actions

for improving ecological benefits assessments is described in the next section.
4 IMPLEMENTATION

ECOLOGICAL BENEFITS ASSESSMENT STRATEGIC PLAN 25

Section 3 identified strategic actions needed to realize this Plan’s goal of helping to improve Agency decisionmaking by enhancing EPA’s ability to identify, quantify, and value the ecological benefits of existing and proposed policies. Sustained progress towards this goal requires a strategy to implement these actions effectively. This section proposes a structure and process to implement and adapt over time EPA’s strategy, and identifies near-term implementation priorities.

EPA is a large and complex organization with two research offices, ORD and OPEI, and multiple program

offices operating under a variety of statutes. The implementation structure and process outlined in this section emulates or uses existing Agency elements and functions to coordinate activities and refine priorities.

Its structural elements include an oversight committee at a high management level and a staff-level forum.

Its process for informing the actions of Program Offices, ORD, and OPEI relies on the development of program-specific Action Plans. By identifying programmatic priorities and needs, these Action Plans form the

basis for discussion and coordination of ecological benefits assessment improvement activities across the

Agency.

4.1 INSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURE

Improving ecological benefits assessments requires a supportive institutional structure. Two groups within

the Agency are envisioned to provide that support. The first would be at a high management level to provide

guidance and direction. The second would be at the staff level to provide practical assistance and technical

expertise. Both would operate across the Agency’s offices.

4.1.1 OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE

A high-level Agency committee is needed to oversee and guide progress toward rigorous, interdisciplinary

benefits assessments supported by good science. An Oversight Committee, with technical and management

representation from across the Agency, ultimately would be responsible for implementing the strategy

described in this document. The Oversight Committee would coordinate activities among offices, promote

new institutional arrangements, and monitor general progress toward Agency goals.

A primary responsibility of the Oversight Committee would be to consider Program Office Action Plans and

the research agendas of ORD and OPEI (see below) to identify cross-Agency priorities for improving ecological benefits assessment. One of its functions would be to leverage resources to support those priorities. Key

considerations for identifying cross-Agency priorities include:

■ Relevance to the overall goal of this Plan and the actions it outlines;

■ Significance to multiple offices, regulations, and policies;

■ Likelihood of success; and

■ Opportunity to leverage external resources and expertise.
26 ECOLOGICAL BENEFITS ASSESSMENT STRATEGIC PLAN

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

An important first step in implementing the EBASP would be for the Oversight Committee to supervise revisions to the guidelines for preparing an Analytic Blueprints to promote:

■ Formation of interdisciplinary assessment teams (Action 3.1-3);

■ Coordination of information between ecological risk and benefits assessments (Action 3.1-4);

■ Consideration of behavioral responses to regulations (Action 3.2.2-1); and

■ Consideration of risk trade-offs (Action 3.2.2-2).

In the near term, the Oversight Committee would be responsible for developing performance measures and

tracking the success of EPA’s efforts to improve ecological benefits assessment. The Committee also would

be responsible for the periodic review of the EBASP to set goals reflecting the changing needs of environmental protection and the evolving state-of-the-science.

The Science Policy Council may be well-positioned to take on the responsibilities of an Oversight Committee

and could be so charged by the Administrator upon release of this Plan.

4.1.2 ECOLOGICAL BENEFITS ASSESSMENT FORUM 

A staff-level forum, open to all analysts in the Agency, could provide an effective means of exchanging

knowledge and promoting good practices for ecological benefits assessment. This forum also could provide a

convenient source of expertise to advise EPA offices and the Oversight Committee. The Agency’s Economics

Forum and Risk Assessment Forum provide potential models for an Ecological Benefits Assessment Forum

(EBAF), which would serve as a central point for Agency-wide communication, discussion, and evaluation of

crosscutting issues related to ecological benefits assessment. Its primary roles would be to ensure consistency in practices across the Agency, provide technical assistance to analysts, and facilitate the flow of information.

In implementing this Plan, the EBAF would be responsible for developing guidelines for planning and conducting ecological benefits assessments (Action 3.1-6), and for developing generic ecological benefits assessment endpoints projects (Action 3.1-8).

The EBAF could undertake other activities described in Section 3 within its primary role. These include:

■ Providing advice on adapting and developing monitoring programs (Actions 3.2.1-1 and 2);

■ Reviewing and disseminating methods for characterizing and measuring variability and uncertainty

(Actions 3.2.1-4 and 5);

■ Reviewing and disseminating available population models (Action 3.2.3-1); and

■ Reviewing and disseminating supplemental approaches for policy analysis (Actions 3.2.5-1, 2 and 3).
ECOLOGICAL BENEFITS ASSESSMENT STRATEGIC PLAN 27

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

The EBAF also could be the lead group for the Agency to coordinate the collection of ecological and socioeconomic data with other federal agencies (Action 3.3-3).

An Ecological Benefits Assessment Forum should be charged upon release of this Plan.

4.2 PROCESS 

This Plan describes a series of broad actions that are meant to provide direction for the Agency to improve

ecological benefits assessment. Defining specific activities, particularly supporting research, should be left to

individual offices. Program Offices should develop Action Plans and research projects that address their specific needs but that also reflect the overall goal and actions described in this Plan. The Agency’s research

offices, ORD and OPEI, would then use these Action Plans, along with the EBASP itself and additional input

from the Oversight Committee, to inform their research agendas.

Figure 3: Research planning and implementation relationships.

Relationships among the planning activities in the Agency are illustrated in Figure 3. The EBASP can play a

central role in communicating the overall goals and direction to improve Agency ecological benefits assessments. The Plan communicates broad actions that would lead to more rigorous, comprehensive, and interdisciplinary benefits assessments, and identifies the mechanisms that the Agency could use to facilitate

implementation. Actual implementation will be supported through the development of Program Office

Action Plans, research planning in ORD and OPEI, and interactions with external partners through STAR and

other grant programs and coordination activities.

Program Office

Action Plans

OPEI

Research Plans

ORD

Multiyear

Plans

STAR & Other

Collaborations

Ecological Benefits

Assessment Strategic

Plan (EBASP)
28 ECOLOGICAL BENEFITS ASSESSMENT STRATEGIC PLAN

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

4.2.1 PROGRAM OFFICE ACTION PLANS

Individual EPA Program Offices operate under different statutory mandates and generally are concerned with

different stressors, although the potential for substantial overlap exists in many instances. Different stressors, different media, and different regulatory authority imply that Program Offices will have different needs

relative to ecological benefits assessment. At the same time, multiple offices may be concerned with a similar set of ecological endpoints that influence social welfare. Furthermore, many benefits assessments will

have similar components regardless of which office conducts them. The differences will lie in the specifics

of the policy and the stressors involved.

To help inform Agency efforts, each Program Office should create an Action Plan that identifies its needs for

monitoring data, analytical methods, and targeted research. Plans should indicate short-term (1-2 years),

medium-term (up to 5 years), and long-term requirements. Research activities should follow from the

actions described in this Plan and indicate how they further programmatic and Agency goals. Action Plans

would be considered by the Oversight Committee, which would identify cross-Agency priorities based on

considerations like those noted in Section 4.1.1.

Research needs should reflect the office’s statutory mandates and the office’s mission under EPA’s current

Strategic Plan. These considerations will help articulate the office’s regulatory and policy priorities. In addition to informing EPA’s internal process for identifying priority research needs, the Action Plans can play a

key role in communicating the Agency’s needs to external researchers (Action 3.3-2). By placing research

needs in context, the Action Plans may help encourage relevant studies in academic and other research institutions. Equally important, Action Plans should specify any new institutional arrangements that the office

intends to make to foster interdisciplinary assessments and ensure rigorous assessments.

Development of Action Plans should be one of the first steps taken to implement the EBASP. Program

Offices may use a number of mechanisms to develop their Action Plans, including the problem formulation

workshops described in Action 3.1-5. Action Plans should be updated periodically to reflect evolving office

needs and should be designed to assist the Oversight Committee in implementing the broad actions

described in this Plan.

4.2.2 ORD AND OPEI RESEARCH

Broadly speaking, research conducted by the Agency can be described as problem-driven or core (USEPA

2001). Problem-driven research focuses on specific environmental problems reflecting immediate regulatory

and policy requirements. Core research seeks to improve fundamental understanding of the key biological,

chemical, physical, economic, and human behavioral processes that underlie environmental systems.

Problem-driven and core research are not entirely separable. In fact, they are highly complementary and

interactive. Both problem-driven and core research contribute to EPA’s ability to conduct ecological benefits

assessments by improving understanding of ecological and economic systems, and enhancing EPA’s ability to

quantify changes in those systems.

ORD focuses on developing the ecological and human health science and technology needed to fulfill EPA’s

mission. ORD engages in a multiyear planning process, which identifies and communicates the direction 

of its research program in 5- to 10-year time horizons. Planning is based on Agency priorities and needs,
ECOLOGICAL BENEFITS ASSESSMENT STRATEGIC PLAN 29

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

direction from ORD senior leadership, and external advice. The ultimate goal of the planning process is the

alignment of resources to best address the Agency’s evolving needs. 

NCEE, housed within OPEI, fulfills a mission similar to ORD’s with respect to economic science. NCEE’s

mission is to advance the practice of economics within EPA by developing new economic methods and by

promoting the use of established methods to new areas. NCEE provides assistance to other EPA offices

through its research products, review of economic analyses of proposed EPA policies, and publication of economic guidance materials. NCEE works with ORD’s grants funding program on a continuing basis to communicate research needs. Periodic workshops and seminars sponsored by NCEE also help disseminate EPA’s

research needs, original research by EPA staff, and EPA-funded research.

ORD and OPEI, based in part on the priorities communicated by the Oversight Committee, can use the

EBASP and program-specific Action Plans to guide development of their research agendas. ORD and OPEI

plans for research supporting ecological benefits assessment should be updated regularly as old goals are

reached and new goals are established. ORD and OPEI should coordinate to: provide cross-disciplinary training (Action 3.1-2); provide technical support for problem-formulation workshops (Action 3.1-5); lead the

development and adaptation of monitoring programs (Action 3.2.1-1 & 2), including coordination with external partners (Action 3.3-3); communicate research needs to external partners through STAR and other mechanisms (Action 3.3-1); support new publication outlets (Action 3.3-2); and lead EPA’s efforts to facilitate data

collection (Action 3.3-5).

4.3 CONCLUSION

Improving EPA’s ability to conduct rigorous, comprehensive, and interdisciplinary ecological benefits assessments will take time and a strong commitment. EPA will need to facilitate interdisciplinary and cross-office

communication, establish and communicate priorities, align resources across the Agency, and plan and conduct a variety of specific research efforts. Some of the strategic actions identified in the Plan can be implemented immediately, while others will require incremental changes in Agency practices and priorities. The

Ecological Benefits Assessment Strategic Plan can be a helpful road map to guide continuous improvement in

the Agency’s ecological benefits assessments that support good decisionmaking using good science.

REFERENCES

ECOLOGICAL BENEFITS ASSESSMENT STRATEGIC PLAN 31

Arrow, KJ, ML Cropper, GC Eads, RH Hahn, LB Lave, RG Noll, PR Portney, M Russell, R Schmalensee, VK

Smith, and RN Stavins. Is there a role for benefit-cost analysis in environmental, health, and safety regulation? Science 1996;272:221-222.

Daily, GC. Introduction: what are ecosystem services? In: GC Daily (ed.). Natures Services: Societal

Dependence on Natural Ecosystems. Washington, DC: Island Press, 1997. 

Daily, GC. Management objectives for the protection of ecosystem services. Environmental Science Policy

2000;3:333–339. 

Daily, GC, S Alexander, PR Ehrlich, L Goulder, J Lubchenco, PA Matson, HA Mooney, S Postel, S H Shneider, D

Tilman, and GM Woodwell. Ecosystem services: benefits supplied to human societies by natural ecosystems. Ecological Society of America, Issues in Ecology, Number 2, Spring 1997. Available from:

http://esa.org/science_resources/issues/TextIssues/issue2.php.

Freeman, AM, III. The Measurement of Environmental and Resource Values: Theory and Methods. 2nd

Edition. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future, 2003. 

King, DM. Comparing Ecosystem Services and Values. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,

Damage Assessment and Restoration Program, January 12, 1997. Accessed March 4, 2004 at:

http://www.darp.noaa.gov/library/pdf/kingpape.pdf.

NRC (National Research Council). Ecological Indicators for the Nation. Committee to Evaluate Indicators for

Monitoring Aquatic and Terrestrial Environments, Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 2000. 

Principe, PP. Ecological benefits assessment: a policy-oriented alternative to regional ecological risk assessment. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment 1995;1:423-435. 

USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). Guidelines for Performing Regulatory Impact Analysis.

Washington, DC: Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation, December 1983, Publication Number—

EPA-230-84-003. 

USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). Guidelines for Performing Regulatory Impact Analysis.

Washington, DC: Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation, December 1991, Publication Number—

EPA-230-84-003. 1983 Guidelines reprinted with Appendices in March 1991. 

USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). Guidelines for Ecological Risk Assessment. Washington, DC:

Risk Assessment Forum, April 1998, Publication Number—EPA/630/R-95/002F. Available from:

http://www.epa.gov/ncea/ecorsk.htm

USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). The Benefits and Costs of the Clean Air Act, 1990 to 2010.

EPA Report to Congress. Research Triangle Park, NC: Office of Air and Radiation and Office of Policy,

November 1999, Publication Number—EPA-410-R-99-001. 
32 ECOLOGICAL BENEFITS ASSESSMENT STRATEGIC PLAN

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analyses. Washington,

DC: Office of the Administrator, September 2000a, Publication Number—EPA 240-R-00-003. Available from:

http://epa.gov/osa/spc/eaeb.htm. 

USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). Assessing the Neglected Ecological Benefits of Watershed

Management Practices. Prepared by ICF Incorporated for the Office of Water, Assessment and Watershed

Protection Division, April 2000b. 

USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). Office of Research and Development Strategic Plan.

Washington, DC: Office of Research, 2001, Publication Number—EPA 600-R-01-003.

USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). A Framework for the Economic Assessment of Ecological

Benefits. Washington, DC: Office of Science Policy, Social Sciences Discussion Workgroup, February 2002a.

Available from: http://epa.gov/osa/spc/eaeb.htm. 

USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). Research Strategy: Environmental Monitoring and

Assessment Program. Research Triangle Park, NC: Office of Research and Development, National Health and

Environmental Effects Research Laboratory, July 2002b, EPA 620/R¬02/002. Available from:

http://www.epa.gov/emap/html/pubs/docs/resdocs/EMAP_Research_Strategy.pdf. 

USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). Generic Ecological Assessment Endpoints (GEAEs) for

Ecological Risk Assessments. Washington, DC: Risk Assessment Forum, October 2003a, Publication

Number—EPA/630/P-02/004F. Available from: http://epa.gov/ncea/raf. 

USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). Action Development Process: Guidelines for Preparing

Analytic Blueprints, Final Review Draft. Washington, DC: September 2003b. 

USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). Environmental Technology Verification Program. Available

from: http://www.epa.gov/etv/index.html. Accessed February 21, 2006.

Whigham, DF. Ecosystem functions and ecosystem values. In: R.D. Simpson and N.L. Christensen, Jr. (eds.).

Ecosystem Function and Human Activities: Reconciling Economics and Ecology. New York, NY: Chapman

and Hall Publishers, 1997, pp. 225-239.
APPENDIX A 

CURRENT STATE OF AGENCY PRACTICE OF ECOLOGICAL

BENEFITS ASSESSMENTS

ECOLOGICAL BENEFITS ASSESSMENT STRATEGIC PLAN A-1

During the past few decades, the Agency has made substantial progress in providing guidance and tools for

conducting ecological and economic assessments, particularly with regard to ecological risk assessments and

BCAs. In general, however, ecological and economic assessments at the Agency have been pursued independently for the most part. This appendix describes the Agency’s current practice of ecological benefits assessment from a general perspective. It focuses separately on the activities of ecological assessments and economic benefits assessments, as these tend to be conducted separately even when ecological benefits are

identified as being important during planning stages. Noted are some of the key challenges that ecological

benefits analysts face as a result of this practice. 

A.1 ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENTS

Ecological assessments at EPA take many forms, depending on the legislative mandates and decisions that

they support. The forms include prospective risk assessments to evaluate environmental management

options (e.g., for a proposed waste site or registration of a pesticide) and retrospective assessments of ecological impacts to diagnose their causes and to evaluate mitigation options (e.g., at a Superfund site). Also

included are assessments of ecological responses to stressors (e.g., toxic substances) to support the development of environmental quality criteria (e.g., ambient water quality criteria) and assessments of environment

monitoring data to document the condition of the nation’s ecosystems (e.g., for EPA’s Regional State of the

Environment reports). In conducting ecological risk assessments, the Agency generally follows the principles

outlined in its Guidelines for Ecological Risk Assessment (USEPA 1998a). 

In conjunction with many other factors, ecological risk assessment plays an important role in Agency decisions. Ecological risk assessment is a process “used to understand and predict the relationships between

stressors and ecological effects in a way that is useful for environmental decision making” (USEPA 1998a, pg

1). Figure A-1 shows a stylized representation of a standard ecological risk assessment at the Agency. This

figure is consistent with the representation in the Guidelines for Ecological Risk Assessment (USEPA 1998a),

but it has been generalized and simplified to focus on the key similarities and differences between ecological

assessments and economic benefits assessments, which are depicted later in Figure A-2. The shaded box

contains the stages of the assessment itself; the arrows from outside the box illustrate how ecological knowledge, methods, models, and data inform each stage.

Problem formulation, the first stage in ecological risk assessment, begins with information from the planning

dialogue and includes several activities. Analysts determine the context and scope of the assessment, identify likely stressors and exposure pathways, and select assessment endpoints (USEPA 1998a). Assessment endpoints are the ecological entities and their attributes that have a clear relationship with risk management

goals (USEPA 1998a, 2003b). Examples of such endpoints are trout abundance and richness of species in a

fish community. Analysts then develop a conceptual model of the system in which they link the stressors to

the endpoints via direct and indirect pathways, considering also the effects of other co-occurring stressors.

Problem formulation concludes with the development of an analysis plan specifying the data and methods

that analysts will use to assess ecological risks.
A-2 ECOLOGICAL BENEFITS ASSESSMENT STRATEGIC PLAN

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Figure A-1: Stylized representation of a standard ecological risk assessment.

The remainder of the ecological risk assessment involves analysis of ecological exposures and responses to

exposure (effects) and characterization of risks to (or effects on) the assessment endpoints. Analysis of exposure entails an evaluation of the magnitude of co-occurrence of stressors and ecosystem components (e.g.,

organisms, populations, and communities) over time and space. Analysis of ecological effects requires the

development of stressor-response profiles that describe the likely responses of those ecosystem components

to such exposures. Analysis of effects generally is based on data from laboratory and field experiments or

observational studies of the same or similar stressors on similar ecosystem components. Risk characterization integrates the exposure and effects assessments to estimate the potential for adverse effects on the

assessment endpoints. Ecological risks are communicated to the decisionmakers together with interpretation of the significance of the risks, and possibly with recommendations for actions to mitigate effects, or

with assessments of the effectiveness of different mitigation actions.

If the management goal is to protect against unacceptable adverse effects, a risk assessment may need only

to identify a level of exposure below which such adverse effects are not expected to occur. In such cases, a

full description of a stressor-response curve is not needed. This is the approach EPA currently uses to establish ambient water quality criteria and cleanup goals for Superfund sites (Stephan et al., 1985; USEPA 1997).

Other management goals (e.g., the selection of best management options where some adverse effects cannot

be avoided) may require an evaluation of changes in ecological endpoints in response to changes in exposure

levels for different management options, and thus may need full stressor-response curve information. In

these cases, estimated changes in the ecological assessment endpoints can be used to characterize the degree

of risk reduction associated with alternative management actions. 

Although the assessment process described above appears as a series of steps, the process is generally iterative, with information obtained during initial analyses informing refinements or re-evaluations of problem

formulation and analysis plans. For detailed information on how the Agency conducts ecological risk assessments, see EPA’s Guidelines for Ecological Risk Assessment (USEPA 1998a) and An Examination of EPA Risk

Assessment Principles and Practices (USEPA 2004a).

Decisionmakers

ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT

Ecological knowledge, methods, models, and data

Analysis of exposure and responses to

stressors, and characterization of risks

to ecological endpoints

Problem formulation: selection of

assessment endpoints and

development of a conceptual model

and analysis plan
ECOLOGICAL BENEFITS ASSESSMENT STRATEGIC PLAN A-3

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

The Agency also conducts ecological assessments using monitoring data that represent the condition of various ecosystem attributes (e.g., USEPA 1998b, 2004b). EPA can use that information to assess the effectiveness of Agency programs in achieving environmental improvements; identify emerging environmental

issues; document changes in ecosystem condition caused by stressors beyond the Agency’s immediate influence (e.g., changes in land use); and specify the baseline conditions against which the Agency should evaluate the results of its actions. These data also are intended to support the prioritization of areas and ecosystems for protection via enforcement actions and voluntary programs (USEPA 1998c).

EPA’s primary monitoring efforts include its nation-wide EMAP and several regional EMAP efforts (R-EMAP).

EMAP is a long-term research effort designed to assess ecosystem conditions and trends across the United

States (USEPA 2002). In the Aquatic Resource Monitoring component—the only component implemented at

the national level to date—EPA uses the physical, chemical, and biological measurements from specified

EMAP sampling locations to develop indications of aquatic ecosystem condition. For more information on

EMAP, visit EPA’s EMAP Web Site.1

A.2 ECONOMIC BENEFITS ASSESSMENTS

The overall goal of an economic assessment of ecological benefits is to predict the changes in people’s wellbeing that result from changes in ecosystem services. The type of economic analysis that is performed

depends on legislative mandates, the type of environmental issues being addressed, and the type of benefits

in question. When data or methodological limitations preclude a comprehensive and reliable dollar estimate

of ecological benefits, those benefits can be expressed quantitatively (i.e., in biophysical measurements) or

even qualitatively. In these situations, an indication of the value of a resource, even absent estimates of

change, can provide information to decisionmakers about its relative importance.

Figure A-2 provides a stylized representation of a standard economic benefits assessment of ecological

changes as currently practiced at EPA. In general, the problem is defined by legislative statute or possibly by

an ecological risk assessment. Once policy options are identified, it usually falls to Agency economists to

estimate the benefits and costs of each option. The second stage of the economic benefits assessment is to

determine the likely changes in ecological conditions resulting from each potential policy action. Often, the

only sources of information readily available for predicting ecological changes are the risk assessment, if one

was conducted prior to the benefits assessment, or existing studies in the literature.

In the third stage of the economic benefits assessment, changes in ecological conditions are monetized using

one or more economic valuation methods. Economists generally attempt to estimate the value of ecological

goods and services based on what people are willing to pay (WTP) to increase ecological services or by what

people are willing to accept (WTA) in compensation for reductions in them. To enable a comparison of policy options, a common unit is needed to express the value of ecological goods and services. The dollar is 

the preferred unit for valuation, because there is an extensive body of literature addressing its application

and interpretation and it is easily compared with costs for considering the net effects of alternative policy 

choices. Three primary approaches for estimating these values exist: market-based methods, revealed preference methods, and stated preference methods (USEPA 2000).

1http://www.epa.gov/emap
A-4 ECOLOGICAL BENEFITS ASSESSMENT STRATEGIC PLAN

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Figure A-2: Stylized representation of a standard economic benefits assessment.

Market-based valuation methods can be used to estimate the gains and losses to producers and consumers

when ecosystem changes directly affect commercial activities (e.g., agriculture or commercial fishing). In the

simplest cases, increases in commercial production can be valued at the price observed in the market. EPA

has used market-based approaches for benefits assessments that include changes in ecosystem goods or services. One example is the Economic Analysis of the Final Revisions to the NPDES and Effluent Guidelines for

[Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations] CAFOs (USEPA 2003a). 

Revealed preference methods can be used to value ecosystem services that, although not bought or sold

directly, are associated with goods or services traded in markets. These methods are based on the idea that

people’s behavior, even outside of well-established markets, reveals the value that they place on environmental goods or services. EPA used recreation-demand modeling, a type of revealed preference method, to evaluate actions under the Clean Water Act (CWA); an example can be found in the Effluent Guidelines, Metal

Products and Machinery Final Rule: Economic, Environmental, and Benefits Analysis (USEPA 2003b). 

Unlike revealed preference methods, which rely on observed behavior, stated preference methods elicit people’s WTP or WTA from surveys that describe hypothetical situations. For example, survey respondents may

be asked how much they would be willing to pay to be able to boat, fish, or swim in a lake where water quality problems currently prohibit such activities, but where various efforts at clean-up might achieve conditions that allow or favor those activities. Stated preference approaches are the sole means of estimating nonuse values, such as existence value, because they are not associated with any observable functioning market.

EPA has used the results of stated preference research in its economic analyses. For example, EPA relied

heavily on a stated preference study of the value of visibility at national parks in its analysis of the 1991 regulation of sulfur emissions at an Arizona coal-fired power plant to improve visibility in the Grand Canyon

(USEPA 1991). The study was funded by EPA and the National Park Service. A detailed description of the

survey and its use in the economic analysis can be found in Morgenstern (1997).

The time and resources available for economic benefits assessments at EPA, however, are typically insufficient for conducting original economic valuation studies for each new assessment. Thus, benefits assessments often use values estimated for similar ecological goods and services from existing studies, a practice

called “benefit transfer.” Most EPA analyses rely on benefit transfer to some extent. Even the Grand Canyon

ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT

Characterization of

problem and

management options

Assessment of

changes in

ecological

conditions

Decisionmakers

Economic knowledge, methods, models, and data

Valuation of changes in a

limited set of goods and services
ECOLOGICAL BENEFITS ASSESSMENT STRATEGIC PLAN A-5

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

example cited on the previous page could be considered an example of benefit transfer. The values applied

to visibility improvements at the Grand Canyon in the winter months were initially developed as estimates

of improvements in average visibility conditions over all seasons at all national parks in California, the

Southwest, and the Southeast. For more information on how the Agency conducts economic benefits assessments, see EPA’s Economic Guidelines (USEPA 2000). 

A.3 REFERENCES

Morgenstern, RD (ed.). Economic Analyses at EPA. Assessing Regulatory Impact. Washington, DC:

Resources for the Future, 1997.

Stephan, CE, DI Mount, D. Hansen, JH Gentile, GA Chapman, and WA Brungs. Guidelines for Deriving

Numerical National Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of Aquatic Organisms and Their Uses. U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC: Office of Water, 1985. NTIS PB85-227049.

USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). Draft Regulatory Impact Analysis of a Revision of the Federal

Implementation Plan for the State of Arizona to Include SO2 Controls for the Navajo Generating Station.

Washington, DC: Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, 1991.

USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). Ecological Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund: Process

for Designing and Conducting Ecological Risk Assessments, Interim Final. Edison, NJ: Office of Solid Waste

and Emergency Response, June 1997, Publication Numbers—EPA 540-R-97-006, OSWER 9285.7-25, PB97-

963211. 

USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). Guidelines for Ecological Risk Assessment. Washington, DC:

Risk Assessment Forum, April 1998a, Publication Number—EPA/630/R-95/002F. Available from:

http://www.epa.gov/ncea/ecorsk.htm. 

USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). An Ecological Assessment of the United States Mid-Atlantic

Region: A Landscape Atlas. Washington, DC: Office of Research and Development, 1998b, Publication

Number—EPA/600/R-97/130. Available from: http://www.epa.gov/maia/html/maia-atlas.html. 

USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). Ecosystem Targeting Workshop Summary Report, July 28-30,

1998, U.S. EPA National Exposure Research Laboratory, Las Vegas, Nevada. Prepared by ICF Consulting,

Fairfax, VA, for the USEPA Office of Sustainable Ecosystems and Communities, Washington, DC. December

1998c.

USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analyses. Washington,

DC: Office of the Administrator, September 2000, Publication Number—EPA 240-R-00-003. Available from:

http://epa.gov/osa/spc/eaeb.htm.

USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). Research Strategy: Environmental Monitoring and

Assessment Program. Research Triangle Park, NC: Office of Research and Development, National Health and

Environmental Effects Research Laboratory, July 2002, Publication Number—EPA 620/R-02/002. Available

from: http://www.epa.gov/emap/html/pubs/docs/resdocs/EMAP_Research_Strategy.pdf.
A-6 ECOLOGICAL BENEFITS ASSESSMENT STRATEGIC PLAN

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). Economic Analysis of the Final Revisions to the NPDES and

Effluent Guidelines for CAFOs. Washington, DC: Office of Water, 2003a, Publication Number—EPA-821-R03-002. Available from: http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/afo/cafodocs.cfm.

USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). Effluent Guidelines, Metal Products and Machinery Final

Rule: Economic, Environmental, and Benefits Analysis. Washington, DC: Office of Water, 2003b, Publication

Number—EPA-821-B-03-002. Available from: http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/guide/mpm/eeba/index.htm.

USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). An Examination of EPA Risk Assessment Principles and

Practices. Washington, DC: Office of the Science Advisor, 2004a, Publication Number—EPA/100/B-04/001.

USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). National Coastal Condition Report II. Washington, DC:

Office of Research and Development/Office of Water, 2004a, Publication Number—EPA-620/R-03/002.

Available from: http://www.epa.gov/owow/oceans/nccr/2005/index.html.
ECOLOGICAL BENEFITS ASSESSMENT STRATEGIC PLAN B-1

APPENDIX B 

PAST AND CURRENT EPA EFFORTS TO IMPROVE

ECOLOGICAL BENEFITS ASSESSMENTS

In recent years, EPA, other federal agencies, and a number of nongovernmental organizations have participated in collaborative efforts designed to improve the state-of-the-science and practice of ecological benefits

assessment. These efforts have included original research, workshops and symposia, case studies, discourse

among organizations, and the development of guidance for Agency staff. The EBASP builds on these past

and current efforts by identifying institutional changes and actions to advance the Agency’s capabilities in

assessing ecological benefits. This Appendix briefly describes important past and current efforts in this area,

and in doing so, provides some of the rationale for the development of the EBASP. It also describes the key

features of this Plan that distinguish it from other efforts.

B.1 PAST EPA AND OTHER EFFORTS

In 1981, the President issued Executive Order 12291, which directed federal agencies to assess the costs, benefits, and economic impacts of their major regulations and established a formal review process by Office of

Management and Budget (OMB). To assist Agency analysts in meeting OMB requirements, EPA issued its

Guidelines for Performing Regulatory Impact Analyses (or RIA Guidelines, USEPA 1983), which provide a brief

description of what was required for assessing costs, benefits, and economic impacts of Agency policies and

actions. The RIA Guidelines were updated in 1991 with several appendices including the Analysis of

Benefits, which provide general recommendations on methods of estimating benefits in several categories,

including: human health; agriculture, fisheries, and silviculture; materials; recreation; aesthetics; and

ecosystems (USEPA 1991). For the last category, the RIA Guidelines acknowledge that “estimating the benefits (or damages averted) of environmental regulations that affect ecosystems is perhaps the most complex

problem in benefits analysis” (p. A-19). The RIA Guidelines further note that many ecosystem service flows

may not be apparent, are difficult to understand, and are difficult to measure with conventional economic

methods (p. A-20).

Some offices within EPA developed more detailed guidance to help staff conduct economic valuations of at

least some ecological changes. For example, in 1990, the Office of Marine and Estuarine Protection (OMEP)

and the Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation (OPPE) published The Economics of Improved Estuarine

Water Quality: An NEP [National Estuary Program] Manual for Measuring Benefits (USEPA 1990a). This manual provides guidance on using standard economic valuation techniques to monetize ecological benefits such

as recreational swimming, fishing, and boating, and commercial fishing. Around the same time, the Office

of Policy Analysis (OPA) was supporting the development of techniques for estimating economic values for a

wider range of ecosystem services, including many that typically are overlooked, such as pest and disease

control, pollination, microclimate control, and nutrient cycling (draft final report Ecosystem Services and

Their Valuation, USEPA 1990b).

In its 1990 report Reducing Risk: Setting Priorities and Strategies for Environmental Protection, the EPA SAB

stated that the value of natural ecosystems was inadequately considered in setting priorities at EPA and

insufficient for EPA decisionmaking in general (USEPA 1990c). The SAB identified two key problems: (1) the

focus of current economic models on structural attributes of ecosystems rather than ecosystem functions
B-2 ECOLOGICAL BENEFITS ASSESSMENT STRATEGIC PLAN

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

and relationships, and (2) the fact that current ecological models generally do not describe the “services” of

ecosystems. In that report, the SAB recommended that EPA “develop improved analytical methods to value

natural resources and to account for long-term environmental effects in its economic analyses” (USEPA

1990c). 

Partly in response to SAB’s recommendations, OPPE established an Ecosystem Valuation Forum in 1990. A

key purpose of the Forum was to assist EPA “in overcoming piecemeal approaches to incorporating ecosystem

values into a benefit/cost framework” (Brody and Kealy 1995, p. 67). Its objectives were to improve existing

methods and develop new methods for valuing ecosystem services. During 1991 and 1992, the Forum met in

a series of public workshops and identified many challenges to valuing ecosystem services, including the

limited understanding of the many complex relationships between ecosystems and human well-being. The

outcome of this effort was published in a special issue of Ecological Economics (1995, Vol. 14) and recommended that economists and ecologists collaborate on additional case studies as a next step in the process of

improving ecological benefits assessments. Changing priorities and Agency reorganizations led to the discontinuation of the Ecosystem Valuation Forum.

The issuance of Executive Order 12866 on regulatory planning and review in 1992 reaffirmed requirements

for the analysis of social benefits and costs for significant regulatory actions. In addition to those requirements, economic assessments are called for under various administrative statutes (e.g., Unfunded Mandates

Reform Act of 1995). Recognizing the importance of high-quality economic analysis, in 2000, OMB released

its Guidelines to Standardize Measures of Costs and Benefits and the Format of Accounting Statements

(USOMB 2000). 

In 2000, EPA significantly updated and revised its RIA Guidelines by publishing the Guidelines for Preparing

Economic Analyses (USEPA 2000a). The Economic Guidelines incorporate the advancements in techniques

for benefits estimation, different economic models for assessing costs and other effects, and the greatly

expanded data sources and related guidance materials developed since 1983. With respect to ecological benefits, the Economic Guidelines provide a categorization scheme based on how directly benefits are experienced by the public and how the benefits relate to the private good/public good continuum. That categorization is intended to help analysts identify which monetary valuation techniques are applicable in different

situations. The Economic Guidelines assume implicitly that the necessary quantitative information on

changes in ecological conditions, processes, and service flows can be provided by ecologists and other natural

scientists. 

In 2000, the SAB published Toward Integrated Environmental Decision-Making, a followup to its 1990

Reducing Risk report, which provided a conceptual vision for “the next step” in environmental protection for

the United States (USEPA 2000b). The report describes some important considerations for public environmental decisionmaking and the need for broad participation in the decisionmaking process. The SAB recommended that “when evaluating risk reduction options, EPA should strive to weigh the full range of advantages and disadvantages, both those measured in dollars as costs and benefits and those for which there may

not be a comprehensive dollar measure, such as sustainability and equity” (USEPA 2000b, p. 39, Recommendation 5). The SAB further recommended that “EPA should seek and develop methods to characterize public

values and incorporate those values into goal-setting and decision-making” (USEPA 2000b, p. 40,

Recommendation 6).
ECOLOGICAL BENEFITS ASSESSMENT STRATEGIC PLAN B-3

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

As a step toward implementing this recommendation, EPA sponsored a public workshop, Understanding

Public Values and Attitudes Related to Ecological Risk Management, which brought together experts from

ecology, economics, psychology, decision science, and anthropology to consider a specific case study (USEPA

2001). The case study chosen for evaluation was nitrogen deposition in Tampa Bay, because data on the ecological services necessary to support economic valuation already had been collected. The centerpiece of the

workshop was a series of presentations on research approaches to assess public environmental values associated with the Bay. The workshop took a preliminary step toward implementing one of the suggestions in the

SAB report Toward Integrated Environmental Decision Making by creating a forum for open discussion on

the topic of natural resource valuation. The workshop affirmed that the goal of understanding public values

requires the use of social science approaches, which must be selected according to context and fully integrated with the environmental science of the valuation problem.

In 2002, EPA published A Framework for the Economic Assessment of Ecological Benefits (USEPA 2002),

which was developed by an EPA Science Policy Council workgroup. The Ecological Benefits Framework outlines a process by which ecologists and economists can conduct and coordinate an ecological benefits assessment. The steps of an economic benefits analysis, as identified in the Economic Guidelines, are matched

and associated with the steps of an ecological risk assessment as outlined in EPA’s Guidelines for Ecological

Risk Assessment (USEPA 1998). The Ecological Benefits Framework describes a process for conducting assessments of ecological benefits, which assumes that the necessary methods, models, and data are available.

Because gaps exist in the state-of-knowledge and available assessment tools, implementation of the

Ecological Benefits Framework in many cases will require the development of new tools and data.

Furthermore, implementing the Framework requires that ecological risk assessments provide all of the necessary information for a benefits, which assessment. Risk assessments and benefits assessments, however,

often are conducted for different purposes, so in many cases additional ecological analyses will be required

to provide all of the necessary information for a benefits assessment.

In 2003, EPA’s Office of Research and Development (ORD) published Integrating Ecological Risk Assessment

and Economic Analysis in Watersheds: A Conceptual Approach and Three Case Studies (USEPA 2003a), which

describes ecological risk assessments conducted in three watersheds, followed by economic analyses. The

report discusses the successes and shortcomings of attempts to integrate the ecological and economic analyses for each watershed, and it recommends a conceptual approach for integration that could be used in

future watershed management efforts. This conceptual approach is similar to that laid out in the Ecological

Benefits Framework, except that it focuses on local or regional, as opposed to national, decisionmaking and

is not limited to the BCA context.

Other federal agencies also have been addressing the challenge of valuing ecological benefits (e.g., NMFS

2000; USACE 1995, 1996, 2003; USDA 1999, 2002; USDOE 1995; USFWS 1985, 1995). For example, in 2001,

the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACE) sponsored a workshop on Improving Environmental Benefits

Estimation, which included representatives from EPA and several other federal agencies. The workshop was

part of its overall strategy to improve environmental benefits estimation in its assessments of ecological

restoration and multi-purpose projects. One of ACE’s goals in holding the interagency workshop was to

encourage multi-agency participation in the strategy. ACE has developed a white paper, Improving

Environmental Benefits Analysis, articulating its strategy (USACE 2003). ACE recognizes that before it can

value many of the ecological benefits resulting from its projects, it must invest in long-term research efforts

and policy development. 
B-4 ECOLOGICAL BENEFITS ASSESSMENT STRATEGIC PLAN

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

In its revised guidelines for regulatory analysis, Informing Regulatory Decisions: 2003 Report to Congress on

the Costs and Benefits of Federal Regulations and Unfunded Mandates on State, Local and Tribal Entities

(USOMB 2003), OMB discusses ecological benefits in a section entitled Benefits and Costs that are Difficult to

Quantify. OMB recommends that with BCAs, analysts should present not only monetized benefits, but also

any relevant quantitative information and descriptions of unquantified ecological effects. 

B.2 RELATIONSHIP OF EBASP TO ONGOING EPA EFFORTS

A number of ongoing EPA activities and initiatives are aimed at improving the valuation of ecological benefits. In 2003, the SAB convened a Panel on Valuing the Protection of Ecological Systems and Services. The

purpose of the Panel is “to provide advice to strengthen EPA’s approaches for assessing the costs and benefits

of actions designed to protect ecological systems and services, to identify research needs to improve how

ecological resources are valued, and to support decision-making to protect ecological resources.”2 In addition,

the SAB Council, which advises EPA on its assessments of the benefits and costs of the Clean Air Act, has

formed an Ecological Effects Subcommittee to guide EPA in quantifying additional ecological benefit categories.

EPA’s National Center for Environmental Research (NCER) and National Center for Environmental Economics

(NCEE) recently have released their draft EPA Environmental Economics Research Strategy (EERS) (USEPA

2003b). The EERS identifies EPA’s highest priority research needs in environmental economics, describes the

short- and long-term research objectives for each need, describes the resources and tools needed to achieve

those objectives, and suggests a timeframe to meet the objectives. The EERS was developed in cooperation

with EPA’s program and regional offices. Interviews conducted to identify top priorities for the EERS

revealed ecological benefits valuation as one of the areas of greatest need. The EBASP complements the

EERS by articulating research needs for ecological benefits assessment.

Through its Science To Achieve Results (STAR) grants program and other research mechanisms, ORD is continuing to support research through the Valuation for Environmental Policy3 grants program, as well as a

number of other areas that have the potential to advance methods and data for conducting ecological benefits assessment.4 Recent solicitations for grants have requested research on ecological classification, monitoring, and indicators, and frequently have focused on aquatic resources. The EBASP will assist ORD in defining

key research areas related to ecological benefits valuation.

NCEE and OW, together with the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the U.S. Department of the Army,

cosponsored a National Research Council (NRC) project on Assessing and Valuing the Services of Aquatic

Ecosystems. The NRC committee of academic experts was charged with evaluating methods for assessing

services, including intangible ones, and the associated economic values of aquatic and related terrestrial

ecosystems. The final report (NRC 2004) focuses on existing economic methods to value ecosystem services

quantitatively in support of improved environmental decision-making, including in situations where ecosystem services can be only partially valued. The report also calls for greater collaboration between ecologists

and economists in such efforts (NRC 2004). 

2http://www.epa.gov/sab/panels/vpesspanel.html

3Prior to 2003, this was known as the Decision-making and Valuation for Environmental Policy program.

4http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncer_abstracts/index.cfm/fuseaction/research.search/rpt/abs/type/3
ECOLOGICAL BENEFITS ASSESSMENT STRATEGIC PLAN B-5

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

B.3 THIS EFFORT AND LOOKING FORWARD

The efforts described earlier in this section demonstrate that EPA and other agencies consider improving ecological benefits assessment to be a high-priority need. Several of those efforts were initiated and conducted

as independent actions by specific EPA offices, with expectations for next steps and procedures for implementation largely left undocumented. As a result, follow-up activities often did not occur. The preceding

material indicates the clear need for improved capabilities in ecological benefits assessment across EPA

offices. An Agency-wide mechanism to address this need, however, has not yet been established; because of

shifting Agency priorities and reorganization of the single sponsoring office, the Ecosystem Valuation Forum

was short-lived, and therefore could not guide the Agency along a sustained and organized effort.

Confounding this situation is the near-exclusive focus by past and ongoing activities on economic methods.

The EBASP is intended to improve this situation by devising a road map of actions that will help the Agency

steadily improve its ability to identify, quantify, value, and communicate the ecological benefits of its policies. The Plan recognizes that past efforts have been valuable, but also that much work remains to be done.

The EBASP distinguishes itself from other efforts by describing and advocating an interdisciplinary approach

to ecological benefits assessment, as well as identifying research activities and institutional changes that will

improve the Agency’s capabilities in this area. The EBASP also provides an implementation approach to help

ensure that improvement efforts are sustained.

B.4 REFERENCES

Brody, MS and MJ Kealy. Foreword to Issues in Ecosystem Valuation: Improving Information for Decision

Making. Report of the Ecosystem Valuation Forum to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Special

Issue of Ecological Economics 1995;14:67-70.

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Services). Guidelines for Economic Analysis of Fishery Management

Actions. Silver Spring, MD: Office of Sustainable Fisheries, August 2000.

NRC (National Research Council). Valuing Ecosystem Services: Toward Better Environmental DecisionMaking. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 2004; 290 pp.

USACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). Review of Monetary and Nonmonetary Valuation of Environmental

Investments. Alexandria, VA: Water Resources Support Center, Institute for Water Resources and Vicksburg,

MS: Waterways Experiment Station, February 1995, IWR Report 95-R-2. Available from:

http://www.iwr.usace.army.mil/inside/products/pub/iwrreports/95r02.pdf.

USACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). Monetary Measurement of Environmental Goods and Services:

Framework and Summary of Techniques for Corps Planners. Alexandria, VA: Water Resources Support

Center, Institute for Water Resources and Vicksburg, MS: Waterways Experiment Station, November 1996,

IWR Report 96-R-24. Available from: http://www.iwr.usace.army.mil/inside/products/pub/iwrreports/96r24.pdf.

USACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). Draft Report on Improving Environmental Benefits Analysis.

Alexandria, VA: Institute for Water Resources, 2003. 
B-6 ECOLOGICAL BENEFITS ASSESSMENT STRATEGIC PLAN

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture). Economic Valuation of Environmental Benefits and the Targeting of

Conservation Programs: The Case of the CRP. Washington, DC: Economic Research Service (ERS), 1999,

Agricultural Economics Report No. 778. Available from: http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/aer778/.

USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture). Part 610 Conservation Planning: National Resource Economics

Handbook. Washington, DC: Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), April 2002. Available from:

http://www.economics.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/econhandbook/index.html. 

USDOE (U.S. Department of Energy). Valuation of Ecological Resources. Prepared by the Pacific Northwest

Laboratory, Battelle Memorial Institute, for USDOE, April 1995, PNL-10533.

USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). Guidelines for Performing Regulatory Impact Analysis.

Washington, DC: Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation, December 1983, Publication Number—EPA-230-

84-003.

USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). Guidelines for Ecological Risk Assessment. Washington, DC:

Risk Assessment Forum, April 1998, Publication Number—EPA/630/R-95/002F. Available from:

http://www.epa.gov/ncea/ecorsk.htm. 

USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). The Economics of Improved Estuarine Water Quality: An

NEP Manual for Measuring Benefits. Washington, DC: Office of Marine and Estuarine Protection and Office

of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation, September 1990a, Publication Number—EPA 503/5-90-001.

USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). Ecosystem Services and Their Valuation. Draft Final Report.

Prepared by RCG/Hagler, Bailly, Inc., for the Office of Policy Analysis. February 7, 1990b.

USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). Reducing Risk: Setting Priorities and Strategies for

Environmental Protection. Washington, DC: Science Advisory Board, 1990c.

USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). Guidelines for Performing Regulatory Impact Analysis.

Washington, DC: Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation, December 1991, Publication Number—EPA-230-

84-003. 1983 Guidelines reprinted with Appendices in March 1991. 

USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analyses. Washington,

DC: Office of the Administrator, September 2000a, Publication Number—EPA 240-R-00-003. Available from:

http://epa.gov/osa/spc/eaeb.htm.

USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). Toward Integrated Environmental Decision-making.

Washington, DC: Science Advisory Board, August 2000b, Publication Number—EPA-SAB-EC-00-11. Available

from: http://www.epa.gov/sab/pdf/ecirp011.pdf. 

USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). Understanding Public Values and Attitudes Related to

Ecological Risk Management. Washington, DC: Science Advisory Board, September 2001, Publication

Number—EPA-SAB-EC-WKSP-01-001. Available from: http://www.epa.gov/science1/fiscal01.htm (under

“Reports,” then “Fiscal Year 2001”). 
ECOLOGICAL BENEFITS ASSESSMENT STRATEGIC PLAN B-7

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). A Framework for the Economic Assessment of Ecological

Benefits. Washington, DC: Office of Science Policy, Social Sciences Discussion Workgroup, February 2002,

Available from: http://epa.gov/osa/spc/eaeb.htm.

USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). Integrating Ecological Risk Assessment and Economic

Analysis in Watersheds: A Conceptual Approach and Three Case Studies. Cincinnati, OH: Office of Research

and Development, National Center for Environmental Assessment, 2003a, Publication Number—EPA/600/R03/140R. Available from: http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=56868.

USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). EPA Environmental Economic Research Strategy, SAB Review

Draft, May 29, 2003b. Available from: http://es.epa.gov/ncer/events/news/2003/06_23_03a.html. 

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). Human Use and Economic Evaluation (HUEE). Washington, DC:

U.S. Department of the Interior, FWS Division of Ecological Services, 1985. 104 ESM.

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). A Manual for Conducting Natural Resource Damage Assessment:

The Role of Economics. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, FWS, Division of Economics,

1995. Available from: http://policy.fws.gov/NRDAIndex.html.

USOMB (U.S. Office of Management and Budget). Guidelines to Standardize Measures of Costs and Benefits

and the Format of Accounting Statements. Washington, DC: OMB Memorandum M-00-08, March 22, 2000.

USOMB (U.S. Office of Management and Budget). Informing Regulatory Decisions: 2003 Report to Congress

on the Costs and Benefits of Federal Regulations and Unfunded Mandates on State, Local and Tribal Entities.

Washington, DC, 2003. Available from: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/inforeg/2003_cost-ben_final_rpt.pdf.

Ecological Benefits Assessment

Strategic Plan

//www.epa.gov/economics/

Economics (1809T)

trator

on Agency

nue, NW

460

per that contains a minimum 

cessed chlorine free.