28 days.

Enjoy  this great, short commentary by the ever-insightful and funny Peter Thompson.

See the lineup and download the PowerPoints here.

Perhaps my favorite was Laura Taylor’s talk on balancing family and work.  I’m not sure that it had much great advice in it, really, on the balancing question.  But, it had a few gems (‘outsource everything’) and a lot of very useful information.  How one uses that information, of course, is where the real advice might be crucial.  Still, it’s great info and great reminders of the powers of the clock.

1. confounding
2. selection
3. publication
4. response
5. attention
6. recall
7. sampling

Mixing humor and heartbreak, Naturally Obsessed: The Making of a Scientist delves into the lab of charismatic professor Dr. Lawrence Shapiro, and follows three irrepressible graduate students on their determined pursuit of a PhD and scientific success. As if the pressure of scientific discovery isn’t enough, the students are also competing in a worldwide race to be the first to publish their findings. Their challenge: to decipher the structure and mechanism of AMPK, a tiny protein that controls the burning and storage of fat. Their road to success: years of trial and error, unflinching dedication, rock-climbing, rumors of pickle juice, and the music of The Flaming Lips.

So, check it out.

http://www.thirteen.org/embed-player?pid=0IbDG4CTzUuikqXGA0atytdwiHDU_Adg

And, while we’re on the topic, this posting look great even at first glance!  Maffia names cause violent crimes.  Imagine if they had video games, too.

Every Who down in Whoville liked Christmas a lot.

But the Grinch, who lived just north of Whoville, DID NOT.

He stood and he hated the Whos and their noise

He hated the shrieks of the Who girls and boys

For fifty-three years he’d put up with it now—

He had to stop Christmas from coming, somehow.

He asked and he questioned the whole thing’s legality

Then his eyes brightened: he screamed “externality!”

He reached for his textbooks; he knew what to do

He’d fight them with ideas from A.C. Pigou

This idea has merit, he thought in the frost

A tax that was equal to external cost

At the margin, would give all the Who girls and boys

An incentive to stop all their screaming and noise

Failing that, an injunction to make them all cease

And they’d have to pay him to have their Roast Beast.

Low costs of transacting meant that if the Whos

Were the high-value users and wanted to use

All the rights to have feasts and the rights to sing songs

Then they’d have to buy them, to right their Who wrongs

They’d buy a noise easement, if they wished to sing

Until then, the Grinch could stop the whole thing.

On Christmas Eve Night, the Grinch went to town

He stole all the presents, he took their wreaths down

He stole their Who Hash, everything for their feast!

He swiped their Who Pudding!  He swiped their Roast Beast!

He looked at his sled loaded up with Who snacks

‘Twas quite an efficient Pigovian tax!

Then late in the night, when he got to Mount Crumpit

For he’d taken the load, and he threatened to dump it

The Whos, with one voice crying out in the night

Screamed “bring back our stuff!  You haven’t the right!

“We know that we’re noisy all through Christmas Day,

But if you don’t like it, it’s you who should pay!

“For we were here first, and homesteaded the rights

To sing, to make noise, and to hang Christmas lights

“The costs of our Christmas joy helped you to save!

They were fully reflected in the price of your cave!”

“We’ll all be good neighbors, and we’ll be polite

“But you’ve done us wrong on this Christmas Eve Night!”

The Grinch was crestfallen, he knew he had lost

For he was the source of the “external” cost

He’d come to the nuisance, and yes, he was wrong

He’d now have to live with their noise and their songs

He realized that day, though, that they could be friends

His heart grew three sizes (you know how this ends)

The Whos asked the Grinch to join them in their feast

And he—he, the Grinch—carved the Roast Beast.

The holiday season brings specials galore

They teach us that Christmas can’t come from a store

Reflect, as you watch them, as day turns to night

On good economics, and property rights.

via blogs.forbes.com

Prof. John Whitehead recently asked the RESECON listserv for examples of this.  He compiled the many responses, and here’s what he found (below the jump):

There have been several EPA rules that estimate nonuse benefits. For instance, from the Metal Products and Machinery rule (http://water.epa.gov/scitech/wastetech/guide/mpm/index.cfm):

EPA also estimated nonuse benefits from improved water quality in the nations surface water resulting from the final rule. Empirical estimates from surface water valuation studies indicate that nonuse values for water resources may be substantial because people who do not use or expect to use affected waterways for recreational or other purposes may still valueprotecting habitats and species impacted by effluent discharges (Harpman, et al., 1993; Fisher and Raucher, 1984; Brown,1993). The Agency estimated that nonuse benefits will range from

$293,252 to $787,190 and from $191,053 to $512,852,based on the traditional and post-stratification extrapolation, respectively.

**********

EPA’s Office of Water primarily uses two methods to estimate nonuse benefits in rules. The first (although they may have stopped doing this) adds 50 percent of the value of recreation benefits as nonuse benefits implied by the Fisher and Raucher (1984) study (see the Metal Products and Machinery rule for an example:

http://water.epa.gov/scitech/wastetech/guide/mpm/upload/2003_04_09_eeba_part3.pdf). They may have stopped using this procedure, I’m not sure.

The second is the direct incorporation of SP studies which include nonuse values. Many rules used the Mitchell-Carson study (the CAFO rule, for one) although now they use a meta-analysis that includes SP. The Construction and Development rule has the most up-to-date version of their estimates (see Appendix E of http://water.epa.gov/scitech/wastetech/guide/construction/upload/2008_11_25_guide_construction_proposed_proposed-env-20081120.pdf)

**********

If you have any old Choices laying around, check this article by Walter Milon.

Milon , J., and A.W. Hodges (2000) Who wants to pay for Everglades restoration? Choices, Second Quarter, 2000, p 12-16.

There’s  a text version online at findarticles.com without the graphics.  The take home message, as I recall it, is that a very large portion of the benefits required to justify the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Program (CERP) were non-use, and they were simply assumed to exist. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0HIC/is_2_15/ai_66918325/

Milon discusses the problems associated with this approach and states: “Public policy cannot be based on a presumption of very large nonuse benefits for each and every ecosystem restoration project.”

**********

This is the Final EIS for the West Tavaputs Plateau Natural Gas Full Field Development Plan in Utah. The BLM did – amazingly – do an estimate of the foregone passive use benefits. Go to Chapter 4 (Environmental Consequences) and see pages 4-282 and 4-283. It’s a very rough treatment, and I can’t say that the inclusion of these values made any difference in the final decision, but it’s an amazing first step for an agency that would never have even considered these values even 5 years ago!

http://www.blm.gov/ut/st/en/fo/price/energy/Oil_Gas/wtp_final_eis.html

**********

Some economic analyses prepared for EPA effluent guidelines.

Most recent (and perhaps sophisticated approach) listed first, with others produced 5-10 years prior.

http://water.epa.gov/scitech/wastetech/guide/construction/index.cfm

http://water.epa.gov/scitech/wastetech/guide/construction/upload/2008_12_8_guide_construction_files_environment.pdf

http://water.epa.gov/scitech/wastetech/guide/teci/index.cfm

http://water.epa.gov/scitech/wastetech/guide/teci/upload/2009_01_23_waterscience_guidetec_economics.pdf

http://water.epa.gov/scitech/wastetech/guide/aquaculture/EEBA_index.cfm

http://water.epa.gov/scitech/wastetech/guide/aquaculture/upload/2005_09_01_guide_aquaculture_EEBA_EEBA-Chapter-9.pdf

**********

http://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2008/10/02/E8-23225/natural-resource-damages-for-hazardous-substances

Looks like Interior was required to allow it by law but a quick scan doesn’t turn up the following implementation…

The Loomis and Caban OWLECON study/tool looks to have been actually

used: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=owlecon&btnG=Search&as_sdt=20000000

**********

There are a number of examples where total value (including what appears to be a large nonuse component) have been used in making benefit estimates.

The most prominent example may be the study (Carson and Mitchell, “The Value of Clean Water: The Public’s Willingness to Pay for Boatable, Fishable, and Swimmable Quality Water,” WATER RESOURCES RESEARCH, VOL. 29, NO. 7, PAGES 2445-2454, JULY 1993.

This study was the primary basis for the benefit estimate that went to Congress, United States Environmental Protection Agency, 1994. President Clinton’s Clean Water Initiative: Analysis of Benefits and Costs. EPA 800-R-94-002 (NTIS Document No. PB94-154101). Washington DC: Office of Water, United States Environmental Protection Agency. 168 pp. as well as for a number of formal EPA assessments of the benefits of different water pollution control regulations involving particular industrial sectors such as steel.

**********

There are at least two applications that I recall, both from the EPA’s Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards.

1.            Navajo Generating Station a.k.a. Arizona SO2 FIP, Grand Canyon Analysis.  Here BCA could be used in the decision making process unlike the NAAQS rule-makings.  Non-use benefits were a driver in this analysis.  This was one of 5 case studies evaluated in a book by Dick Morgenstern of RFF.  President George H.W. Bush was at the rim of the Grand Canyon along with Leland Deck, Bruce Polkowsksy (rule writer), and about 70 others to celebrate the 75 anniversary of GCNP and the rule.

2.            Regional Haze Rule.  Again, BCA could be used in the decision making process.  Stephen Polasky was at Council of Economic Advisors and in the room when I briefed the interagency economists on this study.  Later, others I was invited to go to Shendoah National Park where Al Gore and Carol Browner celebrated Earth Day and the signing of the regional haze rules.

As in many applied studies, benefits transfer was the methodology relying on research studies down for EPA.

I believe the McClelland et al 1992 study was used in the groundwater rulemaking although I don’t remember exactly how or what the end result was – other than the SAB issues that Lisa mentions.

**********

I dug up a couple references online related to this but not anything specifically EPA:

http://www.bvsde.paho.org/bvsacd/cd65/EE-0259-1.pdf

http://www.ucowr.siu.edu/updates/pdf/V109_A5.pdf

http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=5498

**********

I wouldn’t know much about The US and Europe, but non-market valuation is used a lot in cost-benefit analyses of environmental projects in Australia.

A couple of examples:

The Victorian Environmental Assessment Council (part of the Department of Environment) commissioned a study on the non-use values of Victorian Rivers: www.veac.vic.gov.au/documents/VEAC_Final_CM_report_1_June_07.pdf

The CSIRO have a range of people working on non-market valuation. This is an example of a study that was done for the Department of Water, Land and Biodiversity Conservation:

Victorian Environmental Assessment Council (part of the Department of Environment) commissioned a study on the non-use values of Victorian Rivers: Appalachian’s MailScanner has detected a possible fraud attempt from “www.veac.vic.gov.au” claiming to be www.clw.csiro.au/publications/consultancy/2005/value_of_habitat_and_agriculture.pdf

A specific Cost Benefit Study that incorporated non-market values was done in the Mary River for the Australian Greenhouse Office (McInnes, R., 2004, Cost-benefit analysis of Mary River salinity mitigation, Canberra)

A final example is a study that was commissioned by the Environment Protection and Heritage Council of NSW to estimate non-market values of EWaste recycling. These value estimates were used in a cost-benefit analysis of implementing a new recycling scheme: Appalachian’s MailScanner has detected a possible fraud attempt from “www.veac.vic.gov.au” claiming to be www.ephc.gov.au/sites/default/files/PS_TV_Comp__Willingness_To_Pay_For_EWaste_Recycling_Final_Report_Choice_Modelling_study_200907.pdf

**********

The draft of the Cooling water intake structure rule had a non-use value section but after comments it was dropped from the final.

A summary of much of this can be found in the RfF report Reforming Regulatory Impact Analysis where a summary is on page 171.  its downloadable at http://www.rff.org/RFF/Documents/RFF-Rpt-ReformingRIA.pdf

**********

I would look into the various benefit cost analysis done by the US EPA Office of Water.  We attempted to get nonuse values explicitly included in the original 316(b) Phase II and III benefit cost analyses.  Various types of analysis and discussion of nonuse values made it into the final rule benefit cost analysis, but the nonuse value estimates themselves were not included in the final benefit/cost accounting.  In the ongoing revision of the 316(b) benefits analysis the Office of Water is again attempting to incorporate nonuse values through a stated preference survey and/or benefit transfer.  Required analyses and approvals, however, are not yet complete.   OW has done a number of recent CBAs though, and some of these may have included nonuse value estimates (if so, likely through benefit transfers).

• Thomson Reuters JCR
• RePEc
• SCImago (based on Scopus data)

A copy of a surprising (in a good way) policy analysis textbook landed on my desk a few months ago, and I was struck by the inclusion of a table/textbox that gave some summary statistics on what it’s like to be poor in the United States.  A little googling, and I think that I found the source material.  An updated version of the report (“How Poor Are America’s Poor?“) can be found here.  A few highlights about the 37 million Americans (circa 2005) below the poverty line:

• 43% own their own home.  (Thank goodness!)  3 BR, 1.5 BA, & garage.  Median home value of $100K puts it at 70% of the US median home value.
• 80% have A/C.
• 6% are “overcrowded;” most have 2+ rooms each.  Our typical poor person enjoys more square footage than the average Parisian, Londoner, etc.
• Almost 75% own a car; 31% own 2+ cars.
• 97% own a color TV; 50%+ own 2+ color TVs.
• 78% have a VCR/DVD; 62% get cable or satellite.
• A third had a landline and a cell phone, even back in 2005.
• 89% have microwaves; over a third have a dishwasher.

The ‘analysis’ involving marriage and immigration may not be so justified, but the snapshot present is otherwise intriguing.

• 98% of Americans report that they always have enough food to eat.  Among the poor, that figure is 92.5%.
• Nutrient density, percent with high-fat diets, and overconsumption of calories is basically same for the poor and for middle-class.
• Poor women (47%) are substantially more likely to be obese than non-poor women (32%).
• 30% of poor report being unable to meet essential expenses (rent, utilities, etc.) in the past year.
• 13% of poor cite an inability to go to the doctor when they needed to in the past year.  (The national average is 6.3%.)
• Adding in lots of sorts of hardship (not paying bills, being hungry, overcrowding, etc.), 18% of Americans had at least one of these sorts of hardships in the previous 12 months (circa 2003).  38.5% of the poor had at least one.

So, lots more hardship for the poor; the rate of hardship among the poor is about double average rate.  (Interestingly, it is still the minority of the poor who experience any of these hardships in the past year.)