Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Use of Benefit Transfer in the United States

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Benefit Transfer of Environmental and Resource Values

Part of the book series: The Economics of Non-Market Goods and Resources ((ENGO,volume 14))

Abstract

This chapter provides an overview of applications and trends in benefit transfer for the United States. Benefit transfer has been widely applied in the United States for several decades. Initially it was used to value recreation at public water resource projects and on public lands. Now it is used extensively for benefit-cost analysis of new environmental regulations, and for monetizing natural resource damages and small oil spills. Groups that use benefit transfer, once primarily federal agencies, have grown to now include state agencies, consulting firms, and non-governmental organizations. As the underlying body of information continues to expand through primary research, new benefit transfer methods are developed to take advantage of this growth in information. Benefit transfer has become an important valuation tool in the United States where applications are expected to continue in the future.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 79.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • ARIES. (n.d.). Artificial Intelligence For Ecosystem Services. Accessed October 31, 2012, from http://www.ariesonline.org/.

  • Ando, A., & Khanna, M. (2004). Natural resource damage assessment methods: Lessons in simplicity from state trustees. Contemporary Economic Policy, 22, 504–519.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boyle, K., & Bergstrom, J. (1992). Benefit transfer studies: Myths, pragmatism, and idealism. Water Resources Research, 28, 657–663.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, T., Bergstrom, J., & Loomis, J. (2007). Defining, valuing, and providing ecosystem goods and services. Natural Resources Journal, 47, 329–376.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carson, R., Conaway, M., Hanemann, M., Drosnick, J., Mitchell, R., & Pressler, S. (2004). Valuing oil spill prevention: A case study of California’s central coast. Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Chapman, D., Hanemann, M. & Ruud, P. (1998). The American trader oil spill: A view from the beaches. Association of Environmental and Resource Economist (AERE) Newsletter, 18, 12–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. (2011). Request for proposals: Cost/benefit study of the impacts of potential nutrient controls for Colorado point source dischargers. Denver, CO: Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. Retrieved October 31, 2012, from http://www.cwrpda.com/Funding%20Programs/CO%20Nutrient%20Cost-Benefit%20Study%20RFP%20Final%203-3-11.pdf.

  • Costanza, R., d’Arge, R., de Groot, R., Farber, S., Grasso, M., Hannon, B., et al. (1997). The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature, 387, 253–260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Environmental Values Reference Inventory (n.d.). Accessed October 31, 2012, from https://www.evri.ca/Global/Splash.aspx.

  • Ervin, D., Larsen, G. & Shinn, C. (2012). Simple ecosystem service valuation can impact national forest management. Association of Environmental and Resource Economist (AERE) Newsletter, 32, 17–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Griffiths, C., Klemick, H., Massey, M., Moore, C., Newbold, S., Simpson, D., et al. (2012). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency valuation of surface water quality improvements. Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, 6, 130–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harvey Economics. (2011). Draft memorandum: Task 3.2.1 data compilation and literature acquisition to support the analysis of public health and environmental benefits. Denver, CO: Harvey Economics. 16p. Retrieved October 31, 2012, from http://projects.ch2m.com/CWQFwebsite/Workgroups/Content/nutrient_criteria/Meetings/CostBenefitStudy/Appendix%20D/D2%20-%20HE%20Lit%20Rev%20Memo.pdf.

  • Iovanna, R., & Griffiths, C. (2006). Clean water, ecological benefits, and benefit transfer: A work in progress at U.S. EPA. Ecological Economics, 60, 473–482.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnston, R., & Rosenberger, R. (2010). Methods, trends and controversies in contemporary benefit transfer. Journal of Economic Surveys, 24, 479–510.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leggett, C., Kleckner, N., Boyle, K., Duffield, J., & Mitchell, R. (2003). Social desirability bias in contingent valuation surveys administered through in-person interviews. Land Economics, 79, 561–575.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loomis, J. (2005). Updated outdoor recreation use values on national forests and other public lands. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-658. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 26p. Retrieved October 31, 2012, from http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/pnw_gtr658.pdf.

  • Loomis, J. (2006). Estimating recreation and existence values of sea otter expansion in California using benefit transfer. Coastal Management, 34, 387–404.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loomis, J., Kroeger, T., Richardson, L., & Casey, F. (2008). A benefit transfer toolkit for fish, wildlife, wetlands and open space. Western Economics Forum, 7, 33–43.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mathieus, G., Suplee, M., & Blend, J. (2010). Final report to the environmental quality council on progress toward numeric nutrient standards for Montana’s surface water. Helena, MT: Montana Department of Environmental Quality.

    Google Scholar 

  • McComb, G., Lantz, V., Nash, K., & Rittmaster, R. (2006). International valuation databases: Overview, methods and operational issues. Ecological Economics, 60, 461–472.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Natural Capital Project (n.d.). InVEST: Integrated Valuation of Environmental Services and Tradeoffs. Stanford, CA: Stanford University. Accessed October 31, 2012, from http://www.naturalcapitalproject.org/InVEST.html#How.

  • Natural Resource Damage Assessments (2012). 43 C.F.R. pt. 11. Accessed October 31, 2012, from http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title43/43cfr11_main_02.tpl).

  • Parsons, G., Kang, A., Leggett, C., & Boyle, K. (2009). Valuing beach closures on the Padre Island National Seashore. Marine Resource Economics, 24, 213–235.

    Google Scholar 

  • Recreation Use Values Database (2011). Accessed October 31, 2012, from http://recvaluation.forestry.oregonstate.edu.

  • Rosenberger, R. (2011). Overview of recreation use values database. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University. Retrieved October 31, 2012, from http://recvaluation.forestry.oregonstate.edu.

  • Rosenberger, R. & Loomis, J. (2001). Benefit transfer of outdoor recreation use values: A technical document supporting the Forest Service strategic plan (2000 revision). General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-72. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 59p. Retrieved October 31, 2012, from http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs/rmrs_gtr072.pdf.

  • Sorg, C. & Loomis, J. (1984). Empirical estimates of amenity forest values: A comparative review. General Technical Report RM-107. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 23p.

    Google Scholar 

  • The Wilderess Society (2002). California’s national forests and the California economy. 6p. Retrieved October 31, 2012, from http://www.sierraforestlegacy.org/Resources/Conservation/FireForestEcology/ForestEconomics/Economics-WildernessSociety02.pdf.

  • USDA/NRCS (n.d.) Tools. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. Rerieved October 31, 2012 from http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/national/technical/econ/tools#Recreation.

  • U.S. EPA. (2010a). Economic analysis of final water quality standards for nutrients for lakes and flowing waters in Florida. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Office of Science and Technology. 194 p. Retrieved October 31, 2012 from http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/rulesregs/upload/florida_econ.pdf.

  • U.S. EPA. (2010b). Guidelines for preparing economic analyses. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Policy, National Center for Environmental Economics. 252p. Retrieved October 31, 2012, from http://yosemite.epa.gov/ee/epa/eerm.nsf/vwAN/EE-0568-50.pdf/%24file/EE-0568-50.pdf.

  • U.S. Water Resources Council. (1979). Procedures for evaluation of national economic development (NED): Benefits and costs of water resources planning (level c) final rule. Federal Register, 44, 72892–72977.

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Water Resources Council. (1983). Economic and environmental principles and guidelines for water and related land resources implementation studies. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Retrieved October 31, 2012, from ftp://ftp-fc.sc.egov.usda.gov/Economics/priceindexes/Data/PrinciplesandGuidelinesLocalSite.pdf.

  • van Houtven, G., Powers, J., & Pattanayak, S. (2007). Valuing water quality improvements in the United States using meta-analysis: Is the glass half-full or half-empty for national policy analysis? Resource and Energy Economics, 29, 206–228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walsh, R., Johnson, D., & McKean, J. (1992). Benefit transfer of outdoor recreation demand studies: 1968–1988. Water Resources Research, 28, 707–713.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Woodward, R., & Wui, Y. (2001). The economic value of wetland services: A meta-analysis. Ecological Economics, 37, 257–270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, 80523-1172, USA

    John B. Loomis

Authors
  1. John B. Loomis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to John B. Loomis .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Economics and George Perkins Marsh Institute, Clark University, Worcester, Massachusetts, USA

    Robert J. Johnston

  2. School of Business and Law, CQUniversity, Rockhampton, Queensland, Australia

    John Rolfe

  3. Dept. of Forest Ecosystems & Society, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon, USA

    Randall S. Rosenberger

  4. Department of Environmental Economics, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Roy Brouwer

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Loomis, J.B. (2015). The Use of Benefit Transfer in the United States. In: Johnston, R., Rolfe, J., Rosenberger, R., Brouwer, R. (eds) Benefit Transfer of Environmental and Resource Values. The Economics of Non-Market Goods and Resources, vol 14. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9930-0_3

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation