Up until last night, I was working on the National Nature Assessment:
To better understand the full picture of what is happening with nature, USGCRP is undertaking a National Nature Assessment, which will take stock of U.S. lands, waters, wildlife and the benefits they provide to our economy, health, climate, and national security. The Assessment will also look ahead at how nature might change in the future, and what those changes may mean for our economy and our lives.
The First National Nature Assessment is in the early stages of development and is anticipated to be released in 2026. As with other USGCRP assessments, the National Nature Assessment will draw on expertise from the Federal Government, Indigenous communities, academia, non-profit organizations, and the private sector.
Here is the beginning of the email:
I am writing with some tough news – the federal authorities have ordered the National Nature Assessment project to be stopped immediately!
Earlier today, just as I was getting started on our presentation for tomorrow, [NNA1 Director Phil Levin] texted and asked me to call him as soon as possible. The moment I saw his message, I had a gut feeling it wasn’t going to be good news – and I was right. But even with all the concerns we have had, nothing could have prepared me for this.
Many of us feared this might happen, but I held onto the belief that as long as our work was grounded in solid science, we would be okay. I thought maybe certain sections, like equity and justice, might be scrutinized, but I never, not for a second, imagined the entire project would be scrapped. To have it all shut down so abruptly is devastating. …
I was one of about a dozen chapter authors assigned to the Nature and Economy chapter. I was working on Key Topic 2, the one that presented numbers like the contributions of outdoor recreation to GDP and non-market values. Here is the text from the “zero order draft” (aka, the proposal):
Nature creates, contributes, or supports jobs, provides goods and services, and generates revenue and wellbeing that contribute to the economy. The economic contributions of nature differ across sectors and vary spatially and temporally. This section will assess the historical and current economic contributions of nature across key sectors, which is critical to prioritizing sectoral-specific management and conservation of nature.
With that as a broad objective, we will:
Start with conceptual environmental assets for physical extent (stock) and condition (quality) of ecosystems and the flow of nature into the economy with energy, water and materials and explain/examine changes in production and consumption patterns over time.
Explain why the real values and costs of natural capital and ecosystem services have to date not been internalized by economic structures and provide examples of the non-optimal socioeconomic outcomes this led to (i.e. pollinator loss in agriculture).
Quantify the contribution of market-based activities in key nature dependent sectors (mining, fishing, forestry, agriculture, bioproducts (ethanol/biomaterials/etc.), energy and nature- based tourism) on economic output (e.gi.e., GDP), jobs and income (broken down by geographic and demographic relevant factors), and exports.
Also, briefly describe non-market, non-use, or indirect consumption that is dependent on nature as an input. Assess current externalities of economic activities and future risks to nature, including short-term and long-term changes and how the impacts of these changes may be different across sectors and communities.
Our very rough first draft was completed January 17 and we were going to meet today at noon to talk about how to revise it for public review.
After the election we had an all author meeting where the leaders of the assessment assured us that the work would go on since the U.S. Global Change Research Program was due to an act of Congress (literally). I was skeptical but kept plugging away.
Here is what I wrote between the election and inauguration:
Nonmarket economic values are generally measured as the amount of money people would be willing and able to pay beyond what they actually spend on market goods and services, or consumer surplus. Thousands of studies have been published in the nonmarket valuation literature that assess the value of nature provided by wetlands, groundwater, endangered species, recreation, visibility, air quality, hazardous wastes, and water quality, among other ecosystem services. Examples of these nonmarket values are described below.
Several nonmarket valuation methods have been used to place values on wetlands including revealed and stated preference methods. Across 39 studies, the average annual value of a wetland acre is $915 in 1990 dollars ($2202 in 2024 dollars) (Woodward and Wiu 2001). Wetlands that produce ecosystem services such as biodiversity, water quality and flood protection are more valuable than others (Brander, Florax and Vermaat 2006). These value estimates contain a mix of use and existence values.
Stated preference methods have been used to estimate economic values for groundwater services. In 16 studies the annual household willingness to pay to protect groundwater from contamination ranges is $369 in 1992 dollars ($827 in 2024 dollars) (Brouwer and Neverre 2020). Willingness to pay is higher if the contamination is from nitrates and if cancer is mentioned as a possible health outcome of contamination. Households also have existence values for uncontaminated groundwater.
Air quality is valued for health and visibility. Revealed preference methods have been primarily used to estimate the value of health benefits from air quality in housing markets. The mean willingness to pay from 37 studies for a small reduction in total suspended particulates ranges from $31 to $103 across 18 U.S. cities in 1983 dollars ($98 to $325 in 2024 dollars) (Smith and Huang 1995). In 16 stated preference studies, the mean willingness to pay is $25 to avoid a mild cough and $77 to avoid a severe asthma attack in 1995 dollars ($52 to $159 in 2024 dollars) (Vassanadumrongdee, Matsuoka, and Shirakawa 2004). Visibility at National Parks such as the Grand Canyon is an attribute of an outdoor recreation trip (Smith and Taylor 1996). The mean willingness to pay per month to protect visibility at National Parks in the U.S. from five stated preference studies is $5 in 1990 dollars ($12 in 2024 dollars).
One-hundred thirty-one U.S. recreation studies used revealed preference and stated preference methods to estimate the willingness to pay per person per day for 19 outdoor recreation activities in four regions of the U.S. (Rosenberger and Loomis 2000). Typical willingness to pay per person per day values are $32 for fishing in the North and $42 for wildlife viewing on the Pacific Coast in 1996 dollars ($64 and $82 in 2024 dollars). Willingness to pay is higher for river-based recreation and recreation on public lands. Willingness to pay is lower for lake-based recreation. Willingness to pay is higher for big game hunting, waterfowl hunting, fishing and rock climbing.
Fifty-eight studies that use both revealed and stated preference methods have provides willingness to pay estimates for changes in water quality (Van Houtven, Powers and Pattanayak 2007). The range of annual willingness to pay values is $32 to $331 in 2000 dollars ($58 to $604 in 2024 dollars), both for different levels of estuarine water quality improvement in Rhode Island. The average willingness to pay over 131 estimates is $83 in 2000 dollars ($152 in 2024 dollars). The total value of water quality improvement includes both use and existence value with improvements that generate use values having higher willingness to pay values.
Forty-nine studies have used stated preference methods to estimate the economic value of endangered species protection (Richardson and Loomis 2009). Annual household willingness to pay ranges from $8 for protection of the striped shiner (a small fish) to $241 (anadromous fish populations in the state of Washington) in 2006 dollars ($12 and $376 in 2024 dollars). Willingness to pay is higher for marine and bird species. The total value of endangered species includes both use and existence value with species that generate use values having higher willingness to pay values.
References
Boyle, Kevin J., Gregory L. Poe, and John C. Bergstrom. “What do we know about groundwater values? Preliminary implications from a meta analysis of contingent-valuation studies.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 76, no. 5 (1994): 1055-1061.
Braden, John B., Xia Feng, and DooHwan Won. “Waste sites and property values: A meta-analysis.” Environmental and Resource Economics 50 (2011): 175-201.
Brander, Luke M., Raymond JGM Florax, and Jan E. Vermaat. “The empirics of wetland valuation: a comprehensive summary and a meta-analysis of the literature.” Environmental and Resource economics 33 (2006): 223-250.
Brouwer, Roy, and Noémie Neverre. “A global meta-analysis of groundwater quality valuation studies.” European Review of Agricultural Economics 47, no. 3 (2020): 893-932.
Richardson, Leslie, and John Loomis. “The total economic value of threatened, endangered and rare species: an updated meta-analysis.” Ecological economics 68, no. 5 (2009): 1535-1548.
Rosenberger, Randall S., and John B. Loomis. “Using meta‐analysis for benefit transfer: In‐sample convergent validity tests of an outdoor recreation database.” Water Resources Research 36, no. 4 (2000): 1097-1107.
Smith, V.K. and Huang, J.-C. (1995) ‘Can markets value air quality? A meta-analysis of hedonic property value models’, Journal of Political Economy, 103(1), pp. 209–227.
Smith, V. Kerry, and Laura L. Osborne. “Do contingent valuation estimates pass a “scope” test? A meta-analysis.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 31, no. 3 (1996): 287-301.
Van Houtven, George, John Powers, and Subhrendu K. Pattanayak. “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, no. 3 (2007): 206-228.
Vassanadumrongdee, Sujitra, Shunji Matsuoka, and Hiroaki Shirakawa. “Meta-analysis of contingent valuation studies on air pollution-related morbidity risks.” Environmental Economics and Policy Studies 6 (2004): 11-47.
Woodward, Richard T., and Yong-Suhk Wui. “The economic value of wetland services: a meta-analysis.” Ecological economics 37, no. 2 (2001): 257-270.
Here are the authors of Chapter 7 – Nature and the Economy in the U.S.:
Chapter Lead
Rajat Panwar, Oregon State University
Federal Coordinating Lead Author
Inoussa Boubacar, U.S. Department of Agriculture
Chapter Authors
Pamela M. Bachman, Bayer Crop Science
Uris Lantz Baldos, Purdue University
Marc Berejka, REI Co-op
Brian Buma, Environmental Defense Fund
Allen Chen, NOAA Northwest Fisheries Science Center
Jaana Korhonen, Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education
Theresa Lieb, Greenbiz
Ashley Lowe Mackenzie, University of Hawaii at Manoa
Jakki J. Mohr, University of Montana
Bonnie J.E. Myers, U.S. Geological Survey
Stephen Polasky, University of Minnesota
Anthony Rogers, California Ocean Science Trust
John C. Whitehead, Appalachian State University
