U.S. EPA Science Advisory Board Committee on Valuing the Protection of Ecological
Systems and Services (C-VPESS) Public Teleconference March 26, 2008, 1:00 p.m. -
3:00 p.m. (Eastern Time)
Committee: The SAB Committee on Valuing the Protection of Ecological Systems and
Services (C-VPESS) (See Roster - Attachment A)
Date and Time: March 26, 2008, 1:00 p.m. - 3:00 p.m. (Eastern Time)
Location: Participation by Telephone Only
Purpose: The purpose of the teleconference is to reach committee consensus on a
draft report related to valuing the protection of ecological systems and
services. (See Meeting Agenda - Attachment C)
Attendees: Members of the C-VPESS:
Dr. Barton H (Buzz) Thompson (Chair)
Dr. Kathleen Segerson (Vice-Chair)
Dr. William Ascher
Dr. Gregory Biddinger
Dr. Ann Bostrom
Dr. James Boyd
Dr. Robert Costanza
Dr. Terry Daniel
Dr. A. Myrick Freeman
Dr. Dennis Grossman
Dr. Robert Huggett
Dr. Douglas MacLean
Dr. Louis Pitelka
Dr. Paul Risser
Dr. Holmes Rolston
Dr. Joan Roughgarden
Dr. Mark Sagoff
Dr. V. Kerry Smith
Consultant to the C-VPESS:
Dr. Joseph Arvai
EPA SAB Staff
Dr. Angela Nugent [Designated Federal Officer, DFO)]
Other Members of the Public (see Attachment D)
1

-------
Teleconference Summary:
The teleconference generally followed the meeting agenda (see Meeting Agenda -
Attachment C) to continue discussion of the March 2008 C-VPESS draft.
After the DFO opened the meeting and took the roll, the chair reviewed the
agenda. He noted that the purpose of the teleconference and the contingency
teleconference planned for March 27, 2008 is to reach agreement on the draft report. He
noted that the report had been shortened to reduce redundancy. Where there are
suggestions for additions, they must be necessary ones for the document and ones for
which the committee has consensus. He reiterated the plan described in previous
teleconferences to address disagreements within the committee by, in the following order,
finding compromise language or deleting problem text from the report; expressing the
range of different views; or if such strategies are not possible, including minority reports.
He noted that the committee will review only those written comments that require
committee discussion. He stated that all comments not discussed would be addressed
through revisions or one-on-one discussions with the commenter. He asked the DFO to
circulate a list of changes based on the teleconference discussion and previous planning
calls held with the vice-chair and the DFO. He asked members to provide any additional
comments to the DFO immediately after the call and, after the list of changes have been
circulated, to let the DFO know immediately if anything has been left off the list.
The chair then opened the discussion of organizational and substantive issues,
beginning with organizational issues and proceeding with the substantive issues chapter
by chapter. Appendix F to these minutes provides a table summarizing resolution of the
issues. The narrative below covers only those significant points of discussion not
included in Appendix F.
The committee agreed to move the survey appendix and detailed method
information to the web. Members expressed the desire that the web information be made
permanently available. One member suggested that the detailed method information be
included in the Encyclopedia of Earth, a peer-reviewed alternative to Wikipedia. The
chair asked committee members to provide the DFO with specific information about
permanent repositories or web-accessible platforms for the committee-generated detailed
information about valuation methods.
The committee discussed draft chapters 1 through 4 and the disposition of the
Appendix materials. The chair announced that the contingency teleconference would be
held March 27, 2008, as announced in the Federal Register
2

-------
Summary of Action Items
1.	Committee members will provide the DFO with specific information about
permanent repositories or web-accessible platforms for the committee-
generated detailed information about valuation methods.
2.	DFO will circulate a list of the discussion items and written comments and
their disposition.
Respectfully Submitted:
Certified as True:
Angela Nugent
Designated Federal Official
Dr. Barton H. (Buzz) Thompson, Jr.
Chair
SAB Committee on Valuing the
Protection of Ecological Systems
and Services
3

-------
List of Attachments
Attachment A: Roster of the SAB C-VPESS
Attachment B: Federal Register Notice
Attachment C: Meeting Agenda
Attachment D: Attendees from the Public Who Requested or Were Provided Call-in
Information
Attachment E: Response to Comments Received for or Discussed at March 27, 2008 C-
VPESS Teleconferences
4

-------
Attachment A:
Roster of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Science Advisory Board
Committee on Valuing the Protection of Ecological Systems and
Services
CHAIR
Dr. Barton H. (Buzz) Thompson, Jr., Robert E. Paradise Professor of Natural
Resources Law, Stanford Law School, and Director, Woods Institute for the
Environment, Stanford University, Stanford, CA
VICE-CHAIR
Dr. Kathleen Segerson, Professor, Department of Economics, University of
Connecticut, Storrs, CT
MEMBERS
Dr. William Louis Ascher, Donald C. McKenna Professor of Government and
Economics, Claremont McKenna College, Claremont, CA
Dr. Gregory Biddinger, Coordinator, Natural Land Management Programs, Toxicology
and Environmental Sciences, ExxonMobil Biomedical Sciences, Inc, Houston, TX
Dr. Ann Bostrom, Associate Professor, School of Public Policy, Georgia Institute of
Technology, Atlanta, GA
Dr. James Boyd, Senior Fellow, Director, Energy & Natural Resources Division,
Resources for the Future, Washington, DC
Dr. Robert Costanza, Professor/Director, Gund Institute for Ecological Economics,
School of Natural Resources, University of Vermont, Burlington, VT
Dr. Terry Daniel, Professor of Psychology and Natural Resources, Department of
Psychology, Environmental Perception Laboratory, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ
Dr. A. Myrick Freeman, William D. Shipman Professor of Economics Emeritus,
Department of Economics, Bowdoin College, Brunswick, ME
Dr. Dennis Grossman, Senior Policy Advisory, The Nature Conservancy, Arlington, VA
Dr. Geoffrey Heal, Paul Garrett Professor of Public Policy and Business Responsibility,
Columbia Business School, Columbia University, New York, NY
Dr. Robert Huggett, Consultant and Professor Emeritus, College of William and Mary,
5

-------
Williamsburg, VA
Dr. Douglas E. MacLean, Professor, Department of Philosophy, University of North
Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC
Dr. Harold Mooney, Paul S. Achilles Professor of Environmental Biology, Department
of Biological Sciences, Stanford University, Stanford, CA
Dr. Louis F. Pitelka, Professor, Appalachian Laboratory, University of Maryland Center
for Environmental Science, Frostburg, MD
Dr. Stephen Polasky, Fesler-Lampert Professor of Ecological/Environmental
Economics, Department of Applied Economics, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN
Dr. Paul G. Risser, Chair, University Research Cabinet, University of Oklahoma,
Norman, OK
Dr. Holmes Rolston, University Distinguished Professor, Department of Philosophy,
Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO
Dr. Joan Roughgarden, Professor, Biological Sciences and Evolutionary Biology,
Stanford University, Stanford, CA
Dr. Mark Sagoff, Senior Research Scholar, Institute for Philosophy and Public Policy,
School of Public Affairs, University of Maryland, College Park, MD
Dr. Paul Slovic, Professor, Department of Psychology, Decision Research, Eugene, OR
Dr. V. Kerry Smith, W.P. Carey Professor of Economics, Department of Economics,
W.P. Carey School of Business, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ
CONSULTANTS TO Till COMMITTEE
Dr. Joseph Arvai, Professor, Environmental Science and Policy Program, and
Department of Community, Agriculture, Resource and Recreation Studies (CARRS),
Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI
Dr. Allyson Holbrook, Assistant Professor of Public Administration and Psychology,
Survey Research Laboratory, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL
Dr. Jon Krosnick, Frederic O. Glover Professor in Humanities and Social Sciences,
Professor of Communication, Director, Methods of Analysis Program in the Social
Sciences, Associate Director, Institute for Research in the Social Sciences, Stanford
University, Palo Alto, CA
6

-------
SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD STAFF
Dr. Angela Nugent, Designated Federal Officer, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
1400F, Washington, DC, Phone: 202-343-9981, Fax: 202-233-0643,
(nugent. angel a@epa. gov)

-------
Attachment B: Federal Register Notice
Science Advisory Board Staff Office; Notification of Two Public Teleconferences of the
Science Advisory Board Committee on Valuing the Protection of Ecological Systems and
Services
PDF Version (2 pp, 83K, About PDF)
[Federal Register: March 4, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 43)]
[Notices]
[Page 11636-11637]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr04mr08-63]
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[FRL-8537-3]
Science Advisory Board Staff Office; Notification of Two Public
Teleconferences of the Science Advisory Board Committee on Valuing the
Protection of Ecological Systems and Services
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice.
SUMMARY: The EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB) Staff Office announces
two public teleconferences of the SAB Committee on Valuing the
Protection of Ecological Systems and Services (C-VPESS) to discuss the
Committee's draft report related to valuing the protection of
ecological systems and services.
DATES: The SAB will conduct two public teleconferences. The public
teleconferences will occur on March 26, 2008 and March 27, 2008. The
call on March 26, 2008 will begin at 1 p.m. and end at 3 p.m. (eastern
daylight time). The call on March 27, 2008 will begin
[[Page 11637]]
at 1 p.m. and end at 2 p.m. (eastern daylight time).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Any member of the public wishing to
obtain general information concerning the public teleconferences may
contact Dr. Angela Nugent, Designated Federal Officer (DFO), via
telephone at: (202) 343-9981 or e-mail at: nugent.angela@epa.gov.
General information concerning the EPA Science Advisory Board can be
found on the EPA Web Site at: http://www.epa.gov/sab.
8

-------
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The SAB was established by 42 U.S.C. 4365 to
provide independent scientific and technical advice, consultation, and
recommendations to the EPA Administrator on the technical basis for
Agency positions and regulations. The SAB is a Federal Advisory
Committee chartered under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), as
amended, 5 U.S.C., App. The SAB will comply with the provisions of FACA
and all appropriate SAB Staff Office procedural policies.
Background: Background on the SAB C-VPESS and its charge was
provided in 68 FR 11082 (March 7, 2003). The purpose of the
teleconferences is for the SAB C-VPESS to discuss the Commitee's draft
advisory report calling for expanded and integrated approach for
valuing the protection of ecological systems and services. The
discussion is related to the Committee's overall charge: to assess
Agency needs and the state of the art and science of valuing protection
of ecological systems and services and to identify key areas for
improving knowledge, methodologies, practice, and research.
Availability of Meeting Materials: Agendas and materials in support
of the teleconferences will be placed on the SAB Web Site at: http://
www.epa.gov/sab/ in advance of each teleconference.
Procedures for Providing Public Input: Interested members of the
public may submit relevant written or oral information for the SAB to
consider during the public teleconferences. Oral Statements: In
general, individuals or groups requesting an oral presentation at a
public SAB teleconference will be limited to three minutes per speaker,
with no more than a total of one-half hour for all speakers. To be
placed on the public speaker list, interested parties should contact
Dr. Angela Nugent, DFO, in writing (preferably via e-mail) five
business days in advance of each teleconference. Written Statements:
Written statements should be received in the SAB Staff Office five
business days in advance of each teleconference above so that the
information may be made available to the SAB for their consideration
prior to each teleconference. Written statements should be supplied to
the DFO in the following formats: One hard copy with original
signature, and one electronic copy via e-mail (acceptable file format:
Adobe Acrobat PDF, WordPerfect, MS Word, MS PowerPoint, or Rich Text
files in IBM-PC/Windows 98/2000/XP format).
Accessibility: For information on access or services for
individuals with disabilities, please contact Dr. Angela Nugent at
(202) 343-9981 or nugent.angela@epa.gov. To request accommodation of a
disability, please contact Dr. Nugent preferably at least ten days
prior to the teleconferences to give EPA as much time as possible to
process your request.
Dated: February 27, 2008.
Anthony Maciorowski,
Deputy Director, EPA Science Advisory Board Staff Office.
9

-------
Attachment C: Meeting Agenda
EPA Science Advisory Board
Committee on Valuing the Protection of Ecological Systems and Services (C-VPESS)
Public Teleconference
March 26, 2008,1:00 p.m. - 3:00 p.m. (Eastern Time)
Agenda
Purpose: The purpose of the teleconference is to reach committee consensus on
a draft report related to valuing the protection of ecological systems and
services.
1:00-1:05
Opening of Teleconference
Dr. Angela Nugent, Designated
Federal Officer
1:05-1:10
Review of Agenda
Dr. Buzz Thompson, Chair
Dr. Kathleen Segerson, Vice-
Chair
1:10- 2:45	Discussion and Resolution of Committee-
identified issues
Committee
2:45- 3:00	Summary and Next Steps
3:00	Adjourn
Dr. Buzz Thompson
10

-------
Attachment D: Attendees from the Public Who Requested Call-in Information
Members of Public Requesting Information about March 2008 Calls
Larry Biles, University of Georgia
Jorge Brenner, Ph.D.
Texas A&M University - Corpus Christi
Robert Brown, North Carolina State University,
Steve Bullard, University of Kentucky
Jim Christman
Hunton & Williams
Richmond, VA
Adam T. Deck
U.S. Army Center for Health Promotion and Preventive Medicine
W. Barry Gillespie, Jr., Ph.D.
Entrix
Houston, Texas
Maria Hegstad
Inside Washington Publications
Brian Kleinman
Office of Management and Budget
Anne W. Rea, Ph.D.
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
U.S. EPA;
B. Sachau
Florham Park, NJ
11

-------
Attachment E: Response to Comments Received for or Discussed at March 26, 2008 C-VPESS Teleconferences
Response to Comments Received for or Discussed at March 26, 2008 C-VPESS Teleconference
Chapter 1
1.
page 4 line 17 - birds and animals?
Bostrom
Insert language suggested by Lou
Pitelka:
"a forest ecosystem consists of the
trees in the forest, all other living
organisms, and the non-living
environment with which they
interact."
2.
p. 4 line 22: Is the reference to "Daily" supposed to be "Herman Daly"? The
references between "Cu" and "Daniel" are missing.
Ascher
Reference will be added for
Daily, G.C. 2007. Ed. Nature's
services: Societal dependence on
natural ecosystems.. Washington,
DC: Island Press
References throughout will be
scrubbed (text against reference lsit)
3.
p. 4 line 25 delete one of the double commas.
Ascher
Will do
4.
Page 5 lines 13-14 edit to read "and on the structure and functions of
communities and ecosystems."
Bostrom
Will do
5.
Page 7 line 20: reference the methods appendix here.
Bostrom
Will do
12

-------
Chapter 2
1.
Pg. 8, line 7. Perhaps delete phrase "... who are often the dominant organisms"
referring to humans. I didn't think it is necessary or even true. How do you
even define dominant in an ecosystem?
Slovic
Delete phrase
2.
p. 8 line 16: Add after "well-being:" (which encompasses both physical well-
being and psychological gratification) .
As it stands, the implication is that only physical well-being is considered.
Ascher
Will add the parenthetical at the end
of the sentence
3.
p. 9, line 14-23: Discuss the avoidance of double counting - as an advantage of
the Boyd Banzhaf approach.
Freeman
Insert brief discussion
4.
pg 10, lines 6-9: "People assign or hold all values" and the following
discussion imply that without perception there is no value.
Costanza
Insert/Adapt text provided by Kerry
Smith for insertion on page 10 or at
the start of section 2.1.3
(introducing the difficulty of
discussing "values" and agreements
by the committee for the report.):
"The task of distinguishing what is
valued from the concept used to
define the value is complex,
regardless of the disciplinary
perspective adopted. It requires a
framework to distinguish the
information available, perceptions,
and decisions or actions. These
distinctions must be relevant to the
person responsible for specifying
how a measure of the amount of the
13

-------
14
object to be valued is defined and
how that measure is separated from
the definition and corresponding
measure of the value concept. This
is inevitably an analytical process
that abstracts from the real world.
Each discipline addresses these
issues differently, and this is
potentially a source of confusion and
miscommunication. Nonetheless to
make progress in any analysis of the
consequences of change it is
essential to make assumptions and
define a structure based on them.
The commitee's discussion in what
follows makes a set of key
assumptions, and. the resulting
structure cannot be evaluated
independent of these assumptions.
As a result this report attempts to
systematically document each step
in the committee's chain of
reasoning. This is not the only
possible structure. Rather it is the
structure that allowed the
interdisciplinary set of experts
constituting the C-VPESS to make
progress on the complex set of
issues associated with valuing
changes in ecosystem services in a
way that may be relevant for EPA's

-------



policy processes."
See related point 21 and response
5.
Page 10 lines 6-18: This passage does not reflect the extant empirical evidence
on how people use the term value and what kinds of values they hold.
Would the committee consider including at least part of this paragraph
as a footnote, at least (proposed previously as part of the introduction to the
old chapter 4): Variously described by sociologists and social psychologists as
beliefs, goals, or even cultural imperatives, stable sets of values (e.g.,
benevolence, self-direction, security, hedonism, and others) have been
identified across cultures and over time (Hitlin and Piliavin, 2004). Values
have also been described along dimensions such as conservation versus
openness to change, and self-enhancement versus self-transcendence (Schwartz,
1994). Values are sometimes conflated with attitudes (which are positive or
negative evaluations of an object), traits (which are enduring attributes of
personality), norms (which are situation specific) or needs (which are
biophysical influences on behavior) (Hitlin and Piliavin, 2004).
Bostrom
Don't add the proposed footnote
because the report focuses on values
of ecosystem protection, not "held
values"
6.
P. 11. line 11: "accent compensation for a loss.":
Freeman
Add "for its loss."
7.
P. 11, line 20: "how they are related."

Make change
8.
Page 11 line 16: the "determined to be important prior to valuation" is
ambiguous and a little problematic. Where does the valuation process start?
Bostrom
Delete the referenced phrase.
9.
Page 11 bottom: Table 1 in the proof that Angela sent around does not reflect
the hierarchy shown in the draft, which makes it confusing.
Bostrom
Graphic lay-out will be corrected
10.
Pages 12-13 - it would be helpful if these sections had somewhat more parallel
structures. While the section on constructed preferences starts out with
assumptions, the section on economic values doesn't. Move lines 10-13 to the
Bostrom
Make text more parallel
15

-------

beginning of the economic values section, to make it more parallel?


11.
PI2, LI6-19—If relevant assumptions of economic theory are accepted,
expressing economic values in monetary terms allows a direct comparison of
the values of ecosystem services with the values of other services produced
through environmental policy changes (e.g., effects on human health) and with
the costs of those policies
Daniel
Make change
12.
Page 12 line 21: Replace "premise" with "evidence" so that the sentence
reads something like:
"In contrast to economic valuation methods which are based on assumptions of
rational and stable preferences, values as elicited by those who study
constructed preferences are based on substantial evidence that, particularly
when faced with unfamiliar choice problems, individuals do not have well-
formed preferences and hence values (ADD references back here - eg.
Fischhoff, Slovic, Grether and Plott, Lichtenstein and Slovic, etc). "
Bostrom
Change text so it reads "those who
study constrcted preferences
conclude that evidence demonstrates
that, particularly...""
Add references
13.
-1 haven't seen an explicit statement that the results of different valuation
methods are not comparable and can not be used for validity tests.
Freeman
Insert discussion of this point in
Chapter 2 o4 4
14.
Here is some alternative wording for the "Energy-based values" section
on pg. 14, lines 8-13
Energy based values are based on the idea that the direct plus indirect energy
cost of producing a good or service reflects it total cost, including both costs
captured by the market and those that are not. Under certain conditions this
total cost is assumed be a reasonable proxy for value. Two advantages of this
approach are that (1) it is applicable to both the marketed and non-marketed
parts of the system, including ecosystems and their services and (2) it is not
completely dependent on individual human preferences (although human
preferences and choices do affect rates of energy transfer and the resulting cost
estimates)
Costanza
Change text so it reads:
Energy-based values are defined as
the cost of the direct and indirect
energy required to produce a
marketed or un-marketed (e.g.,
ecological) good or service. In
contrast to economic values, energy-
based values are not defined in terms
of the tradeoffs that individuals are
willing to make, and hence the two
concepts of value are conceptually
16

-------



distinct. Nonetheless, researchers
who advocate the use of energy-
based values have found that in
some cases energy cost estimates are
similar in magnitude to economic
measures of value.
15.
Page 14, line 22. Make change in blue
..."the term "valuation generally refers to the process of measuring the value of
a change in something. Thus in the context of an ecosystem...
Smith
Change sentence to "the term
valuation in the context of an
ecosystem refers in this report to the
process of measuring the value of a
change in that ecosystem...
16.
Pg. 14, lines 21 and 22. Suggested change. The term valuation, in this report,
refers to the process...
Slovic
Make change as indicated
immediately above
17.
I wanted to follow up on the discussion regarding the Committee's use of the
word 'valuation' within this report....
The editing should come on p. 14 at the beginning of Section 2.1.4. The current
wording in lines 21 and 22 of the introduction is wrong; the term "valuation"
does NOT generally refer to the process of measuring the value of a change in
an ecosystem. We need to say that:
The VPESS Committee is defining the term "valuation" to mean the process of
measuring the value of a change in an ecosystem 	 to provide
guidance on the actions of EPA which is the context of this report.
Grossman
Make change as indicated
immediately above
18.
p. 14, line 29. Add to paragraph "In some cases, the with and without may not
be sensible."
Smith
Add sentence that reads "Indeed, in
some cases, the world with or
without the ecosystem may not even
seem sensible."
19.
P15, L10-13—Individuals might respond to a survey, make purchases, or
otherwise behave as if they place no value on an ecosystem service if they are
ignorant of the role of that service in contributing to their well-being or other
Daniel
Make change
17

-------

goals.


20.
P15, L14—There may be occasions where assessments of existing, uninformed
attitudes and values held by the public are desired, such as when designing
communications to improve understanding of ecosystems or services or
soliciting public support for specific protection policies. In most cases,
however, valuation should seek to measure the values that people hold and
would express if they were well informed about the relevant ecological and
human well-being factors involved.
Daniel
Make change
21.
Pg. 15, lines 14-25 gets close to the nub when it states that "Although valuation
should be informed by the best available science, it ultimately seeks to reflect
the values that would be held by a fully informed general public, not merely the
personal values or preferences of scientists or experts." But what values would
be held by a fully informed general public?
Costanza
Address issue in part by textual
changes provided by Terry Daniel,
immediately above.
Also
•	Identify this definition as a
working definition
•	Refer to text on page 64, L 5-
14
•	Identify opportunity for
research. One research possibility
is to compare surveys of a range
of fully informed experts around
an issue and an educated sample
the general population "brought
up to speed." Are you going to
get similar results? Another
research issue: when you survey
general public, what is the
significance of their framing
themselves as citizens vs.



18

-------



individuals
22.
Page 15 line 25: Any reason not to include a more accessible (eg. recent)
reference along with Berelson? Lots are provided in other parts of the report.
Bostrom
Add citation suggested by Ann:
National Research Council, 1996.
Understanding risk: Informing
decisions in a democratic society.
Washington DC: National Academy
Press.
23.
Page 16 line 22: replace "must be" with "are"
Page 16 line 27: replace "must be" with "are" and "cannot" with "may not" If
references are not provided on page 12, then they should be provided here, to
guide those who wish to follow up on this.
Bostrom
Will do
24.
P16, L 32+—Requiring these individuals to express such values in monetary
equivalents (e.g., in a Contingent Value survey ...
Daniel
Make Change
25.
Pg. 18, line 31. Delete extra "the
Slovic
Make change
26.
P. 18, lines 22-23: What are Supplemental Environmental Protection Penalties?
Need a reference?
Freeman
Insert description and reference
27.
P. 18, lines 26-27: What permitting programs involve protecting ecological
services? Permits under the Clean Water Act are based on technology of
control.
Freeman
Check with Agency and provide
explanation or citation or correction.
28.
p. 20, line 14. insert blue text "This may create a bias toward the status quo..."
(claim of bias too strong without "may")
Smith
Make change
29.
Pg. 20, lines 18-19 sees serious limitations...
Further thought: how serious is this limitation "from relying solely on
previously approved methods"? Apart from the use of methods that have
passed muster with OMB in particular circumstances, what does the term
"previously approved" really mean? I think any past approval has been more
Slovic
Change "approved" to "accepted"
19

-------

passive (lack of protest) than active.


30.
Pg. 21, lines 3-6. This important paragraph seems vague and weak. Can we
say more about how seriously to take analyses done under limiting constraints?
Do such limited analyses do more good than harm? How do we know?
Slovic
Insert language pointing readers to
specific recommendations to
strengthen valuation for national
rulemaking in section 6.1.4
31.
P. 23, lines 19-25: Not clear. Explain "bottom up" approach.
Freeman
Will review language and clarify
32.
Pg. 24, lines 19-20. recognize this broader purpose and to address it. Or,
something stronger than "consider it".
Slovic
Revise sentence to end as follows:
"to recognize broader purpose."
Drop remainder of the sentence
33.
Page 25 lines 1-4: shouldn't this list include stakeholder or public involvement
early on? (as implied by line 13)
Bostrom
No change needed. The point is
implicit and developed in section
2.3.1
34.
Page 26 lines 22 and 23 - typos
Bostrom
Correct
35.
Page 28 line 29: edits surveys to read "surveys or interviews"
Bostrom
change to "surveys, interviews, or
small focus groups"
36.
Pg. 28. Section 2.3.3. I'm uneasy about this section. It gives too much
deference to OMB Circular A4. I doubt that the draftees of Circular A4 had the
depth of understanding of the complexities of valuation that are described in
our report (note the harsh judgment that the National Academy of Sciences
handed down in 2007 on OMB's guidelines for Risk Assessment). I believe
that somewhere in our report we should challenge OMB, calling for a need to
revisit circular A4 in light of our committee's findings. Why should national
rule making be exempt from the valuation considerations we identify as
relevant for other contexts. It's wrong! [Post-script: I see later on pg. 135 a
very constructive attempt to deal with OMB in the short-run. This is good,
but// for the long-run, a critique of OMB is needed, I think.]
Slovic
Committee did not feel comfortable
making this change. Purpose of this
report is to provide to EPA within
the existing legal and regulatory
constrdaints.
20

-------




37.
P28, L29-30--For example, surveys or small focus groups in which individuals
indicate the importance of different environmental and other concerns might
provide information ...
Daniel
Change to "surveys, interviews, or
small focus groups"
38.
Page 28 line 30: delete "small"
Bostrom
Make change
39.
P. 29„ line 1: "Proxy" is the wrong word. Perhaps "an indicator of..."?
Freeman
Make change
40.
Page 29, line 1-2—proxy especially important to me to remove
Smith
See Freeman comment immediately
above and resolution
41.
P29, L6-7—.. .Circular A-4 requires that benefits be quantified when they
cannot be monetized; bio-ecological or attitude/judgment-based metrics provide
potentially useful forms of quantification...
{to be consistent with the labels used in 2.1.3}
Daniel
Change to "some bio-ecological or
attitude/judgment-based metrics "
42.
Pg. 29, line 15. What is the status of information gained by exploring
supplemental approaches?
Slovic
No change necessary. Next
paragraph describes how
information could be used.
43.
Pg. 29, line 22. Again what does exploring mean here?
Slovic
Change to "exploring and
evaluation."
44.
Pg. 29, lines 24-25. Doesn't this call for appropriate validity "in all cases"
apply to national rulemaking too?
Slovic
No need for change. The call does
apply to national rule making.
45.
Pg. 30, line 1-8. But doesn't such a validity check need to be done at least once
in the course of certifying a method as "valid" for use? This is called
"convergent validity" in psychometrics.
Slovic
Page 30 will be rewritten and point
clarified.
46.

Freeman
Make change
21

-------

P. 30, line 2: "alternative" instead of "alternate"?


47.
Pg. 30, lines 4-5. Yes, confidence can be increased. But it is also decreased if
and when multiple methods produce very different values.
Slovic
Include discussion of this scenario.
48.
Page 30 paragraph starting line 9 - if differences in underlying assumptions
controlled and tradeoffs elicited explicitly, then values should in theory be
possible to aggregate across methods, no?
Bostrom
Page 30 will be rewritten.
49.
Pg. 30, lines 9-27. The key issue associated with using multiple methods is not
aggregation (adding) but rather comparing the output of supposedly equivalent
measures. If they don't agree, convergent validity is lacking. One or more
measures, or the entire measurement protocol becomes suspect.
Slovic
Expand this discussion in revisions
of page 30
- Discuss how decision maker
would deal with results from
multiple method
guard against describing
"conflicting" information as
uncertain
identify opportunity for
research - How to utilize
information from different
analytical frameworks?
50.
Page 30 lines 18-20: This implies that the two are completely separate and
distinct, which is not necessarily the case. If an economist and a psychologist
both ask someone if they would pay $10 for a specific environmental
improvement, aren't the answers comparable, regardless of their underlying
premises?
Bostrom
Page 30 will be rewritten and
language clarified.
51.
Pg. 30, line 25. How should information about non-economic values be
considered separately? What does this mean? Do such values have "standing"
in the deliberations equivalent to that afforded economic benefits?
Slovic
Point more clearly to discussion in
Chapter 6, p. 135
22

-------
52.
p. 31, lines 4-7: These two tasks seem to be out of order, in relation to the prior
statement that finding out what the public regards as important should guide the
examination of bio-physical responses, as well as lines 17-18 "a projected bio-
physical effect might suggest human-social values that were not initially
considered"—implying that the human-social values normally would come
first.
Ascher
Move discussion of iterative nature
of process before the list in section
2.4.
53.
Pg. 32, line 9-16. Different contexts for valuation will be governed by different
laws, principles, etc. Shouldn't we be arguing that these laws need to be
reconsidered. How about a call for "harmonization" in light of the "wisdom" in
our report?
Slovic
Committtee did not feel comfortable
with this recommendation.
54.
Pg. 33, lines 20-23. I'm not sure this statement about risk assessments not
providing information about the societal importance of consequences is correct.
Good risk assessments should consider significance of adverse effects.
Slovic
Change language, line 21, to read
"Typically, risk assessments
primarily focus...
55.
Page 34 lines 16-22: how else will the early identification occur unless there is
early engagement of some sort (even interviewing) with involved or affected
parties? Move lines 1-3 on page 35 to the top of the list, to clarify?
Bostrom
Move up in chapter 2 and in
conclusion
56.
P. 34, lines 23-27 - need to emphasize the effects of the variables creating the
changes or ecological responses, recognizing those under control of policy
makers thru existing and potential regulatory processes
Smith
revise language to clarify that the
approach would "predict ecological
response to EPA decisions or actions
in value-relevant terms"
57.
Pg. 35, line 4-16. Again this gives too much deference to OMB and economic
methods. Yes, economic valuation is a "mainstay", but should it be? Is not
economic valuation also in a developmental state? What does it mean to
experiment with other methods? Just out of curiosity? Are they second class?
Why? Why should such experimentation be done only in less prescriptive
contexts? This implies second class status. I disagree. Some non-economic
methods may be logically more defensible than some economic methods.
Slovic
•	Develop paragraph describing
the nature of the evaluation to
be conducted within EPA's
context for choosing and using a
method.
•	Describe briefly plan for
23

-------



evaluation where EPA would
test and examine value of
methods in contexts relevant to
EPA as part of an overall
process that would set up
criteria for evaluation and
choosing what methods to
utilize
•	Frame this activity as relevant
to research
•	Avoid term "experiment"
because it marginalizes methods
EPA is not currently using
58.
P. 35, lines 4-10. marginal note "where there is not capacity to develop
economic methods"
-Experimentation discussion must include method for evaluation and criteria for
what is to be learned; context must be one consistent with regulatory mandates;
this needs expansion.
Smith
See response to 57
59.
P. 35, it says: "In the context of national rule making, the Agency
should conduct one or two model analyses (perhaps one prospective and
one retrospective) of how the use of a wider range of methods might be
applied." But if the methods measure different things, what is learned
from this? And which other methods do we recommend that EPA try
Freeman
See response to 57
60.
I think that we need further Committee discussion of the
recommendation on p. 35 that EPA should experiment with the use of other
valuation methods. I am not convinced that this is a wise use of Agency
resources at this time, especially in the context of national rule-making (lines
10-12). I would like to hear some discussion of:
- Which methods do we think that the Agency should experiment with? All
of them? Or are some better candidates than others?
Freeman
See response to 58
24

-------

- So they use method Y and get result X. What have we learned? How
could this "guide the Agency's valuation efforts as it conducts subsequent
benefit assessments (lines 13-14)"? (And what does the term "benefits" mean
here?


61.
Pg. 35, lines 17-24. And the public can use expanded methods to educate EPA
about the value of ecosystem protection. This "education" is a two-way
enterprise.
Slovic
Change language to indicate the
two-way nature of
communication/education
62.
P37,112-15—Later in the valuation process, EPA will need to use ecological
production functions to generate more detailed analyses of key interactions,
specific ecological responses to EPA decisions or actions, and resulting
consequences to ecosystem services, using ecological production functions.
Daniel
Make change
Chapter 3
1.
p. 37, line 9: Because the conceptual diagram does not enter into policy decisions,
it is misleading to say that it is "essentially a decision tool;" it can be said that it
is "essentially an orientation tool to help..."
Ascher
Will do
2.
Page 39 line 8, should be section 5.3 (not 5.1).
Bostrom
Make change
3.
Page 40, lines 18-20. I hate to bring this up but... The definition of an
ecological production function has been a subject of some discussion in the past,
and I agreed to the current definition/use. However, to say that "the relationships
between ecological inputs and outputs" is the same as "between the structure and
function of ecosystems and the provision of ecosystem services" is problematic
because ecologists would rarely if ever define ecological inputs as the structure
and function of ecosystems. Ecological inputs would be sunlight, precipitation,
atmospheric deposition, pollution inputs, human disturbance, etc. These inputs in
Pitelka
Change language to read "Ecological
production functions are similar to
the production functions used in
economics to define the relationship
between inputs (e.g.,...) and outputs
of goods and services. Ecological
production functions describe the
relationships between the structure
25

-------

turn determine ecosystem structure and function, and changes in the inputs alter
structure and function. Going back to the analogy with economics, the more
conventional definition of inputs seems to correspond with the economic inputs.
The equivalent of ecosystem structure and function would be the economic
system that exists in an area, not the inputs that support it.
I believe fixing this should be easy. NOTE that on page 59, line 4, the text uses
"ecological responses", not "ecological inputs".

and function of ecosystems (in
response to EPA actions) and the
provision of various ecosystems
services."
4.
On page 41, the Report says, "Scientists are making rapid progress in
understanding and defining ecological production functions for certain ecosystem
services. One such service is pollination." For this it cites "Kremens et al.,
2007"; "Greenleaf and Kremens, 2006"; and "Ricketts et al., 2004." None of
these papers appears in the bibliography. No relevant papers by "Kremens" occur
in the scientific literature.
Sagoff
Clarify text and references in light of
input from Claire Kremens
5.
p. 41, line 24: at least one word is missing at the end of the line
Ascher
Freeman
Add word "forest" at end of sentence
6.
Page 41, line 24. I think the word "forests" is missing from the end of the line.
Pitelka
Make change above
7.
P41, L24—.. .fairly accurately quantify above-ground carbon stores in various
types of ecosystems such as forests...
Daniel
see above
8.
P42, L5-6—Characterizing of the ecology of the system • Identifying ©f the
ecosystem services of interest
Daniel
Make change
9.
Page 43, Figure 3. The bottom oval on the left should be "Global level".
"Global-change" is an apple. "Individual level", "population dynamic" (level),
"community level", and "ecosystem" (level) are oranges.
Pitelka
Make change
10.
p. 46, line 1: "mean" instead of "means"
Ascher
Make change
26

-------




11.
I don't see any discussion of the difficulties in predicting changes in ecosystem
service flows where systems are dynamic and have non-linearities. I remember
providing language about this issue.
Freeman
See point immediately below
12.
On rereading section 3.3.1 (pp. 43-47), I'm not sure that anything
more needs to be said here. It mentions dynamics twice and
non-linearities once. And it includes the cite to Fox (Science, 2007)
on novel ecosystems with no current analogs (I suggested that cite last
summer).
It would be enough for me just to add a cite to Dasgupta and Maler
(2004) at p. 45, line 14 where non-linear responses is mentioned.
Dasgupta, Partha and Karl-Goran Maler. 2004. The Economics of
Non-Convex Ecosystems , Dordrecht, Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Freeman
Include Dasgupta and Maler citation
13.
Page 46 line 22 edit "advises" to read "encourages"
Bostrom
Retain "advises" because advice is
business of committee
14.
P51, Lll— ... ©f measures ..
Daniel
Make change
15.
P52, LI—... not outputs of direct human importance.
Daniel
Make change
16.
Page 51, line 21. This subtitle is potentially confusing. It sounds like it is saying
"Mapping the responses of ecosystems to ecosystem services" which is the
opposite of what it means. Perhaps the subtitle should be "Mapping from
ecosystem response to changes in ecosystem services".
Pitelka
Make change
17.
Page 52, lines 7-9, this still raises the concern for me that if proxies are used in
other ways in the valuation process, they may be misleading.
Bostrom
Change sentence to "using 'indictors'
that are correlated with ecosystem
services and using meta-analysis."
27

-------
18.
Page 52, line 15. Here again the word "inputs" seems to be used inappropriately.
Given our definition of ecological production functions as steps 2 and 3 from the
top of page 40), this should be "Indicators", as the term is used here, are measures
of key ecosystem properties whose changes..The indicators that have been
identified by the NRC and the Heinz Foundation are ecosystem properties, not
ecological inputs. NOTE that on page 59, line 4, the text uses "ecological
responses", not "ecological inputs". Ecological responses are changes in
ecological properties.
Pitelka
change language to "are measures of
key ecosystem properties"
19.
Page 53 line 24, add here a reference to the Chicago Wilderness report card,
which does a similar thing (available at
httD://www.chicagowilderness.org/DubDrod/index.cfm ). Could even use the
Chicago Wilderness report preferentially, since that would help integrate the
overall report a little more.
Bostrom
Add reference
20.
Page 57 line 12 - missing citation?
Bostrom
Insert citations provided by Paul
Risser:
Suter, G.W II and G.W. Suter. 2006.
Ecological Risk Assessment. CRC
Press.
Chapter 6 is on scaling and Steve
Bartlels' Chapter 28 discusses scaling
and ecological modeling for
assessing ecosystem effects.
Turner, W.R., K. Brandon, T.M.
Brooks, R. Costanza, G.A.B. de
Fonseca and R. Portela. 2007. Global
conservation of biodiversity and
ecosystem services. Bioscience
57(10): 868-873.
28

-------
21.
Page 57, line 12. I am responsible for this statement but am not sure of a suitable
reference. I know that the EPA STAR program has funded such work.
Pitelka
Ask EPA STAR program if they
know of a potential citation.
22.
p. 58, line 6: separate the words "link" and "the"
Ascher
Will do
23.
Pg. 58, lines 26-29. Shouldn't public input also be solicited to identify relevant
services?
Slovic
Lines 22-25 already address getting
public input to identify relevant
serves. The bullet here addresses
measurement methods.
Chapter 4
1.
Page 61 chapter 4 - reference the methods appendix earlier?
Bostrom
Will do
2.
P. 61, lines 15 -18. (circled section 6.2 and 6.3) - marginal note "why do they
have to be accorded a central role or primary."
I have big problems with proposal to make non-economic methods have a central
or primary role. This is again an effort to restore balance. There is no reason to
say economic can be ignored implicitly when turning to non-prescribed decision
contexts.
Smith
Change sentence to "...can play a
larger role in analysis (see..."
3.
P61, L12-15--.. monetized valuations must be based on appropriate economic
methods. Other valuation methods can still provide useful information in this
context, but the role of these methods is limited by the need to follow the
guidance in the circular (see section 6.1).
Daniel
Make change
4.
Pg. 61, lines 12-20. Regarding prescriptions of OMB Circular A4, we should
protest the limited role afforded non-economic methods and call for high-level
critique of the OMB circular. [Note , I later saw in Section 6.1, a broader
interpretation of the OMB Rule. That broader interpretation seems missing in
this Chapter 4 section.]
Slovic
As discussed in teleconferences, this
goes beyond the role of the
committee.
29

-------
5.
p. 61, line 30: What is a "sound" scientific basis for a method's use?
Freeman
Change sentence to "if there is a
scientific basis..."
6.
Pg. 62, lines 7-10. "urges" sound weak. How about saying the committee
believes it is necessary for EPA to develop criteria etc.?
Slovic
Change "urges" to "advises" (see
earlier discussion of appropriate SAB
terminology.
7.
Pg. 64, line 3-4. This important point is relevant to a concern I have about
mediated modeling (see my reference to the text on pg. 114)
Slovic
No change requested
8.
Pg. 64, line 18-21. Many studies have shown that willingness to pay measures
often fail to meet this construct-validity criterion, see e.g. Desvousges et al.
(1993). Measuring natural resource damages with contingent valuation: Tests of
validity and reliability. In J.A. Hausman (Ed.), Contingent valuation: A critical
assessment. Amsterdam, North-Holland.
Slovic
Individual methods nare ot critiqued
in Ch 4. no change envisioned
9.
p. 65, line 6: no need for a reference here.
Ascher
Bostrom
Correct
10.
Page 66-67 - Would like to see mental models included in this table. Please
consider adding the section described at the top of my comments, and adding in a
line for mental models research explicitly in Table 2, either under measures of
attitudes, (beliefs), preferences and intentions, or under decision science
approaches.
Measures of beliefs are a critical design tool for the valuation process.
Bostrom
Will not add b/c not a valuation
method per se
11.
p. 66-67, third column, changes to text in blue
"Monetary measure of WTP for ecosystem services that affect decisions to visit
different locations
"Hedonic pricing "Monetary measure of marginal WTP or willingness-to-accept
(WTA) as revealed by price for houses or wages paid for jobs with different
environmental characteristics and prices
Indicated problem with referenda and initiative language but no new language
Smith
Make changes for travel cost and
hedonic pricing
For referenda and initiatives, change
language to "Community-based
values; indicator of economic value
under some conditions.
30

-------

Indicated disagreement with characterization of cost as a proxy for value. Circled
third column, page 67. Did not provide alternative language: "Disagree with
characterization especially Habitat Equivalency - not an economic value"

For Habitat Equivalency, change
language to
"Bio-physical value; not economic
value except under some very limited
conditions"
12.
P68, L6-7—... ranked based on individual or aggregate indicators for use in
evaluating policy options based on biophysical criteria previously determined to
be relevant to human/social well-being.
Daniel
Make change
13.
P. 68, line 15: "health" of ecosystem is a problematic concept, controversial
among ecologists.
Freeman
Change language to: "can be
assessed in terms of the calculated
effects on the ecosystems"
14.
P69, LI 1-12—These methods can provide estimates of the ecological cost of
producing a given good or service based on required inputs.
Daniel
Drop last sentence of paragraph.
Keep footnote 29.
15.
P. 69, lines 11-12: ecological footprint provides estimate of cost of production?
How?
Freeman
See immediately above.
16.
P. 70, lines 10-11: Why is Ayres and Kneese cited regarding embodied energy. I
don't recall them talking about this.
Freeman
Check with Bob who provided
reference
17.
Page 71 line 21 missing year in the reference. Should be 2000.
Bostrom
Correct
18.
P71, L35-36-- ... of users of a service (e.g., water or recreation) within a given
area, and the distance to the nearest vulnerable (ecological or human?)
community.
Daniel
Add the word "human"
19.
p. 72, line 18: Change "There are a variety" to "There is a variety"
Ascher
Will do
20.
p. 73, line 2: Word missing between "related" and "ecosystems"; probably "to"
Ascher
Make change
31

-------
21. Page 73 lines 17-19: This is the only place in this chapter where anything much
is said about beliefs. I suggest adding in the section proposed above, after this
section. Move lines 17-19 to the new section.
Insert text on mental models adding to the current closing sentence in the third
paragraph is taken from page 73, lines 17-10:
Valuation methods assume an informed public or a well functioning
market, which in turn assumes informed choices. One structured approach to
assessing how informed people are about the consequences of specific decisions
and their decision-relevant beliefs is a mental models study. How people
understand relevant causal processes - that is, in this case, their mental models of
ecological services - can be critical to their judgment of the outcomes and effects
of environmental programs, and influence their preferences among alternatives.
Mental models studies for risk communication explicitly compare causal
beliefs with formal decision models in a three-pronged research process (Morgan
et al, 2002). First is the construction of an expert decision model, generally
through systematic, formal decision analysis involving scientists and other topical
experts, individually or in groups. Following this is the analysis of semi-
structured interviews with individuals from the population of interest, and
comparison of these to the decision model. Third is the design and fielding of a
survey to test the reliability of findings from the interviews in a representative
sample of the population of interest or the public at large. The interviews and
surveys employ mixed methods, and assess both how decision makers intuitively
structure and conceptualize their environmental mitigation decisions, as well as
how they react to structured stimuli and questions.
Mental models research has been used to characterize mental models of
hazards underlying a variety of environmental decisions, for example mitigating
risks from climate change (Bostrom and Fischhoff, 2001; Bostrom and Lashof,
2007; Bostrom et al., 1994; Bohm and Pfister, 2001; Kempton, 1991, 1997; Lazo
et al, 2000; Lofstedt, 1991; Read et al., 1994; Tschakert, 2007). Rigorous	
Bostrom
Insert text in the general vicinity.
32

-------

qualitative analyses of transcripts from individual narratives or focus groups can
also expose subtle differences in individual beliefs and perspectives and the
inferential bases of participants' values.
Studies of mental models can usefully inform the design of concept maps
for ecological models underlying valuations, to insure public understanding of
endpoints, the design of valuation surveys, and the design of communications
about ecological valuation.


22.
P73, L29-30-- ... useful in the early stages of designing a survey to elicit value
information from a broader representative sample of the relevant population.
Daniel
Make change
23.
p. 74, line 8: Change "sue" to "use
Ascher
Will do
24.
P74-76 citations
Survey questions about ...
Bishop & Rohrmann 2003, move to Behavioral observation section
Gimblett, et al. 2001, move to Behavioral observation section
Wilson 2002, delete (unlikely readers will want to read this whole book, next
reference covers it)
Individual narratives ...
Nisbett and Wilson 1977, delete
Behavioral observations
Brandenburg & Carroll 1995, move to Individual narratives section
Daniel
Make change
25.
Pages 74-75 - R.K. Merton's work on focus groups should be cited here. For
example: Merton, R.K., Fiske, M., & Kendall, P.L. (1990). The focused
interview: A manual of problems and procedures. (2nd ed.). London: Collier
MacMillan.
Bostrom
Insert on p. 75
33

-------
26.
P.76, L 26-27
"An ecological change improving a resource that an individual values will
increase..."
"The marginal value or econ benefit..."
Smith
Make change
27.
P. 77, lines 1-2 "economic valuation may yield value estimates"
Circled sentence "many view this as a drawback in the context of public policy
decisions" and provided marginal note "why"
Smith
Make change in first sentence.
Explain second sentence.
28.
P. 77, line 16: Add: "These methods have been used to assess the welfare effects
of a wide variety of public policies, for example, economic regulation and the
elimination of tariffs.
P. 77, lines 32-33: Delete this reference. It does not describe market-based
methods.
p. 77, line 29: The correct title is "Valuing the Environment as A Factor of
Production."
Freeman
Make changes
29.
p. 78, line 6: delete comma after "including"
Ascher
Will do
30.
Page 77, further reading. Include Freeman and remove Winston
Smithb
Make change
31.
p. 78, line 8: Change "pay for houses with..." to "pay for houses or other
directly-purchases items with..This is warranted by the fact that hedonic
pricing can be based on prices other than just homes—e.g., one can calculate the
value of safety by doing a hedonic analysis on car prices.
Ascher
Will do
32.
P. 85, section 4.2.6: mention facilitator effects in this section?.
Freeman
Will insert text in Chapter 4 noting
facilitator effects in any case where
someon actively elicits the values of
another.
33.
Pg. 86, line 39. Gregory, Lichtenstein, & Slovic (1993). "Measuring
environmental values: A constructive approach" belongs here.
Slovic
Add citation
34

-------
34.
P. 88, further reading - add Bartik, 1988 JEEM article
Smith
Add reference
35.
P89, L 20—The price of tradable emissions permits under cap-and-trade
systems will almost...
{Assuming this intended to be a new method, separate from HEA.}
Daniel
Will do
36.
P. 90, line 3: "Blackbird" and "Mine" should both be capitalized as proper nouns.
Ascher
Will do
37.
P. 91, L 13. Need to be specific, circled "added assumptions the analyst is
prepared to make" and made marginal notes "preferences and supply conditions
the application which amount to"
Smith
Will talk with Kerry Smith for
clarification and suggestions for
possible new language.
38.
P91, L22—... the economic benefit-cost analysis of the CAFO regulations offer.
Daniel
Will do
39.
P. 91, L93, replace "values" with "services"
Smith
Will do
40.
p. 98, line 1: "set of criteria is" rather than "set of criteria are"
Ascher
Will do
41.
P99, L9-10—The valuation approach proposed in this report calls for EPA to
allow for the use of a broader suite of methods than EPA ...
Daniel
Will do
42.
P. 99, L. 16 Don't sngle out citizen juries for profiling
Smith
Delete "(e.g., citizen juries)"
43.
P. 99, it says: "The valuation approach proposed in this report calls
for EPA to allow for the use of a broader suite of methods than EPA has
typically employed in the past for valuing ecosystems and their
services." This implies that the methods are different ways of measuring
the same thing. They are not.
Freeman
See response to Chapter 2, point 57.
44.
Pg. 99, line 12. Again, what does experiment mean here. Experiment seems to
be used throughout as a put-down, a relegation to second-class status. Is there
any method so well established that it does not need further testing, evaluation,
and refinement? Results of an experiment are unlikely to make it into "prime
time" on the decision maker's agenda.
Slovic
See response to Chapter 2, point 57
35

-------




45.
P. 99, L 28-29. not sure what this means
Smith
Clarify sentence.
46.
P. 99 - Conclusions from chapter not bulleted
Segerson
Bullet conclusion
47.
p. 101, lines 4 and 5: commas instead of semicolons.
Ascher
Will dop
48.
Provide a reference to survey Appendix at end of Chapter 4
Daniel
Will do
49.
I regret the choice not to include some effort at critical
assessment for each of the methods included in Section 4.
"Methodological pluralism" is not the same thing as "anything goes."
Freeman
Too late to undertake major new
analysis.
36

-------