Geology topics

Frank Casey

Publications and source records attributed to Frank Casey.

6 recordsLinked to original sources

USGS2015

Biodiversity and Habitat Markets—Policy, Economic, and Ecological implications of Market-Based Conservation

This report is a primer on market-like and market-based mechanisms designed to conserve biodiversity and habitat. The types of markets and market-based approaches that were implemented or are emerging to benefit biodiversity and habitat in the United States are examined. The central approaches considered in this report include payments for ecosystem services, conservation banks, habitat exchanges, and eco-labels. Based on literature reviews and input from experts and practitioners, the report characterizes each market-based approach including policy context and structure; the theoretical basis for applying market-based approaches; the ecological effectiveness of practices and tools for measuring performance; and the future outlook for biodiversity and habitat markets. This report draws from previous research and serves as a summary of pertinent information associated with biodiversity and habitat markets while providing references to materials that go into greater detail on specific topics.

Circular↗

USGS2015

Integrated climate and land use change scenarios for California rangeland ecosystem services: wildlife habitat, soil carbon, and water supply

Context In addition to biodiversity conservation, California rangelands generate multiple ecosystem services including livestock production, drinking and irrigation water, and carbon sequestration. California rangeland ecosystems have experienced substantial conversion to residential land use and more intensive agriculture. Objectives To understand the potential impacts to rangeland ecosystem services, we developed six spatially explicit (250 m) climate/land use change scenarios for the Central Valley of California and surrounding foothills consistent with three Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change emission scenario narratives. Methods We quantified baseline and projected change in wildlife habitat, soil organic carbon (SOC), and water supply (recharge and runoff). For six case study watersheds we quantified the interactions of future development and changing climate on recharge, runoff and streamflow, and precipitation thresholds where dominant watershed hydrological processes shift through analysis of covariance. Results The scenarios show that across the region, habitat loss is expected to occur predominantly in grasslands, primarily due to future development (up to a 37 % decline by 2100), however habitat loss in priority conservation errors will likely be due to cropland and hay/pasture expansion (up to 40 % by 2100). Grasslands in the region contain approximately 100 teragrams SOC in the top 20 cm, and up to 39 % of this SOC is subject to conversion by 2100. In dryer periods recharge processes typically dominate runoff. Future development lowers the precipitation value at which recharge processes dominate runoff, and combined with periods of drought, reduces the opportunity for recharge, especially on deep soils. Conclusion Results support the need for climate-smart land use planning that takes recharge areas into account, which will provide opportunities for water storage in dry years. Given projections for agriculture, more modeling is needed on feedbacks between agricultural expansion on rangelands and water supply.

California↗

USGS2015

The role of benefit transfer in ecosystem service valuation

The demand for timely monetary estimates of the economic value of nonmarket ecosystem goods and services has steadily increased over the last few decades. This article describes the use of benefit transfer to generate monetary value estimates of ecosystem services specifically. The article provides guidance for conducting such benefit transfers and summarizes advancements in benefit transfer methods, databases and analysis tools designed to facilitate its application.

Ecological Economics↗

USGS2015

Ecosystem services science, practice, and policy: Perspectives from ACES, A Community on Ecosystem Services

Ecosystem services are at a crossroad. The natural capital needed to produce them is diminishing (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005). At the same time, the science relating to their identification, production, and valuation is advancing. Examples of ecosystem services applications are abundant in the literature. In addition, the concept of ecosystem services and its applications are attracting attention and are becoming more visible. The concept of ecosystem services, however, is still not routinely applied to many natural resource management decisions.

Ecological Economics↗

USGS2014

Valuing ecosystem services using benefit transfer: Separating credible and incredible approaches

Ecosystem goods and services are now widely recognized as the benefits that humans derive from the natural environment around them including abiotic (e.g. atmosphere) and biotic components. The work by Costanza et al. (1997) to value the world’s ecosystem services brought the concept of ecosystem service valuation to the attention of the world press and environmental economists working in the area of non-market valuation. The article’s US \$33 trillion estimate of these services, despite world GDP being only US \$18 trillion, was definitely headline grabbing. This ambitious effort was undertaken with reliance on transferring existing values per unit from other (often site specific) valuation studies. Benefit transfer (see Boyle and Bergstrom, 1992; Rosenberger and Loomis, 2000, 2001) involves transfers of values per unit from an area that has been valued using primary valuation methods such as contingent valuation, travel cost or hedonic property methods (Champ et al., 2003) to areas for which values are needed. Benefit transfer often provides a reasonable approximation of the benefit of unstudied ecosystem services based on transfer of benefits estimates per unit (per visitor day, per acre) from existing studies. An appropriate benefit transfer should be performed on the same spatial scale of analysis (e.g. reservoir to reservoir, city to city) as the original study. However, the reasonableness of benefit transfer may be strained when applying locally derived per acre values from studies of several thousand acres of a resource such as wetlands to hundreds of millions of acres of wetlands.

Book chapter↗

USGS2014

Social impact analysis: monetary valuation

This section provides basic guidance for using and conducting economic valuation, including criteria for judging whether valuation is appropriate for supporting decisions. It provides an introduction to the economic techniques used to measure changes in social welfare and describes which methods may be most appropriate for use in valuing particular ecosystem services. Rather than providing comprehensive valuation instructions,it directs readers to additional resources.More generally, it establishes that the valuation of ecosystem services is grounded in a long history of non-market valuation and discusses how ecosystem services valuation can be conducted within established economic theory and techniques.

Book chapter↗