Search USGS⌕ Search

Geology topics

Carl D. Shapiro

Publications and source records attributed to Carl D. Shapiro.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources
USGS2022

Value of information and decision pathways: Concepts and case studies

Information used in decision making arises from the structuring of observations and data. The collection, dissemination, and use of information has monetary and non-monetary costs (e.g., competition for attention) and necessitates trade-offs. Understanding the benefits of having information (i.e., the value of information, VOI), including resulting societal outcomes, is useful to information producers/funders and decision makers. Using theory, use cases, and hypotheticals, we describe how information (e.g., geospatial information) is valued and incorporated in decisions and actions related to managing natural resources, environments, and the impacts of natural and anthropogenic hazards. We discuss the nature of information and how it relates to models (conceptual, mental, scientific), beliefs, knowledge, and economic analyses. VOI approaches and behavioral factors that potentially affect information use and value are summarized. Framing of information and VOI through data to decision pathways (DDPs) at first simplifies understanding, then illustrates the benefits of information, and the human and societal challenges encountered in valuing and using it. We present approaches to overcome these challenges. Our transdisciplinary analysis concludes with a summary of critical issues affecting DDPs and VOI, and suggestions for improving both economic analyses and the actionability and use of information.

Frontiers in Environmental Science (Environmental ↗
USGS2022

Value of information: Exploring behavioral and social factors

There is growing interest within and beyond the economics community in assessing the value of information (VOI) used in decision making. VOI assessments often do not consider the complex behavioral and social factors that affect the perception, valuation, and use of information by individuals and groups. Additionally, VOI assessments frequently do not examine the full suite of interactions and outcomes affecting different groups or individuals. The behavioral and social factors that we mention are often (but not always) innately-derived, less-than-conscious influences that reflect human and societal adaptations to the past. We first discuss these concepts in the context of the recognition and use of information for decision making. We then find fifteen different aspects of value and information pertinent to VOI assessments. We examine methodologies and issues related to current VOI estimation practices in economics. Building on this examination, we explore the perceptions, social factors, and behavioral factors affecting information sharing, prioritization, valuation, and discounting. Information and valuation issues are then considered in the context of information production, information trading and controls, and information communication pathologies. Lastly, we describe issues relating to information useability and actionability. Our examples mention the value and use of geospatial information, and more generally concern societal issues relating to the management of natural resources, environments, and natural and anthropogenic hazards. Our paper aims to be instrumentally relevant to anyone interested in the use and value of science.

Frontiers in Environmental Science↗
USGS2022

Opportunities for businesses to use and support development of SEEA-aligned natural capital accounts

Global understanding of the interconnections between the environment and economy has increased, driving the development of frameworks and standards that support the measurement and valuation of natural capital and ecosystem services by both governments and businesses. This paper outlines how businesses can use natural capital accounts (NCA) aligned to the System of Environmental Economic Accounting (SEEA) standard described in this special issue to support identification, management, and valuation of natural capital not typically listed on corporate balance sheets. Such accounts have direct applications for business strategic planning, investment decisions, supply chain management , operations management, risk management, and corporate reporting. Businesses also have important roles to play in advancing SEEA-aligned NCA by providing information that would be useful to include in the accounts and by helping to shape accounts to provide decision-relevant information for both the private and the public sectors. Current pilot SEEA-aligned NCA data and analyses developed for the United States can help address some of the common challenges that businesses face in using natural capital data such as accessibility, quality, and credibility, important for business decision making. However, improvements are needed to fill data gaps and produce more frequent and timely estimates aligned to the temporal resolution needed by businesses.

Ecosystem Services↗
USGS2021

Leveraging risk communication science across US federal agencies

Many US federal agencies apply principles from risk communication science across a wide variety of hazards. In so doing, they identify key research and practice gaps that, if addressed, could help better serve the nation’s communities and greatly enhance practice, research, and policy development.

Nature Human Behavior↗
USGS2021

Lessons learned from development of natural capital accounts in the United States and European Union

The United States and European Union (EU) face common challenges in managing natural capital and balancing conservation and resource use with consumption of other forms of capital. This paper synthesizes findings from 11 individual application papers from a special issue of Ecosystem Services on natural capital accounting (NCA) and their application to the public and private sectors in the EU and U.S. NCA is inherently a data-integration centered exercise, aiming to draw new insights by realigning environmental and economic data into a consistent framework. Drawing primarily on papers from the special issue and other key NCA literature, we identify lessons learned and gaps remaining for NCA’s development and application to decision making. In doing so, we identify eight key similarities and three major differences in NCA development, status, and application between the U.S. and EU. NCA can be highly policy relevant: special issue papers address critical issues including agriculture, water, conservation/land-use planning, climate, and corporate decision making. In both the U.S. and EU, further application is needed to drive demand for the accounts’ production. Based on these experiences, the U.S. and EU can be important leaders in cross-sector, international collaboration toward next-generation environmental economic accounts that advance global NCA practice.

Ecosystem Services↗
USGS2020

Supporting natural resource-management decisions — The role of economics at the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) — 2018 DOI Economics Training Workshop

The second U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) Economics Training Workshop (hereafter “Workshop”) was held during September 25–27, 2018, in Washington, D.C., to identify, highlight, and better understand needs and opportunities for economic analysis to support DOI’s mission. Building on the first workshop in 2017, the second Workshop, jointly convened by the DOI Office of Policy Analysis and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Science and Decisions Center, provided an opportunity for DOI economists to share expertise and experiences and to build collaboration and communication channels across DOI. In addition, the second Workshop provided training sessions on a variety of relevant economic and modeling topics. More than 40 DOI economists gathered at the Workshop to share their work, discuss shared challenges, and identify approaches to advance the use and contribution of economics at the DOI.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2020

Economic valuation of health benefits from using geologic data to communicate radon risk potential

Background: Radon exposure is the second leading cause of lung cancer worldwide and represents a major health concern within and outside the United States. Mitigating exposure to radon is especially critical in places with high rates of tobacco smoking (e.g., Kentucky, USA), as radon-induced lung cancer is markedly greater among people exposed to tobacco smoke. Despite homes being a common source of radon exposure, convincing homeowners to test and mitigate for radon remains a challenge. A new communication strategy to increase radon testing among Kentucky homeowners utilizes fine-scale geologic map data to create detailed radon risk potential maps. We assessed the health benefits of this strategy via avoided lung cancer and associated premature mortality and quantified the economic value of these benefits to indicate the potential utility of using geologic map data in radon communication strategies. Methods: We estimated the change in radon testing among all 120 counties in Kentucky following a new communication strategy reliant on geologic maps. We approximated the resultant potential change in radon mitigation rates and subsequent expected lung cancer cases and mortality avoided among smokers and non-smokers exposed to ≥4 pCi/L of radon in the home. We then applied the value of a statistical life to derive the economic value of the expected avoided mortality. Results: The new communication strategy is estimated to help 75 Kentucky residents in one year avoid exposure to harmful radon levels via increased testing and mitigation rates. This equated to the potential avoidance of approximately one premature death due to lung cancer, with a net present value of \$3.4 to \$8.5 million (2016 USD). Conclusions: Our analysis illustrates the potential economic value of health benefits associated with geologic map data used as part of a communication strategy conveying radon risk to the public. Geologic map data are freely available in varying resolutions throughout the United States, suggesting Kentucky’s radon communication strategy using geologic maps can be employed in other states to educate the public about radon. As this is only a single application, in a single state, the economic and health benefits of geologic map data in educating the public about radon are likely to exceed our estimates.

Kentucky↗
USGS2019

Demonstrating the value of Earth observations—methods, practical applications, and solutions—group on Earth observations side event proceedings

Executive Summary The U.S. Geological Survey, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the European Association for Remote Sensing Companies, and the European Space Agency in coordination with the GEOValue Community hosted a side event to the Group on Earth Observations Plenary on October 23–24, 2017, in Washington, D.C. The workshop, entitled “Demonstrating the Value of Earth Observations: Methods, Practical Applications and Solutions,” brought together more than 60 international experts including economists, scientists, and engineers to consider the state of the science and applications of valuing Earth observations (EO). This 2-day workshop built upon previous activities developed under the GEOValue initiative. This workshop brought together expert analysts from multiple disciplines and backgrounds who are developing methods to identify and measure the value of information generated from the use of satellite and in-situ data. The mix of government agencies, international financial institutions, and independent consultants who participated in the workshop blended to develop a rich mix of views, approaches, and outcomes. During the first part of the workshop, the focus was on the latest science in valuing EO. A number of methodologies were described. Approaches generally assess the societal benefits of specific actions (for example, investments in EO). Some methods focus on broad measures of economic activity (for example, gross domestic product) or methods to assess total economic value such as contingent valuation surveys. Alternatively, use-case approaches (a use case is defined as an evaluation in which one or more decisions, applications, or other uses of data, information, and information products are specifically considered) start with the specific actions and how information is used to support decision making and affect outcomes. The second part of the meeting was focused on the use and development of value chains and decision trees. A value chain can be defined as the set of value-adding activities that one or more organizations perform in creating and distributing goods and services. In terms of EO, the value chain approach can be applied to consider societal benefits of the data and assess the value of data and data features. The EO value chain considers the geospatial data sources and the processing of the data into value added information to be incorporated into decision-support systems, leading to decision makers’ actions. To understand the value of EO, one would also need to recognize the demand side of the equation or how EO benefits users. Extending the value chain concept and incorporating tenets of Bayesian decision making, a decision tree would include one or more use cases. The value provided by the marginal increase in information could flow from one or several parts of the supply side of the value chain. The decision tree is based on the premise that information has no value if it is not used in at least one decision. By connecting the value chain and the decision tree, a framework is created that allows for conceptualizing the value of EO in its many uses. One can then apply economic techniques to monetize the marginal benefit of an outcome with information versus one without. A third part of the meeting applied the value chain and decision-tree frameworks to five specific thematic areas, each with the focus of using information for a decision point: Effect of increasing temperatures on human health; Flooding—Mitigating, managing, and avoiding impacts to safety and property damage; Harmful algal blooms—Effects on human health, recreation, and tourism; Energy and mineral supply—Mitigating, managing, and avoiding impacts of shortfalls on the economy; and Effects of natural hazards on transportation systems—Effects on mobility, safety, and the economy. During the working session, five separate groups worked to define and delineate the value chains and decision trees associated with each topic, discussing the related challenges and data needs. The outcomes were reported back to the full group. Because of the complexity of the topics, most groups first identified a network of value chains and then narrowed the scope to develop a single value chain to address their group’s topic. Although they worked separately and on different topics, the groups came to similar conclusions, concurring that the value chain and decision-tree frameworks are very effective for informing quantitative impact assessments and developing a relatable narrative to assist the public in understanding the link between EO and citizens.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2018

The natural capital accounting opportunity: Let's really do the numbers

The nation’s economic accounts provide objective, regular, and standardized information routinely relied upon by public and private decision makers. But they are incomplete. The U.S. and many other nations currently do not account for the natural capital — such as the wildlife, forests, grasslands, soils, and water bodies—upon which all other economic activity rests. By creating formal natural capital accounts (NCA) and ecosystem goods and services (EGS) accounts, governments and businesses can better understand the past, peer into the future, innovate, conserve, and plan for environmental shocks. They would standardize, regularly repeat, and aggregate diverse natural resource, environmental, and social and economic data and could thereby play a significant role in advancing the science of coupled biophysical and social systems.

BioScience↗
USGS2018

Integrating adaptive management and ecosystem services concepts to improve natural resource management: Challenges and opportunities

Executive Summary—Overview Natural resource managers must make decisions that affect broad-scale ecosystem processes involving large spatial areas, complex biophysical interactions, numerous competing stakeholder interests, and highly uncertain outcomes. Natural and social science information and analyses are widely recognized as important for informing effective management. Chief among the systematic approaches for improving the integration of science into natural resource management are two emergent science concepts, adaptive management and ecosystem services. Adaptive management (also referred to as “adaptive decision making”) is a deliberate process of learning by doing that focuses on reducing uncertainties about management outcomes and system responses to improve management over time. Ecosystem services is a conceptual framework that refers to the attributes and outputs of ecosystems (and their components and functions) that have value for humans. This report explores how ecosystem services can be moved from concept into practice through connection to a decision framework—adaptive management—that accounts for inherent uncertainties. Simultaneously, the report examines the value of incorporating ecosystem services framing and concepts into adaptive management efforts. Adaptive management and ecosystem services analyses have not typically been used jointly in decision making. However, as frameworks, they have a natural—but to date underexplored—affinity. Both are policy and decision oriented in that they attempt to represent the consequences of resource management choices on outcomes of interest to stakeholders. Both adaptive management and ecosystem services analysis take an empirical approach to the analysis of ecological systems. This systems orientation is a byproduct of the fact that natural resource actions affect ecosystems—and corresponding societal outcomes—often across large geographic scales. Moreover, because both frameworks focus on resource systems, both must confront the analytical challenges of systems modeling—in terms of complexity, dynamics, and uncertainty. Given this affinity, the integration of ecosystem services analysis and adaptive management poses few conceptual hurdles. In this report, we synthesize discussions from two workshops that considered ways in which adaptive management approaches and ecosystem service concepts may be complementary, such that integrating them into a common framework may lead to improved natural resource management outcomes. Although the literature on adaptive management and ecosystem services is vast and growing, the report focuses specifically on the integration of these two concepts rather than aiming to provide new definitions or an indepth review or primer of the concepts individually. Key issues considered include the bidirectional links between adaptive decision making and ecosystem services, as well as the potential benefits and inevitable challenges arising in the development and use of an integrated framework. Specifically, the workshops addressed the following questions: How can application of ecosystem service analysis within an adaptive decision process improve the outcomes of management and advance understanding of ecosystem service identification, production, and valuation? How can these concepts be integrated in concept and practice? What are the constraints and challenges to integrating adaptive management and ecosystem services? And, should the integration of these concepts be moved forward to wider application—and if so, how?

Circular↗
USGS2018

Response to comment by Walker et al. on “From data to decisions: Processing information, biases, and beliefs for improved management of natural resources and environments”

Our different kinds of minds and types of thinking affect the ways we decide, take action, and cooperate (or not). The comment by Walker et al. (2018, https://doi.org/10.1002/2017EF000750 ) illustrates several points made by Glynn et al. (2017, https://doi.org/10.1002/2016EF000487 ) and many other articles. Namely, biases and beliefs often drive scientific reasoning, and scientists, just like other humans, are intimately attached to their values and heuristics. Scientists, just like many other people, also tend to read and interpret text in ways that best match their individual perceptions of a problem or issue: in many cases paraphrasing and changing the meaning of what they read to better match their initial ideas. Walker et al. are doing interesting and important research on uncertainty. Nonetheless, they misinterpret the work, assumptions, and conclusions brought forth by Glynn et al. (2017, https://doi.org/10.1002/2016EF000487 ).

Earth's Future↗
USGS2018

Supporting natural resource management—The role of economics at the Department of the Interior—A workshop report

The first U.S. Department of the Interior Economics Workshop was held April 5–7, 2017 in Washington, D.C., to identify, highlight, and better understand needs and opportunities for economic analysis to support the Department of the Interior’s mission. The Economics Workshop, jointly convened by the Department of the Interior Office of Policy Analysis and the U.S. Geological Survey Science and Decisions Center, provided an opportunity for Department of the Interior’s economists to share expertise and experiences and to build collaboration and communication channels across the Department of the Interior. Natural and cultural resource managers face complex questions and often have to balance competing stakeholder interests. Per the mission statement, the Department of the Interior “protects and manages the Nation’s natural resources and cultural heritage; provides scientific and other information about those resources; and honors its trust responsibilities or special commitments to American Indians, Alaska Natives, and affiliated island communities.” Economic analysis is relevant to issues integral to nearly all the land and water management decisions made by the Department of the Interior. More than 80 Department of the Interior economists gathered at the Economics Workshop to share their work, discuss common challenges, and identify approaches to advance the use and contribution of economics at the Department of the Interior.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2017

Grand challenges for integrated USGS science — A workshop report

Executive Summary The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has a long history of advancing the traditional Earth science disciplines and identifying opportunities to integrate USGS science across disciplines to address complex societal problems. The USGS science strategy for 2007–2017 laid out key challenges in disciplinary and interdisciplinary arenas, culminating in a call for increased focus on a number of crosscutting science directions. Ten years on, to further the goal of integrated science and at the request of the Executive Leadership Team (ELT), a workshop with three dozen invited scientists spanning different disciplines and career stages in the Bureau convened on February 7–10, 2017, at the USGS John Wesley Powell Center for Analysis and Synthesis in Fort Collins, Colorado. The workshop focused on identifying “grand challenges” for integrated USGS science. Individual participants identified nearly 70 potential grand challenges before the workshop and through workshop discussions. After discussion, four overarching grand challenges emerged: Natural resource security, Societal risk from existing and emerging threats, Smart infrastructure development, and Anticipatory science for changing landscapes. Participants also identified a “comprehensive science challenge” that highlights the development of integrative science, data, models, and tools—all interacting in a modular framework—that can be used to address these and other future grand challenges: Earth Monitoring, Analyses, and Projections (EarthMAP) EarthMAP is our long-term vision for an integrated scientific framework that spans traditional scientific boundaries and disciplines, and integrates the full portfolio of USGS science: research, monitoring, assessment, analysis, and information delivery. The Department of Interior, and the Nation in general, have a vast array of information needs. The USGS meets these needs by having a broadly trained and agile scientific workforce. Encouraging and supporting cross-discipline engagement would position the USGS to tackle complex and multifaceted scientific and societal challenges in the 21st Century.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2017

From data to decisions: Processing information, biases, and beliefs for improved management of natural resources and environments

Our different kinds of minds and types of thinking affect the ways we decide, take action, and cooperate (or not). Derived from these types of minds, innate biases, beliefs, heuristics, and values (BBHV) influence behaviors, often beneficially, when individuals or small groups face immediate, local, acute situations that they and their ancestors faced repeatedly in the past. BBHV, though, need to be recognized and possibly countered or used when facing new, complex issues or situations especially if they need to be managed for the benefit of a wider community, for the longer-term and the larger-scale. Taking BBHV into account, we explain and provide a cyclic science-infused adaptive framework for (1) gaining knowledge of complex systems and (2) improving their management. We explore how this process and framework could improve the governance of science and policy for different types of systems and issues, providing examples in the area of natural resources, hazards, and the environment. Lastly, we suggest that an “Open Traceable Accountable Policy” initiative that followed our suggested adaptive framework could beneficially complement recent Open Data/Model science initiatives.

Earth's Future↗
USGS2015

Economic assessment of the use value of geospatial information

Geospatial data inform decision makers. An economic model that involves application of spatial and temporal scientific, technical, and economic data in decision making is described. The value of information (VOI) contained in geospatial data is the difference between the net benefits (in present value terms) of a decision with and without the information. A range of technologies is used to collect and distribute geospatial data. These technical activities are linked to examples that show how the data can be applied in decision making, which is a cultural activity. The economic model for assessing the VOI in geospatial data for decision making is applied to three examples: (1) a retrospective model about environmental regulation of agrochemicals; (2) a prospective model about the impact and mitigation of earthquakes in urban areas; and (3) a prospective model about developing private–public geospatial information for an ecosystem services market. Each example demonstrates the potential value of geospatial information in a decision with uncertain information.

ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information↗
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

Urban ecosystem services and decision making for a green Philadelphia

Traditional approaches to urban development often do not account for, or recognize, the role of ecosystem services and the benefits these services provide to the health and well-being of city residents. Without such accounting, urban ecosystem services are likely to be degraded over time, with negative consequences for the sustainability of cities and the well-being of their residents (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005; Hirsch, 2008). On May 23, 2013, the Spatial Integration Laboratory for Urban Systems (SILUS), a collaboration between the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Science and Decisions Center and the Wharton GIS Lab, convened a one-day symposium—Urban Ecosystem Services and Decision Making: A Green Philadelphia—at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, to examine the role of green infrastructure in the environmental, economic, and social well-being of cities. Cosponsored by the USGS and the Penn Institute for Urban Research (Penn IUR), the symposium brought together policymakers, practitioners, and researchers from a range of disciplines to advance a research agenda on the use of science in public decision making to inform investment in green infrastructure and ecosystem services in urban areas. The city of Philadelphia has recently implemented a program designed to sustain urban ecosystem services and advance the use of green infrastructure. In 2009, the Philadelphia Mayor’s Office of Sustainability launched its Greenworks plan, establishing a citywide sustainability strategy. Major contributions towards its goals are being implemented in coordination with the Philadelphia Water Department (PWD). The Green City, Clean Waters initiative, the city’s nationally recognized stormwater management plan, was signed into action with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in April 2012. The plan outlines a 25-year strategy to use green infrastructure to protect and improve the city’s watershed. Widespread support for the plan marks a citywide effort to factor environmental quality concerns into the city’s strategic planning, choosing to replace expensive and aging grey infrastructure, with innovative and resilient green infrastructure. The symposium focused on these city of Philadelphia initiatives and also on two new Federal- local partnership programs: America’s Great Outdoors, initiated to promote conservation and recreation, and the Urban Waters Federal Partnership, a multiagency effort to reconnect urban communities to their waterways. A second goal of the symposium was to advance a research agenda on urban ecosystem services. While there has been considerable work on ecosystem services, the discussion of the benefits provided by urban ecosystems is not as developed. Benefits range from improved water and air quality to quality of life gains, including aesthetic and recreational considerations. There is also need for additional focused research toward furthering the understanding of the multiple indirect benefits provided by urban ecosystem services (Bolund and Hunhammar, 1999). Moreover, there is a need for a greater understanding of how best to inform local decision making in this area, as local decision makers in cities across the country are increasingly recognizing the importance of developing sustainability measures for their immediate and long-term planning (United States Conference of Mayors, 2005). Approaching these local and regional plans from a holistic perspective has become a guiding principle of sustainability and resiliency. Therefore, there is a need to better understand the gains that have been achieved and to advance a research agenda on ecosystem services going forward. The day’s program included presentations on greening initiatives from the Philadelphia’s Mayor’s Office of Sustainability, as well as discussion about using an urban ecosystem services framework to evaluate these initiatives. Panel sessions included discussion of the Green City, Clean Waters initiative; a dialogue about the management of urban trees and green space; and a conversation addressing the needs for future research.

Pennsylvania↗