Geology topics

L. Caughlan

Publications and source records attributed to L. Caughlan.

6 recordsLinked to original sources

USGS2010

Linking intended visitation to regional economic impact models of bison and elk management

This article links intended National Park visitation estimates to regional economic models to calculate the employment impacts of alternative bison and elk management strategies. The survey described alternative National Elk Refuge (NER) management actions and the effects on elk and bison populations at the NER and adjacent Grand Teton National Park (GTNP). Park visitors were then asked if they would change their number of visits with each potential management action. Results indicate there would be a 10% decrease in visitation if bison populations were reduced from 600 to 400 animals and elk populations were reduced in GTNP and the NER. The related decrease in jobs in Teton counties of Wyoming and Idaho is estimated at 5.5%. Adopting a “no active management” option of never feeding elk and bison on the NER yields about one-third the current bison population (200 bison) and about half the elk population. Visitors surveyed about this management option would take about 20% fewer trips, resulting in an 11.3% decrease in employment. Linking intended visitation surveys and regional economic models represents a useful tool for natural resource planners who must present the consequences of potential actions in Environmental Impact Statements and plans to the public and decision makers prior to any action being implemented.

Human Dimensions of Wildlife↗

USGS2006

The importance of adjusting for trip purpose in regional economic analyses of tourist destinations

This paper investigates the empirical importance of distinguishing visitors and their expenditures by trip purpose when estimating the tourism effects of a national park on a local economy. Accounting for trip purpose is quite important when there are two or more nearby major attractions in the same geographical area. This applies to the author's case study of Grand Teton and Yellowstone National Parks in the State of Wyoming, and also to other areas, such as the State of Utah's Bryce and Zion National Parks or amusement parks in the Orlando area in Florida. The authors illustrate the various types of survey questions and methods for correcting for trip purpose. In the case study, it would be quite misleading to attribute all spending by visitors to Grand Teton National Park (GTNP) in the town of Jackson, Wyoming, solely to GTNP because this would overstate employment actually attributable to the park by 3,455 jobs, or 22%. In turn, this overestimates the dependence of jobs in the Jackson economy on GTNP by 15%, incorrectly estimating it at 75% rather than the sounder figure of 60% of total jobs.

Tourism Economics↗

USGS2002

How stakeholder roles, power, and negotiation impact natural resource policy: A political economy view

Natural resource management decisions are complicated by multiple property rights, management objectives, and stakeholders with varying degrees of influence over the decision making process. In order to make efficient decisions, managers must incorporate the opinions and values of the involved stakeholders as well as understand the complex institutional constraints and opportunities that influence the decision-making process. Often this type of information is not understood until after a decision has been made, which can result in wasted time and effort. The purpose of my dissertation was to show how institutional frameworks and stakeholder involvement influence the various phases of the resource management decision-making process in a public choice framework. The intent was to assist decision makers and stakeholders by developing a methodology for formally incorporating stakeholders'' objectives and influence into the resource management planning process and to predict the potential success of rent-seeking activity based on stakeholder preferences and level of influence. Concepts from decision analysis, institutional analysis, and public choice economics were used in designing this interdisciplinary framework. The framework was then applied to an actual case study concerning elk and bison management on the National Elk Refuge and Grand Teton National Park near Jackson, Wyoming. The framework allowed for the prediction of the level of support and conflict for all relevant policy decisions, and the identification of each stakeholder''s level of support or opposition for each management decision.

Thesis↗

USGS2001

Cost considerations for long-term ecological monitoring

For an ecological monitoring program to be successful over the long-term, the perceived benefits of the information must justify the cost. Financial limitations will always restrict the scope of a monitoring program, hence the program’s focus must be carefully prioritized. Clearly identifying the costs and benefits of a program will assist in this prioritization process, but this is easier said than done. Frequently, the true costs of monitoring are not recognized and are, therefore, underestimated. Benefits are rarely evaluated, because they are difficult to quantify. The intent of this review is to assist the designers and managers of long-term ecological monitoring programs by providing a general framework for building and operating a cost-effective program. Previous considerations of monitoring costs have focused on sampling design optimization. We present cost considerations of monitoring in a broader context. We explore monitoring costs, including both budgetary costs, what dollars are spent on, and economic costs, which include opportunity costs. Often, the largest portion of a monitoring program budget is spent on data collection, and other, critical aspects of the program, such as scientific oversight, training, data management, quality assurance, and reporting, are neglected. Recognizing and budgeting for all program costs is therefore a key factor in a program’s longevity. The close relationship between statistical issues and cost is discussed, highlighting the importance of sampling design, replication and power, and comparing the costs of alternative designs through pilot studies and simulation modeling. A monitoring program development process that includes explicit checkpoints for considering costs is presented. The first checkpoint occurs during the setting of objectives and during sampling design optimization. The last checkpoint occurs once the basic shape of the program is known, and the costs and benefits, or alternatively the cost-effectiveness, of each program element can be evaluated. Moving into the implementation phase without careful evaluation of costs and benefits is risky because if costs are later found to exceed benefits, the program will fail. The costs of development, which can be quite high, will have been largely wasted. Realistic expectations of costs and benefits will help ensure that monitoring programs survive the early, turbulent stages of development and the challenges posed by fluctuating budgets during implementation.

Ecological Indicators↗

USGS2001

Cost considerations for long-term ecological monitoring

For an ecological monitoring program to be successful over the long-term, the perceived benefits of the information must justify the cost. Financial limitations will always restrict the scope of a monitoring program, hence the program's focus must be carefully prioritized. Clearly identifying the costs and benefits of a program will assist in this prioritization process, but this is easier said than done. Frequently, the true costs of monitoring are not recognized and are, therefore, underestimated. Benefits are rarely evaluated, because they are difficult to quantify. The intent of this review is to assist the designers and managers of long-term ecological monitoring programs by providing a general framework for building and operating a cost-effective program. Previous considerations of monitoring costs have focused on sampling design optimization. We present cost considerations of monitoring in a broader context. We explore monitoring costs, including both budgetary costs--what dollars are spent on--and economic costs, which include opportunity costs. Often, the largest portion of a monitoring program budget is spent on data collection, and other, critical aspects of the program, such as scientific oversight, training, data management, quality assurance, and reporting, are neglected. Recognizing and budgeting for all program costs is therefore a key factor in a program's longevity. The close relationship between statistical issues and cost is discussed, highlighting the importance of sampling design, replication and power, and comparing the costs of alternative designs through pilot studies and simulation modeling. A monitoring program development process that includes explicit checkpoints for considering costs is presented. The first checkpoint occur during the setting of objectives and during sampling design optimization. The last checkpoint occurs once the basic shape of the program is known, and the costs and benefits, or alternatively the cost-effectiveness, of each program element can be evaluated. Moving into the implementation phase without careful evaluation of costs and benefits is risky because if costs are later found to exceed benefits, the program will fail. The costs of development, which can be quite high, will have been largely wasted. Realistic expectations of costs and benefits will help ensure that monitoring programs survive the early, turbulent stages of development and the challenges posed by fluctuating budgets during implementation.

Ecological Indicators↗

USGS2000

Thinking outside the lines: Parks and the quality of life in area communities

Many national parks, national forests, and other public land units exist in highly changeable regional environments. Often the parks and forests themselves serve as important catalysts of change in the levels of tourism, outdoor recreation participation, and contribution of traveling publics to local and regional economies. Resource managers are called upon to protect lands in their jurisdictions while juggling a variety of inputs and expectations. In each agency, resource decisions are bound by law and agency policy. In this context, the decision space of the national park manager is quite different from that of those in multiple-use land management agencies. Management actions must stand up, not only to law and policy and to scientific scrutiny, but they must also be sensitive to the needs of residents in surrounding communities, to county and state governing bodies, and to visitors from across the nation and around the world. Balancing these needs while protecting resources in an ongoing challenge made more difficult as the mix of stakeholders growsa?|

Park Science↗