Report: "Public Lands Near Grand County Play Vital Economic Role, Tourism & Recreation Businesses Account for 44% of Private Jobs", Includes Recommendations for How Leaders Can Maximize Long-Term Returns from Nearby Public Lands

A new report shows that public lands near Grand County, Utah play a major economic role in the region, with tourism and recreation businesses accounting for 44 percent of private employment in the county; and that more than one-third of local households have a member that works in a tourism and recreation business related to public lands, while nearly two-thirds of county residents indicate that public lands are “extremely important” to their vocation.

“A significant reason for the county’s economic success stems from the diversity found today within Grand County’s tourism and recreation economy,” said Ben Alexander, the report’s author. “Moving forward, public lands will continue to play an important role for the region, and finding ways to sustain and develop new activities that appeal to a wide mixture of visitors and residents is paramount to the county’s long-term economic health.”

To conduct the report, (available at http://headwaterseconomics.org/land/reports/economic-grand-county/) Headwaters Economics, a non-profit research group based in Bozeman, examined a wide range of public lands uses, including mining and agriculture, but focused on recreation because this type of use represents the largest, most complex, and least well understood activity on public lands in the county.

The full report contains detailed analysis of Grand County employment, trends, and government revenues. For example, the study analyzed the employment impact of federal public lands, and an IMPLAN analysis shows that area BLM lands supported 2,447 direct jobs in 2007. For the National Park Service, the Money Generation Model (MGM2) shows that area national parks supported 2,181 direct jobs in 2009. (These data should not be added together.) To put this in perspective, the Bureau of Economic Analysis reports that in 2007 there were 6,724 total jobs in Grand County and in 2009 there were 6,687 total jobs.

The report was created after a local steering committee—including representatives from Trail Mix, Ride with Respect, Red Rock Four Wheelers, Moab Lodging Association, Moab Trail Alliance, Moab Chamber of Commerce, and local officials—asked the Grand County Council to support a study on the economic and fiscal role of public lands in the county that could be the basis for informed discussions about how to develop, protect, and manage nearby public lands so that they benefit businesses, the county, and diverse users into the future.
...
Within the wide variety of public lands uses, BLM surveys show that hiking is the most common activity on its lands, followed by biking and nature viewing. Using a tailored spending profile, IMPLAN analysis shows that hiking on BLM lands has the largest economic impact, followed by nature viewing, biking, and motor vehicle use. In addition to the economic benefits of tourism and recreation, Grand County’s picturesque and high-profile public lands and the environmental and recreational amenities they provide are closely linked to economic growth. The county, for example, has had some success attracting new residents who find the communities and surrounding public lands in the area compelling—almost a third of net population growth in the last decade resulted from in-migration. The county also has seen increases in non-labor sources of personal income, especially retirement-related income, which has boosted per capita income and added stability to the local economy.

Despite past success, future growth in Grand County cannot be taken for granted. The boom years of the 1990s when the county’s economy grew by seven percent annually have yielded to the 2000s when the economic growth rate slowed to two percent annually.

This deceleration should lead to discussion on how Grand County can best utilize public lands to remain economically competitive as its tourism and recreation economy matures. Specific issues include:

• Whether different users are crowding each other out and diminishing one another’s experience;
• The continued quality of the landscape and uniqueness of the outdoor offerings; and
• The area’s ability to compete with rivals in the outdoor recreation market that have constructed new signature trail systems or are benefiting from newly created and high profile public lands protections.

The report also includes recommendations to help ensure Grand County’s future economic health:

• Educate the public to understand better the important economic role that public lands play in Grand County, including a periodic update on the county’s economic health and trends, especially focused on tourism and recreation;
• Partner closely with public land managers on planning and decisions that impact public lands in Grand County, including supplemental work and funding to maximize the protection and return of public lands assets;
• Ensure the continued diversity of recreation options and the capacity for public lands to support a wide variety of user activities. In addition, make sure that recreation uses do not directly conflict and drive away visitors or create the impression that the county favors one form of recreation; and
• Utilize the national and international visibility created by public lands recreation—such as national parks, mountain biking, jeep events, and the Colorado River—to attract visitors or retirees with the potential to relocate and bring new businesses and wealth to the region.

“Grand County enjoys many benefits from nearby public lands,” noted Alexander. “To continue to capitalize on the competitive advantage that these lands provide, the county and local groups should work collaboratively with state and federal officials to implement policies that sustain existing uses and also anticipate future development and protection needs.”

In fiscal year 2009, area national park visitor spending contributed to an estimated $44.7 million in labor income while NPS payroll contributed another $8.8 million in labor income, resulting in $53.5 million in total labor income. To put this in perspective, total labor earnings in Grand County for 2009 were $192 million.
...
Visitors spend money on a variety of items, including hotels, restaurants, bars, sporting goods stores, gasoline, and other goods and services. Based on responses to the survey, a “spending profile” was developed for each type of recreation user of BLM lands and the economic impact on their spending was calculated. In fiscal year 2007, the economic impact of non-local BLM visitor spending was $177 million in local output and more than $64 million in labor income for Grand County.
...
A number of studies have been conducted to measure the impact of mountain biking in the Moab area. One  1998 study calculated the “consumer surplus,” which is a measure of the difference between the maximum  price a consumer is willing to pay and the actual price they do pay. They concluded that the bike trails in the Moab area “produce a high consumer surplus to the users,” amounting to between $197 to $205 per trip. The consumer surplus for the Slickrock trail alone was $8,422,800 to $8,770,300 in 1998. One of the  implications of the study is that annual visitor rates are not sensitive to fees because users believe they are getting a good deal (i.e., a high “consumer “surplus”) and an entrance fee (e.g., to the Slickrock trail) is a  small part of overall trip costs.

Another 1998 study found that the average “willingness to pay” (WTP) by a mountain biker is $1,483 (WTP is the maximum amount a person would be willing to pay for a good). The total annual use value of mountain biking in the Moab area was estimated to be $1.33 million. The authors concluded: “This value suggests that this recreation has a higher value than most other activities in the area and that public lands managers should be aware of the relative value of mountain biking as they make allocation decisions.”
...
Following the release of this and other reports on November 30, 2011 Headwarters organized more than 100 economists and academics in related fields from across the country that sent a letter to President Obama urging him to “create jobs and support businesses by investing in our public lands infrastructure and establishing new protected areas such as parks, wilderness, and monuments.” The letter, which includes three Nobel laureates, states that federal protected public lands are essential to the West’s economic future, attracting innovative companies and workers, and contributing a vital component of the region’s competitive advantage.

Additional information:

• Letter to the President and Signers
• News Release
• Summary of Analysis on Economic Impact of Protected Lands
• Annotated Bibliography of Related Peer-Reviewed Research
• Short video of Dr. Ray Rasker discussing the letter to President Obama.

Headwaters Economics http://headwaterseconomics.org/.
Press Releases dated October 31, 2011 and November 30, 2011

Filling evidence gaps with expert opinion: The use of Delphi analysis in least-cost modelling of functional connectivity

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169204611002738
Abstract:
Assessment of landscape functional connectivity is increasingly important for planning landscape scale conservation measures. However, measuring the functional connectivity of landscapes is challenging due to the lack of data on species landscape interactions and because connectivity is species-specific. We developed parameters for a connectivity indicator using Delphi analysis, and critically examine the use of Delphi analysis in this context. To calculate the connectivity indicator we used the following parameters: maximum dispersal distance, negative edge effects of different land cover, and relative permeability of different land cover.

Delphi is a technique designed to numerically synthesise expert opinion in data-poor environments and is based on repetitive questionnaires interspersed with controlled feedback. Three panels of experts were assembled, one covering each of three habitats of interest. Experts found the process challenging especially fixing exact numbers given the potential range of values. However, panels generally assigned higher permeability and low edge effects to semi-natural land cover classes, assigning low permeability and high edge impacts to more modified land cover. During the Delphi process we found that experts were prepared to alter their answers in response to feedback from the previous round. Participants’ answers which did change between rounds generally changed to approach the group median, and when they did, the associated confidence score was more likely to rise than to fall. After three rounds, answers were generally stable. Delphi proved a useful method to use to generate parameter values for the connectivity indicator, with the method particularly acceptable to stakeholders of the indicator project.

Highlights
► We used Delphi analysis to generate parameters for a connectivity indicator from expert opinion.
► Experts found the process challenging given the range of potential species and values involved.
► Panels generally assigned higher permeability and lower edge effects to semi-natural land cover.
► Experts did alter their answers in response to feedback, approaching the group median.
► Delphi generated broadly-accepted least-cost parameter values, in a transparent and credible way.

by Amy E. Eycott 1, Mariella Marzano 2 and Kevin Watts 1
1. Forest Research, Alice Holt Lodge, Farnham, Surrey GU10 4LH, England, UK; Tel.: +44 1420 526200; fax: +44 1420 23653.
2. Forest Research, Northern Research Station, Roslin, Midlothian EH25 9SY, Scotland, UK
Landscape and Urban Planning via Elsevier Science Direct www.sciencedirect.com
Volume 103, Issues 3-4; 30 December 2011; Pages 400-409
Keywords: Fragmentation; Biodiversity; Indicator; Connectivity; Matrix; Focal species

The use of economic valuation to create public support for green infrastructure investments in urban areas

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169204611002428
Abstract: Increasing urbanization has created pressure on land use. Today more and more land in urbanized areas is used for housing, industry, community services or other economic functions. However, green spaces have a proven positive effect on people living in the neighborhood of green spaces, as well as on people working or recreating in the urbanized area. Therefore, green infrastructure investments have been put high on the agenda in many European countries. In order to convince the public and other stakeholders of the usefulness of these kind of green investments, it is necessary to give a correct, understandable and easily repeatable method to value the investment. The current article describes a model that can be used to put the value of green infrastructure investments into economic terms. Evaluating the project at site scale and regional scale will give a complete overview of all direct, indirect and use values of the investment. By using cost–benefit as well as multiplier analyses the monetary values can be estimated. The article shows that using this model helps to justify policy's support for and investment in green space.

Highlights:
► Investments in green infrastructure are difficult to value.
► A correct, repeatable and understandable valuation contributes to public support.
► Combining cost–benefit and multiplier analyses shows the complete value of green investments.
► The VALUE model, as described in the article, can be used to estimate this value.

by Valerie Vandermeulen 1, Ann Verspecht 1, Bert Vermeire 2, Guido Van Huylenbroeck 1 and Xavier Gellynck 1;
1. Department of Agricultural Economics, Ghent University, Coupure Links 653, 9000 Gent, Belgium; Tel.: +32 9 264 59 43; fax: +32 9 264 62 46.
2. Regionaal Landschap Meetjesland, Marktstraat 65, 9990 Maldegem, Belgium
Landscape and Urban Planning via Elsevier Science Direct www.ScienceDirect.com
Volume 103, Issue 2; 30 November 2011; Pages 198-206
Keywords: Urban planning; Economic valuation; Green infrastructure

Valuing Green Infrastructure in Portland, Oregon

http://www.webmeets.com/files/papers/AERE/2011/74/GreenStreets-5-24-2011.pdf
Abstract: This study uses the hedonic price method to examine if proximity, abundance, and characteristics of green street facilities affect the sale price of single-family residential properties in the city of Portland, Oregon. Different methods for measuring proximity and abundance are explored with distance based on street network, and abundance of green streets at the census tract and census block level, producing statistically significant results. Sale prices increase as distance from the nearest green street facility increases although the magnitude of this effect is small. Preliminary results find that older green streets (10 years+), and those with a large number of trees (7 or more), have a positive effect on the sale price of nearby properties.

Over the past 20 years Portland has invested $1.4 billion in physical infrastructure projects to reduce combined sewer overflows. These projects, which are scheduled to be completed in December 2011, will reduce the number of overflows to the Willamette River to an average of four times each winter and once every third summer (Portland Bureau of Environmental Services 2011). Projects are funded, in large part, by Portland’s combined sewer/water bills, which are amongst the highest in the country (Frank 2011). Further rate increases to fund large capital projects may not be politically feasible, so in 2008 the city launched a new strategy, the $55 million “Grey to Green” program, to control stormwater runoff. Program goals include planting 33,000 yard trees and 50,000 street trees, adding 43 acres of ecoroofs, controlling invasive plant species, purchasing over 400 acres of natural areas, and constructing 920 new green street facilities.
...
Green streets are a low-impact development technique that use “vegetated facilities to manage stormwater runoff at its source” and include curb extensions, street planters, and rain gardens as well as “simple” green streets, which involve changes to existing planting areas between curbs and sidewalks.... Additional benefits attributed to these facilities include increased property values, traffic calming, better bike access, enhanced pedestrian safety, and added green space and wildlife habitat. These facilities “are more cost-effective than piping stormwater to a treatment plant” ...and are increasingly being promoted by city managers as an effective means for controlling stormwater runoff.

While green space and wildlife habitat have been estimated to increase the sale price of single-family residential properties (Donovan and Butry 2010; Mahan, Polasky, and Adams 2000; Netusil 2006), literature examining the relationship between green street facilities and the sale price of single-family residential properties is extremely limited. Ward et al. (2008) estimate that properties located in low-impact development project areas in Seattle, Washington sold for 3.5-5 percent more than properties in the same zip code located outside project areas. Williams and Wise (2009) reach the opposite conclusion finding that lots in Gainesville, Florida with low-impact development stormwater systems are valued less than lots that use conventional approaches.
...
Home characteristics are of the expected sign and magnitude across specifications—a property’s sale price is estimated to increase at a diminishing rate as lot size and building square footage increase. Additional full and half bathrooms, increases in elevation (a proxy for views), and neighborhood characteristics such as percentage white and median income at the census tract level, are also found to have a significantly positive effect on sale price. Land cover variables on a property and in surrounding buffers are included to avoid omitted variable bias because green streets are often located in areas with a high percentage of impervious surface area.

Tree canopy on a property, and in surrounding buffers, is found to have a positive but diminishing effect on a property’s sale price; water, which is only present in the 200-foot to ¼ mile and ¼ mile to ½ mile buffers, has a large and significant effect on sale price.
...
The economic magnitude of proximity, however, is small—increasing a property’s distance from a green street by 1,000 feet is estimated to increase its sale price from $430 (1/4 mile street network) to $851 (1/4 mile Euclidean).
...
The EPA estimates that between $331 and $450 billion of investment is needed over a 20-year period (2000 to 2019) to replace or update the existing sewer infrastructure in the United States.
...
by Noelwah R. Netusil 1, Zachary Levin 1 and Vivek Shandas 2
1. Reed College, Department of Economics, 3203 SE Woodstock Boulevard, Portland, Oregon 97202
2. Portland State University, Nohad A. Toulan School of Urban Studies and Planning, Portland, Oregon 97201
Association of Environmental and Resource Economists www.aere.org/ 2011 Summer Conference Seattle, Washington http://www.webmeets.com/AERE/2011/
June 10, 2011
Keywords: low impact development; green streets; hedonic price method; stormwater; Portland, Oregon

Using an adapted HEP to assess environmental cost

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S092180091100396X
Abstract: The situation regarding the loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services is now critical. Consequently, environmental targets have been determined and environmental legislation at every level tend to be more demanding. The result at local scale is that land planners have to take more rigorous account of the environmental damage stemming from their infrastructure development plans. Several economic valuation methods can be used to perform a monetary valuation of losses of natural areas. However, existing valuation methods have reached their limits when dealing with land planning in complex natural areas (i.e. unfamiliar goods). We propose to use a method based on the American Habitat Evaluation Procedure (HEP) to assess the environmental cost of infrastructure development plans. The “adapted” HEP is an equivalence-based valuation method that bases the valuation of environmental cost on the environmental damage itself rather than willingness to pay. We find that compared to more conventional methods, the “adapted” HEP gives a higher value to lost environmental assets, which is rather promising.

Highlights
► Natural areas are highly unfamiliar goods.
► These goods tend to reveal the limitations of conventional methods.
► We use the “adapted” HEP to assess environmental cost. 
► It bases the valuation on ecological data rather than willingness to pay.

by Nathalie Dumax and Anne Rozan; both of the UMR Cemagref-Engees, GESTE, 1 quai Koch, BP 61039, 67070 Strasbourg Cedex, France; Tel.: + 33 388 248 232; fax: + 33 388 248 284.
Ecological Economics via Elsevier Science Direct www.ScienceDirect.com
Volume 72; 15 December 2011; Pages 53-59
Keywords: Ecosystem services; Mitigation; Valuation; Habitat evaluation procedure

New Study Examines the Impact of 400 km Aberdare Fence: Improvements to Ecosystem Services Worth About US$630 Million Annually - Aberdare Fence Has Improved Livelihoods, Land Values and Biodiversity, says New Study

http://www.unep.org/Documents.Multilingual/Default.asp?DocumentID=2653&ArticleID=8850
The now completed 400 km electrified fence enclosing the Aberdare Conservation Area (ACA) has improved the livelihoods of millions of people in central Kenya, according to an independent study launched on September 5, 2011 at the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) headquarters in Nairobi.

The study, The Environmental, Social and Economic Assessment of the Fencing of the Aberdare Conservation Area, also attributes improved forest cover, safer living conditions for local communities and greater security for wildlife to the fence, which was completed in 2009 after 20 years of construction.

The study was requested by The Rhino Ark Trust, the Kenya conservation charity that has pioneered the fence project, with funding support from thousands of Kenyans and friends of Kenya overseas. The study was co-funded by UNEP, Rhino Ark and Kenya Forests Working Group and supported by the Kenya Wildlife Service, the Kenya Forest Service and the Greenbelt Movement.

Speaking at the launch, Achim Steiner, UN Under-Secretary-General and UNEP Executive Director, said: "The Aberdares conservation efforts underline the extraordinary and wide-ranging returns possible when a more creative, decisive and sustainable approach to managing nature is undertaken-they also offer a model for exemplary public-private partnerships".

"Indeed Kenya's new policies on renewable energy to conservation of its water towers including the Mau complex, Mt. Elgon, Mt. Kenya, the Cherangany, and the Aberdares, is demonstrating practically and politically that a transition to a Green Economy is as relevant to a country in Africa as it is to countries across the world," he added.

...
Key findings in the report confirm:

• A 20.6% increase in forest cover between 2005 and 2010
• A 54% decrease in open areas (grassland and cultivation inside the now fenced 2000 km² Aberdare Conservation Area)
• A 47 % increase in exotic plantations outside the fenced area

The report attributes these improvements to the effects of the fence and associated fence management guidelines as well as more assertive policy interventions.

It emphasizes that there should be an integrated management plan for the Aberdares and by inference that future government policy should incorporate holistic approaches to the way high value mountain forest ecosystems are managed.

The study also recorded socio-economic effects, such as higher household incomes and land values (as high as 300% in some cases) due to improved farmland security, crop yields and safer living conditions. Wildlife crop destruction has been all but eliminated and children travelling to school face fewer risks from animals. The number of fence edge communities growing wood lots for farm fuel is increasing. In some areas, communities have initiated indigenous tree re-planting inside the fence where previously illegal logging, uncontrolled cattle grazing and indiscriminate cultivation were rampant.

Cattle rustling using the forest as an escape route has ceased and disease transmission between wildlife and livestock has greatly reduced.

The report confirms that wildlife populations have increased, though poaching remains a threat. It confirms that whilst the fence protects farmers' land, it is not, nor was designed, to be human proof. The report calls for stricter gate access policies to regulate access to the Aberdare Conservation Area and to tackle illegal activities inside the indigenous forest areas.

On water resources, the report says limited data indicates that the Aberdares rivers are "more stable than the Mount Kenya rivers" - a fact it attributes to better land cover in the ecosystem.

The report's economic analysis gives a breakdown of identifiable benefits provided by the Aberdares to many parts of Kenya. The value of providing domestic water supply to central Kenya, parts of the Rift Valley and the Tana River valley, for example, is estimated at KES 646 million (US$ 6.9 million) annually. For Nairobi, where almost all the water supply comes from above and below ground Aberdare sources, the value given is KES 1.46 billion (US$ 15.6 million) annually.

The Aberdares is a key contributor to hydropower, which represents 58% of the national total installed capacity. The mountain range is a core provider of water for the horticulture and floriculture production around Lake Naivasha and is also vital to the Ewaso Nyiro River, which flows into Laikipia and the arid northern rangelands.

On carbon sequestration and soil erosion control, the report assesses the annual value at just under KES 1.9 billion (US$ 20.3 million). Carbon credits account for KES 450 million (US$ 5 million) annually.

The report stresses important values to fence adjacent communities and key revenues from the Nyayo tea zones and tourism.

Total products and services values are put at KES 39.3 billion (US$ 420 million) and biodiversity at KES 20 billion (US$ 214 million) - an overall total of KES 59.3 billion (US$ 633 million).

The overall distribution of economic benefits from the Aberdares gives the central Kenya/Rift Valley area 71 %, whilst the total national benefit is logged at 12%. The fence adjacent communities receive 7.6% of the total cake. The global value from agricultural exports, tourism and biodiversity is just under 7%.

In per capita terms, the 40,000 families whose land borders the fence and gazetted forest line are receiving by far the largest value benefits at KES 14,580 (US$ 155) per capita compared to a regional figure of KES 4,661 (US$ 50) per capita.

However, despite these substantial positive changes, the study affirms that the fence is under-supplied in both human and capital needs.

It recommends that the Ministry of Finance be further sensitized as to the value of the Aberdare ecosystem and to provide appropriate budget allocations to its overall contribution to the economy and GDP of Kenya.

The report affirms that a public-private partnership using a trust mechanism should be formed, which would enable stronger 'participatory management' by communities with the relevant government agencies. It stresses that there is an urgent need to ensure a properly implemented gate management and access policy for gazetted (vis à vis national park) forest areas.

The report proposes that given adequate financial and human capital support through immediate Treasury funding, the long term financing could be derived from Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES) mainly from water and electricity users. In addition to ensuring ecosystem stability, PES could then be re-directed to accelerate income generating and non-exploitive activities for fence adjacent farmers.

The study recognizes that the fence adjacent communities could place new exploitive pressures on the forests and so need greater long-term support to create income activities that are compatible with conservation.

It concludes by affirming that management of the buffer zone - the five kilometre area around the fence - should be clearly identified and every effort made to create "positive benefits by deliberate investment in support of local livelihoods."

The full study is available free of charge http://www.unep.org/PDF/PressReleases/Rhino_Ark_Main_Report.pdf.

United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) www.unep.org 

Press Release dated September 5, 2011

New York City Parks and Their Impact on Residential Property Values

http://www.nycedc.com/NewsPublications/Newsletters/EconomicSnapshot/Documents/EconomicSnapshotAugust2011.pdf
The City of New York Department of Parks & Recreation (“Parks Department”) oversees about 29,000 acres of land, slightly less than a fifth of all City land. Parks constitute the majority of such space: 16,600 acres, or 11 percent of total City land. The remaining space under the Parks Department’s management includes golf courses, stadiums, tennis courts, etc.  According to a report by The Trust for Public Land (“Trust”), in 2009, New York City had the highest percentage of park land among 14 other cities identified with similarly high population density, surpassing areas such as Washington. D.C, San Francisco and Boston.

Over a thousand acres of park land was added to the City from 2003 to 2011 according to property data from the NYC Department of Finance (DOF). About two thirds (794 acres) of the increase was due to one park reclassification and the re-opening of the McCarren Park in 2005, which was a pool park originally closed in 1984 and located in Williamsburg, Brooklyn
.
With approximately 25 million visitors, Central Park is the most visited city park in the U.S., according to the Trust. 7 NYC parks ranked in the country’s top 50 visited parks, including Prospect Park, Battery Park and Bryant Park.

Parks are amenities whose value is difficult to assess due to many intangible factors. However, in so far as they affect the quality of life, land values should vary based on the proximity to parks.

The New York City Economic Development Corporation NYCEDC analyzed property data around three of the City’s parks: Central Park (Manhattan), Prospect Park (Brooklyn) and the recently opened Highline Park (Manhattan). The analysis finds that land values of residential properties increase the closer they are to a park. Additionally, the increase in land values over time specifically for lower priced properties is also correlated with the proximity to the park.  This analysis is based on market value of land per square foot as estimated by NYC DOF. Data are from the Real Property Assessment Database between Fiscal Year 2002/2003 and
Fiscal Year 2010/2011.

On the east side of Central park, median values for properties between a 5 and 10 minute walk were 11 percent lower than those within 5 minutes from the park assuming a casual walking pace of 2-3 miles per hour. A similar trend was observed on the west and south sides of Central Park, Prospect Park, and the Highline. 

From 2003 to 2011, property values closest to the parks escalated over time at a faster rate in lower priced areas (relative to their neighborhoods bordering the park), such as Flatbush, Central Park West and Hudson Yards. Before the construction of the Highline Park in 2003, surrounding residential properties were valued 8 percent below the overall median for Manhattan, but had appreciated beyond borough-wide values by 2011. The trends among neighborhoods with relatively higher land values were not as conclusive

New York City Department  of Economic Development www.NYCEDC.org
Economic Snapshot August, 2011

City street trees pay their way: Forest Service study finds Charleston gets good return on investment

http://www.postandcourier.com/news/2011/aug/08/city-street-trees-pay-their-way/
The homeowners at Congress and Hagood streets didn't like the oak blocking their view of The Citadel's football stadium just down the street, so they had it cut down.

Now Tobin Stewart and Daniel Tollens have been ordered by a city court to pay $3,200 in restitution.

They're the latest to learn just how seriously the city of Charleston takes its street trees. And why not? A study by the U.S. Forest Service found that for every dollar the city spends maintaining its approximately 16,000 street trees -- trees along streets, in city parks and on other city lands -- it receives about $1.37 worth of benefits.

Trees cool buildings and sidewalks, reducing summer energy costs. They soak up stormwater, helping the city's occasionally inadequate drainage system. They remove carbon dioxide from the air. That's why no fewer than nine city employees have full-time jobs pruning, irrigating and monitoring these trees.

And while the city's urban forest is relatively young and healthy, its chief forester wants to see more diversity among its species. Live oaks, crape myrtles and controversial Sabal palms make up more than 70 percent of its trees.
...
The city of Charleston spends almost $1 million a year to tend its trees, which number about 45,000. About a third line the city's streets; the rest are found in public parks (West Ashley Park alone has about 2,000, while Hampton Park has about 1,000) and in city drainage easements and public buffer zones.

Danny Burbage started as the city's first "urban forester" in 1983, not long after local governments began responding to the Dutch elm disease, which decimated so many urban trees in the northeast.... Burbage's eight-member staff spends most of its time pruning. While trees in the woods can shed dead or dying limbs with no incident, this poses a danger when people or cars regularly pass underneath. Also, Burbage notes the pruning helps the trees stay healthier by ridding them of their struggling branches.  Unlike contractors working to prune trees for power companies, whose work often leaves unsightly notches, Burbage says when a city crew prunes a tree, it aims to do everything necessary for the health of the tree "and when they leave, it should look like they've never been there."

Of course, the tree that Burbage's department fusses over the most is the Angel Oak, the massive tree with its own park on Johns Island. Burbage inspects it monthly, and its network of lightning rods and support cables are adjusted once a year. Also, it gets an annual treatment of ground drenched insecticide to ward off pests, as well as an aerating treatment and a fresh 3-inch layer of mulch below its drip line to protect its roots from the thousands of visitors that frolic under its canopy. 

Charleston's street trees by typeOak 35%

Crape myrtle 22%
Palmetto 19%
...

How old are our trees? An ideal urban forest is made up of one-third young trees, a third maturing trees and a third large trees. Charleston's is a little out of balance, possibly because of Hurricane Hugo's toll in 1989.

Age/Size | In Charleston | Ideal
Young (less than 10 inches in diameter) | 56.1% | 33.3%
Maturing (11-36 inches) | 42.5% | 33.3%
Mature (more than 36 inches) | 1.4% | 33.3%

Wayward cars claim about four or five street trees a year, while lightening and strong winds can take others....
There's also a problem with Formosan termites, too.
...
The city's street trees have been the focus of two studies, paid in part with federal dollars.One, done in 2000, actually inventoried the number, size and type of city street trees. The second, done about five years ago, built on the first by calculating the costs and benefits of the city's known street trees.
...
The 2006 analysis -- done by the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Center for Urban Forest Research -- puts a price on how much trees give back by providing shade (and lowering cooling bills), absorbing stormwater runoff and offering aesthetic benefits.

Dr. Greg McPherson, who was the center's director at the time, says, "Our research in Charleston has shown that the municipal street trees provide $717,000 in annual benefits, about $47 per tree, and only cost the city $530,000 per year to maintain. That is a huge return on your investment."

The city's trees provide intangible benefits, such as better-looking neighborhoods, stress reduction, reduced crime, and recreational opportunities, McPherson says. "If we could put a dollar value on these kinds of tree benefits, Charleston's return on investment would be a lot higher. Right now we can't, but we are working on it," he adds.
...
Ironically, Burbage's greatest worry these days is the same sort of concern that led to his job's creation a generation ago: that a Dutch elm-like disease will emerge and claim a huge number of trees here.
"We need to diversify," he says, "but because they're so iconic, it's hard to convince Charlestonians not to plant live oak trees."  But Burbage says too many live oaks will leave the city vulnerable to some future disease that attacks a single species.
...
The city plants about 250 more trees than it removes in a given year, and it prunes more than 1,700.
Still, Burbage estimates there's still room for about 10,000 more street trees. "If you drive down any street in Charleston, including the peninsula, you'll see gaps."
...
His department ultimately will use the $3,200 settlement from the illegally cut tree near the Citadel to plant more trees in that neighborhood.
Cost-benefit analysis
What it takes to maintain Charleston's street trees:
$35 — Approximate cost to maintain a street tree per year (pruning, planting, stump grinding, irrigation, administration, sidewalk and other infrastructure repairs, etc.)
$47 — Approximate value of a street tree, including:
$11 — value of its intercepting stormwater, helping the city comply with federal stormwater rules.
$8 — Value of energy saving (both electricity and natural gas) saved because of its shade.
$0.50— Value of carbon dioxide and other pollutants removed, released or avoided by trees.
$26 — Value of aesthetics, property value increase and other less tangible improvements.
$1.50 — Value of carbon dioxide sequestration and emission reductions, minus carbon dioxide released during decomposition.
... What they're worth: $42.5 million – Approximate cost of replacing Charleston's street trees (About $2,800 per tree).

By Robert Behre
The Post and Courier, Charleston SC http://www.postandcourier.com
FOR FULL STORY GO TO:
http://www.postandcourier.com/news/2011/aug/08/city-street-trees-pay-their-way/
August 8, 2011

Cities See the Other Side of the Tracks

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/03/realestate/commercial/cities-see-another-side-to-old-tracks.html

The High Line park, built on an elevated railway trestle in Manhattan, has become both a symbol and a catalyst for an explosion of growth in the meatpacking district and the Chelsea neighborhood. 

 

Now cities around the country, including Chicago, Philadelphia and St. Louis, are working up plans to renovate their aging railroad trestles, tracks and railways for parkland. Cities with little public space are realizing they badly need more parks, and the High Line has taught that renovating an old railway can be the spark that helps improve a neighborhood and attract development.

The High Line’s first and second sections cost $153 million, but have generated an estimated $2 billion in new developments. In the five years since construction started on the High Line, 29 new projects have been built or are under way in the neighborhood, according to the New York City Department of City Planning. More than 2,500 new residential units, 1,000 hotel rooms and over 500,000 square feet of office and art gallery space have gone up.
...

The area around the park, sprinkled with small offices under 200,000 square feet, has become a draw for start-ups and creative companies.

 

Though plans in many cities have a long way to go before becoming reality, a point in favor of reuse is that it can be cheaper to renovate old rail structures than to tear them down. The Reading Viaduct, an old elevated railway line in Philadelphia, would cost $50 million to demolish versus $36 million to retrofit, according to the Center City District, a business improvement group. 

In Chicago, where a 2.65-mile elevated rail line slices through four residential areas, tearing down the line would be prohibitively costly. With 37 bridges and large earthen embankments, the Bloomingdale Trail, as it is now called, snakes east to west across Chicago and is simply too big to go.
...

As with other, similar rail lines around the country, passenger and freight trains have not operated on the Chicago line in at least 10 years. The only traffic most of these lines see is an occasional runner or bike rider, even though trespassing is usually forbidden.

...

The Bloomingdale Trail is moving forward after Rahm Emanuel, who made completing the trail one of his campaign promises, was elected mayor in February. Over the next year, design concepts and engineering work will get under way. The Bloomingdale Trail will allow bikes and dogs, interconnect with new and existing ground-level parks and cost $40 million to $75 million.
In St. Louis, plans are in the works to renovate a 2.1-mile elevated rail trestle and turn it into a park as part of a larger waterfront revitalization project. The Iron Horse Trestle, estimated to cost $50 million, does not have a timeline. Organizers hope to have the first one-mile phase completed in five years.
...

In October, Mike and Matt Pestronk pounced on a 10-story office tower next to the Philadelphia viaduct when it fell into foreclosure and bought it for $5 million. ... The developers plan to renovate the vacant office tower for $25 million and turn it into apartments.... The brothers are trying to improve the area and have done some “guerrilla improvements” to the viaduct, such as weeding and putting down plywood to cover holes, and installing artwork and live video projections on two sides of their building.  Plans for the viaduct are slowly moving ahead after nearly 10 years of grass-roots work.... As a first step, a small section of the trestle owned by a regional transportation authority would be redeveloped for $5.5 million.

...

Atlanta also hired Mr. Corner to help redevelop a 22-mile rail corridor encircling the city. In the next 25 years, Atlanta plans to add 1,300 acres of parks and green spaces, public transit and trails along the necklace, increasing Atlanta green space by nearly 40 percent. The project’s cost is put at $2.8 billion.
...
by Kristina Shevory
FOR FULL STORY GO TO:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/03/realestate/commercial/cities-see-another-side-to-old-tracks.html
The New York Times www.NYTimes.com
August 2, 2011

Land and Water Conservation Fund suffers 33% cut despite Trust for Public Land Study showing every $1 invested returned $4 in economic value

http://www.tpl.org/news/press-releases/2011-press-releases/conservation-funding-slashed.html 
Congress approved the Fiscal Year 2011 federal budget in April, significantly cutting funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund, the country’s premiere federal program for protecting lands for all Americans. Supported by offshore oil and gas leasing revenues – not taxpayers’ dollars – the LWCF ensures all Americans have access to local community parks and playgrounds and the vast expanses of federal public lands.
...
In the final budget agreement, LWCF is funded at $301 million, a 33% cut from the FY10 enacted level. Programs that ensure protection of working forests and ranches, threatened and endangered species habitat, access for sportsmen and recreationists, and our national parks, wildlife refuges, forests and other public lands are all impacted by these cuts.

“This 33 percent reduction from FY 10 enacted levels is not only a disproportionate cut to a very successful program but means that LWCF funds have been diverted from their intended and authorized purposes,” said Will Rogers, President of The Trust for Public Land. “If we are serious about creating jobs and getting the economy back on track, conservation spending on LWCF is not only a wise, but an essential investment that reaps immediate and tangible benefits in our communities across the tourism, service and outdoor recreation sectors.”
...
The outdoor industry is one of America’s fastest growing sectors. In addition to contributing more than $730 billion to the American economy each year, it generates $88 billion in annual state and federal tax revenue. More than 6.5 million American jobs are supported by the active outdoor recreation economy.

The reduced funding levels for LWCF contained in this final budget agreement means that a host of willing-seller, critically needed and locally driven land conservation and outdoor recreation projects, will not get done this year. Some will be lost forever, as willing-seller landowners cannot be expected to wait for Congress to act.

Created by Congress in 1965, LWCF was a bipartisan commitment to safeguard natural areas, water resources and our cultural heritage, and to provide recreation opportunities to all Americans. National parks like Rocky Mountain and the Great Smoky Mountains, as well as national wildlife refuges, national forests, Civil War battlefields, cultural and historic sites, rivers and lakes, working ranches and forests, community parks, trails, and ball fields in every one of our 50 states are permanently protected for Americans to enjoy thanks to federal funds from LWCF.

The Land and Water Conservation Fund Coalition is an informal partnership working together to support full and dedicated funding for LWCF. The coalition includes hundreds of local, state and national business, recreation, private landowner and conservation organizations across the country.
...
On November 15, 2010 The Trust for Public Land released an analysis of the return on the investment of LWCF dollars for federal land acquisition by the Bureau of Land Management, Fish and Wildlife Service, Forest Service, and National Park Service for a sample of sixteen federal units that received LWCF funding between 1998 and 2009. TPL analyzed the past (i.e., 1998 to 2009) and likely future (i.e., over the next ten years) economic returns generated from LWCF spending on the sample federal units and found that every $1 invested returns $4 in economic value over this time period from natural resource goods and services alone. In addition to providing natural goods and services, these federal lands are key to local recreation and tourism industries. TPL found that approximately 10.6 million people visit these sixteen federal units each year and spend $511 million in the surrounding local communities. (See http://www.tpl.org/publications/books-reports/return-on-investment-from-the.html)

Trust For Public Land www.TPL.org
Press Releases dated April 15, 2011 and November 15, 2010

The Trust for Public Land - LandVote 2010

http://www.tpl.org/publications/books-reports/landvote-2010.html
 The November 2010 midterm elections saw historic victories for land conservation. Of the 36 conservation funding measures on the ballot nationwide, 30 passed, creating more than $2 billion in new funding for land conservation and capping a year of 41 wins out of 49 measures. The 84 percent passage rate was the second-highest ever.

These successes follow the record-breaking general election of 2008, in which voters backed 63 of the 89 state and local conservation finance measures. The 2008 victories generated a single-day record of $7.3 billion in new funding for parks and open space—despite a difficult economic climate.

Even in a difficult economy and polarized political climate, Americans of all ideologies continue to invest in the health of their land, air, and water.

The full report is available free of charge at http://cloud.tpl.org/pubs/confin-LandVote2010-rpt.pdf

Thr Trust for Public Land www.TPL.org
Report Issued March 1, 2011

Valuation of ecosystem services from rural landscapes using agricultural land prices

Abstract: Agricultural lands, primarily managed for crops and livestock production, provide various ecosystem services (ES) to people. In theory, the economic value of the service flows that can be captured privately is capitalized into land prices. This study proposes an integrative framework to characterize the ecosystem services associated with agricultural lands. Using that framework, we demonstrate how hedonic analysis of agricultural land prices can be used to estimate the private values of land-based ES. The model is estimated with data from southwestern Michigan, USA. Results suggest that ES values are associated with lakes, rivers, wetlands, forests and conservation lands in rural landscapes. Ecosystem services that support direct use values, such as recreational and aesthetic services, are likely to be perceived by land owners and capitalized in land prices. Some regulating services that provide indirect use values may be partially capitalized in a land parcel's relationship to natural resources and landscapes. Other ES from the land parcel and its surroundings are unlikely to be capitalized due to lack of private incentives, unawareness, or small perceived value. The private ES values measured in this study highlight opportunities to design cost-effective public policies that factor in the value of private benefits from agricultural lands.
Research Highlights
► Land prices can reveal the economic values of many ecosystem services.
► A new framework shows when land prices can measure ecosystem service values.
► Recreational and aesthetic ecosystem services have high value in southern Michigan.
► Surrounding landscapes and nearby water bodies add value to parcels of farmland.
► Environmental values embodied in land prices can help design conservation policy.

by Shan Malow and Scott M. Swinton; both of the Department of Agricultural, Food and Resource Economics, Michigan State University, 20 Cook Hall, East Lansing, MI, USA. Tel.: + 1 517 256 5043; fax: + 1 517 432 1800.
Ecological Economics via Elsevier Science Direct www.ScienceDirect.com
Volume 70, Issue 9; 15 July 2011; Pages 1649-1659
Special Section - Governing the Commons: Learning from Field and Laboratory Experiments
Keywords: Rural landscapes; Hedonic; Ecosystem services; Agricultural land price; Geographic Information System

The Cost of Renewable Energy Sources - The Gas is Greener

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/08/opinion/08bryce.html
In a June 7, 2011 New York Times op-ed Robert Bryce of the Manhattan Institute writes:

IN April, Gov. Jerry Brown made headlines by signing into law an ambitious mandate that requires California to obtain one-third of its electricity from renewable energy sources like sunlight and wind by 2020. Twenty-nine states and the District of Columbia now have renewable electricity mandates. President Obama and several members of Congress have supported one at the federal level. Polls routinely show strong support among voters for renewable energy projects — as long as they don’t cost too much.

But there’s the rub: while energy sources like sunlight and wind are free and naturally replenished, converting them into large quantities of electricity requires vast amounts of natural resources — most notably, land. Even a cursory look at these costs exposes the deep contradictions in the renewable energy movement.

Consider California’s new mandate. The state’s peak electricity demand is about 52,000 megawatts. Meeting the one-third target will require (if you oversimplify a bit) about 17,000 megawatts of renewable energy capacity. Let’s assume that California will get half of that capacity from solar and half from wind. Most of its large-scale solar electricity production will presumably come from projects like the $2 billion Ivanpah solar plant, which is now under construction in the Mojave Desert in southern California. When completed, Ivanpah, which aims to provide 370 megawatts of solar generation capacity, will cover 3,600 acres — about five and a half square miles.

The math is simple: to have 8,500 megawatts of solar capacity, California would need at least 23 projects the size of Ivanpah, covering about 129 square miles, an area more than five times as large as Manhattan. While there’s plenty of land in the Mojave, projects as big as Ivanpah raise environmental concerns. In April, the federal Bureau of Land Management ordered a halt to construction on part of the facility out of concern for the desert tortoise, which is protected under the Endangered Species Act.

Wind energy projects require even more land. The Roscoe wind farm in Texas, which has a capacity of 781.5 megawatts, covers about 154 square miles. Again, the math is straightforward: to have 8,500 megawatts of wind generation capacity, California would likely need to set aside an area equivalent to more than 70 Manhattans. Apart from the impact on the environment itself, few if any people could live on the land because of the noise (and the infrasound, which is inaudible to most humans but potentially harmful) produced by the turbines.

Industrial solar and wind projects also require long swaths of land for power lines. Last year, despite opposition from environmental groups, San Diego Gas & Electric started construction on the 117-mile Sunrise Powerlink, which will carry electricity from solar, wind and geothermal projects located in Imperial County, Calif., to customers in and around San Diego. In January, environmental groups filed a federal lawsuit to prevent the $1.9 billion line from cutting through a nearby national forest.

Not all environmentalists ignore renewable energy’s land requirements. The Nature Conservancy has coined the term “energy sprawl” to describe it. Unfortunately, energy sprawl is only one of the ways that renewable energy makes heavy demands on natural resources.

Consider the massive quantities of steel required for wind projects. The production and transportation of steel are both expensive and energy-intensive, and installing a single wind turbine requires about 200 tons of it. Many turbines have capacities of 3 or 4 megawatts, so you can assume that each megawatt of wind capacity requires roughly 50 tons of steel. By contrast, a typical natural gas turbine can produce nearly 43 megawatts while weighing only 9 tons. Thus, each megawatt of capacity requires less than a quarter of a ton of steel.
...
Such profligate use of resources is the antithesis of the environmental ideal.
...
by Robert Bryce, Senior Fellow at the Manhattan Institute and author, most recently, of “Power Hungry: The Myths of ‘Green’ Energy and the Real Fuels of the Future.”
The New York Times www.NYTimes.comJune 7, 2011
FOR FULL OP-ED GO TO:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/08/opinion/08bryce.html

Canada's Boreal Forest Houses World's Largest Water Resource - Top scientists call boreal protection a global priority

http://tinyurl.com/3rz43vw
A first of its kind report by the Pew Environment Group reveals that Canada's boreal, the world's largest intact forest and on-land carbon storehouse, contains more unfrozen freshwater than any other ecosystem. As United Nations' International Year of the Forests and World Water Day coincide, world leaders are grappling with water scarcity and pollution–and scientists are calling boreal protection a top global priority.

A Forest of Blue: Canada's Boreal Forest, The World's Waterkeeper, compiles decades of research and finds that the boreal

• contains 25 percent of the planet's wetlands, million of pristine lakes, and thousands of free-flowing rivers, totaling more than 197 million acres of surface freshwater;
• provides an estimated $700 billion value annually as a buffer against climate change and food and water shortages;
• offers the last refuges for many of the world's sea-run migratory fish, including half of the remaining populations of North American Atlantic salmon;
• maintains freshwater flows critical to forming Arctic sea ice, which cools the atmosphere and supports marine life, from sea algae to polar bears; and,
• stores more than 400 trillion pounds of carbon in lakes and river delta sediment, peatlands and wetlands–more than any other terrestrial source in the world.

...
Canada’s boreal forest is increasingly impacted by large-scale industrial activities. Global demand for resources from the boreal is on the rise, with more than half of total exports of forest products, oil, natural gas and hydropower going to the United States.
...
The Pew Environment Group has worked with First Nations, conservation groups, federal, provincial and territorial governments to protect the boreal, resulting in 185 million acres set aside from development to date, including key wetland and river areas. That total represents more than 12 percent of the 1.2 billion-acre forest.

The report concludes that governments should protect entire river, lake and wetland ecosystems by preserving intact 50 percent of Canada’s boreal forest requiring sustainable practices for industrial activities taking place in the remaining areas.
...
Pew Environment www.PewEnvironment.org
Press Release dated March 16, 2011

Making—or Picking—Winners: Evidence of Internal and External Price Effects in Historic Preservation Policies

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1540-6229.2010.00293.x/abstract
Abstract: This article measures the impacts of historic preservation regulations on property values inside and outside of officially designated historic districts. The analysis relies on a model of historic designation to control for the tendency to designate higher-quality properties. An instrumental variables model using rich data on historic significance corrects for this bias. The results for Chicago during the 1990s indicate that price impacts from designation inside a landmark district vary considerably across homes inside the districts. Controlling for extant historic quality, which the market values positively, restrictions apparently have negative price effects on average both within and outside districts.
...
An April 2009 working paper available at http://ftp.iza.org/dp4110.pdf noted that:

OLS results suggest large price premiums (approximately 25%) for homes in preserved districts. (The premium rises to 60% in a totally unconditional model where only DISTRICT is included and all other hedonic attributes are omitted.)
...
TSLS estimation indicated that the effect of being included in a historic district on sales price is negative 19% (with a 95% confidence interval ranging from -29% to -7%). The large district effect likely reflects several forces. On the one hand, inclusion in a historic district restricts redevelopment options of owners (and buyers), which should lower the value of the property. On the other hand, district designation may offer many benefits, like tax benefits and possibly a kind of certification of (or signal for) the property’s cachet. For attached housing in Chicago, at least, the tax benefits are outweighed by the restrictions on renovation. The cachet effects also appear minimal given the model with excellent controls for historical quality. Buildings with names in the CHRS sell for a 6% premium on top of a 5-8% premium for being in the CHRS. Furthermore, the stability that district designation brings to the neighborhood’s overall character (in terms of the types of land uses and buildings’ external appearance) may be seen as disamenities by buyers in districts. Homes in districts may relatively lack access to modern urban conveniences like shopping, parking, and other mixed uses.
...
Every 10% of the block group occupied by a district predicts a 2% increase in sale price for all homes in that block group.
...
The effects of designation on nearby properties are shown to be statistically significant and substantively important.... negative spillovers can be economically important; condo and townhome prices positively
correlate with landmark density.  As a very crude estimate, ... assuming that the sample of sales is representative of Chicago’s housing, removing all landmark buildings would lower home values by $263 on average (winners gain $14,320 on average while losers lose $4,899 on average and greatly outnumber the winners).  Similarly, removing all districts would lower home values by $45 on average (winners gain $59,203 average while losers lose $10,804 on average and again greatly outnumber the winners). Seen in this redistributive light, the historic preservation policy appears to concentrate the harms of designation while spreading the gains widely. The combined effect of landmark buildings and districts shown here has a small net positive effect ($309 is roughly 0.2% of mean home value). This net effect masks how roughly 7% of the units would gain by the absence of landmarks by 13% of their property value, but they are outnumbered by 4:1 by those whose home values would suffer without the landmarks by 4%. Large values are at stake for the 35% of the units that are either winners or losers in Chicago.

The study also reports coefficients for parking, parking spot, waterfront, distance to the Central Business District, distance to Lake Michigan, distance to water, distance to Chicago Transit Authority (CTA) station and distance to a park.


by Douglas S. Noonan 1 and Douglas J. Krupka 2
1. School of Public Policy, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA 30332 or douglas.noonan@pubpolicy.gatech.edu
2. Institute for Research on Labor, Employment and the Economy (IRLEE) and Ford School of Public Policy, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1220 and IZA (Institute for the Study of Labor), Bonn, Germany, D-53072. Doug Krupka passed away on June 23, 2010. He will be missed.
Real Estate Economics via Wiley Online Library http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com Volume 39, Issue 2; Summer 2011, article first published online March 1, 2011; Pages 379–407,
American Real Estate and Urban Economics Association
DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-6229.2010.00293.x