Multiple Good Valuation

Assume for the moment that you are the supervisor of the Roosevelt National Forest (it’s located near our town of Fort Collins, Colorado). You have been asked by the Chief of the Forest Service how you would spend a specified increase in your budget. You could spend the increase on such projects as improved campgrounds, better roads for reaching the backcountry, reduction in forest fuels to lower the risk of wildfire, and watershed management to lower erosion and thereby improve fish habitat. You know your chances of getting an increase depend on how well you support your proposal. You can design options that use up the budget increase, but you don’t have good information about the benefits of, or even the public preferences for, the options. You know what the vocal interest groups want, but you would like your proposal to have some quantitative justification that reflects the values of the wider citizenry who care about the National Forest. You examined the economic analyses that had been done about forest resources in the area and found no studies for most of the major resources you manage. You don’t have time for separate valuation studies of each of the options. However, you could commission a single study directly comparing the values people place on the options-a multiple good valuation study. Furthermore, because the options cost the same amount, a preference ordering of the options is all you need to choose the best one. That option might then become the focus of an economic valuation study, which would allow a benefit-cost comparison.1