Federal agencies invest taxpayer dollars every year in conservation programs that are focused on improving a suite of ecosystem services produced on private lands. A better understanding of the public benefits generated by federal conservation programs could help improve governmental efficiency and economic welfare by providing science-based evidence for use in policy decision-making regarding targeting of federal conservation investments. Of specific concern here are conservation investments made by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). While previous research has shown that efficiency gains are possible using cost-benefit analysis for targeting conservation investments, agency-wide implementation of this approach by policy makers has been constrained by the limited availability of location-specific information regarding conservation benefits. Cost-effective opportunities for integrating location-specific ecosystem service valuation research with USDA conservation decision-making include: (1) institutionalizing funding of comparable studies suitable for benefit transfer, (2) utilizing non-traditional data sources for research complementing benefit transfer, and (3) creating a state-of-the-art program for developing and communicating research in ecosystem service valuation exemplifying the highest standards of scientific conduct.

This article discusses prospects and challenges related to the use of meta-regression models (MRMs) for ecosystem service benefit transfer, with an emphasis on validity criteria and post-estimation procedures given sparse attention in the ecosystem services literature. We illustrate these topics using a meta-analysis of willingness to pay for water quality changes that support aquatic ecosystem services and the application of this model to estimate water quality benefits under alternative riparian buffer restoration scenarios in New Hampshire's Great Bay Watershed. These illustrations highlight the advantages of MRM benefit transfers, together with the challenges and data needs encountered when quantifying ecosystem service values.

Extrapolation of estimates of the value per statistical life (VSL) from high- to low- or middle-income populations requires attention to the possible effects of differences in income, current mortality risk, health, life expectancy, and many other factors. The standard theoretical model of VSL implies that VSL increases with income and decreases with current mortality risk. The effect of mortality risk is likely to be negligible while the effect of income is large and poorly quantified. Effects of differences in life expectancy and health are theoretically ambiguous. Effects of other factors, including differences in health care, formal and informal support networks, and cultural or religious factors that affect preferences for spending on oneself or others may be important but are unknown. Practical issues include choice of the most appropriate measure of income and possible differences in the patterns of age dependence between populations.

The value of small changes in mortality risks, generally expressed as the value per statistical life, is an important parameter in benefit-cost analysis. However, little is known about the values held by populations in low- and middle-income countries. This article introduces a symposium that includes three additional articles which explore related theory and research.

Deforestation is one of the most important conservation problems in tropical developing countries, even though cost–benefit analyses consistently show that forest conservation is economically beneficial. In Madagascar, deforestation continues at alarming rates despite numerous initiatives of international donors to increase incentives for local households to support forest conservation. In this literature review, we contrast cost–benefit analyses for forest conservation with: (1) the actual burdens and (2) the actual gains of forest conservation for rural households, generated mainly in the context of conservation projects. We show that approaches to generating direct benefits deliver less value than expected for rural communities; the benefit transfer mechanisms are insufficient as the majority of benefits are captured by other stakeholders, and increased benefit transfer is limited by structural and institutional limitations in local communities, valuation chains and in terms of governance failure at higher levels.

Implementation of measures to protect and improve the environment requires knowledge about people's preferences, both to ensure economic means and to gain public support for the measures. Since environmental legislation and protection measures become increasingly cross-national, knowledge of benefit perception among people across countries is important. This study addresses the aggregated preferences of environmentally-concerned individuals in France, USA, Norway, Russia, China and Spain. The aggregated preferences in all groups showed emphasis on pollution issues (rank 1 out of six issues in all six countries). The groups were least concerned with animal rights, which here included the right for top predators like tigers and wolf to roam the wilderness in a way that may cause statistical fatalities (rank 4–6). The group's concern for pollution decreased with the buying power of the country to which they belonged (r2 = 0.967). Also, agreement among the individuals in the groups tended to be less when the buying power was large (r2 = 0.940). The study shows that benefits accrued in one country may not have the same weight in another country, in particular if countries have different economic development status. It also suggests that efforts to preserve species diversity may require other types of public motivation than efforts to reduce pollution or to use non-renewable resources.