SEGS Research: Policy Analytics

In this chapter, two ideal types of practitioners who may use or cre- ate policy informatics projects, programs, or platforms are introduced: the policy informatics-savvy public manager and the policy informatics analyst. Drawing from our experiences in teaching an informatics-friendly graduate curriculum, we dis- cuss the range of learning competencies needed for traditional public managers and policy informatics-oriented analysts to thrive in an era of informatics. The chapter begins by describing the two different types of students who are, or can be touched by, policy informatics-friendly competencies, skills, and attitudes. Competencies ranging from those who may be users of policy informatics and sponsors of policy informatics projects and programs to those analysts designing and executing policy informatics projects and programs will be addressed. The chapter concludes with an illustration of how one Master of Public Administration (MPA) program with a policy informatics-friendly mission, a core curriculum that touches on policy infor- matics applications, and a series of program electives that allows students to develop analysis and modeling skills, designates its informatics-oriented competencies.

Multi-level governance networks provide both opportunities and challenges to mainstream climate change adaptation due to their routine decision-making and coordination processes. This paper explores institutionalizing resilience and adaptation to climate change in the intergovernmental transportation planning processes that address bridge infrastructure in the Northeastern United States (USA), specifically in Vermont and Maine. The research presented here relies on nine interviews with policy-makers and planners, a survey of transportation project prioritization criteria, development of a longitudinal bridge funding database, and its integration with publicly available geospatial data. It presents a novel spatial analysis methodology, a modified version of which could be adopted by transportation agencies for prioritizing scarce adaptation funds. Although transportation agencies are under- taking a variety of mitigation activities to address business-as-usual needs, climate change adaptation and resilience efforts remain underprioritized. Adaptation is a global concern, but impacts vary dramatically between regions and require localized solutions. Bridges and culverts, which are especially vulnerable to climate-induced flooding impacts, have complex maintenance and design processes and are subject to convoluted adaptation planning proce- dures. Critical gaps in resources and knowledge are barriers to improved adaptation planning. Restructuring the transportation project prioritization procedures used by planning organiza- tions to explicitly include adaptation may provide a novel strategy to institutionalize resilience in transportation. These procedures must be considered in the context of the intergovernmental networks that exist to support transportation infrastructure. Although these networks will likely vary across countries, the approaches introduced here to study and address transportation infrastructure adaptation may be applied to many settings.

In this paper we examine the outcomes associated with an innovative change in a state-level trans- portation project prioritization process within the United States (U.S.). A foundational component of the innovation is the development and implementation of a novel multi-criteria analysis (MCA) tool to aid decision-makers. The pre and post-MCA project prioritization processes are described in detail for the state of Vermont, and we use a mixed methodological approach to empirically evaluate the outcomes associated with the innovative change with respect to three objectives: (1) to make the project prior- itization process more transparent, (2) to improve the project prioritization process by incorporating well-defined, objective evaluation criteria into the decision-making process, and (3) to reduce inequality in the allocation of transportation project funds between the local jurisdictions. We demonstrate that the innovative change in the project prioritization process was clearly successful in accomplishing objectives 1 and 2, but does not appear to be successful with respect to accomplishing objective 3. The findings are discussed in the context of the state of Vermont, and we offer suggestions for how funding inequality might be addressed in the future.

There are several policy tools available for the provision of ecosystem services. The economic characteristics of the ecosystem service being provided, such as rivalry and excludability, along with the spatial scale at which benefits accrue can help determine the appropriate policy approach. In this paper we provide a brief introduction to ecosystem services and discuss the policy tools available for providing them along with the dimensions, political feasibility and appropriateness of each tool. Throughout the paper we focus primarily on payments as a mechanism for ecosystem service provision. We present a framework for determining the characteristics of an ecosystem service and when payments are a viable policy tool option based on the characteristics. Additionally, we provide examples of when payments do not provide a socially desirable level of ecosystem benefits. We conclude with a summary of policy recommendations, specifically desirable property rights and payment types based on the particular classification of an ecosystem service. We also discuss the advantages of creating monopsony power to reduce transaction costs, delineating and bundling ecosystem services and utilizing existing intermediaries.

There are several policy tools available for the provision of ecosystem services. The economic characteristics of the ecosystem service being provided, such as rivalry and excludability, along with the spatial scale at which benefits accrue can help determine the appropriate policy approach. In this paper we provide a brief introduction to ecosystem services and discuss the policy tools available for providing them along with the dimensions, political feasibility and appropriateness of each tool. Throughout the paper we focus primarily on payments as a mechanism for ecosystem service provision. We present a framework for determining the characteristics of an ecosystem service and when payments are a viable policy tool option based on the characteristics. Additionally, we provide examples of when payments do not provide a socially desirable level of ecosystem benefits. We conclude with a summary of policy recommendations, specifically desirable property rights and payment types based on the particular classification of an ecosystem service. We also discuss the advantages of creating monopsony power to reduce transaction costs, delineating and bundling ecosystem services and utilizing existing intermediaries.

A recent report by the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources has indicated that approximately $156 million is needed annually for the next ten years for the State of Vermont to meet its obligations under the Clean Water Act, though confidence has declined in this estimate. Recent public opinion polling indicates that the most publicly- acceptable means for raising funds are through one-time development fees and annual stormwater fees. Further polling indicates that the median willingness to pay among Vermont households is $40 per year, when raised through water utility and vehicle registration fees. The polling also suggests that willingness to pay could be increased through outreach and education.

Oriented toward the policy and governance implications of climate change on water quality of the Lake Champlain Region, the 2013 RACC Water Quality Survey seeks to understand Vermonters’ attitudes toward, and awareness of, water quality, climate change, and individual and social responsibility for both.