Method of making an inflatable panel Patent

Forming inflatable panels erectable in space for passive communication satellit

Alleviation of divergence during rocket launch Patent

Design and characteristics of linkage to alleviate rocket vehicle divergence during launc

Willingness to pay for recycling food waste in the Brisbane Region

Kerbside recycling in Australia has focused on paper, cardboard, plastics and bottles and in some areas green waste. Another area for potential kerbside recycling is organic waste. This study uses a dichotomous choice contingent valuation format with follow-up open-ended willingness to pay question to estimate the household willingness to pay for the introduction of a kerbside recycling scheme for kitchen waste. Two provision rules were used. The first sample split contained a majority decision rule while the second sample split contained a provision rule where participation is voluntary. Households across the Brisbane statistical sub-division currently pay in the order of $250 per annum for their kerbside waste collection scheme. This study indicates that on average Brisbane households would be WTP an additional$32 to $35 per year for a general waste bin where food waste is split from general waste. There was no significant difference in results between sample splits with majority or voluntary provision rules. Whether the provision of a food waste recycling scheme is economically efficient requires a consideration of all the potential costs and benefits. Other relevant costs and benefits for inclusion in a benefit cost analysis would include those associated with bin replacement, any additional collection and transport costs, composting costs, revenues from compost sales and avoided landfill costs. If a compulsory food waste recycling scheme could be provided to all households for less than$32 to $35 per household per annum then the benefits of the scheme would exceed the costs and would be considered to be economically efficient and desirable from a community welfare perspective. Given the difficulties of estimating precise WTP values from dichotomous choice data, any BCA of a compulsory scheme incorporating the results of this study should undertake sensitivity testing that includes the range of values reported including dichotomous choice and open-ended means to determine the robustness of BCA results to variations in the welfare estimate. Notwithstanding, the results of any BCA, decision-makers also need to be cognisant of the high proportion of respondents who did not support a kerbside food waste recycling scheme. The data from the study could also be used to undertake a BCA of a voluntary scheme.Environmental Economics and Policy,

Willingness to pay for kerbside recycling the Brisbane Region

Waste policy in Australia has a strong focus on kerbside recycling. This has a range of costs and benefits to the community, including non-market benefits. However, in Australia, there has been little investigation of household willingness to pay for kerbside recycling. This paper used mixed logit choice modelling to estimate the willingness to pay of households in Brisbane, Australia for kerbside waste collection services including kerbside recycling. It was found that households in Brisbane have a positive and significant willingness to pay of $131.49 per annum for fortnightly kerbside recycling and would be willing to pay an additional$18.30 to increase the frequency of this service to weekly. The utility of respondents was, however, found to decline by $34.18 per year if general waste collection increased from weekly to twice a week. Based on the assumptions used in this study it would appear that the willingness to pay for kerbside recycling exceeds the net financial costs of this service, suggesting that the scheme is economically efficient. However, the reported economic values for recycling may overstate the community’s true willingness to pay if household responses to the choice questions were confounded by their underlying perceptions about the environmental and resource sustainability benefits of recycling.Environmental Economics and Policy, Research Methods/ Statistical Methods,

Non Use Economic Values of Marine Protected Areas in the South-West Marine Region

Australian governments are committed to the expansion of marine protected areas (MPAs) in Australian waters and have already established over 200 MPAs. However, this policy direction has a range of costs and benefits for the community which have largely remained unquantified. One of the main benefits of establishing MPAs are the non use values that the community for the protection of marine biodiversity. This study uses a dichotomous choice contingent valuation format with follow-up open-ended willingness to pay question to estimate these non use values for the establishment of MPAs in South-west Marine Region of Australia. It was found that on average Australian households would be WTP $104 for the establishment of MPAs that cover 10$400M. However, whether the establishment of MPAs in the South-west Marine Region is economically efficient requires a consideration of all the potential costs and benefits. Other relevant costs and benefits for inclusion in a benefit cost analysis would include those associated with displacement of commercial and non-commercial uses, additional planning, compliance and monitoring costs as well as any predicted increases in commercial and non-commercial use values. If the net costs of establishing MPA over 10% of the South-west Marine Region are less than $400M, then the non-use benefits of establishing MPAs would exceed the other net costs and it would be considered to be economically efficient and desirable from a community welfare perspective. Given the difficulties of estimating precise WTP values from dichotomous choice data, any BCA of MPAs in the South-west Marine Region, incorporating the results of this study, should undertake sensitivity testing that includes the range of values reported including dichotomous choice and open-ended means to determine the robustness of BCA results to variations in the welfare estimateEnvironmental Economics and Policy,

PROJECTED COSTS AND RETURNS FOR BEEF CATTLE, DAIRY, BROILER AND FORAGE CROP PRODUCTION IN LOUISIANA, 2001

This report presents projected costs and returns for beef cattle, dairy, broiler and forage crop production in Louisiana for 2001. Data for this report are based on Louisiana agricultural Experiment Station research results and selected surveys. The procedure used in this report was to apply new machinery and other current input price data to production practice data. This report is organized as follows: Tables 1 - 4 present forage requirements assumed for beef cattle production and summaries of costs and returns for each of the enterprises examined in this report. Tables 5 - 7 report breakeven selling prices for each of the products produced from these enterprises. Budgets in this publication are presented in two sections. The first section (tables with `A' designation) presents budgets showing a summary of estimated costs and returns for each enterprise. The second section (tables with `B' designation) presents cost budgets showing detailed costs and labor requirements by operation for each enterprise. The detailed cost budgets are presented in the same sequence and bear the same table numbers for each enterprise presented in the first section. For these enterprise budgets, expenses are itemized as fixed and variable, and returns above direct and total specified expenses are also calculated. Each of the budgets incorporates overhead costs as a residual claimant. The total overhead costs for a firm are related to tenure and size of business. The overhead costs included in this report are estimated on a per acre basis, and thus are included in enterprise budgets on a per acre of land use basis. Land use for beef and dairy is calculated as acres of open permanent pasture plus acres used for silage or summer annual forages. Since livestock enterprises are combinations of both crop and livestockproduction activities and some pasture crops are double cropped, particular attention is called to the accounting procedures used. No overhead is charged to forage production activities. Therefore, overhead costs appear directly as a residual cost in beef cattle and dairy enterprise budgets. Wintergrazed weanling calves do not include overhead charges since it is assumed that all wintergrazed crops would be double cropped on either pasture or cropland. Broiler budgets do not include overhead charges. A land opportunity cost is charged for livestock enterprises. This is interpreted as the amount that would be charged for the land if it were being rented to another producer. It assumes that pasture is rented at $15/acre. A land opportunity cost is not charged for broilers.Farm Management,

PROJECTED COSTS AND RETURNS FOR CRAWFISH AND CATFISH PRODUCTION IN LOUISIANA, 2001.

Aquaculture production enterprises, like other farm enterprises, require advanced planning to make production and marketing management decisions that are likely to result in profits. The purpose of this report is to provide production cost estimates for selected aquaculture enterprises to assist aquaculture producers in making production decisions and obtaining adequate financing. Aquaculture enterprises and their associated costs differ considerably among producers and resource situations. The projected costs presented here should not be interpreted as averages for producers in the industry. The purpose of the cost projections is to provide guidelines whereby producers and others with an interest in aquaculture production costs can make cost estimates appropriate to their unique situation that will facilitate sound management decisions. Data used in development of the budgets is a combination of information obtained directly from producers, Louisiana Cooperative Extension Service Specialists and Louisiana Agricultural Experiment Station Scientists. Current machinery and other input price data were combined with production practice data using the Microcomputer Enterprise Budget Generator developed at Mississippi State University. Fixed costs were estimated based on typical rates of use and sizes of operations. Production budget estimates are presented on a 'per acre' basis to facilitate using the estimates for different size operations. Overhead costs associated with operation of the farm business have been allocated as a residual claimant on a per acre basis in the enterprise budgets, but have not been included in the computation of breakeven selling prices.Farm Management,

PROJECTED COSTS AND RETURNS FOR CRAWFISH AND CATFISH PRODUCTION IN LOUISIANA, 1997

Aquaculture production enterprises, like other farm enterprises, require advanced planning to make production and marketing management decisions that are likely to result in profits. The purpose of this report is to provide production cost estimates for selected aquaculture enterprises to assist aquaculture producers in making production decisions and obtain adequate financing. Aquaculture enterprises and their associated costs differ considerably among producers and resource situations. The projected costs presented here should not be interpreted as averages for producers in the industry. The purpose of the cost projections is to provide some guidelines whereby producers and others with an interest in aquaculture production costs can make cost estimates appropriate to their unique situation that will facilitate sound management decisions.Farm Management,

A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF RISK PREFERENCE ELICITATION PROCEDURES USING MAIL SURVEY RESULTS

Research Methods/ Statistical Methods, Risk and Uncertainty,

PROJECTED COSTS AND RETURNS FOR BEEF CATTLE, DAIRY PRODUCTION, SWINE PRODUCTION AND FORAGE CROPS IN LOUISIANA, 1997

Data for this report are based on Louisiana Agricultural Experiment Station research results and selected surveys. The procedure used in this report was to apply new machinery and other current input price data to production practice data. Production practice and performance data for beef cattle and associated forage crops are based on surveys of beef cattle producers supplemented with research records for beef herds maintained at six branch stations of the Louisiana Agricultural Experiment Station.Production practice data for dairy production are based on unpublished survey data, Cooperative Extension Service recommendations and records from the LSU dairy herd.Farm Management,