Eco-04/ revision

Exemplary

Proficient

Needs Improvement

Not Evident

Rationale 

0 (0%)

There is no evidence or rationale for the method used in this report

Feedback:

I can't see your answer for the step 1?

Points:

6 (10%)

Meets “Proficient” criteria and extends with compelling rationale on the benefits of the travel cost method with a comparison to other methods, such as contingent valuation

Points:

5.4 (9%)

Introduces the report with a clear description on the rationale for the use of the travel cost method

Points:

4.2 (7%)

Attempts to introduce the report with a rationale for the use of the method for the analysis, but the description is not clearly explained or it is missing correct information

Points:

0 (0%)

There is no evidence or rationale for the method used in this report

Feedback:

I can't see your answer for the step 1?

Zones 

Points:

6 (10%)

Meets “Proficient” criteria and extends by defining the source of the data from the surrounding area and incorporates a graphic with concentric circles from around the lake

Points:

5.4 (9%)

Defines the zones surrounding the lake

Points:

4.2 (7%)

Attempts to define the zones surrounding the lake, but at least one detail is incorrect

Points:

0 (0%)

The definition of the zones is incorrect or missing completely

Data Collection 

Points:

6 (10%)

Meets “Proficient” criteria and extends the reports value by describing additional data to be collected that would enhance the current data and analysis value

Points:

5.4 (9%)

Describes the collection of data using the example of the lake staff providing records of the number of visitors and their zip codes as part of the visits per zone

Points:

4.2 (7%)

Attempts to describe the collection of data, but there is an error or missing information

Points:

0 (0%)

There is no attempt to describe the data collected

Visitation Rates 

Points:

6 (10%)

Meets “Proficient” criteria and extends the calculations with additional relevant data and adds it to the graph of the zones and visits/1,000

Points:

5.4 (9%)

Generates accurate calculations of the data with the use of a program such as Excel and generates a graph of the zones and visits/1,000

Points:

4.2 (7%)

Attempts to generate calculations of the data with the use of a program such as Excel, but there are errors in the data or the graph

Points:

0 (0%)

There is no analysis or proper use of the data

Travel Cost per Trip 

Points:

6 (10%)

Meets “Proficient” criteria and extends to include additional data that enhances the graph

Points:

5.4 (9%)

Calculates the travel costs and trips by zone using the data provided with the use of a program such as Excel to generate a representation of the information in a graph

Points:

4.2 (7%)

Attempts to calculate the travel costs and trips by zone using the data provided, but there is an error in the data or graph

Points:

0 (0%)

There is no calculation of the travel costs and trip by zone or no graph

Estimation 

Points:

6 (10%)

Meets “Proficient” criteria and extends calculations and the regression analysis to include more variables that go beyond the simplest travel cost and visits/1,000

Points:

5.4 (9%)

Estimates using the regression analysis of the visits per capita to travel costs and other important variables

Points:

4.2 (7%)

Attempts to use regression analysis of the visits per capita to travel costs and other variables, but there is an error in the equation or the use of data

Points:

0 (0%)

There is no regression analysis of the visits per capita to travel costs

Demand Function 

Points:

6 (10%)

Meets “Proficient” criteria and extends demand function for visits to the lake by adding supporting data to enhance the graph

Points:

5.4 (9%)

Constructs the demand function for visits to the lake using the results from the regression analysis; enters data into a program such as Excel and creates a graph to represent the data and regression analysis

Points:

4.2 (7%)

Attempts to construct the demand function for visits to the lake, but the data has errors or there is no graph to represent the data and regression analysis

Points:

0 (0%)

There is no construct demand function for visits to the lake

Total Economic Benefit

0 (0%)

There is no analysis or data used correctly to make accurate recommendations

Feedback:

I can't see any calculations for total economic benefits too

Points:

12 (20%)

Meets “Proficient” criteria and extends to include additional recommendations that enhance this analysis with good questions to ask for more data to improve the analysis

Points:

10.8 (18%)

Uses the data provided to create a summary of the benefit-cost analysis with recommendations on short-run and long-run costs of programs that will control pollution; writes in a way that will influence a target audience of homeowners and businesses

Points:

8.4 (14%)

Attempts to use the data in the analysis, but at least one data source is not identified or is used incorrectly

Points:

0 (0%)

There is no analysis or data used correctly to make accurate recommendations

Feedback:

I can't see any calculations for total economic benefits too

Articulation of Response

Points:

6 (10%)

Submission is free of errors related to citations, grammar, spelling, syntax, and organization and is presented in a professional and easy to read format

Points:

5.4 (9%)

Submission has no major errors related to citations, grammar, spelling, syntax, or organization

Points:

4.2 (7%)

Submission has major errors related to citations, grammar, spelling, syntax, or organization that negatively impact readability and articulation of main ideas

Points:

0 (0%)

Submission has critical errors related to citations, grammar, spelling, syntax, or organization that prevent understanding of ideas