Chapter 14: Summary and Conclusions

14.1: Introduction

An act of the U.S. Congress in 1879 created the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and tasked it to study various aspects of Earth sciences and make its findings available to the public freely or at minimal cost. Water, minerals, and other natural resources, as well as Earth hazards, were specifically mentioned in the act. Much of the knowledge acquired from the studies has been presented in the form of maps and reports. Thus, the act was a social choice to put geological maps in the domain of public goods to be generated and disseminated at public expense, because it was deemed in the national interest, and cost determination was not to be influenced by the market. The differences between “public” and “private” goods have been analyzed extensively in economic literature. As time progressed, new domains of the economy recognized the importance of geological information, and larger amounts of public funding were made available for the study of geology. With the rising allocation of public funds, it became necessary to ascertain that the investments into the study of geology yielded enough societal benefits to account for the production of geological maps. Most states in the U.S. followed suit and established State Geological Surveys (SGS) to conduct geological studies in their own jurisdictions. In 1992, the National Geologic Mapping Act established the National Cooperative Geological Mapping Program (NCGMP) as a cooperative effort between the USGS and SGS to conduct geological studies and generate maps, while mandating that SGS were required to 100% match USGS funds. The present economic study was commissioned by the USGS to assess the expenditures for geological mapping during the 1994–2019 period and evaluate benefits of this program to society.

This economic analysis of geological mapping is the first such analysis for the entire U.S. and it is the largest and most comprehensive jurisdictional economic assessment for geological mapping ever conducted. The study has adhered to presenting the value of benefits based on responses from just under 4,800 stakeholders nationally. However, quantitative evaluations of geological map values, particularly as presented in Chapters 6 and 7, focus on highlighting the most conservative approach and associated conclusions.

The expenditures on geological mapping were relatively easy to document. The USGS provided most of the funding, with SGS commonly more than matching the USGS grants depending on priorities and availability of funds. Funding from other federal, as well as state, local, and private sources was also acquired. A questionnaire was sent to SGS and the USGS to solicit data on geological mapping expenditures, mapping accomplished to date, and the types of derivative maps (maps created for specific purposes) available and desired in their jurisdictions. The more difficult task was the assessment on the “returns” on the mapping investments, because as a “public good”, geological maps, data, and reports are not sold at prices determined by market demand and supply, as is the case for “private goods”.

Geological maps prepared by public institutions are produced at various scales, contain information on select strata and structures of the Earth, can focus on specific commodities, and/or address specific Earth hazard or land-use issues. Some users may be able to use these maps as published, whereas others may need to enhance them with their own efforts. In all cases, the existence of geological maps provides a public good that is cost effective by saving time and/or money to map users. Every map user may have their own estimate of what those savings may involve. These estimates are “stated savings” as opposed to “reported savings” gleaned from executing a project with and without an existing map. Reported savings are possible in some specific case studies as opposed to a national scale study. Once a project is executed based on available geological information, there is rarely a chance to go back and use a new or revised map. In this study, map users or stakeholders were asked to estimate their potential savings that are derived from a public good. These potential savings are estimates of benefits received by geological map users and, hence, a plausible proxy of map value to them. In addition, potential savings are savings to taxpayers. SGS and the USGS obviously spend taxpayer money to produce geological maps. Stakeholders from the private sector are taxpayers and commonly utilize geological maps funded by government spending, so their benefits are clear. Public sector stakeholders from other federal, state, and local governmental entities are involved in undertakings that are also paid from taxpayer money. Therefore, public sector savings are taxpayer savings as well.

In collaboration with SGS and other professional organizations and administrative/governing entities, a questionnaire containing 25 queries was sent to over 81,000 stakeholders, who were deemed to be map users or who could reasonably be expected to benefit from geological information contained in the maps. Some questions were intended to obtain stakeholder background, while the objective of other questions was to make quantitative estimates of geological map value in monetary terms and in terms of time saved. A third category of questions sought to collect qualitative/descriptive input about the benefits of geological maps from stakeholder experiences. A total of 4,779 individuals responded, of which 202 were eliminated because they were either solely international respondents or employed by SGS involved in the mapping program themselves. A study of preferences of geological map users and their assessment of economic value of maps had never been conducted for the entirety of the U.S. prior to this study.

14.2: Summary of SGS and USGS Geological Mapmaking

The publicly funded geological mapping effort in the U.S. is a major undertaking. In 2020, about 10,200 individuals were employed by SGS and the USGS, with nearly half of them geoscientists and the rest supporting the effort (e.g., GIS analysts and cartographers).

Total spending for geological mapping by SGS and the USGS during the 1994–2019 period was $1.99 billion in constant 2020 dollars. In 2020 dollars, the trend of annual expenditure on geological mapping had declined from about $80 million in 1994 to about $70 million in 2019. However, recognizing the need to accelerate the search for critical minerals in the U.S. and the overall value of geological mapping for addressing many natural resource and environmental issues, Congress has appropriated additional funds for the NCGMP since 2019.

Geological maps can be large scale (at scales 1:62,500 or more detailed), medium scale (e.g., 1:100,000), or small scale (at 1:500,000 or less detailed). As reported by SGS and the USGS, and as expected, greater area mapping coverage has been accomplished at small scales than at other scales. This is expected because detailed mapping builds upon the initial small-scale or more regional mapping. This report shows that many more SGS reported complete coverage in their jurisdictions at small scales than those reporting complete coverage at large scales. The coverages vary greatly between states depending on population, size, availability of funds, and economic activity. Although complete coverage in all states is desirable, mapping activity in the future will be guided by demand for geological maps at various scales and available funds. SGS also reported that 73 different kinds of derivative maps (maps prioritizing a specific natural resource, land use, or Earth hazard) have been generated by them.

14.3: Profile of Stakeholders

Stakeholder responses were received from all 50 states and the District of Columbia, and many stakeholders worked in multiple states. Internationally active stakeholders also provided feedback. However, responses from stakeholders who only worked internationally, and stakeholders who worked at SGS were not included in the determination of map value, the latter to avoid any conflict of interest. About 63% of respondents worked in the private sector, while 37% were employed in the public sector.

Private sector responders broadly represented the mineral and energy industries, water resource industry, construction, transportation, geotechnical industry, independent geologists, public utilities, environmental industry, education and research, tourism, real estate, and not-for-profit organizations. Stakeholders from the public sector included those from all levels of governments (federal, state, county, community) and educational institutions.

The responses received from the broad spectrum of the economy indicate the comprehensiveness of coverage and provide confidence in the representative nature of this cost and benefit economic analysis of geological mapping. Stakeholders represented all sizes of organizations, from those employing less than five to greater than 5,000 individuals. Small organizations and individuals working alone represented the largest group of stakeholders, about 25%, with the remaining coming from larger organizations.

Further breakdown of stakeholder responses shows that nearly every industry category, as well as environmental entities, multiple levels of government, research and educational institutions, and other activities of private citizens are represented in this study. Their stated uses of derivative maps indicate that ground and surface water related issues are dominant (included in 40% of the responses), followed by hazards (e.g., earthquakes, tsunamis, floods, and landslides) (15%), and minerals and energy (13%). About 81% of respondents indicated a preference for large-scale maps, with 37% preferring maps of 1:24,000-scale and 35% favoring more detailed maps.

Geological maps have been traditionally printed and distributed free or at minimal cost. Widespread computerization has changed user preferences because of the availability of online digital maps. Digital access allows for quicker dissemination of the maps and related geological data and analyses. Users can choose to review and download online geological maps or print them as needed.

14.4: Map Value Assessment

The monetary value of geological maps is assessed in two different ways: The first assessment is based on stakeholder responses to queries about money and time that they perceived to have saved, because maps were available to them. Questions about the value of geological maps were worded to address different ways to assess value. Some questions inquired about the time and money saved, because maps were available from SGS and the USGS at little or no cost. Other questions asked what one would willingly pay for a map. Stakeholders were also asked to estimate the long-term value of geological maps, because they can be used repeatedly by different people for different projects over many years. Table 14.4.1 (summarizing results from Chapter 6) summarizes the stakeholder assessment of the monetary value of geological maps.

Table 14.4.1. Summary of Quantitative Evaluations by Respondents.

Question 3: Time/Cost saved over 5 years	Median project time saved — ​20%. Median project cost saved — ​15%.
Question 7: Project cost increase if maps unavailable; Responses included maximum and minimum budget statements.	Median project cost increase — ​30%, Median budget size of 776 projects - min. $250,000, max. $300,000. Median number of maps used — ​4. Median value per map — ​$11,062 - $18,375.
Question 8: WTP for a map if not available (Choices of $ bins)	Median WTP — ​$3,000.
Question 10: Long-term value of a map	Median long-term value of a map — ​$10,000.
Question 17: Expected payment for a map	Median expected to pay — ​$2,883. (Best data, least uncertainty, and note consistency with question 8).

Results from stakeholder responses to the various queries differed significantly. The variance is expected, because the responses are estimates, not specific to any type or scale of map, and not necessarily the result of the actual experience of the respondents. Due to the wide range of data, particularly with some very high values representative of very large expenditures on major projects, the median values are considered more representative than the mean values, and they are also more conservative. The median values obtained from various questions are tabulated above in Table 14.4.1.

As a public good, geological maps are non-excludable and non-rivalrous. Therefore, no user can be prevented from using them, and use by one person does not reduce their availability to others. It entails that benefits of geological maps are cumulative over time. To compare the total benefits of geological maps to society with the cost of mapping, it is necessary to estimate how many people use them.

The 1994 to 2019 project period for this study experienced a rapid decline of sales of paper geological maps (primarily distributed at the cost of printing or copying), as these transactions were replaced by the increasing availability of digital versions that could be accessed, downloaded, or consulted online according to need and typically they are free. For this economic analysis, this transition warranted that geological map demand was best represented by numbers of map downloads and online views. Therefore, SGS and the USGS provided data on direct downloads and online views of geological maps, and a few SGS also provided some data on geological maps sold primarily as paper maps.

A complicating factor affecting the reporting of web statistics, including geological map online view and download data, is the interaction of robots, or “bots”, with web sites. Designed to perform specific and repetitive tasks automatically, faster, and often more effectively than if humans performed them, their downside is that they can skew web statistics and make websites appear more popular than reality.

Nine SGS and the USGS were able to account for bot activity in their geological map web view and/or download numbers, saying that their data were either “bot free” or very minimally impacted by bot activity. All other SGS either did not have the capacity to evaluate bot activity or did not report on their degree. Therefore, their raw website view and download data were reduced to account for bots according to annually reported 2012–2019 industry data on bots versus human traffic (from a high of 59% in 2014 to a low of 37% in 2019). Bot data from industry sources are not available prior to 2012. Therefore, between 2004 and 2011 (years for which SGS and USGS data were provided), web view and download data by SGS and the USGS were reduced by an average of 44.3% based on the 2012–2019 average of industry data on bot versus human traffic.

In addition to accounting for bot activity, marketing companies have developed algorithms that estimate what percentage of online web page views result in transactions (i.e., the percentage of website visitors that turn into customers). It is called a conversion rate. A transaction is said to occur if an actual purchase or a comparison of products with the intention to purchase takes place. Download actions from websites also are considered transactions.

To determine a conversion rate for online views of SGS and USGS geological maps, nine SGS were able to provide online view and download data for 33 cumulative years covering the latter portion (2012 to 2019) of the study period, and this yielded a conservative conversion rate of 3.32%. This conversion rate was applied to online visits reported by SGS and the USGS to arrive at a download number of 378,546, in addition to actual reported downloads of 3,558,150 and views equal to downloads of 802,586. The total number of downloads was therefore estimated to be 4,739,282. In addition to downloaded maps, 86,673 paper maps were reported sold, bringing the total of maps downloaded and sold to 4,825,955.

Additionally, 24 SGS provided geological map view and/or download data accounting for 65.14% of the total SGS costs, and the 24 SGS that did not/could not provide these data accounted for 34.86% of the total costs. It was assumed that the 24 SGS that did not/could not provide any online view and/or download data had a high likelihood of contributing to the overall download data, because they received federal funds for geological mapping and were required to 100% match those funds. Applying the most conservative 3.32% conversion rate of map views to downloads from 1994–2019 and extrapolating map sales data results in an additional 2,275,768 downloads and 46,383 maps sold for a total of 7,148,106 downloads/maps sold.

Using the most conservative median amount that respondents expected to pay per map in response to question 17 of the stakeholder questionnaire as the basis ($2,883), the cumulative range of values between the actual maps downloaded and sold (4,825,955) with the extrapolated amounts (7,148,106) would be between $13.91 and $20.61 billion. In comparison, the cost of producing geological maps during the 1994–2019 period was $1.99 billion. Therefore, the minimum value estimates range between 6.99 and 10.35 times the expenditure.

The above provides the most conservative estimate of geological map demand. However, mere “viewing” of geological maps may provide adequate information to the user without downloading it. Again, using the median amount that respondents expected to pay per map ($2,883), the cumulative range of values between the actual maps viewed, downloaded, and sold (15,849,376 following adjustments to account for bots and without conversion rate adjustments) with the extrapolated amount as discussed above (24,331,250) would be between $45.69 and $70.15 billion. Therefore, maximum value estimates range between 22.95 and 35.23 times the expenditure. Although these maximum values are not realistic, it is safe to assume, considering the conservative nature of this entire economic assessment, that value estimates would lie somewhere between the 6.99 and 10.35 values and the higher extrapolated values of 22.95 and 35.23.

The median map value ($3,000) determined in response to question 8 yields a similar benefit ratio, whereas value estimates from questions 7 and 10 yield benefit ratios of about 25 times the expenditure.

14.5: Benefit Assessment Using USEPA SuperFund Data

Independent of the stakeholder survey responses used above, benefits of geological maps were assessed using data provided by the USEPA as part of their SuperFund program, which was established to clean up polluted industrial sites with funds from Congressional appropriations and the parties responsible for the sites. It was based on the rationale that future contamination mitigation costs, resulting primarily from waste disposal and industrial sites, could be minimized significantly or even avoided had geological information been available and used prior to the locating of these potentially detrimental sites.

USEPA data show their total expenditures for the years 1994 to 2019 in nominal dollars (not inflation adjusted) of $29,943,391,516 and private party commitments of $34,686,400,000 resulted in a total of $64,811,791,516 dedicated to SuperFund cleanup and associated activities. This $64.8 billion, once inflation-adjusted to 2020 dollars, is $86,227,531,539. Obviously, it is not known if and to what extent geology was considered, when waste disposal and/or industrial sites were located (often many years prior to being designated as SuperFund sites), or at the time pollution occurred, nor is it possible to retrospectively estimate how much of this expenditure would have been saved with the availability and proper use of geological maps. However, it is reasonable to assume that at least some of the pollution could have been avoided and some of the cost of clean-up saved. From the present study we know that $1.99 billion was spent on the geological mapping nationwide from 1994 to 2019. This means that a 2.3% savings from the SuperFund expenditure of $86.23 billion would have paid for the entire 26 years of geological mapping in the U.S.

14.6: Qualitative Assessment of Map Value

Because not all the benefits of geological maps can be expressed in monetary terms, stakeholders were asked in various ways to describe in text format the benefits and uses of geological maps and analyses provided by SGS and the USGS. These questions concerned the quality and confidence of SGS/USGS work and their credibility as experts. Examples of repeated comments include time and cost savings, assistance in resource exploration and development, general education, geological research, filling information gaps, enhancing decision making including planning, providing credibility, furnishing accurate and unbiased information, and affording context to site-specific work.

Lastly, respondents representing 20 public and private entities rated the value of geological maps on a scale of 1 (low) to 5 (high). The groundwater industry rated geological maps the highest at 4.5, while 10 other sectors including the geotechnical industries, most extractive industries, and government agencies rated them at 4.0 or above. The remaining nine, including agriculture, forestry, public safety and utilities, metals, uranium, critical minerals, geothermal, state parks and recreation, and non-for profits all provided ratings ranging from 3.3 to 3.9.

14.7: Regional Variations in Costs and Benefits of Geological Mapping

An additional approach to evaluating the costs and benefits of geological mapping is a review of responses to the questionnaire from the private and public sectors as well as geological mapping expenditure datasets from SGS/USGS for six regions of the U.S. (Chapter 8 and Appendix 6). The regions are identified as Northeast, Southeast, Great Lakes/Great Plains, South-Central, Intermountain West, and Pacific Rim. In this analysis, the estimates from respondents on how much they would spend on a map were viewed as costs, while appraisals of long-term value were viewed as benefits. All calculations show a high percentage of positive long-term values (benefits), ranging from 71% to 87% for both public and private sectors.

The lower/upper quartiles, lower/upper extremes, and mean of the distributions of costs incurred by both the private and public sectors were determined for each region. The mean cost-benefit was also determined for each region, and this ranged from ~$11,000 to $30,000 for both the private and public sectors, with the Intermountain West yielding the highest values and the South-Central region exhibiting the lowest values. In addition, expenditures on geological mapping reported by SGS and the USGS were compared to the number of maps produced annually for representative states from the six regions to determine the average cost of producing a relatively detailed geological map (1:24,000 to 1:100,000 scale), and this ranged from ~$42,000 to ~$123,000, with the lowest costs from the Southeast region (Tennessee) and highest costs from the Pacific Rim region (Washington State). Using 2019 as an example year, these values were verified by actual costs reported by the USGS and the Illinois State Geological Survey.

14.8: Economic Model of General Geological Map Applications

Econometric analysis was another major approach in evaluating the costs and benefits of geological mapping. At the root of this analysis is the observation that geological maps as a public good are not an endpoint but rather an intermediate good of production that supports multiple economic sectors. The market for maps indicates that geological maps produced by SGS and the USGS provide sufficient detail, reliability, and consistency to make actionable and supportable decisions. While scientific sufficiency of geological maps is critical, the private capacity to invest to produce a map comparable to the public good map has a limiting threshold based on the required return on investment for a particular firm. A range of logistic multinomial regressions were estimated and tested to establish the capacity to pay for a geological map. With the driving mechanism of the economic activity related to the application sectors, the analysis was extended to evaluate how the economic value of each sector was expressed by the various levels of investment of that sector in geological mapping. Using the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) component of each sector, the sectoral contribution to per capita GDP was identified. Analyzing the actual survey response rates by economic sector and whether the project used off-the-shelf, transitional, or custom mapping, the allocation of each mapping type was calculated for nine major sectors of the GDP, including mining, energy, real estate, construction, professional, transportation, education, state/local government, and federal government. Real estate had the highest sector per-capita allocated by rate for geological maps in the public good or off-the-shelf category. Aggregate behaviors of respondents were generally very consistent across all regions of the U.S., with some regional differences such as a demand for finer scale mapping in the Northeast.

14.9: Conclusions

This economic cost and benefit analysis of geological mapping is the first such assessment for the entire U.S., and it is the largest and most comprehensive jurisdictional cost and benefit assessment for geological mapping ever conducted. Quantitative evaluations of geological map values focus on highlighting the most conservative approach and associated conclusions.

• Four questions evaluated geological map values, and they yielded a wide range of answers from zero to hundreds of millions of dollars. For those who valued maps at zero, it is uncertain if respondents did not understand the question or assumed that regardless of project size or size of an organization conducting geologically related work that public goods should be free of charge. There were also high budget outliers that may have been overestimates of very large long-term projects. This group particularly skewed average values, created a statistical approximation that was too spread out, and consequently forced the use of median values as being most representative of the value of geological maps. The median long-term value of a map ($10,000) was a viable option to represent the overall value of geological maps. When cost was factored with demand numbers, the cost and benefit ratio is 24:1. However, the median expected payment for one geological map ($2,883) was chosen as not only the most conservative value, but also the best data with the least uncertainty. This yielded the lowest cost and benefit ratio of 1:6.99.

• Twenty-four SGS provided data for online geological map views and downloads, and the USGS provided their data on online views. The USGS had the longest record of available data that began in 1999, while the average earliest year of reporting from SGS was 2011. SGS were not able to report their earlier years of online web activity. Therefore, SGS geological demand numbers for online views and downloads of geological maps are considerably underreported.

• Only 13 SGS provided demand numbers for geological maps sold over the project period. Some lacked the ability to separate out geological map sales from overall publications. Therefore, these numbers are also very underreported.

• The discovery of the impact of robotic action (bots) with websites resulted in a significant lowering of geological map online views and downloads and therefore map demand numbers. This was based on annual industry reporting of bot activity since 2012, ranging from a high of 59% in 2014 to a low of 37% in 2019. As a corollary to SGS sites offering web access to maps, several university map libraries were contacted, and they also could not offer any perspectives on their bot activity and its effect on reporting of their web statistics. Despite the national cyber security issue of website protection, it is obvious that SGS and at least some other public institutions have not been keeping track of bot activity. This resulted in our use of the high percentages of industry-reported bot activity, resulting in a likely underreporting of the actual number of geological maps viewed and downloaded and that, in turn, significantly lowered cost and benefit ratios.

• Lastly, the marketing community uses a conversion rate of online views resulting in transactions, and downloading of geological maps are considered transactions. The 4.7% conversion rate covering both the 1994–2019 project period plus the 2020–2022 data could have been justified considering the rapid increase in geological map views and downloads as reflected in the higher conversion rate starting in 2020, which would reflect current trends. However, the most conservative 3.32% conversion rate was used for the 1994–2019 period.

14.10: Broad Implications

Despite using (1) the lowest geological map value number ($2,883); (2) underreported numbers of geological map views, downloads, and sales — ​all significantly lowering map demand numbers; and (3) the highest industry reported bot statistics that further lowered demand numbers by an average of 44.3%, all of these actions still resulted in a minimum cost and benefit ratio of 1:6.99, our most conservative estimate. When factoring in extrapolated view and download numbers from those SGS that did not provide any online web data, only increased the cost and benefit ratio to 1:10.35. This above approach, plus three other approaches that (1) evaluated regional costs and benefits; (2) utilized an econometric model of geological map applications; and (3) assessed the SuperFund cost avoidance scenario, all derived significantly positive values for using geological maps. Results of these approaches are within the range of economic values of geological mapping as reported in previous studies, and all underscore the vital significance of geological information as a foundational component of understanding Earth’s complex infrastructure that supports society’s most basic needs for clean drinking water, environmental protection, human health and safety, and sustainable development of all natural resources. Projected climate change will likely impact land- and water-use, and it will have a cascading effect on environmental degradation and potential redistribution of human populations. This basic issue necessitates the need to address anticipated climate change through energy storage and other green technologies, the latter of which heavily relies on critical minerals, and both require a detailed understanding of geology and the Earth’s subsurface through characterization of geological materials and geological mapping.

Moreover, this study assesses more than the value of geological maps. Geological maps reflect an “end product” of geological comprehension that is rooted in a deep understanding of the age, order, and distribution of geological materials, as well as the Earth processes responsible for their formation. Geological mapping may be one specific activity within the broad discipline of geology. However, because it has been possible to obtain specific mapping costs from all SGS and the USGS, as well as measurable benefits from a wide range of geoscientists and other direct users of geological maps, the economic value of geological mapping epitomizes the importance of the geoscience discipline to modern society. As this national study shows, the value of geological mapping reflects a wide range of economic sectors that directly benefit from geological information. As we move forward, it is paramount that we truly understand the value of geological information, as it directly touches all the above issues and serves as a cornerstone to modern society.