A nonprofit organization, Save the Redwoods League, in 2019 paid a private timber company $15 million for a remote grove that contains the world's 5th largest tree. The grove will be open to the public for hiking, camping and picnicking but it is not expected to receive many visitors due to its location. About 5000 visitors are expected to go annually, spending on average 3 days each, i.e. 15,000 "recreational visitor days" (RVDS) per year. Given this scenario, what is the next best alternative (opportunity cost) from a societal point of view to using the grove as a public recreation site? 0 a. value of using the grove as a source of lumber O b. value as a ski resort. 0 c. value of using the grove as a recreational area open to the public O d. value of setting aside the area as a "nonuse" conservation zone where no one is permitted to enter. If welfare per capita, as defined, say, by gross domestic product, is growing, then decision-making under the "weak sustainability" approach of dynamic efficiency we discussed in class cannot be achieved by: Select one: O a. discounting at the social discount rate O b. investing in renewable energy sources O c. relying on benefit-cost analysis O d. applying a zero discount rate on future costs or benefits. O e. using natural and man-made capital as substitutes for each other