Contingent valuation can be simply explained as a valuation assignment to a non-market good, such as personal health and safety or environmental protection, through a direct method, such as a survey, to determine willingness to pay to mitigate or willingness to travel to utilize a national park. By application of this definition any environmental problem would be candidate for valuation by survey. however, some areas are more applicable to the approach than others.
The preservation and protection of a riparian habitat area is an excellent environmental issue of concern that is conducive to quantification through contingent valuation. The habitat is a public good that’s economic valuation can determined by consumer willingness to pay to preserve, maintain or restore the area. Also, public willingness to pay to utilize the amenities through a survey based on distance willing to travel and an acceptable price of entrance. Such a survey was conduct area use of the area around the San Pedro River in southern Arizona, and concluded that the affected public placed a valuation on the riparian habitat.
http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/176665/visitor_values_and_local_economic_impacts_of_riparian_habitat_preservation/
The value of clean air is another environmental area of concern that can be evaluated through contingent valuation by virtue of the fact that clean air does not have a direct market value assigned to it. Take the scenario, if a tax to fund a traffic reduction strategy, which could result in a reduction of urban smog, through a 30 percent reduction in peak time traffic along the I-10 interchange, was proposed for the Ahwatukee area. Public buy-in to this plan could readily be determined through surveys in the area as well as commuters on the freeway.
Public willingness to pay to mitigate the urban heat island effect would be an excellent application of a contingent valuation survey. Specifically because the negative impact could be subjective and in most cases indirectly correlated such as increased energy cost because of increased nighttime air conditioner usage.
Environmental issues not particularly conducive to contingent valuation have a specific impact that can be measured directly through a quantitative analysis.
Mitigation of an oil spill in a river that would result in direct damage to a surface water treatment facilities’ process, which can be measured in terms of monetary value would not be appropriate for as contingent. Public willingness to pay for such a project may hold value for informational purposes, but would have little impact as to whether a cleanup would actually occur. I could be argued that a public survey would hold value as to what means the enforcement body would pursue reimbursement.
Another area that would not be conducive to contingent valuation is the mitigation of a contaminated groundwater aquifer. There is also a direct valuation that can be determined and mitigation would not be based on public willingness to pay. Mitigation strategy such as abandonment, treatment or alternative supply source would be based on cost benefit analysis.
Monday, February 23, 2009
Sunday, February 15, 2009
Week 4 General Question
Environmental Planners should engage the public when dealing with environmental issues of any kind especially if it is an issue that the public knowledge is limited about. As professionals we have a moral and ethical responsibility to provide information to stakeholder in a media in which they can understand it. Also, public comment is a require part of the NEPA process. The letter and spirit of NEPA is create a harmony between humans and their environment, and
The Council for Environmental Quality does provide professional guidance on this matter, and if you are a certified planner (AICP) then your code of conduct also requires that you actively inform stakeholders and work to include public participation in the planning process.
Given the current state of distrust with government, through education and the communication of accurate information the likelihood of community buy-in may be significantly increased if the public is educated on the matter, and they feel the development and technical teams have been forthcoming with them throughout the process.
Collaboration in a project means the stakeholder will assume ownership in ensuring a timely and positive outcome.
A more challenging concept would be to justify why the public shouldn't be informed on matters of environmental concern.
The Council for Environmental Quality does provide professional guidance on this matter, and if you are a certified planner (AICP) then your code of conduct also requires that you actively inform stakeholders and work to include public participation in the planning process.
Given the current state of distrust with government, through education and the communication of accurate information the likelihood of community buy-in may be significantly increased if the public is educated on the matter, and they feel the development and technical teams have been forthcoming with them throughout the process.
Collaboration in a project means the stakeholder will assume ownership in ensuring a timely and positive outcome.
A more challenging concept would be to justify why the public shouldn't be informed on matters of environmental concern.
Sunday, February 8, 2009
Weekly Assignment 3
Over the last 42 years environmental policy have largely been a factor of politics and the platform of the controlling party’s agenda. There has been a large conflict between economy and environment, and the conflict only proved more challenging when the general public is becoming increasing aware and supportive of environmental protection. This same public also wants to achieve the most for the least. From 1970 to 2012 the direction of environmental policy has been positive however the direction of policy has been a pendulum swinging with each election and change of power. Only in the last 12 years have there been chief executives in power that had the means to make singular change. From 2000-2008 congress was distracted with war at home and abroad to provide the necessary oversight and President Obama had a party majority in both houses. Each administration followed the direction of the core constituents, with only the latter making any real beneficial change to the environment.
Environmental policy in the United States was relatively dead until the passage of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969. The purpose of NEPA was to establish a harmony between humans and their environment, and was the result of increased public concern over environmental issues and quality of life. The act required preparation of Environmental Impacts Statements (EIS), and established the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) that communicated directly with the president and congress on issues of environmental concern.
Sweeping policy was created in the early part of the 70’s decade including the Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) of 1970, the Clean Water Act, which was the result of a congressional veto override, the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Also, the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) was enacted, but signed into law in 1980. This act resulted in the Superfund, which created a one billion dollar poll of resources to assist with the cleanup of toxic waste sites. The result of these policies was an accountability matrix that made it a matter of law, and economics, for polluters to assume responsibility for environmental degradation as well as establish preventative and/or mitigation solutions for their actions.
As double digit inflation, an oil embargo and the resulting unemployment hit, political circles and the court of public opinion began to shift towards economy over environment. This resulted in the 1980 landslide election of, conservative, California Governor Ronald Reagan
By the time President Reagan was elected, the economy was in recession, and he pledged an agenda of less government, decentralization of power and more reliance on the private sector. This resulted in a complete review of all of the environmental policies of the previous three administrations. Initially congress support this stance, however public scrutiny and concern over the environmental ultimately prevailed. During the Reagan years, the CAA, CWA, SDWA, RCRA and Superfund were all strengthened. It should also be noted that the economy improved during Reagan’s tenure and his laissez faire attitude toward environmental enforcement resulted in what could be dubbed a win-win scenario, as it caused an increase in national support for environmental issues. In the later part of the decade, a new president was elected, and George H. Bush was an extension of the previous regime, however he did seek to have a more positive public perception on environment than his former boss, and demonstrated this with the passage of the CAAA of 1990.
As Bill Clinton took office in 1992, the Earth Summit in Brazil had concluded and future buzz phrases such as climate change, global warming, energy independence, and sustainability were starting to make their way onto to the political and environmental scene.
President Clinton and Vice President Al Gore had a favorable stance on environmental issues. Their commitment could be subject to question as there was no major act that was signed into law during their tenure, however their administration did reverse most of the executive orders that were favored by business, and opposed by environmental groups. The Clinton Administration made a lot of pro environmental appointments and where they lacked in policy they flourished in action with the creation of a council on sustainable development, leadership in the United Nations International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), opposition to oil exploration in the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) and its overall support of spending and funding of environmental projects at home and abroad. While the US took a leadership role in the development of the IPCC’s Kyoto Protocol, it was never ratified by the United States under Clinton’s administration.
In 2000, George W. Bush was elected president, and in conflict with the direction of his processor he made a multitude of conservative pro-economy appointments throughout his administration. President Bush chose a fellow oil person to be his number two in Dick Cheney. Policy during the Bush/Cheney era favored the direction of energy producer and economic interests. There was significant push by his administration to achieve energy independence through an increase in domestic supply by way of lifting offshore drilling bans and new exploration and drilling in ANWR. The Bush administration can be highlighted his a repeal of new source review requirements under the CAAA of 1977, suspension of changes to the Arsenic Rule, complete withdrew from the IPCC’s Kyoto Protocol thus declaring it “dead”, removal of State rights to apply fuel efficiency standards to vehicles and its commitment to its party’s core constituency over the environment.
In 2008 Barack Obama was elected president. The economic situation that Obama inherited was very similar to that of Reagan in 1980 however their political ideologies were different. The Obama administration’s proactive approach began with a change in direction from his predecessor, which allowed states to exceed federal fuel efficiency requirements on automobiles. While Obama was working on the Obama Act, which has already begun to remedy the housing and credit crisis that came to light four years ago, he also initiated policy that would impose mercury discharge limits on power plants. This was well received by public health officials, and environmental groups the like. Former Surgeon General, C. Everett Koop call the policy “a bridge between public and environmental health never before built”, as mercury is the second most toxic substance on the planet behind plutonium. At the 15th Conference of Parties, the United States recommitted to the international guidelines of the Kyoto Protocol and had taken a leadership in the adoption of the Son of Kyoto slated for a 2012 signature of parties.
The 1st Obama administration was highlighted by a proactive environmental stance and with the support of a bipartisan congress and moderate high court an agenda of energy independence, environmental sovereignty and a sustainable future are within our reach.
Environmental policy in the United States was relatively dead until the passage of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969. The purpose of NEPA was to establish a harmony between humans and their environment, and was the result of increased public concern over environmental issues and quality of life. The act required preparation of Environmental Impacts Statements (EIS), and established the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) that communicated directly with the president and congress on issues of environmental concern.
Sweeping policy was created in the early part of the 70’s decade including the Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) of 1970, the Clean Water Act, which was the result of a congressional veto override, the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Also, the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) was enacted, but signed into law in 1980. This act resulted in the Superfund, which created a one billion dollar poll of resources to assist with the cleanup of toxic waste sites. The result of these policies was an accountability matrix that made it a matter of law, and economics, for polluters to assume responsibility for environmental degradation as well as establish preventative and/or mitigation solutions for their actions.
As double digit inflation, an oil embargo and the resulting unemployment hit, political circles and the court of public opinion began to shift towards economy over environment. This resulted in the 1980 landslide election of, conservative, California Governor Ronald Reagan
By the time President Reagan was elected, the economy was in recession, and he pledged an agenda of less government, decentralization of power and more reliance on the private sector. This resulted in a complete review of all of the environmental policies of the previous three administrations. Initially congress support this stance, however public scrutiny and concern over the environmental ultimately prevailed. During the Reagan years, the CAA, CWA, SDWA, RCRA and Superfund were all strengthened. It should also be noted that the economy improved during Reagan’s tenure and his laissez faire attitude toward environmental enforcement resulted in what could be dubbed a win-win scenario, as it caused an increase in national support for environmental issues. In the later part of the decade, a new president was elected, and George H. Bush was an extension of the previous regime, however he did seek to have a more positive public perception on environment than his former boss, and demonstrated this with the passage of the CAAA of 1990.
As Bill Clinton took office in 1992, the Earth Summit in Brazil had concluded and future buzz phrases such as climate change, global warming, energy independence, and sustainability were starting to make their way onto to the political and environmental scene.
President Clinton and Vice President Al Gore had a favorable stance on environmental issues. Their commitment could be subject to question as there was no major act that was signed into law during their tenure, however their administration did reverse most of the executive orders that were favored by business, and opposed by environmental groups. The Clinton Administration made a lot of pro environmental appointments and where they lacked in policy they flourished in action with the creation of a council on sustainable development, leadership in the United Nations International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), opposition to oil exploration in the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) and its overall support of spending and funding of environmental projects at home and abroad. While the US took a leadership role in the development of the IPCC’s Kyoto Protocol, it was never ratified by the United States under Clinton’s administration.
In 2000, George W. Bush was elected president, and in conflict with the direction of his processor he made a multitude of conservative pro-economy appointments throughout his administration. President Bush chose a fellow oil person to be his number two in Dick Cheney. Policy during the Bush/Cheney era favored the direction of energy producer and economic interests. There was significant push by his administration to achieve energy independence through an increase in domestic supply by way of lifting offshore drilling bans and new exploration and drilling in ANWR. The Bush administration can be highlighted his a repeal of new source review requirements under the CAAA of 1977, suspension of changes to the Arsenic Rule, complete withdrew from the IPCC’s Kyoto Protocol thus declaring it “dead”, removal of State rights to apply fuel efficiency standards to vehicles and its commitment to its party’s core constituency over the environment.
In 2008 Barack Obama was elected president. The economic situation that Obama inherited was very similar to that of Reagan in 1980 however their political ideologies were different. The Obama administration’s proactive approach began with a change in direction from his predecessor, which allowed states to exceed federal fuel efficiency requirements on automobiles. While Obama was working on the Obama Act, which has already begun to remedy the housing and credit crisis that came to light four years ago, he also initiated policy that would impose mercury discharge limits on power plants. This was well received by public health officials, and environmental groups the like. Former Surgeon General, C. Everett Koop call the policy “a bridge between public and environmental health never before built”, as mercury is the second most toxic substance on the planet behind plutonium. At the 15th Conference of Parties, the United States recommitted to the international guidelines of the Kyoto Protocol and had taken a leadership in the adoption of the Son of Kyoto slated for a 2012 signature of parties.
The 1st Obama administration was highlighted by a proactive environmental stance and with the support of a bipartisan congress and moderate high court an agenda of energy independence, environmental sovereignty and a sustainable future are within our reach.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
