Assignment #3: Questions 13-15

In the final stretch ...

13) Should public managers and environmental planners engage the public when they know that the public's knowledge is limited about the science of an environmental issue? If so, how would you go about doing that? If not, what are the consequences of not including them?

I firmly believe that in this country we have an obligation to make sure the public is as well-informed as possible, even if the public and the media present challenges to doing so. The public's right to know outweighs all concerns about the difficulty of informing and involving them. The public, for one thing, is the key stakeholder. Those living in the area affected by an environmental issue will be the most effected. The Weston article we read suggests that the public is rather defensive and distrustful toward scientific findings, but that is not an excuse to not work to keep them in the loop. In order to deal with the risk society, public involvement should take a more "communicative approach," but review of EIA literature shows that the public involvement is artificial at best (Pg. 319). The case of the unexploded chemical munitions in the Shepherd and Bowler article is an outline of how to approach public involvement: involve the public early, involve them often, and listen to their opinions. Not taking these steps results in greater distrust and likely attempts by members of the public to hold up or destroy a project.

14) Describe 2-3 environmental problems that you think might be particularly conducive to using contingent valuation. Briefly describe why CV would be appropriate in this case.
Damming of Glen Canyon:
It is an old issue, but environmental groups still rail against the loss of what was considered to be a beautiful natural wonder and seek to have Lake Powell drained. For those who don't know, the government dammed Glen Canyon in the 1950s and 1960s, creating Lake Powell. The dam serves as a water reserve for the arid southwest and generates power. David Brower, director of the Sierra Club when Glen Canyon was dammed, was one of the original proponents of the site. He recommended it in place of another site that would have partially flooded a national park. However, after visiting Glen Canyon, he changed his tune. After its damming, he lamented, "Neither you, nor I, nor anyone else knew it well enough to insist that at all costs it should endure." Since then, legislators who favored the dam, including Morris Udall (Democrat) and Barry Goldwater (Republican), have announced regrets over the decision. The cost of draining the lake, as well as other losses of water storage and power generation, could be measured in a contingent valuation of people's willingness to pay for the restoration of the canyon. A broader knowledge of Glen Canyon, its beauty and Native American history may resonate with respondents, and the "warm glow" feeling described in our readings may be lessened by consideration of taxes (especially during a recession) and the existence of a substitute, namely the Grand Canyon.

Protection of the San Pedro River:
The San Pedro River in southwest Arizona is one of few desert riparian areas left in the state and is an internationally renowned location for bird watching. According to The Nature Conservancy, the area around the river is home to "nearly two-thirds of the avian diversity in the U.S." It is a national conservation area. Further protection of this area would be a good candidate for contingent valuation surveys because respondents would be able to value a riparian area in the desert as well as potential bird-watching. Additionally, alternatives exist, especially for bird watching, so the topic fits well into the guidelines created by the NOAA panel. I think the values respondents place on the river would vary widely, with the highest values coming from parts of the southwest as well as the niche group of bird watchers. Lower values may be the result of a lack of knowledge about the area or not valuing riparian areas in the desert. Also, some people just don't care about bird watching and may not be willing to pay more taxes for increased preservation.


15) Describe 2-3 environmental problems that you think would definitely not be conducive to using contingent valuation. Briefly describe why CV would not be appropriate in this case.
Global warming:
I don't think global warming is specific enough for contingent valuation. It could possibly be broken down into specific areas such as clean air, but things like ice shelfs and melting glaciers in Alaska are going to be difficult to assess. Also, given the political explosiveness of the issue, some people won't be willing to pay more for goods or taxes in exchange for a reduction in the Earth's temperature. Also, because so many of the effects are in the future, willingness to pay will be difficult to determine because the respondent won't be present for the benefit.

Destruction of the Sonoran Desert ecosystem:
As Phoenix and Tucson grow, preservation of the Sonoran Desert decreases. The Sonoran Desert is the most "biologically diverse" desert in North America, according to the Bureau of Land Management. I've heard others argue the world. Like global warming, valuing an entire ecosystem is hard work. It is probably nearly impossible for economists and certainly going to be beyond most average citizens. Concepts like biodiversity and ecosystem importance are complicated. Also, given the rarity of the biodiversity in the desert, there are no real "substitutes" as outlined by the NOAA panel.