Describe 2-3 environmental problems you think might be conducive to using CV, and 2-3 environmental problems definitely not conducive for CV.

Describe 2-3 environmental problems that you think might be conducive to using CV, and describe 2-3 environmental problems definitely not conducive for this.

References:

(1) http://www.ecosystemvaluation.org/contingent_valuation.htm#case1

(2) Franz Hackl & Gerald J. Pruckner, 2005. "Warm glow, free-riding and vehicle neutrality in a health-related contingent valuation study," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(3), pages 293-306.

(3) Josephine Borghi, 2008. "Aggregation rules for cost-benefit analysis: a health economics perspective," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 17(7), pages 863-875.


(4) Julio Videras & Ann Owen, 2006. "Public Goods Provision and Well-Being: Empirical Evidence Consistent with the Warm Glow Theory," Contributions to Economic Analysis & Policy, Berkeley Electronic Press, vol. 5(1), pages 1531-1531.


The contingent valuation method (CVM) is conducive if used to estimate economic values for some kinds of ecosystem and environmental services and estimates both use and non-use values. The contingent valuation method involves directly asking people, in a survey, how much they would be willing to pay for specific environmental services. Because it requires asking people for the amount of compensation they would be willing to accept to give up specific environmental services or the “contingent” valuation willingness to pay, contingent on a specific hypothetical scenario, they must be direct users of the environmental service. The CV has been defined as a “stated preference” (1) method, because it asks people to directly state their values, rather than inferring values from actual choices. CV is proper to use on environmental events were the “public” has direct or indirect interest or involvement.

Definition of problems conducive to CV (hypothetical):

1. The CAP board is in the need to determine how much water to allocate to Tempe for the Town Lake. The water quantity affects the food supply for nesting and migratory birds. Thus, they use CV to measure the use and non-use values citizens have regarding the willingness to pay for increase water flows to the Lake.

2. The Energy Commission of AZ has to determine, for licensing permits to be issued, how much water can flow over a fall in a recreation area. The decision will not only impact the recreation area (visually, use, visitor numbers, environmental resources, etc) but determine the quantity of water SRP can house under a reservoir upstream.

3. Colorado State has to determine the costs they are willing to pay for restoring and keeping snow slopes. They need to determine the cost in their budget to maintain these slopes open for tourists. They need to determine these expenses based on CV surveys, which estimate the expected revenue they are going to receive or the sum of the willingness to pay of future tourists and outdoor recreationists that are to use these resources. The survey targets the users of these.

Definition of problems NOT conducive to CV (hypothetical):

CV determination of costs may be a lengthy and time consuming endeavor. The CV proper use might be closely related to what questions are asked; therefore it might not be a method to be used in:

1. The Arizona office of the EPA needs to determine the value of “air visibility” or the effect on the brown cloud. They want to impose a cost to future construction. The use of CV might not be the recommended methodology for public might not have a clear idea or value for air visibility, for it does not have a direct link to air quality or pollution standards. CV assumes that people understand the good in question and will reveal their preferences in the contingent market just as they would in a real market. However, most people are unfamiliar with placing dollar values on environmental goods and services. Therefore, they may not have an adequate basis for stating their true value.

2. Another example that literature (2, 4) details for NOT using CV is that of an environmental issue that may be subject to bias, or heavily influence by a political or emergency event. If you surveyed people right after the Katrina event about wanting to contribute (survey all Americans, independent of their residence location) or their willingness to pay for wetland restoration for specific areas affected by the Katrina hurricane , their response by be influence by the media dissemination of the effects and damages. However the preferences might not translate to actions or their willingness to accept higher taxes to cover for that willingness to pay.

3. If people are surveyed about their willingness to pay for a state-of-the-art waste water treatment, they may be willing to pay for the technology (although more costly) of a methane filter vs. sand filters. However if the survey also includes the location for this plant is to be in their “back yard” the environmental willingness to pay may be muddled by NIMBY public outcry.

Should public managers and environmental planners engage the public when their knowledge is limited?

We were asked to consider whether public managers and environmental planners should engage the public when their knowledge is limited about science of an environmental issue. Should we? We were ask, if the answer is yes, how would we do this. And if the answer is not, what would the consequences be of not including them.

My response is stated below:

The Council for Environmental Quality (CEQ) in October 2007 developed a “Collaboration in NEPA: A handbook for NEPA practitioners”, guide for environmental planners and all those involved in actively performing NEPA, that states they should emphasize having meaningful public input and involvement in the process of evaluating the environmental impacts of proposed federal actions (CEQ, 2007). Federal agencies can benefit by working collaboratively with others in the NEPA process, such as the state and local long range transportation and land use planning processes, for they can provide additional opportunities for collaboration. Collaboration requires hard work, commitment, agency leadership, different kinds of skills and resources, and a new way of approaching environmental review processes. Collaboration must be strengthened by educating the public, and through this dissemination of information, arrive to consensus building and support for the project.

Collaboration, and its internal process of educating the public and other stakeholders, must involve the following steps:

Education should develop mechanisms for dissemination of relevant information. Some mechanisms proven successful are presentations, seminars, and publication of expertise, including scientific and technical expertise, and knowledge of a local resource. These may create “a collaborative body that can reach a more informed agreement and advise decision-makers accordingly. Similarly, the diversity of perspectives, transparency and openness of collaborative processes tend to encourage creative thinking, which can also lead to more informed decisions (A Handbook for NEPA Practitioners, pg. 5)”. Holding a public “state of the science” workshop(s) where experts discuss available information — what is known, not known, what can be studied easily or not, what assumptions rest within certain analysis, and what uncertainties exist (A Handbook for NEPA Practitioners, pg. 22) will certainly educate and create collaboration.

Education should also define and distribute, through all agency participants in the pre-scoping, a plan of work to be performed, and it must be achieved through a fairer process. This implies inviting those of particular or important interests, particularly those from traditionally disadvantaged or under-represented communities. All will (if the plan is implemented fully) be invited to participate in a process (A Handbook for NEPA Practitioners, pg. 6).

The education process results in a document that records the sharing of ideas, opinions, and sometimes resources; it can also enhance integration and coordination among jurisdictions and the public. The process must allow for the integration, coordination, and streamlining of multiple agency and public reviews and analyses associated with different legal and permitting requirements and serve to reduce delays and make time lines more predictable. This documentation must be public, and must include experts from cooperating agencies, including tribes and local municipalities, to jointly undertake the analysis, thus bringing in additional expertise as well as increasing opportunities for agreement on the project (A Handbook for NEPA Practitioners, pg. 22).

Education should be for all that are working within the NEPA, and it should be stated to them in the early beginning, that in the analysis there are going to be times were conflicts are going to arise; however by educating all, public and agency stakeholders, these will surface and will be resolve thus preventing conflict that stone-wall the process.

Education must also define the methodology to be used for the creation of alternatives to consider, their evaluation criteria, and how input is to be heard. These must be comments received by the decision makers before the analysis of whether or not to proceed in the implementation of a decision. If stakeholders feel vested in a decision, they will have a stake in its implementation. They can also bring the knowledge they gained during the collaborative process to bear on decisions relating to monitoring, enforcement, and other issues (A Handbook for NEPA Practitioners, pg. 6). Collaborating with other agencies or parties to determine the appropriate methodologies for scientific analysis should also be a step within the education process. For example, all parties could agree on the geographic and temporal boundaries to be used in a cumulative impact analysis (A Handbook for NEPA Practitioners, pg. 22).

All these education or collaboration steps are how I would include public that might not be as knowledgeable as the experts in a subject matter. However if this public is not included, litigation cost will occur (time and capital costs), and there exclusion may result in a project that develops with areas of uncertainty, a project with non-inclusive and deliberative find fact finding, as well as foster less formation of informal and formal partnerships, thus incrementing less public confidence in government. Finally, the implementation might not find support, thus delaying any action, or not the action not be constructed at all.


References:

http://ceq.hss.doe.gov/ntf/Collaboration_in_NEPA_Oct_2007.pdf

week 4 lecture.pdf

Maria Angelica's OP-ED: Environmental policy view: 1970-2010

Could we be living a similar environmental decade as that experience in the U.S.A in the 1970s?

Well certainly Obama’s first four years of power are the start of a similar decade. The records (earthjustice ) of what occurred in the first four years of power of Obamas’s White House have created a new crescendo. The Obama administration on January 2009 halted an effort to remove federal protection for wolves in Idaho and Montana with a memo that ordered a sweeping review of last-minute George W. Bush regulations. President Obama’s White House also worked on reinstating protections for mountain streams which was an overturn to Bush’s rule that made it easier for coal companies to bury Appalachian streams under tons of rock. Obama also began the process of restoring the Clean Water Act to the scope Congress intended when first passed. Obama also stopped the fast-tracked plans for oil shale development in the western U.S. and which wolud have opened more than 100,000 acres of prime Utah wilderness to oil and gas drilling. And lastly, although not the only policy Obama has instituted, was that of refuting the December 2008 Bush administration plan which authorized a large polluting coal-fired power plant on public lands in Nevada.

The 1970’s were declared by President Nixon as “the environmental decade (Vig, pg. 102)”. Nixon signed the National Environmental Policy Act, the Clean Air Act, the Endangered Species Act, and created the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) by executive order. Although not signed by Nixon, but passed over his veto, was the Federal Water Pollution Control Acts Amendments of 1972. The environmental momentum created by these Acts was diffused by Regan presidency of the 1980.

Regan was the first president in the U.S. that came to office with an anti-environmental agenda (Vig, pg. 104). Per Regan’s view, environmental regulation was a barrier to the supply side of economics and environmental conservatism as at odds with economic growth and prosperity. Regan, presidential candidate after a period of economic decline, reflected the policy change U.S. wanted, and the Republican Senate supported. In 1981 Regan’s Economic Recovery Act was passed with reduced income taxes by nearly 25 percent, and cut spending on environmental and social programs. Faced with opposition in Congress, Reagan appointed leaders that shared his environmental views in key agencies, coordinated tightly all policies being reviewed, drafted and studies in the cabinet council and White House staff, cut working budgets to environmental agencies and their programs, and enhanced regulatory oversight (Vig, pg. 105).

Regan, although weakened the White House stand within the environmental arena, revitalized environmental organizations within. Membership to these organizations increased dramatically (Vig, pg. 106), and these were able to stir public’s concern for the environment, which peaked in the late 1980s.

The elder President Bush returned to a more moderate tradition, and promised that while staying on course with the Regan’s economic policies, he would create a kinder gentler America (Vig, pg. 106). He acknowledged the new environmentalist trend set by pro-environmental organizations, and solicit their advice by appointing some of their leaders to his administration. Bush passed the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 which set up three goals: control acid rain by reducing sulfur dioxide emissions from coal-burning power plants by nearly half by 2000, to reduce air pollution inn 80 urban areas that had not met the 1977 air quality standards, and to lower emissions of nearly 200 airborne toxic chemicals by 75 to 90 percent by 2000 (Vig, pg. 107). Despite Bush accomplishments in the national arena, the president boycotted the Earth Summit of 1992 for he wanted no binding targets for carbon dioxide reduction. He also refused to sign the Convention on Biology diversity policies.

President Clinton campaigned on the issues of raising the corporate average fuel economy standards for automobiles, encourage mass transit programs and support renewable energy research and development. This agenda was bogged down in Congress (Vig, pg 109). Clinton failed also in implementing his proposal of raising grazing fees on public lands, which after meeting with western senators, he removed as proposal which was opposed strongly by environmentalists. Environmentalists also opposed his support for the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the World Trade Organization. Clinton’s administration also failed in responding to climate change. Clinton authorized Vice president Gore to break the deadlock (Vig, pg. 111) at Kyoto, however Congress would not ratify the agreement and prohibited all efforts to implement it.

President George W. Bush took office in 2001 after he lost the popular vote to Al Gore. Bush’s administration focused on domestic and international issues that were non environmental in nature: Afghanistan and Iraq wars, he presided over passage of a series of large tax cuts, created the Department of Home Land Security, and education and health reforms. Bush experienced 9-11, Katrina and an economic depression worse than the one FDR dealt with. Although not focused on the environment, some of the major policy initiatives in that arena were: 1. “Reliablem Affordable, and Environmentally Sound Energy for America’s future” which was drafted in spring 2001 as a national energy plan. The ideas of the plan were passed by the House of Representatives, but stalled in the Senate. Efforts to revive the bill in the 108th Congress (2003-2005) failed (Vig, pg. 115). 2. “Clear Skies” which called for cuts about 70 percent of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and mercury emissions from power plants between 2008-2018 was also stalled. When the bill failed to clear the Senate Environmental and Public Works Committee in March 2005, the EPA issued separate rules to control sulfur and nitrogen oxides in 28 eastern states.

If we look in detail at one of Obama administration’s policies, that of halting the effort to remove federal protection for wolves in Idaho and Montana with a memo that ordered a sweeping review of last-minute Bush regulations, it was just the initial starting point to review and terminate most of Bush’s environmental legacy (or lack of it).

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s wolf delisting rule was scheduled for publication in the Federal Register on Jan. 27, 2009, but President Obama’s chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, told agency directors to withdrawal Bush regulations and have all of these for a legal and policy review. Sharon Rose, spokeswoman for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, stated that because of this move the wolves will remain under the protection of the Endangered Species Act.

This move was also the start that the Fish and Wildlife Service needed to come up with a plan that works both for wolves and the people of the northern Rockies. This move was also the starting point for the Obama administration to take a look at regulations that are very controversial under previous Presidents.

References:

earthjustice: http://www.earthjustice.org/our_work/100-days-five-ways-towards-a.html?gclid=CKuou6-ZvpgCFRFWagodpH60bA

Vig, N. and M. Kraft, Eds . (2005). Environmental Policy: New Directions for the 21`st Century, CQ Press.

Weekly Assignment 2 & 3: My article

I found three article revelant to emission standards. These articles are:

1. Obama Affirms Climate Change Goals (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/19/us/politics/19climate.html?ref=politics)

2. Obama to order review of state's emissions bid (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/01/25/MNMF15GTPU.DTL&type=politics&tsp=1)

3. Text of President Barack Obama's inaugural address (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090120/ap_on_go_pr_wh/inauguration_obama_text)

My take on this issue is as follows:

In November 2008(1), before Barack Obama became president of the United States of America, he spoke to governors and foreign officials about his intention of pursuing the target on reducing emission that cause green house effect and global warming; “Now is the time to confront this challenge once and for all….Delay is no longer an option. Denial is no longer an acceptable response (1).”

He emphasized this in his inaugural speech by stating:

“With old friends and former foes, we will work tirelessly to lessen the nuclear threat, and roll back the specter of a warming planet (3)”.

So what does this mean? During the presidential campaign Obama was quoted as wanting to reduce climate altering carbon dioxide emissions by 80 percent by 2050, and invest $150 billion in new energy-saving technologies. Some industry leaders and members of Congress criticized this climate proposal for this climate proposal would impose too great a cost on an already-stressed economy (1) .

Obama’s White House (2) is living up to the campaign promise, and is letting the States to be sovereign and also responsible for cost-implications. Obama will order the Environmental Protection Agency to allow states lead by California, to impose tough vehicle emission standards. This move will break the Bush’s administration policy regarding State’s sovereignty and environmental policy, which rejected California’s request to enforce limiting greenhouse gases from cars and trucks. Obama’s order will only require EPA to consider the States’ request, but it is expected that the request will be approved.

What may be the implications of this move?

This analysis is not to be seen a criticism or endorsement of the move. However, we must understand the implications (2).

If EPA reviews and signs the waiver decision for California and the 18 other states that would trigger the green light to address global warming pollution from motor vehicles, this will determine that the Detroit vehicle market has to change, thus required to produce the cleanest, most efficient vehicles possible. These auto industries oppose California’s rules and have lobbied Congress for a single national standard.

If California's rule is enforced, this may imply the requirement that vehicles reduce their greenhouse gases by 30 percent by 2016. The transportation sector, because it is the single biggest source of greenhouse gas emissions in the state, at about 38 percent of total emissions, would be the most affected. The state's rules require automakers to meet a fleetwide average of 36 miles per gallon by 2016. Obama's directive is also expected to force the Transportation Department to complete interim fuel economy standards to implement the 2007 law.

Setting up PAF 546 blog

I hope we have a succesful semester. Look forward to all your comments and discussions. If need to get hold of me, you can do so at mariaacafe2002@yahoo.com.

I am a Civil engineer that currently works for the City of Mesa's Transportation Department. I have a MS in Construction Mngt, and a MEP in Environmental Urban Planning, both from ASU. I am currently enrolled in the Master of Public Administration.

The reason for pursuing this master, is I want to be more effective in presenting suggested action plans to the City Council and residents. In order to do so, and the actions to be implementable, I need to understand public (City) policy.