Public managers are not elected officials; however they are stilled regarded and accountable to actions that concern their constituents or community. Although, they may not be as publicly visible, they deal directly with issues regarding policy of local, state, and national legislators, and those services that affect communities through implementation and enforcement of policy. Thus, it is important for managers and planners to inform the public and raise awareness on issues concerning them. Public input and involvement is vital in maintaining trust among those you serve.
When dealing with issues regarding the environment there are several technical details and subtleties to keep in mind. Most of this information is generally useful to practitioners and academics but may seem somewhat cumbersome and confusing to the public at large. It is important to relay information, whether it be environmental impact effects, contamination hazards, or other situations regarding the state of the environment to elected officials and the public in a succinct and concise manner. This includes submitting facts, those who it potentially affects, severity risks, costs associated, and possibly solutions. The delivery of how one engages with the public is probably most important, relaying a sense of concern, awareness, professionalism, and stability demonstrating that there may be an issue with something while instilling faith in the institution.
Three environmental problems that come to mind when considering the use of contingent valuation are water use and conservation, transportation use in regards to air quality, and energy consumption dealing with electricity need. I believe these could work in relation to contingent valuation because of the user costs already associated with each. Also, each of these is used by consumers on a daily basis and might be more susceptible in implement CV. For instance, consumers could be prompted on willingness to pay based on conservation of the Colorado and Salt Rivers or other natural water ways within the state being used. Also, some of these water sources are also used for recreational activity, and thus might carry more weight of importance.
In regards to transportation and energy consumption these reflect local communities and regions, which is important in the use of contingent valuation. One might care more about their local area rather than the nation, continent, or globe for that matter. Air quality, although difficult to deal with because of any absent ownership, could see local areas assess what their air means to them, and associate a tax or surcharge applied to mileage driven and miles per gallon. The only problem foreseen would be that consumers might feel discontent, if other regions do not follow similar suit. Energy consumption would be very similar to this, displaying to people the exploitation of natural resources in their region and the damage caused over time. Overall, I think contingent valuation might have a better chance of succeeding if the causes stay local.
Contingent valuation can be a useful tool is assessing damage and environmental worth pending on the resource we are examining. A couple things that probably would not work within CV would be the Earth’s ocean’s dealing with conservation and cleanup, urban sprawl associated with growth, and preservations of non-regional natural wonders. The commonality between each of these, at least in my perspective, is lack of ownership by any one party. Now, you’re probably saying what is different between our air and our oceans, and to me it is simple our utility and necessity for oxygen is more apparent to average citizens than massive water bodies which may not be remotely close to where someone resides. How could someone ideally state what the value of four large bodies of water which cover nearly 75 percent of our Earth. In my perspective it would be somewhat impossible. Would a tax placed on someone living in the Midwest, who may not see much utility from involuntarily giving money to protect an ocean?
Also, another non-local area which may be hard to impose CV might be preservation of natural wonders which are not already paid for by tax dollars such as the Grand Canyon or Yellowstone Parks. Like those who live in areas not within a reasonable amount of travel distance, what is the benefit that they will seek? For someone in New York State, I doubt they would ideally understand or place a value on La Jolla Beach. What is the true value of the Gulf of Mexico when you ask Floridians or Texans? Quite a different perspective I imagine. This leads me to believe that in order for CV to work it has to demonstrate some sort of utility and/or ownership to citizens.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
During some of my previous work experience as a government employee I was held accountable for conducting business that had to be done with the best interest of the public in mind. While I was a regular employee I felt like an elected official because the work that I was conducting made an impact on the community and it really felt like I had been entrusted with a duty instead of just being hired for a job. I felt that it was important to me that I be responsible and think of factors that were larger in scope than any one person or position. This kind of mentality is at the core of contingent valuation and I perceive that it could be the best way to control negative externalities of environmentally exploitative practices.
ReplyDeleteYour thinking about CV utilizatoin is very impressive. I am carefully thinking that envrionmental problem to cover the non-local area can be approached by the CV. The reason is why, for example, in the case of Grand Canyon, if we imagine the part will break or disappear, in considerig how much is its conservation or existence value, non-local issue may be addressed by the CV. Question of these potential values may be asked to all U.S. people in such way of phone survey and internet survey.
ReplyDeleteI like your support for contingent valuation not suppotive of oceanic concerns. You are right in providing the perspective of an individual who is not in proximity to the ocean water and conveying a form of taxation to them. The connection would not be translated from an everday perspective, but to what effect would it merit an active understanding? For example people world wide heed recovery efforts for catastrophies such Hurricane Katrina, or recently the Haitian earthquake. There are environmental concerns involved withtin these two incidents, but what I am proposing is that people might be willing to be taxed for an ocean concern, even without proximity to its use, if the concern is presented to them within a perspective to create the necessary change. the effect of the problem needs to be conveyed deeply, such as the the example in relief efforts.
ReplyDelete