New Laws Would Expand City’s Recycling Program
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/12/nyregion/12recycle.html?ref=earth
By Nate Schweber
The article is about a sweeping expansion of New York City’s recycling laws introduced by Christine C. Quinn, the City Council speaker. New York City’s recycling laws has three criteria to increase recycling: 1) increasing plastics recycling, 2) putting more bins in public areas, and 3) creating periodic drop-off locations for hazardous household waste. Ms. Quinn says that the Department of Sanitation would be required to implement this law. This recycling program would be expected that more than 8,000 tons of plastic out of landfills annually, 10,000 residents’ trash would be recycled. To empower New York City’s recycling laws, people who violate this law must pay a fine.
New York City produces 20,000 tons of garbage daily. Since Fresh Kills Landfill closed on Staten Island in 2001, New York City became a major garbage exporter. The trash is transporting to other states’ disposal facilities such as Pennsylvania, Virginia, New Jersey, Ohio, and so forth. However, there are limitations to transport waste to other states. First of all, the price of transport has been rapidly increased exceeding the budget. Second, the pollution from the transport with trucks, ships, and trains is considered seriously. Moreover, as the awareness of environmental issues is growing, the citizens in import states tend to resist the import from other state for their own sake.
To export their problems to other states is not a good solution for environmental sustainability as a long-term strategy. Sustainability is regarded as “maintenance of natural capital” (Goodland, 1995, p. 10) and “an obligation to conduct ourselves so that we leave to the future the option or the capacity to be as well off as we are” (Solow, 1991, p. 181). Thus, New York City’s recycling laws would be a good way to solve partly the overflowing waste problem.
The recycling law is related to sustainability planning at New York City. To regulate recycling is not broadly related with other cities or states. As Ms. Quinn said, New Your City tries to solve problems occurring from the transport of waste, as I mentioned above. In aspect of Three Es–environment, economy, and equity for sustainability planning, the recycling law could reduce the overflowing waste in light of environment. Moreover, the city would expect to make profits from recycling and fines against the law. According to Ms. Quinn, the system of fines for the violation is more fair for small property owners because the fine would charge on landlords or the owner of buildings.
Let’s view the recycling program from the other angle for environmental sustainability. Goodland (1995) divides sustainability into three degrees: weak, strong and absurdly strong. The recycling program would be involved in weak environmental sustainability which is “maintaining total capital intact without regard to the partitioning of that capital among the four kinds”–natural, human, human-made, and social (p. 15). The technology for recycling would be substitute for natural capital or the economic benefits from recycling would be substitute for other capital.
Even if the recycling program is handled by regional planning, environmental issue is initiatively not limited by a region. Environmental issue itself needs overall efforts through a nation. Wheeler (2004) says that “national and state governments are strong and established institutions that dominate public attention” (p. 133). If the United States government initiate recycling as a law, the effect from the law would be tremendous.
Sunday, April 25, 2010
Sunday, April 11, 2010
Assignment # 6: Applying Cohen's five frameworks to Interstate Transport of Solid Waste (H. R. 274)
1. Values Framework
The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that states or local governments cannot make a law or regulations to ban or place special burdens on out-of-state waste under the dormant Commerce Clause. However, as the public’s awareness of environment increased, the citizen have interested in the negative impacts that solid waste disposal could have such as land degradation, ground water contamination, air pollution, and so forth. Thus, proponents of Solid Waste Interstate Transportation Act propose to give states authority to rule import and export solid waste in order to manage solid waste effectively.
The problem of interstate transport of solid waste arose because the interstate garbage is increased rapidly while the facilities to handle the garbage such as incinerators, landfills, and so on. Moreover the fear of health risk caused by dumping solid waste leads the phenomenon of NIMBY - ‘not in my backyard,’ in order to avoid the potential environmental threat. William Gormley says tath "States can readily export their problems to other states." New York City closed the incinerators and chose to export the garbage to other states. However, the exporting garbage creates other environmental problems such as air pollution, highway congestion, and noise through transport of solid waste services. The price of transport garbage increasing endlessly is a pivotal role to exacerbate the government’s economics.
2. Political framework
The Supreme Court held that “all objects of interstate trade merit Commerce Clause protections; none is excluded” (City of Philadelphia v. New Jersey, 1978, p. 622). According to several cases, the Supreme Court interprets the interstate transport of solid waste in aspects of interstate commerce aspects. Thus the differentials fees issued by Oregon Waste Systems, Inc. et al. v. Department of Environmental Quality of the State of Oregon et al. (1994) were regarded as discrimination against interstate commerce. In contrast, Chief Justice Rehnquist argues that Interstate transport of solid waste should be considered in aspect of justifiable safety and health issue of states rather than commerce aspects.
3. Science &technology framework
The biggest garbage exporters are New York, New Jersey, Missouri, Maryland, and Massachusetts, while the biggest garbage importers are Pennsylvania, Virginia, Michigan, Illinois, and Indiana. Science tell us that transport outputs from trucks, trains and barges are Nitrogen Oxide Emissions, Carbon Dioxide and other Greenhouse Gases, and so on, and this pollutants impact on human health. According to researches, cancer, respiratory illness, and birth defects are increased more in the area of disposal than other area. In addition, disposal outputs from landfills and incinerators causes climate change, water-related illness, and reproductive and development problems. There is not any scientific uncertainty or scientific disagreements against those negative impacts of interstate transport of solid waste.
4. Policy design framework
The Solid Waste Transportation Act 2005 proposed by Congresswoman Jo Ann Davis of Virginia, proposes “to address environmental and political concerns by giving more power to the states to limit garbage imports and regulate operators” (cited by Solid Waste Interstate Transportation Act 2005 midterm briefing, 2005). Congress has the power to override the dormant Commerce Clause and the Supreme Court asserts that states cannot regulate out-of-state waste at all through the cases: Philadelphia v. New Jersey (1978), Fort Gratiot Landfill v. Michigan (1992), Chemical Waste Mgmt. v. Hunt (1992), and Oregon Waste Systems, Inc. v. Oregon (1994), and so on. However, the intergovernmental tensions between law and policy in the area of interstate transport of solid waste will continue.
5. Management framework
According to Solid Waste Interstate Transportation Act, States has authority to establish the amount of out-of-state waste, require a permit for a new or expanded facility of disposal waste. Moreover, states could require inspectors to be onsite during operation of a facility that receives out-of-state waste. Each state has different circumstances to adopt environmental policy. Nobody coerce sacrifice for others. Thus, to make a good management framework of solid waste would be another challenge to the importers. Cohen (2006) suggests that “Solutions must take into account the various dimensions of each issue regarding values, politics, technology, policy, and management and also consider their interaction” (p. 60).
The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that states or local governments cannot make a law or regulations to ban or place special burdens on out-of-state waste under the dormant Commerce Clause. However, as the public’s awareness of environment increased, the citizen have interested in the negative impacts that solid waste disposal could have such as land degradation, ground water contamination, air pollution, and so forth. Thus, proponents of Solid Waste Interstate Transportation Act propose to give states authority to rule import and export solid waste in order to manage solid waste effectively.
The problem of interstate transport of solid waste arose because the interstate garbage is increased rapidly while the facilities to handle the garbage such as incinerators, landfills, and so on. Moreover the fear of health risk caused by dumping solid waste leads the phenomenon of NIMBY - ‘not in my backyard,’ in order to avoid the potential environmental threat. William Gormley says tath "States can readily export their problems to other states." New York City closed the incinerators and chose to export the garbage to other states. However, the exporting garbage creates other environmental problems such as air pollution, highway congestion, and noise through transport of solid waste services. The price of transport garbage increasing endlessly is a pivotal role to exacerbate the government’s economics.
2. Political framework
The Supreme Court held that “all objects of interstate trade merit Commerce Clause protections; none is excluded” (City of Philadelphia v. New Jersey, 1978, p. 622). According to several cases, the Supreme Court interprets the interstate transport of solid waste in aspects of interstate commerce aspects. Thus the differentials fees issued by Oregon Waste Systems, Inc. et al. v. Department of Environmental Quality of the State of Oregon et al. (1994) were regarded as discrimination against interstate commerce. In contrast, Chief Justice Rehnquist argues that Interstate transport of solid waste should be considered in aspect of justifiable safety and health issue of states rather than commerce aspects.
3. Science &technology framework
The biggest garbage exporters are New York, New Jersey, Missouri, Maryland, and Massachusetts, while the biggest garbage importers are Pennsylvania, Virginia, Michigan, Illinois, and Indiana. Science tell us that transport outputs from trucks, trains and barges are Nitrogen Oxide Emissions, Carbon Dioxide and other Greenhouse Gases, and so on, and this pollutants impact on human health. According to researches, cancer, respiratory illness, and birth defects are increased more in the area of disposal than other area. In addition, disposal outputs from landfills and incinerators causes climate change, water-related illness, and reproductive and development problems. There is not any scientific uncertainty or scientific disagreements against those negative impacts of interstate transport of solid waste.
4. Policy design framework
The Solid Waste Transportation Act 2005 proposed by Congresswoman Jo Ann Davis of Virginia, proposes “to address environmental and political concerns by giving more power to the states to limit garbage imports and regulate operators” (cited by Solid Waste Interstate Transportation Act 2005 midterm briefing, 2005). Congress has the power to override the dormant Commerce Clause and the Supreme Court asserts that states cannot regulate out-of-state waste at all through the cases: Philadelphia v. New Jersey (1978), Fort Gratiot Landfill v. Michigan (1992), Chemical Waste Mgmt. v. Hunt (1992), and Oregon Waste Systems, Inc. v. Oregon (1994), and so on. However, the intergovernmental tensions between law and policy in the area of interstate transport of solid waste will continue.
5. Management framework
According to Solid Waste Interstate Transportation Act, States has authority to establish the amount of out-of-state waste, require a permit for a new or expanded facility of disposal waste. Moreover, states could require inspectors to be onsite during operation of a facility that receives out-of-state waste. Each state has different circumstances to adopt environmental policy. Nobody coerce sacrifice for others. Thus, to make a good management framework of solid waste would be another challenge to the importers. Cohen (2006) suggests that “Solutions must take into account the various dimensions of each issue regarding values, politics, technology, policy, and management and also consider their interaction” (p. 60).
Saturday, March 27, 2010
Final Paper Topic - H. R. 274 "Solid Waste Interstate Transportation"
My final paper topic is H. R. 274, “To impose certain limitations on the receipt of out-of-State municipal solid waste, and for other purposes.” This bill was introduced by Robert Wittman, Republican representative of Virginia, in the House of Representatives. This act proposes to address environmental and political concerns by giving more power to the states to limit garbage imports and regulate operators. The reason States cannot regulate for themselves their municipal solid waste imports is that only Congress can regulate interstate commerce.
Solid waste management has been a major public concern. There are many states overflowing with solid waste such as New York, New Jersey, Missouri, Maryland, and so forth. The more states are industrialized or urbanized, the more solid waste is produced. Thus the states are looking forward to transport the solid waste to other states in order to landfill or incinerate that. Nobody wants to receive solid waste. In case solid waste contains something risk of health, the residents’ resist in the dumping area would be stronger. Thus decision makers should concern about NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) phenomenon. However, I could found a few states are welcome solid waste, because they recycle it and make money.
Nevertheless, the conflicts between states frequently initiate litigation. This act H. R. 274 is expected to reduce these problems. In my paper, I am going to the cases of conflicts between states, and study how well currently government manages solid waste interstate transportation. Last, I will look at how effectively the Act H. R. 274 could handle these problems.
Solid waste management has been a major public concern. There are many states overflowing with solid waste such as New York, New Jersey, Missouri, Maryland, and so forth. The more states are industrialized or urbanized, the more solid waste is produced. Thus the states are looking forward to transport the solid waste to other states in order to landfill or incinerate that. Nobody wants to receive solid waste. In case solid waste contains something risk of health, the residents’ resist in the dumping area would be stronger. Thus decision makers should concern about NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) phenomenon. However, I could found a few states are welcome solid waste, because they recycle it and make money.
Nevertheless, the conflicts between states frequently initiate litigation. This act H. R. 274 is expected to reduce these problems. In my paper, I am going to the cases of conflicts between states, and study how well currently government manages solid waste interstate transportation. Last, I will look at how effectively the Act H. R. 274 could handle these problems.
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Global Environmental Issues - Task part 2
I cannot still define whether developing countries have the right to exploit forest as Europe and the U.S. did in the past. However, I dare say that developed countries do not have a right to tell them not to exploit forest because humanity would be suffered by destruction of nature regardless of what they did before. Nobody can say that a country could develop economy without industrialization, if the country is poor. Nobody can say that no one want to be well off. As least, developing countries are trying to escape from poverty. This is good news for developed countries as well. Otherwise developed countries have to feed the poor countries endlessly in aspect of humanitarian impulse as Hardin (2007) in Lifeboat Ethics criticizes the World Food Bank. Tobin mentions the criticism of aid for poor countries with this reason: “Poorer nations must accept responsibility for their own fate because outside efforts to help them only worsen the problem and lead to an unhealthy dependence” (p. 288).
Although it does not mean that the developing countries are free from the responsibility of climate change which could lead humanity as a whole to be the end. If industrialized countries concern about environmental problems caused by industrializing countries, they should help the developing countries give priority to environmental matter rather than coercive action. The ways of help would be various. Tobin suggests alternatives to protest tropical forest such as certification programs, taxes. However, the most problem is, I think, that the developing countries are excluded from the decision making procedure. To make the industrializing countries understood and persuaded is the challenge for the rich countries in order to save the whole.
I want to introduce a case of my country South Korea. South Korea was one of the poorest countries after ending Korea War in 1945. Now my country is one of the stabilized countries in economics and politics. In a news paper a few years ago, I read that South Korea is the first country which converted from an aid-receiving country to an aid country after World War Ⅱ. I believe that my country cannot develop without other country’s aid. In the environmental problem, it seems like the same situation with my country.
The developing countries desperately need helps like my country before. The developed countries have lots of resources to sustain environment and preserve environment such as technology, monetary, human resources, and so on, while the developing countries do not have. The industrializing countries are expecting the developed country’s knowhow or consultants to manage environmental issue as well as economic issue. For instance, if a product produced by green energy would be given incentives to export to the developed countries, the developing countries are expected to spur to use clean energy instead of fossil fuel.
If the Environmental Kuznets Curve is right, it is reasonable that the industrializing countries priority to economic development rather than environmental issue. Dasgupta, et al. (2002) states that “In the first stage of industrialization, pollution in the environmental Kuznets curve world grows rapidly because people are more interested in jobs and income than clean air and water, communities are too poor to pay for abatement, and environmental regulation is correspondingly weak” (p. 147). However, what we have to concern is how the environmental Kuznets curve could be lowered and flatten in the developing nation rather than expecting that the developing nations change their priority from environment to economics.
I do not think that this is all about equity between industrialized and developing countries, but it is about how we can reduce climate change together. It means that the development nations should keep trying to eliminate pollutants from their own countries. Moreover, the developed countries should concern “environmental risks that are either newly discovered or generated by the use of new materials and technologies” (Dasgupata, Laplante, Wang and Wheeler, 2002, p. 162). If the rich countries do not effort to eliminate pollutants, how can the developing countries agree with the developed country's demands?
Although it does not mean that the developing countries are free from the responsibility of climate change which could lead humanity as a whole to be the end. If industrialized countries concern about environmental problems caused by industrializing countries, they should help the developing countries give priority to environmental matter rather than coercive action. The ways of help would be various. Tobin suggests alternatives to protest tropical forest such as certification programs, taxes. However, the most problem is, I think, that the developing countries are excluded from the decision making procedure. To make the industrializing countries understood and persuaded is the challenge for the rich countries in order to save the whole.
I want to introduce a case of my country South Korea. South Korea was one of the poorest countries after ending Korea War in 1945. Now my country is one of the stabilized countries in economics and politics. In a news paper a few years ago, I read that South Korea is the first country which converted from an aid-receiving country to an aid country after World War Ⅱ. I believe that my country cannot develop without other country’s aid. In the environmental problem, it seems like the same situation with my country.
The developing countries desperately need helps like my country before. The developed countries have lots of resources to sustain environment and preserve environment such as technology, monetary, human resources, and so on, while the developing countries do not have. The industrializing countries are expecting the developed country’s knowhow or consultants to manage environmental issue as well as economic issue. For instance, if a product produced by green energy would be given incentives to export to the developed countries, the developing countries are expected to spur to use clean energy instead of fossil fuel.
If the Environmental Kuznets Curve is right, it is reasonable that the industrializing countries priority to economic development rather than environmental issue. Dasgupta, et al. (2002) states that “In the first stage of industrialization, pollution in the environmental Kuznets curve world grows rapidly because people are more interested in jobs and income than clean air and water, communities are too poor to pay for abatement, and environmental regulation is correspondingly weak” (p. 147). However, what we have to concern is how the environmental Kuznets curve could be lowered and flatten in the developing nation rather than expecting that the developing nations change their priority from environment to economics.
I do not think that this is all about equity between industrialized and developing countries, but it is about how we can reduce climate change together. It means that the development nations should keep trying to eliminate pollutants from their own countries. Moreover, the developed countries should concern “environmental risks that are either newly discovered or generated by the use of new materials and technologies” (Dasgupata, Laplante, Wang and Wheeler, 2002, p. 162). If the rich countries do not effort to eliminate pollutants, how can the developing countries agree with the developed country's demands?
Sunday, March 14, 2010
Task part 1: Environmental Justice
http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/10/for-sooty-port-areas-clean-affordable-trucks/
March 10, 2010
For Sooty Port Areas, Clean Affordable Trucks
By Sindya N. Bhanoo
Truck drivers in New Jersey and New York can apply for grants and low-interest loans for purchasing a new and clean truck. The program is cooperated between the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey and the Federal Environmental Protection Agency. Dirivers applied can get 25 percent of the purchase price of a new truck and a 5.25 percent interest rate on the remaining amount. The program targets the pre-1993 trucks which are serious emitters. Judith Enck, the environmental agency’s regional administrator for New York and New Jersey explains that this program is environmental justice because a lot of low-income communities are distributed around the ports and the communities are exposed by air pollution from a lot of truck traffic in the ports. Thus this clean truck programs are expected to incredibly reduce emission if drivers buy trucks built after 2007.
In the article, Ms. Enck mentions that the communities around the ports are mostly composed of those who have low-income. They are seriously exposed to air pollution from a lot of truck traffic. She defines that it is income-based environmental inequity.
The EPA defines environmental justice as “the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to development, implementation, and enforcement environmental laws, regulations, and policies.” The issue of environmental justice became firstly known by the United Church of Christ’s Commission for Racial Justice (CRJ) in 1987. The Clinton Administration created the Office of Environmental Equity within the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under Executive Order 12898 (Konisky, 2009). President Clinton (1994) states that “each Federal agency shall conduct its programs, policies, and activities that substantially affect human health or the environment, in a manner that ensures that such programs, policies, and activities do not have the effect of excluding persons from participation in, denying persons the benefits of, or subjecting persons to discrimination under such programs, policies, and activities because of their race, color, or national origin” (Rast 2006, p. 257).
Furthermore, the clean truck program could enforce environmental sustainability of the communities surrounded the ports. Paehlke defines environmental sustainability as “the capacity to continuously produce the necessities of a quality human existence within the bounds of a natural world of undiminished quality” (p. 245) in the article, Sustainable Development and Urban Life in North America (2010). He suggests “triple-bottom-line thinking” considering sustainability: economic prosperity, social well-being, and environmental quality. As drivers replace their old dirty truck using emitter diesel with new clean truck, the communities could improve life quality as well as air quality. According to the article, the clean truck built from 2004 to 2007 could reduce smog emissions by 50 percent and soot by two-thirds.
There is not enough evidence if the resource of air pollution in the area is only from the trucks. I assume that there are lots of ships and plants which could cause the air pollution besides trucks. And the article does not mention sufficient statistics to reflect the health condition of the residents in order to prove environmental justice. However, the government behavior to show the willingness to eliminate environmental inequities is the most important point here.
March 10, 2010
For Sooty Port Areas, Clean Affordable Trucks
By Sindya N. Bhanoo
Truck drivers in New Jersey and New York can apply for grants and low-interest loans for purchasing a new and clean truck. The program is cooperated between the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey and the Federal Environmental Protection Agency. Dirivers applied can get 25 percent of the purchase price of a new truck and a 5.25 percent interest rate on the remaining amount. The program targets the pre-1993 trucks which are serious emitters. Judith Enck, the environmental agency’s regional administrator for New York and New Jersey explains that this program is environmental justice because a lot of low-income communities are distributed around the ports and the communities are exposed by air pollution from a lot of truck traffic in the ports. Thus this clean truck programs are expected to incredibly reduce emission if drivers buy trucks built after 2007.
In the article, Ms. Enck mentions that the communities around the ports are mostly composed of those who have low-income. They are seriously exposed to air pollution from a lot of truck traffic. She defines that it is income-based environmental inequity.
The EPA defines environmental justice as “the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to development, implementation, and enforcement environmental laws, regulations, and policies.” The issue of environmental justice became firstly known by the United Church of Christ’s Commission for Racial Justice (CRJ) in 1987. The Clinton Administration created the Office of Environmental Equity within the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under Executive Order 12898 (Konisky, 2009). President Clinton (1994) states that “each Federal agency shall conduct its programs, policies, and activities that substantially affect human health or the environment, in a manner that ensures that such programs, policies, and activities do not have the effect of excluding persons from participation in, denying persons the benefits of, or subjecting persons to discrimination under such programs, policies, and activities because of their race, color, or national origin” (Rast 2006, p. 257).
Furthermore, the clean truck program could enforce environmental sustainability of the communities surrounded the ports. Paehlke defines environmental sustainability as “the capacity to continuously produce the necessities of a quality human existence within the bounds of a natural world of undiminished quality” (p. 245) in the article, Sustainable Development and Urban Life in North America (2010). He suggests “triple-bottom-line thinking” considering sustainability: economic prosperity, social well-being, and environmental quality. As drivers replace their old dirty truck using emitter diesel with new clean truck, the communities could improve life quality as well as air quality. According to the article, the clean truck built from 2004 to 2007 could reduce smog emissions by 50 percent and soot by two-thirds.
There is not enough evidence if the resource of air pollution in the area is only from the trucks. I assume that there are lots of ships and plants which could cause the air pollution besides trucks. And the article does not mention sufficient statistics to reflect the health condition of the residents in order to prove environmental justice. However, the government behavior to show the willingness to eliminate environmental inequities is the most important point here.
Saturday, March 6, 2010
Environmental inequity
Konisky (2009) proves that there are class-based inequities in government enforcement of environmental laws through his research. He also says that “state enforcement behavior is strongly associated with economic class at the county level” (p. 117). He suggests that the federal government could reduce the environmental disparities using grants (or financial assistance), and “environmental justice concern” (p.118).
I am more interested in the reason why the environmental disparities are occurred especially in county’s level. There might be some reasons such as more public indifference or less interest group to involve the environmental decision making in low income communities, compared with high income communities. I think, because the poor are more interested in their livings rather than the politics. Without public’s resistance of environmental policy, abominations such as landfills or incineration plants are likely to be constructed in the communities. This tendency makes the environmental inequity, I think.
I am more interested in the reason why the environmental disparities are occurred especially in county’s level. There might be some reasons such as more public indifference or less interest group to involve the environmental decision making in low income communities, compared with high income communities. I think, because the poor are more interested in their livings rather than the politics. Without public’s resistance of environmental policy, abominations such as landfills or incineration plants are likely to be constructed in the communities. This tendency makes the environmental inequity, I think.
Sunday, February 28, 2010
General Questions
13) I strongly believe that public managers and environmental planners should engage the public even though they know the lack of the public’s knowledge about the environmental issue. Informing and enlightening is one of the government’s roles. The more the environmental issue is complicated or hard to make the public understood, the more agencies try to make the public engaged in the decision making procedure. Especially “the awareness of uncertainty” (Thrower 2006) regarding the environmental damage needs more the public’s agreement on environmental policies, because “proactive public participation could have resulted in a spirit of co-operation, trust and a mutually acceptable decision” (Shepherd & Bowler 1997, p. 733). If not, there might be some troubles arose such as the public’s distrust, the deterrence of the program, the issue of litigation, and so forth, like the case of the chemical demilitarization program case study (Shepherd and Bowler, 1997).
14) Contingent valuation (CV) is a prominent method to estimate benefits or costs of the good through the survey to ask the willingness to pay for a good or the willingness to accept the loss of a good (Steinemann & Apgar & Brown, 2005). Last January, I read an article titled “Asian Carp Battle” in Times. In this case, there are two sharply divided arguments: one provokes that Asian carp should be restricted because the carps invade and make the native species endanger, while the other side argue that the suppression of the carps in the Mississippi river and Great Lakes would discourage the fishing business. I think that CV would be appropriate to solve this Asian carp case. Through the survey, the public should be asked if they are willing to pay for the lost of the fishing business in order to preserve the native species in the Mississippi river and Great lakes, or vise versa.
15) Contingent valuation (CV) would not be an appropriate method to estimate the environmental issue if the responses of the survey have bias or embedding effects or do not have consistency with the result (Diamond & Hausman, 1994). CV is conducted by the interview, thus there is possibility of survey biases such as interviewer bias, framing bias, hypothetical bias, and so on. Furthermore the prejudice about the issue could affect the decision of willingness to pay regardless of the fact. For instance, the construction of the nuclear power plant suggested by the president Obama recently would be the issue negatively preoccupied by the public. In addition, if the response of the survey is easily converted with the same question, the CV could not be reliable. For instance, an issue related with the worldwide such as global warming could not be estimated with CV because the public would not confidence with their response, they are likely to change their mind with the same issue.
14) Contingent valuation (CV) is a prominent method to estimate benefits or costs of the good through the survey to ask the willingness to pay for a good or the willingness to accept the loss of a good (Steinemann & Apgar & Brown, 2005). Last January, I read an article titled “Asian Carp Battle” in Times. In this case, there are two sharply divided arguments: one provokes that Asian carp should be restricted because the carps invade and make the native species endanger, while the other side argue that the suppression of the carps in the Mississippi river and Great Lakes would discourage the fishing business. I think that CV would be appropriate to solve this Asian carp case. Through the survey, the public should be asked if they are willing to pay for the lost of the fishing business in order to preserve the native species in the Mississippi river and Great lakes, or vise versa.
15) Contingent valuation (CV) would not be an appropriate method to estimate the environmental issue if the responses of the survey have bias or embedding effects or do not have consistency with the result (Diamond & Hausman, 1994). CV is conducted by the interview, thus there is possibility of survey biases such as interviewer bias, framing bias, hypothetical bias, and so on. Furthermore the prejudice about the issue could affect the decision of willingness to pay regardless of the fact. For instance, the construction of the nuclear power plant suggested by the president Obama recently would be the issue negatively preoccupied by the public. In addition, if the response of the survey is easily converted with the same question, the CV could not be reliable. For instance, an issue related with the worldwide such as global warming could not be estimated with CV because the public would not confidence with their response, they are likely to change their mind with the same issue.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
