The first issue that I think Contingent Valuation (CV) could adequately address is light pollution. Light pollution is particularly aggravated when municipal lighting systems point upward, limiting both public enjoyment and scientific exploration of the night sky. While light pollution is a widespread issue, it can be effectively addressed at the local level by implementing policies to reduce upward-facing lighting. This is also an issue that could not be addressed using non-use values, since everyone has access to potentially viewing the night sky.
Another local issue that could be managed using CV is the effect that local dams have on rivers and streams in terms of sediment & pollution. These are especially local issues that require support and action from the local communities in order to ensure clean-up of the area. Although fewer citizens generally access rivers and streams than gaze upon the night sky, there are still issues of public health and safety involved in the pollution of waterways, making this an ideal issue for contingent valuation.
Issues that would not be appropriate for consideration under CV include irreplaceable natural features and resources such as endangered species and unique locales. Many of these features are inaccessible to the general public, but the public is comforted in knowing that they are being protected and preserved. For example, the Mariana Trench is the deepest known part of the world's oceans, and is a source of a multitude of research and scientific opportunities. Although an extremely small number of people will visit the Mariana Trench personally, it is a natural environment that should be protected. Asking the general public to indicate willingness-to-pay for its preservation, however, would not be productive, since the vast majority of citizens have no personal experience with the issue.
Joanna, I think that you bring up interesting points. I agree that contingent valuation would be useful in the evaluation of both light pollution and local dams. It would be helpful to have an assessment on the value that citizens place on these issues. I also agree that issues pertaining to the preservation of natural resources are items that would not be consistent with using CV. The public may not have a complete understanding on the impact of such issues, and therefore may not have a full understanding of how to assess their value. Good job.
ReplyDelete-Christiana
I liked the light pollution one. probably one of the best uses of CV.
ReplyDeleteI disargree with endangered species and natural features not being an appropriate for a contingent valuation survey. I support your position that their preservation is critical to the planetary ecological stability, but there is large camp out there that would not share our opinion and thus from a standpoint of politics a lack of direct valuation such a survey would hold purpose.
That said, it has always been my contention that if something is going to be done regardless of the results of a survey then you should not conduct it.
Just food for thought
I am going to agree with your comments about how CV does not work in remote areas. Of course different areas must be preserved, but I don't think CV is an appropriate means to value a remote geographic space. The whole purpose is to determine the economic value, and people cannot identify with the space in question, then they may value something very low, when it really has a high value.
ReplyDeleteI had not previously considered the use of CV on light pollution, but your assessment is dead on. I believe that CV would work best when conducted in an area that is local to an issue. Broader environmental programs do not translate as well to theoretical survey scenarios. The affects of light pollution, however, and the affects of action or inaction would be easy to demonstrate through CV.
ReplyDelete