Contingency Evaluation

Contingency valuation must pertain to a problem where the public can directly see the implications of action or inaction.  In Phoenix, one of the most "visible" environmental problems is air visibility.  Due to the affects of urban sprawl and relatively relaxed emissions standards, the Phoenix air visibility is one of the worst in the country.  Several factors could be discussed in relation to the results of both action and inaction would produce successful and reliable survey results.  Another environmental problem that contingency evaluation would accurately address is the amount of noise pollution stemming from the combination of an urban revitalization and airport proximity.  The lack of sound barrier structure has been an issue discussed for several years, but little has been done to address the problem.  Once again, this is an issue where the affects of both action and inaction can clearly be demonstrated.  The public responds to issues that are apparent and has significant impact on their daily lives.  These two issues would allow for contingency valuation to successfully place non-use existence values.

Noise pollution and air visibility issues are environmental problems that are clear and immediate to the public.  Broader issues, such as the protection of endangered animals and the long term impact of global warming would not benefit from the use of contingency valuation because they cannot easily be translated into a theoretical market scenario.  The inability to do this causes poor results from CV because the public cannot accurately determine the rate at which they would pay for a program that they cannot comprehend.  Other means need to be taken to establish the non-use existence values for such environmental problems.

Public Engagement in Environmental Planning

As in all areas of government, there is a requirement and a duty to have transparency in the decisions made concerning public policy and planning.  In any area of government work there is not a requirement for the public to be fully informed on the issue in order to participate in the process of public decision making.  It is ridiculous to debate whether environmental planners should or should not engage the public when they know that the public's knowledge is limited on environmental issues.  It is, however, relevant and necessary to debate how and to what extend environmental policy makers are infusing public participation in the development and implementation of environmental programs.  Often the public is only involved once the structure of a program or policy has been created.  At this time, environmental planners and those involved within the government have already developed a sense of ownership and are not as open to re-evaluating their policy.  It is the public manager's duty to involve citizens in the process of program formulation in the beginning in order to develop a sense of awareness within the community.  If the public does not feel as if they are included in the process, the public trust will greatly dissipate, resulting in unsuccessful environmental programs in the long run.

A New Chapter in Environmental Policy-Making

Much to the nation’s surprise, it seems that President Obama has been able to uphold his faintly distant 2008 campaign promises on environmental issues. Despite concerns that the economic crisis that has plagued the Obama administration since day one, significant headway has been made on increased emission standards and the incentives for diversification of energy resources.  In the past two years since the Democrats have held a filibuster prove congress, Obama has aggressively pushed for new policy supporting the recommendations from the National Environmental Protection Agency.  This has been a marked change from the Bush administration, and a welcome addition to the environmental trends that have been tabulated since the creation of the NEPA in 1969.

            Environmental policy was first centralized under President Nixon’s Administration with the creation of NEPA and the requirement for virtually every federal agency to develop some form of environmental analysis. (Vig 18)  This caused great change within the federal government and illustrated a much greater focus on environmental issues than had ever been seen before.  This reflected national and international efforts to affect environmental causes and increase awareness primarily for pollution. Several major issues, such as population control and energy policy, were relatively ignored despite reports that urged for attention During this time there were many complications and administrative setbacks, yet it was a dramatic departure from the severely limited role the federal government had previously played in environmental policymaking. (Vig 11)

            The 1980’s brought the arrival of Reagan economics and a call for fiscal conservatism.  This naturally resulted in significantly reduced budgets for the EPA and drastic reorganization of all environmental programs.  Issues that were of great importance were now seen as secondary to economic stability and private market freedom.  Environmental policy regulations were drastically reduced in favor of economic development.  Still, all was not lost under the Reagan Administration.  Public support on environmental issues continued to increase and congress began to defend existing environmental policy, and was even successful in strengthening the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act and enacting the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act, the Safe Water Drinking Act and the Clean Water Act. (Vig 15)

            The end of the 1980’s and the beginning of the 1990’s under President H. W. Bush brought a minimal return to the presidential policy focus on environmental issues.  This is most evident in the president’s adoption of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. (Vig 15) Still, economic conservatism and pro-development ideology was clearly present in H.W. Bush’s policy agenda. During the 1992 presidential elections, H.W Bush demonstrated this ideology by criticizing supporters of strong environmental policy for putting Americans out of work. (Vig 15) His opponent, President Bill Clinton, notably took a far more progressive approach to environmental policy.  This was greatly demonstrated by his selection of Senator Al Gore, author of the book Earth in the Balance. Once Unfortunately, President Clinton did not make the dramatic change in environmental policy that he had promised during his campaign.  Still, he and Gore were able to quietly promote significant environmental policy reform.  Clinton unnoticeably made a considerable return to the policy-making initiatives of the 1970’s. 

            Not since the Reagan had a president’s administration harmed the post-NEPA environmental efforts as much as President George W. Bush.  He primarily focused on representing the interests industrial corporations and timber, mining, agricultural and oil. These interests were clearly represented in his EPA appointments, and drastic cuts in EPA regulations soon followed.  Like his father and President Reagan, Bush was extremely pro-development.  The most drastic examples of Bush’s environmental stance were his withdrawal from the Kyoto Protocol on global climate change and his proposed national energy policy, which called for an increase in the development of fossil fuels. (Vig 16.)

            Now a new chapter has been added to U.S environmental policy-making.  President Obama entered into office with a failing economy, two extremely unpopular wars, a negative international reputation, and large environmental policy campaign promises.  As he had promised in 2008, Obama focused on long-term change, and has been successful in passing several new federal policies and the increase in sustainable energy development.  His EPA appointment and his creation of a new energy and climate position dramatically demonstrated an environmental stance that stands above those of Nixon and Carter.  Lisa Jackson, head of the EPA, has also proven to be a dynamic and powerful force and has been crucial to the environmental policy success under his administration.

            U.S emission levels have been reduced by 25% with a continued commitment for improvement.  Solar and wind energy production is now the fastest growing source of energy, powering 25% of U.S homes.  Over 25 major U.S cities have committed to work in tandem with the EPA to improve mass transportation systems and the development of green jobs.  President Barack Obama has done it again, proving that dramatic change can be had, even in the face of seemingly impossible obstacles.

 

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