I have mentioned the nonuse factor in the the ESA to name a species as endangered, her is one opiinion, and echo's mine
Nonuse Values and the Environment: Economic and Ethical Motivations
Environmental Values
Nonuse Values and the Environment: Economic and Ethical Motivations
Tom Crowards Environmental Values 6(1997): 143-167
Nonuse values are a potentially very important, but controversial, aspect of the economic valuation of the environment. Since no use is envisaged by the individual, a degree of altruism appears to be the driving force behind nonuse values. Whilst much of the controversy has focused upon measurement issues associated with the contingent valuation method, this paper concentrates on the underlying motivations, whether ethical or economic, that form the basis for such values. Some fundamental aspects of defining and quantifying economic nonuse values are considered, and possible motives for attributing value to the environment are analysed, making a clear distinction between 'selfish' altruism and 'selfless' altruism. The difference has crucial implications for economic valuation and for assessing individuals' willingness to pay for environmental quality. The concept of Safe Minimum Standards is introduced as a means of supplementing purely economic methodology to incorporate ethical concerns into decision making.
This article is available online (HTML format) from Bioline (server at Base de Dados Tropical).
Reprints of this article can be ordered from the British Library Document Supply Service or the Uncover Company
Contact the publishers for subscriptions and back numbers of Environmental Values. Email us for further information, or use our online order form to subscribe - but don't forget to include your own email and postal addresses!
THE WHITE HORSE PRESS
10 High Street, Knapwell
CAMBRIDGE CB3 8NR, UK
Tel: +44 1954 267527
Recreation and Nonuse Values
THE ROLE OF ECONOMIC VALUES IN GOES AND THE EIS
Much of the research under the Glen Canyon Environmental Studies
(GOES) was physical and biological. Economic research also became an
integral component of the research program. Economic research had three
foci. First, economic tools were used to quantify, in monetary terms, the
effects of dam operations on the quality of river recreation. Second, econ-
omic tools were used in analyzing the effects of dam operations on values
held by those who do not directly use resources affected by dam operations
(i.e., nonuse values). Third, economic analysis was used in quantifying the
linkage between operating criteria and value of the electricity generated atthe
dam.
It is important to keep in mind that the economic studies focus on valuing
the effects of alternative dam operations, not on the river as a whole. This
chapter acldresses the use of economic methods to document changes in the
value of recreational opportunities associated with changes in dam op-
erations. It also explains the concept of nonuse values, their relevance to
dam operations, and the results of nonuse value studies. Chapter 9 sum-
marizes and evaluates GCES work on the economics of power generation at
Glen Canyon Dam.
Use and Nonuse Values Defined
Recreation and power values are use values because they stem from the
direct use of river resources to produce electrical and recreational benefits.
118
OCR for page 119
Recreation and Nonuse Values
119
Policymakers, economists, and the public question whether the economic
values of environmental resources should be limited to use values (HBRS,
1991, Harpman et al., 1995~. For example, those who have not visited the
Grancl Canyon may place an economic value on the preservation of its
resources for future generations or their own option to use the canyon in the
future. Such values are often called nonuse values. They are motivated by
value attached to the continued existence or preservation of a resource or the
resource's for future generations (Chapter 3~. Nonuse values are not held
only by "nonusers." Visitors to the river corridor below the clam may hold
nonuse value in addition to use value. Environmental economists have
developed a theory of total value, which consists of use and nonuse values
(HBRS, 1991, Harpman et al., 1995~.
Questions about the effects of dam operations on the total value of the
resources downstream from Glen Canyon Dam are appropriate because
federal law requires, as part of the environmental impact statement (EIS)
process, consideration of the economic implications of alternatives.
The economic theory and empirical measurement techniques relevant to
nonuse values in resource valuation studies have evolved rapidly during the
past decade (HBRS, 1991, Harpman et al, 1995~. As a result, nonuse values
have been included in a variety of policy analyses for which changes in the
quality or availability of natural resources are an issue. Perhaps the most
important example is the rules for assessing damages to natural resources
from spills of oil and toxins under the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act and the Clean Water Act (U.S.
Department of the Interior, 1991~. A U.S. Court of Appeals decision in 1989
strengthened the role of nonuse values in such cases, and nonuse values
were important in arriving at a negotiated settlement on liability for the Ewon
Valdez oil spill. More recently, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration convened a blue-ribbon panel that evaluated the validity of
methods for measuring nonuse values and developed guidelines for mea-
suring nonuse values in natural resource damage assessment (NOM, 1993~.
In addition, several federal agencies are writing administrative rules for the
measurement and application of nonuse values to public policy processes.
Measurement of Nonuse Values
While the validity of nonuse values is well established in theory, such
values cannot influence policy decisions unless they can be measured
OCR for page 120
120
River Resource Management in the Grand Canyon
accurately. Measurement of nonuse val ues relies on the contingent valuation
method (CVM), which quantifies willingness to pay. There has been sub-
stantial debate among economists and other social scientists over the
quantification of willingness to pay. Although contingent valuation continues
to be controversial, there is a growing body of evidence that supports its
practical usefulness (Harpman et al., 1995~. Contingent valuation is routinely
applied with confidence to estimates of use values, and earlywork on nonuse
values is encouraging.
Whether nonuse values can be measured with sufficient accuracy to meet
high scientific standards is a question still widely discussed among policy
analysts and economists. There is, however, a theoretical economic frame-
work sufficient to form a foundation for their use in the GCES. The literature
on CVM indicates that accuracy is sufficient to make quantification of nonuse
value useful in understanding the balance of values at stake in managing Glen
Canyon Dam. This is particularly true given all that can be learned in the
nonuse valuation process regarding public views of the resource issues being
addressed under GCES. To neglect total values in favor of more narrowly
defined use values would be to leave a major gap in the economic studies
under GCES and in the Glen Canyon Dam EIS. This would be unjustifiable
given that nonuse values can be estimated.
OVERVIEW OF RECREATIONAL USES
Recreation is an important use of the Colorado River below Glen Canyon
Dam. Each year over 20,000 anglers, 33,000 day-trip rafters, and 15,000 to
20,000 white-water boaters use this section of the river. The GCES examined
recreational use patterns and values in considerable detail and focused on
those types of recreation most likely to be affected by changes in the dam's
operations.
The 15-mile segment of the Colorado River immediately below Glen
Canyon Dam is located in the Glen Canyon National Recreation Area. It is
used by a variety of recreationists, including fishermen, boaters, day rafters,
campers, bird watchers, and hikers. Below the Glen Canyon reach the
Colorado River flows through Marble and Grand canyons for 277 miles,
including over 160 recognized rapids. Some of the world's most challenging
and exciting white waters occur here. Below the Grand Canyon, Hoover Dam
holds back the Colorado River to form Lake Mead, which is one of the largest
reservoirs in the western United States. The dam's operation affects the
OCR for page 121
Recreation and Nonuse Values
121
experience of recreationists using the Colorado River in Glen Canyon and the
Grand Canyon.
In 1987 a study of river-based recreation between Lakes Powell and Mead
was completed by Bishop et al. The goals of the study were to document the
quantity and pattern of river-based recreational use, to identify factors having
a significant effect on the net economic value of recreational use, and to
estimate the net economic value of river-based recreation. The authors
identified four major categories of river-based recreational use: (1) day
(scenic) rafting in Glen Canyon, (2) angling in Glen Canyon, (3) commercial
white-water boating in Grand Canyon, and (4) private white-water boating in
-Grand Canyon.
Bishop et al.'s early survey work (Bishop et al., 1987) involving anglers
and boaters determined that the value of angling and white-water boating is
affected by river stage and daily fluctuations but that day rafters are not
particularly sensitive to these aspects of dam operations. Consequently, the
economic effects of operational alternatives on day rafters are negligible;
Fishing in Glen Canyon
The Glen Canyon trout fishery is a by-product of Glen Canyon Dam.
Discharge from the dam is colder, carries less silt, and is more stable on an
annual basis than prior to construction of the dam. This altered environment
supports a good trout fishery. The Arizona Department of Game and Fish
(ADGF) stocks up to 100,000 rainbow trout in some years; in more recent
years, brook trout and cutthroat trout also have been stocked. Surveys of
Arizona anglers conducted by ADGF indicate that trout are the most desired
sport fish in the state, but preferences among trout species and between
native and stocked trout have not been well documented, as pointed out in
1987 by the NRC committee (NRC, 1987~.
The introduced trout have created an important fisherythat is considered
to be of high quality. Glen Canyon is one of only two blue-ribbon stream
fisheries in Arizona. Each year more than 19,000 anglers fish for rainbow
trout in the 1 5-mile reach below the dam.
Bishop et al.'s (1987) study also revealed that the attributes most strongly
affecting the Glen Canyon fishing experience are the site and number of fish
the respondent expected to catch. Fishing success is believed to be related
to flow in two ways. Rising water may improve fishing as fish begin to feed
on invertebrates that are dislodged in this way. In addition, flows of 10,000
OCR for page 133
Recreation and Nonuse Values
133
OCR for page 134
134
River Resource Management in the Grand Canyon
TABLE 7.3 Annual Values Associated with Alternative Dam Operations ($ millions)
Nonuse Values
Marketing
Power Recreation National Area
Moderate fluctuating flow 36.7 to 54.0 +0.4 +2,286.4 +62.2
Low fluctuating flow 15.1 to 44.2 +3.7 +3,375.2 +60.5
Seasonally adjusted -88.3 to -123.5 +4.8 +3,442.2 +81.4
steady flow
SOURCE: Adapted from Tables 7-1, 7-2, and 7-3 in Welsh et al., 1995; and as corrected in
Table 7-1 in Welsh, 1995.
marketing area. The national nonuse values, however, are about 30 times
larger than the foregone power revenues for seasonally adjusted steady
flows.
SUMMARY
Studies of recreation economics were designed and conducted using
state-of-the-art economic methodologies that are appropriate for the task of
measuring the economic impacts of EIS alternatives on recreationists. The
CVM was applied in a manner that maximizes the reliability of the recreational
value results. Surveys were extensively tested prior to being administered,
sample sizes were adequate, and statistical results were robust and
consistent with economic theory (Chestnut et al., 1991~.
It is important to keep in mind several issues when interpreting the
economic analysis of recreation. The analyses focused on the relationship
between recreational benefits and the immediate effect of river flows on the
quality of recreational experiences. For both the white-water rafters and
anglers, other long-term factors are related to the various alternatives and to
the quality of the recreational experience. For anglers the implications of
alternatives are very uncertain over the long term.
Factors such as the availability of camping beaches play a role in the
quality, and thus the net benefits, of rafting trips. The economic analyses,
however, focused on benefits associated with trips in which the number and
OCR for page 135
Recreation and Nonuse Values
135
sizes of beaches were fixed, and so the recreational benefits underestimate
the long-term benefits associated with alternatives that would maintain larger
numbers or sizes of beaches (Chapter 5~.
The GCES nonuse value studies are one of the-most comprehensive
efforts to date to measure nonuse values and apply the results to policy
decisions. The studies were subject to extensive scrutiny by the interests
(agencies, advocacy groups) participating in GCES and also to intensive
review by a panel of professional economists with no stake in the outcome of
the studies. While the CVM was applied in a manner consistent with current
professional practice for measuring nonuse values, there is no objective
standard of benefits against which the CVM results can be compared. If there
were, the CVM exercise would not have been necessary. While not com-
pleted in time to be reported in the final EIS, the nonuse value results are an
important contribution of GCES and deserve full attention as decisions are
made regarding dam operations.
REFERENCES
Bishop, R. C., et al. 1987. Glen Canyon Dam Releases and Downstream
Recreation. GCES Technical Report, Bureau of Reclamation, Salt Lake
City.
Brown, C.A. and M.G. Hahn. 1987. Effect of flows in the Colorado River on
reported and observed boating accidents in Grand Canyon, Glen Canyon
Environmental Studies Technical Report. Bureau of Reclamation, Salt
Lake C ty, Utah.
Bureau of Reclamation. 1994. Operation of Glen Canyon Dam. Draft
Environmentallmpact Statement, U.S.Departmentofthelnterior,Wash-
ington, D.C.
Bureau of Reclamation. 1995. Operation of Glen Canyon Dam. Final
Environmental ImpactStatement, March, U.S. Departmentofthe Interior,
Washington, D.C.
Chestnut, L., R. Raucher, and R. Rowe. 1991. A Review of the Economic
Studies Conducted in Phase I of the Glen Canyon Environmental Studies.
Prepared for the Glen Canyon Environmental Studies by RCG/Hagler,
Bailly, Inc.
Harpman, D.A., M.P. Welsh, and R.C. Bishop. Nonuse Economic Value:
Emerging Policy Analysis Tool." Rivers 4 No. 4 (March 1995~:280-291.
OCR for page 136
136
River Resource Management in the Grand Canyon
HBRS, Inc. 1991. Assessing the Potential for a Total Valuation Study of
Colorado River Resources. Final Report, prepared for the Glen Canyon
Environmental Studies by HBRS, Inc., Madison, Wisc.
HBRS, Inc. 1993. Analysis of the Impact of GCDEIS Alternatives on Rec-
reational Benefits Downstream from Glen Canyon Draft Report. Prepared
for the Glen Canyon Environmental Studies by HBRS, Inc., Madison,
wise.
Kearsley, L.H., and K. Warren. 1992. (1993 in EISJ River Campsites in Grand
Canyon National Park: Inventories and Effects of Discharge on Campsite
Size and Availability. Final report. Grand Canyon National Park Division
of Resource Management, National Park Service.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOM). 1993. Report of
NOM Panel on Contingent Valuation. U.S. Department of Commerce,
Washington D.C.
National Research Council. 1987. River and Dam Management: A Review of
the Bureau of Reclamation's Glen Canyon Environmental Studies.
Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
Power Resource Committee. 1993. Power Systems Impacts of Potential
Changes in Glen Canyon Power Plant Operations. Glen Canyon
Environmental Studies Technical Report, Stone and Webster Man-
agement Consultants, Inc., Englewood, CO.
Taylor, C., S. Winter, G. Alward, and E. Siverts. 1992. Micro IMPlAN User's
Guide. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Land Man-
agement Planning Systems Group, Fort Collins, Colorado.
U.S. Department of the Interior. 1991. Notice of proposed rulemaking:
Natural resource damage assessment. Federal Register 56~82J : 19752-
1 9773.
Welsh, M. 1995. Memorandum on corrections to the GCES Non-use Values
Study Draft Final Report, July 28. Prepared by Hagler Bailly Consulting,
Madison, Wisc.
Welsh, M.P., R.C. Bishop, M.L. Phillips, R.M. Baumgartner. 1995. GCES
Nonuse Value Study. Draft final report, prepared by RCG/Hagler Bailly,
Inc., Madison, Wisc. July 12.
