4 ms·

As you have written before, most of us who have worked with environmental issues in the real world, have long tried to 'value ' the environment. Forests, wetlan

by pomian 5y ago

As you have written before, most of us who have worked with environmental issues in the real world, have long tried to 'value ' the environment. Forests, wetlands, waterfronts, etc. Common scenario, let's say there is a beautiful bay. Many tourists visit to see the view. Condos are built around the bay. Now there is no view. There are no tourists. Water quality in and around the bay degraded. But when trying to stop the development, the only arguable economic value, is the amount of the taxable value of condo, and 'housing starts' . There is no present way, (still - after 50 years of talking about this) to place a value on the view, waterfront, water quality, etc.

DoreenMichele 5y ago
There is no present way, (still - after 50 years of talking about this) to place a value on the view, waterfront, water quality, etc. It's been a lot of years since I took the class, but those things can be valued. One of the things I did in my case study of Suisun Marsh was quantified how much the marsh cleans up the water and what it would cost if humans did it with a water treatment plant. Suisun Marsh is also a historic birding area and the rails go through there for that reason. It brought tourism. You can place dollar values on tourism, water quality and other things. It doesn't get done a lot but can be done. A lot of places with such assets are small town or rural. Planning jobs tend to pay better in the big city so your best talent tends to end up designing cities and planners often hate their jobs because they don't get to do what they wanted to do. Planning something good for people and the environment that makes economic sense and gets buy in from enough pertinent stakeholders is hard. So, all too often, "money talks" instead.
ethbr0 5y ago
> There is no present way, (still - after 50 years of talking about this) to place a value on the view, waterfront, water quality, etc. The sub branch is "environmental economics." My cousin got his PhD in it. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_economics https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_economics
ummonk 5y ago
There is still ample view in the Bay Area, while we're in the midst of a severe housing shortage. The marginal loss to the view / waterfront / water quality from a new development is more than outweighed by the marginal gain in housing availability.
novok 5y ago
Why would the water quality have to degrade when there is residential development around a coastline? The views are still there and the tourists still come. Many are skeptical about "enivornmental" issues being used to prevent housing development, because it's most often used to stop it in heavily developed areas, replacing parking lots and single family houses. It's more environmentally friendly to have density than the alternative SFH sprawl. If you want to keep nature nature, make it a park.
- freshpots 5y ago
  Stormwater run-off, anything that goes onto the ground (and especially paved surfaces) eventually ends up into the water cycle. Let's say 10 cars are leaking oil in their parking spot. That oil gets washed away by the rain and ends up in the local waterways.
- TaylorAlexander 5y ago
  > It's more environmentally friendly to have density than the alternative SFH sprawl. I saw a Nature study on HN recently and I think it called this thinking in to question? I’ll go search for it and update this comment if I find it. EDIT: No luck finding it. EDIT2: found it! https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-01477-y https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-01477-y
  - hytdstd 5y ago
    I know you couldn't find it, but what was even the basic principle? It's hard for me to imagine that dramatically increasing land use, transportation and infrastructure costs could be environmentally beneficial.
    - TaylorAlexander 5y ago
      They looked at total land use required to support cities and other areas and found that while the city footprint is small, the supportive infrastructure for the city is large. They found that when accounting for this, land use per capita is about the same regardless of density. Wish I could find it but there are a lot of Nature papers submitted every week. EDIT: found it https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-01477-y https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-01477-y

by pomian 5y ago

DoreenMichele 5y ago

There is no present way, (still - after 50 years of talking about this) to place a value on the view, waterfront, water quality, etc. It's been a lot of years since I took the class, but those things can be valued. One of the things I did in my case study of Suisun Marsh was quantified how much the marsh cleans up the water and what it would cost if humans did it with a water treatment plant. Suisun Marsh is also a historic birding area and the rails go through there for that reason. It brought tourism. You can place dollar values on tourism, water quality and other things. It doesn't get done a lot but can be done. A lot of places with such assets are small town or rural. Planning jobs tend to pay better in the big city so your best talent tends to end up designing cities and planners often hate their jobs because they don't get to do what they wanted to do. Planning something good for people and the environment that makes economic sense and gets buy in from enough pertinent stakeholders is hard. So, all too often, "money talks" instead.

ethbr0 5y ago

> There is no present way, (still - after 50 years of talking about this) to place a value on the view, waterfront, water quality, etc. The sub branch is "environmental economics." My cousin got his PhD in it. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_economics https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_economics

ummonk 5y ago

There is still ample view in the Bay Area, while we're in the midst of a severe housing shortage. The marginal loss to the view / waterfront / water quality from a new development is more than outweighed by the marginal gain in housing availability.

novok 5y ago

Why would the water quality have to degrade when there is residential development around a coastline? The views are still there and the tourists still come. Many are skeptical about "enivornmental" issues being used to prevent housing development, because it's most often used to stop it in heavily developed areas, replacing parking lots and single family houses. It's more environmentally friendly to have density than the alternative SFH sprawl. If you want to keep nature nature, make it a park.

freshpots 5y ago
Stormwater run-off, anything that goes onto the ground (and especially paved surfaces) eventually ends up into the water cycle. Let's say 10 cars are leaking oil in their parking spot. That oil gets washed away by the rain and ends up in the local waterways.
TaylorAlexander 5y ago
> It's more environmentally friendly to have density than the alternative SFH sprawl. I saw a Nature study on HN recently and I think it called this thinking in to question? I’ll go search for it and update this comment if I find it. EDIT: No luck finding it. EDIT2: found it! https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-01477-y https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-01477-y
- hytdstd 5y ago
  I know you couldn't find it, but what was even the basic principle? It's hard for me to imagine that dramatically increasing land use, transportation and infrastructure costs could be environmentally beneficial.
  - TaylorAlexander 5y ago
    They looked at total land use required to support cities and other areas and found that while the city footprint is small, the supportive infrastructure for the city is large. They found that when accounting for this, land use per capita is about the same regardless of density. Wish I could find it but there are a lot of Nature papers submitted every week. EDIT: found it https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-01477-y https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-01477-y