|
|
| (5 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) |
| Line 26: |
Line 26: |
| | |style="width:60%; font-size:120%;"| | | |style="width:60%; font-size:120%;"| |
| | | | |
| − | '''Socioeconomics''' (also known as social economics) is the social science that studies how economic activity affects and is shaped by social processes. In general it analyzes how societies progress, stagnate, or regress because of their local or regional economy, or the global economy.
| + | ===Socioeconomics === |
| | + | Socioeconomics is the social science that studies how economic activity and social behavior shape and affect each other. |
| | + | |
| | + | ===Core Concepts=== |
| | + | *Social and Economic Link: It connects financial factors like income and wealth with human behavior, ethics, and social norms. |
| | + | *Beyond Traditional Economics: Unlike standard economics that often assumes people only act out of pure self-interest, socioeconomics looks at how culture, politics, and social groups influence choices. |
| | + | *Socioeconomic Status (SES): This measures an individual's or group's social standing using income, education level, and occupation. |
| | + | |
| | + | ===What it Examines=== |
| | + | *Consumer Habits: How cultural trends and community values change what people buy. |
| | + | *Societal Progress: How local or global economies cause societies to grow, stall, or regress. |
| | + | *Quality of Life: How financial security and social supports affect health, education, and daily well-being |
| | + | |
| | | | |
| | |}<!-- | | |}<!-- |
| Line 72: |
Line 84: |
| | ===Market Values=== | | ===Market Values=== |
| | | | |
| − | '''Water Supply:''' Delivers regulated freshwater storage in Lake Powell for municipal, industrial, and agricultural irrigation across the Southwest. | + | '''Water Supply:''' Provides regulated freshwater storage for municipal, industrial, and agricultural irrigation across the Southwest. |
| | | | |
| − | '''Hydropower Generation:''' Produces up to 1,320 megawatts of commercial electricity from its eight generators to serve millions of residential and commercial customers. | + | '''Hydropower Generation:''' Produces up to 1,320 megawatts of electricity from its eight generators to serve millions of residential and commercial customers. |
| | | | |
| | '''System Regulation:''' Generates flexible peaking capacity that helps stabilize the regional electrical grid during high-demand periods. | | '''System Regulation:''' Generates flexible peaking capacity that helps stabilize the regional electrical grid during high-demand periods. |
| Line 115: |
Line 127: |
| | ===Evolution: The LTEMP EIS (2016)=== | | ===Evolution: The LTEMP EIS (2016)=== |
| | | | |
| − | As the 1995 study aged, economists and resource managers questioned the "temporal stability" of those public values (whether people still cared as much 20 years later). [https://ltempeis.anl.gov/documents/docs/Colorado_River_Value_Study.pdf The Total Value Study:] In preparation for the Long-Term Experimental and Management Plan (LTEMP) EIS, the National Park Service funded an updated passive use valuation study. | + | As the 1995 study aged, economists and resource managers questioned the "temporal stability" of those public values (whether people still cared as much 20 years later). |
| | + | |
| | + | '''[https://ltempeis.anl.gov/documents/docs/Colorado_River_Value_Study.pdf The Total Value Study:]''' In preparation for the Long-Term Experimental and Management Plan (LTEMP) EIS, the National Park Service funded an updated passive use valuation study. |
| | | | |
| − | Broadening the Scope: Unlike the 1995 study, which focused heavily on downstream riverine impacts, subsequent academic and federal research expanded to measure how the public values the broader basin. This included factoring in the external costs of reducing hydropower, such as regional power grid stability and carbon emissions from alternative energy sources. | + | '''Broadening the Scope:''' Unlike the 1995 study, which focused heavily on downstream riverine impacts, subsequent academic and federal research expanded to measure how the public values the broader basin. This included factoring in the external costs of reducing hydropower, such as regional power grid stability and carbon emissions from alternative energy sources. |
| | | | |
| | ===Current Efforts & Ongoing Water Crisis=== | | ===Current Efforts & Ongoing Water Crisis=== |
| Line 149: |
Line 163: |
| | |style="color:#000;"| | | |style="color:#000;"| |
| | | | |
| − | *[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/twg/2010-11-15-twg-meeting/Attach_08a.pdf Final Report of the GCMRC Socioeconomic Research Review Panel]
| |
| | *[http://gcdamp.com/index.php?title=GCDAMP_SEAHG_Page Socioeconomic Ad Hoc Group (SEAHG) Page] | | *[http://gcdamp.com/index.php?title=GCDAMP_SEAHG_Page Socioeconomic Ad Hoc Group (SEAHG) Page] |
| | *[https://parkplanning.nps.gov/showFile.cfm?sfid=229953&projectID=39292 LTEMP EIS Appendix L: Socioeconomic Technical Information and Analysis] | | *[https://parkplanning.nps.gov/showFile.cfm?sfid=229953&projectID=39292 LTEMP EIS Appendix L: Socioeconomic Technical Information and Analysis] |
| | + | *[https://gcdamp.com/index.php/RECREATION Recreation page] |
| | + | *[https://gcdamp.com/index.php/HYDROPOWER Hydropower page] |
| | + | *[https://gcdamp.com/index.php/FISHERY Lees Ferry Rainbow Trout Fishery page] |
| | | | |
| | |- | | |- |
Willingness to Pay Studies
|
|
Willingness-to-pay (WTP) studies in the Grand Canyon evaluate the economic value visitors place on environmental conditions, recreational experiences, and Colorado River flow levels.
Key Findings and Studies
Whitewater Boater Valuations: Research comparing private-party Grand Canyon whitewater boater surveys from 1985 and 2015 found that mean trip willingness to pay for varying river flow levels remained remarkably stable over the 30-year span.
Flow Level Preferences: Studies evaluating different hypothetical Colorado River flow scenarios show that boaters place the highest economic value on mid-range flows, with both very low and very high flows yielding lower WTP estimates.
Methodological Testing: Research published by the U.S. Geological Survey has utilized Grand Canyon whitewater data to test the convergent validity between dichotomous choice contingent valuation (DCCV) and discrete choice experiment (DCE) methods, finding general consistency across most tested flow scenarios.
Visibility and Environmental Quality: Older foundational studies (such as contingent valuation research archived by the RAND Corporation) examined public willingness to pay to improve winter visibility and reduce coal-plant-generated haze over the canyon.
|
Market and Non-Market Studies
|
|
Market values of water and hydropower from Glen Canyon Dam include priced agricultural irrigation, municipal water supply, and commercial electricity sales, while non-market values capture unpriced environmental, cultural, and greenhouse gas benefits.
Market Values
Water Supply: Provides regulated freshwater storage for municipal, industrial, and agricultural irrigation across the Southwest.
Hydropower Generation: Produces up to 1,320 megawatts of electricity from its eight generators to serve millions of residential and commercial customers.
System Regulation: Generates flexible peaking capacity that helps stabilize the regional electrical grid during high-demand periods.
Non-Market Values
Ecosystem and Existence Value: Protects downstream riverine habitats, endangered species, and the natural landscape of the Grand Canyon region.
Greenhouse Gas Reductions: Provides non-carbon-emitting energy that studies estimate households are willing to pay extra to preserve over fossil-fuel alternatives.
Cultural and Social Worth: Sustains traditional and spiritual connections for Native American tribes and recreational opportunities for the public.
Quantified Willingness to Pay: Research published via ScienceDirect estimates the net non-market value of continuing current dam operations at roughly $2.15 per year per U.S. household, aggregating to $2.9 billion annually.
|
Non-Use and Passive-Use Studies
|
|
Passive use valuation (also known as non-use valuation) measures the economic value people place on preserving a natural resource—like the Grand Canyon and the Colorado River ecosystem—even if they never plan to visit it. For the Glen Canyon Dam, passive use valuation has played a historically groundbreaking, yet deeply debated, role in determining how water releases are managed to balance hydropower with environmental preservation.
Historical Context & The 1996 Milestone
Historically, passive use value studies for Glen Canyon Dam provided a landmark shift in how the federal government evaluates public natural resources:
The 1995 Welsh Study: During the initial Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) process in the early 1990s, the Bureau of Reclamation commissioned a massive contingent valuation study (Welsh et al., 1995). It asked Americans nationwide about their "willingness to pay" through higher electricity bills to protect Grand Canyon beaches, cultural sites, and native fish.
The Record of Decision (1996): The 1995 Welsh Study revealed that the American public placed an immense passive economic value on a healthy Grand Canyon ecosystem. This data directly informed the landmark 1996 Record of Decision (ROD) signed by Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt. The decision legally shifted dam operations away from maximizing peak hydropower toward a "Modified Low Fluctuating Flow" model to protect downstream habitats.
The Adaptive Management Program (AMP): Formed in 1997, the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program was created to continuously balance stakeholder needs, blending economics with ongoing river science.
Evolution: The LTEMP EIS (2016)
As the 1995 study aged, economists and resource managers questioned the "temporal stability" of those public values (whether people still cared as much 20 years later).
The Total Value Study: In preparation for the Long-Term Experimental and Management Plan (LTEMP) EIS, the National Park Service funded an updated passive use valuation study.
Broadening the Scope: Unlike the 1995 study, which focused heavily on downstream riverine impacts, subsequent academic and federal research expanded to measure how the public values the broader basin. This included factoring in the external costs of reducing hydropower, such as regional power grid stability and carbon emissions from alternative energy sources.
Current Efforts & Ongoing Water Crisis
Current efforts in passive use valuation are intensely focused on a landscape altered by severe, multi-decadal drought and historic low reservoir levels.
Socioeconomic Modeling Integration: Agencies like the USGS Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center (GCMRC) use advanced bio-physical and socioeconomic models. Instead of relying on standalone surveys, economists now integrate passive use estimations directly into predictive models to see how the public values trade-offs when river flows drop below historic averages.
The Post-2026 Operational Guidelines: With the 2007 Interim Guidelines expiring, the Bureau of Reclamation is actively designing a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) to rewrite the operating rules for Glen Canyon and Hoover Dams. Passive use valuation forms a core argument for environmental advocates pushing for structural modifications or steady-flow management to save endangered species like the humpback chub.
Addressing the "Minimum Power Pool" Dilemma: Recent scientific and economic reviews assess the ultimate passive use trade-off: the value of avoiding systemic ecological collapse in the Grand Canyon versus the immense economic fallout if Lake Powell falls below its power-generating intakes.
- Jenkins-Smith et al. 2016. Estimating Non-Use Values for Alternative Operations of the Glen Canyon Dam: An Inclusive Value Approach Report
- Jenkins-Smith et al. 2016. Estimating Non-Use Values for Alternative Operations of the Glen Canyon Dam: An Inclusive Value Approach Report II
- Jones et al. 2016. Valuation in the Anthropocene: Exploring options for alternative operations of the Glen Canyon Dam. Water Resources and Economics
- Ecosystem Valuation: Contingent Valuation Method
- Welsh, M., R. Bishop, M. Phillips, and R. Baumgartner, 1995, Glen Canyon Dam, Colorado River Storage Project, Arizona—Nonuse Value Study Final Report, Madison, Wisc.
- Welsh et al., 1995, SUMMARY: GCES non-use value study final report--Glen Canyon Dam, Colorado River storage project: Madison, Wis., prepared for Glen Canyon Environmental Studies, 359 p.
- Welsh et al., 1995, GCES non-use values final study summary report--Glen Canyon Dam, Colorado River storage project: Madison, Wis., prepared for Glen Canyon Environmental Studies, 54 p.
|
|
Links
|
|
|
Papers and Presentations
|
|
2026
2025
2024
2020
2018
2017
2016
2015
2014
2012
2011
2010
2009
1996
1995
- Welsh, M.P., Bishop, R.C., Phillips, M.L., and Baumgartner, R.M., 1995, GCES non-use values final study summary report--Glen Canyon Dam, Colorado River storage project: Madison, Wis., prepared for Glen Canyon Environmental Studies, 54 p.
- Welsh, M.P., Bishop, R.C., Phillips, M.L., and Baumgartner, R.M., 1995, GCES non-use value study final report--Glen Canyon Dam, Colorado River storage project: Madison, Wis., prepared for Glen Canyon Environmental Studies, 359 p.
1993
- Harpman, D.A., Welsh, M.P., and Bishop, R.C., 1993, Nonuse economic value--Emerging policy analysis tool: Rivers, v. 4, no. 4, p. 280-291
|
Other Stuff
|
|
|
|
