Filtering by
- All Subjects: Economics
- All Subjects: Ecosystem Management
- All Subjects: Collaborative Planning
- All Subjects: Glen Canyon Dam
- Resource Type: Text
This dissertation considers three aspects of the problem:
1. the relationship between changes in land cover due to CRP enrollment and changes in water quality, controlling for a range of factors known to have an effect on the filtering role of different land covers;
2. the inter-annual variability in water quality measures and enrollment in different CRP conservation practices to examine the cost-effectiveness of specific conservation practices in mitigating lake sedimentation and eutrophication;
3. discrete choice models to identify what characteristics drive the enrollment by farmers into specific conservation practices.
Results indicate that land cover and CRP have different impacts on different indicators of lake water quality. In addition, conservation practices that were cost-effective for one water quality variable tended to be cost-effective for the other water quality variables. Farmers are making decisions to enroll in CRP based on the opportunity cost of the land. Therefore, it is necessary to alter financial incentives to promote productive land being putting into CRP through continuous sign-up. The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) needs a more effective way to calculate the payment level for practices in order to be competitive with the predicted value of major crops.
This brief article, written for a symposium on "Collaboration and the Colorado River," evaluates the U.S. Department of the Interior's Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program ("AMP"). The AMP has been advanced as a pioneering collaborative and adaptive approach for both decreasing scientific uncertainty in support of regulatory decision-making and helping manage contentious resource disputes -- in this case, the increasingly thorny conflict over the Colorado River's finite natural resources. Though encouraging in some respects, the AMP serves as a valuable illustration of the flaws of existing regulatory processes purporting to incorporate collaboration and regulatory adaptation into the decision-making process. Born in the shadow of the law and improvised with too little thought as to its structure, the AMP demonstrates the need to attend to the design of the regulatory process and integrate mechanisms that compel systematic program evaluation and adaptation. As such, the AMP provides vital information on how future collaborative experiments might be modified to enhance their prospects of success.
The Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program (AMP) has been identified as a model for natural resource management. We challenge that assertion, citing the lack of progress toward a long-term management plan for the dam, sustained extra-programmatic conflict, and a downriver ecology that is still in jeopardy, despite over ten years of meetings and an expensive research program. We have examined the primary and secondary sources available on the AMP’s design and operation in light of best practices identified in the literature on adaptive management and collaborative decision-making. We have identified six shortcomings: (1) an inadequate approach to identifying stakeholders; (2) a failure to provide clear goals and involve stakeholders in establishing the operating procedures that guide the collaborative process; (3) inappropriate use of professional neutrals and a failure to cultivate consensus; (4) a failure to establish and follow clear joint fact-finding procedures; (5) a failure to produce functional written agreements; and (6) a failure to manage the AMP adaptively and cultivate long-term problem-solving capacity.
Adaptive management can be an effective approach for addressing complex ecosystem-related processes like the operation of the Glen Canyon Dam, particularly in the face of substantial complexity, uncertainty, and political contentiousness. However, the Glen Canyon Dam AMP shows that a stated commitment to collaboration and adaptive management is insufficient. Effective management of natural resources can only be realized through careful attention to the collaborative design and implementation of appropriate problem-solving and adaptive-management procedures. It also requires the development of an appropriate organizational infrastructure that promotes stakeholder dialogue and agency learning. Though the experimental Glen Canyon Dam AMP is far from a success of collaborative adaptive management, the lessons from its shortcomings can foster more effective collaborative adaptive management in the future by Congress, federal agencies, and local and state authorities.
Chapter 1 carries out a review of the mobility models found in the literature and sets the economic context of this dissertation. Chapter 2 explores a simple model that considers poor and rich classes and the impact that educational success may have on altering mobility patterns. The role of the environment is modeled through the use of a modified version of the invasion/extinction model of Richard Levins. Chapter 3 expands the socio-economic classes to include a large middle class to study the role of social mobility in the presence of higher heterogeneity. Chapter 4 includes demographic growth and explores what would be the time scales needed to accelerate mobility. The dissertation asked how long it will take to increase by 22% the proportion of educated from the poor classes under demographic versus non-demographic growth conditions. Chapter 5 summarizes results and includes a discussion of results. It also explores ways of modeling the influence of nonlinear dynamics of mobility, via exogenous factors. Finally, Chapter 6 presents economic perspectives about the role of environmental influence on college success. The framework can be used to incorporate the impact of economic factors and social changes, such as unemployment, or gap between the haves and have nots. The dissertation shows that peer influence (poor influencing the poor) has a larger effect than class influence (rich influencing the poor). Additionally, more heterogeneity may ease mobility of groups but results depend on initial conditions. Finally, average well-being of the community and income disparities may improve over time. Finally, population growth may extend time scales needed to achieve a specific goal of educated poor.