Building The Economic Case For The Preservation Of Open Space

In Northern California alone there are roughly 35,000 square miles of rugged, remote, unpopulated wilderness. This land is full of steep sided mountains, canyons and thick forests. Liebig's Law of the Minimum shows

The future of California is pretty good, for the state is projected to see growth in almost every sector of the economy as well as the population, but there are many concerns that must be addressed first in order to see California’s growth come to fruition. International trade and business is one of California’s largest industries and it’s expected to continue increasing, for many emerging economies are also located off of the Pacific Ocean. Growth in the economy is good, but requires resources that California has a limited supply of. The main resource California always needs is water, since most of the state’s population resides in the southern regions, which are arid and receive minimal precipitation annually. The state is planning on improving efficiency and the aqueduct system to increase the water supply while decrease the environmental effects California’s aqueduct’s have on regions like the San Joaquin River Delta. For many years California has been considered a very liberal and left state, which is due to the fact that the state has the toughest environmental legislation in the country. With such strong legislation ensuring the protection of the environment California has become a model state in the fight against climate change, and must remain vigilant for there are numerous species endemic to the state that are found nowhere else on the planet. Though there are numerous other factors’ affecting California’s future these are some of the most interesting areas to

I care deeply about the planet Earth, the home humans originate from, so it pains me to watch “modern” society devastate natural life across the board. I feel personally connected to the issue of how we use our land. Having lived in the Lee County area since birth, I have noticed just in our own little part of the world how much “development” can change things. There used to be so much more plant life: trees, grasses, flowers and a myriad of other greenery. What was once considered “empty” lots, by some, have been adapted to suit human desires be it additional roads, restaurants, shopping malls, and a continuing spread of “chain” corporate industries. Beyond human structures, huge amounts of land also are cultivated for industrial farming

The California Gold Rush had a positive impact on California’s environment in many different ways, but along with the positives came the negative impacts. In 1848, people flocked to California in hope to make their gold filled dreams come true and strike it big, but with the more people moving to California, the more the population rose, leaving destructive effects on the state’s environment then and for the years to come. California’s physical environment was shaped not only by the influx of people, but also the manmade structures they added and how they manipulated the state’s land to embrace the large population that wasn’t there before the Gold Rush hit.

In June 1864 the Yosemite Land Grant was signed by Abraham Lincoln, which deeded 39,000 acres of the Mariposa Big Tree Grove and Yosemite Valley to the State of California (Hawken 40). It was an unprecedented piece of legislation, having almost universal support from private business, environmentalists and Congress. Sparked largely by the de-barking of “The Mother of the Forest”, one of the oldest sequoias in Yosemite’s Mariposa Grove, several years earlier (Hawken 39). The Yosemite Land Grant was the first piece of legislation founded on the principle that nature needed to be preserved and protected from humans (Hawken 40). After nearly a century of clearing many forests on the East Coast, affording protection to land on the West Coast was a novel concept.

Brooks (EPA), J. Heinrichs (UW), S. McMillin (California Department of Fish and Wildlife) and C. Wilsey (UW). Landuse change scenarios were developed by Jim Thorne and the Information Center for the Environment at UC Davis. The information in this document has been funded in part by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. It has been subjected to review by the National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory’s Western Ecology Division and approved for publication. Approval does not signify that the contents reflect the views of the Agency, nor does mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation for

Because most greenhouse gases would remain in the atmosphere for a long period of time, the temperature of the earth will be continuously rising. If global heat-trapping emissions proceed at a medium to high rate, temperatures in California are expected to rise 4.7 to 10.5°F by the end of the century1. With the rise of temperature, the climate of California would also be changed. California has large area of forest and farmland, hundreds of miles of coastline, large amount of snowpack, and other natural wonders. And these special treasures of nature are especially at risk2. So it is very necessary to understand the strategies of California to combat climate change.

Economic analysis that weighs all costs and benefits of a particular model must include environmental considerations. That is to say, the potential for short-term economic losses caused by conservation in the present, should be measured against the dividends that conservation will pay in the future (Nordhaus, 2007). If the earth is truly our most valuable commodity, then analysis under these conditions should recognize that if a “dollar value” were placed on environmental sustainability, more often than not it would outweigh any initial monetary loss resultant of the implementation of more sustainable practices.

Environmentalism has always been two sided. Nature versus urban. locals versus national. Frequently, large tracts of public and federal land are bought and developed by industry. Pristine wilderness turned to bustling epicenters of human activity, all in the name of progress and economic growth. This tale of preserving natural wilderness is one that begins with John Muir, an advocate against the taming of Yosemite national park and the Hetch-Hetchy reservoir, while the head of the US Forest Service, Gifford Pinchot, insisted on the reservoir to supply the city of San Francisco with water. This timeless epic of conservation or preservation brings us to the Jumbo Valley, a vast expanse of uninhabited, pristine wilderness home to diverse

It seems as humans evolve and advance, we also use nature to our advantage, and do not use any of our new-found technology to find ways to replenish those supplies which we so willingly take. Today, California is a test of our capability to adapt to human caused climate change. California’s first efforts to adapt started with the Assembly Bill 32 (the 2006 Global Warming Solutions Act), which has goals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 2020. Then the state later drafted its first climate

We’ve known for decades that California and neighboring states in the Southwest can’t accommodate a growing population forever in light of our water limitations. While I don’t agree with some alarmists that foresee a massive migration from a drought-ravaged West Coast, I do believe that the days of ever-expanding subdivisions and planned communities inching further and further into the wilderness are numbered. The proliferation of such developments not only exacerbates water concerns with their homeowner association mandates, but they also put more people at risk for wildfires, mudslides and even wild animal encounters.

The website for the national and state park systems helps to enlighten the public on the subject of impending changes in policy and regulations, as well as new developments in different parks. Due to this, the parks and recreation districts judge that individuals and families will be more agreeable to the idea of traveling to parks in different states because of the easy accessibility of directions and information about the parks. Owing to the latest rise in interest of campgrounds and recreation areas, there has been an increase in funds. This new revenue has made possible the purchase of more parkland throughout the United States. Without prevailing use of the Internet, this most likely would not have been possible. The East Bay Park District has been able to purchase 1,476 of land. This is the single largest acquisition that the Park has made in over twenty years. The York Center Park District been able to purchase and protect a 20-acre area in the last five years. This is the largest area they manage. With the acquisition of supplementary parkland, it is more likely that this land will continue in its natural condition and not be converted into an urbanized region.

Right from the end of the 19th Century and the beginning of the 20th Century, there has been a fierce debate concerning how economic growth or development affects the environment or ecological setup of a country. The debate has its basis on whether it would be recommendable for a nation to concentrate on growing its economy while at the same time hurting or harming its ecological system. Naturalists like Pinchot Gifford, John Muir, Love Canal and Cuyahoga County always argued in favor of environmental preservation as opposed to concentrating all efforts towards developing the economy (Olmes 154; Miller 150-51). This paper will, therefore, discuss the struggle between economics and ecology specifically looking at particular events across the Twentieth Century. It will also attempt to explain the factors involved in the pursuit for change on the way people and the administration perceived the environmental conservation as opposed to economic growth.

Cost benefit analysis can be used to assist in the decision making of a proposed project. The proposed project is to make a scenic forested area into a national park. However there is controversy as the opposition wants to use the land for timber and agriculture. The first step in conducting a CBA is to identify the costs and benefits of the proposed project (Harris et al 2006). Benefits will include income gained as well as indirect benefits such as environmental benefits. The benefits of a national park are income from tourist and camping areas. The land can be used for carbon sequestration and to reduce pollution and natural disasters such as the effect of flooding. Costs include any direct expenses related to the project such as construction and maintenance costs. Costs also include opportunity costs such as income forgone from the agriculture and timber industries.

The number of people living in urban areas is dramatically increasing across the world. Currently, 75 % of people live in cities in the developed world, (Bernhardt E.S. and Palmer M.A, 2007) despite such high percentage many do not get access to the green and blue spaces available, in other words cannot interact with nature. According to the United States Environmental Protection Agency green spaces are ‘land that is partly or completely covered with grass, trees, shrubs or other vegetation’ (Environmental Protection Agency, 2014) This includes community gardens, parks as well as cemeteries. (Environmental Protection Agency, 2014) On the other hand, blue spaces include rivers, canals and lakes. (Sally, M, 2010) As urbanisation increases, it will pose a greater threat to nature such as pollution, habitat destruction, erosion and colonisation of native species. There are various ways to engage with nature. However, one reason for green and blue spaces not being utilised effectively by people may be due to people being unaware of the values that these have and the crucial functions they undertake in the ecosystem such as recycling nutrients and controlling the hydrological cycle.