2.
Analysis of Issues by Three Criteria
Authors
The information in this chapter was prepared by several contributors.
The first section, describing Recreational Impacts, was written by the following individuals:
o R.J. Cardin, Research and Marketing Section Director, Arizona State Parks Board
o Richard C. Knopf, Professor, Department of Recreation Management and Tourism, Arizona State University
o Mike L. Reynolds, Graduate Researcher, Department of Recreation Management and Tourism, Arizona State University
o Randy J. Virden, Associate Professor, Department of Recreation Management and Tourism, Arizona State University
The second section, describing Social Impacts, was written by:
o Niyi Ibitayo, Center for Environmental Studies, Arizona State University
The third section, describing Economic Impacts, was written by the following individuals:
o Edna Loehman, Economic Science Laboratory and Department of Economics, University of Arizona
o Holly Ameden, Economic Science Laboratory and Department of Economics, University of Arizona
o Joe Bial, Economic Science Laboratory and Department of Economics, University of Arizona
o Pengyi Han, Economic Science Laboratory and Department of Economics, University of Arizona
o Molly Moy, Economic Science Laboratory and Department of Economics, University of Arizona
o Maile Nadelhoffer, Economic Science Laboratory and Department of Economics, University of Arizona
o Brad Roach, Economic Science Laboratory and Department of Economics, University of Arizona
o Dolores Willet, Economic Science Laboratory and Department of Economics, University of Arizona
Recreation Impacts
Background
Recreation experiences and opportunities are important components in determining the overall quality of life for most Americans (Godbey, Graefe and James, 1992).
o The notion that recreation and outdoor recreation places are valuable to Arizona residents is most readily apparent in the 100 million recreation visits to Arizona's rural parks and recreation areas each year (Arizona State Parks Board, 1994). This number does not include the millions of outdoor recreation experiences sought in Arizona's urban environments on an annual basis.
o The Needs Assessment portion of the 1994 Arizona Statewide Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP) found that 94 percent of Arizona residents say that parks and recreation areas are important to their lifestyles.
The state's arid climate and diverse natural resources provide a rich setting for an array of outdoor opportunities for residents. A significant portion of Arizona's $8 billion tourism economy is comprised of visitors who seek natural resource-based attractions such as canyons, lakes, forests, mountains, rivers, and deserts across the state. Both outdoor recreation and tourism are very dependent on the high quality of the state's natural and cultural resources.
Over the past fifty years, the demand for outdoor recreation experiences has grown significantly in the United States (Clawson 1985). While increased population accounts for some of this growth, per capita growth in outdoor recreation participation has also increased tremendously. This change in the American lifestyle is more readily explained through increased leisure time, improved transportation, growth of discretionary income, urbanization/suburbanization, and a greater appreciation of the natural environment (Clawson 1985).
By definition, outdoor recreation involves an interaction between a human behavior or demand component, and a natural resource or supply-setting component.
Unlike the other products produced by natural resource agencies, the recreation product is an experience rather than a physical commodity. Research indicates that the quality of a recreation experience is determined subjectively by the visitor (or recreationist), and that the evaluation is impacted by a variety of factors, including (Manning 1985, Schreyer 1991):
o Pre-established expectations
o Impact of other recreation users, such as overcrowding or depreciative behaviors
o Impact of other natural resource users, such as the visual impacts of logging and mining
o Impact of recreation management, such as lack of law enforcement, facilities or information
Moreover, the quality of outdoor recreation experiences are often dependent on the quality of natural resources available.
As recreation use increases in Arizona's parks, rivers, forests, and other outdoor and tourism resources, the impacts related to this use can cause a deterioration in the quality of the recreation experience as well as the recreation resource itself.
o For example, recent growth in use at the North and South Rims of the Grand Canyon National Park provide an excellent example of a recreation resource where both the ecosystem and the experience have deteriorated.
In fact, recreation-carrying capacity models and research literature define two underlying dimensions to recreation resource deterioration (Shelby and Heberlein 1984):
o Physical/biological carrying capacity
o Sociological carrying capacity
Study Purpose, Limitations, and Definition
Impacts to natural resources and ecosystems from recreational use are addressed in Section 3, Ecosystems, this report, and are not discussed in this section.
The purpose of this section is to provide an overview of impacts on recreation from a quality-of-life perspective. It will review the recreation literature that speaks to the risk factors identified by the Arizona Comparative Environmental Risk Project as potentially impacting the quality of recreation opportunities and experiences within the state of Arizona.
In this discussion, recreation is defined as "leisure experiences and activities engaged in outdoor settings." The many forms of indoor recreation, ranging from one's home to community recreation centers and commercial recreation enterprises, will also not be addressed in this section.
Recreation as a Quality of Life Issue
Experience Diversity
The quality of the recreation experience is an issue that has been the topic of considerable research and management attention in recent years (Driver et. al. 1991, Manning 1985).
Recreation is a form of human behavior that is somewhat unique in that it offers people a large degree of freedom in meeting human needs, or what social scientists refer to as desired psychological outcomes.
Ongoing recreation research done by the US Forest Service indicates that the motivations, or reasons, for engaging in recreation experience are considerably diverse. They include the desire for social contact, physical exercise, achievement, autonomy, solitude, escape, contact with nature, and spirituality. In all, over 40 different desired themes have been identified and measured by recreation social scientists over the past 20 years (Driver 1977, Driver, et al. 1991).
The result or product of the recreation experience is most commonly referred to as satisfaction, similar to the customer satisfaction concept in the service-marketing literature.
This diverse set of potential reasons for recreating helps explain why one person may choose to go camping in a recreation vehicle and why the next may choose to go camping with a backpack in a wilderness area. Other factors such as socialization, economic issues, time constraints, and availability of recreation opportunities also influence recreation choice behavior.
Activity Diversity
The vast majority of outdoor recreation participation occurs in groups.
Traditionally, recreation managers have communicated and reported recreation use impacts or visitation by administrative unit or activity type. As with recreation motivations, the list of recreation activities is long and includes a variety of pursuits such as sight-seeing, picnicking, hiking, skiing, hunting, swimming, fishing, boating, and camping.
Recreation research suggests, perhaps not surprisingly, that persons engaging in a particular activity share similar motivations and seek similar settings for engaging in that activity (Ulrich, et al. 1991). However, even within recreation activities such as fishing or camping, different activity styles emerge.
o An activity style can be defined as a manner of participation in recreation where participants share a homogeneous set of meanings, attitudes, and values.
For example, one style of angling is lake fishing where a boat is necessary, another is fly-fishing where the angler wades into a natural stream. The two activities require different skills and equipment, and research indicates that these two types of anglers also have very different attitudes, values, motivations, and management preferences (Bryan 1977). Yet to the untrained observer both groups are just fishing.
An activity style can also transcend a group of activities.
o For example, some people engage in a variety of active back-country pursuits like hiking, rock climbing, and mountain-biking. Other activities include passive nature appreciation and wildlife-consumptive, motorized, high-risk, and water-based activities (Knopf 1987).
Environmental Setting Diversity
Outdoor recreation occurs in a variety of natural resource settings. Federal agencies have developed a framework for managing outdoor recreation on public lands, called the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS).
The ROS is organized into six resource categories that range along a continuum from the extremes of primitive to urban (Stankey et. al. 1981).
o Primitive settings are natural areas with no roads, where management and human influence are kept to a minimum.
o Urban outdoor recreation settings include more developed facilities and conveniences like marinas, resorts, ski areas and highly developed campgrounds.
The assumption behind the ROS is that the needs of the public are best served by providing a diverse set of outdoor recreation setting opportunities.
A common problem with recreation settings is the gradual transformation of a setting over time toward the more developed side of the ROS continuum. This problem, known as succession, results from a situation where recreationists who preferred the less developed setting are displaced as their old settings are paved, "improved," and made more accessible, often to accommodate increased use (Douglas 1993, Manning 1985). The original visitors are forced to adapt to the newly developed setting or to find new settings in another place.
Increased use and crowding, facility development and improved roads (access) all contribute to this displacement, with the resulting impact being a force over time for existing settings to migrate toward the more developed end of the continuum, even while the demand remains distributed over all portions of the continuum.
Recreation settings have a social and management component, as well as a physical component.
o For example, wilderness users prefer less social contact and a less visible management presence than developed campground users (Hendee, et al., 1990).
The end result of this diversity is that recreationists choose different activity styles depending on the nature of the experience sought (Virden and Knopf 1989). Consequently, the quality of the recreation experience is directly tied to the type and qualities of the recreation setting or resource.
Maintaining diversity in settings is a critical component of recreation management, as it ensures the greatest likelihood of meeting the diversity of public experience and activity needs.
The Quality of Recreation in Arizona
Several studies which address the value that Arizona residents place on outdoor recreation areas and activities have been conducted in recent years.
Arizona Bureau of Land Management
In 1982 the Arizona State Office of the Bureau of Land Management conducted a random statewide mail survey of 2,865 registered voters concerning the relative importance of different uses of public lands. Six natural resource uses were rated, in order of importance. They were (Virden 1990):
o Protection of wildlife
o Outdoor recreation
o Livestock grazing
o Wilderness
o Mining
o Off-highway vehicle travel
It is interesting that the order of the ratings did not change when the sample was divided into wilderness user and non-user groups.
Arizona Game and Fish Department
A similar methodology was employed in an Arizona Game and Fish Department study completed by the Behavior Research Center in 1994. In this study the uses of public lands were ranked on an importance scale from 1 to 10 by a random statewide telephone sample of 1500 respondents (Arizona Game and Fish Department 1994). The relative order of importance was similar:
o Wildlife protection (7.7)
o Public recreation (7.0)
o Livestock grazing (5.9)
o Mining (4.5)
o Logging (4.2)
o Urban development (4.2)
This study, together with the Arizona Bureau of Land Management study, suggests that wildlife values and recreation values are among the most important priorities placed on the use of public lands by Arizona residents.
Arizona Outdoor Recreation Review Commission
Every five years, the Arizona Outdoor Recreation Review Commission prepares a State-wide Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP) which attempts to measure and identify the following:
o State-wide demand for outdoor recreation opportunities
o Supply of outdoor recreation opportunities
o Key outdoor recreation issues for the next five-year period
The 1994 SCORP Needs Assessment (Arizona State Parks Board 1994) provided some insight into the outdoor recreation setting, activity and funding preferences of 1,051 randomly selected Arizona residents who were interviewed by telephone and asked to participate in a follow-up mail survey.
Respondents were asked about their past year's visitations to each of six types of outdoor recreation settings.
o 81.1% visited community parks and recreation areas
o 74.4% visited state, county or national parks or developed forest areas
o 64.8% visited water-based recreation areas
o 56.4% visited historical and cultural sites
o 49.8% visited back-country areas
o 39.1% visited private sector areas and facilities
When the same respondents were asked to choose the one most-preferred recreation setting, the following rankings were tallied:
o 32.1% chose state, county or national parks or developed forest areas
o 18.8% chose water-based recreation areas
o 16.4% chose back-country areas
o 15.5% chose community parks and recreation areas
o 6.9% chose historical and cultural sites
Clearly, there is a preference by Arizona residents to visit the more rural-based recreation settings.
The 1994 SCORP also assessed the overall recreation demand for 42 commonly enjoyed outdoor recreation activities in which Arizona residents were most interested in participating. The demand scale required respondents to indicate their level of participation interest on a scale ranging from (1) no interest, to (5) of utmost interest.
The average activity interest scores ranged from 1.91 to 3.81. The ten activities with the most expressed overall demand were, in order of importance:
o 3.81 - Visiting outstanding scenic areas
o 3.56 - Visiting historical places
o 3.56 - Visiting zoos or botanical gardens
o 3.33 - Picnicking
o 3.33 - Walking
o 3.29 - Visiting archaeological sites
o 3.23 - Attending outdoor performances
o 3.21 - Tent camping
o 3.15 - Fishing in natural settings
o 3.07 - Trail hiking
The five least-demanded activities were:
o 2.21 - Cross-country skiing
o 2.17 - Hunting
o 2.04 - Rock climbing
o 1.96 - Snowmobiling
o 1.91 - Motorcycle or all-terrain vehicle driving
Additional recreation demand, use, and preference information are contained in the 1994 SCORP document available through the Arizona State Parks Board. These data provide insight into the activities, experiences, and settings that Arizona residents deem important in seeking high-quality and satisfying recreation experiences.
Environmental Stressors
The following is a review of what the literature reveals about the relative effect of 14 different environmental risk factors upon the recreation-related aspects of quality of life within Arizona. The severity of the effect of each risk factor is ranked as low, medium, or high as determined by an examination of the predominance of incontrovertible evidence in both the scientific and popular press literature.
Two dimensions were considered in evaluating this evidence:
o Probability of occurrence
o Intensity of impact
Thus it is possible for a stressor with a medium rating to be less likely to occur than a stressor with a low rating, if, simultaneously, the medium-rated stressor poses a more serious threat to Arizona life quality if it were in fact to occur.
It is important to note that ratings are reported in the context of the total set of stressors that affect the overall quality of life within Arizona. From the perspective of the outdoor recreation research community, virtually all of the 14 stressors ultimately should be judged as potentially possessing a high threat to the quality of the recreation experience. However, from a larger context of the relative contributions of all stressors to Arizona life quality, only certain stressors emerge as salient factors.
It is also important to recognize that many of the ratings, while reflecting revelations within the literature, are formulated in the context of a lack of formal systematic research. One of the recommendations emerging from this review is to strengthen research activities within the state of Arizona relating to each of these stressors. This strengthening would reflect the preponderance of research being conducted elsewhere in the nation.
The risk ranking for the environmental risk factors analyzed in this study are summarized in Table 2.1, and described in the following subsections.
Table 2.1 Ratings Summary for Environmental Risk Factors Studied for Recreation Impacts
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | High Priority | Medium Priority | Low Priority | Unknown Priority | ================================================================================================= | Biological alteration, | Natural hazards | Accidental releases | Global climate | | fragmentation and | | | change | | loss of ecosystems | | | | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Degradation of the | Physical alteration, | Food and drinking | Groundwater | | built and cultural | fragmentation and | water contamination | contamination | | environment | loss of ecosystems | | | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | Surface water | Indoor air pollution | Stratospheric | | | contamination | | ozone depletion | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | Urban outdoor air | Land and soil | | | | pollution | contamination | | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | | Radiation | | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | | Rural outdoor air | | | | | pollution | | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | | Transboundary | | | | | issues | | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | | Workplace and | | | | | consumer | | | | | exposure to | | | | | hazardous | | | | | materials | | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Accidental Releases
The risk rating for this environmental risk factor is low.
There exists little literature on the effects of accidental toxic releases on Arizona's recreation areas. Any analysis of this risk factor, then, is largely intuitive.
Accidental releases that will affect recreation will occur primarily along transportation routes, such as highways and railroads, particularly near waterways or other aquatic areas. Within the state of Arizona, such areas are relatively few, and the areas that are potentially affected would be a small percentage of the total recreation area.
When a spill does occur it could have a significant, but localized impact, depending on volume, duration, and toxicity of the material. In the short term, it might be necessary to evacuate recreationists from a localized area near the spill until proper cleanup occurs. If the spill degrades the local vegetation or aquatic area significantly, it is likely that recreationists would be less attracted to the area affected.
Outdoor Air Pollution
The risk rating for this environmental risk factor is in two parts:
o Statewide, the risk rating is low.
o In urban areas, the risk rating is medium.
Outdoor air pollution in Arizona poses a threat to both urban-based and rural-based recreation.
Urban Areas
The fundamental elements of the threat in Arizona's urban areas, primarily Maricopa County, are particulates. Particulates are often considered the most dangerous type of air pollution, and in Arizona, 87% of particulate matter is generated by dust and vehicular exhaust. (Inlgey, 1994) Those people at the highest risk level are the young, the elderly, and those with lung problems such as asthma.
The risk is increased with the heightened outdoor exposure Arizona's outdoor recreationists receive (Castleman 1991).
o For example, the Berkeley Wellness Center (1992) found that higher ozone gas and sulfur dioxide levels cause shortness of breath and other side effects in people exercising outdoors.
Rural Areas
The rural issue is both more complex and less apparent than in the urban areas.
The primary causes of rural air pollution are pollutants that drift in from Los Angeles, Mexico, Phoenix, and Las Vegas (Science News 1990), as well as emissions from regional coal-generating plants. These rural areas contain most of Arizona's "pristine" lands and parks, such as Grand Canyon National Park.
The decreased visibility caused by this pollution is documented in the Degradation of the Built and Cultural Environment subsection below.
Some health risks to recreationists are also found. Many people are attracted to rural parks for activities such as hiking, climbing, biking, and other forms of exercise. These activities place participants at higher risk of encountering lung problems from increased exposure to ozone and other pollutants.
Recreationists are often unaware that pollutant levels can be higher in areas like the Grand Canyon than would normally be expected in a "pristine" area. The Grand Canyon has been cited as one of the top five national parks most affected by outdoor air pollution (Paulson 1994).
Indoor Air Pollution
The risk rating for this environmental risk factor is low.
There is a large body of literature that documents the risks associated with indoor air pollution related to indoor recreation, such as that occurring in concert halls and sports arenas.
Most dominant in the literature are investigations into the role of second-hand or environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) and asbestos exposure as stressors that adversely affect the health of those exposed, including recreationists and tourists. However, the issue falls outside the scope of this review, which focuses on outdoor recreation.
Degradation of the Built and Cultural Environment
The risk rating for this environmental risk factor is high.
Population Increases
The Southwest is one of the most rapidly growing regions in America, and Arizona is one of its fastest growing states.
o From 775,000 people in 1950, the state's population grew to approximately 4 million in 1995.
o Forecasters predict that Arizona will continue its rapid population growth at an annual rate of 2.4 percent, compared with only 0.8 percent for the nation. This will more than double the state's population to 9.3 million in 2040.
In Maricopa County the doubling is expected sooner, with the population expected to reach 4.1 million by the year 2020 (SCORP 1994).
As the population in Arizona increases, so does the intensity of environmental and social change and the demand for outdoor recreation activities and settings. It is clear that pressures on outdoor recreation resources will increase, resulting in:
o Loss of access to recreational opportunities due to overcrowding of areas
o Increased distances for access to natural sites
o Forced mixing of incompatible land uses
o Displacement of users
o Development and posting of private land
Lack of Research Data
It is equally clear that Arizona has suffered from a paucity of research that enables a definition of the relationship between the changing character of the Arizona environment and the nature of the recreation experience available to its citizenry.
Indeed, one of the major recommendations that emerged from the 1994 Arizona Statewide Comprehensive Recreation Plan was to develop a statewide supply- demand database capable of tracking changes in the character and availability of recreation experiences as the growth of our urban areas unfolds (SCORP 1994). The new inter-agency Arizona Council for Enhancing Recreation and Tourism is working to compile specific carrying capacity models to be used by technical assistance teams in community and regional tourism and recreational developmental projects.
Erosion of Supply
Left without strong empirical data, the case for documenting the impacts of environmental change within Arizona upon the recreation opportunity structure becomes largely anecdotal. Yet the evidence, even though largely anecdotal, points incontestably to the fact that Arizona is presently experiencing a critical erosion in the supply of quality outdoor recreation experiences.
One of the most compelling arguments toward this end can be found within the report issued for the Fifty-Ninth Arizona Town Hall on Preserving Arizona's Environmental Heritage (Varady 1991). The report discusses the saliency of natural environments and urban open spaces to the Arizona quality of life, the difficulty of maintaining such resources in the face of rapid urbanization, and the costs of not doing so from both an economic and psychological perspective.
Another comprehensive review is offered within the Arizona Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP 1994). This review paints the picture of a recreation supply system that is clearly constrained both physically and financially at the same time that population pressures are burgeoning. It offers dozens of recommendations for enhancing the supply and quality of recreation opportunities in the face of environmental change through both traditional techniques like land purchase and increased financial resources, and non-traditional techniques like environmental education and private-public partnerships.
The literature reveals that the increasing urbanization of Arizona impacts the quality of the recreation experience in both direct and indirect ways.
Direct Impacts on Recreation
In a direct sense, the changing land use patterns are eroding the population's access to resources that offer opportunities for meeting the recreation needs that researchers have identified as most dominant: escaping urban stress and experiencing the tranquillity of natural settings (Knopf 1987).
The erosion of open space has been much more severe in Arizona's metropolitan areas than in most metropolitan areas across the country.
o Presently, for example, the city of Phoenix contains an average of only 2.71 acres of developed and undeveloped flatland parks per 1,000 residents, whereas ideally, according to national professional standards, there should be 10 acres per 1,000 residents (City of Phoenix 1986).
Concerns about the erosion of open space within each of Arizona's primary metropolitan areas have been a pervasive focus of the media in recent years (Golfen 1994, Kort 1992, Marshall 1992).
According to the 1992 Arizona Outdoor Recreation Needs Survey, the most frequently cited factors that act as barriers to outdoor recreation activity were "not enough time" and "recreation areas too far away." Together, these factors acted as barriers to almost half of the Arizona population (Virden and Yoshioka 1992)
Direct pressures from growing outdoor recreation and tourism demand are to a large extent tied to a growing urban population in Arizona, the Southwest, the United States, and throughout the world.
The National Park Service is currently proposing significant management changes and use limits in Grand Canyon National Park to reduce the number of automobiles and buses that are allowed at the South Rim. Recreation research on visitors to the park and Kaibab National Forest indicates that crowding, congestion, and over- development all combine to impact the recreation/tourism experience in a negative manner (Albrecht 1992, Lee, et al., 1994).
Intensive recreation management and use limitations have been implemented in many water-based recreation areas of the state, such as at Slide Rock/Oak Creek Canyon, the Colorado River, Lake Havasu, the upper and lower Salt River, Paria Canyon, Arivaipa Creek, Sabino Canyon and Saguaro Lake.
During the warmer months, Arizona's developed forest and camping facilities are usually packed to capacity on weekends and holidays.
During the winter months, camping areas at state parks and public camping areas are often overcrowded with winter visitors.
Even in local communities, overcrowding is a problem.
o For example, the East Valley of the Phoenix Metropolitan Area has so few large community parks, that places like Kiwanis Park in Tempe and Desert Breeze Park in Chandler are packed to capacity on weekends. Because of this, many potential users simply stay away.
While there are some exceptions to this, such as the recent major recreation development at Roosevelt Lake, the supply of outdoor recreation areas and facilities in Arizona is not keeping pace with the growing demand. (SCORP 1994)
Indirect Impacts on Recreation
In an indirect sense, pressures of an increasing populace are resulting in impacts on even the most remote outdoor recreation resources.
o Urban air pollution, for example, has been identified as causing damage to saguaros, the signature species for which Saguaro National Park was created (Yozwiak 1994).
o Evidence is growing that polluted air threatens many natural area species that have high aesthetic appeal (National Research Council 1993, Wilkinson 1992).
o Soot from power plants that feed the urbanizing areas, combined with residual air pollution from as far away as the Los Angeles basin, have been the focus of numerous federal studies that identify impacts on aesthetics at Grand Canyon National Park (Bishop 1991, Shaffer 1991, Yozwiak 1992, Barker 1992, Schneider 1991, McMahon 1992).
o The same forces have been identified as a threat to scenic resources that sustain the tourism economies in and around Bullhead City (Shaffer 1991, Snover 1993).
Similarly, noise pollution has been identified as impacting the quality of recreational experiences in even the most remote of resources.
o Traffic noise and aircraft overflights have been identified as significant detractors from the recreation experience in Arizona national park and wilderness areas (Hartmann, et al. 1992).
Negative impacts from dams, crowds, vandalism, vehicles, litter, and from recreationists upon each other clearly are increasing, but systematic inventory and research on these deleterious forces is rare at best (Elfring 1990, Cole 1994, Cone 1993).
o Damage to archaeological sites in some cases has become so prevalent that outdoor recreation managers are removing site locations from recreational maps (Sadek 1994).
Public Opinion
The limited public opinion data that exists for Arizona confirms the importance of preserving parks and open space, as well as mitigating impacts upon its scenic vistas. A full 43.6 percent of Arizona residents feel that public parks and recreation areas are "very important" to their life-styles (Virden and Yoshioka 1992). The outdoor recreation activity that holds their greatest interest is "visiting outstanding scenic areas."
In general, the residents are very supportive of using public funds for the protection of natural areas; 84.4% state such a use is "very important." Simultaneously, they are substantially less supportive of expenditures for more developed parks that support sports field-related amenities (Virden and Yoshioka 1992).
In a statewide survey on attitudes toward management of Grand Canyon National Park, the poll indicated that:
o 78% want the number of vehicles in the Park reduced to lower pollution
o 64% want to ban sight-seeing aircraft from the Park
o 56% would pay higher electric bills to reduce air pollution at the Park
o 74% would rather protect the Canyon's resources than the economic benefits of tourism (Yozwiak 1993)
Preservation of scenic qualities is also important to tourists, however. A poll of tourists visiting Scottsdale revealed that:
o The single most common response to what they liked most about their visit to the community was "scenic beauty," mentioned by 29 percent of the respondents.
o Golf was mentioned by only 4 percent of the tourists as their favorite aspect of Scottsdale.
o Architecture, food and lodging all were mentioned, but, significantly, they were mentioned by less than 1 percent of the sample.
Research Needs for the Future
It is clear that Arizona's natural setting is fundamentally important for defining both the economic and social quality of life for its citizenry. At the same time, the forces working to undermine these inherent qualities are substantial.
While much progress has been made in the assessment of recreation needs, documentation pertaining to the impacts being exerted on Arizona recreation, while informed, is more anecdotal than empirical. More research is needed so that baseline indices can be created to facilitate impact both monitoring and intervention over time.
Physical Alteration, Fragmentation, and Loss of Ecosystems
The risk rating for this environmental risk factor is medium.
This subsection addresses the impacts to recreation opportunities, or to the recreation experience, from grazing, agriculture, construction of roads, energy production, fire suppression, mining, timber management, water impoundments and diversions, recreation, and urbanization.
Grazing
Grazing is prevalent on most of the multiple-use public lands in Arizona.
Since most recreation management agencies do not allow grazing in developed recreation sites such as developed campgrounds, marinas, developed parks, and ski areas, the impacts of grazing is limited on these forms of recreation.
Many dispersed forms of outdoor recreation do have some degree of compatibility with grazing. The two uses co-exist in many US Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management areas without significant social impacts or management problems.
While the impacts of grazing on vegetation, soil, aquatic systems and wildlife are documented elsewhere (Patten and Ohmart 1995, Minckley and Kubly 1995), these impacts do influence the diversity and quality of the recreation setting. Particularly for the more natural resource-dependent forms of recreation like back-country and wilderness use, these impacts in turn influence the quality of the recreation experience.
o For example, Cole (1994) found livestock grazing to be a moderate impact on the wilderness experience and ecosystem landscapes in Montana and Idaho wilderness areas. Even so, empirical research also indicates that inter- mountain back-country users are more tolerant of grazing than they are of the presence of either logging or mining (Virden and Schreyer 1988).
Except for these studies, very little research exists on the effects of livestock grazing (sheep and cattle) on the quality of the recreation experience.
Agriculture
Very little research exists concerning the impacts of agriculture on the quality of recreation opportunities and experiences.
Pesticides and agricultural fertilizers pose a potential threat to water-based recreationists, especially anglers. For example:
o Warnings have been posted on the Salt River from 59th Avenue to the Gila River near Phoenix because of pollution.
o Painted Rock Reservoir State Park was closed permanently because of DDT contamination in its reservoir (Arizona Republic 1994).
Landscape preference studies do indicate that recreationists generally prefer natural landscapes over agricultural landscapes (Kaplan and Kaplan 1989).
The other obvious impact of agriculture on recreation is the displacement of recreation areas as agriculture moves into new rural areas as a result of urbanization and development. This type of agricultural encroachment would impact recreation opportunities for dispersed recreation, such as off-highway vehicle use, hiking, horseback riding, and shooting areas.
Mining
The impacts of mining on recreation are both visual and physical. In some cases, such as in the town of Bisbee, the extreme effects of former mine sites attracts visitors.
The exploration of old mine sites and claims has also become a popular dispersed recreation activity on Arizona's public lands in recent years. Safety is a recreation management problem on these sites. Agencies such as the Arizona State Lands Department and the Bureau of Land Management have so many old mining sites/ claims on their lands that keeping track of and managing them is impossible given their lack of field personnel.
The visual impacts of mining are more pronounced with open pit mining and surface mining, which result in the displacement of vegetation and soils. Mining tailings, which are residue from mining operations, are also a negative visual impact that likely affect recreation setting choices.
However, there is a need for additional knowledge on the impacts of mining on landscape and setting preference, as well as its impact on the recreation experiences of different activity types.
Back-country and wilderness users clearly express a preference for recreation settings without the visual presence of mining (Virden and Schreyer 1988).
The impact from acid drainage and other mining process chemicals on water-based recreation activities like fishing is also a potential impact.
o For example, in 1993 a breach in a tailing waste levee led to the pollution of Pinto Creek, an increasingly popular Tonto National Forest recreation area (Arizona Republic 1993).
For further information on acid drainage, refer also to Surface Water Contamination Impacts on page 31.
Water Development
Water development and impoundments represent another form of development that have both positive and negative impacts on recreation.
Reservoirs and diversions impact natural free-flowing streams and rivers and, in doing so, alter the recreation setting so that resource-dependent recreation activities such as kayaking, river running, fly-fishing and canoeing are displaced. At the same time, water impoundments and reservoirs create new recreation settings that provide different recreation opportunities which often involve motorized boating and shore development.
When wild rivers and streams are lost and replaced by dams, there is an overall net loss in natural riparian recreation opportunities. Some of this loss can be mitigated, as in the Grand Canyon where whitewater boating and back-country use still exist in an artificially controlled streamflow (Shelby et. al. 1992).
o Studies of trip quality with rafters and guides indicate that allowing the river to flow below 10,000 cfs, and above 45,000 cfs, is unsatisfactory, with the ideal recreation experience being between 20,000 and 25,000 cfs.
Shelby and Nielson (1976) also completed a series of studies in the late 1970s concerning visitors' crowding preferences and conflicts with the use (noise) of motors on rafting trips through the Canyon. They found more support for oar than for motor trips and more support for slower trips.
To the extent that water developments and releases affect the nature of the setting, the way that these stressors are managed is an important aspect of the recreation experience.
Recreation
The social and managerial setting is a major factor in determining the quality of the recreation experience (Manning 1985, Schreyer 1991).
The type and amount of recreation development and consequent use by other recreationists has a significant impact on the quality of the recreation experience.
Developed recreation settings serve recreationists who desire greater convenience and less immersion in nature. The sensitivity to crowding and tolerance for other recreationists is dependent on the type of recreation experience sought.
o For example, research shows that non-motorized recreationists are often bothered by the intrusion of motorized recreationists, whereas motorized recreationists are not bothered by the presence of non-motorized recreationists like hikers or cross-country skiers (Manning 1985).
At some point, all recreationists have a crowding threshold, but this threshold is different for a back-country user than for a resort visitor to a national park (Hendee, et al., 1990). Aside from a few studies (Albrecht 1992, Lee, et al. 1994, Shelby 1977, Virden and Yoshioka) very little research exists even to systematically assess the impacts on the recreation experience by other recreationists, such as crowding or user type.
Recreation managers also impact the quality of the recreation experience. Research indicates (Douglass 1993, Hendee, et al., 1990) that indirect management actions such as education, site design, signs, and manipulation of fees, are generally preferred by recreationists over direct management like permits, lines, and heavy law enforcement.
Recreation resource mangers have the responsibility to provide an array of settings and opportunities (Manning 1985). Access to outdoor recreation opportunities is often dependent on recreation management.
o For example the Arizona Off-Highway Vehicle Plan (1993) found that the closing of trails and roads and the lack of off-highway vehicle facilities/ areas on public multiple-use lands is a frustrating barrier for this recreation user group. On the other hand, the same report indicated that irresponsible off-highway vehicle use, often defined as users who do not stay on existing roads and jeep trails, was identified by agency managers as a major resource problem to riparian, forest, and desert resources.
Biological Alteration of Ecosystems
The risk rating for this environmental risk factor is unknown.
This subsection addresses impacts to recreation opportunities or to the recreation experience from hunting, fishing, illegal collection of sensitive species, predator control, exotic species of flora and fauna and a reduction in bio-diversity.
While all of these factors (New York Times 1991) possess the potential to significantly impact the recreation experience, very little research exists on them. Most of the wildlife and fisheries research conducted is biological and ignores the social science and recreation experience issues related to biological alteration.
There have been reports of pesticide-contaminated fish (Harris 1991, Smith 1994) being found in several of Arizona's rivers, lakes, streams, and canals, most often those close to agricultural areas.
The Africanized Killer Bees have been found in Arizona and have had some interaction with recreationists (McCloy 1994). While no research exists on the topic, it may be that the fear factor of this stressor alone impacts the outdoor recreation decisions and participation of many Arizona residents.
The Grand Canyon and other national parks have been impacted by introduced (non- indigenous) species. Again little research exists as to the impact of this issue on outdoor recreation (Lovejoy 1992).
Government agencies have also positively impacted recreation opportunities through fisheries and wildlife management.
o For example, Tonto National Forest, Arizona Game and Fish Department, and US Fish and Wildlife Service have increased the endangered bald eagle population along the Verde and Salt Rivers, and by doing so, helped to create new watchable wildlife recreation opportunities for many Arizonans (Schneider 1993).
Food and Drinking Water Contamination
The risk rating for this environmental risk factor is low.
Recreationists in remote areas who rely on naturally accessible water and, to a lesser extent, food from game and fish sources, will be affected by surface water contamination and diseased or deteriorating game populations. However, the effects are limited to the normal risks hunters, fishermen, and those relying on naturally accessible water normally face.
Literature on the risk factors associated with this stressor within an Arizona context is limited.
Global Climate Change
The risk rating for this environmental risk factor is unknown.
It is difficult to predict what the effect of global warming, known as the "greenhouse effect," will be on recreation opportunities and activities within Arizona. Part of the difficulty is due to the inconclusive scientific nature of the stressor.
The impacts on outdoor recreation, however, could be profound if significant climate changes occur. Smerdon (1992) has developed a theory by compiling a number of common themes from five scientific prediction models. All of the models indicate that Arizona will see annual temperatures rise by an average of about 2C or more. According to Smerdon's theory, the greatest impact on recreation will be on northern Arizona's ski season, which will be dramatically shortened.
Another change will be longer, hotter summers.
o For example, Tucson receives an average of 141 days above 90F, but in the summers of 1989 and 1990, it received 165 and 178 days, respectively, above 90F. Both summers proved costly, with snowbirds leaving earlier, and outdoor recreationists seeking out-of-state destinations in increasing numbers in a search for cooler temperatures.
Another factor, which is even more unpredictable, is precipitation change. The change will probably lie somewhere between a 10% decrease and a 10% increase in annual precipitation (Smerdon 1992).
Smerdon claims that, either way, when combined with a 2C temperature change, runoff in the Colorado River Basin will actually drop by between 2% and 56%, depending on the amount of rainfall change. A large decrease in runoff will cripple water-based recreation on the lower Colorado River in areas such as Lake Havasu. However, decreased mountain snowpack will force the need for an increase in water storage at lower elevations in central Arizona. The addition of reservoirs leads to increased water-based recreation opportunities, offering the only bright spot to the issue.
Whatever happens, recreation in Arizona and the desert Southwest is at higher risk levels than any other area of the country due to this area's high reliance on water, rainfall, and mountain snowfall runoff.
Stratospheric Ozone Depletion
The risk rating for this environmental risk factor is unknown.
The buildup of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, most notably chlorofluorocarbons, also known as "CFCs," has caused a hole in the ozone layer in the Southern hemisphere, and thinning of the ozone layer elsewhere. It is too early to accurately predict the long-term effects of CFCs on the ozone layer (Smerdon 1992).
As with the global climatic issue, the predictability of the future of ozone depletion is inconclusive. The impacts on outdoor recreation, however, could once again be profound if significant depletions occur at the mid-latitudes.
Arizona residents are particularly sensitive to the potentially cancerous effect of poorly-filtered solar radiation. Ozone depletion will affect outdoor recreationists significantly because increased outdoor exposure will increase ultraviolet ray exposure and hence incidents of cancer, already a known problem in the desert Southwest.
The health risks are the greatest for Arizona residents who routinely participate in outdoor activities, including recreation. Any significant increase in ozone depletion has the potential to impact the health and concerns of both outdoor recreationists and tourism in Arizona. Refer to the Ozone Depletion section of Chapter 3 on page 82 for additional information.
Land and Soil Contamination
The risk rating for this environmental risk factor is low.
Several possible land and soil contamination risk factors exist that affect outdoor recreation in Arizona. Recreationists utilizing Arizona's intermittently dry waterways, or washes, are at risk due to toxins introduced from contaminated surface water residue.
o For example, fecal coliform levels in the soil of Phoenix's Thunderbird Paseo Park were found to be ten times the acceptable level, forcing its temporary closure in 1992 (Felt 1992).
Fecal coliform levels are consistently higher in parks containing washes, resulting in a higher level of risk to Arizona recreationists (Jason 1992). Some recreation areas, like Tempe's planned Rio Salado Project, are built on old landfill sites.
Although no major accidents have occurred recently in Arizona, the risk is present. It is this risk that caused a major development corporation to drop the Rio Salado site from consideration for a $200 million theme park in 1994 (Sommer 1994). However, given the relatively small amount of recreation use presently occurring in these areas, the risk is presently assessed at a low level.
Natural Hazards
The risk rating for this environmental risk factor is medium.
Recreationists in Arizona face a number of risks from natural hazards, including, but not limited to, earthquakes, flooding, lightning, wildfires, and extreme temperatures.
Wildfires
Wildfires, usually caused by lightning in Arizona's mountains and desert transition zones, are by far the most destructive. The hot and dry summer months traditionally introduce fires that affect recreationists. Fortunately, large fires are usually preceded by large amounts of smoke, which forewarns recreationists to evacuate. Loss of human life is limited to those actually fighting the fires. However, recreation areas often are closed or destroyed by fire.
o For example, the 1990 "Dude" fire near Payson destroyed the Zane Grey cabin, a popular tourist attraction, along with a number of United States Forest Service campgrounds within the Tonto National Forest (Creno 1991).
o In 1994, also near Payson, fires forced the evacuation of a Boy Scout camp (Cannella 1994).
o Also in 1994, fires caused the closure of recreation areas in Saguaro National Park, then a National Monument, as well as in several areas of the Coronado National Forest (Dial and Villa 1994).
While the fire displacements are short-term, the areas are often blackened and become unattractive to future recreationists.
Lightning
Lightning both causes wildfires and represents a risk in its own right. Unexpected mountain storms containing lightning often surprise recreationists in Arizona. A handful of Arizona recreationists die each year in lightning accidents.
o For example, three campers on Mt.Lemmon near Tucson were struck in 1994, one of whom died (Associated Press 1994).
Recreationists can take precautions to avoid dangerous situations, such as camping away from trees and other lightning attractants. Informing recreationists of these precautions is one of the only management actions available to counter lightning risks.
Flooding
Despite Arizona's dry climate, when rainfall does come, it often falls torrentially and in significant amounts. These drastic rains cause washes, creeks and intermittent waterways to fill rapidly. In addition, floods can result. Recreationists unfamiliar with these dangers are at risk, especially those near washes that are normally dry.
Floods, caused by both melting mountain snowpack in the spring, and sudden heavy rainfall all year, can also affect recreationists. For example:
o Chemical and other waste pollutants can be introduced into waterways and lakes that are normally clean (Burkhart 1993).
o Fishing can be hurt if lake levels are high long enough to allow fish to lay eggs in areas that dry up as flood waters recede. However, fishing can be enhanced as rising waters send predator fish on a "feeding frenzy" of all the newly exposed creatures and plants (Burkhart 1993).
o Boating can become dangerous as currents change and intensify during periods of flooding.
Temperature Extremes
The final, and most important natural hazard to Arizona recreationists is the effect of extreme temperatures. Desert temperatures rise above 100 degrees for most of the summer months, with temperatures in excess of 120 degrees not uncommon.
Dehydration, heat stroke and heat exhaustion come very quickly for those not consuming adequate liquids or taking enough shelter from the heat.
Another related danger involves the characteristically large 24-hour temperature range. It is not uncommon for a 60-degree comfortable daytime temperature to drop well below freezing at night in the desert or mountain areas in Arizona. Recreationists caught unprepared face the risk of frostbite and hypothermia.
The hot and cold temperatures combined to claim 162 lives in Arizona between 1990 and 1993 (Gomez 1994).
Education of recreationists about these risks and the precautions necessary to minimize them is the most effective option available to management.
Radiation
The risk rating for this environmental risk factor is low.
Radiation is not considered a significant environmental risk to recreationists in Arizona.
The primary issues involve electro-magnetic fields (EMFs) emitted from power lines, radon gas, and ultraviolet rays that are particularly strong in Arizona's arid and intensely sunny environment.
There is evidence that extended exposure to ultraviolet rays causes cancer, especially in farm workers and others employed in professions that involve outdoor experiences. It can be assumed that recreationists who spend a significant amount of time exposed to Arizona's higher level of ultraviolet rays will face a higher risk of ultra violet ray induced cancer.
As is true for so many of the other risk factors, there is relatively little documentation on the effects of radiation exposure on outdoor recreation in Arizona.
The risk rating for this environmental risk factor is medium.
This subsection addresses impacts upon recreation resources and the recreation experience from direct source contamination such as agricultural runoff, timber harvesting, mining and dumpsites. It also includes direct discharges from sewage treatment plants, industrial facilities, and private recreation providers.
Arizona's 315,000 acres of surface water comprise 0.4% of its total land area (Governor's Task force, 1986). At the same time, water-based recreation is one of the most popular forms of recreation in Arizona, and it is rapidly increasing in popularity. One in 27 Arizona residents owns a registered watercraft (Governor's Task force 1986).
Fishing, boating, and water skiing are three of the eight most popular forms of recreation in Arizona, combining for over two million visitor-days in 1984 on federal lands alone. Furthermore, camping, which is the most popular recreation activity in Arizona, with over 4million visitor days in 1984, often takes place in riparian or other water-based areas, such as the lakes in northern and western Arizona. Heavy demand on these areas leads to overuse.
o Specific problems like Oak Creek Canyon's fecal-coliform contamination (Associated Press 1994), Lake Powell's "toilet paper meadow" beaches (Associated Press 1992), and Lake Havasu's "fecal soup" in certain channels (Yozwiak 1994) near high-use areas are common.
These problems have contributed to, if not caused, beach closings due to high levels of fecal coliform toxicity levels and have caused isolated incidents of illness in recreationists. High levels of fecal coliform greatly increase the possibility of people contracting parasitic diseases and viruses, such as hepatitis and typhoid fever (Nelson 1992).
In 1991, the US Public Interest Research Group issued a list of a "dirty dozen" states with serious surface-water pollution problems (Sidener 1991). Arizona was one of these identified states. This report was based not only on obvious high-risk sites like the Gila River near Phoenix, but also on areas of more concentrated recreation usage like the Colorado River in northern and western Arizona (Sidener 1991). The risk level is considered high for recreationists who are exposed to considerable levels of contaminated surface water.
Two of the most obvious recent cases have been the areas around Lake Havasu and Lake Powell. Beaches were repeatedly closed at both sites due to high toxicity levels caused by the dumping of oil, sewage, batteries, and chemical solvents by local marinas and other private recreation companies (Van Der Werf 1991, Yozwiak 1994). Fortunately, injuries and illnesses were found only in isolated cases despite the fact fecal coliform levels rose to an excess of 340 times the safe level. Unfortunately, business at some tourist-based recreation firms dropped by as much as 30% as the hazardous image of the areas drove recreationists away.
Another risk to recreationists on Arizona's waterways comes from dumping, both legal and illegal. Specific occurrences include:
o A private concessionaire dumped thousands of gallons of waste water into the Grand Canyon and Colorado River (Shaffer 1991)
o Truckloads of benzene, old tires, waste oil, and septic waste were dumped into the Gila River near Avondale (Padgett 1991)
o The two main sewage plants in Phoenix drained high volumes of treated effluent into the Salt River (Sidener 1991)
o Luke Air Force Base dumped mercury and other toxic pollutants into the Agua Fria River (Yozwiak 1993)
These occurrences cause not only direct health risks to Arizona's waterway recreationists but also risks to those who consume fish caught on these waterways. Since pollutants can be unseen and flavorless, and since warning signs exist only on the lower Gila and Salt Rivers, anglers and other recreationists are often unaware of the risks involved with these and other polluted waterways (Smith 1994).
Another risk to recreation from degradation of surface waterways includes areas near mining operations in Arizona. Mining produces significant piles of waste material, called tailings, which are unsightly and unhealthy to be around. Accidents are rare, but they do occur.
o For example, in January 1993 an accident on Pinto Creek, caused by excessive rainfall and poorly designed tailing storage facilities, resulted in hundreds of tons of tailings pouring into the waterway.
When accidents occur, as in this case, they are very destructive to recreation areas and experiences. Aesthetics are diminished due to water discoloration, fishing is entirely stopped due to dead or poisoned fish, and human health risks are present due to possible intake of copper, zinc, and other fine powders found in tailings (Golfen 1993).
Surface water contamination poses a potential risk to Arizona recreationists. Situations are complicated by uncontrollable factors such as:
o Intermittent and fluctuating levels of waterways and lakes
o Extreme heat, which proliferates many toxins
o Arid climate, which forces a water-based recreation pattern that is dependent on a limited number of surface water areas which must be shared for many other uses
The literature is extensive on this topic, and the risks are highly visible.
Ground Water Contamination
The risk rating for this environmental risk factor is low.
The potential of ground water contamination will always remain a threat to outdoor recreation in Arizona, especially in the Colorado River basin and tributaries to the basin. Yet there is little in the literature that alludes to this threat.
As agricultural activity declines in favor of recreation/tourism "boomtowns," such as Prescott in west central Arizona, or Sedona in north central Arizona, the lack of surface water availability forces a higher level of reliance on groundwater supplies for these recreational communities (Abruzzi 1985).
As groundwater use rapidly increases in these areas, groundwater quality and quantity are reduced, increasing health risks and local water prices, both of which affect recreation negatively. Effects are minimal at this point.
Workplace and Consumer Exposure to Hazardous Materials
The risk rating for this environmental risk factor is low.
The workplace and consumer exposure issue is not a major area of concern or environmental risk that impacts the outdoor recreation experience in Arizona.
Transboundary Issues
The risk rating for this environmental risk factor is low.
The southern border of Arizona is shared entirely with the northern border of Sonora, Mexico. A number of popular recreation sites are within the proximity of this border, such as Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument, Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge and the Coronado National Forest. Additionally, many urban areas such as Nogales and Douglas lie on the border, having "sister" cities on the Mexican side.
Mexican environmental laws, being more lax than US laws, have resulted in the transmission of toxins flowing across to the Arizona side of the border. In addition, the border is considered a dangerous area due to drug traffic and other illegal crossings.
These issues can affect Arizona recreationists and often act as a deterrent to outdoor recreation in these border areas. There is limited documentation of Arizona recreationists suffering harm due to such risks, but it is clear the risks are operative.
Conclusions
Systematic research on the effects of environmental stressors upon the quality of the outdoor recreation experience and, therefore, the overall quality of life for Arizona citizens is largely non-existent. At the same time, both the limited research that does exist and the anecdotal evidence present in the literature leads the Quality of Life Technical Committee to conclude that there are many, and that the effects are substantial.
Of the 14 stressors examined, the most significant is the continuing degradation of the built, cultural, and natural environment. Arizona citizens demand a diversity of outdoor recreation settings, including those offering opportunities for recreation in natural environments without the trappings of urbanized settings and their consequent social and physical disorders.
It is clear that Arizonans value and expect natural settings for the realization of outdoor recreation benefits, and it is equally clear that such settings are systematically being eroded from the array of environmental options. The systematic destruction and development of the natural environment is undoubtedly the most significant threat to outdoor recreation quality.
The array of stressors affecting Arizona's quality of life through impacts on the outdoor recreation experience can be much more broadly defined. Each of the following stressors has been identified as at least of moderate concern for its potential to erode Arizona life quality through degradation of available recreation experiences: outdoor air pollution, physical alteration and loss of ecosystems, natural hazards, and surface water contamination.
The review of Recreation Impacts leads to the development of two fundamental conclusions:
o First, Arizonans value the outdoor recreation experience and consider opportunities for such experiences to be a fundamental feature of life quality.
o Second, increasing levels of environmental damage and inappropriate levels of environmental degradation are threatening this fundamental value.
The forms of impact resulting from such change are diverse. As stewards of the environment, and as a society that has the responsibility for working toward the production of the highest levels of life quality both now and for future generations, Arizonans need to more adequately understand and correct the risks that are operating to undermine available outdoor recreation experiences. All Arizona residents will be the ultimate beneficiary.
Acknowledgments
A major portion of the literature review for this paper was completed by Susan Niewenhous, Associate Librarian, Fletcher Library, Arizona State University West.
Social Impacts
Background
The purpose of this section of the Quality of Life report is to identify the social impacts of the environmental stressors or issues identified by the Arizona Comparative Environmental Risk Project (ACERP). The study is based on an analysis of case studies found in historical documents that includes newspaper reports, government agency and non-governmental organization reports, and meeting minutes.
The intended purpose of this analysis is to identify social effects that result from the impacts of these stressors. Case studies include recent cases of social impacts resulting from specific environmental hazards or stressors.
As with other research tools used in identifying the social impacts of environmental hazards, there are both benefits and drawbacks to using historical documents. Among the benefits is the ready availability of these documents and the fact that they are economical in terms of time and money (Motz 1983).
In addition to the use of historical documents, interviews were conducted with individuals identified as being involved with the specific case studies and the ensuing social impacts.
Social Impact Assessment vs. Monitoring
The traditional social impact assessment is anticipatory research that attempts to understand and predict social and socio-economic impacts of a proposed policy, program, or project, or of an environmental stressor or hazard (Bradbury 1986).
Social impact monitoring relates more closely to the objectives of ACERP's Quality of Life Technical Committee. It refers to a continuous assessment of the social effects or implications of an environmental stressor or hazard.
The major distinction between impact assessment and impact monitoring is that (Carley and Bustelo 1984:67):
-------------------------------------------------------------- | ...the former anticipates future impacts based on past | | experience in other similar situations or extrapolations | | of data, while the latter observes or reports on actual | | events, measured and analyzed as they occur. | --------------------------------------------------------------
Environmental Stressors
Environmental stressors are defined as environmental events that result in changes in people's patterns and quality of life.
Several factors influence the type and extent of the social impacts of these stressors, including attitudes, beliefs, past experience, and subsequent perceptions of the impacted community regarding the level of risk posed by the stressor (Mushkatel, Pijawka and Nigg 1990).
The level of community involvement in decision-making regarding the stressor, and the level of public trust in the institutions of government and private industry to protect the public health are additional critical factors (Carley and Bustelo 1984). Public perceptions of a high level of risk regarding an environmental stressor, coupled with a low level of public trust in government and industry to protect public health, may lead to significant social impacts such as increased community cohesion and political activism.
Other factors identified which may influence the social effects of an environmental change or stress involve the magnitude, duration, and geographic scale of the stressor, the quality of emergency response or preparedness, the level and quality of government response, and the cultural values and organization of the impacted community (Carley 1983, Carley and Bustelo 1984).
o For example, an environmental stressor which has its adverse effects concentrated within a small community would generate a more intense social impact within that community than if the effect of the stressor were spread over a far wider area.
Regarding the cultural and social values and the organization of the impacted community, the choice of minority and low income neighborhoods as the path of least resistance to siting noxious facilities has produced a political backlash, generating environmental activism in these neighborhoods (Bullard and Wright 1986). This activism often results in stronger community cohesion and the formation of more permanent environmental groups aimed at forestalling the siting of noxious facilities in these neighborhoods.
o For example, Mothers of East Los Angeles was formed primarily to stop the siting of a proposed incinerator in the city of Vernon, California, an impoverished and largely Hispanic neighborhood (Russell 1989).
The basic units of analysis for assessing the social impacts of environmental stressors include demographic, institutional, psychological and community impacts.
o Elements of the demographic variable include changes in population makeup and labor force, and displacement and relocation decisions of sectors of the population.
o Institutional impacts include emergency preparedness, demands on local, financial, and administrative services that include housing, sewers, police and fire protection, and recreational services.
o The psychological and community impacts include a sense of powerlessness, a sense of community (or community cohesion), increased conflict, and effects of the stressor on the stability and enhancement of the community's norms and values (Carley and Bustelo 1984).
In addition, the analysis of social impacts of environmental hazards includes an assessment of how one impact affects the other (Wolf 1983).
Assessing Social Impacts of Environmental Stressors
Several methods have been utilized in assessing the social impacts of environmental stressors. These methods include:
o Surveys (Mushkatel, Pijawka and Nigg 1990)
o Ethnography, whereby the researchers immerse themselves in the daily lives of the community being studied (Roper 1983)
o Historical documents such as minutes of public hearings, dissertations, anthropological and sociological case studies (Motz 1984)
o Analyses of local press coverage and opinions of local interest groups (Carley and Bustelo 1984)
o Social indicators (surrogates that attempt to quantify social changes) (Carley 1983).
The number of crimeless days could be used as a surrogate or social indicator of 'safe streets.'
The information derived from monitoring the social impacts of an environmental stressor can be used to prevent or ameliorate the adverse effects of environmental hazards and can aid in the evaluation of policies or programs already in existence for dealing with the stressor.
Social impact assessments are directed toward the generation of information which can then be used to enlighten and assist political choice (Carley 1983).
Environmental Risk Factors
Accidents and Accidental Releases
Accidents and accidental releases that may generate social impacts include transportation accidents and derailments involving chemicals, industrial fires, and explosions.
The case studies selected for accidents and accidental releases include waste tire fires and an industrial fire incident at the Quality Printed Circuit (QPC) facility in south Phoenix.
Waste Tire Fires
About 3.5 million tires are sold annually in Arizona. When discarded, the waste or scrap tires pose health and environmental problems.
o Waste tires hold water and serve as breeding grounds for mosquitoes.
o When stockpiled, scrap tires can burn and generate noxious fumes that may lead to the temporary evacuation of the surrounding communities.
In 1992, scrap tire fires occurred in Eloy, Laveen, and Phoenix. In June 1993, another tire fire occurred in ElMirage.
o The Phoenix fire led to the temporary evacuation of about 2,000 area residents, whereas in the rural towns of Eloy and Laveen, evacuations of residents were limited to only a few families (Lee 1995).
In 1991, the Arizona State Legislature passed the Arizona Waste Tire Disposal Act which is designed to reduce stockpiling of waste tires and thereby the fire hazards which these stockpiled tires create.
o The Act establishes a waste tire fund and provides guidelines for the collection and the disposal of waste tires.
o The Act requires each county to provide designated waste tire collection centers and to arrange for waste tire disposal.
The permissible methods of disposal include recycling through re- treading or re-capping, and shredding or chopping and subsequent use in asphalt and irrigation products and as fuel in cement factories.
The Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) guidelines for stockpiled tires require that the tires be stored in cells not larger than 150 feet by 50 feet and not higher than 12 feet, and that each cell be equipped with fire extinguishers and fire hydrants.
Quality Printed Circuit Industrial Fire.
On August 31, 1992, a fire occurred at the Quality Printed Circuit (QPC) electronics plant in South Phoenix, Arizona. The plant, which manufactures circuit boards for computers, aerospace, telecommunication, and consumer-electronics industries, is located in a predominantly African-American neighborhood.
Fire fighters arrived at the scene 3 minutes after the initial 911 call, and after making some efforts to extinguish the fire, decided to let the fire burn and consume the plant. The Phoenix Fire Department cited health and safety reasons for this decision. Fourteen minutes after arriving at the scene, the Fire Department also evacuated about 1,000 of the residents of the area for several hours.
Some of the residents have since complained of adverse health effects, and feel that these ailments are directly related to the blaze (Hoye 1993). Symptoms include headache, nausea, vomiting, blurred vision, and coughing.
In response to these complaints, the Arizona Department of Health Services funded Arizona Black United Fund, a local community activist group, to operate the "QPC Storefront," which is an information clearinghouse designed to help people deal with the effects of the fire. In addition, the state hired a toxicologist and set up a health clinic at the Mountain Park Health Center.
Residents formed an environmental activist group, Concerned Residents of South Phoenix (CRSP). The activities of the group included conducting a health survey of the community, instituting a class-action suit against QPC, and holding a memorial service at the state capitol for 7 residents who died within 6 months of the fire (Whiting 1993).
Concerned Residents of South Phoenix joined with other citizen and environmental activist groups including Greenpeace, the Maricopa County Organizing Project, a human rights advocacy group for Hispanics, and Southwest Network for Environmental and Economic Justice to protest the state government's perceived inaction toward the residents' health concerns (Brittle 1994).
Some South Phoenix residents have developed feelings of distrust and hostility toward state agencies. Fifteen people attended the public forum sponsored by Arizona Black United Fund Inc., to discuss issues related to air quality and public health. At the forum held in February 1994, Phoenix City Councilman Cody Williams expressed frustration that few residents had visited the health clinic operated by Arizona Department of Health Services (ADHS) and QPC (Plachecki 1994).
Residents' skepticism may emanate from the differing perceptions of area residents and government agencies' assessments of the health risks associated with the fire.
o Residents and the risk assessment consultant hired by CRSP may have different paradigms for assessing the health effects of the QPC fire than do the government agencies.
o In addition, residents perceptions may have been further influenced by 'risk enhancement,' a situation whereby every sickness subsequently becomes related to the fire incident.
Any additional action/inaction by state or local government is likely to be based on government findings, which did not establish any direct link between the fire and the residents' health concerns. Many of the area residents became frustrated, angry, and lethargic (Yozwiak 1994).
This case study seems to suggest that social impacts which may arise from accidents and accidental releases have only short-term significance.
Citizen groups formed in the wake of the accident or accidental release could, however, outlast the issue and become active on other environmental issues, as did CRSP, which joined other groups to oppose the siting of an oil refinery in neighboring Mobile, Arizona, and to protest the temporary storage in South Phoenix of lead and DDT-contaminated soil transported from California.
Urban Sprawl
Included within the issue of Degradation of the Built and Cultural Environment, urban sprawl is particularly prevalent in the Phoenix and Tucson metropolitan areas.
Urban sprawl includes construction of roads and freeways, crime, noise, and unchecked development. Urban sprawl contributes to social impacts such as increased demand for infrastructures including water, schools, sewers, garbage collection, parks and other recreation facilities, fire and police protection.
Roads and additional road costs, including right of way, drainage, lighting and traffic lights, and road maintenance are also included in urban sprawl. In Phoenix, the estimated road maintenance cost for major collector arterials is $9,623 per mile per year. The maintenance cost for roads in residential areas is $8,200 (Jaggers 1995).
Within the past ten years, the issue of urban sprawl has generated concerns among the residents and elected state officials, focused primarily on the Phoenix metropolitan area (Whitney 1994, Kwok 1994).
o Local newspapers have featured articles and editorial comment on the economic, social, and environmental impacts of urban sprawl in the Phoenix metropolitan area and solicited public response.
o Several community groups such as Sonoran North Responsible Development Advocates, Desert View Tri-Village Planning Committee, Superstition Area Land Trust, and McDowell-Sonoran Land Trust, have expressed opposition to urban sprawl, particularly with regard to the building of new roads and the subsequent degradation of riparian corridors and wildlife habitat (Ann Coe, Superstition Area Land Trust 1995, pers comm).
Outdoor Air Quality
A statewide survey conducted in 1987 indicated that air quality control was rated as the single most important action that needed to be taken regarding urban growth in Arizona (Melnick 1988). Ninety percent of the state's political, business, and community leaders surveyed identified air quality as a "very important" urban growth issue.
However, air quality monitoring data released by ADEQ in 1991 indicated improved trends for several air pollutants in the state within the past ten years. Data noted that, except for minor variations, continual downward trends have been observed in the ambient concentrations of carbon monoxide, lead, particulate matter, and sulfur dioxide.
Notwithstanding this positive outlook, ADEQ noted that outdoor air pollution problems exist in the state's two major metropolitan areas.
o The Phoenix metropolitan area was identified as one of 116 urban areas that failed to meet US EPA standards for carbon monoxide, ozone, and particulates (ADEQ 1993a).
As a consequence of these negative findings, the use of firewood in fireplaces was restricted in Phoenix during the winter months of November and December, 1994, when air inversions are problematic in the Valley.
Strong public opposition to the siting of incinerators either for hazardous waste, medical waste, or scrap tires seems to suggest that public response to outdoor air pollution in Arizona is more focused on point sources, such as incinerators, than on pollutants emitted from automobiles. Opposition centers around the perceived risk of gaseous and particulate emissions from the incinerators.
o Several environmental activist groups, including the following, opposing the siting of a hazardous waste facility in Mobile, Arizona, were initiated during the siting process (Ibitayo 1994):
Arizona Coalition for the Environment
Toxic Waste Investigative Group (TWIG)
Don't Waste Arizona
The Stop Incineration Now petition drive
The Citizens Against Toxic Hazards petition drive
o Mothers of Maryvale (MOM) and TWIG opposed a proposed medical waste incinerator in southwest Phoenix in 1991
o The Arizona Coalition for the Environment continues to oppose the incineration of waste tires for energy generation (Segretti 1994, pers comm).
State government response included the passing of legislation which prohibits the incineration of hazardous waste and provides for the dissemination of public information regarding the issuance of permits for any subsequently proposed hazardous waste facility.
Indoor Air Quality
The most common sources of indoor air pollutants are particulates, gases and vapors.
o Particulate sources include asbestos, biological contaminants, combustion smoke, lead, pesticides, and tobacco smoke.
o Gas and vapor sources include carbon monoxide, chlorinated solvents, combustion smoke, formaldehyde, tobacco smoke, ozone, and radon (US EPA 1989).
o Environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) includes exhaled smoke and the smoke that comes from the burning end of cigarettes, cigars, and pipes. Environmental tobacco smoke produces several toxic chemicals including carbon monoxide, nicotine, acetone, arsenic, hydrogen sulfide, and polycyclic aromatic compounds (US EPA 1989).
In response to public concern, cities, municipalities, restaurants, and other businesses are taking action to prevent exposing non-smokers to ETS.
o The cities of Tempe, Phoenix, Mesa, Scottsdale, Glendale, Chandler, Gilbert, Flagstaff, Yuma, Prescott and Peoria have ordinances prohibiting smoking in enclosed public places except in designated smoking areas.
o The cities of Scottsdale, Glendale, and Chandler prohibit smoking in restrooms, public buses, public areas of grocery stores, drug stores and pharmacies (Arizonans for Non-Smokers' Rights, 1994).
Furthermore, several cities require workplaces to provide separate non-smoking facilities in cafeterias, lunchrooms, and employee lounges.
Many restaurants have voluntarily adopted smoke-free policies and provided non- smoking areas (Coalition News 1994).
Groundwater Contamination
The reaction of the residents of Maryvale in southwest Phoenix regarding groundwater polluted with tricholoroethylene (TCE) and childhood leukemia-related deaths in the area is one of the most visible expressions of public concern about groundwater contamination in Arizona. The activism of the Maryvale residents followed the closure of two of Maryvale's drinking water wells in 1982, due to contamination by TCE, a suspected carcinogen.
As many as five citizen and environmental activist groups formed by Maryvale residents were involved in demanding that there be an immediate cleanup of the polluted groundwater and that health studies be carried out. The citizen groups included Mothers of Maryvale (MOM), Maryvale Awareness of Cancer Committee, Friends of Environmental Safety, Air and Groundwater Under Assault, and West Valley Citizen Group (Greene 1989).
Peer-reviewed studies conducted by the Arizona Department of Health Services (ADHS) and by the Center for Disease Control, however, failed to conclusively establish a direct link between the TCE-polluted water and the childhood leukemia- related deaths in the area.
Apart from Mothers of Maryvale (MOM), none of the other citizen groups are presently functioning. MOM was, however, involved in opposing both a proposed medical waste incinerator in a community close to Maryvale and a hazardous waste facility proposed for Mobile, Arizona.
Public concern over Superfund sites has been less intense.
The state of Arizona contains 11 National Priority List (NPL) Superfund sites, 10 Department of Defense sites, and 28 Water Quality Assurance Revolving Fund (WQARF) priority list sites (ADEQ 1994a). Yet only a few, the Motorola facility on 52nd Street, the Hassayampa Landfill, and the West Van Buren Study Area, have generated appreciable public interest and concern.
o The Motorola facility, which is on the NPL, has an approved plan for a $325 million expansion (Arizona Republic 1994).
The Arizona Department of Health Services (ADHS) baseline risk assessment, completed in 1992, concluded that groundwater contamination at the Superfund sites does not presently expose the residents to health risks because the contaminated areas are not on the pathway of public drinking water (ADEQ 1994b).
Drinking Water Contamination
Phoenix
The discovery of trichloroethylene (TCE) in groundwater supplies in Phoenix (Maryvale and Central Phoenix) has generated public concern and anxiety. The concern subsided in light of the fact that studies did not show a conclusive link between the levels of TCE in the groundwater and public health risks, and primarily because the wells contaminated with TCE in Maryvale were closed.
Tucson
The issue of drinking water contamination become increasingly important in Tucson.
Prior to November 1992, all of the City of Tucson's public water supply came from groundwater. In November 1992, the city began to deliver Central Arizona Project (CAP) water to certain areas of the city.
Residents and business owners in the CAP delivery areas observed that the water was brown or cloudy and that it had an unpleasant or disagreeable taste. Citizens subsequently expressed concerns about the impact of the water on household plumbing systems and appliances and about potential adverse effects of the water on human health, plants, and pets, including fish.
By October 1, 1994, a two-phase program for returning all the CAP delivery areas to groundwater was completed. The City of Tucson has indicated that all these areas will remain on groundwater pending repairs and maintenance of the CAP aqueduct. In addition, the city hired a consultant to undertake a study designed to help facilitate a fair, interactive and open process to evaluate alternative uses for the CAP water.
In November, 1993 a citizen oversight committee was established to oversee the study process (ADEQ 1994a). The public involvement elements of the study included:
o Focus groups and community interviews
o Four oversight committee meetings open to the public
o A toll-free number to provide updated information and to respond to citizen concerns
o Seven information centers to provide an inventory of study documents
An insert included in Tucson residents' water bill in August 1994, described the CAP Use Study for Water Quality and requested that citizens express their concerns about the CAP water and indicate whether they wanted to remain on the study's mailing list. The insert generated approximately 1,000 responses (Project Information Sheet 1994, CAP Use Study for Quality Water).
Citizen concerns and questions related to:
o The identification of the areas that have received CAP water and are presently on CAP water
o The impact of the water on fish
o The source of the water's unpleasant odor and taste, and its chlorine smell
o The presence of several chemicals, and the hardness of the water
At the present time, an activist group, Citizens for Quality Water, is proposing an initiative for the November 1995, City of Tucson election ballot, banning treated CAP water or water with any trace of TCE from being delivered to homes in the Tucson metropolitan area.
Surface Water Contamination
Lake Havasu, which extends 2 miles upstream of Lake Havasu City, is a major tourist attraction for recreational swimming and boating activity. The lake draws 1.5 million visitors a year and has a significant impact on the economy of Lake Havasu City.
By late May 1994, however, elevated levels of fecal coliform bacteria were observed in some of the Lake Havasu beach areas.
o Fecal coliform bacteria count or level is used as an indicator of the presence of other pathogens that are associated with health risks such as gastrointestinal illness, hepatitis, and cholera.
For several weeks, the fecal coliform bacteria levels exceeded the state's surface water quality standard by as much as 100 times (Hyde 1995).
Several mitigation and preventative measures were taken during and after the period of high levels of the fecal coliform bacteria count.
o In order to avoid the impairment of public health, several beaches were closed from late June through Labor Day (Hyde 1995).
o The Bureau of Reclamation raised the water level at the lake in an effort to dilute or reduce the concentration of the contamination.
o The Clean Lakes Task Force, comprised of ADEQ, ADHS, contractors, Lake Havasu City, and Mojave County was formed to investigate the cause or the source of the water contamination.
o On July 27, 1994, Governor Symington declared the Lake Havasu contamination a public health emergency and released $100,000 to help the efforts being made to identify the cause of the bacterial contamination.
In addition to the mitigation measures, sewage and drainage pipes were tested, and sediments and lake water were sampled and analyzed. None of these analyses has, however, provided a clear understanding of the source of the elevated bacterial level.
By October 1, bacterial levels had receded and beaches were re-opened. Water sampling has continued on a twice-monthly basis to the present, and standards have not been exceeded.
Limited sources of pollution have been located and corrections performed, but groundwater studies continue in an attempt to discover the cause of Lake Havasu bacterial contamination in 1994 (Fry 1995, pers comm).
Land and Soil Contamination
The most highly publicized land and soil contamination issue in Arizona in recent years involved the release of debris from Tri-City Landfill into the Salt River in 1993.
The high releases of water into the Salt River bed in 1991 and 1992 breached the Tri- City landfill located on the Pima-Maricopa Indian Reservation and resulted in the deposit of large quantities of trash along several miles of the Salt River bed. Subsequently, a massive valley-wide community effort, called the "Great Salt River Clean-Up," was mounted to clean up the river bed.
The cleanup effort, which was described as the largest environmental effort in US history, involved more than 20,000 volunteers who collected 274 tons of trash along 39 miles of the Salt River shoreline (ADEQ 1993b). A sense of purpose and community enriched the efforts of all the citizens involved.
Degradation of Cultural and Built Environments
Cultural Resources
Cultural resources abound in Arizona and include archeological sites, prehistoric habitation sites such as cliff dwellings, historic buildings, artifacts, Indian burial sites, and rock art sites.
The extent of the degradation of these resources is not clear, however, because of the lack of any systematic quantitative information. Qualitative information obtained from several cultural preservation experts and officials indicates that many of these resources are in grave danger (Larson 1995).
Mount Graham
The information obtained from the well-publicized proposed construction of the Mount Graham International Observatory suggests that the social impact of the degradation of the cultural environment is also unclear.
A coalition of 31 environmental groups that oppose Mount Graham International Observatory contend that the construction of the observatory would desecrate the Apache burial grounds and violate the tribe's traditional religious beliefs, in addition to destroying the endangered red squirrel's habitat.
On the other hand, a statewide public opinion poll conducted in 1991 showed that 66 percent of Arizonans who were aware of Mount Graham International Observatory thought that the observatory is an appropriate use of Mount Graham.
Recent court decisions have, however, halted further development of the Mount Graham telescope project.
Conclusions
This report suggests that the social impacts of environmental hazards range from low to medium.
Many of the identified hazards are not catastrophic, and such hazards usually generate relatively low public response.
While pubic reaction and activism were initially evident at Maryvale (Groundwater Contamination) and south Phoenix (Accidental Releases), the failure to establish direct links between the hazards and the adverse health effects may have contributed to a lessening of the activism of the concerned neighborhoods. As in the case of ETS, governmental action in reducing or ameliorating the impact of an environmental hazard, or in involving the public in the process, such as with the case of drinking water contamination in Tucson, may lead to a reduction of the social impact of the hazard.
The priority to be accorded to these environmental hazards should, however, not be based solely on the levels of the social impacts generated by these hazards. Other considerations may include economic and health effects, impacts on recreational resources, and several other factors which are discussed in other sections of the ACERP report.
Economic Impacts
Background
Comparative Environmental Risk Assessment (CERA) is a process that can improve targeting and coordination of environmental programs.
o The purpose of the process is to provide a consistent framework through which to compare environmental hazards.
o The process categorizes environmental issues in terms of their importance based on factors that affect social welfare. Through CERA, multiple environmental issues can be compared on the basis of multiple evaluation criteria, many of which are qualitative.
Economic well-being has to do with income or wealth, productivity, and non-market goods such as aesthetics, peace of mind, and ecosystems in both the present and the future. Damage to these aspects is termed social cost.
In this Economic Impacts analysis, the study estimates the social costs associated with damage for environmental risk issues identified by the Arizona Comparative Environmental Risk Project (ACERP) technical committees.
The purposes of the economic evaluation are to:
o Promote consistency in risk evaluation through use of consistent dollar values across issues
o Provide dollar values that are viewed as being relevant measures of social cost
The need for precise dollar values is less critical for CERA than for a benefit-cost analysis because no management decisions are implied at the CERA stage, and only broad categories (low, medium, high) are involved. For dollar values, improving the precision of a value is worthwhile only if it would change the importance ranking of a category from one level to another.
The use of dollar values allows different types of economic effects to be compared.
o For example, suppose two issues being compared differ on the basis of health effects. One issue may have more associated cancer deaths and fewer restricted activity days than the other. Use of dollar values puts these issues on a comparable basis, but comparative issue evaluation depends on the relative values of deaths and restricted activity days.
Therefore, well-specified procedures should be used for economic well-being evaluations. This analysis consequently uses standard values and methods and published sources to provide estimates of dollar values for the ACERP study.
Social costs associated with each ACERP issue are summarized in the following subsections. Health valuation methods are described generally rather than by issue.
Social Cost Concepts
Types of social cost measures used include the following:
o Income and wealth loss
o Increased cost to maintain the current level of well-being
o Value of productivity loss
o Damage
o Amelioration costs
Income and Wealth Loss
Loss of income can occur directly through illness.
Increased Cost to Maintain Well-Being
Increased cost to maintain economic well-being, using for example, treatment of drinking water by households, also reduces income available for other types of activities.
Property value effects, such as due to proximity to a hazardous waste site, are also relevant because of effects on future wealth.
Value of Productivity Loss
Productivity loss involves increased cost to produce a given level of output.
Damage
Such loss may be avoided if an environmental hazard is removed. Damage to crops is productivity loss that is experienced as income loss for farmers. Costs to replace materials, such as paint and rubber tires, must be incurred to keep the same level of well-being as in the absence of a hazard.
Amelioration Costs
Cost incurred to ameliorate risk is another measure of social cost. Amelioration activities reduce the negative effects of environmental hazards such as drinking water treatment after water is contaminated.
Again, amelioration costs can be avoided if a hazard is removed. Amelioration cost is a lower bound for social cost because effects may be only partially ameliorated.
o For example, the cost of medical treatment for illness related to air pollution only partially measures social cost because associated pain and suffering are not valued.
The aversion of cost is another type of social cost associated with the avoidance of hazard, such as the use of air filters. Again, such costs only partially measure social cost, as, for example, if there is a loss of peace of mind even though hazard is avoided.
If amelioration or aversion activities are carried out by government, the resulting increased taxes then represent a reduction in income available to households.
In some cases, there may be damage that is neither averted nor ameliorated, but damage exists nevertheless.
o For example, amelioration may not be possible in cases of ecosystem damage or loss of visibility.
Damage values are particularly difficult to estimate when amelioration or aversion activities are not undertaken, and other market measures are not available. In such cases, willingness to pay, or contingent valuation, is a method of valuing damage.
o Contingent valuation is controversial because of its hypothetical nature. In some cases, however, it is the only available measure of damage value.
Ranking Summary
The tables in this subsection summarize social cost impacts and rankings by issue. Costs are expressed on an annual basis, with the year 1993 used as the year for evaluation of damages. Lower bound estimates are used in situations where there is uncertainty.
Cost categories were determined by examining cost ranges over all issues. The cost categories used are as follows:
o Low: Represents values below $20 million
o Medium: Represents values of $20 to $100 million
o High: Represents values of over $100 million
In the ratings, a category rating lower than High does not mean that an issue is not important for social action.
o For example, cleanup of accidents and spills is classified as Low because amelioration costs are relatively low. However, these expenditures prevent higher cost health effects from occurring.
The overall classifications given to health and non-health values are summarized in Table 2.2.
Table 2.2 Health and Non-Health Environmental Issues Rankings
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- | High | Medium | Low | Not Evaluated | ============================================================================ | Food and | Groundwater | Accidents and | Global Climate | | Drinking Water | Contamination | Spills | Change | | Contamination | | | | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Indoor Air | Land and Soil | Surface Water | | | Pollution | Contamination | Contamination | | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Outdoor Air | | | | | Pollution | | | | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Radiation | | | | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Workplace | | | | | Exposure to | | | | | Hazardous Wastes | | | | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 2.3 on the following page shows the social cost impacts and rankings for Health Values in millions of 1993 dollars.
Table 2.3 Health Values (Millions of 1993 Dollars)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Environmental Risk Issue | Health Values | Rank * | ============================================================================================================== | Accident and Releases | 1.0 | L | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Outdoor Air Pollution | 70.2 | M | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Indoor Air Pollution | 660.2 | H | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Food/Drinking Water Contamination | 417.8 | H | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Land/Soil Contamination | 1.1 | | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Radiation | 634.2 | H | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Groundwater Contamination | 1.1 | L | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Workplace/Consumer Exposure to Hazardous Waste | 611.2 | H | ============================================================================================================== | * L = Less than $20 million; M = $20 to $100 million; H = $100 million or more | | | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 2.4 on the following page shows the social cost impact and rankings for non- health values in millions of 1993 dollars.
Table 2.4 Non-Health Values (Millions of 1993 Dollars)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Issue | Non-Health Values | Rank * | Type of Value | ====================================================================================================================================== | Accident and Releases | 4.8 | L | Amelioration | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Outdoor Air Pollution | 157 | H | - | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Crop and Vegetation | 20 | - | Damage | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Material | 14.0 | - | Damage | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Urban Visibility | 133 | - | Damage | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Grand Canyon Visibility | 12 | - | Damage | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Ecosystems | Greater than 100 | H | Damage (High | | | | | Irreversibility) | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Food/Drinking Water Contamination | 20 | M | Amelioration | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Land/Soil Contamination | 41.8 | M | Amelioration | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Surface Water Contamination | 1.0 | L | Amelioration | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Groundwater Contamination | 57 | M | Amelioration | ====================================================================================================================================== | * L = Less than $20 million; M = $20 to $100 million; H = $100 million or more | | | | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 2.5 on the following page shows the combined rankings for health and non- health values in millions of 1993 dollars.
Table 2.5 Total Health & Non-Health Values (Millions of 1993 Dollars)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Issue | Non-Health | Health | Total | Rank * | | | Values | Values | Values | | ====================================================================================================================================== | Accident and Releases | 4.8 | 1.0 | 5.8 | L | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Outdoor Air Pollution | 179 | 70.2 | 249.2 | H | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Indoor Air Pollution | na | 660.2 | 660.2 | H | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Ecosystems | Greater than | na | Greater | H | | | 100 | | than 100 | | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Food/Drinking Water Contamination | 20 | 417.8 | 437.8 | H | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Land/Soil Contamination | 41.8 | 1.1 | 42.9 | M | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Radiation | na | 634.2 | 634.2 | H | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Surface Water Contamination | 1.0 | na | 1.0 | L | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Groundwater Contamination | 57 | 1.1 | 58.1 | M | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Workplace/Consumer Exposure to | na | 611.2 | 611.2 | H | | Hazardous Waste | | | | | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | * L = Less than $20 million; M = $20 to $100 million; H = $100 million or more | | | | | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Health Damages
Health damage values were based on the number of cases of illness or death taken from reports prepared by the ACERP Human Health Technical Committee.
Appendix B summarizes illnesses and deaths attributed to environmental stressors by issue. These cases were estimated by standard methods and models for risk assessment by the Human Health Technical Committee.
Appendix C shows the economic damages associated with the health effects listed in Appendix B. Deaths were valued by applying a value of $2 million per statistical death. This value implies a value of $2 per person for 1 million persons to avoid an exposure to a risk of death of 10-6. The value of $2 million is taken from Viscusi, et al. (1991). A similar value is obtained by adjusting the $1 million obtained by Crocker, et al. (1979) to 1993 dollars.
Morbidity was valued differently, according to the type and severity of the health effect.
o Injuries, which are associated with Accidents and Accidental Releases, and with Occupational Exposure to Hazardous Materials, are one type.
These were valued by considering the direct and indirect costs of illness, including productivity loss.
Medical expenses, such as doctor fees and hospital costs, were used to construct the direct cost.
o Minor Restricted Activity Days and Restricted Activity Days are types of morbidity caused by outdoor exposure to ozone and particulates. These were valued respectively at $25.46 and $58.60 per day, respectively.
o Illnesses caused by indoor exposure to lead and food contamination were reported in terms of less severe and more severe restricted activity days, and were valued similarly to Minor Restricted Activity Days and Restricted Activity Days.
o Lead poisoning in children was valued terms of both direct treatment cost and loss of time by parents, based on a study conducted by Agee and Crocker (1994).
The cost for the more severe cases included an additional chelation treatment.
o Morbidity resulting from microbial contamination was valued based on a study by Harrington (1989).
Table 2.6 summarizes these morbidity health values, by environmental issue.
Table 2.6 Summary of Health Values by Environmental Issue
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | Total Value | | | | | | | | (Thousand Dollars, 1993) | | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Environmental Issue | Morbidity | Mortality | ======================================================================================== | Accidents and Accidental Releases | 68.4 | 1,000.0 | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Outdoor Air Pollution | 3,730.2 | 66,470.0 [Low] | | | | | | | | 4,007,550.0 [High] | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Indoor Air Pollution | 71,651.8 | 588,570.0 | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Food and Drinking Water | 78,756.0 | 339,140.0 [Low] | | Contamination | | | | | | 561,200.0 [High] | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Land and Soil Contamination | - | 559.2 [Low] | | | | | | | | 619.2 [High] | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Radiation | - | 634,200.0 | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Exposure to Hazardous Materials | 1,188.5 | 610,182.0 [Low] | | | | | | | | 610,520.0 [High] | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
o For Outdoor Air Pollution the principal factor is particulates (mortality).
o For Indoor Air Pollution, the primary contributing stressor is radon exposure (mortality).
o For Food and Drinking Water Contamination, microbial contamination (mortality) is the principle factor.
o For Radiation, including ionizing and ultra violet radiation (UVR) the principal factor is mortalities.
o For Occupational Exposure to Hazardous Materials, the principal factor is mortalities associated with exposure to hazardous materials.
Non-health Damages
Accidental Releases
This issue has a value of $4.8 million annually.
Accidental releases of hazardous substances in Arizona involve chemical spills, fires, and explosions during transport, generation, handling, and storage.
Potential sources of risk in the state include the more than 1,000 facilities designated as treatment, storage and disposal facilities, and regulated generators of hazardous waste under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (Richey 1995).
Accidental releases of hazardous substances threaten and impact heath, property and the environment. Costs associated with these incidents are emergency response and cleanup costs, evacuation costs, property damage, and health costs.
State agencies responsible for responding to these emergencies include the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ), the Arizona Department of Transportation, and Arizona Public Safety. In addition, local and federal agencies may respond to emergencies.
Average Annual Reports
On average, 459 incidents are reported to ADEQ annually (ADEQ, 1995a).
o On average, an estimated 171 incidents per year require emergency measures (ADES 1991, 1992).
Based on this average, costs associated with emergency cleanup are estimated at $4.8 million annually (ADEQ 1993, ADEQ,1995b; ADEM 1993). Long-term environmental damage is assumed to be avoided because most accidental releases are addressed immediately.
1993 Responses
In fiscal year 1993 ADEQ supervised the disposal of hazardous materials during 162 on-scene responses and conducted 11 emergency removal actions (ADEQ 1993). This included:
o The removal of more than 1,000 cubic yards of soil and debris from waste oils and petroleum products spilled into Sam Lena Park in Tucson
o Emergency cleanup of two tire fires
o Removal and re-packaging of leaking containers of pesticide-contaminated materials at the State Attorney General's impound lot
o Cleanup of 13 drums of sludge at a residential gold reclaiming/metal finishing operation
o Response to illegal dumping of hazardous waste in the area of Lake Havasu
Evacuations
Based on 1991 and 1992 data, an average of 48 accidents or accidental release events involve evacuations (ADES 1991, 1992).
Costs associated with evacuations, including loss of use of residence, extra living costs, extra travel costs, and the value of lost business, are estimated to be $27 to $48 per person per day (Industrial Economics 1990). However, the average number of persons evacuated is not known.
Emergency Response Cost
The cost of other emergency responses (other than clean-up costs) by local, state and federal agencies has not been estimated. The value of police and fire activities is a part of the general expenditures for these services.
Outdoor Air Pollution
This issue has a value of more than $157 million annually.
Damage categories included in this cost estimate are crop damage, material damage, and visibility damage to urban areas and recreation.
Ozone Damage to Agriculture and Horticulture
This damage category has a value of $20 million annually.
High concentrations of (ground-level) atmospheric ozone are found primarily in and around Phoenix (Maricopa County). Although the levels of ozone there have historically been below federal standards, high concentrations exist throughout the growing season. These levels cause damage to both crops and horticulture. As population growth continues in Arizona, damage will increase in close proximity to the high levels of ozone.
o Agriculture: Damage function estimates for agriculture show low damage for the industry as a whole. Cotton is Arizona's primary agricultural product; it has a relatively high resistance to ozone damage. The dollar figure for crop loss is therefore also quite low for Arizona, at $0.8 million.
Predicted damage per unit is higher for sensitive crops, however, such as leafy vegetables and lettuce.
Lettuce may experience a 22 - 28% yield loss in Arizona.
Broccoli and cauliflower may experience a 7% yield loss.
In addition to being sensitive to air pollution, these vegetables have high dollar values per unit. If air pollution becomes more of a problem in Arizona, the dollar loss for high value crops such as lettuce will become more significant.
Urban Forest
Arizona's urban forest is also at risk from ozone damage. Although many of the indigenous plants have a high natural sensitivity to pollutants (their stomata are closed during daylight hours), urban areas have many varieties of horticulture not native to Arizona. These plants are at a higher risk of suffering damage due to air pollutants; damage is primarily in the form of a reduced lifetime for plants in these areas.
A comprehensive study done in Oakland was used to estimate the value of our urban forests (Nowak, 1993). Ranges in the values for trees and cacti extend from $100 for a tree one-inch in diameter, up to $1650 for a tree in excess of eight-inches in diameter (Nowak, 1993). The Oakland study values vegetative cover by examining tree density, tree cover, number of trees, and tree size (diameter).
The Oakland study valued their urban forest at $385.7 million for 54 square miles. The Oakland study values an acre of land at $19,800.
In order to estimate the value of the urban forests in Tucson and Phoenix, the value used is $7080 per acre (36% of the Oakland value) because of less dense foliage here.
o For Tucson, $448.6 million is estimated for 99 square miles.
o For Phoenix, $1.468 billion is estimated for 324 square miles.
A 1% damage level to urban foliage, as experienced by broccoli or cauliflower, would imply an annual damage for Tucson and Phoenix as follows:
o For Tucson: $4.5 million in annual damage
o For Phoenix: $14.7 million in annual damage
Material Damage
This damage category has a value of $14 million annually.
Sulfur dioxide and ozone are the primary pollutants that can cause damage to fabricated materials. In Arizona, due to the low humidity and other characteristics of the environment, the damage caused by these pollutants is not as great as it would be in other regions with similar levels of the pollutants.
Ozone damages rubber. A primary category is automobile tires. Ozone has been found nationally to cause a 25% decrease in the service life of tires. Assuming similar damage and applying straight-line depreciation with a 10-year normal service life, and $50 replacement cost, the damage to the estimated 12 million tires in Arizona would be $14 million a year.
Sulfur dioxide causes damage to paint. However, due to the particularly high level of ultraviolet rays in Arizona, the damage to paint due to pollution is exceeded by sun damage.
Corrosion damage to steel, rubber, and paint is another damage category associated with air pollution nationally. Sulfur dioxide and ozone both cause steel to corrode, but corrosion depends on humidity, as well. Exposed steel such as in bridges and chain link fence, can, in a polluted environment corrode at a rate of approximately 20 microns yearly. However, humidity is low in Arizona, and most steel is painted. Damage to paint by pollution is less important than solar damage. Thus, no material damage estimate was performed for Arizona.
Soiling due to particulates also has the potential to cause economic damage because of costs associated with increased cleaning. In the Arizona environment, the high level of naturally occurring dust already requires increased cleaning costs. Therefore, this potential source of social cost is not included for Arizona.
Urban Visibility
This damage category has a value of $133 million annually.
There is general agreement that visibility in Phoenix and Tucson has been deteriorating. The annual median visual ranges in Tucson and Phoenix in 1993 were approximately 30% of the estimated natural median range (ADEQ, 1994).
Reduction in visual range is caused by scattering and absorption of light by particles and gases in the atmosphere as it travels from object to viewer. This phenomenon is referred to as light extinction.
The Phoenix Urban Haze Study, conducted from September through December 1990, determined that primary motor vehicle exhaust and secondary ammonium nitrate are major contributors to light extinction in the Phoenix area. During the time of the study, more than 80% of morning light extinction was frequently contributed by primary motor vehicle exhaust. Of that extinction source, at least 50% was from diesel combustion.
The Tucson Urban Haze Study, conducted November 1992 through January 1993, determined the average contributions to light extinction during episodes of haze in Tucson to be as follows:
o 33% from on-and off-road vehicle exhaust
o 22% from railroads
o 9% from paved road dust
o 8% from wood burning
o 6% from unpaved road dust
o 3% from construction, farming, minerals and mining
o 5% from stationary fuel combustion
o 9% from rayleigh scattering
Tucson urban haze also impact visibility at Saguaro National Monument, which is a Class I federally protected area.
Using a pricing model to estimate damage due to property value, the value of lost urban visibility in Tucson in 1993 is estimated to be $25 million and $108 million in Phoenix. The pricing model was developed for San Francisco (Trijonis et al. 1985). The model was adjusted for the Tucson and Phoenix market areas by taking into account differences in average home prices, average income, and average median visibility.
Grand Canyon Visibility
This damage category has a value of $12 million annually.
The state of Arizona boasts some of the world's most spectacular scenery with conditions of low humidity that should provide some of the world's clearest views. However, in 1993, the annual median visual ranges at the Grand Canyon National Park (in canyon) and at Chiricahua National Monument were only 53% of the estimated natural median (Air Resource Specialists 1993).
Attribution of Grand Canyon haze to its sources is very controversial. However, it has been estimated that sulfates account for 60% of visibility impairment in the desert southwest, and that 33% of sulfates in Grand Canyon National Park originate in urban Southern California. The other major sulfate contributors are (Malm et al. 1992):
o 14% from copper smelters in southern Arizona
o 30% from Mohave, Reid Gardner, and Navajo Power Plants
o 18% from smelting in New Mexico and El Paso, Texas
o 5% from sources in Utah
In 1993, 4.5 million persons officially visited the Grand Canyon National Park, which is double the number of official visitors in 1983. It is estimated that $12 million represents a lower bound on summer-time visitor willingness to pay for improvement of the current summer conditions to visual conditions reflecting the natural median.
This estimate provides only a conservative lower bound on recreational visibility values at one site in Arizona. It is a lower bound because it is based solely on use values of summer-time visitors at Grand Canyon National park. That is, the estimate does not reflect non-use values and values of winter-time visitors. Eighty-three million dollars ($83 million) is an estimate of annual willingness to pay for improved visual range at Grand Canyon National park on the part of all Arizona households, and reflects both use and non-use values.
Ecosystem Damage
This environmental issue has a value of more than $100 million annually.
Ecosystem values may be divided into three categories: use values, non-use values, and ecological service values.
o Use values for a resource derive from actual use of a resource, such as recreation in a natural environment.
o Non-use values derive simply from the existence of a particular asset, such as its bequest value.
o Services provided by ecosystems that are not valued in a market include habitat provision for diverse species, groundwater recharge, and nutrient cycling.
Study Limitations
Because quantitative measures of ecosystem value and damage are not available for Arizona, the discussion for this category focuses on demonstrating value, rather than on providing a total damage estimate.
Outdoor Recreation
Outdoor recreation related to ecosystems is of immense importance in Arizona. According to the 1994 Arizona Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (Arizona State Parks Board), 11.5 million visitor-use days were spent in exclusively wildlife-related activities, and a total of almost $400 million were expended by these recreators, mostly in rural Arizona communities.
This report also records more than 110 million official visitor days to the state parks, National Park Service areas, BLM lands, and US Forest Service areas in 1991. It should be emphasized that 110 million visitor days is an under-estimate on recreation days, because this figure ignores the huge number of unofficial visitor days spent in national forests and wilderness areas across the state each year.
It should also be noted that Arizona hosts 22 million out-of-state visitors annually, bringing an estimated $8 billion in revenue into the state. Of these 22 million visitors, 63% participate in outdoor recreation activities (Arizona State Parks Board 1994:31). A 1994 poll conducted by the Arizona State Parks Board ascertained that 50% of Arizonans polled engaged in back-country recreational activities, implying approximately 2 million back-country hikers statewide.
Much work has been done to value outdoor recreation in natural environments. Walsh, et al. (1992) summarize 287 estimates of net economic values per person per day spent in various recreation activities reported by 120 outdoor recreation demand studies from 1968 to 1988. A lower bound on the recreational value of hiking per day from this report is $20 per person (1994 dollars). Assuming 12 hikes per Arizona hiker per year valued at $20 a day, we arrive at an annual value to Arizonans for back-country recreation alone of $480 million. Applying this $20-per-day figure to the 110 official visitor days mentioned above, there is an implied value of well over $2 billion.
Riparian Ecosystems Decline
The decline of riparian ecosystems is the most well-documented in the state. Analysis of the value of riparian areas and their current condition and history illustrates the value of ecosystems in Arizona, as well as the magnitude of the types of damage.
Riparian vegetation creates habitat for fish and wildlife and functions to filter sediments and pollutants to improve water quality. Riparian habitats ameliorate the intensity of flood events while promoting ground water recharge. Riparian habitats are vital to Arizonans in supplying drinking and agricultural waters (Patten and Ohmart 1995). A large percentage of recreational activities take place in and around riparian systems (Arizona State Parks Board 1994).
The fragmentation of wetlands and riparian habitats in Arizona due to residential and industrial development has accelerated, and the general trend of increasing population and declining water table is placing continued pressure on these areas (Arizona State Parks Board 1994).
Riparian systems currently represent less than 0.5% of Arizona's land area (257,000 acres), but this type of ecosystem supports the majority of plant and animal species in the state. Arizona's riparian areas have been decreased by 95% in many areas, and most in lower elevations have been severely degraded by grazing (Arizona State Parks Board 1994).
o The Cottonwood-willow riparian habitat, which supports breeding bird densities that exceed any published densities of any habitat in the continental US, has declined to 2% of the acreage that existed 100 years ago, and is now the rarest forest type in North America (Patten and Ohmart 1995). This decline represents roughly a 4% loss per year over 100 years.
The present value of storm control services provided by wetlands in Louisiana was estimated to be $1,915 per acre (Costanza, et al., 1989). A loss estimate for a 4% decline in riparian area from the present base would imply an increased flood damage value of $20 million per year.
Recreation value is an important aspect of riparian areas. The recreation value of the Charles River area in Massachusetts was estimated to be $3,700 per acre (Thibodeau and Ostro). Applying this value with a 4% loss from the present acreage, a damage estimate of $38 million is obtained. For riparian areas, the combination of flood control services and recreation alone, with a 4% loss, implies an annual loss of $58 million.
Woodlands, Scrublands, Grasslands, and Forests
In addition to small, valuable riparian areas, the majority of Arizona's ecosystems are characterized by arid and semi-arid woodland, scrubland and grassland.
Forests is another important ecosystem type. Forests in Arizona provide a home for a large diversity of species, including endangered species such as the goshawk and the Mexican spotted owl. All of these ecosystems are heavily used for recreational activities, such as hiking, camping, hunting, off-road vehicle use, and winter sports. The major ecological services provided by forests include flood control, waste absorption, nutrient recycling, watershed protection, soil quality protection and erosion resistance, climate regulation, carbon fixing, and habitat for flora and fauna.
Walsh, et al. (1984) estimate a lower bound on the recreational use value, option value, existence value, and bequest value of the Colorado wilderness to be approximately $20 per acre. Applying this estimate to undeveloped land in Arizona, about 62 million acres (1990 Census of Population and Housing), implies a lower bound on annual recreation benefits of $1.25 billion. A 4% damage annually would imply losses of approximately $50 million.
Loss of Species
The value of lost species is another type of damage. Species decline is considered to be a significant indicator of overall ecosystem deterioration and loss. The condition of Arizona's native fish populations reflects the viability of stream and riparian ecosystems.
As of April 1995, 17 of the 31 native Arizona fish taxa were federally listed as threatened or endangered, and an 18th is proposed for this list. This amounts to 58% of the native Arizona fish taxa.
o One species of native Arizona fish is already extinct (US Fish and Wildlife Service 1995).
It has been documented that at least 500 species of plants and animals have become extinct in the US in the last 500 years.
o In Arizona, 8 species of native mammals are threatened or endangered, and 3 species are extinct (US Fish and Wildlife service, 1995).
Protection of plants and animals in national parks does not ensure their continued existence.
o For example, 36% of the original species have been lost from both Bryce Canyon and Zion National Monument (Kane and Stark 1992:82).
The value of a lost species can be based on health values.
Biotechnology, both as a science and as an industry, is experiencing dramatic growth in the US, and depends on biodiversity for new sources of genetic material and ideas.
In the US today, more than 40% of all prescription drugs depend on natural sources (Kane and Stark 1992). The following are some important examples:
o Pit viper venom has been shown to provide extremely effective anti- hypertensives
o Houston toads, which are now on the brink of extinction, produce alkaloids which have been shown in laboratory tests to prevent heart attacks (Gilcrest 1995)
o Squalamine, which is produced by an endangered species of shark, has been shown to be highly effective against fungi, bacteria, and parasites (Glausiusz 1994).
o Taxol, which is presently the most effective treatment for breast and ovarian cancer, is derived from the Pacific yew tree, which takes 100 years to mature and was once burned for scrap (Nicholson 1992).
o It is believed that two endangered species of Arizona fish, the Gila and Yaqui top minnows, will become important in providing a cure for skin cancers (Bagwell 1995).
Breast cancer kills approximately 44,000 women per year (Schittroth 1994), and ovarian cancer kills an additional 12,000 (Christensen 1991) in the US At a value of $2 million per death (Vis Cusi et al.), annual benefits of a cure would be $112 billion. Thus, if one plant or animal species is lost that could have provided a cure for such a disease, the lost benefits would be immeasurable.
Drinking Water Contamination
This environmental issue has a value of $20 million annually.
Costs associated with meeting water quality levels promulgated by the Safe Drinking Water Act were estimated for private wells. The requirements of this act have the purpose of assuring safe drinking water.
Contaminants found in Arizona wells include metals such as arsenic (widespread), chlorinated solvents (Phoenix and Tucson), gasoline (widespread), dissolved constituents such as nitrates and radon (widespread), solids, radionuclides, and microbes.
In Arizona, drinking water is obtained both from public water systems and private domestic wells. Public wells are regularly tested, and remedial actions are taken as needed if contamination is found.
The determination of contaminated private wells is not precise because there are no testing requirements (Arizona Comparative Environmental Risk Project, 1994). The estimated number of contaminated wells was obtained from the ACERP Human Heath Committee. Based on sampling in areas with contamination, the estimated number of contaminated wells may be about 30% of all wells, about 6,000 wells.
An estimated annual cost per well for treatment to bring about compliance is $3,157. Correspondingly, the estimated annual treatment cost is $20 million. The assumption is that treatment will be the method of addressing water quality problems rather than substitution of another source of water. (Switching to bottled water or to public water is more expensive on average than the cost of treating the water.)
Land and Soil Contamination
This environmental issue has a value of $41.8 million annually.
In Arizona, there are many sources of land and soil contamination, including seepage of releases from hazardous and solid waste cleanup sites (federal, state, municipal, and industrial sites), and leaking underground storage tanks (USTs).
Primary pollutants of concern in the state include petroleum products, TCE, VOCs, metals such as aluminum dross, and pesticides.
Numerous sites in Arizona have been identified that require land or soil remediation, and it is likely that additional sites will be identified in the future.
o For example, in 1993, ADEQ conducted or oversaw remediation at approximately 17 sites with soil/land contamination exclusively, and at 24 sites with a combination of soil and groundwater contamination.
These activities involved remediation of 121 acres, including approximately 59,000 metric tons of soil treated, and 20,000 cubic yards of contaminated soil removed.
o From July 1990 through June 1994, there were 2,097 USTs reported in Arizona.
636 of the USTs were completely remediated, leaving 1,461 to be remediated.
Amelioration and aversion costs associated with land/soil contamination include costs for monitoring and remediating hazardous waste cleanup sites and LUSTs, as follows.
o Annual remediation costs for hazardous and solid waste cleanup projects are estimated at $7.3 million.
o Based on recoverable costs, UST annual remediation cost is estimated to be $17,956 to $74,880 per tank (ADEQ 1995a,1995b; Wheeler 1995). Based on 1,716 leaking USTs in process in 1993, annual remediation cost is $30.8 to $128.5 million.
Willingness to pay to avoid risk is a proxy measure for the reduction in the value of property located near areas of potential risk. Additionally, other types of values may also be included.
o For example, a willingness to pay $114 dollars per house located within one mile of a hazardous waste facility was estimated by the EPA. Applying this number, the annual willingness to pay by households near hazardous waste sites in Arizona is $4.3 million.
The total of remediation and willingness to pay for 1993 is $41.8 million annually.
Surface Water Contamination
This environmental issue has a value of $1 million annually.
However, threats to human health due to surface contamination are virtually nonexistent (ADEQ 1992).
Four water bodies in Arizona have experienced quality problems:
o Lake Havasu
o Greenfield Lake
o Bolder Creek
o Painted Rock Borrow Pit Lake/Gila River/Salt River areas downstream from Phoenix
Lake Havasu
In 1994 at Lake Havasu, elevated levels of fecal coliform bacteria contaminated major portions of the lake during the summer, causing beaches to close.
Costs of ADEQ management were $240,000 in 1994, and $250,000 is planned in 1995 (Fry 1995). The cost includes immediate response costs as well as investigative costs associated with mitigating further deterioration of the water quality. The estimate does not include the economic aspects of the lost recreational value associated with contamination of surface water.
Other costs were incurred by Lake Havasu City, Mohave County, the Arizona Department of Health and Safety, and the Arizona Department of Emergency.
Annual Estimate
Using the ADEQ expenditure of $250,000 at Lake Havasu as representative of potential costs at the other three sites, non-health costs associated with the monitoring and closing of sites with poor quality surface water are estimated to be $1 million annually. This value does not include the value of lost recreation.
Ground Water Contamination
This environmental issue has a value of $57 million annually.
Aquifer contamination is evident throughout Arizona due to a variety of activities, including industry, mining, and agriculture.
The number of known groundwater contamination sites within Arizona is 146 (ADEQ, 1994). Some of these are managed sites under the Water Quality Assurance Revolving Fund (WQARF) and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA).
Based on present and expected expenditure at WQARF sites within Arizona, an average annual cost per site was estimated. The average cost is estimated to be $381,996 annually over the lifetime of a cleanup project. The anticipated number of years to clean each site is from 20 to 40 years.
Applying this cost estimate to the 146 known sites, the approximate cost is $57 million annually for cleanup. This is greater than the current expenditure of $17 million, because not all sites are presently being cleaned.
Presumably, high risk sites and sites in populated areas are being cleaned first. With the anticipated growth of the state, even sites in low population areas will become important.