Brewer, Michael F.

English

Research Papers in Economics

THE  NONURBAN  ENVIRONMENT,  POLLUTION,
AND  THE  QUALITY  OF  LIFE
Michael F.  Brewer,  Vice  President
Resources for  the  Future, Inc.
The rubric  for  this  discussion  stakes  out a  large  domain.  At the
outset  we  need  some  framework  which  indicates  the  relationships
among  the  various  areas  of  concern  to  help  us  develop  responses
that are  both consistent  and  coherent.  Often  any  resource  allocation
or planning  problems  arising  in rural  areas  are  thought  to  be  mani-
feStations  of  agricultural  activities  and  events,  and  the  nonurban
environment  still  tends  to  be  regarded  as  the  "agricultural  sector"
concerned  primarily  with  the  production  of  food  and  fiber.  This
framework  simply  is  inadequate.  It  neither  corresponds  to  contem-
porary  realities,  nor  does  it  provide  the  breadth  of  scope  needed  in
searching  for  efficient  and  equitable  responses  to  the  new  forces  on
the rural scene  of this  country.
Today  agriculture  represents  only  one  use  of  the  nonurban  en-
vironment.  Demand  for  nonagricultural  goods  and  services  has  been
growing  rapidly  and  is  causing  changes  in  rural  land  use  practices.
The  demand  for  such  nonagricultural  uses  as  recreation,  second
homes,  and  the  protection  of  aesthetic  or  historical  features  in  the
landscape  is  large,  and  is  growing  more  rapidly  than  demand  for
rural  environment  use  induced  by  the  markets  for  food  and  fiber.
This  fact  needs  to  be  reflected  in  our  public  ground  rules  for  agri-
culture  and  for  land  management  generally.  When  the  promotion  of
agricultural  use  is  directly  competitive  with  other  uses,  we  can  no
longer  simply  invoke  a presumption  in  behalf  of  agriculture.  Its  im-
pact on the quality of the nonurban  environment  from  the  standpoint
of other  uses  must be  assessed,  and  reflected  in  the policies  and pro-
grams of public agencies.
Some  of these connections  between  agricultural  practices  and  the
quality  of  the  rural  environment  are  obvious  and  fairly  widely  rec-
ognized.  For example,  the adverse  side effects  of certain  pesticides  on
other  claimants  to  rural  resources  are  well  known.  Less  prominent,
but no less pervasive,  are  subsidized  agricultural  practices  which  pre-
empt  rural  environments  from  other,  nonagricultural  uses.  For  ex-
ample,  recreation  and  scenic  amenities  are  often eliminated  by  river
impoundments  for  irrigation  water,  for  which  economic  rationale
would be weakened,  if not demolished,  were world market commodity
prices used  in the calculation  of  irrigation benefits.  Another example
97of such connections  between  agriculture  and other environmental  uses
would  be  the  drainage  of  "potholes"  in  the  Upper  Midwest  which
formerly  provided important  perching  and resting  areas  for waterfowl
in  the midcontinental  flyways.  Here,  ironically  drainage  is  subsidized
through  ACP  payments,  while  the  acquisition  of  additional  wetlands
-sometimes  secured  under  lease from farmers-is  financed by public
wildlife or fish-and-game  agencies.
What  are  the  consequences  of  these  multiple  demands  upon  the
same  environmental  base;  of  competitive  production  interrelation-
ships;  and  of  environmental  uses  which  entail  major  external  costs?
While we  do not know  the full  specifics  of these consequences,  we  do
know that  our rural resources  will not  be  used efficiently  unless  these
consequences  are  taken  into  account  in  some  fashion  by  our  agri-
cultural  and land  use policies.
On the  practical  level  there  are  several  things  we  can do-even
though  we  must labor  under  the  handicap  of  highly  incomplete  in-
formation.  We  can  try  to  identify  the  principal  competing  demands
for the  rural  environment.  We  can  try  to  identify  alternatives  to  cur-
rent  agricultural  and  other  land  use  practices  which  might  be  less
pre-empting  of the environment  for other  uses.  If this  is  not possible
we  at  least  should  be  able  to  identify  where  major  "crunches"  are
likely  to  occur  and  think  hard  about  programs  and  policies  which
might be  helpful-even  though  they may  take the form  of moratoria
until  we  can  learn  more  about  these  competitive  confrontations.
This would  represent  a  substantial  accomplishment,  for  generally
we  do not  perceive  problems  until  they pain  us.  Even  then,  we  may
go  through  a  period  during  which  apologists  for  the  status  quo  en-
deavor  to convince  themselves  and  others  that  all  is  well.  Given  the
increasingly  rapid  rate  at  which broad  changes  in  environmental  use
can  occur,  time  is  of the  essence  in securing  the  kind  of information
indicated  above  and  using  it  as  the  basis  for  specific  public  action
when existing  allocative  mechanisms  are  found to be inadequate.  The
story  of  strip-mining  and  of  chlorinated  hydrocarbons  provide  cases
in point.
When  once  these environmental  problems  are  perceived,  we  have
a  great  tendency  to  plunge  into  programs  and  policies  without  an
adequate  underpinning  of fact.  This tradition of "ignorance  in  action"
usually entails  some  energetic  experimentation  with different  kinds  of
policies,  but  often  establishes  precedent  and  momentum  difficult  to
reverse  if we  subsequently  discover  our  policies  were  pointed  in  the
wrong  direction.  It  is  the responsibility  of  agricultural  extension  and
other  groups  serving  our  nonmetropolitan  communities  to  identify
98significant  conflicts  in rural  land uses-either  existing  or potential-
and to stimulate  research on alternative  ways in which these situations
can  be  managed.  Rarely  will  we  have  unequivocal  answers,  but  we
can make a systematic  effort to be as well informed  as  possible before
lurching  into policies.
Let us  now  move  on  to  issues  of  pollution.  This  is  perhaps  the
main  focal  point  of contemporary  environmental  concerns.  There  is
good reason  for the central  position  pollution occupies  in our  minds
and  newspapers-it  is  with us  and  exacts  high costs.  Often it  is  dis-
cussed in a partial context,  and policy recommendations  derived  from
such  discussions  generally  are  less  than  fully  effective.  For example,
in  many public jurisdictions,  including  the  federal,  water pollution  is
recognized  and  an  agency  is  established  to  reduce  it.  Similarly,  air
pollution  is  recognized  as  a scourge  to  contemporary  society  and  an
air pollution  control  authority  is  created  (at  the federal  level  within
an entirely  different  agency).  In  a  similar  fashion  an  office  of  solid
wastes  is  studying  ways  in  which pollution  in that form  may be  miti-
gated.  If we  recognize  pollution  as  the presence  in  the  environment
of  certain  substances-usually  waste  materials  of  some  sort-in  an
objectionable  quantity  or  form,  we  can  see  readily  that  a  reduction
of pollutants in water  may simply  shift  the pollutants  from  the water
into some other  part of the environment.
Public  efforts  to  eliminate  air  pollution  or  water  pollution  may
thus  simply shift  the problems  around  with  little  or no  net  improve-
ment.  On the other  hand,  if  the problem  is  cast  as  one  of managing
the  generation  and  disposition  of  waste  materials,  new  options  be-
come  apparent.  Wastes  are  created  in  production  and  consumption
activities  and  their volume  can  be reduced  by modifying  production
and consumption  processes  (for  example  recycling  of material  or re-
duction  of packaging),  or making  the  goods produced  more  durable.
Also,  the  natural  environment  does  have  a  limited  capacity  to
assimilate  wastes  without  adverse  consequences.  It  clearly  is  a  re-
source in the same sense  as minerals,  timber,  or good soil,  and should
be  allocated  efficiently  to  competing  production  and  consumption
activities.  In some  limited  instances  we  can  increase  the  assimilative
capacity  of the environment-for example, this is done in river systems
through augmenting  their natural  flow  so they can  handle larger levels
of  biological  oxygen  demand.  Once  the  assimilative  capacity  of  the
environment has  been  exceeded,  plant  and  animal  life  suffer harmful
effects,  and we have pollution  in  a practical  sense.
Now within this scheme  of things we have several options:  (1)  we
can  produce  and  consume  in  a  way  that  generates  less  waste  ma-
99terials;  (2)  we  can manage  our  waste  materials  (dispose  of  them  in
solid,  liquid,  or gaseous  form)  so  that  the  total  assimilative  capacity
of  the environment  is  efficiently  utilized;  (3)  we  can  geographically
isolate  waste-producing  activities  in  parts  of  the  environment  where
nobody  is  around  to  be  harmed;  and  (4)  we  can  to  a  limited  extent
increase the  capacity  of  the  environment  to  assimilate  wastes.
The fact that we  have  exceeded  the  assimilative  capacity of many
parts  of  our  natural  environment-especially  in  our  urban  areas-
raises particular issues for managing and organizing  our rural environ-
ment. For example:
1. Fertilizer  and pesticides  are  believed  to be  harmful  to the  en-
vironment.  To what extent  can  they continue  to be  used with-
out posing  a pollution  problem?  What  social  control measures
could be  invoked  to mitigate  the pollution problem?  How  can
agricultural  production  processes  be  adjusted  to "compensate"
for  bans  or  limitations  placed  upon  pollution-causing  agri-
cultural  inputs? What  will be the impact of such bans, prohibi-
tions,  or  controls  on  real  production  costs  of  principal  U.S.
agricultural  commodities?
2.  The  urban  environments  suffer most from  pollution  and  asso-
ciated  congestion.  One  alternative  response  would be  to  locate
in  the  rural  areas  highly  polluting  activities  which  provide
goods or services  needed in urban areas-for  example electric
power generation  with  its thermal  and sulfur dioxide pollution.
To what extent would a national  trend  in this  direction require
new  controls  on land  and  water  use  in rural  areas  to  prevent
simply  a "displacement  of pollution" to  less  populated  areas?
3.  With  the  length  of  the  work  week  declining  and  disposable
income  and  leisure  time  increasing,  many  Americans  are
establishing  second  homes  in rural  areas.  These  communities
tend  to have peak  population  during  the  summer months  and
often impose on a relatively small, nonaffluent rural community
high  costs  for  services  to  the  summer  residents.  Are  policies
needed  or  available  to  protect  these  communities  from  a
seasonal  cycle  of boom-and-bust,  and  to  distribute  more  equi-
tably the  costs  of social  services?
4.  In a more direct  and immediate  effort to escape  the often high-
pollution  of urban  areas,  the  central  city  is  being  abandoned
for  the  suburbs,  with  a  consequent  rapid  conversion  of  land
from  rural  to  suburban  uses.  Special  problems  arise  in  such
situations  due  to rapid  increase  in land values.  What kinds  of
100policies  will  result  in  the  efficient  transition  of  land  use  to
higher  valued  uses  without  excessive  displacement  of  rural
activities and land use?  Associated with this is the whole prob-
lem  of how rural amenities  can be preserved in the subsequent
suburban  use  of  presently  rural  lands.  This  is  especially  im-
portant when open  areas  have  a potentially  high value for park
and  recreation  purposes,  or  when  farm  abandonment  in  the
face of property tax increases  results in open fields reverting  to
scrub trees  or bushes.
We have  touched  very  briefly  upon  two  of  the  three  topics  sug-
gested  in  my  assignment-namely,  the  relationship  between  agri-
cultural  and nonagricultural  uses  of the  rural environment,  and prob-
lems  of  pollution  which  create  a  need  for  policies  in  the  rural  en-
vironment.  Questions  of  the  quality  of  life  are  directly  related  to
these  two  topics,  and  perhaps  pose  a  more  direct  challenge  to  agri-
cultural  extension.
The  term  "quality"  signals  a  dramatic  shift in  the  type  of prob-
lems  with  which  contemporary  America  is  faced.  Previously,  we
tended to think of the environment  as providing inputs for the produc-
tion  of  goods  and  services,  and  much  research  effort  was  focused
upon  questions  relating  to  the  adequacy  of  their  supply.  Now  a  far
subtler  and  more  pervasive  set  of  environmental  problems  are  con-
fronting the country-namely,  those  affecting  the  quality of  life.  The
phrase enjoys broad  popularity;  its place  in  news  media  and political
platforms  seems  well  established.  Clearly  it suggests  a  condition  of
life  or  a  context  for living  (as  distinct  from  a  "living  style")  which
the  public values  highly yet  which  traditional  planning  and  manage-
ment have  not adequately  provided.  In  some  way  our  old  notions  of
resource management  and environmental planning have not embraced
what we now refer to as the "quality of life."
The  very words  suggest  ambiguity  and  a  lack  of  specificity.  This
in  itself  poses  a  challenge  to  discover  or  develop  local  institutions
through  which  communities  can  determine  the  actual  conditions  of
their  life,  the  quality  standard  they  would  like  to  achieve,  and  how
much  they  are  willing  to spend  to  improve  the  quality  of  their  im-
mediate  environment.  These  decisions  are  very  difficult  to  reach,  but
cannot  be  avoided  if  a  community  is  to  plan  for  an  environmental
setting it  wishes.
The most important  aspect  about these  questions  is that with the
exception  of measuring  existing conditions,  these  questions  cannot be
answered  by  an  expert's  analysis.  In  the past  many  community  en-
vironmental  problems-for  example,  those  relating  to  developing  an
101adequate water supply or even recreation  systems-could be  analyzed
by  an  expert  and  a  reasonably  efficient  program  prescribed  on  the
basis  of  such  analysis.  Questions  involving  the  quality  of  living  can
only be  answered  by  the community  which  perceives  its own  existing
environmental  conditions  and  can  assign  a  value  to  their  improve-
ment.  In  short,  any  institutional  and  organizational  effort  for  coping
with  quality  of  the  environment  or  quality  of  life  issues  must  at
the outset  arrange  for  direct participation  of  all  parties  concerned  in
prescribing  desirable  programs  of environmental  management.
That  we  are  not familiar  with  problems  of  this  sort  may  explain
some of our  frustration with existing  institutions  which were  designed
initially  to  execute  environmental  programs  devised  by  experts  out-
side the community.  The term "participatory democracy"  is more than
an  idle political  slogan;  it reflects  the  very direct  and  acute  need  for
community  institutions  which  provide  forums  where  perceptions  of
the quality of environment  can  be discussed  and debated  by members
of  that  community.  Such  a  process  may  well entail  the  modification
over  time of  early  perceptions,  but it  should  lead  toward  a  common
understanding  of  what  elements  of  quality  are  important  to  that
particular  community.
A similar  type of forum  is  needed  if  the  community  is  to decide
upon  its  quality  targets.  If  the  immediate  issue  is  a  river  with  low
levels  of dissolved  oxygen,  how  many  parts  per million  of  dissolved
oxygen  does the comunity wish its river to have-three,  four, or five?
The community,  of course, needs  to know what these  different  "quali-
tative  levels"  really mean in terms  of activities each level  would  make
possible.  Recently  the  Philadelphia  municipal  area  made  such  deci-
sions  about  the  Delaware  River.  In  that  particular  instance  a  refer-
endum  was held to establish  a  water quality  target-and  at  the  same
time  determine  how  much  the  community  was  willing  to  spend  in
order to  achieve the  higher level  of water quality.  The levels  of boat-
ing,  fishing,  and other  water-based  recreation  which  would  be  possi-
ble at different levels of quality were presented together with the price
tags of achieving those levels of quality.
I submit that communities  throughout the country will  face an in-
creasing number of important questions  relating  to  the quality  of life,
and will require ways  of meeting together for discussion to  reach con-
sensus about  the kind of environment  the community  has,  the sort of
environment  it wants,  and what  it  can  do  to  bridge  the  gap.  I think
the Agricultural Extension Service  can help these communities,  though
I  am  not sure  that  a  traditional  extension  specialist  or  county  agent
can fill the bill. The situation  calls for a person who can implant  ques-
102tions and facilitate debate and rational discussion,  rather than a person
who  can  supply  the  "answers."  Herein  lies  a  major  challenge  and
opportunity  for  the  land-grant  university  and  for  agricultural  exten-
sion. Certainly qualitative problems-how they are perceived  and how
we  respond to them-pose  a research  challenge.
The  growing  prominence  of  "quality"  problems  suggests  quite
strongly  that  extension  personnel  need  skills  which  can  help  them
elicit  from  individuals  and  the  community  their  perceptions  of  en-
vironmental  conditions.  In short,  I think  we  need to  review  and pos-
sibly  redesign  some of our curricula in  order to produce  expertise  of
this  type.  Without it we  will  find  ourselves  trying  to  address  qualita-
tive problems with  obsolete ideas  and  institutions. If these  aspirations
for  a better quality  life in America  are  stifled,  and if we  fail to  ade-
quately  reflect  them in  public  policies  and  programs,  those  who  hold
these  aspirations  likely  will  seek  relief  through  confrontation  and
direct  action.  Such  tactics  may  produce  change,  but  they  too  easily
can escalate into  chaos.
103

THE NONURBAN ENVIRONMENT, POLLUTION AND THE QUALITY OF LIFE

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Research Papers in Economics