My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP01521
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
1001-2000
>
WSP01521
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 12:31:28 PM
Creation date
10/11/2006 10:30:39 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8443.400
Description
Narrows Unit Reports
State
CO
Basin
South Platte
Water Division
1
Date
6/15/1974
Author
US DOL BOR
Title
Draft Social Assessment of the Proposed Narrows Unit and Alternatives Thereto
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Report/Study
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
263
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />Ij 3 '2. 'j <br /> <br />A second common tendency is to measure the creation <br /> <br /> <br />of social goods in terms of assigned monetary values, so that <br /> <br /> <br />the worth of a given phenomenon (accessibility to service <br /> <br /> <br />providers, the value of an hour's hunting and fishing, etc.) <br /> <br />., <br /> <br />can be expressed in dollar terms. <br /> <br />Increases in monetized <br /> <br />value are equated with social benefits. <br />A third common tendency is the concept of value hierar- <br />chies. For example, by taking into account protection from <br />flood control, drought, access to community services, etc., <br /> <br />one can generate a proxy measure of "security," which has a <br /> <br /> <br />high social value. This, in a sense, is a social metaphor for <br /> <br /> <br />the economists' aggregation approach. <br /> <br /> <br />A problem with all of these approaches is that they <br /> <br /> <br />fail to take into account three fundamental concerns with <br /> <br />',,, <br /> <br />respect to human beings and their communities. First, they <br /> <br /> <br />overlook the point that individualS are total persons and <br /> <br /> <br />that whatever social good occurs from a public investment <br /> <br /> <br />must in part be expressed in terms of how individual people <br /> <br /> <br />are affected. Second, they forget that people live in commu- <br /> <br /> <br />nities and that the institutions and cultures of these commu- <br /> <br /> <br />nities have a great deal to do with how events are "valued." <br /> <br /> <br />Third, they forget that a critical aspect of any social <br /> <br /> <br />assessment is an understanding of who benefits and who loses, <br /> <br /> <br />i.e., the distribution of impact. Finally, most approaches <br /> <br /> <br />to social assessment fail to provide a sense of the multiple <br /> <br /> <br />"trade-offs" associated with a public investment. <br /> <br />.' <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />12 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.