| OCR Text |
Show because they are sometimes regional estimates and therefore may not reflect the " true" amount of spending for a particular city or county. Moreover, it is often argued that if one particular area is closed, resident visitors will just shift their attention to another recreation area within the state. Thus, the state's aggregate spending associated with non- consumptive use remains the same; a dollar spent at a state park is a dollar spent regardless of which state park collects the dollar. Clearly, however, the argument above ignores the effect felt by communities surrounding GSL should recreation and tourism shift from GSL to other attractions. Further, for some of the activities suitable replacement sites may not exist. For instance, GSL bird watching is truly unique. It is also debatable whether the state's other waterfowl hunting sites could fully absorb all the duck hunters that typically use GSL. Therefore, GSL should be respected for its rich, diverse recreational and tourist resources and that these opportunities are truly a treasure for Utah's citizens and out- of- state visitors. Even more problematic is the method of valuation used to place a price on the loss of a physical system. Rhetorically the question is posed, how should one assign a value to losing a wetlands area or marshland? Since physical systems rarely contribute tangible goods or services to the economy ( excluding agriculture), their valuation must be measured in something other than production costs and revenues. Measures can be made in terms of the spending or expenditures associated with the recreational uses. However, this only considers one dimension of the equation. The actual loss of an area or system must be accounted for in and of itself, which is a problem encountered by natural resource economists. Although the planning team would prefer to have estimations on the value of GSL marshes, wetlands, and other sub- ecosystems, to do so required resources beyond our means. Therefore, we assume the value and the health of GSL ecosystem( s) is ( are) paramount and hope that future methodologies may develop to assist in this type of analysis. Additional nontraditional resources stem from the non- market goods and services associated with GSL. This class of nontraditional resources is exemplified by the natural functions performed by GSL, such as soil formation, flood and erosion control, biological control of waste and detritus, climate regulation, and education. These functions have both qualitative and quantitative aspects. Regarding the former, the lake and its environs contribute to the quality of life along the Wasatch Front because the lake performs such functions without people having to pay for them. Additionally, people enjoy living near the lake and the physical and aesthetic amenities it offers. The lake is also a source of distinction and opportunity unsurpassed in the region. The quantitative aspect of these functions is more problematic to determine. In the event that humans had to mimic such functions the cost to do so would be very large. Moreover, some natural functions like climate regulation could not be supplanted via human means. Imagine trying to duplicate the " lake effect" on snow storms; Wasatch Front ski areas would be hard pressed to implement snow making equipment that could do so. In the absence of a rigorous, long- term research analysis to put a value on the natural services offered by GSL, we can only conclude that they are priceless. 144 |
