I agree with the person who said "All houses in someways are negative externalities because of the trash that is thrown away into landfills." I think this is true because no matter how hard people try to do good things and produce positive externalities there are all these little things that can build up and produce major negative ones. My family doesn't recycle and that is a huge negative externality. Right now I can't honestly think of too many positive things that my family does. -Amanda

I don't know what I'm blogging on. I'm going to post this and see where it comes up to learn more about blogging. =)

.

The Durham Transfer Station is a good part of the town of Durham, and it is nice to see people who work hard to get the recyling sorted to where it is supposed to be. The Transfer Station is a great use in the community because it sorts trash out before they get shipped off to a bigger dump where it could get complicated to sort the trash.

Sometimes in my house we burn newspaper or other forms of paper to get the fire going in the fireplace. That puts harmful chemicals into the air which inturn would make my house a negative extrnality. All houses in someways are negative exctranalitys because of the trash that is thrown away into landfills.

Response

In my neighborhood we all share the same water, and the oil companies give a discount for our heating if the majority of the neighborhood pays for oil from the same company. These externalities are positive becuase it saves everyone money.
-Zach W.

Thanks to everyone who posted and stay tuned!

Hello Everyone,

Thanks for posting comments, or even taking the time to read my last post. I know that this may be a new topic for you, and it can be confusing. From reading your comments, it looks like you all put some thought into what you wrote. Like I said, how land is used is a very controversial issue, and I think that a lot of your comments reflect that. I am not going to respond directly on each of your comments, but I would like to bring up some of what a few people mentioned in their responses and I hope you all find this useful.

Most of you mentioned good examples of negative externalities associated with what activities you do at your home and how these choices effect the environment, which is great, and I urge you to continue to think of these things now and throughout your life. Some of you mentioned positive externalities which I really like because I think that this is a harder area for some people to conceptualize (learning and education are positive externalities by the way!), especially when talking about issues like land use economics. One of you mentioned that your condominium association had a tennis court and swimming pool which you haven't seen used much, but raises the value of the properties because it is marketable and it does improve property value and effect the local tax base. Thinking like this, using what you have versus what you need, is an asset-based approach to building community and how we value our communities.

One of you mentioned that how we view externalities is completely subjective to our preferences, and that thought is right on with how we value resources in economics. This type of reasoning is in part why communities choose to create master plans and zoning so that the community has a certain feel and continuity to it and everyone has to conform to certain rules. But I ask you to think about subjective preferences and ask yourself do the benefits, or your happiness from having that particular type of grass as I think the example was, outweigh the costs associated with having it? In environmental economics and in a community setting, cost-benefit analysis is commonly used to determine if a particular project is viable in the long run and what impacts it will have on the environment and community at large before continuing with that project.

Someone else mentioned how zoning laws effect land. They brought up that zoning laws can say that on new properties, homes must be on a minimum of two acres in Durham, and it used to be a quarter of an acre. By increasing the minimum standard from a quarter of an acre to two acres, development will become much more spread out. Some people argue that this is good, and some that it is bad. By increasing the lot size requirement, more land will be used quicker for housing. With the old requirement, housing was much more compact. Some people think that with a larger lot size requirement, more expensive homes might be built because the land is more expensive, and that these new homeowners might preserve the land. But you have to think is it better for wildlife if the land is fragmented into multiple two acre lots, some might call this sprawl; or if it is clustered into housing, and the other part of the land in the town is left as open space for wildlife? This is a big issue in New Hampshire right now, and across the country.

A lot of you mentioned the word balance. A balance between satisfying our consumptive needs and preserving the environment. This is a wide topic with lots of conversation and lots of views attached to it. I think that it is important for individuals and firms to find this balance. Which brings us to waste, another largely mentioned topic by most of you. I would like to center the next blog topic around waste and recycling and how they relate to economics. I will be posting this for you sometime soon.

Also, if you have any questions at all about something someone said in their comment, or anything about what I have said, or anything about economics and land use in general, please let me know and I will try to answer your questions as best I can.

I think the key word in this land allocation issue is balance. We have to live some where, so not everything should be forest, but we shouldn't live everywhere, with just endless housing. The balance between these two is somewhere in the middle. Durham has gotten very strict about this, try to find that balance and restrict over-development. The minimum size for a new piece of property used to be a fraction of an acre, making the number of houses that could fit on a given piece of land higher. This was great for the developers and contractors, but not so great for the environment if the land was originally forest. Now in Durham, new lots cannot be less than two acres. This increases the amount of trees and meadow land, while the number of building on that two acres is still likely to be one. On non-conforming lots that used to be built, the number of house that could be put on that two acres was six or even more. These houses have only lawns with a thin line of trees between properties. The actual house takes up about half the property. I like the two acre rule. I think it will help Durham keep from becoming too urbanized, and to maintain the balance between residential and wildlife habitats.

Pali's Post

I get the feeling that the capitalistic society we live in to day sees nature as a place to get wood and more land to build on. However, many people fail to realize that the woods aren’t renewable recourses; it takes at least a hundred years for the trees to grow back to their full size. Woods are extremely valuable because they absorb carbon from the atmosphere, they’re a source of alternative fuel, they preserve and revive the land for future use and they are a pert of the entire ecosystem in which we live. A forest can provide literally forever with no overhead, but once you cut it down and develop it, it losses this ability. A building will only last 30 years before it needs to be rebuilt and a farm field becomes infertile. My land consists of more than 3/4 woodland. My house emits carbon, but it conserves the woods that absorb carbon and by conserving the wood I indirectly protect the rivers and land else were that is supported by my woods.

Well, I believe where I live to be considered forestland although the section across the street from my house was very close to becoming commercial land. Over the years the trees around us have become more scarce because of the advancement in technology to take these resources and turn them into Wal-Marts and other industries. Our economy depends on developments and increasing business, however the importance of our environment is at an all-time high as well. I think Jamie was right in saying we have to find the right balance between feeding out economy's wealth and protecting the state of the environment. There are many ways we can lead our lives to preserve our planet that could have a huge impact if enough of the population participated including recycling and reducing pollution. If we are able to do this in our daily lives than benefiting from the resources around us may be viewed as less harmful.

Ryan's Post

I think there are a lot of consequences to putting buisnesses and homes on land. When houses were put up on land that used to be farmland than that is less crops that we can produce for food. That used to be much more important than it is today. Now when we import food from all over the country and the world. However there is still consequences to the land. If we clear all of the plants form the area were our home is except grass then we are changing the land. Usually that means that because there is much less vegetation there are less nutrients be put back into the soil. It's kind of like when there is a piece of land that people grow the same crop on year after year and it depleats the soil of certain nutrients making it less healthy. The same thing happens if we change the natural vegetation on an area, or simply take away all the plants at all. Also whenever you make an area of land into a place for a home or a building or anything else you are saying that it is not anything else. For example when you build a home on a piece of land you are saying that it is not an office or farmland etc. Which is a consequence of choosing to put that home there.

jamie

I'm not sure whether or not I'm suppose to be responding to this blog or not so I'm going to do it anyway. Trees release oxygen into the atmosphere not carbon, that made me chuckle, sorry Carol. I think the land that I personally live on is forestland. The trees have an extrodinary economic value. The lumber from trees is what has built up the world we live in. There are a ton of products that our society needs to function with that are made from trees. It is important that we try to find a balance between our economic needs and the necessity to keep the earth healthy.

carol messler

“I feel that I value the land because it is the only one that we have and we should appreciate it more and put less pollution into the air and less deforestation, so that more carbon can be released into the atmosphere. My home would be an externality, due to my woodstove and how I urn all kinds of wood to keep my house warm. I burn different kinds of wood, pretty much whatever is in my backyard, or whatever we buy for the winter. I think that the woodstove does its purpose inside the house, but awful things outside the house. The pollution that a woodstove gives off is not good for the environment. “ - c.messler

Did you know that the United States is made up of 2.3 billion acres of land including Alaska and Hawaii?

It's true! So what does this mean?

Well, land is classified into different groups depending on how its used such as cropland, forestland, grassland, residential land, commercial or industrial land, mineral land, recreation land, wetland, floodplains, barren or waste, and cities. Now, think about your own yard, how might you classify what type of land you live on? It could even be a combination of the different types if you have the the Great Bay or a forest in your backyard. Generally, land can be thought of as a portion of the earth's crust that you can walk on, build a house, grow crops etc.

Okay so what does this have to do with economics?

How land is used is a vital part of how economies function, by allocating land for a certain use, there is a value placed on that parcel of land... even if it is sitting idle or is used as a dump. In economics, land is thought of as not only a portion of the earth's crust but also something that people can attach ownership rights to. From there, the land also includes buildings, trees, and other objects of value. The value we put on land and how we use it is constantly changing... due to supply and demand.

You might be surprised to know that 60% of land in the United States is owned by private individuals, 34% by the federal government, 6% by state and local governments, and about 2% by Indian tribes. When it comes to land ownership, many individuals might get excited. It is a very hot topic in communities over who owns what land and how they are using it.

The value placed on land can be generally thought of as in relation to the type of use it is being used for. In economics, we refer to this concept as the highest and best use of land, or what type of land yields the greatest value to the owner. Commercial and industrial uses of land would be on the highest point of the spectrum, followed by residential, then cropland and arable pasture, forest, grazing, then at the bottom of the spectrum we have barren and waste (think an uninhabitable desert). When resources can be extracted from land, such as water, minerals, or used to grow crops it has a great value to us. However, how we use this land has consequences or externalities on the natural environment and communities of people around it. Also, there is an opportunity cost associated with using land in a particular way such as developing a residential neighborhood on what was formerly farmland and before then forestland, such is the case in many Durham neighborhoods.

Can you think of some externalities that you might create at your own home or a business might create to the surrounding community and/or natural environment? Are these positive or negative externalities?