Abstract:
The social and economic objectives of society in the United
States are many and varied. All objectives, in turn, cannot be
achieved simultaneously because of a finite resource base. The problem
of finding an optimum, in some sense, level of achievement for
the various objectives is complicated by lack of a common measure of
value. As a result, trade-offs must be calculated and presented to a
decision body for choice. The purpose of this study was to define and
indicate the elements affecting the trade-off ratio. A guiding premise
of the study was that any planning group, private or public, is involved
in isolating a multiple product production function. Multiple output
production theory provided the basis for development of a conceptual
model useful in the calculation of trade-offs.
Water resource production processes were described in the
context of multiple output production theory. Several possible production
relations among water products were outlined. It was argued that
production relations descriptive of water resource development have to
be understood to calculate trade-off ratios. Several empirical cases
were examined to illustrate problems and procedures in the trade-off
calculation process. The absolute level of investment was shown to be
very important in the trade-off calculation process. Other recommended
approaches for calculating trade-offs were compared with the
recommended approach in this study. Most other approaches were
found to be deficient in many respects. It was shown that net dollar
benefits can be traded-off for increases in non-money valued products
only if the investment levels for the various alternatives are the same
and the money valued products are kept in equilibrium proportions.
The theoretical concepts of joint products, joint costs, interdependence,
independence, complementarity, and competitiveness were also
defined concisely in the study. The Federal document used in planning
water and related land resource development projects was evaluated in
light of the results of the study. The approach to delineation of the
number of plans should be modified. Alternative plans should reflect
the same investment cost. Also, the notions of complementary and
conflicting products should be defined more concisely. Underlying
production relations need to be identified to facilitate plan formulation
and trade-off calculations.
