Costing an international public good: The case of the Baltic Sea

Ecological Economics

Volumn 30, Issue 2, 1999, Pages 301-316

  Markowska, Agnieszka ^a,b   Zylicz, Tomasz ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WARSAW   (Poland)

^b INSTITUTE OF METEOROLOGY AND WATER MANAGEMENT   (Poland)

Author keywords

Contingent valuation method; Cost effectiveness; Equity; Eutrophication; Helsinki Convention on the Protection of the Baltic Sea Marine Environment; International cooperation; Public good

Indexed keywords

COST; ENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMICS; POLLUTION CONTROL; PUBLIC GOODS;

BALTIC SEA;

EID: 0032861166     PISSN: 09218009     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0921-8009(98)00138-4     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Arrow, K., Solow, R., Portney, P.R., Leamer, E.E., Radner, R., Schuman, H., 1993. Report of the NOAA Panel on Contingent Valuation, Resources for the Future, Washington, DC.
2. Bergland, O., Magnussen, K., Navrud, S., 1995. Benefit transfer: testing for accuracy and reliability, NLH Discussion Paper #D-03/1995, Agricultural University of Norway, Ås.
3. Costanza, R., d'Arge, R., de Groot, R., Farber, S., Grasso, M., Hannon, B., Limburg, K., Naeem, S., O'Neill, R.V., Paruelo, J., Raskin, R.G., Sutton, P., van den Belt, M., 1998. The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital. Ecol. Economics 25 (1) 3-15.
4. Cummings, R., Harrison, G.W., 1994. Was the Ohio Court well informed in its assessment of the accuracy of the Contingent Valuation Method? Nat. Res. J. 34, 1-36 (Winter).
5. Chander P., Tulkens H. Theoretical foundations of negotiations and cost sharing in transfrontier pollution problems. Eur. Economic Rev. 36:1992;388-398.
6. Germain M., Toint P.L., Tulkens H. International negotiations on acid rains in Northern Europe: a discrete time iterative process. Xepapadeas A. Economic Policy for the Environment and Natural Resources. 1996;Edward Elgar Publishing, London.
7. Gren I.-M., Folke C., Langaas S., Sandström M., Söderqvist T., Wulff F. Costs and Benefits from Nutrient Reductions to the Baltic Sea. 1995;The Beijer Institute, The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, Stockholm, Mimeo.
8. Hanemann, M., 1994.Valuing the environment through contingent valuation, J. Economic Perspect. 8, 19-43.
9. Hanley N., Shogren J.F., White B. Environmental Economics in Theory and Practice. 1997;358 Oxford University Press.
10. HELCOM, 1987, First Baltic Sea Pollution Load Compilation, Baltic Sea Environment Proceedings, No. 20, Helsinki.
11. HELCOM, 1993a, Summaries of the Pre-feasibility Studies, Baltic Sea Environment Proceedings, No. 46, Helsinki.
12. HELCOM, 1993b, The Baltic Sea Joint Comprehensive Environmental Action Programme, Baltic Sea Environment Proceedings No. 48, Helsinki.
13. HELCOM, 1996, Third Periodic Assessment of the State of the Marine Environment of the Baltic Sea, 1989-1993, Background document. Baltic Sea Environment Proceedings, No. 64B, Helsinki Commission.
14. Krysanova, V., Gornaja, L., Vasilyev, A., 1995. Baltic Drainage Basin Project. Progress Report from the Estonian Team. Institute of Economics, Estonian Academy of Sciences, Tallin.
15. Langford, I., Bateman, I., 1993. Welfare Measures for Contingent Valuation Studies: Estimation and Reliability. CSERGE Working Paper GEC 93-04.
16. Laurson, P., Melzer, A., Zylicz, T., 1995, A Strategy to Enhance Partnerships in Project Financing for Environmental Investments in Central and Eastern Europe, Report for the EBRD, London.
17. Ministry of Finance, 1992, The Swedish Budget 1992/93, Allmänna Förlaget, Stockholm.
18. Niewijk, R.K., 1994. Misleading quantification: the contingent valuation method of the environmental quality. Regulation No. 1, 60-71.
19. Ochrona, S., 1995, Central Statistical Office, Warsaw (Environmental Statistics Yearbook).
20. Rocznik, S., 1995, Central Statistical Office, Warsaw (Statistical Yearbook 1995).
21. Sanden P., Rahm L. Nutrient trends in the Baltic Sea. Environmetrics. 4(1):1991;75-103.
22. Söderqvist, T., 1998. Why give up money for the Baltic Sea? Motives for people's willingness (or reluctance) to pay, Environ. Resource Economics, 12 (2), 249-254.
23. Stockholm Environment Institute, 1990. Forward to 1950: Policy considerations for the Baltic environment, Ambio Special Report 7, 21-24.
24. Sweitzer, J., Langaas, S., Folke, C., 1995, Land Use and Population Density in the Baltic Sea Drainage Basin: A GIS Database, Beijer Discussion Papers No. 63. The Beijer Institute, The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, Stockholm.
25. Turner, R.K. et al., 1995, The Baltic Drainage Basin Report: EV5V-CT-92-0183. Final Report of the Project, Norwich, University of East Anglia.
26. Whitehead, J., Bloomquist, G.C., Hoban, T.J., Clifford, W.B., 1995. Assessing the validity and reliability of contingent values: a comparison of on-site users, off-site users, and non-users, J. Environ. Economics Management, September, 1995, 238-251.
27. Wulff F., Niemi A. Priorities for the restoration of the Baltic Sea - a scientific perspective. Ambio. 21(2):1992;193-195.
28. Zylicz T. The ecological economics of the Baltic Sea. Eur. Rev. 1(4):1993;329-335.
29. Zylicz, T., 1994. A survey of the cost-effectiveness of investment projects co-financed by the Polish National Fund for Environmental Protection, Mimeo, Warsaw University.
30. Zylicz, T., Bateman, I., Georgiou, S., Markowska, A., Dziegielewska, D., Turner, R.K., Graham, A., Langford, I., 1995. Contingent Valuation of Eutrophication Damage in the Baltic Sea Region, CSERGE Working Paper GEC 95-03, Norwich, University of East Anglia.