Estimating the economic value of water quality protection in the Catawba River basin

Water Resources Research

Volumn 38, Issue 9, 2002, Pages 21-1-21-10

  Kramer, Randall A ^a   Eisen Hecht, Jonathan I ^a  

^a DUKE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Contingent valuation survey; Management plan; Stated preference methods; Willingness to pay

Indexed keywords

AGGLOMERATION; PLANNING; WATER QUALITY;

TELEPHONE INTERVIEWS;

WATER RESOURCES;

ECONOMIC ANALYSIS; WATER QUALITY; WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

CATAWBA RIVER; NORTH CAROLINA; SOUTH CAROLINA; UNITED STATES;

CATALPA SPECIOSA;

EID: 0036761510     PISSN: 00431397     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1029/2001wr000755     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Arrow, K., R. Solow, P. R. Portney, E. E. Leamer, R. Radner, and H. Schuman, Report of the NOAA panel on contingent valuation, Fed. Regist., 58(10), 4601-4614, 1993.
2. Carson, R. T., W. M. Hanemann, R. J. Kopp, J. A. Krosnick, R. C. Mitchell, S. Presser, P. A. Rudd, and V. K. Smith, Prospective Interim Lost Use Value Due to DDT and PCB Contamination in the Southem California Bight, vol. 1, Natl. Oceanic and Atmos. Admin., Silver Spring, Md., 1994.
3. Chen, C. W., J. Herr, and L. Ziemelis, Watershed analysis risk management framework - A decision support system for watershed approach and TMDL calculation, Doc. Rep. TR110809, Electr. Power Res. Inst., Palo Alto, Calif., 1998.
4. Dodd, S., and T. Mellnik, In growth, Charlotte no. 2 in U.S.; only Austin grew faster; metro area 33rd in size, Charlotte Observer, 1A, 31 March 2001.
5. Duke Power Company, Catawba Journal - A Journal of the River and its Lakes, Duke Power Co., Charlotte, N. C., 1996.
6. Garrod, G., and K. G. Willis, Economic Valuation of the Environment: Methods and Case Studies, Edward Elgar, Northampton, Mass., 1999.
7. Haab, T. C., and K. E. McConnell, Referendum models and negative willingness to pay: Alternative solutions, J. Environ. Econ. Manage., 32, 251-270, 1997.
8. Hanemann, W. M., Welfare evaluations in contingent valuation experiments with discrete responses, Am. J. Agric. Econ., 66(3), 332-341, 1984.
9. Kennedy, P., A Guide to Econometrics, Blackwell, Malden, Mass., 1998.
10. Lichtenberg, E., and R. Zimmerman, Farmers' willingness to pay for groundwater protection, Water Resour. Res., 35(3), 833-841, 1999.
11. Lindsey, G. H., An Experiment in Contingent Valuation: Willingness to Pay for Stormwater Management, Ph.D. dissertation, Johns Hopkins Univ., Baltimore, Md., 1992.
12. Loomis, J. B., Measuring the economic benefits of removing dams and restoring the Elwha River: Results of a contingent valuation survey, Water Resour Res., 32(2), 441-447, 1996.
13. Loomis, J. B., and M. King, Comparison of mail and telephone-mail contingent valuation surveys, J. Environ. Manage., 41, 309-324, 1994.
14. Mitchell, R. C., and R. T. Carson, Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Method, Resour. of the Future, Washington, D.C., 1989.
15. Mitchell, R. C., and R. T. Carson, The value of clean water: The public's willingness to pay for boatable, fishable, and swimmable quality water, Water Resour. Res., 29(7), 2445-2454, 1993.
16. Mitchell, R. C., and R. T. Carson, Current issues in the design, administration, and analysis of contingent valuation surveys, in Current Issues in Environmental Economics, edited by P. Johansson, B. Kristrom, and K. Maler, pp. 10-34, Manchester Univ. Press, Manchester, N. Y., 1995.
17. Newman, A., The trust for public land Mecklenburg/Gaston/Lincoln resident survey, Alan Newman Res., Richmond, Va., 1999.
18. Presser, S., and J. Blair, Survey pretesting: Do different methods produce different results?, Soc. Method., 24, 73-105, 1994.
19. Smith, V. K., Pricing what is priceless: A status report on non-market valuation of environmental resources, in The International Yearbook of Environmental and Resource Economics: A Survey of Current Issues, edited by H. Folmer and T. Tietenberg, pp. 156-203, Edward Elgar, Northampton, Mass., 1997.
20. Smith, V. K., and W. H. Desvousges, Measuring Water Quality Benefits, Kluwer Acad., Norwell, Mass., 1986.
21. Smith, V. K., and C. Mansfield, Buying time: Real and hypothetical offers, J. Environ. Econ. Manage., 36(3), 209-224, 1998.
22. Smith, V. K., X. Zhang, and R. B. Palmquist, Marine debris, beach quality, and non-market values, Environ. Resour. Econ., 10, 223-247, 1997.
23. Turnbull, B., The empirical distribution function with arbitrary grouped, censored, and truncated data, J. R. Stat. Soc., Ser. B, 38, 290-295, 1976.
24. University of North Carolina at Charlotte Urban Institute, Charlotte-Mecklenburg annual survey, Charlotte, 1998.
25. U.S. Water Resources Council, Economic and Environmental Principles for Water and Related Land Resource Implementation Studies, U. S. Govt. Print. Off., Washington, D.C., 1983.
26. Whittington, D., G. Cassidy, D. Amaral, E. McClelland, H. Wang, and C. Poulos, The economic value of improving the environmental quality of Galveston Bay, Dep. of Environ. Sci. and Eng., Univ. of N. C. at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, 1994.