Contingent valuation by the community of indirect benefits of using recycled water: An Australian case study

Water Science and Technology: Water Supply

Volumn 5, Issue 3-4, 2005, Pages 95-103

  Hurlimann, A ^a   McKay, J ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA   (Australia)

Author keywords

Australia; Community; Contingent valuation; Water recycling

Indexed keywords

EDUCATION; ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT; OCEANOGRAPHY; RECYCLING; SEWAGE; WETLANDS;

DEMOGRAPHIC VARIABLES; RECYCLED WATER; WATER RESTRICTIONS; WILLINGNESS TO PAY (WTP);

WATER;

CONTINGENT VALUATION; ENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMICS; RECYCLING; WATER MANAGEMENT; WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

AGE DISTRIBUTION; AUSTRALIA; CONFERENCE PAPER; DEMOGRAPHY; INCOME; SEWAGE; SEX RATIO; WASTE WATER MANAGEMENT; WASTE WATER RECYCLING; WETLAND;

AUSTRALASIA; AUSTRALIA;

EID: 29144470616     PISSN: 16069749     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2166/ws.2005.0088     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (18)

1. Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering (2004). Water Recycling in Australia, Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering, Melbourne, Australia.
2. Bishop, R.C. and Heberlein, T.A. (1979). Measuring values of extramarket goods: are indirect measures biased? American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 61, 926-930.
3. Carson, R. (2000). Contingent valuation: a user's guide. Environmental Science and Technoloty, 34(8), 1413-1418.
4. Carson, R.T., Flores, N.E., Martin, K.M. and Wright, J.L. (1996). Contingent valuation and revealed preference methodologies: comparing the estimates for quasi-public goods. Land Economics, 72(1), 80-99.
5. Council of Australian Governments, (2004). Viewed 21 September 2004 〈http://www.coag.gov.au/meetings/250604/iga_national_water_initiative. pdf〉). Intergovernmental Agreement on a National Water Initiative, Canberra.
6. Hanemann, M. W. (1994). Valuing the environment through contingent valuation. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 8(4), 19-43.
7. Hatton MacDonald, D. (2004). The economics of water: taking full account of first use, reuse and return to the environment CSIRO Land and Water Client Report, CSIRO, Adelaide, Australia.
8. Kealy, M.J. and Turner, R.W. (1993). A test of the equality of closed-ended and open-ended contingent valuations. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 75, 321-331.
9. Loh, M. and Coghlan, P. (2003). Domestic Water Use Study In Perth, Western Australia 1998-2001, Water Corporation, Perth, Australia.
10. McKay, J. and Hurlimann, A.C. (2003). Attitudes to reclaimed water for domestic use: part 1 age. Water, 30(5), 45-49.
11. Mitchell, R.C. and Carson, R. (1989). Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Method, Resources for the Future, Washington, USA.
12. Randall, A., Hoehn, J.P., et al. (1983). Contingent valuation surveys for evaluating environmental assets. Natural Resources, 23, 635-648.
13. Ready, R.C., Buzby, J.C., et al. (1996). Differences between continuous and discrete contingent value estimates. Land Economics, 72(3), 397-411.
14. Schuman, H. and Johnson, M.P. (1976). Attitudes and behaviour. Annual Review of Sociology, 2, 161-207.
15. Seller, C., Stoll, J.R., et al. (1985). Validation of empirical measures of welfare change: a comparison of nonmarket techniques. Land economics, 61(2), 156-175.
16. Spash, C.L. (2000). Multiple value expression in contingent valuation: economics and ethics. Environmental Science and Technology, 34(8), 1433-1438.
17. Whynes, D.K., Frew, E., et al. (2003). A comparison of two methods for eliciting contingent valuations of colorectal cancer screening. Journal of Health Economics, 22, 555-574.
18. Willis, K.G. and Corkindale, J.T. (1995). Environmental Valuation: New Perspectives, CAB International, Oxon, UK.