A social-economic-engineering combined framework for decision making in water resources planning

Hydrology and Earth System Sciences

Volumn 13, Issue 5, 2009, Pages 675-686

  Chung, E S ^a   Lee, K S ^a  

^a Seoul National University   (South Korea)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DECISION MAKING; STAKEHOLDER; STREAMFLOW; VULNERABILITY; WATER PLANNING; WATER QUALITY; WATER RESOURCE; WATERSHED; WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

ANYANGCHEON BASIN; SOUTH KOREA;

EID: 73149115305     PISSN: 10275606     EISSN: 16077938     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.5194/hess-13-675-2009     Document Type: Article

References (44)

1. Abrahams, N. A., Hubble, B. J., and Jordan, J. L.: Joint production and averting expenditure measures of willingness to pay: Do water expenditures really measure avoidance costs?, Am. J. Agric. Econom., 82(2), 427-437, 2000.
2. Adamowicz, W., Louviere, J., and Williams, M.: Combining revealed and stated preference methods for valuing environmental amenities, J. Environ. Econ. Manage., 26, 271-292, 1994.
3. Baarsma, B. E.: The valuation of the Ijmeer reserve using conjoint analysis, Environ. Resour. Econ., 25, 343-356, 2003.
4. Bateman, I., Carson, R., Day, B., Hanemann, M., Hanley, N., Hett, T., Jones-Lee, M., Loomes, G., Mourato, S., Ozdemiroglu, E., Pearce, D.W., Sugden, R., and Swanson, J.: Economic Valuation with Stated Preference Techniques: A Manual, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, 2002.
5. Bennett, J. and Blamey, R.: The Choice Modelling Approach to Non Market Valuation, Cheltenham UK and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar, 2001.
6. Carlsson, F. and Martinsson, P.: Do hypothetical and actual marginal willingness to pay differ in choice experiments? Application to the valuation of the environment, J. Environ. Econ. Manage., 41, 179-192, 2001.
7. Carson, R. T. and Mitchell, R. C.: The issue of scope in contingent valuation studies, Am. J. Agric. Econ., 75, 1263-1267, 1993.
8. Christofides, A., Efstratiadis, A., Koutsoyiannis, D., Sargentis, G.- F., and Hadjibiros, K.: Resolving conflicting objectives in the management of the Plastiras Lake: can we quantify beauty?, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 9, 507-515, 2005, http://www.hydrol-earth-syst-sci.net/9/507/2005/.
9. Chung, E. S. and Lee, K. S.: Prioritization of water management for sustainability using hydrologic simulation model and multicriteria decision making techniques, J. Environ. Manage., 90(3), 1502-1511, 2009a.
10. Chung, E. S. and Lee, K. S.: Identification of spatial ranking of hydrological vulnerability usingmulticriteria decision making techniques: Case study of Korea, Water Resour. Manage., published online, 2009b.
11. Collins, A., Rosenberger, R., and Fletcher, J.: The economic value of stream restoration, Water Resour. Res., 41, W02017, doi:10.1029/2004WR003353, 2005. (Pubitemid 40393936)
12. Cupps, R. A.: Emerging problems of citizen participation, Pub. Admin. Rev., 37, 478-487, 1997.
13. Diamond, P. and Hausman, J. A.: Contingent valuation: Is some number better than no number?, J. Econ. Perspec., 8, 45-64, 1994.
14. European Environment Agency: Environmental Indicators: Typology and Overview, Copenhagen, Denmark, 1999.
15. Freeman III, A. M.: The Measurement of Environmental and Resource Values: Theory and Methods, second ed. Resources for the Future, Washington D.C., 23-26, 2003.
16. Garrod, G. D. and Willis, K. G.: The non-use benefits of enhancing forest biodiversity: A contingent ranking study, Ecol. Econ., 21, 45-61, 1997.
17. Gordon, J., Chapman, R., and Blamey, R.: Assessing the Options for Canberra Water Supply: An Application of Choice Modeling in the Choice Modeling Approach to Environmental Valuation, Edward Elgar, 2001.
18. Greene, W. H.: Econometric Analysis, fourth ed. Prentice-Hall, London, 2002.
19. Hanley, N., Mourato, A., and Wright, R.: Choice modeling approaches: A superior alternative for environmental evaluation?, J. Econ. Survey, 15(3), 435-462, 2001.
20. Hanley, N., Wright, R. E., and Adamowicz, W.: Using choice experiments to value the environment, Environ. Resour. Econ., 11, 413-428, 1998.
21. Hanley, N., Wright, R. E., and Alvarez-Farizo, B.: Estimating the economic value of improvements in river ecology using choice experiments: An application to the water framework directive, J. Environ. Manage., 78, 183-193, 2006.
22. Harrison, G.W.: Valuing public goods with the contingent valuation method: A critique of Kahneman and Knetsch, J. Environ. Econ. Manage., 23, 248-257, 1992.
23. Hensher, D. and Johnson, L.: Applied Discrete Choice Modeling, Wiley, New York, 1981.
24. Howe, C.W. and Smith, M. G.: The value of water supply reliability in urban water systems, J. Envir. Econom. Manage., 26, 19-30, 1994.
25. Johnson, F. R. and Desvousges, W. H.: Estimating stated preferences with rated-pair data: Environmental, health, and employment effects of energy programs, J. Environ. Econ. Manage., 34, 79-99, 1997.
26. Kahneman, D. and Knetsch, J. L.: Valuing public goods: the purchase of moral satisfaction, J. Environ. Econ. Manage., 22, 57-70, 1992.
27. Kong, K. S., Chung, E. S., Yoo, J. C., and Lee, K. S.: Estimating attributes value of alternatives applied for rehabilitation of hydrologic cycle of the Anyangcheon watershed, J. Korea Water Resour. Assoc., 39, 1031-1042, 2006.
28. Kuhfeld,W. F., Tobias, R. D., and Garratt, M.: Efficient experimental design with marketing research applications, J. Market. Res., 31, 545-557, 1994.
29. Kuhfeld,W. F.: Marketing Research Methods in SAS: Experimental Design, Choice, Conjoint, and Graphical Techniques, SAS Inst., Cary, N. C., 2003.
30. Kwak, S. J., Yoo, S. H., and Kim, T. Y.: A constructive approach to air quality valuation in Korea, Ecol. Econ., 38, 327-344, 2001.
31. Lee, K. S. and Chung, E. S.: Development of integrated watershed management schemes for intensively urbanized region in Korea, J. HydroEnviron. Res., 1(2), 95-109, 2007.
32. Louviere, J. and Hensher, D.: On the design and analysis of simulated choice or allocation experiments in travel choice modeling, Transport. Res. Rec., 890, 11-17, 1982.
33. Louviere, J. and Woodworth, G.: Design and analysis of simulated consumer choice or allocation experiments: An approach based on aggregate data, J. Marketing Res., 20, 350-367, 1983.
34. McFadden, D.: Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior, in: Frontiers in Econometrics, edited by: Zarembka, P., Academic Press, New York, 1973.
35. Nakatani, J., Aramaki, T., and Hanaki, K.: Applying choice experiments to valuing the different types of environmental issues in Japan, J. Environ. Manage., 84, 362-376, 2007.
36. OECD: OECD core set of indicators for environmental performance reviews, OECD Environment Monographs 83, OECD, Paris, 1993.
37. Phelps, R. H. and Shanteau, J.: Livestock judges: How much information can an expert use?, Organization Behavior and Human Performance, 21, 209-219, 1978.
38. Raadgever, G. T., Mostert, E., and van de Giesen, N. C.: Identification of stakeholder perspectives on future flood management in the Rhine basin using Q methodology, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 12, 1097-1109, 2008, http://www.hydrol-earth-syst-sci.net/12/1097/2008/.
39. Rosener, J.: Making bureaucracy responsive: A study of impacts of citizen participation and staff recommendation on regulatory decision making, Pub. Admin. Rev., 42, 339-345, 1982.
40. Schulze, W. D., McClelland, G. H., Lazo, J. K., and Rowe, R. D.: Embedding and calibration in measuring non-use values, Resour. Ener. Econ., 20, 163-178, 1998.
41. Thomas, J. C.: Public involvement in public management: adapting and testing a borrowed theory, Pub. Admin. Rev., 50, 435-445, 1990.
42. van den Belt, M.: Mediated Modeling: A System Dynamics Approach to Environmental Consensus Building, Island Press, 2004.
43. Willis, K., Scarpa, R., and Acutt, M.: Assessing water company customer preferences and willingness to pay for service improvements: A stated choice analysis, Water Resour. Res., 41, W02019, doi:10.1029/2004WR003277, 2005. (Pubitemid 40393938)
44. Yoo, S. H., Kwak, S. J., and Lee, J. S.: Using a choice experiment to measure the environmental costs of air pollution impacts in Seoul, J. Environ. Manage., 86, 308-318, 2008.