Measuring the benefits of river quality improvement using the contingent valuation method: The case of the ping river, Chiang Mai, Thailand

Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management

Volumn 11, Issue 3, 2009, Pages 349-367

  Mohammed, Essam Yassin ^a  

^a NAGOYA UNIVERSITY   (Japan)

Author keywords

Benefit measurement; Contingent valuation; Willingness to pay

Indexed keywords

CONTINGENT VALUATION; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; ECOSYSTEM FUNCTION; ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION; NATURE CONSERVATION; PUBLIC ATTITUDE; WATER MANAGEMENT; WATER QUALITY; WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

CHIANG MAI [NORTHERN REGION]; NORTHERN REGION [THAILAND]; PING RIVER; THAILAND;

EID: 76449083112     PISSN: 14643332     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1142/S1464333209003403     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Alberini, A, P Rosato, A Logo and V Zanatta (2005). Information and willingness to pay in CV study: The value of S-Erasmo in the lagoon of Venice. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 48, 155-175.
2. Alpizar, A, F Carlsson and PMartinsson (2001). Using choice experiments for non-market valuation. Working Paper in Economics, No.52, Department of Economics, Gothenburg University.
3. Arrow, JK, R Solow, PR Portney, EE Leamer, R Radner and H Schumand (1993). Report of the NOAA Panel on Contingent Valuation to the General Council of the US National Oceanic and AtmosphericAdministration. Resources for the Future, Washington, DC.
4. Bateman, IJ, RT Carson, B Day, M Hanemann, N Hanley, T Hett, MJ Lee, G Loomes, S Mourato, E Özdemiroglu and DW Pearce (2002). Economic Valuation with Stated Preference Techniques: A Manual. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
5. Bateman, I, I Langford, N Nishikawa and I Lake (2000). The Axford Debate revisited: A case study illustrating different approaches to aggregation of benefits data. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 43 (2), 291-330.
6. Blore, I (1996).How useful to decision-makers is contingent valuation of the environment? Journal of Public Administration and Development, 16, 215-232.
7. Cameron, TA and DD Huppert (1989). OLS versus ML estimation of non-market resource values with payment card interval data. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 17, 230-246.
8. Carson RT, NE Flores and NF Meade (2001). Contingent valuation: Controversies and evidence. Environmental and Resource Economics, 19, 173-210.
9. Carson, RT and RC Michell (1993). The value of clean water: The public's willingness to pay for boatable, fishable, and swemmable quality water. Water Resource Research, 29, 2445-2454.
10. Champ, PA, KJ Boyle and TC Brown, eds. (2003). A Primer on Nonmarket Valuation. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
11. Essam, YM (2007). Estimating the willingness to pay of residents for the conservation of Haso Wetland using the CVM. Regional Development Studies, 11, 93-104.
12. François, M (2001).Water pricing in Thailand: Theory and practice. Kasetsart University, DORAS Center, Research Report No 7.
13. Freeman, AM (1979). The Benefits of Environmental Improvement: Theory and Practice. Baltimore: Resource for the Future.
14. Georgiou, S, I Bateman, MCole and D Hadley (2000). Contingent ranking and valuation of water quality improvements. CSERGE discussion paper 2000-2018 University of East Anglia.
15. Hanley, N, F Schlapfer and J Spurgeon (2003). Aggregating the benefits of environmental improvements: Distance-decay functions for use and non-use values. Journal of Environmental Management, 68, 297-304.
16. Hitzhusen, FJ ed. (2007). Economic Valuation of River Systems. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.
17. Johansson, PO (1991). An introduction to modern welfare economics. In Champ, PA, KJ Boyle and TC Brown, eds., A Primer on Nonmarket Valuation. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
18. Kristrom, B and P Riera (1996). Is the income elasticity of environmental improvements less than one? Environmental and Resource Economics, 7, 45-55.
19. Lambert, A (2003). Economic Valuation of Wetlands on the River Basin Scale. Gland: Ramsar Convention on Wetlands.
20. Maler, KG (1974). Environmental economics. In Champ, PA, KJ Boyle and TC Brown, eds., A Primer on Nonmarket Valuation. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
21. Mitchell, RC and RT Carson (1989).Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Method. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.
22. National Statistical Office (NSO) (2008). Thailand environment statistics 2008. Available at http://web.nso.go.th/en/indicator/environ/ind-env08.htm. Accessed on 1 June 2009.
23. Rigg, J (1992). The gift of water. In François, M, ed., Water Pricing in Thailand: Theory and Practice. Kasetsart University, DORAS Center, Research Report No 7.
24. Teal, GA and JB Loomis (2000). Effects of gender and parental status on the economic valuation of increasingWetlands, reducingwildlife contamination and increasing Salmon populations. Society and Natural Resources, 13 (2), 1-14.
25. Volker, A (1983). Rivers of SoutheastAsia: Their regime, utilization and regulation. Hydrology of humid regionswith particular reference to the hydrological effects of agriculture and forestry production. Proceedings of theHamburg Symposium. IAHS Publ.No. 140.
26. Water Environment Partnership in Asia (WEPA) (2008). State of water environmental issues: Thailand. Available at http://www.wepa-db.net/policies/ state/thailand/ thailand.htm. Accessed on 12 December 2008.
27. Welcome to Chiang Mai and Chiangrai (2008). Mae Ping River: Life line of Chiang Mai Province. Available at http://www.chiangmai-chiangrai.com/mae-ping- river.html. Accessed on 15 November 2008.
28. Willis, KG and JT Corkindale, eds. (1995). Environmental Valuation: New Perspectives. Wallingford, United Kingdom: CAB International.
29. World Health Organization (WHO) (2001). World Health Report 2001. Geneva:WHO.
30. World Health Organization (WHO) (2005). World Health Report 2005. Geneva:WHO.
31. WorldHealth Organization (WHO)-UNICEF (2004).Meeting theMDGDrinkingWater and Sanitation Target: A Mid-term Assessment. Geneva:WHO-UNICEF Joint Monitoring Programme.