Economic value of conserving river water quality: Results from a contingent valuation survey in Yamuna river basin, India

Water Policy

Volumn 12, Issue 2, 2010, Pages 260-271

  Nallathiga, Ramakrishna ^a   Paravasthu, Rambabu ^b  

^a Centre for Good Governance   (India)

^b Cantor CO2e India Private Limited   (India)

Author keywords

CVM; River water quality; Water quality conservation; Willingness to pay; Yamuna river basin

Indexed keywords

EID: 77950840313     PISSN: 13667017     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2166/wp.2009.166     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. Barton, D. N. (1998). Applying NOAA Panel Recommendations to Contingent Valuation Studies in Developing Countries: A Case Study of Coastal Water Quality in Costa Rica. Discussion Paper No. D-24/1998, Centre for Studies of Environment and Resources, University of Bergen, Norway.
2. Blamey, R., Bennett, J. & Morrison, J. (1999). Yea-saying in contingent valuation surveys. Land Economics, 75, 126-141.
3. Brox, J. A., Kumar, R. C. & Strolley, K. R. (1996). Willingness to pay for water quality and supply enhancements in the Grand river watershed. Canadian Water Resources Journal, 21(3), 275-285.
4. Carson, R. & Mitchell, R. C. (1993). The value of clean water: the public's willingness to pay for boatable, fishable and swimmable quality water. Water Resources Research, 29(7), 2445-2454.
5. Chatterji, D. (1997). Economic evaluation of urban water supply schemes. Economic and Political Weekly of India, June 28.
6. Diamond, P. A. & Hausman, J. A. (1994). Contingent valuation: is some number better than no number? Journal of Economic Perspectives, 8, 45-64.
7. Feenberg, D. & Mills, S. E. (1987). Measuring Benefits of Water Pollution Abatement. Academic Press, London.
8. Hadkar, N., Sharma, S., David, A. & Muraleedharan, T. R. (1997). Willingness-to-pay for Borivali National Park: evidence from a contingent valuation. Ecological Economics, 21(2), 105-122.
9. Kotchen, M. J. & Reiling, S. D. (2000). Environmental attitudes, motivations and contingent valuation of non-use values: a case study involving endangered species. Ecological Economics, 32, 93-107.
10. Leones, J., Colby, B., Cory, D. & Ryan, L. (1997). Measuring regional economic impacts of stream flow depletions. Water Resources Research, 33(4), 831-838.
11. Loomis, J., Lockwood, M. & DeLacy, T. (1989). Some empirical evidence on embedding effects in contingent valuation for forest protection. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 24(1), 45-55.
12. Loomis, J., Brown, T., Lucero, B. & Perterson, G. (1996). Improving validity experiments of contingent valuation methods: results of efforts to reduce the disparity of hypothetical and actual willingness to pay. Land Economics, 72(4), 450-461.
13. Markandya, A. & Murthy, M. N. (2002). Cleaning up the Ganges. Oxford University Press, Academic Foundation, New Delhi.
14. Mitchell, R. C. & Carson, R. T. (1989). Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Method. Resources for the Future, Washington, DC.
15. MoEF-GoI (2003). White Paper on Water Pollution in Delhi. Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India, New Delhi.
16. Moon, W., Flokowski, W. J., Brueckner, B. & Schmof, I. (2002). Willingness to pay for environmental protection. Land Economics, 78(1), 88-102.
17. Munasinghe, M. (1995). Environmental Economics and Sustainable Development. World Bank Environment Paper No. 3, The World Bank, Washington, DC.
18. Nash, C. A. (1978). The theory of social cost measurement. In The Valuation of Social Cost. Pearce, D. W. (ed.). George Allen & Unwin, London, pp. 8-30.
19. Navrud, S. (1995). Estimating social benefits of environmental improvements from reduced acid depositions: a contingent valuation survey. In Valuation Methods and Policy Making in Environmental Economics. Congress on Environmental Policy in a Market Economy, Wageningen, the Netherlands, 8-11 Sept. 1987. Folmer, H. & Ierland, E. V. (eds). Elsevier Science Publishers, BV, Netherlands.
20. Piper, S. (1996). Using contingent valuation and benefit transfer to evaluate water supply improvement benefits. Journal of American Water Works Association, 34(2), 311-320.
21. Platt, J. & Piper, S. (1994). Willingness and ability to pay for rural water. In: Proceedings of 21st Annual Conference on Water Policy and Management: solving the problems, American Society for Civil Engineers, New York, pp. 157-160.
22. Raje, D. V., Dhobe, P. S. & Deshpande, A. W. (2002). Consumer's willingness to pay more for municipal supplied water: a case study. Ecological Economics, 42, 391-400.
23. Rollins, K., Frehs, J., Tate, D. & Zachariah, O. (1997). Resource valuation and public policy: consumer's willingness to pay for improving water supply infrastructure. Canadian Water Resources Journal, 22(2), 185-195.
24. Shultz, S., Pinazzo, J. & Cifuentes, M. (1998). Opportunities and limitations of contingent valuation surveys to determine national park entrance fees: evidence from Costa Rica. Environment and Development Economics, 3, 131-149.
25. Stevens, T. H., Belkner, R., Dennis, D., Kittredge, D. & Willis, C. (2000). Comparison of contingent valuation and conjoint analysis in ecosystem management. Ecological Economics, 32, 63-74.
26. Turner, R. K. (1978). Water pollution. In The Valuation of Social Cost. Pearce, D. W. (ed.). George Allen & Unwin, London, pp. 97-119.
27. Whittington, D. (1998). Administering contingent valuation surveys in developing countries. World Development, 26(1), 21-30.