Estimating the Economic Value of Landscape Losses Due to Flooding by Hydropower Plants in the Chilean Patagonia

Water Resources Management

Volumn 25, Issue 10, 2011, Pages 2449-2466

  Ponce, Roberto D ^a   Vásquez, Felipe ^a   Stehr, Alejandra ^a   Debels, Patrick ^a   Orihuela, Carlos ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CONCEPCIÓN   (Chile)

^b UNIVERSIDAD NACIONAL AGRARIA LA MOLINA   (Peru)

Author keywords

Chilean Patagonia; Contingent valuation; Distance effect; Hydro electric power; Landscape

Indexed keywords

CONTINGENT VALUATIONS; DISTANCE EFFECTS; ECONOMIC LOSS; ECONOMIC VALUES; HYDROPOWER PLANTS; HYDROPOWER PROJECTS; LANDSCAPE; LANDSCAPE IMPACTS; MAJOR CITIES; PATAGONIA; TOTAL INVESTMENT; URBAN AREAS; WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

DAMS; ECONOMIC ANALYSIS; ELECTRIC LOSSES; HYDROELECTRIC POWER; INVESTMENTS; LOSSES; PLANTS (BOTANY);

HYDROELECTRIC POWER PLANTS;

CONTINGENT VALUATION; DAM CONSTRUCTION; ECONOMIC IMPACT; ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT; ESTIMATION METHOD; FLOODING; HYDROELECTRIC POWER PLANT; LANDSCAPE; URBAN AREA; WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

CHILE; PATAGONIA;

EID: 79960706233     PISSN: 09204741     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11269-011-9820-3     Document Type: Article

References (74)

1. Adams C, Seroa da Motta R, Ortiz R, ReidJ, Ebersbach Aznar C, de Almeida Sinisgalli P (2008) The use of contingent valuation for evaluating protected areas in the developing world: economic valuation of Morro Do Diabo State Park, Atlantic Rainforest, Sao Paulo State (Brazil). Ecol Econ 359-370.
2. AGIES (2008) Análisis general del impacto económico y social. Dirección general de aguas. Ministerio de Obras Públicas. Gobierno de Chile.
3. Altaf M, DeShazo J (1994) Bid elicitation in the contingent valuation method: the double referendum format and induced strategic behaviour. Arts and Sciences, Urban Planning Committee working paper. Harvard University, Cambridge.
4. Arrow K, Solow R, Portney PR, Leamer EE, Radner R, Schuman H (1993) Report of the NOAA Panel on Contingent Valuation. Report to the General Counsel of the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Fed Regist 18(10): 4. 601-4. 614.
5. Banco Central (2005) Anuario de cuentas nacionales. Banco Central de Chile.
6. Baral N, Stern M, Bhattarai R (2008) Contingent valuation of ecotourism in Annapurna conservation area, Nepal: implications for sustainable park finance and local development. Ecol Econ 218-227.
7. Barton D (2002) The transferability of benefit transfer: contingent valuation of water quality improvements in Costa Rica. Ecol Econ 42: 147-164.
8. Bateman I, Langford I (1997) Non-users' willingness to pay for a National Park: an application and critique of the contingent valuation method. Reg Stud 31: 571-582.
9. Bateman I, Day BD, Georgiou S (2009) Procedural invariance testing of the one-and-one half-bound dichotomous choice elicitation method. Rev Econ Stat 91: 806-820.
10. Bateman I, Day B, Georgiou S (2006) The aggregation of environmental benefit values: welfare measures, distance decay and total WTP. Ecol Econ 60: 450-460.
11. Breffle W, Morey E, Lodder T (1998) Using contingent valuation to estimate a neighbourhood's willingness to pay to preserve undeveloped urban land. Urban Stud 35: 715-727.
12. Briscoe J, Furtado de Castro P, Griffin C, North J, Olsen O (1990) Toward equitable and sustainable rural water supplies: a contingent valuation study in Brazil. World Bank Econ Rev 4: 115-134.
13. Brouwer R, Akter S, Brander L, Haque E (2009) Economic valuation of flood risk exposure and reduction in a severely flood prone developing country. Environ Dev Econ 14: 397-417.
14. Brunstad R, Gaasland I, Vardal E (1999) Agricultural production and the optimal level of landscape preservation. Land Econ 75: 538-546.
15. Carson R (2007) Contingent valuation: a comprehensive bibliography and history. Edward Elgar, Northampton.
16. Carson R, Conaway M, Hanemann M, Krosnick J, Mitchell R, Presser S (2004) Valuing oils spill prevention: a case study of California's central coast. Kluwer, Dordrecht.
17. Carson R, Flores N, Hanemann M (1998) Sequencing and valuing public goods. J Environ Econ Manage 36: 314-323.
18. Carson R, Mitchell R, Hanemann M, Kopp R, Presser S, Ruud P (1992) A contingent valuation study of lost passive use values resulting from the Exxon Valdex oil spill. Report to the Attorney General of Alaska, La Jolla, CA.
19. Carson R, Mitchell R, Hanemann M, Kopp R, Presser S, Ruud P (2003) Contingent valuation and lost passive use: damages from the Exxon Valdez oil spill. Environ Resour Econ 25: 257-286.
20. CASEN (2006) Encuesta de caracterizacion socioeconomica nacional. Ministerio de Planificacion y Cooperacion.
21. Casey J, Kahn J, Rivas A (2006) Willingness to pay for improved water service in Manaus, Amazonas, Brazil. Ecol Econ 58: 365-372.
22. CENSO (2002) XVII censo nacional de población y vivienda. Instituto Nacional de Estadísticas (INE). Gobierno de Chile.
23. Cicia G, Scarpa R (2000) Willingness to pay for rural landscape preservation: a case study in Mediterranean agriculture. Workin Paper n° 59. FEEM 1-21.
24. Concu G (2007) Investigating distance effects on environmental values: a choice modelling approach. Aust J Agric Resour Econ 51: 175-194.
25. Cooper J, Hanemann M, Signorello G (2002) One-and-one-hal bounded dichotomous choice contingent valuation. Rev Econ Stat 84(4): 742-750.
26. Desvousges W, Johnson F, Dunford R, Boyle K, Hudson S, Wilson K (1993) Measuring natural resource damages with contingent valuation: tests of validity and reliability. In: Hausman J (ed) Contingent valuation, a critical assessment. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 91-164.
27. Desvousges W, Smith V, Fisher A (1987) Option price estimates for water quality improvements: a contingent valuation study for the monongahela river. J Environ Econ Manage 14: 246-267.
28. DGA (2007) Base cartográfica oficial. Dirección general de aguas. Ministerio de Obras Públicas. Gobierno de Chile.
29. Diamond P, Hausman J (1994) Contingent valuation: is some number better than no number? J Econ Perspect 8: 45-64.
30. El Chami D, El Moujabber M, Scardigno A (2009) Regional water balance and economic assessment as tools for water management in Coastal Lebanon. Water Resour Manag 23: 2361-2378.
31. Freeman A III (2003) Economic valuation: what and why? In: Champ P, Boyle K, Brown T (eds) A primer on nonmarket valuation. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 1-25.
32. Genius M, Hatzaki E, Kouromichelaki E, Kouvakis G, Nikiforaki S, Tsagarakis P (2008) Evaluating consumers' willingness to pay for improved potable water quality and quantity. Water Resour Manag 22: 1825-1834.
33. Gentleman R, Geyer C (1994). Maximum likelihood for interval censored data: consistency and computation. Biometrika 81(3): 618-623.
34. Georgiou S, Bateman I, Cole M, Hadley D (2000) Contingent ranking and valuation of river water quality improvements: testing for scope sensitivity, ordering and distance decay effects. CSERGE Working Paper n° 18.
35. Groothuis P, Groothuis J, Whitehead J (2008) Green vs. green: measuring the compensation required to site electrical generation windmills in a viewshed. Energy Policy 36: 1545-1550.
36. Haab T, McConnell K (1997) Valuing environmental and natural resources: the econometrics of non market valuation. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.
37. Hammitt J, Zhou Y (2006) The economic value of air-pollution-related health risks in china: a contingent valuation study. Environ Resour Econ 33: 399-423.
38. Hanemann M (1989) Welfare evaluations in contingent valuation experiments with discrete response data: reply. Am J Agric Econ 71: 1057-1061.
39. Hanemann M (1984) Welfare evaluations in contingent valuation experiments with discrete responses. Am J Agric Econ 66: 332-341.
40. Hanemann M, Kanninen M (1999) The statistical analysis of discrete-response CV data. In: Bateman IJ, Willis KG (eds) Valuing environmental preferences: theory and practice of the contingent valuation method in the US, EC, and developing countries. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
41. Hanemann M, Vasquez F (2005) Embedding in stated preferences. Working paper, Universidad de California, Berkeley.
42. Hanley N, Colombo S, Kriström B (2008) Accounting for negative. Zero and positive willingness to pay for landscape change in a national park. Stirling Economics Discussion Paper No 10, pp 1-27.
43. Hanley N, Schlapfer F, Spurgeon J (2003) Aggregating the benefits of environmental improvements: distance-decay functions for use and non-use values. J Environ Manag 68: 297-304.
44. Hensher D, Rose J, Greene W (2005) Applied choice analysis: a primer. Cambridge University Press, New York.
45. HIDROAYSEN (2008) Presentación proyecto hidroeléctrico aysén. Casas Abiertas.
46. Hynes S, Hanley N (2006) Preservation versus development on Irish rivers: whitewater kayaking and hydro-power in Ireland. Land Use Policy 170-180.
47. Kahneman D, Knetsch J (1992a) Contingent valuation and value of public goods: reply. J Environ Econ Manage 90-94.
48. Kahneman D, Knetsch J (1992b) Valuing public goods: the purchase of moral satisfaction. J Environ Econ Manage 22: 90-94.
49. Kohlin G (2001) Contingent valuation in project planning and evaluation: the case of social forestry in Orissa, India. Environ Dev Econ 6: 237-258.
50. Kontogianni A, Langford I, Papandreou A, Skourtos M (2003) Social preferences for improving water quality: an economic analysis of benefits from wastewater treatment. Water Resour Manag 17: 317-336.
51. Koundouri P, Kountouris Y, Remoundou K (2009) Valuing a wind farm construction: a contingent valuation study in Greece. Energy Policy 37: 1939-1944.
52. Kriström B (1990) A non-parametric approach to the estimation of welfare measures in discrete response valuation studies. Land Econ 66: 135-139.
53. Kristrom B, Riera P (1996) Is the income elasticity of environmental improvements less than one? Environ Resour Econ 7: 45-55.
54. Ladenburg J, Dubgaard A (2007) Willingness to pay for reduced visual disamenities from offshore wind farms in Denmark. Energy Policy 35: 4059-4071.
55. Lee C, Mjelde J (2006) Valuation of ecotourism resources using a contingent valuation method: the case of the Korean DMZ. Ecol Econ 63: 511-520.
56. Lienhoop N, MacMillan D (2007) Valuing wilderness in Iceland: estimation of WTA and WTP using the market stall approach to contingent valuation. Land Use Policy 24: 289-295.
57. Lienhoop N, Messner F (2008) The economic value of allocating water to post-mining lakes in East Germany. Water Resour Manag 23: 965-980.
58. Loomis J (1996) Measuring the economic benefits of removing dams and restoring the Elwha River: results of a contingent valuation survey. Water Resour Res 32: 441-447.
59. Louviere J, Hensher D, Swait J (2000) State choice models: analysis and applications. Cambrige University Press, New York.
60. Meyerhoff J, Ohl C, Hartje V (2009) Landscape externalities from on-shore wind power. Energy Policy 38(1): 82-92.
61. Minhaj M (2009) On the contingent valuation of mortality risk reduction in developing countries. Appl Econ 41(2): 171-181.
62. Mitchell R, Carson R (1989) Using surveys to value public goods: the contingent valuation approach. Resources for the Future, Washington DC.
63. Muñoz M (2006) Los paisajes del agua en la cuenca del rio baker: evaluacion de sus potencialidades para el desarrollo turistico y la integracion territorial de los centros poblados. Proyecto Fondecyt 1060633.
64. Nallathiga R, Paravasthu R (2010) Economic value of conserving river water quality: results from a contingent valuation survey in Yamuna river basin, India. Water Policy 12: 260-271.
65. Navrud S, Ready R, Magnussen K (2008) Valuing the social benefits of avoiding landscape degradation from overhead power transmission lines: do underground cables pass the benefit-cost test? Landsc Res 33: 281-296.
66. Ojeda M, Mayer A, Solomon B (2008) Economic valuation of environmental services sustained by water flows in the Yaqui River Delta. Ecol Econ 65: 155-166.
67. Pate J, Loomis J (1997) The effect of distance on willingness to pay values: a case study of wetlands and salmon in California. Ecol Econ 20: 199-207.
68. Robbins J, Lewis L (2008) Demolish it and they will come: estimating the economic impacts of restoring a recreational fishery. J Am Water Resour Assoc 44: 1488-1499.
69. Shultz S, Pinazzo J, Cifuentes M (1998) Opportunities and limitations of contingent valuation surveys to determine national park entrance fees: evidence from Costa Rica. Environ Dev Econ 3: 131-149.
70. Turnbull B (1976) The empirical distribution function with arbitrarily grouped, censored and truncated data. J R Stat Soc 8: 290-95.
71. Verbic M, Erker R (2007) An econometric analysis of willingness to pay for sustainable development: a case study of the Volcji Potok Landscape Area. Working Paper n° 53. ENEPRI, 1-26.
72. Wei Y, Davidson B, Chen D, White R, Li B (2007) Can contingent valuation be used to measure the in situ value of groundwater on the North China plain? Water Resour Manag 21: 1735-1749.
73. Weldesilassie A, Frör O, Boelee E, Dabbert S (2009) The economic value of improved wastewater irrigation: a contingent valuation study in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. J Agric Res Econ 34: 428-449.
74. Zhai G, Suzuki T (2009) Evaluating economic value of coastal waterfront in Tokyo Bay, Japan with willingness-to-accept measure. Water Res Manag 23: 633-645.