Benefit transfer and spatial heterogeneity of preferences for water quality improvements

Journal of Environmental Management

Volumn 106, Issue , 2012, Pages 22-29

  Martin Ortega, J ^a   Brouwer, R ^b   Ojea, E ^c   Berbel, J ^d  

^a SCOTTISH CROP RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (United Kingdom)

^b VU UNIVERSITY AMSTERDAM   (Netherlands)

^c BASQUE CENTRE FOR CLIMATE CHANGE BC3   (Spain)

^d UNIVERSITY OF CÓRDOBA   (Spain)

Author keywords

Benefit transfer; Choice experiment; Random parameter logit; Spatial heterogeneity; Water framework directive

Indexed keywords

ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS; WATER CONSERVATION;

BENEFIT TRANSFER; CHOICE EXPERIMENTS; NON-MARKET BENEFITS; RANDOM PARAMETERS LOGIT; RIVER BASINS; SPATIAL HETEROGENEITY; SPATIALLY EXPLICIT; WATER FRAMEWORK DIRECTIVES; WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENTS; WIDE SPREADS;

WATER QUALITY;

ERROR ANALYSIS; EUROPEAN UNION; EXPERIMENTAL STUDY; HETEROGENEITY; LOGIT ANALYSIS; PREFERENCE BEHAVIOR; PROFITABILITY; RIVER BASIN; SPATIAL ANALYSIS; SPATIAL DISTRIBUTION; WATER PLANNING; WATER QUALITY;

ARTICLE; EUROPE; RIVER BASIN; SPAIN; TOTAL QUALITY MANAGEMENT; WATER QUALITY;

ANDALUCIA; GUADALQUIVIR BASIN; SPAIN;

EID: 84860335026     PISSN: 03014797     EISSN: 10958630     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.03.031     Document Type: Article

References (70)

1. Baker B., Metcalfe P., Butler S., Gueron Y., Sheldon R., East J. Report on the Benefits of Water Framework Directive Programmes of Measure in England and Wales 2007, DEFRA, United Kingdom.
2. Barton D.N. The transferability of benefit transfer: contingent valuation of water quality improvements in Costa Rica. Ecol. Econ. 2002, 42:147-164.
3. Bateman I.J., Jones A.P. Contrasting conventional with multi-level modeling approaches to meta-analysis: An illustration using UK woodland recreation values. Land Econ. 2003, 79(2):235-258.
4. Bateman I.J., Brouwer R., Davies H., Day B.H., Deflandre A., Falco S.D., Georgiou S., Hadley D., Hutchins M., Jones A.P., Kay D., Leeks G., Lewis M., Lovett A.A., Neal C., Posen P., Rigby D., Turner K. Analysing the agricultural costs and non-market benefits of implementing the Water Framework Directive. J. Agric. Econ. 2006, 57:221-237.
5. Bateman, I.J., Brouwer, R., Ferrini, S., Schaafsma, M., Barton, D.N., Dubgaard, A., Hasler, B., Hime, S., Liekens, I., Navrud, S., De Nocker, L., Ščeponavičiūte R., Semeniene, D., 2009. Making Benefit Transfers Work: transferring theoretically derived, spatially explicit, value functions for the non-market benefits of water quality improvements across Europe. CSERGE Working Paper EDM 09-10.
6. Bateman I.J., Day B.H., Georgiou S., Lake I. The aggregation of environmental benefit values: welfare measures, distance decay and total WTP. Ecol. Econ. 2006, 60:450-460.
7. Bederli Tümay A., Brouwer R. Non-market valuation of water quality in a rural transition economy in Turkey applying an a-posteriori bid design. Water Resour. Res. 2007, 43:W05436.
8. Ben-Akiva M., Lerman S.R. Discrete Choice Analysis: Theory and Application to Travel Demand 1985, The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
9. Bergland O., Magnussen K., Navrud S. Benefit Transfer: Testing for Accuracy and Reliability 1995, Discussion Paper 03/1995, Department of Economics and Social Sciences, Norway.
10. Bhat C.R. Quasi-random maximum simulated likelihood estimation of the mixed multinomial logit model. Transport Res. B-Meth. 2001, 35:677-693.
11. Birol E., Karousakis K., Koundouri P. Using a choice experiment to account for preference heterogeneity in wetland attributes: the case of Cheimaditida wetland in Greece. Ecol. Econ. 2006, 60(1):145-156.
12. Brouwer R. Environmental value transfer: state of the art and future prospects. Ecol. Econ. 2000, 32(1):137-152.
13. Brouwer, R., 2000b. Multi-Attribute choice modeling of Australia's rivers and wetlands: a meta-analysis of ten years of research. CSIRO Working Paper Series 2009-05.
14. Brouwer R. The potential role of stated preference methods in the Water Framework Directive to assess disproportionate costs. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 2008, 51:597-614.
15. Brouwer R., Bateman I.J. Benefits transfer of willingness to pay estimates and functions for health-risk reductions: a cross-country study. J. Health Econ. 2005, 24:591-611.
16. Brouwer, R., Bliem, M., Flachner, Z., Getzner, M., Kerekes, S., Milton, S., Palarie, T., Szerényi, Z., Vadineanu, A., Wagtendonk, A., 2009. Ecosystem service valuation from floodplain restoration in the Danube River Basin: an international choice experiment application. 17th Annual Conference of the European Association of Environmental and Resource Economist, 24-27 June 2009, Amsterdam.
17. Brouwer R., Martin-Ortega J., Berbel J. Spatial preference heterogeneity: a choice experiment. Land Econ. 2010, 86(3):552-568.
18. Bueren M., Bennett J. Towards the development of a transferable set of value estimates for environmental attributes. Aust. J. Agric. Resour. Econ. 2004, 48:1-32.
19. Carson R.T., Mitchell R.C. The value of clean water: the public's willingness to pay for boatable, fishable and swimmable quality water. Water Resour. Res. 1993, 29(7):2445-2454.
20. Carson R.T., Flores N.E., Meade N.F. Contingent valuation: controversies and evidence. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2001, 19(2):173-210.
21. CHG Confederación Hidrográfica del Guadalquivir (accessed 27.05.11). http://www.chguadalquivir.es.
22. Christie M., Azevedo C.D. Testing the consistency between standard contingent valuation, repeated contingent valuation and choice experiments. J. Agric. Econ. 2009, 60:154-170.
23. Colombo S., Hanley N.D., Calatrava-Requena J. Testing choice experiment for benefit transfer with preference heterogeneity. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 2007, 89(1):135-151.
24. Colombo S., Hanley N.D. How can we reduce the errors from benefits transfer? An investigation using the choice experiment method. Land Econ. 2008, 84(1):128-147.
25. Cullinan J., Hynes S., O'Donoghue C. Using spatial microsimulation to account for demographic and spatial factors in environmental benefit transfer. Ecol. Econ. 2011, 70:813-824.
26. Del Saz-Salazar S., Hernández-Sancho S.F., Sala-Garrido R. The social benefits of restoring water quality in the context of the Water Framework Directive: a comparison of willingness to pay and willingness to accept. Sci. Total Environ. 2009, 407(16):4574-4583.
27. Dziegielewska D.A., Mendelsohn R. Does 'No' mean 'No'? A protest methodology. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2007, 38:71-87.
28. Foster V., Mourato S. Elicitation format and sensitivity to scope. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2003, 24:141-160.
29. Glenk K., Lago M., Moran D. Public preferences for water quality improvements: implications for the implementation of the EC Water Framework Directive in Scotland. Water Policy 2011, 13(5):645-662.
30. Gutiérrez C., Martin-Ortega J., Berbel J. Situación y tendencias del uso agrícola del agua en la cuenca del Guadalquivir. Rev. Estudios Agrosoc. Pesqueros 2009, 220(4):163-176.
31. Hanley N., MacMillan D., Wright R.E., Bullock C., Simpson I., Parsisson D., Crabtree B. Contingent valuation versus choice experiments: estimating the benefits of environmentally sensitive areas in Scotland. J. Agric. Econ. 1998, 49:1-15.
32. Hanley N., MacMillan D. Contingent valuation versus choice experiments: estimating the benefits of environmentally sensitive areas in Scotland: reply. J. Agric. Econ. 2000, 51:129-132.
33. Hanley N., Mourato S., Wright R.E. Choice modeling approaches: a superior alternative for environmental valuation?. J. Econ. Surveys 2001, 15:435-462.
34. Hanley N., Wright R., Álvarez-Farizo B. Estimating the economic value of improvements in river ecology using choice experiments: an application to the water framework directive. J. Environ. Manag. 2006, 78:183-193.
35. Hanley N., Colombo S., Tinch D., Black A., Aftab A. Estimating the benefits of water quality improvements under the water framework directive: are benefits transferable?. Eur. Rev. Agric. Econ. 2006, 33(3):391-413.
36. Hensher D., Rose J., Greene W. Applied Choice Analysis. A Primer 2005, Cambridge University Press.
37. Hensher D., Johnson L. Applied Discrete Choice Modeling 1981, Wiley, New York.
38. Johnston R.J., Duke J.M. Socioeconomic adjustments and choice experiment benefit function transfer: evaluating the common wisdom. Resour. Energy Econ. 2010, 32:421-438.
39. Johnston R.J., Thomassin P.J. Willingness to pay for water quality improvements in the United States and Canada: considering possibilities for international meta-analysis and benefits transfer. Agric. Resour. Econ. Rev. 2010, 39(1):114-131.
40. Jorgensen B., Syme S., Bishop G.J., Nancarrow B.J. Protest responses in contingent valuation. Environ. Resour. Econ. 1999, 14(1):131-150.
41. Kosenius A. Heterogeneous preferences for water quality attributes: the case of eutrophication in the Gulf of Finland, the Baltic Sea. Ecol. Econ. 2010, 69:528-538.
42. Kristofersson D., Navrud S. Validity tests of benefit transfer. Are we performing the wrong tests?. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2005, 30(3):279-286.
43. Loomis J.B. The evolution of a more rigorous approach to benefit transfer: benefit function transfer. Water Resour. Res. 1992, 28(3):701-705.
44. Martin-Ortega J., Gutiérrez C., Berbel J. Caracterización de los usos del agua en la demarcación del Guadalquivir en aplicación de la Directiva Marco de Aguas. Rev. Estudios Region. 2008, 81:45-76.
45. Martin-Ortega J., Berbel J. Using multi-criteria analysis to explore non-market monetary values of water quality changes in the context of the Water Framework Directive. Sci. Total Environ. 2010, 408:3990-3997.
46. Martin-Ortega J., Gianocaro G., Berbel J. Environmental and resource costs under water scarcity conditions: an estimation in the context of the European Water Framework Directive. Water Resour. Manag. 2011, 25:623-640.
47. McFadden D. Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behaviour. Frontiers in Econometrics 1974, 105-142. Academic Press, New York. P. Zarembka (Ed.).
48. McFadden D., Train K. Mixed MNL models for discrete response. J. Appl. Econ. 2000, 15:447-470.
49. Mitchell R., Carson N. Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Methods 1989, Resources for the Future, Washington DC.
50. Moeltner K., Boyle K.J., Paterson R.W. Meta-analysis and benefit transfer for resource valuation-addressing classical challenges with Bayesian modeling. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 2007, 53(2):250-269.
51. Morrison M., Bennett J. Choice modeling, non-use values and benefit transfers. Econ. Anal. Policy 2000, 30(1):13-32.
52. Morrison M., Bennett J. Valuing New South Wales rivers for use in benefits transfer. Aust. J. Agric. Resour. Econ. 2004, 48(4):591-611.
53. Morrison M., Bergland O. Prospects for the use of choice modeling for benefit transfer. Ecol. Econ. 2006, 60:420-428.
54. Morrison M., Bennett J., Blamey R., Louviere J. Choice modeling and tests of benefit transfer. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 2002, 84:161-170.
55. Muthke T., Holm-Muller K. National and international benefit transfer testing with a rigorous test procedure. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2004, 29:323-336.
56. Navrud, S., Brouwer, R., 2007. Good practice guidelines in benefit transfer of forest externalities, COST Action E45, European Forest Externalities, Euroforex.
57. Navrud S., Ready R. Review of methods for value transfer. Environmental Value Transfer: Issues and Methods 2007, Springer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands. S. Navrud, R. Ready (Eds.).
58. Parsons G.R., Kealy M.J. Benefits transfer in a random utility model of recreation. Water Resour. Res. 1994, 30(8):2477-2484.
59. Ready R., Navrud S., Day B., Dubourg R., Machado F., Mourato S., Spaninks F., Vazquez Rodriquez M.X. Benefit transfer in Europe: how reliable are transfers between countries?. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2004, 29:67-82.
60. Rolfe J., Bennett J., Louviere J. Choice modeling and its potential application to tropical rainforest preservation. Ecol. Econ. 2000, 35(2):289-302.
61. Rosenberger R.S., Loomis J.B. Using meta-analysis for benefit transfer: in-sample convergent validity tests of an outdoor recreation database. Water Resour. Res. 2000, 36(4):1097-1107.
62. Rosenberger Randall S., Stanley T.D. Measurement, generalization, and publication: Sources of error in benefit transfers and their management. Ecol. Econ. 2006, 60:372-378.
63. Rozan A. Benefit transfer: a comparison of WTP for air quality between France and Germany. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2004, 29:295-306.
64. Scarpa R. Contingent valuation versus choice experiments: estimating the benefits of environmentally sensitive areas in Scotland: comment. J. Agric. Econ. 2000, 51:122-128.
65. Train K. Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation 2003, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
66. Troy A., Wilson M.A. Mapping ecosystem services: practical challenges and opportunities in linking GIS and value transfer. Ecol. Econ. 2006, 60:435-449.
67. Van den Berg T.P., Poe G.L., Powell J.R. Assessing the accuracy of benefits transfers: evidence from a multi-site contingent valuation study of groundwater quality. The Economic Value of Water Quality 2001, Edward Elgar, Massachusetts. J.C. Bergstrom, K.J. Boyle, G.L. Poe (Eds.).
68. Whitehead J., Groothuis P.A., Blomquist G.C. Testing for non-response and sample selection bias in contingent valuation: analysis of a combination phone/mail survey. Econ. Lett. 1993, 41(2):215-220.
69. Wilson M.A., Hoehn J.B. Valuing environmental goods and services using benefit transfer: state-of-the art and science. Ecol. Econ. 2006, 60:335-342.
70. Woodward R.T., Wui Y.S. The economic value of wetland services: a meta-analysis. Ecol. Econ. 2001, 37(2):257-270.