Economic valuation of water in a natural protected area of an emerging economy: Recommendations for El Vizcaino Biosphere reserve, Mexico

Interciencia

Volumn 38, Issue 4, 2013, Pages 245-252

  Almendarez Hernández, Marco A ^a,b   Jaramillo Mosqueira, Luis A ^c,d   Avilés Polanco, Gerzaín ^b   Beltrán Morales, Luis F ^e,f   Hernández Trejo, Víctor ^a   Ortega Rubio, Alfredo ^b  

^a UNIVERSIDAD AUTÓNOMA DE BAJA CALIFORNIA SUR   (Mexico)

^b CENTRO DE INVESTIGACIONES BIOLÓGICAS DEL NOROESTE   (Mexico)

^c EUROPEAN UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE   (Italy)

^d UNIVERSIDAD NACIONAL AUTÓNOMA DE MÉXICO   (Mexico)

^e UNIVERSITY OF CONCEPCIÓN   (Chile)

^f INSTITUTO POLITÉCNICO NACIONAL   (Mexico)

Author keywords

Conservation; Contingent Valuation; Natural Protected Area; Water Management; Willingness to Pay

Indexed keywords

EID: 84878173322     PISSN: 03781844     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (54)

1. Akram AA, Olmstead SM (2011) The value of household water service quality in Lahore, Pakistan. Env. Resour. Econ. 49: 173-198.
2. Akter S (2008) Determinants of willingness to pay for safe drinking water: a case study in Bangladesh. Asian J. Water, Env. Pollut. 5: 85-91.
3. Arrow K, Solow R, Portney PR, Leamer EE, Radner R, Shuman H (1993) Report of the NOAA panel on contingent valuation. Federal Register 58: 4601-4614.
4. Bergstrom JC, Stoll JR, Randall A (1989) Information effects in contingent markets. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 71: 685-691.
5. Bishop RC, Heberlein TA (1979) Measuring values of extra market goods: are indirect measures biased? Am. J. Agric. Econ. 61: 926-930.
6. Boyle KJ, Bishop RC (1988) Welfare measurements using contingent valuation: A comparison of techniques. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 70: 20-28.
7. Boyle KJ, Bishop RC, Welsh MP (1985) Starting point bias in contingent valuation bidding games. Land Econ. 61: 188-194.
8. Calderon MM, Camacho LD, Carandang MG, Dizon JT, Rebugio LL, Tolentino NL (2006) Willingness to pay for improved watershed management: Evidence from metro manila, Philippines. Forest Sci. Technol. 2: 42-50.
9. Cameron TA, Englin J (1997) Respondent experience and contingent valuation of environmental goods. J. Env. Econ. Manag. 33: 296-313.
10. Carson RT (2000) Contingent valuation: A user's guide. Env. Sci. Technol. 34: 1413-1418.
11. Carson RT, Hanemann WM (2005) Contingent valuation. In Mäller KG, Vincent JR (Eds.) Handbook of Environmental Economics. Vol. 2. Elsevier. Amsterdam, Holland. pp. 821-936.
12. Carson RT, Hanemann WM, Kopp RJ, Krosnick JA, Mitchell RC, Presser S, Rudd PA, Smith VK, Conaway M, Martin K (1997) Temporal reliability of estimates from contingent valuation. Land Econ. 73: 151-163.
13. Casey JF, Kahn JR, Rivas A (2006) Willingness to pay for improved water service in Manaus, Amazonas, Brazil. Ecol. Econ. 58: 365-372.
14. CNA (2002a) Plan de Manejo Integrado del Agua para el Acuífero de Maneadero, BC. Comisión Nacional del Agua. Mexico. 130 pp.
15. CNA (2002b) Determinación de la disponibilidad de Agua en el acuífero Vizcaíno Estado de Baja California Sur. Comisión Nacional del Agua. Mexico. 18 pp.
16. CNA (2003) Manejo Sostenible del Agua y la Ordenación Territorial del Estado de Querétaro Fase I y II. Comisión Nacional del Agua. Mexico. 44 pp.
17. CNA (2004) Estadísticas del Agua en México. Comisión Nacional del Agua. Mexico. 143 pp.
18. Cochran WG (1977) Sampling Techniques. Wiley. New York, USA. 428 pp.
19. Cummings RG, Ganderton PT, McGuckin T (1994) Substitution effects in CVM values. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 76: 205-214.
20. CVGM (1997) Valuing Ground Water: Economic Concepts and Approaches. Committee on Valuing Ground Water. National Research Council. National Academies Press. www.nap.edu/catalog/5498.html (Cons. 09/2011).
21. Dourojeanni A (1994) La gestión del agua y las cuencas en América Latina. Rev. CEPAL 53: 11-127.
22. Dourojeanni A (2001) Water Management at the River Basin Level: Challenges in Latin America. Serie Recursos Naturales e Infraestructura No 29. CEPAL Santiago, Chile. 77 pp.
23. Dourojeanni A, Jouravlev A (2002) Evolución de Políticas Hídricas en América Latina y el Caribe. Serie Recursos Naturales e Infraestructura No 51. CEPAL Santiago, Chile. 74 pp.
24. Dourojeanni A, Jouravlev A, Chávez G (2002) Gestión del Agua a Nivel de Cuencas: Teoría y Práctica. Serie Recursos Naturales e Infraestructura No 47. CEPAL Santiago, Chile. 83 pp.
25. Edwards SF (1988) Option prices for groundwater protection. J. Env. Econ. Manag. 15: 475-487.
26. Hanemann WM (1994) Valuing the environment through contingent valuation. J. Econ. Perspect. 8: 19-43.
27. Hanemann WM, Barbara K (1998) The Statistical Analysis of Discrete Response CV Data. Working Paper No 798. Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Policy, University of California at Berkeley. Berkeley, California. 110 pp.
28. Hite D, Hudson D, Intarapapong W (2002) Willingness to pay for water quality improvements: The case of precision application of technology. J. Agric. Resource Econ. 27: 433-449.
29. Hoehn JP, Randall A (1987) A satisfactory benefit cost indicator from contingent valuation. J. Env. Econ. Manag. 14: 226-247.
30. INE (2005) Manual para el Desarrollo del Programa de Pago por Servicios Ambientales Hidrológicos Locales. Instituto Nacional de Ecología. Dirección General de Investigación y Política y Economía Ambiental. Mexico. 7 5 p p.
31. INEGI (1996) Estudio Hidrológico del Estado de Baja California Sur. Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Geografía. Mexico. 205 pp.
32. INEGI (2000) XII Censo General de Población y Vivienda 2000. Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Geografía. Mexico. www.inegi.org.mx (Cons. 10/2010).
33. Jordan JL, Elnagheeb AH (1993) Willingness to pay for improvements in drinking water quality. Water Resourc. Res. 29: 237-245.
34. Kanyoka P, Farolfi S, Morardet S (2008) Households' preferences and willingness to pay for multiple water services in rural areas of South Africa: An analysis based on choice modeling. Water SA 34: 715-723.
35. Kosoy N, Martinez-Tuna M, Muradian R, Martinez-Alier J (2007) Payments for environmental services in watersheds: Insights from a comparative study of three cases in Central America Ecol. Econ. 61: 446-455.
36. Kriström B, Riera P (1996) Is the income elasticity of environmental improvements less than one? Env. Resource Econ. 7: 45-55.
37. Lichtenberg E, Zimmerman R (1999) Farmers' willingness to pay for groundwater protection. Water Resourc. Res. 35: 833-841.
38. Lohr SL (2009) Sampling: Design and Analysis. Brooks/Cole, Cengage Learning. Boston, MA, USA. 608 pp.
39. McFadden D (1994) Contingent valuation and social choice. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 76: 689-708.
40. Milon JW (1989) Contingent valuation experiments for strategic behavior. J. Env. Econ. Manag. 17: 293-308.
41. Mitchell RC, Carson RT (1989) Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Method. Resources for the Future. Washington, DC, USA. 488 pp.
42. Muñoz-Piña C, Guevara A, Torres JM, Braña J (2008) Paying for the hydrological services of Mexico's forests: Analysis, negotiation, and results. Ecol. Econ. 65: 725-736.
43. OECD (1995) The Economic Appraisal of Environmental Projects and Policy: A Practical Guide. Paris, France. 171 pp.
44. Ortega-Pacheco DV, Lupi F, Kaplowitz MD (2009) Payment for environmental services: Estimating demand within a tropical watershed. J. Nat. Resourc. Policy Res. 1: 189-202.
45. Scheaffer RL, Mendenhall W, Lyman O (1996) Elementary Survey Sampling. 5th ed. Wadsworth. Boston, MA, USA 324 pp.
46. Shultz SD, Lindsay BE (1990) The willingness to pay for groundwater protection. Water Resourc. Res. 26: 1869-1875.
47. Shultz S, Soliz B (2007) Stakeholder willingness to pay for watershed restoration in rural Bolivia. J. Am. Water Resourc. Assoc. 43: 947-956.
48. Soto G, Bateman IJ (2006) Scope sensitivity in households' willingness to pay for maintained and improved water supplies in a developing world urban area: investigating the influence of baseline supply and income distribution upon stated preferences in Mexico City. Water Resourc. Res. 42: 1-15.
49. Spencer MA, Swallow SK, Miller CJ (1998) Valuing water quality monitoring: a contingent valuation experiment involving hypothetical and real payments. Agric. Resourc. Econ. Rev. 27: 28-42.
50. Thayer MA (1981) Contingent valuation techniques for assessing environmental impacts: Further evidence. J. Env. Econ. Manag. 8: 27-44.
51. Vásquez WF, Mozumder P, Hernández-Arce J, Berrens RP (2009) Willingness to pay for safe drinking water evidence from Parral, Mexico. J. Env. Manag. 90: 3391-3400.
52. Wang H, Xie J, Li H (2010) Water pricing with household surveys: A study of acceptability and willingness to pay in Chongqing, China. China Econ. Rev. 21: 136-149.
53. Whitehead JC, Blomquist GC (1991) Measuring contingent values for wetlands: Effects of information about related environmental goods. Water Resourc. Res. 27: 2523-2531.
54. Whittington D (2002) Improving the performance of contingent valuation studies in developing countries. Env. Resourc. Econ. 22: 323-367.