Spatially induced disparities in users' and non-users' WTP for water quality improvements-Testing the effect of multiple substitutes and distance decay

Ecological Economics

Volumn 92, Issue , 2013, Pages 58-66

  Jørgensen, Sisse Liv ^a   Olsen, Søren Bøye ^b   Ladenburg, Jacob ^c   Martinsen, Louise ^a   Svenningsen, Stig Roar ^a   Hasler, Berit ^a  

^a AARHUS UNIVERSITY   (Denmark)

^b UNIVERSITY OF COPENHAGEN   (Denmark)

^c DANISH INSTITUTE OF GOVERNMENTAL RESEARCH   (Denmark)

Author keywords

Distance decay; Non users; Preference heterogeneity; Users; Water Framework Directive

Indexed keywords

CONTINGENT VALUATION; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; ECONOMIC ANALYSIS; HOMOGENEITY; NUMERICAL MODEL; ONE-DIMENSIONAL MODELING; SPATIAL ANALYSIS; WATER MANAGEMENT; WATER QUALITY;

DENMARK; FYN; ODENSE BASIN; SYDDANMARK;

EID: 84879304146     PISSN: 09218009     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.07.015     Document Type: Article

References (45)

1. Baerenklau K.A. A latent class approach to modelling endogenous spatial sorting in zonal recreation demand models. Land Economics 2010, 86(4):800-816.
2. Barton D., Navrud S., Lande N., Mills A.B. Norway. Assessing economic benefits of good eclogical status under the EU Water Framework Directive. Aquamoney case study report http://www.Aquamoney.org.
3. Bateman I.J. Bringing the real world into economic analyses of land use value: incorporating spatial complexity. Land Use Policy 2009, 26:30-42.
4. Bateman I.J., Langford I.H. Non-users' WTP for a national park: an application and critique of the contingent valuation method. Regional Studies 1997, 31(6):571-582.
5. 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 R.K. Analysing the agricultural costs and non-market benefits of implementing the Water Framework Directive. Journal of Agricultural Economics 2006, 57:221-237.
6. Bateman I.J., Day B.H., Georgiou S., Lake I. The aggregation of environmental benefit values: welfare measures, distance decay and total WTP. Ecological Economics 2006, 60:450-460.
7. Bateman I., Ferrini S., Hime S. Aquamoney: UK case study report 2008, CSERGE University of East Anglia, UK.
8. Bateman I.J., Brouwer R., Ferrini S., Schafsmaa M., Barton D.N., Dubgaard A., Hasler B., Hime S., Liekens I., Navrud S., De Nocker L., Sceponaviciute R., Seminiene D. Making benefit transfers work: deriving and testing principles for value transfers for similar and dissimilar sites using a case study of the non-market benefits of water quality improvements across Europe. Environmental and Resource Economics 2011, 10.1007/s10640-011-9476-8.
9. Bliem M., Getzner M. Valuation of ecological restoration benefits in the Danube river basin using stated preference methods-report on the Austrian case study results http://www.Aquamoney.org.
10. Bockstael N.E. Modeling economics and ecology: the importance of a spatial perspective. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 1996, 78:1168-1180.
11. Brouwer R., Martin-Ortega J., Berbel J. Spatial preference heterogeneity: a choice experiment. Land Economics 2010, 86:552-568.
12. Bulte E., Gerking S., List J.A., de Zeeuw A. The effect of varying the causes of environmental problems on stated WTP values: evidence from a field study. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 2005, 49:330-342.
13. Campbell D., Scarpa R., Hutchinson W. Assessing the spatial dependence of welfare estimates obtained from discrete choice experiments. Letters in Spatial and Resource Sciences 2008, 1:117-126.
14. Campbell D., Hutchinson W.G., Scarpa R. Using choice experiments to explore the spatial distribution of willingness to pay for rural landscape improvements. Environment & Planning A 2009, 41:97-111.
15. Croson R., Gneezy U. Gender differences in preferences. Journal of Economic Literature 2009, 47:448-474.
16. Dekker T., Koster P., Brouwer R. Changing with the tide: a semi-parametric estimation approach to analyze preference dynamics in choice experiments. European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists18th Annual Conference. 29 June - 2 July 2011. Rome 2011.
17. Douglas D.H. Least-cost path in GIS using accumulated cost surface and slopelines. Cartographica 1994, 31(3):37-51.
18. European Commission Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for community action in the field of water policy 2000, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32000L0060:EN:NOT.
19. European Commission Common implementation strategy for the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC). Guidance document on exemptions to the environmental objectives 2009.
20. Fuglsang M., Hansen H.S., Münier B. Accessibility analysis and modelling in public transport networks-a raster based approach. Computational Science and Its Applications-ICCSA 2011 2011, 207-224. Springer Berlin/ Heidelberg. B. Murgante, O. Gervasi, A. Iglesias, D. Taniar, B.O. Apduhan (Eds.).
21. Georgiou S., Bateman I., Cole M., Hadley D. Contingent ranking and valuation of river water quality improvements: testing for scope sensitivity, ordering and distance decay effects. CSERGE Working Paper GEC 2000-18 2000.
22. Groeneveld R. Framing and training to induce preference learning in choice experiments. Marine Resource Economics 2010, 25:233-245.
23. Hanley N., Schläpfer F., Spurgeon J. Aggregating the benefits of environmental improvements: distance-decay functions for use and non-use values. Journal of Environmental Management 2003, 68:297-304.
24. Hasler B., Brodersen S.L., Christensen L.P., Christensen T., Dubgaard A., Hansen H.E., Katari M., Martinsen L., Nissen C.J., Wulff A.F. Denmark-assessing economic benefits of good ecological status under the EU Water Framework Directive. AQUAMONEY 2010.
25. Hime S., Bateman I., Posen P., Hutchins M. A transferable water quality ladder for conveying use and ecological information within public surveys. EDM-2009-01. Centre for Social and Economic Research on the Global Environment (CSERGE) 2009, University of East Anglia.
26. Johnston R.J., Opaluch J.J., Mazzotta M.J., Magnusson G. Who are resource non-users and what can they tell us about nonuse values? Decomposing user and non-user willingness to pay for coastal wetland restoration. Water Resources Research 2005, 41:W07017.
27. Johnston R.J., Ramachandran M., Schultz E.T., Segerson K., Besedin E.Y. Characterizing spatial pattern in ecosystem service values when distance deacy doesn't apply: choice experiments and local indicators of spatial association. The Agricultural & Applied Economics Association's 2011 AAEA & NAREA Joint Annual Meeting, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, July 24-26, 2011 2011.
28. Kataria M., Bateman I., Christensen T., Dubgaard A., Hasler B., Hime S., Ladenburg J., Levin G., Martinsen L., Nissen C. Scenario realism and welfare estimates in choice experiments-a non-market valuation study on the European Water Framework Directive. Journal of Environmental Management 2012, 94:25-33.
29. Klaiber H.A., Phaneuf D.J. Do sorting and heterogeneity matter for open space policy analysis? An empirical comparison of hedonic and sorting models. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 2009, 91(5):1312-1318.
30. Kniivilä M. Users and non-users of conservation areas: are there differences in WTP, motives and the validity of responses in CVM surveys?. Ecological Economics 2006, 59:530-539.
31. Ladenburg J., Olsen S.B. Gender-specific starting point bias in choice experiments: evidence from an empirical study. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 2008, 56:275-285.
32. Liekens I., Nocker L.d, Schaafsma M., Wagtendonk A., Gilbert A., Brouwer R. Aquamoney case study report, International Schelt Basin http://www.aquamoney.org.
33. Loomis J.B. Vertically summing public good demand curves: an empirical comparison of economic versus political jurisdictions. Land Economics 2000, 76:312-321.
34. Mitchell R.C., Carson R.T. An experiment in determining willingness to pay for national water quality improvements, Draft report to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, June 1981, Resources for the Future, Washington. DC.
35. Moore R., Provencher B., Bishop R.C. Valuing a spatially variable environmental resource: reducing non-point-source pollution in Green Bay, Wisconsin. Land Economics 2011, 87:45-59.
36. Mouranaka A. Spatial economic evaluation of artificial Japanese cedar forest management as a countermeasure for Japanese cedar pollinosis: an analysis using a model of multizonal contingent markets with data from cities, towns and villages in Yamaguchi Prefecture. Geographical Review Japan 2004, 77:903-923.
37. Olsen S.B. Choosing between internet and mail survey modes for choice experiment surveys considering non-market goods. Environmental and Resource Economics 2009, 44(4):591-610.
38. Pate J., Loomis J. The effect of distance on willingness to pay values: a case study of wetlands and salmon in California. Ecological Economics 1997, 20:199-207.
39. Payne J.W., Schkade D.A., Desvousges W.H., Aultman C. Valuation of multiple environmental programs. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 2000, 21:95-115.
40. Rowe R.D., Schulze W.D., Breffle W.S. A test for payment card biases. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 1996, 31:178-185.
41. Schaafsma M. Directional heterogeneity in WTP-sapce models for environmental valuation. EAERE 2011, Rome, Italy 2011.
42. Sonnier G., Ainslie A., Otter T. Heterogeneity distributions of willingness-to-pay in choice models. Quantitative Marketing and Economics 2007, 5:313-331.
43. Sutherland R.J., Walsh R.G. Effect of distance on the preservation value of water quality. Land Economics 1985, 61:281-291.
44. Whitehead J.C., Blomquist G.C., Hoban T.J., Clifford W.B. Assessing the validity and reliability of contingent values: a comparison of on-site users, off-site users, and non-users. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 1995, 29:238-251.
45. Winther M. An air traffic emission inventory for Denmark in 1997 using the detailed CORINAIR calculation methodology-and suggestions for improvements. Report of the Institute for Internal Combustion Engines and Thermodynamics 1999, 76:431-440. Technical University Graz. Institute for Internal Combustion Engines and Thermodynamics. P.J. Sturm (Ed.).