The effect of forest land use on the cost of drinking water supply: A spatial econometric analysis

Ecological Economics

Volumn 92, Issue , 2013, Pages 126-136

  Abildtrup, Jens ^a,b   Garcia, Serge ^a,b   Stenger, Anne ^a,b  

^a CEMAGREF   (France)

^b AGROPARISTECH   (France)

Author keywords

Forest; Land uses; Spatial spillovers; Water quality; Water supply service

Indexed keywords

COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DRINKING WATER; ECONOMIC ANALYSIS; GEOGRAPHICAL REGION; LAND USE; MARKET SYSTEM; SPATIAL ANALYSIS; WATER MANAGEMENT; WATER RESOURCE; WATER SUPPLY;

EID: 84879312578     PISSN: 09218009     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2013.01.004     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Abildtrup J., Strange N. The option value of non-contaminated forest watersheds. Forest Policy and Economics 2000, 1:115-125.
2. Anselin L. Spatial Econometrics: Methods and Models 1988, Kluwer, Dordrecht.
3. Anselin L. Spatial effects in econometric practice in environmental and resource economics. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 2001, 83:705-710.
4. Atasoy M., Palmquist R.B., Phaneuf D.J. Estimating the effects of urban residential development on water quality using microdata. Journal of Environmental Management 2006, 79(4):399-408.
5. Biao Z., Wenhua L., Gaodi X., Yu X. Water conservation of forest ecosystem in Beijing and its value. Ecological Economics 2010, 69:1416-1426.
6. Boyer M., Garcia S. Regulation and management regime: an econometric study of price and performance in the water supply industry. Annals of Economics and Statistics/Annales d'Économie et de Statistique 2008, 90:35-74. (in French).
7. Chakir R., Le Gallo J. Predicting land use allocation in France: A spatial panel data analysis 2012, Ecological Economics. 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.04.009.
8. Chakir R., Parent O. Determinants of land use changes: a spatial multinomial probit approach. Papers in Regional Science 2009, 88(2):327-344.
9. Clark R.M., Stevie R.G. A water supply cost model incorporating spatial variables. Land Economics 1982, 57(1):18-32.
10. Dale L., Fisher A., Hanemann M., Schlenker W., Fujita K., Millstein D. Economic impacts of climate change on agricultural water use in California. University of California, Berkeley, for the California Energy Commission, PIER Energy-Related Environmental Research 2005, (CEC-500-2005-054).
11. Ernst C., Gullick R., Nixon K. Protecting the source - conserving forests to protect water. American Water Works Association 2004, 30(5):3-7.
12. Fingleton B., Le Gallo J. Estimating spatial models with endogenous variables, a spatial lag and spatially dependent disturbances: finite sample properties. Papers in Regional Science 2008, 87(3):319-339.
13. Garcia S., Thomas A. The structure of municipal water supply costs: application to a panel of French local communities. Journal of Productivity Analysis 2001, 16:5-29.
14. o 482/2009 2009.
15. Hascic I., Wu J.J. Land use and watershed health in the United States. Land Economics 2006, 82(2):214-239.
16. Heckman J. The common structure of statistical models of truncation, sample selection, and limited dependant variables and a simple estimator for such Models. The Annals of Economic and Social Measurement 1976, 5:475-492.
17. Hein H., van Koppen K., de Groot R.R., van Ierland E.C. Spatial scales, stakeholders and the valuation of ecosystem services. Ecological Economics 2006, 57:209-228.
18. Jussy J.H., Koerner W., Dambrine E., Dupouey J.-L., Benoît M. Influence of former agricultural land use on net nitrate production in forest soils. European Journal of Soil Science 2002, 53:367-374.
19. Kelejian H.H., Prucha I.R. A generalized spatial two-stage least squares procedure for estimating a spatial autoregressive model with autoregressive disturbances. Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics 1998, 17:99-121.
20. Kelejian H.H., Prucha I.R. Specification and estimation of spatial autoregressive models with autoregressive and heteroskedastic disturbances. Journal of Econometrics 2010, 157(1):53-67.
21. Langpap C., Hascic I., Wu J.J. Protecting watershed ecosystems through targeted local land use policies. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 2008, 90(3):684-700.
22. Larue S., Abildtrup J., Schmitt B. Positive and negative agglomeration externalities: arbitration in the pig sector. Spatial Economic Analysis 2011, 6(2):167-183.
23. LeSage J., Pace R.K. Introduction to Spatial Econometrics. Statistics; A Series of Textbooks and Monographs 2009, 196. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.
24. Nuñez D., Nahuelhual L., Oyarzún C. Forests and water: the value of native temperate forests in supplying water for human consumption. Ecological Economics 2006, 58:606-616.
25. Pattanayak S.K., Butry D.T. Spatial complementarity of forests and farms: accounting for ecosystem services. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 2005, 87:995-1008.
26. Plunket A., Saussier S., Huet F. La dimension spatiale dans le choix des collectivités de déléguer leurs services publics : le cas de la distribution d'eau en France. Revue d'Economie Industrielle 2008, 123:45-63.
27. Willis K. Benefits and costs of forests to water supplyexit and water quality. Report to the Forestry Commission 2002, Forestry Commission, Edinburgh, (24 pp.).
28. Wu J., Segerson K. The impact of policies and land characteristics on potential groundwater pollution in Wisconsin. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 1995, 77(4):1033-1047.