Improving water quality in England and Wales: Local endowments and willingness to pay

International Journal of Environmental Research

Volumn 7, Issue 3, 2013, Pages 623-632

  Solino M ^a   Joyce, J ^b   Farizo, A ^c  

^a Instituto Nacional de Investigación y Tecnología Agraria y Alimentaria   (Spain)

^b Stockholm International Water Institute   (Sweden)

^c Institute of Public Goods and Policies   (Spain)

Author keywords

Contingent valuation; Dichotomous choice; Diminishing marginal value; Payment card; Scope test

Indexed keywords

CONTINGENT VALUATION; DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY; ENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMICS; EUROPEAN UNION; LEGISLATION; WATER PLANNING; WATER QUALITY; WELFARE IMPACT; WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

ENGLAND; UNITED KINGDOM; WALES;

EID: 84882277136     PISSN: 17356865     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. Arrow, K., Solow, R., Leamer, E., Radner, R. and Schuman, H. (1993). Report of the NOAA Panel on contingent valuation. Federal Register, 58 (10), 4601-4614.
2. Bateman, I. J., Cole, M. A., Georgiou, S. and Hadley, D. J. (2002). Comparing contingent valuation and contingent ranking: A case study considering the benefits of urban river water quality improvements. Journal of Environmental Management, 79 (3), 221-231.
3. Bateman, I. J., Carson, R. T., Day, B., Hanemann, W. M., Hanley, N., Hett, T., Jones-Lee, M., Loomes, G., Mourato, S., Özdemirodlu, E., Pearce, D. W., Sugden, R. and Swanson, J. (2002). Economic Valuation with Stated Preference Techniques: A Manual. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.
4. Bederli T. A. and Brouwer, R. (2007). Nonmarket valuation of water quality in a rural transition economy in Turkey applying an a posteriori bid design. Water Resources Research, 43, W05436, doi:10.1029/2006WR004869.
5. Belluzzo, W. (2010). Valuing water resources in developing countries: A semiparametric approach to valuation models. Water Resources Research, 46, W12514, doi:10.1029/2009WR008883.
6. Bilgic, A. (2010). Measuring willingness to pay to improve municipal water in southeast Anatolia, Turkey. Water Resources Research, 46, W12545, doi:10.1029/2009WR009010.
7. Carson, R. T. and Mitchell, R. C. (1993). The Value of Clean Water: The Public's Willingness to Pay for Boatable, Fishable, and Swimmable Quality Water. Water Resources Research, 29 (7), 2445-2454.
8. Champ, P. A. and Bishop, R. C. (2006). Are actual donations to the provision of a public good sensitive to the elicitation format?. Land Economics, 82 (2), 162-173.
9. Choe, K., Whittington, D. and Lauria, D. T. (1996). The economic benefits of surface water quality improvements in developing countries: a case study of Davao, Philippines. Land Economics, 72, 519-537.
10. Creel, M. (1998). A Note on Consistent Estimation of Mean WTP Using a Misspecified Logit Contingent Valuation Model. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 35, 277-84.
11. Dasgupta, P. and Dasgupta, R. (2004). Economic value of safe water for the infrastructurally disadvantaged urban household: A case study in Delhi, India. Water Resources Research, 40, W11401, doi:10.1029/2003WR002461.
12. Desvousges, W. H., Smith, V. K. and Fisher, A. (1987). Option price estimates for water quality improvements. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 14 (3), 248-267.
13. Horowitz, J., List, J. and McConnell, K. E. (2007). A Test of Diminishing Marginal Value. Economica, 74, 650-663.
14. Lew, D. K. and Wallmo, K. (2010). External tests of scope and embedding in stated preference choice experiments: An application to endangered species valuation. Environmental and Resource Economics, 48 (1), 1-23.
15. Loomis, J., Smith, A. and Huszar, P. (2005). Estimating the economic benefits of maintaining residential lake levels at an irrigation reservoir: A contingent valuation study. Water Resources Research, 41, W08405, doi:10.1029/2004WR003812.
16. Machado, F. S. and Mourato, S. (2002). Evaluating the multiple benefits of marine water quality improvements: how important are health risk reductions? Journal of Environmental Management, 65 (3), 239-250.
17. Martínez-Paz, J. M. and Perni, A. (2011). Environmental cost of groundwater: A contingent valuation approach. International Journal of Environmental Research, 5 (3), 603-612.
18. Mitchell, R. C. and Carson, R. T. (1989). Using surveys to value public goods: the contingent valuation method. Washington D.C.: Resources for the Future.
19. Ojea, E. and Loureiro, M. L. (2009). Valuation of wildlife: revising some additional considerations for scope tests. Contemporary Economic Policy, 27 (2), 236-250.
20. Ojea, E. and Loureiro, M. L. (2011). Identifying the scope effect on a meta-analysis of biodiversity valuation studies. Resource and Energy Economics, 33, 706-724.
21. Rollins, K. and Lyke, A. (1998). The case for diminishing marginal existence values. Journal of Environmental and Economics Management, 36, 324-344.
22. Soliño, M., Vázquez, M. X. and Prada, A. (2009). Social demand for electricity from forest biomass in Spain: does payment periodicity affect the willingness to pay? Energy Policy, 37 (2), 531-540.
23. Soto Montes de Oca G. and Bateman, I. J. (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 quality and income distribution upon stated preferences in Mexico City. Water Resources Research, 42, W07421, doi:10.1029/2005WR003981.
24. Spencer, M. A., Swallow, S. K. and Miller, C. J. (1998). Valuing Water Quality Monitoring: A Contingent Valuation Experiment Involving Hypothetical And Real Payments. Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, 27 (1), 28-42.
25. Turnbull, B. W. (1976). The empirical distribution function with arbitrarily grouped, censored and truncated data. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B, 38, 290-295.