The value of water quality improvements in the region Berlin-Brandenburg as a function of distance and state residency

Water Resources and Economics

Volumn 5, Issue , 2014, Pages 49-66

  Meyerhoff, Jürgen ^a   Boeri, Marco ^b   Hartje, Volkmar ^a  

^a TECHNISCHE UNIVERSITÄT BERLIN   (Germany)

^b QUEEN'S UNIVERSITY BELFAST   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Compensating surplus; Distance decay effect; Spatial heterogeneity; Spatially explicit choice sets; Water quality changes

Indexed keywords

RIVER; RIVER WATER; WATER QUALITY; WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

BERLIN; BRANDENBURG [GERMANY]; GERMANY;

EID: 84901590635     PISSN: 22124284     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.wre.2014.02.001     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. 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.
2. Hanley N., Wright R.E., Alvarez-Farizo B. Estimating the economic value of improvements in river ecology using choice experiments: an application to the water framework directive. J. Environ. Manage. 2006, 78:183-193.
3. Bliem M., Getzner M. Willingness-to-pay for river restoration: differences across time and scenarios. Environ. Econ. Policy Stud. 2012, 14:241-260.
4. Brouwer R., Martin-Ortega J., Berbel J. Spatial preference heterogeneity: a choice experiment. Land Econ. 2010, 86:552-568.
5. 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, 13:645-662.
6. 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. J. Environ. Manag. 2012, 94:25-33.
7. P. Metcalfe, P. W. Baker, K. Andrews, G. Atkinson, I. J. Bateman, S. Butler, R. T. Carson, J. East, Y. Guéron, R. Sheldon, K. Train, An assessment of the nonmarket benefits of the Water Framework Directive for households in England and Wales, Water Resour. Res., 48 (2012), http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2010WR009592.
8. 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., Ščeponavičiu-tė R., Semėnienė 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. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2011, 50:365-387.
9. Tait P., Baskaran R., Cullen R., Bicknell K. Nonmarket valuation of water quality: addressing spatially heterogeneous preferences using GIS and a random parameter logit model. Ecol. Econ. 2012, 75:15-21.
10. Thurstone L. A law of comparative judgment. Psychol. Rev. 1927, 34:273-286.
11. Manski C.F. Structure of random utility models. Theory Decis. 1977, 8:229-254.
12. McFadden D.L. Conditional Logit Analysis of Qualitative Choice Behavior, Frontiers in Econometrics 1974, Academic Press, New York.
13. McFadden D., Train K. Mixed MNL models for discrete response. J. Appl. Econ. 2000, 15:447-470.
14. Train K.E. Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation 2003, Cambridge.
15. Hensher D.A., Greene W.H. The mixed logit model: the state of practice. Transportation 2003, 30:133-176.
16. Rigby D., Balcombe K., Burton M. Mixed logit model performance and distributional assumptions: preferences and GM foods. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2009, 42:279-295.
17. Sillano M., Ortúzar J.D. Willingness-to-pay estimation with mixed logit models: some new evidence. Environ. Plan. A 2005, 37:525-550.
18. Scarpa R., Thiene M., Train K. Utility in WTP space: a tool to address confounding random scale effects in destination choice to the Alps. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 2008, 90:994-1010.
19. Daly A., Hess S., Train K. Assuring finite moments for willingness to pay in random coefficient models. Transportation 2012, 39:19-31.
20. Walker J.L., Ben-Akiva M., Bolduc D. Identification of parameters in normal error component logit-mixture (NECLM) models. J. Appl. Econ. 2007, 22:1095-1125.
21. Zeelenberg M., Pieters R. A theory of regret regulation 1.0. J. Consum. Psychol. 2007, 17(1):3-18.
22. Cooper B., Rose J., Crase L. Does anybody like water restrictions? Some observations in Australian urban communities. Aust. J. Agric. Resour. Econ. 2012, 56:61-81.
23. M. Bierlaire, BIOGEME: a free package for the estimation of discrete choice models, in: Proceedings of the Third Swiss Transport Research Conference, Monte Verita, Ascona, Switzerland, 2003.
24. Bierlaire M. An introductory Tutorial to BIOGEME Version 1.8 2009, Monte. Verita, Ascona, Switzerland.
25. C. Lawrence, J. Zhou, A. Tits, User's Guide for CFSQP Version 2.5: A C Code for Solving (Large Scale) Constrained Nonlinear (Minimax) Optimization problems, generating iterates satisfying all inequality constraints, Technical Report TR-94-16r1, Institute for Systems Research, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742, 1997.
26. Hess S., Train K.E., Polak J.W. On the use of a Modified Latin Hypercube Sampling (MLHS) method in the estimation of a Mixed Logit Model for vehicle choice. Transp. Res. Part B-Methodol. 2006, 40:147-163.
27. Greene W.H., Hensher D.A., Rose J.M. Using classical simulation-based estimators to estimate individual WTP values. Applications of Simulation Methods in Envionmental and Resource Economics 2005, 17-33. Dordrecht. R. Scarpa, A. Alberini (Eds.).
28. Hanemann W.M. Welfare evaluations in contingent valuation experiments with discrete responses. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 1984, 66:332-341.
29. S. Hime, I. J. Bateman, P. Posen, M. Hutchins, A transferable water quality ladder for conveying use and ecological information within public surveys, CSERGE Working Paper (2009) EDM 01.
30. Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety, Water Framework Directive. The path towards healthy waters, Berlin, 2010.
31. Ferrini S., Scarpa R. Designs with a priori information for nonmarket valuation with choice experiments: a Monte Carlo study. J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 2007, 53:342-363.
32. Alberini A., Longo A. Valuing the cultural monuments of armenia: Bayesian updating of prior beliefs in contingent valuation. Environ. Plan. A 2009, 41(2):441-460.
33. Meyerhoff J., Dehnhardt A., Hartje V. Take your swimsuit along: the value of improving urban bathing sites in the metropolitan area of Berlin. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 2010, 53:107-124.
34. Statistical Office for Berlin-Brandenburg, Data on population statistics from the regional reference system, Potsdam, 2012.
35. Lanz, B., Provins, A., Do status quo choices reflect preferences? Evidence from a discrete choice experiment in the context of water utilities' investment planning. CEPE Working Paper (2012) No. 87.
36. Meyerhoff J., Liebe U. Status quo effect in choice experiments: empirical evidence on attitudes and choice task complexity. Land Econ. 2009, 85:515-528.
37. Schaafsma M., Brouwer R., Gilbert A., Bergh J.v.d., Wagtendonk A. Estimation of distance-decay functions to account for substitution and spatial heterogeneity in stated preference research. Land Econ. 2013, 514-537.
38. Schaafsma M., Brouwer R., Rose J. Directional heterogeneity in WTP models for environmental valuation. Ecol. Econ. 2012, 79:21-31.
39. Meyerhoff J., Liebe U. Determinants of protest responses in environmental valuation: a meta-study. Ecol. Econ. 2010, 70:366-374.
40. Jürgen Meyerhoff, Morten Raun Mørkbak, Søren Bøye Olsen, A Meta-study investigating the sources of protest behaviour in stated preference surveys, Environ. Resource Econ. (http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10640-013-9688-1).