Marginal WTP and Distance Decay: The Role of ‘Protest’ and ‘True Zero’ Responses in the Economic Valuation of Recreational Water Quality

Environmental and Resource Economics

Volumn 59, Issue 3, 2014, Pages 389-405

  Söderberg, Magnus ^a,b   Barton, David N ^c  

^a NORWEGIAN INSTITUTE FOR WATER RESEARCH   (Norway)

^b CERNA   (France)

^c NORWEGIAN INSTITUTE FOR NATURE RESEARCH   (Norway)

Author keywords

Disproportionate cost; EU Water Framework Directive; Methodology; Non market valuation; Stated preference; Water quality; Protest true zero responses

Indexed keywords

ECONOMIC ANALYSIS; ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS; LAKES; RESOURCE VALUATION; SURVEYS; WATER CONSERVATION; WATER QUALITY;

DISPROPORTIONATE COSTS; EU-WATER FRAMEWORK DIRECTIVES; METHODOLOGY; NON-MARKET VALUATION; STATED PREFERENCES;

QUALITY CONTROL;

CONTINGENT VALUATION; EUROPEAN UNION; EUTROPHIC ENVIRONMENT; LAKE; PREFERENCE BEHAVIOR; RECREATIONAL ACTIVITY; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS; WATER QUALITY; WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

EID: 84911982106     PISSN: 09246460     EISSN: 15731502     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10640-013-9735-y     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Andersson JEC (2007) The recreational cost of coral bleaching—a stated and revealed preference study of international tourists. Ecol Econ 62(3–4):704–715
2. Barton DN, Navrud S, Lande N, Bugge Mills A (2009) Assessing economic benefits of good ecological status in lakes under the EU Water Framework Directive. Case study Report Norway. NIVA, Report 5732-2009
3. Bateman IJ, Brouwer R, Ferrini S, Schaafsma M, Barton DN, Dubgaard A, Hasler B, Hime S, Liekens I, Navrud S, De Nocker L, Ščeponavičiūtė R, Semėnienė D (2011) 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. doi:10.1007/s10640-011-9476-8
4. Bateman IJ, Day BH, Georgiou S, Lake I (2006) The aggregation of environmental benefit values: welfare measures, distance decay and total WTP. Ecol Econ 60(2):450–460
5. Bateman IJ, Jones AP et al (2002a) Applying geographical information systems (GIS) to environmental and resource economics. Environ Resour Econ 22(1–2):219–269
6. Bateman IJ, Carson RT, Day BH, Hanemann WM, Hanley N, Hett T, Jones-Lee M, Loomes G, Mourato S, Özdemiroğlu E, Pearce DW, Sugden R, Swanson J (2002b) Economic valuation with stated preference techniques: a manual. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham
7. Bourguignon F, Fournier M, Gurgand M (2007) Selection bias corrections based on the multinomial logit model: Monte-Carlo comparisons. J Econ Surv 21(2):174–205
8. Carson RT, Hanemann WM (2005) Contingent valuation. In: Mäler K-G, Vincent JR (eds) Handbook of environmental economics, vol 2. Elsevier, Amsterdam
9. Champ PA, Boyle K, Brown TC (eds) (2003) A primer on non-market valuation. the economics of non-market goods and services, vol 3. Kluwer, Dordrecht
10. Foster V, Bateman IJ, Harley D (1997) Real and hypothetical willingness to pay for an environmental preservation: a non-experimental comparison. J Agric Econ 48(1–3):123–138
11. Garcia S, Harou P, Montagné C, Stenger A (2009) Models for sample selection bias in contingent valuation: application to forest. Biodiversity 15(1–2):59–78
12. Georgiou S, Bateman I, Cole M, Hadley D (2000) Contingent ranking and valuation of river water quality improvements. Testing for scope sensitivity, ordering and distance decay effects. CSERGE Working Paper GEC 2000-18
13. Hanley N, Schläpfer F, Spurgeon J (2003) Aggregating the benefits of environmental improvements: distance-decay functions for use and non-use values. J Environ Manag 68(2003):297–304
14. Heckman J (1976) The common structure of statistical models of truncation, sample selection and limited dependent variables and a simple estimator for such models. Ann Econ Soc Meas 5:475–492
15. Heckman J (1979) Sample selection bias as a specification error. Econometrica 47:153–161
16. Hime S, Bateman IJ (2008) A transferable water quality laddefor conveying use and ecological information within public surveys. CSERGE, University of East Anglia
17. Johnston RJ, Ramachandran M, Schultz ET, Segerson K, Besedin EY (2011) Willingness to pay hot spots and the distribution of ecosystem service values: implications for benefit transfer. Selected Paper, Association of Environmental and Resource Economists Annual Meeting, Pittsburgh, Seattle, WA
18. Jones AP, Bateman IJ, Wright J (2002) Estimating arrival numbers and values for informal recreational use of British woodlands, published at http://www.forestry.gov.uk. Report to the Forestry Commission. Edinburgh
19. Jorgensen BS, Syme GJ (2000) ‘Protest’ responses and willingness to pay: attitude toward paying for stormwater pollution abatement. Ecol Econ 33(2):251–265
20. Kahneman D, Ritov I, Schkade D (2000) Economic preferences or attitude expression? An analysis of dollar responses to public issues. In: Kahneman D, Tversky A (eds) Choices, values and frames. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MA, pp 642–672
21. Kataria M, Bateman I, Christensen T, Dubgaard A, Hasler B, Hime S, Ladenburg J, Levin G, Martinsen L, Nissen C (2011) Scenario realism and welfare estimates in choice experiments—a non-market valuation study on the European water framework directive. J Environ Manag. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2011.08.010
22. Lee LF (1983) Generalized econometric models with selectivity. Econometrica 51:507–512
23. Luisetti T, Bateman IJ, Turner RK (2008) Testing the fundamental assumption of choice experiments: are values absolute or relative? CSERGE Working Paper ECM 08-03
24. Meyerhoff J, Liebe U (2008) Do ‘protest’ responses to a contingent valuation question and a choice experiment differ? Environ Resour Econ 39(4):433–446
25. Meyerhoff J, Liebe U (2010) Determinants of ‘protest’ responses in environmental valuation—a meta-study. Ecol Econ 70(2):366–374
26. Mitchell RC, Carson RT (1989) Using surveys to value public goods: the contingent valuation method. Resources for the Future, Washington, DC
27. Nawata K (1993) A note on the estimation of models with sample selection biases. Econ Lett 42:15–24
28. Nawata K, Nagase N (1996) Estimation of sample selection bias models. Econom Rev 15:387–400
29. Rolfe J, Windle J (2012) Distance decay functions for iconic assets: assessing national values to protect the health of the Great Barrier Reef in Australia. Environ Resour Econ 53:347–365
30. Schaafsma M, Brouwer R, Rose J (2012) Directional heterogeneity in WTP models for environmental valuationEcological. Economics 79(2012):21–31
31. Strazzera E, Genius M, Scarpa R, Hutchinson G (2003) The effect of prost votes on the estimates of WTP for use values of recreational sites. Environ Resour Econ 25:461–476
32. Zandersen M, Termansen M, Jensen FS (2007) Evaluating approaches to predict recreation values of new forest sites. J For Econ 13:103–128