Valuation and transferability of the non-market benefits of river restoration in the Danube river basin using a choice experiment

Ecological Engineering

Volumn 87, Issue , 2016, Pages 20-29

  Brouwer, Roy ^a   Bliem, Markus ^b   Getzner, Michael ^c   Kerekes, Sandor ^d   Milton, Simon ^d   Palarie, Teodora ^e   Szerényi, Zsuzsanna ^d   Vadineanu, Angheluta ^e   Wagtendonk, Alfred ^a  

^a VU UNIVERSITY AMSTERDAM   (Netherlands)

^b Institute for Advanced Studies Carinthia (IHSK)   (Austria)

^c VIENNA UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY   (Austria)

^d Institute of Data Analytics and Information Systems   (Hungary)

^e UNIVERSITY OF BUCHAREST   (Romania)

Author keywords

Benefit transfer; Choice experiment; Flood risk; River restoration; Water quality

Indexed keywords

COMMERCE; FLOODS; POPULATION STATISTICS; RESTORATION; RISK ASSESSMENT; RIVERS; WATER QUALITY; WATERSHEDS;

BENEFIT TRANSFER; CHOICE EXPERIMENTS; DANUBE RIVER BASIN; FLOOD RISKS; NON-MARKET BENEFITS; POPULATION DENSITIES; RIVER RESTORATION; WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENTS;

WATER RESOURCES;

COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; FLOODING; LITERATURE REVIEW; PERCEPTION; POPULATION DENSITY; RESEARCH METHOD; RESTORATION ECOLOGY; RISK ASSESSMENT; RIVER BASIN; URBANIZATION; VALUATION; WATER QUALITY;

AUSTRIA; DANUBE RIVER; HUNGARY; ROMANIA;

EID: 84948184695     PISSN: 09258574     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoleng.2015.11.018     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. Bateman I.J., Day B.H., Georgiou S., Lake I. The aggregation of environmental benefit values: welfare measures, distance decay and total WTP. Ecol. Econ. 2006, 60(2):450-460.
2. 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., Ščeponavičite R., Semeniene 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(3):365-387.
3. Ben-Akiva M., Lerman S.R. Discrete Choice Analysis: Theory and Application to Travel Demand 1985, The MIT Press, Cambridge Massachusetts.
4. Bennett J., Blamey R. The Choice Modelling Approach to Environmental Valuation 2001, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK.
5. Bhat C.R. Quasi-random maximum simulated likelihood estimation of the mixed multinomial logit model. Transport. Res. B 2001, 35:677-693.
6. Brander L.M., Florax R.J.G.M., Vermaat J.E. The empirics of wetland valuation. A comprehensive summary and meta-analysis of the literature. Environ. Resourc. Econ. 2006, 33(2):223-250.
7. Brander L., Brouwer R., Wagtendonk A. Economic valuation of regulating services provided by wetlands in agricultural landscapes: a meta-analysis. Ecol. Eng. 2013, 56:89-96.
8. Brouwer R., Bateman I.J. Benefits transfer of willingness to pay estimates and functions for health-risk reductions: a cross-country study. J. Health Econ. 2005, 24:591-611.
9. Brouwer R. The potential role of stated preference methods in the Water Framework Directive to assess disproportionate costs. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 2008, 51(5):597-614.
10. Brouwer R., Martín-Ortega J., Berbel J. Spatial preference heterogeneity: a choice experiment. Land Econ. 2010, 86(3):552-568.
11. Brouwer R., Schaafsma M. Modelling risk adaptation and mitigation behaviour under different climate change scenarios. Clim. Change 2013, 117:11-29.
12. Carson R.T., Mitchell R.C. The value of clean water: the public's willingness to pay for boatable, fishable and swimmable quality water. Water Resourc. Res. 1993, 29(7):2445-2454.
13. Desvousges W.H., Naughton M.C., Parsons G.R. Benefit transfer: conceptual problems in estimating water quality benefits using existing studies. Water Resour. Res. 1992, 28(3):675-683.
14. Eurostat GDP per capita in in Purchasing Power Standards (PPS) 2013, Eurostat website,. http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat.
15. Frey B.S., Oberholzer-Gee F., Eichenberger R. The old lady visits your backyard: a tale of morals and markets. J. Politic. Econ. 1996, w104(6):1297-1313.
16. Hanley N., Schlapfer F., Spurgeon J. Aggregating the benefits of environmental improvements: distance-decay functions for use and non-use values. J. Environ. Manag. 2003, 68(3):297-304.
17. 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. Manag. 2006, 78(2):183-193.
18. Hensher D.A. Sequential and full information maximum likelihood estimation of a nested logit model. Rev. Econ. Stat. 1986, 68(4):657-667.
19. Hensher D.A., Rose J.M., Greene W.H. Applied Choice Analysis. A Primer 2005, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
20. Hynes S., Hanley N., Scarpa R. Effects on welfare measures of alternative means of accounting for preference heterogeneity in recreational demand models. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 2008, 90(4):1011-1027.
21. Hohensinner S., Habersack H., Jungwirth M., Zauner G. Reconstruction of the characteristics of a natural alluvial river-floodplain system and hydromorphological changes following human modifications: the Danube River (1812-1991). River Res. Appl. 2004, 20(1):25-41.
22. ICPDR The Danube River Basin District. River Basin Characteristics, Impact of Human Activities and Economic Analysis Required under Article 5, Annex II and Annex III, and Inventory of Protected Areas Required under Article 6, Annex IV of the EU Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC). ICPDR Document IC/084 2005, International Commission for the Protection of the Danube River, Vienna, Austria.
23. ICPDR Significant Water Management Issues in the Danube River Basin District. Document Number IC 132 2007, International Commission for the Protection of the Danube River, Vienna, Austria.
24. Johnston R.J. Choice experiments, site similarity and benefits transfer. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2007, 38:331-351.
25. Kataria M., Bateman I.J., 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.
26. Krinsky I., Robb A.L. On approximating the statistical properties of elasticities. Rev. Econ. Stat. 1986, 68:715-719.
27. Louviere J.J., Hensher D.A., Swait J.D. Stated Choice Methods: Analysis and Application 2000, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
28. Marta-Pedroso C., Freitas H., Domingos T. Testing for the survey mode effect on contingent valuation data quality: a case study of web based versus in-person interviews. Ecol. Econ. 2007, 62:388-398.
29. Martin-Ortega J., Brouwer R., Ojea E., Berbel J. Benefit transfer and spatial heterogeneity of preferences for water quality improvements. J. Environ. Manag. 2012, 106:22-29.
30. McFadden D. Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behaviour. Frontiers in Econometrics 1974, 105-142. Academic Press, New York. P. Zarembka (Ed.).
31. McFadden D., Train K. Mixed MNL models for discrete response. J. Appl. Econometr. 2000, 15:447-470.
32. Meyerhoff J., Dehnhardt A. The European water framework directive and economic valuation of wetlands: the restoration of floodplains along the River Elbe. Eur. Environ. 2007, 17:18-36.
33. Meyerhoff J., Boeri M., Hartje V. The value of water quality improvements in the region Berlin-Brandenburg as a function of distance and state residency. Water Resourc. Econ. 2014, 5:49-66.
34. Morrison M., Bergland O. Prospects for the use of choice modelling for benefits transfer. Ecol. Econ. 2006, 60:420-428.
35. Poe G.L., Giraud K.L., Loomis J.B. Computational methods for measuring the difference of empirical distributions. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 2005, 87:353-365.
36. Ready R., Navrud S., Day B., Dubourg R., Machado F., Mourato S., Spaninks F., Vázquez Rodriquez M.X. Benefit transfer in Europe: how reliable are transfers between countries?. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2004, 29:67-82.
37. Ready R., Navrud S. International benefits transfer: methods and validity tests. Ecol. Econ. 2006, 60:429-434.
38. Schaafsma M., Brouwer R. Testing geographical framing and substitution effects in spatial choice experiments. J. Choice Model. 2013, 8:32-48.
39. Schaafsma M., Brouwer R., Gilbert A., van den Bergh J.C.J.M., Wagtendonk A. Estimation of distance-decay functions to account for substitution and spatial heterogeneity in stated preference research. Land Econ. 2013, 89(3):514-537.
40. Schiemer F., Baumgartner C., Tockner K. Restoration of floodplain rivers: the Danube restoration project. Regul. River. Res. Manag. 1999, 15(1-3):231-244.
41. Swait J., Louviere J. The role of the scale parameter in the estimation and comparison of multinomial logit models. J. Market. Res. 1993, 30(3):305-314.
42. Train K. Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation Cambridge 2003, University Press, Cambridge.