Effects of water quality changes on the recreation benefits of swimming in Finland: Combined travel cost and contingent behavior model

Water Resources and Economics

Volumn 25, Issue , 2019, Pages 2-12

  Lankia, Tuija ^a   Neuvonen, Marjo ^a   Pouta, Eija ^a  

^a FINNISH FOREST RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (Finland)

Author keywords

Contingent behavior; National outdoor recreation survey; Travel cost; Water quality

Indexed keywords

CONTINGENT VALUATION; COST ANALYSIS; ENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMICS; EUROPEAN UNION; OUTDOOR RECREATION; RECREATIONAL ACTIVITY; SWIMMING BEHAVIOR; TRAVEL BEHAVIOR; TURBIDITY; WATER QUALITY;

FINLAND;

EID: 85033466034     PISSN: 22124284     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.wre.2017.10.002     Document Type: Article

References (58)

1. European Parliament, Directive 2000/60/EC (The EU Water Framework Directive). 2000 Official Journal (OJ L 327). December 22.
2. Bateman, I.J., Brouwer, R., Davies, H., Day, B.H., Deflandre, A., Di Falco, S., Georgiou, S., Hadley, D., Hutchins, M., Jones, A.P., Kay, D., Leeks, G., Lewis, M., Lovett, A.A., Neal, C., Posen, P., Rigby, D., Turner, R.K., Analysing the agricultural costs and non-market benefits of implementing the Water Framework Directive. J. Agric. Econ. 57:2 (2006), 221–237.
3. Ravenscroft, N., Church, A., The attitudes of recreational user representatives to pollution reduction and the implementation of the European Water Framework Directive. Land Use Policy 28:1 (2011), 164–174.
4. Söderqvist, T., Why give up money for the Baltic Sea? Motives for people's willingness (or reluctance) to pay. Environ. Resour. Econ. 12 (1998), 249–254.
5. Granö O., Roto, M., Laurila, L., Environment and land Use in the Shore Zone of the Coast of Finland, vol. 160, 1999, Publicationes Instituti Geographici Universitatis Turkuensis, 1–76.
6. Sievänen, T., Neuvonen, M., (eds.) Luonnon virkistyskäyttö 2010. Working Papers of the Finnish Forest Research Insitute, 2011, 212.
7. Sievänen, T., Pouta, E., Neuvonen, M., Recreational home users - potential clients for countryside tourism?. Scand. J. Hosp. Tour. 7:3 (2007), 223–242.
8. Finnish Environment Institute, State of the Surface Waters. 2013 http://www.ymparisto.fi/en-US/Waters/State_of_the_surface_waters. (Accessed 18 September 2017)
9. Arheimer, B., Andreéasson, J., Fogelberg, S., Johnsson, H., Pers, C.P., Persson, K., Climate change impact on water quality: model results from southern Sweden. Ambio J. Hum. Environ. 34:7 (2005), 559–566.
10. Bourauoi, F., Grizzetti, B., Granlund, K., Rekolainen, S., Bidoglio, G., Impact of climate change on the water cycle and nutrient losses in a Finnish catchment. Clim. Change 66:1–2 (2014), 109–126.
11. Murdoch, P.S., Baron, J.S., Miller, T.L., Potential effects of climate change on surface-water quality in North America. J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 36:2 (2000), 347–366.
12. Moss, B., Kosten, S., Meerhoff, M., Batterbee, R.W., Jeppesen, E., Mazzeo, N., Havens, K., Lacerot, G., Liu, Z., De Meester, L., Paerl, H., Scheffer, M., Allied attack: climate change and eutrophication. Inland Waters 1:2 (2011), 101–105.
13. Pearl, H.W., Paul, J.V., Climate change: links to global expansion of harmful cyanobacteria. Water Res. 46 (2012), 1349–1363.
14. Nieminen, M., Sarkkola, S., Laurén, A., Impacts of forest harvesting on nutrient, sediment and dissolved organic carbon expoerts from drained peatlands: a literature review, synthesis and suggestion for the future. For. Ecol. Manag. 392 (2017), 13–20.
15. Haab, T.C., McConnell, K.E., Valuing Environmental and Natural Resources. 2002, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.
16. Ward, F.A., Beal, D., Valuing Nature with Travel Cost Models. 2000, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.
17. Freeman, A.M. III, The Measurement of Environmental and Resource Values. Theory and Methods. 2003, Resources for the Future, Washington, DC.
18. Freeman, A.M. III, The Measurement of Environmental and Resource Values: Theory and Methods. 1993, Resources for the Future, Washington, DC.
19. Englin, J., Moeltner, K., The value of snowfall to skiers and boarders. Environ. Resour. Econ. 29:1 (2004), 126–136.
20. Rockel, M.L., Kealy, M., The value of nonconsumptive wildlife recreation in the United States. Land Econ. 67 (1991), 422–434.
21. Zawacki, W.T., Marsinko, A., Bowker, J.M., A travel cost analysis of nonconsumptive wildlife-associated recreation in the United States. For. Sci. 26:4 (2000), 496–506.
22. Vesterinen, J., Pouta, E., Huhtala, A., Neuvonen, M., Impacts of change in water quality on recreation behavior and benefits in Finland. J. Environ. Manag. 91:4 (2010), 984–994.
23. Alberini, A., Zanatta, V., Rosato, P., Combining actual and contingent behavior to estimate the value of sport fishing in the Lagoon of Venice. Ecol. Econ. 61:2–3 (2007), 530–541.
24. Bhat, M.G., Application of non-market valuation to the Florida keys marine reserve management. J. Environ. Manag. 67:4 (2003), 315–325.
25. Hanley, N., Bell, D., Alvarez-Farizo, B., Valuing the benefits of coastal water quality improvements using contingent and real behavior. Environ. Resour. Econ. 24:3 (2003), 273–285.
26. Whitehead, J.C., Haab, T.C., Huang, J.-C., Measuring recreation benefits of quality improvements with revealed and stated behavior data. Resour. Energy Econ. 22 (2000), 339–354.
27. Eiswerth, M.E., Englin, J., Fadali, E., Shaw, W.D., The value of water levels in water-based recreation: a pooled revealed preference/contingent behavior model. Water Resour. Res. 36:4 (2000), 1079–1086.
28. Englin, J., Cameron, T.A., Augmenting travel cost models with contingent behavior data. Environ. Resour. Econ. 7:2 (1996), 133–147.
29. Whitehead, J.C., Pattanayak, S.K., Van Houtven, G.L., Gelso, B.R., Combining revealed and stated preference data to estimate the nonmarket value of ecological services: an assessment of the state of the science. J. Econ. Surv. 22:5 (2008), 872–908.
30. Finnish tax administration, The 2012 Tax Card and Deductible Travel Costs. 2011 http://www.tax.fi/enUS/Individuals/Request_for_a_revised_tax_card/Tax_card_and_deductible_travel_costs. (Accessed 15 April 2012)
31. Amoako-Tuffour, J., Martinez-Espineira, R., Leisure and the Opportunity Cost of Travel Time in Recreation Demand Analysis: a Re-examination. 2008, Munich Personal RePEc Archive, MPRA paper no. 8573. Available at: http://mpra.ub.unimuenchen.de/8573/. (Accessed 6 May 2013)
32. Hynes, S., Hanley, N., O'Donghue, C., Alternative treatments of the cost of time in recreational demand models: an application to whitewater kayaking in Ireland. J. Environ. Manag. 90:2 (2009), 1014–1021.
33. Blakemore, F., Williams, A., British tourists’ valuation of a Turkish beach using contingent valuation and travel cost methods. J. Coast. Res. 24:6 (2008), 1469–1480.
34. Egan, K.J., Herriges, J.A., Kling, C.L., Downing, J.A., Valuing water quality as a function of water quality measures. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 91:1 (2009), 106–123.
35. Parsons, G.R., The travel cot model. Champ, P.A., Boyle, K.J., Brow, T.C., (eds.) A Primer on Nonmarket Valuation, 2003, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.
36. Kragt, M.E., Roebeling, P.C., Rujis, A., Effects of Great Barrier Reef degradation on recreational reef-trip demand: a contingent behaviour approach. Agric. Resour. Econ. 53 (2009), 213–229.
37. Ahtiainen, H., Artell, J., Pouta, E., Subjective versus objective measures in valuation of water quality. European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists 18th Annual Conference, 2011.
38. Sandström, M., Recreational Benefits from Improved Water Quality: a Random Utility Model of Swedish Seaside Recreation. 1996, Stockholm School of Economics, 121 Working Paper Series in Economics and Finance.
39. Soutukorva, Å., The Value of Improved Water Quality. A Random Utility Model of Recreation in the Stockholm Archipelago. 2005, The Beijer International Institute of Ecological Economics, The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences.
40. Finnish Environment Institute, Ecological and Chemical State of Surface Waters. 2012 http://www.ymparisto.fi/default.asp?contentid=332063&lan=fi&clan=en. (Accessed 7 January 2013)
41. Lienhoop, N., Ansmann, T., Valuing water level changes in reservoirs using two stated preference approaches: an exploration of validity. Ecol. Econ. 70 (2011), 1250–1258.
42. Rolfe, J., Gregg, D., Valuing beach recreation across a regional area: the Great Barrier Reef in Australia. Ocean Coast. Manag. 69 (2012), 282–290.
43. Parsons, G.R., Kang, A.K., Legget, C.G., Boyle, K.J., Valuing beach closures on the Padre Island national seashore. Mar. Resour. Econ. 24:3 (2009), 213–235.
44. Paccagnan, V., On combining stated preferences and revealed preferences approaches to evaluate environmental resources having a recreational use. Munich Personal RePEc Archive, MPRA, Paper No. 5867, 2007 Available at: http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/5867/. (Accessed 6 May 2013)
45. Blackwell, B., The value of a recreational beach visit: an application to Mooloolaba beach and comparisons with other outdoor recreation sites. Econ. Analysis Policy 37:1 (2007), 77–98.
46. Whitehead, J.C., Phaneuf, D.J., Dumas, C.F., Herstine, J., Hill, J., Buerger, B., Convergent validity of revealed and stated recreation behavior with quality change: a comparison of multiple and singe site demands. Environ. Resour. Econ. 45 (2010), 92–112.
47. Gürlük, S., Rehber, E., A travel cost study to estimate recreational value for a bird refuge at Lake Manyas, Turkey. J. Environ. Manag. 88 (2008), 1350–1360.
48. Johnstone, C., Markandya, A., Valuing river characteristics using combined site choice and participation travel cost models. J. Environ. Manag. 80:3 (2006), 237–247.
49. Nahman, A., Rigby, D., Valuing blue flag status and estuarine water quality in Margate, South Africa. South Afr. J. Econ. 764 (2008), 721–737.
50. Griljava, T.C., Berrens, R.P., Bohara, A.K., Shaw, W.D., Testing the validity of contingent behavior trip responses. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 84:2 (2002), 401–414.
51. Morgan, O.A., Huth, W.L., Using revealed and stated preference data to estimate the scope and access benefits associated with cave diving. Resour. Energy Econ. 33 (2011), 107–118.
52. Hellerstein, D.M., Using count data models in travel cost analysis with aggregate data. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 73:3 (1991), 660–666.
53. Hausman, K., Hall, B., Griliches, Z., Econometrics models for count data with an application to patents. Econometrica 52 (1984), 909–938.
54. Simões, P., Barata, E., Cruz, L., Joint estimation using revealed and stated prefrences data: an application using a national forest. J. For. Econ. 19 (2013), 249–266.
55. Cameron, C.A., Trivedi, P.K., Regression Analysis of Count Data. Econometric Society Monographs No 30. 1998, Cambridge University Press.
56. Shrestha, R.K., Stein, T.V., Clark, J., Valuing nature-based recreation in public natural areas of the Apalachicola river region, Florida. J. Environ. Manag. 85:4 (2007), 977–985.
57. Dehez, J., Colson, V., Mann, C., Sievänen, T., State of art of recreation inventories in European countries. National recreation demand inventories and surveys. Sievänen, T., Arnberger, A., Dehez, J., Grant, N., Jensen, F.S., Skov-Petersen, H., (eds.) Forest recreation Monitoring – a European Perspective, vol. 79, 2008, Metlan työraportteja/Working Papers of the Finnish Forest Research Institute, 34–42.
58. Ahtiainen, H., Pouta, E., Artell, J., Modelling asymmetric preferences for water quality in choice experiments with individual-specific status quo alternatives. Water Resour. Econ. 12 (2015), 1–13.