IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/jlaare/31123.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Estimating Willingness To Pay For Reduced Copper Contamination In Southwestern Minnesota

Author

Listed:
  • Kim, Hong Jin
  • Cho, Yongsung

Abstract

The contingent valuation method is applied to determine how much consumers would be willing to pay to reduce copper in their drinking water and what factors influence their willingness to pay (WTP). The annual mean WTP per household was estimated using survey data from nine counties in southwestern Minnesota where copper contamination is high. The annual mean WTP per household varied from a low range of $30.41 to $43.61 for Chippewa County to a high range of $39.79 to $57.06 for Nobles County. The aggregate WTP for all nine counties was estimated to range from $1.66 to $2.38 million. However, the estimated WTP may not be sufficient to pay the cost of providing improved water through public water systems for small communities in southwestern Minnesota.

Suggested Citation

  • Kim, Hong Jin & Cho, Yongsung, 2002. "Estimating Willingness To Pay For Reduced Copper Contamination In Southwestern Minnesota," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 27(2), pages 1-14, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:jlaare:31123
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.31123
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/31123/files/27020450.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.31123?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Edwards, Steven F., 1988. "Option prices for groundwater protection," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 15(4), pages 475-487, December.
    2. Jeffrey L. Jordan & Abdelmoneim H. Elnagheeb, 1994. "Consequences of Using Different Question Formats in Contingent Valuation: A Monte Carlo Study," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 70(1), pages 97-110.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. ORDOFA JARA, Gemechu & TESHOME GEBRETSADIK, Wubishet & TEMAM HAJIFATO, Nesru, 2021. "Households Willingness To Pay For The Conservation Of Noug: A Case Study," Review of Agricultural and Applied Economics (RAAE), Faculty of Economics and Management, Slovak Agricultural University in Nitra, vol. 24(2), October.
    2. Kevin Boyle & Sapna Kaul & Ali Hashemi & Xiaoshu Li, 2015. "Applicability of benefit transfers for evaluation of homeland security counterterrorism measures," Chapters, in: Carol Mansfield & V. K. Smith (ed.), Benefit–Cost Analyses for Security Policies, chapter 10, pages 225-253, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    3. Francesco Jacopo Pintus, 2023. "Valuing drinking water quality after a PFAS contamination event: results from a meta-analysis benefit transfer," "Marco Fanno" Working Papers 0308, Dipartimento di Scienze Economiche "Marco Fanno".
    4. Chuen Khee, Pek & Yet Mee, Lim & Chee Keong, Choong, 2011. "The economic impact of climate change on food security in Malaysia," MPRA Paper 37199, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    5. Konishi, Yoshifumi & Coggins, Jay S., 2008. "Environmental risk and welfare valuation under imperfect information," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(2), pages 150-169, May.
    6. Cho, Yongsung & Konishi, Yoshifumi & Easter, K. William, 2007. "Can Rural Communities Comply with the New Arsenic Standard for Drinking Water?," Staff Papers 7353, University of Minnesota, Department of Applied Economics.
    7. Hisako Nomura & Nguyen Bich Hong & Mitsuyasu Yabe, 2018. "Effective Use and Management of Kunisaki Peninsula Usa GIAHS Long Trail—A Sustainable Tourism Model leading to Regional Development," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(2), pages 1-14, February.
    8. Joseph Arbiol & Maridel Borja & Mitsuyasu Yabe & Hisako Nomura & Nina Gloriani & Shin-ichi Yoshida, 2013. "Valuing Human Leptospirosis Prevention Using the Opportunity Cost of Labor," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-16, May.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Jean-Daniel Rinaudo & Stéphanie Aulong, 2014. "Defining Groundwater Remediation Objectives with Cost-benefit Analysis: Does It Work?," Post-Print hal-00934930, HAL.
    2. Bandara, Ranjith & Tisdell, Clement A., 2002. "Willingness to Pay for Conservation of the Asian Elephant in Sri Lanka: A Contingent Valuation Study," Economics, Ecology and Environment Working Papers 48738, University of Queensland, School of Economics.
    3. Poe, Gregory L. & Bishop, Richard C., 1992. "Measuring the Benefits of Groundwater Protection from Agricultural Contamination: Results from a Two-Stage Contingent Valuation Study," Staff Papers 200549, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics.
    4. Gregory Poe & Richard Bishop, 1999. "Valuing the Incremental Benefits of Groundwater Protection when Exposure Levels are Known," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 13(3), pages 341-367, April.
    5. P. Calia & E. Strazzera, 1998. "Bias and efficiency of single vs. double bound models for contingent valuation studies: a Monte Carlo Analysis," Working Paper CRENoS 199801, Centre for North South Economic Research, University of Cagliari and Sassari, Sardinia.
    6. David O. Scrogin & Robert P. Berrens, 2003. "Rationed Access and Welfare: The Case of Public Resource Lotteries," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 79(2), pages 137-148.
    7. Walid Oueslati & Nicole Madariaga & Julien Salanié, 2008. "Évaluation contingente d’aménités paysagères liées à un espace vert urbain. Une application au cas du parc Balzac de la ville d’Angers," Review of Agricultural and Environmental Studies - Revue d'Etudes en Agriculture et Environnement, INRA Department of Economics, vol. 87(2), pages 77-99.
    8. Whittington, Dale & Hua Wang, 2000. "Willingness to pay for air quality improvements in Sofia, Bulgaria," Policy Research Working Paper Series 2280, The World Bank.
    9. Roberts, David C. & Boyer, Tracy A. & Lusk, Jayson L., 2008. "Preferences for environmental quality under uncertainty," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 66(4), pages 584-593, July.
    10. Ricardo Faria & Raul Matsuhita & Jorge Nogueira & Benjamin Tabak, 2007. "Realism Versus Statistical Efficiency: A Note on Contingent Valuation with Follow-up Queries," Atlantic Economic Journal, Springer;International Atlantic Economic Society, vol. 35(4), pages 451-462, December.
    11. Poe, Gregory L. & Boyle, Kevin J. & Bergstrom, John C., 2000. "A Meta Analysis Of Contingent Values For Groundwater Quality In The United States," 2000 Annual meeting, July 30-August 2, Tampa, FL 21871, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    12. Stevens, Thomas H. & Barrett, Christopher B. & Willis, Cleve E., 1997. "Conjoint Analysis Of Groundwater Protection Programs," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 26(2), pages 1-8, October.
    13. Chien, Yu-Lan & Larson, Douglas, 1991. "Measuring Supply-Side Option Price: Estimates for Preserving the Northern Spotted owl," WAEA/ WFEA Conference Archive (1929-1995) 321472, Western Agricultural Economics Association.
    14. Bandara, Ranjith & Tisdell, Clem, 2004. "The net benefit of saving the Asian elephant: a policy and contingent valuation study," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 93-107, January.
    15. Jon Conrad & Lars Olson, 1992. "The economics of a stock pollutant: Aldicarb on Long Island," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 2(3), pages 245-258, May.
    16. Schläpfer, Felix & Erickson, Jon D., 2001. "A Biotic Control Perspective on Nitrate Contamination of Groundwater from Agricultural Production," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 30(2), pages 113-126, October.
    17. J.-D. Rinaudo & S. Aulong, 2014. "Defining Groundwater Remediation Objectives with Cost-benefit Analysis: Does It Work?," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 28(1), pages 261-278, January.
    18. Giraldez, Cesareo & Fox, Glenn, 1994. "An Economic Analysis of Groundwater Contamination From Agricultural Nitrate Emissions in Southern Ontario," Department of Agricultural Economics and Business 258811, University of Guelph.
    19. Poe, Gregory L. & Bishop, Richard C., 1992. "Prior Information, General Information, and Specific Information in the Contingent Valuation of Environmental Risks: The Case of Nitrates in Groundwater," Staff Papers 121335, Cornell University, Department of Applied Economics and Management.
    20. Nick Hanley & Clive Spash & Lorna Walker, 1995. "Problems in valuing the benefits of biodiversity protection," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 5(3), pages 249-272, April.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Environmental Economics and Policy;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:jlaare:31123. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/waeaaea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.