IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecolec/v118y2015icp1-9.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Linking ecological data and economics to estimate the total economic value of improving water quality by reducing nutrients

Author

Listed:
  • Nelson, Nanette M.
  • Loomis, John B.
  • Jakus, Paul M.
  • Kealy, Mary J.
  • von Stackelburg, Nicholas
  • Ostermiller, Jeff

Abstract

Water quality impairment due to excess nutrients has prompted the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to require that states develop nutrient criteria regulations to address this problem. Because regulation of nutrients can be expensive, the Utah Division of Water Quality (DWQ) wanted an estimate of the benefits of nutrient reduction. Natural scientists provided social scientists with detailed current and future water quality outcomes under proposed nutrient management alternatives. Current and future water quality outcomes were used to develop a mail contingent valuation survey. Results show that Utah households who recreate on Utah's waters (“Users”) are willing to pay up to $13.63 monthly to prevent deterioration of water quality whereas nonusers are willing to pay up to $8.31 per month. Furthermore, Users are willing to pay up to $32 per month to improve water quality in areas that have already been—or are expected to be—degraded by excess nutrients. Our integrated natural science–social science survey design serves as a useful template for similar water quality studies, as well as providing results for benefit transfer by government entities unable to conduct an original benefits analysis as they develop numeric nutrient criteria.

Suggested Citation

  • Nelson, Nanette M. & Loomis, John B. & Jakus, Paul M. & Kealy, Mary J. & von Stackelburg, Nicholas & Ostermiller, Jeff, 2015. "Linking ecological data and economics to estimate the total economic value of improving water quality by reducing nutrients," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 1-9.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:118:y:2015:i:c:p:1-9
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.06.013
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S092180091500244X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.06.013?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. W. Viscusi & Joel Huber & Jason Bell, 2008. "The Economic Value of Water Quality," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 41(2), pages 169-187, October.
    2. de Groot, Rudolf S. & Wilson, Matthew A. & Boumans, Roelof M. J., 2002. "A typology for the classification, description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(3), pages 393-408, June.
    3. Van Houtven, George & Mansfield, Carol & Phaneuf, Daniel J. & von Haefen, Roger & Milstead, Bryan & Kenney, Melissa A. & Reckhow, Kenneth H., 2014. "Combining expert elicitation and stated preference methods to value ecosystem services from improved lake water quality," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 40-52.
    4. Loomis, John B., 2014. "2013 WAEA Keynote Address: Strategies for Overcoming Hypothetical Bias in Stated Preference Surveys," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 39(1), pages 1-13, April.
    5. McVittie, Alistair & Moran, Dominic, 2010. "Valuing the non-use benefits of marine conservation zones: An application to the UK Marine Bill," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(2), pages 413-424, December.
    6. Champ, Patricia A. & Moore, Rebecca & Bishop, Richard C., 2009. "A Comparison of Approaches to Mitigate Hypothetical Bias," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 38(2), pages 166-180, October.
    7. W. Michael Hanemann, 1984. "Welfare Evaluations in Contingent Valuation Experiments with Discrete Responses," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 66(3), pages 332-341.
    8. Kahneman, Daniel & Knetsch, Jack L & Thaler, Richard H, 1990. "Experimental Tests of the Endowment Effect and the Coase Theorem," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 98(6), pages 1325-1348, December.
    9. Champ, Patricia A. & Moore, Rebecca & Bishop, Richard C., 2009. "A Comparison of Approaches to Mitigate Hypothetical Bias," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 38(2), pages 1-15, October.
    10. Basil E. Stumborg & Kenneth A. Baerenklau & Richard C. Bishop, 2001. "Nonpoint Source Pollution and Present Values: A Contingent Valuation Study of Lake Mendota," Review of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 23(1), pages 120-132.
    11. Christopher D. Azevedo & Joseph A. Herriges & Catherine L. Kling, 2001. "Valuing Preservation and Improvements of Water Quality in Clear Lake," Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) Publications 01-sr94, Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) at Iowa State University.
    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. Shr, Yau-Huo (Jimmy) & Zhang, Wendong, 2024. "Omitted downstream attributes and the benefits of nutrient reductions: Implications for choice experiments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 222(C).
    2. Shokhrukh-Mirzo Jalilov, 2017. "Value of Clean Water Resources: Estimating the Water Quality Improvement in Metro Manila, Philippines," Resources, MDPI, vol. 7(1), pages 1-15, December.
    3. Wang, Yangyang & Atallah, Shady & Shao, Guofan, 2016. "Nutrient retention return on investment in private forest conservation: the case of the Classified Forest and Wildlands Program in Indiana," 2016 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Boston, Massachusetts 236154, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    4. Seojeong Oh & Benjamin M. Gramig, 2023. "Valuing Ecosystem Services and Downstream Water Quality Improvement in the U.S. Corn Belt," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 85(3), pages 823-872, August.
    5. Boudreaux, Greg & Lupi, Frank & Sohngen, Brent & Xu, Alan, 2023. "Measuring beachgoer preferences for avoiding harmful algal blooms and bacterial warnings," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 204(PA).
    6. Hérivaux, Cécile & Grémont, Marine, 2019. "Valuing a diversity of ecosystem services: The way forward to protect strategic groundwater resources for the future?," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 184-193.
    7. Weng, Weizhe & Boyle, Kevin J. & Carey, Cayelan & Cobourn, Kelly M. & Dugan, Hilary & Farrell, Kaitlin & Hanson, Paul & Brahma, Sreeya Brahma & Ward, Nicole & Weathers, Kathleen, 2018. "Coupling Water Quality Numerical Simulation and Hedonic Models to Evaluate Impact of Changes in Nutrient Loading," 2018 Annual Meeting, August 5-7, Washington, D.C. 274030, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    8. Wang, Yangyang & Atallah, Shady & Shao, Guofan, 2017. "Spatially explicit return on investment to private forest conservation for water purification in Indiana, USA," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 26(PA), pages 45-57.
    9. Hao Hong Do & Oliver Frör, 2022. "River Ecosystem Resilience: Applying the Contingent Valuation Method in Vietnam," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(19), pages 1-19, September.
    10. Moeltner, Klaus & Puri, Roshan & Johnston, Robert J. & Besedin, Elena & Balukas, Jessica & Le, Alyssa, 2022. "Locally Weighted Meta-Regression and Benefit Transfer," 2022 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Anaheim, California 322359, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    11. Raviv, Orna & Zemah Shamir, Shiri & Izhaki, Ido & Sagie, Hila & Negev, Maya & Mazor-Tregerman, Maya & Collins-Kreiner, Noga & Mansfeld, Yoel & Lotan, Alon, 2020. "The socioeconomic value of multiple ecosystem types at a biosphere reserve as a baseline for one holistic conservation plan," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).

    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. Amoah, Anthony & Ferrini, Silvia & Schaafsma, Marije, 2019. "Electricity outages in Ghana: Are contingent valuation estimates valid?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 135(C).
    2. Catherine M. H. Keske & Adam Mayer, 2014. "Visitor Willingness to Pay U.S. Forest Service Recreation Fees in New West Rural Mountain Economies," Economic Development Quarterly, , vol. 28(1), pages 87-100, February.
    3. Zabala, José A. & Martínez-Paz, José M. & Alcon, Francisco, 2021. "Integrated valuation of semiarid Mediterranean agroecosystem services and disservices," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 184(C).
    4. Penn, Jerrod & Hu, Wuyang, 2016. "Making the Most of Cheap Talk in an Online Survey," 2016 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Boston, Massachusetts 236171, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    5. Hermann Donfouet & P. Jeanty & P.-A. Mahieu, 2014. "Dealing with internal inconsistency in double-bounded dichotomous choice: an application to community-based health insurance," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 46(1), pages 317-328, February.
    6. Fifer, Simon & Rose, John M., 2016. "Can you ever be certain? Reducing hypothetical bias in stated choice experiments via respondent reported choice certaintyAuthor-Name: Beck, Matthew J," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 149-167.
    7. Ana Faria Lopes & Gorm Kipperberg, 2020. "Diagnosing Insensitivity to Scope in Contingent Valuation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 77(1), pages 191-216, September.
    8. Atozou, Baoubadi & Tamini, Lota D. & Bergeronm, Stephane & Doyon, Maurice, 2020. "Factors Explaining the Hypothetical Bias: How to Improve Models for Meta-Analyses," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 45(2), March.
    9. Robert J. Johnston & Elena Y. Besedin & Ryan Stapler, 2017. "Enhanced Geospatial Validity for Meta-analysis and Environmental Benefit Transfer: An Application to Water Quality Improvements," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 68(2), pages 343-375, October.
    10. Seojeong Oh & Benjamin M. Gramig, 2023. "Valuing Ecosystem Services and Downstream Water Quality Improvement in the U.S. Corn Belt," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 85(3), pages 823-872, August.
    11. Ladenburg, Jacob & Skotte, Maria, 2022. "Heterogeneity in willingness to pay for the location of offshore wind power development: An application of the willingness to pay space model," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 241(C).
    12. Sergio Colombo & Wiktor Budziński & Mikołaj Czajkowski & Klaus Glenk, 2020. "Ex-ante and ex-post measures to mitigate hypothetical bias. Are they alternative or complementary tools to increase the reliability and validity of DCE estimates?," Working Papers 2020-20, Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw.
    13. Sergio Colombo & Wiktor Budziński & Mikołaj Czajkowski & Klaus Glenk, 2022. "The relative performance of ex‐ante and ex‐post measures to mitigate hypothetical and strategic bias in a stated preference study," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 73(3), pages 845-873, September.
    14. Rebecca Moore & Richard C. Bishop & Bill Provencher & Patricia A. Champ, 2010. "Accounting for Respondent Uncertainty to Improve Willingness‐to‐Pay Estimates," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 58(3), pages 381-401, September.
    15. Robert J. Johnston & Kevin J. Boyle & Wiktor (Vic) Adamowicz & Jeff Bennett & Roy Brouwer & Trudy Ann Cameron & W. Michael Hanemann & Nick Hanley & Mandy Ryan & Riccardo Scarpa & Roger Tourangeau & Ch, 2017. "Contemporary Guidance for Stated Preference Studies," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 4(2), pages 319-405.
    16. Nayga, Rodolfo M., Jr. & Aiew, Wipon & Woodward, Richard T., 2004. "Willingness to Pay for Irradiated Food: A Non Hypothetical Market Experiment," 84th Seminar, February 8-11, 2004, Zeist, The Netherlands 24995, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    17. Hackbart, Vivian C.S. & de Lima, Guilherme T.N.P. & dos Santos, Rozely F., 2017. "Theory and practice of water ecosystem services valuation: Where are we going?," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 23(C), pages 218-227.
    18. Tonin, Stefania, 2018. "Citizens’ perspectives on marine protected areas as a governance strategy to effectively preserve marine ecosystem services and biodiversity," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 34(PB), pages 189-200.
    19. Ganesh Iyer & Vivek Nandur & David Soberman, 2022. "Vaccine hesitancy and monetary incentives," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 9(1), pages 1-10, December.
    20. Amirnejad, Hamid & Khalilian, Sadegh & Assareh, Mohammad H. & Ahmadian, Majid, 2006. "Estimating the existence value of north forests of Iran by using a contingent valuation method," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(4), pages 665-675, July.

    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:eee:ecolec:v:118:y:2015:i:c:p:1-9. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolecon .

    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.