IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecoser/v27y2017ipap70-81.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Going green? Ex-post valuation of a multipurpose water infrastructure in Northern Italy

Author

Listed:
  • Reynaud, Arnaud
  • Lanzanova, Denis
  • Liquete, Camino
  • Grizzetti, Bruna

Abstract

A contingent valuation approach is used to estimate how households value different multipurpose infrastructures (conventional or green) for managing flood risk and water pollution. As a case study we consider the Gorla Maggiore water park located in the Lombardy Region, in Northern Italy. The park is a neo-ecosystem including an infrastructure to treat waste water and store excess rain water, built in 2011 on the shore of the Olona River in an area previously used for poplar plantation. This park is the first one of this type built in Italy. A novel aspect of our research is that it not only considers the values people hold for different water ecosystem services (pollution removal, recreative use, wildlife support, flood risk reduction), but also their preferences for how those outcomes are achieved (through conventional or green infrastructures). The results indicate that the type of infrastructure delivering the ecosystem services does have an impact on individuals’ preferences for freshwater ecosystem services. Households are willing to pay from 6.3 to 7.1euros per year for a green infrastructure (compared to a conventional one), with a premium up to 16.5euros for a surrounding made of a park. By considering the type of infrastructure within the choice model, we gain a richer understanding of the relationship between social welfare and freshwater ecosystem services.

Suggested Citation

  • Reynaud, Arnaud & Lanzanova, Denis & Liquete, Camino & Grizzetti, Bruna, 2017. "Going green? Ex-post valuation of a multipurpose water infrastructure in Northern Italy," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 27(PA), pages 70-81.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecoser:v:27:y:2017:i:pa:p:70-81
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.07.015
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212041617301067
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.07.015?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. Lindhjem, Henrik & Navrud, Ståle, 2011. "Using Internet in Stated Preference Surveys: A Review and Comparison of Survey Modes," International Review of Environmental and Resource Economics, now publishers, vol. 5(4), pages 309-351, September.
    2. Cameron, Trudy Ann, 1992. "The impact of grouping coarseness in alternative grouped-data regression models," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 52(3), pages 419-421, June.
    3. Bateman, Ian J. & Day, Brett H. & Georgiou, Stavros & Lake, Iain, 2006. "The aggregation of environmental benefit values: Welfare measures, distance decay and total WTP," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(2), pages 450-460, December.
    4. Grischa Perino & Barnaby Andrews & Andreas Kontoleon & Ian Bateman, 2014. "The Value of Urban Green Space in Britain: A Methodological Framework for Spatially Referenced Benefit Transfer," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 57(2), pages 251-272, February.
    5. Tunçel, Tuba & Hammitt, James K., 2014. "A new meta-analysis on the WTP/WTA disparity," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 68(1), pages 175-187.
    6. Liquete, Camino & Udias, Angel & Conte, Giulio & Grizzetti, Bruna & Masi, Fabio, 2016. "Integrated valuation of a nature-based solution for water pollution control. Highlighting hidden benefits," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 22(PB), pages 392-401.
    7. Laura O. Taylor & Ronald G. Cummings, 1999. "Unbiased Value Estimates for Environmental Goods: A Cheap Talk Design for the Contingent Valuation Method," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 89(3), pages 649-665, June.
    8. John List & Craig Gallet, 2001. "What Experimental Protocol Influence Disparities Between Actual and Hypothetical Stated Values?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 20(3), pages 241-254, November.
    9. repec:ebl:ecbull:v:3:y:2004:i:6:p:1-13 is not listed on IDEAS
    10. Gollier, Christian & Weitzman, Martin L., 2010. "How should the distant future be discounted when discount rates are uncertain?," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 107(3), pages 350-353, June.
    11. Antara Sen & Amii Harwood & Ian Bateman & Paul Munday & Andrew Crowe & Luke Brander & Jibonayan Raychaudhuri & Andrew Lovett & Jo Foden & Allan Provins, 2014. "Economic Assessment of the Recreational Value of Ecosystems: Methodological Development and National and Local Application," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 57(2), pages 233-249, February.
    12. Fifer, Simon & Rose, John & Greaves, Stephen, 2014. "Hypothetical bias in Stated Choice Experiments: Is it a problem? And if so, how do we deal with it?," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 164-177.
    13. M. Morrison & R. Blamey & J. Bennett, 2000. "Minimising Payment Vehicle Bias in Contingent Valuation Studies," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 16(4), pages 407-422, August.
    14. Charles R. Plott & Kathryn Zeiler, 2005. "The Willingness to Pay–Willingness to Accept Gap, the "Endowment Effect," Subject Misconceptions, and Experimental Procedures for Eliciting Valuations," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 95(3), pages 530-545, June.
    15. Cameron, Trudy Ann & Huppert, Daniel D., 1989. "OLS versus ML estimation of non-market resource values with payment card interval data," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 17(3), pages 230-246, November.
    16. Schaafsma, Marije & Brouwer, Roy & Rose, John, 2012. "Directional heterogeneity in WTP models for environmental valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 21-31.
    17. J.B. Ellis, 2013. "Sustainable surface water management and green infrastructure in UK urban catchment planning," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 56(1), pages 24-41, January.
    18. Pate, Jennifer & Loomis, John, 1997. "The effect of distance on willingness to pay values: a case study of wetlands and salmon in California," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 20(3), pages 199-207, March.
    19. Moore, Christopher C. & Holmes, Thomas P. & Bell, Kathleen P., 2011. "An attribute-based approach to contingent valuation of forest protection programs," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 17(1), pages 35-52, January.
    20. de-Magistris, Tiziana & Pascucci, Stefano, 2014. "The effect of the solemn oath script in hypothetical choice experiment survey: A pilot study," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 123(2), pages 252-255.
    21. Ronald R. Rindfuss & Minja K. Choe & Noriko O. Tsuya & Larry L. Bumpass & Emi Tamaki, 2015. "Do low survey response rates bias results? Evidence from Japan," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 32(26), pages 797-828.
    22. Joseph Little & Robert Berrens, 2004. "Explaining Disparities between Actual and Hypothetical Stated Values: Further Investigation Using Meta-Analysis," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 3(6), pages 1-13.
    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. Hanson, Helena I. & Wickenberg, Björn & Alkan Olsson, Johanna, 2020. "Working on the boundaries—How do science use and interpret the nature-based solution concept?," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 90(C).
    2. Pascal da Costa & Daniel Hernandez, 2019. "The Economic Value of Ecosystem Conservation: A Discrete Choice Experiment at the Taravo River Basin in Corsica," Working Papers hal-01971681, HAL.
    3. Nancy Andrea Ramírez-Agudelo & Roger Porcar Anento & Miriam Villares & Elisabet Roca, 2020. "Nature-Based Solutions for Water Management in Peri-Urban Areas: Barriers and Lessons Learned from Implementation Experiences," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(23), pages 1-36, November.

    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. 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.
    2. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Rose, John M. & Oppewal, Harmen & Lancsar, Emily, 2021. "Hypothetical bias in stated choice experiments: Part II. Conceptualisation of external validity, sources and explanations of bias and effectiveness of mitigation methods," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).
    3. He, Jie & Huang, Anping & Xu, Luodan, 2015. "Spatial heterogeneity and transboundary pollution: A contingent valuation (CV) study on the Xijiang River drainage basin in south China," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 101-130.
    4. Richard T. Carson, 2011. "Contingent Valuation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2489.
    5. Donfouet, Hermann Pythagore Pierre & Mohamed, Shukri F. & Otieno, Peter & Wambiya, Elvis & Mutua, Martin Kavao & Danaei, Goodarz, 2020. "Economic valuation of setting up a social health enterprise in urban poor-resource setting in Kenya," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 266(C).
    6. Jayson L. Lusk & F. Bailey Norwood, 2009. "An Inferred Valuation Method," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 85(3), pages 500-514.
    7. Basu, Amita & Srinivasan, Narayanan, 2021. "A Modified Contingent Valuation Method Shrinks Gain-Loss Asymmetry," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 94(C).
    8. Léa Tardieu, 2017. "The need for integrated spatial assessments in ecosystem service mapping," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, Springer, vol. 98(3), pages 173-200, December.
    9. Robert J. Johnston & Elena Y. Besedin & Benedict M. Holland, 2019. "Modeling Distance Decay Within Valuation Meta-Analysis," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 72(3), pages 657-690, March.
    10. 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.
    11. Liebe, Ulf & Glenk, Klaus & von Meyer-Höfer, Marie & Spiller, Achim, 2019. "A web survey application of real choice experiments," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 33(C).
    12. Pengfei Liu & Xiaohui Tian, 2021. "Downward Hypothetical Bias in the Willingness to Accept Measure for Private Goods: Evidence from a Field Experiment," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 103(5), pages 1679-1699, October.
    13. Giles Atkinson & Sian Morse-Jones & Susana Mourato & Allan Provins, 2012. "‘When to Take “No” for an Answer’? Using Entreaties to Reduce Protests in Contingent Valuation Studies," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 51(4), pages 497-523, April.
    14. 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.
    15. Blomquist, Glenn C. & Coomes, Paul A. & Jepsen, Christopher & Koford, Brandon C. & Troske, Kenneth R., 2014. "Estimating the social value of higher education: willingness to pay for community and technical colleges," Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 5(1), pages 3-41, January.
    16. Catherine L. Kling & Daniel J. Phaneuf & Jinhua Zhao, 2012. "From Exxon to BP: Has Some Number Become Better Than No Number?," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 26(4), pages 3-26, Fall.
    17. Araña, Jorge E. & León, Carmelo J., 2013. "Dynamic hypothetical bias in discrete choice experiments: Evidence from measuring the impact of corporate social responsibility on consumers demand," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 53-61.
    18. repec:ebl:ecbull:v:2:y:2007:i:1:p:1-9 is not listed on IDEAS
    19. Qin, Botao, 2020. "Does a promise script work to reduce the hypothetical bias? Evidence from an induced value experiment," Economics - The Open-Access, Open-Assessment E-Journal (2007-2020), Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel), vol. 14, pages 1-15.
    20. Jacquemet, Nicolas & Joule, Robert-Vincent & Luchini, Stéphane & Shogren, Jason F., 2013. "Preference elicitation under oath," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 65(1), pages 110-132.
    21. Helga Fehr-Duda & Robin Schimmelpfennig, 2018. "Wider die Zahlengläubigkeit: Sind Befragungsergebnisse eine gute Grundlage für wirtschaftspolitische Entscheidungen?," ECON - Working Papers 297, Department of Economics - University of Zurich, revised Dec 2018.

    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:ecoser:v:27:y:2017:i:pa:p:70-81. 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: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/ecosystem-services .

    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.