IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/envirc/v22y2004i1p3-13.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Role of Environmental Valuation in Public Policymaking: The Case of Urban Waterside Area in Japan

Author

Listed:
  • Kiyoko Hagihara

    (Center for Urban Studies, Tokyo Metropolitan University, 1-1 Minami-Osawa, Hachioji, Tokyo, 192-0397, Japan)

  • Yoshimi Hagihara

    (Institute of Disaster Prevention Research, Kyoto University, Gokasho, Uji, Kyoto, 611-0011, Japan)

Abstract

In this paper the authors aim to clarify the role of environmental valuation in public policymaking through a case study of valuing the waterside along a river in an urban area. A brief history of river policies in Japan is first discussed. Then, in order to identify residents' demands concerning the waterside, a discrete choice model is set up. The model is then applied to a case study. Not only revealed preference data but also stated preference data are used in the case study. Finally, the limited role of the value of the waterside environment that is obtained from the model is shown.

Suggested Citation

  • Kiyoko Hagihara & Yoshimi Hagihara, 2004. "The Role of Environmental Valuation in Public Policymaking: The Case of Urban Waterside Area in Japan," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 22(1), pages 3-13, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:envirc:v:22:y:2004:i:1:p:3-13
    DOI: 10.1068/c02101s
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1068/c02101s
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1068/c02101s?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. Adamowicz, Wiktor & Swait, Joffre & Boxall, Peter & Louviere, Jordan & Williams, Michael, 1997. "Perceptions versus Objective Measures of Environmental Quality in Combined Revealed and Stated Preference Models of Environmental Valuation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 65-84, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Sant'Anna, Ana Claudia & Bergtold, Jason & Shanoyan, Aleksan & Caldas, Marcellus & Granco, Gabriel, 2021. "Deal or No Deal? Analysis of Bioenergy Feedstock Contract Choice with Multiple Opt-out Options and Contract Attribute Substitutability," 2021 Conference, August 17-31, 2021, Virtual 315289, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    2. Stephen Hynes & Nick Hanley & Cathal O’Donoghue, 2006. "Using Continuous and Finite Mixture Models to Account for Preference Heterogeneity in a group of Outdoor Recreationalists," Working Papers 0602, Rural Economy and Development Programme,Teagasc.
    3. Stephen Hynes & Nick Hanley & Eoghan Garvey, 2007. "Up the Proverbial Creek without a Paddle: Accounting for Variable Participant Skill Levels in Recreational Demand Modelling," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 36(4), pages 413-426, April.
    4. Lienhoop, Nele & Ansmann, Till, 2011. "Valuing water level changes in reservoirs using two stated preference approaches: An exploration of validity," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(7), pages 1250-1258, May.
    5. Caroline Roussy & Aude Ridier & Karim Chaïb, 2014. "Adoption d’innovations par les agriculteurs : rôle des perceptions et des préférences," Post-Print hal-01123427, HAL.
    6. Pang, Arwin, 2017. "Incorporating the effect of successfully bagging big game into recreational hunting: An examination of deer, moose and elk hunting," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 28(C), pages 12-17.
    7. Swait, Joffre & Adamowicz, Wiktor, 2001. "Choice Environment, Market Complexity, and Consumer Behavior: A Theoretical and Empirical Approach for Incorporating Decision Complexity into Models of Consumer Choice," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 86(2), pages 141-167, November.
    8. Carole Ropars-Collet & Philippe Goffe & Qods Lefnatsa, 2021. "Does catch-and-release increase the recreational value of rivers? The case of salmon fishing," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, Springer, vol. 102(4), pages 393-424, December.
    9. Jayson L. Lusk & Jutta Roosen & John A. Fox, 2003. "Demand for Beef from Cattle Administered Growth Hormones or Fed Genetically Modified Corn: A Comparison of Consumers in France, Germany, the United Kingdom, and the United States," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 85(1), pages 16-29.
    10. Boyd, James & Krupnick, Alan J., 2013. "Using Ecological Production Theory to Define and Select Environmental Commodities for Nonmarket Valuation," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 42(1), pages 1-32, April.
    11. de Koning, Koen & Filatova, Tatiana & Bin, Okmyung, 2017. "Bridging the Gap Between Revealed and Stated Preferences in Flood-prone Housing Markets," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 1-13.
    12. Paul Dolan & Robert Metcalfe, 2008. "Comparing Willingness-to-Pay and Subjective Well-Being in the Context of Non-Market Goods," CEP Discussion Papers dp0890, Centre for Economic Performance, LSE.
    13. Huang, Ju-Chin & Haab, Timothy C. & Whitehead, John C., 2001. "Absolute Versus Relative Risk Perceptions: An Application To Economic Values Of Seafood Safety," 2001 Annual meeting, August 5-8, Chicago, IL 20731, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    14. Birol, Ekin & Kontoleon, Andreas & Smale, Melinda, 2006. "Combining revealed and stated preference methods to assess the private value of agrobiodiversity in Hungarian home gardens:," EPTD discussion papers 156, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    15. Häggquist, Elisabeth & Söderholm, Patrik, 2015. "The economic value of geological information: Synthesis and directions for future research," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 91-100.
    16. W. Bowman Cutter & Linwood Pendleton & J. R. DeShazo, 2007. "Activities in Models of Recreational Demand," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 83(3), pages 370-381.
    17. Nordén, Anna & Coria, Jessica & Jönsson, Anna Maria & Lagergren, Fredrik & Lehsten, Veiko, 2017. "Divergence in stakeholders' preferences: Evidence from a choice experiment on forest landscapes preferences in Sweden," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 179-195.
    18. Layton, David F., 2000. "Random Coefficient Models for Stated Preference Surveys," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 40(1), pages 21-36, July.
    19. Ekin Birol & Phoebe Koundouri, 2008. "Choice Experiments Informing Environmental Policy:A European Perspective," DEOS Working Papers 0801, Athens University of Economics and Business.
    20. Juutinen, Artti & Kosenius, Anna-Kaisa & Ovaskainen, Ville, 2014. "Estimating the benefits of recreation-oriented management in state-owned commercial forests in Finland: A choice experiment," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 20(4), pages 396-412.

    More about this item

    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:sae:envirc:v:22:y:2004:i:1:p:3-13. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.