IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/envsyd/v30y2010i3d10.1007_s10669-010-9267-8.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Direct and indirect benefits of improving river quality: quantifying benefits and a case study of the River Klang, Malaysia

Author

Listed:
  • Robert M. Bradley

    (NJS Consultants Co. Ltd)

Abstract

This paper describes the potential benefits to be gained from improving the quality of urban rivers and evaluates the methods commonly used to quantify such benefits. The difficulties encountered in quantifying non-use benefits in developing countries are discussed with particular reference to the River Klang that drains the urban conurbation of Kuala Lumpur in Malaysia, where as in many other locations in developing countries the only potential benefits are the most difficult to justify, namely indirect and non-use benefits.

Suggested Citation

  • Robert M. Bradley, 2010. "Direct and indirect benefits of improving river quality: quantifying benefits and a case study of the River Klang, Malaysia," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 30(3), pages 228-241, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:envsyd:v:30:y:2010:i:3:d:10.1007_s10669-010-9267-8
    DOI: 10.1007/s10669-010-9267-8
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10669-010-9267-8
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10669-010-9267-8?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. Burtraw, Dallas & Krupnick, Alan J., 1999. "Measuring the Value of Health Improvements from Great Lakes Cleanup," Discussion Papers 10861, Resources for the Future.
    2. Harvey F. Ludwig, 2006. "Assigning money amounts to represent intrinsic value of precious eco-systems in developing countries," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 26(3), pages 143-145, September.
    3. Banzhaf, H. Spencer & Walsh, Randy, 2006. "Do People Vote with Their Feet? An Empirical Test of Environmental Gentrification," RFF Working Paper Series dp-06-10, Resources for the Future.
    4. KyeongAe Choe & Dale Whittington & Donald T. Lauria, 1996. "The Economic Benefits of Surface Water Quality Improvements in Developing Countries: A Case Study of Davao, Philippines," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 72(4), pages 519-537.
    5. W. David Eberle & F. Gregory Hayden, 1991. "Critique of Contingent Valuation and Travel Cost Methods for Valuing Natural Resources and Ecosystems," Journal of Economic Issues, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 25(3), pages 649-687, September.
    6. Attfield, Robin, 1998. "Existence value and intrinsic value," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 24(2-3), pages 163-168, February.
    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. Siyu Yue & Huaien Li & Fengmin Song, 2023. "Temporal–Spatial Variations in the Economic Value Produced by Environmental Flows in a Water Shortage Area in Northwest China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(4), pages 1-17, February.

    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. Mushtaq Memon & Shunji Matsuoka, 2002. "Validity of contingent valuation estimates from developing countries: scope sensitivity analysis," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 5(1), pages 39-61, March.
    2. Mushtaq Ahmed Memon & Shunji Matsuoka, 2002. "Validity of contingent valuation estimates from developing countries: scope sensitivity analysis," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 5(1), pages 39-61, March.
    3. Zhang, Yingjie & Zhang, Tianzheng & Zeng, Yingxiang & Cheng, Baodong & Li, Hongxun, 2021. "Designating National Forest Cities in China: Does the policy improve the urban living environment?," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 125(C).
    4. Yao, Richard T. & Wallace, Lisa, 2024. "A systematic review of non-market ecosystem service values for biosecurity protection," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 67(C).
    5. Saner, Marc A. & Bordt, Michael, 2016. "Building the consensus: The moral space of earth measurement," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 74-81.
    6. Blair Fix, 2019. "The Aggregation Problem: Implications for Ecological and Biophysical Economics," Biophysical Economics and Resource Quality, Springer, vol. 4(1), pages 1-15, March.
    7. Takesi Murota & Irina Glazyrina, 2010. "Common-pool resources in East Russia: a case study on the creation of a new national park as a form of community-based natural resource governance," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 11(1), pages 37-52, February.
    8. Acey, Charisma & Kisiangani, Joyce & Ronoh, Patrick & Delaire, Caroline & Makena, Evelyn & Norman, Guy & Levine, David & Khush, Ranjiv & Peletz, Rachel, 2019. "Cross-subsidies for improved sanitation in low income settlements: Assessing the willingness to pay of water utility customers in Kenyan cities," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 160-177.
    9. Deutschmann, Joshua W. & Postepska, Agnieszka & Sarr, Leopold, 2021. "Measuring willingness to pay for reliable electricity: Evidence from Senegal," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 138(C).
    10. Jung-Eun Kim & Jungsung Yeo, 2010. "Valuation of Consumers’ Personal Information: A South Korean Example," Journal of Family and Economic Issues, Springer, vol. 31(3), pages 297-306, September.
    11. Fix, Blair, 2018. "The aggregation problem: Implications for ecological economics," Working Papers on Capital as Power 2018/03, Capital As Power - Toward a New Cosmology of Capitalism.
    12. Getzner, Michael, 2008. "Uncertainties and the precautionary principle in cost-benefit environmental policies," Journal of Policy Modeling, Elsevier, vol. 30(1), pages 1-17.
    13. Michael Greenstone & Justin Gallagher, 2008. "Does Hazardous Waste Matter? Evidence from the Housing Market and the Superfund Program," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 123(3), pages 951-1003.
    14. Jin Guo & Junhong Bai, 2019. "The Role of Public Participation in Environmental Governance: Empirical Evidence from China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(17), pages 1-19, August.
    15. Graça, Manjate, 2018. "Scope effects in contingent valuation: an application to the valuation of irrigation water quality improvements in Infulene Valley, Mozambique," Research Theses 334752, Collaborative Masters Program in Agricultural and Applied Economics.
    16. Hajkowicz, Stefan, 2006. "Multi-attributed environmental index construction," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(1), pages 122-139, April.
    17. Tadahiro Okuyama, 2023. "A simultaneous valuation model on positive and negative tourism benefits under suppressed consumption," Tourism Economics, , vol. 29(5), pages 1391-1404, August.
    18. Tisdell, Clem & Wilson, Clevo & Swarna Nantha, Hemanath, 2008. "Contingent valuation as a dynamic process," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 37(4), pages 1443-1458, August.
    19. Lucas W. Davis, 2008. "The Effect of Power Plants on Local Housing Values and Rents: Evidence from Restricted Census Microdata," Working Papers 0809, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Center for Energy and Environmental Policy Research.
    20. Marcial Echenique & Raghavendra Seshagiri, 2009. "Attribute-Based Willingness to Pay for Improved Water Services: A Developing Country Application," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 36(3), pages 384-397, June.

    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:spr:envsyd:v:30:y:2010:i:3:d:10.1007_s10669-010-9267-8. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.