Author
Listed:
- Walsh, Patrick J.
- Guignet, Dennis
- Booth, Pamela
Abstract
Governments need tools to analyze trade-offs and inform freshwater policy. Although there is a large stated preference (SP) literature valuing changes in freshwater quality, the estimates often cannot be transferred to policy analyses. Obstacles to benefit transfer include (i) difficulties in scaling up local estimates to the national level, (ii) the use of water quality attributes that cannot be linked to policy-relevant measures, and (iii) surveys with water quality changes that don’t represent realistic policy. Focusing on rivers and streams in New Zealand, a country that has received international attention for efforts to protect its water resources, we develop and implement a nationwide discrete choice SP study that can be more appropriately used in benefit transfer. The stated provision mechanism and environmental commodity being valued are specified at the regional council-level, which is the administrative unit for policy implementation. The survey is administered on a national scale, to just over 2,000 respondents. Therefore, our results can easily be applied to regional freshwater policies or scaled up to inform federal actions. The discrete choice experiment attributes – nutrients, water clarity, and e. coli – were chosen because they align with government policy levers and were found to be the most relevant and salient to the general public. Estimation results suggest people are willing to pay for improvements in all three water quality attributes with magnitudes that are roughly comparable to a recent Auckland referendum vote on a water quality tax. We also find that willingness to pay varies across regions, types of recreation that a user engages in, and other respondent characteristics, although notable unobserved heterogeneity remains unexplained. To illustrate the utility of our study, we apply the results to a recent policy analyzed by New Zealand’s Ministry for the Environment and estimate nationwide annual benefits of NZ $115 million ($77 million USD).
Suggested Citation
Handle:
RePEc:ags:nceewp:348921
DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.348921
Download full text from publisher
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:nceewp:348921. 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.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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/nepgvus.html .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.