IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/umdrwp/28603.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The Value Of Improved Water Quality To Chesapeake Bay Boaters

Author

Listed:
  • Lipton, Douglas W.

Abstract

As part of an economic survey of Maryland registered boat owners, an open ended contingent valuation question was posed regarding willingness to pay for an improvement in water quality in Chesapeake Bay. The boaters ranked their perception of water quality on a scale of one to five, and the payment was for an improvement of one unit. Boaters also indicated the type of concern poor water quality raised, ranging from no concern to concern about long term effects of exposure to toxic chemicals. Median willingness to pay for a one step improvement in water quality was $17.50 per year and the mean was $63, with 38% expressing a zero willingness-to-pay. A tobit model was estimated to determine what factors influenced willingness to pay amounts. Sailboaters and boats that were kept in the water rather than trailered were willing to pay more for water quality improvements. Additionally, the lower the individual ranked water quality and the greater concern for the health effects from water quality, the more the willingness to pay for a water quality improvement. In aggregate, Chesapeake Bay boaters in Maryland were willing to pay approximately $7.3 million per year to achieve the stated water quality improvement. The present value of this improvement, at a 5% discount rate is a $146 million.

Suggested Citation

  • Lipton, Douglas W., 2003. "The Value Of Improved Water Quality To Chesapeake Bay Boaters," Working Papers 28603, University of Maryland, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:umdrwp:28603
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.28603
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/28603/files/wp03-16.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.28603?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. Yoshiaki Kaoru & V. Kerry Smith & Jin Long Liu, 1995. "Using Random Utility Models to Estimate the Recreational Value of Estuarine Resources," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 77(1), pages 141-151.
    2. Richard T. Carson & Robert Cameron Mitchell, 1993. "The Issue of Scope in Contingent Valuation Studies," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 75(5), pages 1263-1267.
    3. Timothy C. Haab & Kenneth E. McConnell, 2002. "Valuing Environmental and Natural Resources," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2427.
    4. Daniel McFadden, 1994. "Contingent Valuation and Social Choice," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 76(4), pages 689-708.
    5. Mark L. Messonnier & John C. Bergstrom & Christopher M. Cornwell & R. Jeff Teasley & H. Ken Cordell, 2000. "Survey Response-Related Biases in Contingent Valuation: Concepts, Remedies, and Empirical Application to Valuing Aquatic Plant Management," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 82(2), pages 438-450.
    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. 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.
    2. Chris Moore & Dennis Guignet & Kelly B. Maguire & Chris Dockins & Nathalie B. Simon, 2015. "A Stated Preference Study of the Chesapeake Bay and Watershed Lakes," NCEE Working Paper Series 201506, National Center for Environmental Economics, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, revised Nov 2015.
    3. Ge, Jiaqi & Kling, Catherine L. & Herriges, Joseph A., 2013. "How Much is Clean Water Worth? Valuing Water Quality Improvement Using A Meta Analysis," Staff General Research Papers Archive 36597, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    4. Nikola Jovanoski, 2015. "Estimating the Value of Preserving the Doubs," IRENE Working Papers 15-02, IRENE Institute of Economic Research.
    5. Turo Hjerppe & Elina Seppälä & Sari Väisänen & Mika Marttunen, 2017. "Monetary assessment of the recreational benefits of improved water quality – description of a new model and a case study," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 60(11), pages 1944-1966, November.
    6. Ghermandi, Andrea & Nunes, Paulo A.L.D., 2013. "A global map of coastal recreation values: Results from a spatially explicit meta-analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 1-15.
    7. Jerrod Penn & Wuyang Hu & Linda Cox & Lara Kozloff, 2016. "Values for Recreational Beach Quality in Oahu, Hawaii," Marine Resource Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 31(1), pages 47-62.
    8. Van Houtven, George & Powers, John & Pattanayak, Subhrendu K., 2007. "Valuing water quality improvements in the United States using meta-analysis: Is the glass half-full or half-empty for national policy analysis?," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 29(3), pages 206-228, September.
    9. Halkos, George, 2012. "The use of contingent valuation in assessing marine and coastal ecosystems’ water quality: A review," MPRA Paper 42183, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    10. Marius Yapo & Jie He & Bruno Gagnon & Luc Savard & Roland Leduc, 2015. "La valeur économique pour l’amélioration de la qualité de l’eau: le cas de la rivière Magog et du lac Magog (Québec, Canada)," Cahiers de recherche 15-15, Departement d'économique de l'École de gestion à l'Université de Sherbrooke.
    11. Baulcomb, Corinne & Böhnke-Henrichs, Anne, 2014. "A Review of the Marine Economic Valuation Literature 1975 – 2011: Classifying Existing Studies by Service Type, Value Type, and Valuation Methodology," Working Papers 190935, Scotland's Rural College (formerly Scottish Agricultural College), Land Economy & Environment Research Group.
    12. 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.
    13. Ge, Jiaqi, 2014. "Stepping into new territory: Three essays on agent-based computational economics and environmental economics," ISU General Staff Papers 201401010800004899, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    14. Breen, Benjamin & Curtis, John & Hynes, Stephen, 2017. "Recreational Use of Public Waterways and the Impact of Water Quality," Papers WP552, Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI).
    15. Gibson, Fiona & Pannell, David & Boxall, Peter & Burton, Michael & Johnston, Robert & Kragt, Marit & Rogers, Abbie & Rolfe, John, 2016. "Non-market valuation in the economic analysis of natural hazards," Working Papers 236941, University of Western Australia, School of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
    16. Cropper, Maureen L. & Isaac, William, 2011. "The Benefits of Achieving the Chesapeake Bay TMDLs (Total Maximum Daily Loads): A Scoping Study," RFF Working Paper Series dp-11-31, Resources for the Future.

    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. Richard Carson & Theodore Groves, 2007. "Incentive and informational properties of preference questions," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 37(1), pages 181-210, May.
    2. 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.
    3. Tuan, Tran Huu & Navrud, Stale, 2009. "Applying the dissonance-minimising format to value cultural heritage in developing countries," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 53(3), pages 1-17.
    4. Richard T. Carson & Miko_aj Czajkowski, 2014. "The discrete choice experiment approach to environmental contingent valuation," Chapters, in: Stephane Hess & Andrew Daly (ed.), Handbook of Choice Modelling, chapter 9, pages 202-235, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    5. John C. Whitehead & Timothy C. Haab & Ju‐Chin Huang, 1998. "Part‐Whole Bias in Contingent Valuation: Will Scope Effects Be Detected with Inexpensive Survey Methods?," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 65(1), pages 160-168, July.
    6. Lindhjem, Henrik & Navrud, Ståle, 2008. "Internet CV surveys – a cheap, fast way to get large samples of biased values?," MPRA Paper 11471, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    7. Robert Gillespie & Jeff Bennett, 2011. "Non Use Economic Values of Marine Protected Areas in the South-West Marine Area," Environmental Economics Research Hub Research Reports 10103, Environmental Economics Research Hub, Crawford School of Public Policy, The Australian National University.
    8. Whitehead, John C., 2016. "Plausible responsiveness to scope in contingent valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 17-22.
    9. 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.
    10. Riera, Pere & Signorello, Giovanni & Thiene, Mara & Mahieu, Pierre-Alexandre & Navrud, Ståle & Kaval, Pamela & Rulleau, Benedicte & Mavsar, Robert & Madureira, Lívia & Meyerhoff, Jürgen & Elsasser, Pe, 2012. "Non-market valuation of forest goods and services: Good practice guidelines," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(4), pages 259-270.
    11. Carlevaro, Fabrizio & Schlesser, C. & Binet , M. E. & Paul, M., 2007. "Econometric Modeling and Analysis of Residential Water Demand Based on Unbalanced Panel Data," Applied Econometrics, Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration (RANEPA), vol. 8(4), pages 81-102.
    12. Andrea Leiter, 2011. "Age effects in monetary valuation of reduced mortality risks: the relevance of age-specific hazard rates," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 12(4), pages 331-344, August.
    13. Gelo, Dambala & Koch, Steven F., 2015. "Contingent valuation of community forestry programs in Ethiopia: Controlling for preference anomalies in double-bounded CVM," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 79-89.
    14. Zandersen, Marianne & Termansen, Mette & Jensen, Frank S., 2007. "Evaluating approaches to predict recreation values of new forest sites," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 13(2-3), pages 103-128, August.
    15. Yongjie Ji & Joseph A. Herriges & Catherine L. Kling, 2016. "Modeling Recreation Demand When the Access Point Is Unknown," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 98(3), pages 860-880.
    16. Robert Gillespie & Jeff Bennett, 2011. "Willingness to pay for recycling food waste in the Brisbane Region," Environmental Economics Research Hub Research Reports 1096, Environmental Economics Research Hub, Crawford School of Public Policy, The Australian National University.
    17. Gillespie, Robert & Bennett, Jeffrey W., 2010. "Non Use Economic Values of Marine Protected Areas in the South-West Marine Region," Research Reports 107582, Australian National University, Environmental Economics Research Hub.
    18. Lee, Chul-Yong & Heo, Hyejin, 2016. "Estimating willingness to pay for renewable energy in South Korea using the contingent valuation method," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 150-156.
    19. Marianne Zandersen & Mette Termansen & Frank S. Jensen, 2005. "Valuing New Forest Sites over Time: the Case of Afforestation and Recreation in Denmark," Working Papers FNU-80, Research unit Sustainability and Global Change, Hamburg University, revised Aug 2005.
    20. Henry, Miguel & Mittelhammer, Ron & Loomis, John, 2018. "An Information-Theoretic Approach to Estimating Willingness To Pay for River Recreation Site Attributes," MPRA Paper 89842, University Library of Munich, Germany.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Resource /Energy Economics and Policy;

    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:ags:umdrwp:28603. 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: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/daumdus.html .

    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.