IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/aareaj/186961.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Valuing a multistate river: the case of the River Murray

Author

Listed:
  • Hatton MacDonald, Darla
  • Morrison, Mark D.
  • Rose, John M.
  • Boyle, Kevin J.

Abstract

The River Murray and the Coorong in Australia have been in a state of decline. With the prospect of extended droughts and shifts in inflows due to climate change, difficult choices loom. The options include halting the decline, triage of some assets along the River or staying with the declining river system. To support decision-making, a survey was designed to elicit willingness to pay for improvements in environmental quality. Over 3000 Australians responded to this survey. The study focuses on key River Murray environmental quality indicators: the frequency of bird breeding along the River Murray, increasing native fish populations in the River Murray, increasing the area of healthy vegetation along the River Murray, and restoring water bird habitat in the Coorong. State/Territory models were jointly estimated using a panel multinomial logit error-components model. Willingness to pay estimates for improvements in environmental quality were calculated for the River Murray and the Coorong. Respondents were found to be willing to pay most for the Coorong and to improve waterbird breeding frequency. Respondents from the Australian Capital Territory were found to have significantly higher willingness to pay whereas those in Victoria had a significantly lower willingness to pay than respondents in other states.

Suggested Citation

  • Hatton MacDonald, Darla & Morrison, Mark D. & Rose, John M. & Boyle, Kevin J., 2011. "Valuing a multistate river: the case of the River Murray," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 55(3), pages 1-19, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:aareaj:186961
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.186961
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/186961/files/j.1467-8489.2011.00551.x.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.186961?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
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Wiktor Adamowicz & Peter Boxall & Michael Williams & Jordan Louviere, 1998. "Stated Preference Approaches for Measuring Passive Use Values: Choice Experiments and Contingent Valuation," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 80(1), pages 64-75.
    2. John M. Rose & Michiel C. J. Bliemer, 2008. "Constructing Efficient Stated Choice Experimental Designs," Transport Reviews, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 29(5), pages 587-617, October.
    3. List John A. & Sinha Paramita & Taylor Michael H., 2006. "Using Choice Experiments to Value Non-Market Goods and Services: Evidence from Field Experiments," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 5(2), pages 1-39, January.
    4. Bennett, Jeffrey W. & Morrison, Mark & Blamey, Russell K., 1998. "Testing the validity of responses to contingent valuation questioning," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 42(2), pages 1-18.
    5. Kent F. Kovacs & Douglas M. Larson, 2008. "Identifying Individual Discount Rates and Valuing Public Open Space with Stated-Preference Models," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 84(2), pages 209-224.
    6. Michael D. Young & Jim C. McColl, 2009. "Double trouble: the importance of accounting for and defining water entitlements consistent with hydrological realities ," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 53(1), pages 19-35, January.
    7. Glenn W. Harrison & Morten I. Lau & Melonie B. Williams, 2002. "Estimating Individual Discount Rates in Denmark: A Field Experiment," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 92(5), pages 1606-1617, December.
    8. Anna Alberini & James R. Kahn (ed.), 2006. "Handbook on Contingent Valuation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 1893.
    9. Riccardo Scarpa & Mara Thiene & Francesco Marangon, 2008. "Using Flexible Taste Distributions to Value Collective Reputation for Environmentally Friendly Production Methods," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 56(2), pages 145-162, June.
    10. Robert Johnston, 2007. "Choice experiments, site similarity and benefits transfer," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 38(3), pages 331-351, November.
    11. Mark Morrison & Thomas Brown, 2009. "Testing the Effectiveness of Certainty Scales, Cheap Talk, and Dissonance-Minimization in Reducing Hypothetical Bias in Contingent Valuation Studies," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 44(3), pages 307-326, November.
    12. Mark Morrison, 2000. "Aggregation Biases in Stated Preference Studies," Australian Economic Papers, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 39(2), pages 215-230, June.
    13. Shane Frederick & George Loewenstein & Ted O'Donoghue, 2002. "Time Discounting and Time Preference: A Critical Review," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 40(2), pages 351-401, June.
    14. Morrison, Mark, 2000. "Aggregation Biases in Stated Preference Studies," Australian Economic Papers, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 39(2), pages 215-230, June.
    15. Stephane Hess & John Rose, 2009. "Should Reference Alternatives in Pivot Design SC Surveys be Treated Differently?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 42(3), pages 297-317, March.
    16. John Rolfe & Jeff Bennett (ed.), 2006. "Choice Modelling and the Transfer of Environmental Values," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 3336.
    17. Morten Mørkbak & Tove Christensen & Dorte Gyrd-Hansen, 2010. "Choke Price Bias in Choice Experiments," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 45(4), pages 537-551, April.
    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. Ioannidou, Christina & O’Hanley, Jesse R., 2018. "Eco-friendly location of small hydropower," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 264(3), pages 907-918.
    2. Bark, Rosalind H. & Colloff, Matthew J. & Hatton MacDonald, Darla & Pollino, Carmel A. & Jackson, Sue & Crossman, Neville D., 2016. "Integrated valuation of ecosystem services obtained from restoring water to the environment in a major regulated river basin," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 22(PB), pages 381-391.
    3. Xin Yang & Anlu Zhang & Fan Zhang, 2019. "Farmers’ Heterogeneous Willingness to Pay for Farmland Non-Market Goods and Services on the Basis of a Mixed Logit Model—A Case Study of Wuhan, China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(20), pages 1-14, October.
    4. Banerjee, Onil & Bark, Rosalind & Connor, Jeff & Crossman, Neville D., 2013. "An ecosystem services approach to estimating economic losses associated with drought," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 19-27.

    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. Hatton MacDonald, Darla & Ardeshiri, Ali & Rose, John M. & Russell, Bayden D. & Connell, Sean D., 2015. "Valuing coastal water quality: Adelaide, South Australia metropolitan area," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 116-124.
    2. Ladenburg, Jacob & Olsen, Søren Bøye, 2014. "Augmenting short Cheap Talk scripts with a repeated Opt-Out Reminder in Choice Experiment surveys," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 39-63.
    3. Baker, Rick & Ruting, Brad, 2014. "Environmental Policy Analysis: A Guide to Non‑Market Valuation," 2014 Conference (58th), February 4-7, 2014, Port Macquarie, Australia 165810, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    4. 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).
    5. 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.
    6. Balderas Torres, Arturo & MacMillan, Douglas C. & Skutsch, Margaret & Lovett, Jon C., 2015. "Reprint of ‘Yes-in-my-backyard’: Spatial differences in the valuation of forest services and local co-benefits for carbon markets in México," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 283-294.
    7. Balderas Torres, Arturo & MacMillan, Douglas C. & Skutsch, Margaret & Lovett, Jon C., 2015. "‘Yes-in-my-backyard’: Spatial differences in the valuation of forest services and local co-benefits for carbon markets in México," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 130-141.
    8. Therese Grijalva & Jayson Lusk & W. Shaw, 2014. "Discounting the Distant Future: An Experimental Investigation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 59(1), pages 39-63, September.
    9. Milad Haghani & Michiel C. J. Bliemer & John M. Rose & Harmen Oppewal & Emily Lancsar, 2021. "Hypothetical bias in stated choice experiments: Part I. Integrative synthesis of empirical evidence and conceptualisation of external validity," Papers 2102.02940, arXiv.org.
    10. Jindrich Matousek & Tomas Havranek & Zuzana Irsova, 2022. "Individual discount rates: a meta-analysis of experimental evidence," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 25(1), pages 318-358, February.
    11. Thijs Dekker & Paul Koster & Roy Brouwer, 2014. "Changing with the Tide: Semiparametric Estimation of Preference Dynamics," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 90(4), pages 717-745.
    12. Bond, Craig A. & Cullen, Kelly Giraud & Larson, Douglas M., 2009. "Joint estimation of discount rates and willingness to pay for public goods," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(11), pages 2751-2759, September.
    13. Choi, Andy S. & Ritchie, Brent W. & Papandrea, Franco & Bennett, Jeff, 2010. "Economic valuation of cultural heritage sites: A choice modeling approach," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 31(2), pages 213-220.
    14. Egan, Kevin J. & Corrigan, Jay R. & Dwyer, Daryl F., 2015. "Three reasons to use annual payments in contingent valuation surveys: Convergent validity, discount rates, and mental accounting," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 123-136.
    15. Bruno Lanz & Allan Provins, 2015. "Using discrete choice experiments to regulate the provision of water services: do status quo choices reflect preferences?," Journal of Regulatory Economics, Springer, vol. 47(3), pages 300-324, June.
    16. Lloyd-Smith, Patrick & Adamowicz, Wiktor & Entem, Alicia & Fenichel, Eli P. & Rouhi Rad, Mani, 2021. "The decade after tomorrow: Estimation of discount rates from realistic temporal decisions over long time horizons," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 183(C), pages 158-174.
    17. Azucena Gracia, 2014. "Consumers’ preferences for a local food product: a real choice experiment," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 47(1), pages 111-128, August.
    18. Bruno Lanz & Allan Provins, 2012. "Do status quo choices reflect preferences? Evidence from a discrete choice experiment in the context of water utilities' investment planning," CEPE Working paper series 12-87, CEPE Center for Energy Policy and Economics, ETH Zurich.
    19. Amanda Stathopoulos & Stephane Hess, 2011. "Referencing, Gains-Losses Asymmetry And Non-Linear Sensitivities In Commuter Decisions: One Size Does Not Fit All!," Working Papers 0511, CREI Università degli Studi Roma Tre, revised 2011.
    20. Marcello Di Muro & Rungsaran Wongprawmas & Maurizio Canavari, 2016. "Consumers? Preferences and Willingness-To-Pay for Misfit Vegetables," Economia agro-alimentare, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 18(2), pages 133-154.

    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:aareaj:186961. 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/aaresea.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.