An Iterative Choice Approach to Valuing Clean Lakes, Rivers, and Streams
AbstractThis article introduces an iterative choice procedure for valuing inland water quality. This approach breaks up the valuation into a series of component tasks. The water quality ladder approach is not valid empirically. Consequently, respondents in Colorado and North Carolina assessed the value of making water quality rated "good" by EPA, which has a value of $22.40 per additional percent improvement. Nonuse and probabilistic use are highly valued. The results also indicate how water quality valuations differ for aquatic environment, edible fish, and swimming, as well as for water that is cloudy, smelly, or polluted by toxics. Minorities are particularly likely to rely upon monitorable water quality attributes. Copyright 2000 by Kluwer Academic Publishers
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Bibliographic InfoArticle provided by Springer in its journal Journal of Risk and Uncertainty.
Volume (Year): 21 (2000)
Issue (Month): 1 (July)
Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://www.springerlink.com/link.asp?id=100299
You can help add them by filling out this form.
CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
- 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.
- 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 36597, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
- W. Viscusi & Joel Huber & Jason Bell, 2012. "Heterogeneity in Values of Morbidity Risks from Drinking Water," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 52(1), pages 23-48, May.
- Andrew Meyer, 2013. "Intertemporal Valuation of River Restoration," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 54(1), pages 41-61, January.
- Johnston, Robert J. & Besedin, Elena Y. & Ranson, Matthew H., 2006. "Characterizing the effects of valuation methodology in function-based benefits transfer," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(2), pages 407-419, December.
- Bateman, Ian J. & Day, Brett H. & Jones, Andrew P. & Jude, Simon, 2009. "Reducing gain-loss asymmetry: A virtual reality choice experiment valuing land use change," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 58(1), pages 106-118, July.
- Holmes, Thomas P. & Bergstrom, John C. & Huszar, Eric & Kask, Susan B. & Orr, Fritz III, 2004. "Contingent valuation, net marginal benefits, and the scale of riparian ecosystem restoration," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 49(1), pages 19-30, May.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Guenther Eichhorn) or (Christopher F. Baum).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.