IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/mrq/wpaper/0503.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Assessing the Determinants of Willingness to Pay for Urban Flood Control: The Role of Locational, Demographic and attitudinal Factors

Author

Listed:
  • David E. Clark

    (Department of Economics, Marquette University)

  • Robert Griffin

    (Department of Communications, Marquette University)

  • Vladimir Novoty

    (Department of Civil and Enviornmental Engineering, Northeastern University)

Abstract

The urbanization of urban watersheds can influence flooding risks. Traditional Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) flood risk maps identify 100 year floodplains. These maps are updated infrequently. However, as a community urbanizes, flood risks can change, especially for downstream residents. Thus, one would expect that the willingness to pay (WTP) to prevent the worsening of flooding risk would depend in part on the location of the household in the community and their associated flooding risk. Economists and regional scientists have evaluated the role played by traditional demographic factors. However, attitudinal factors measuring community norms, political philosophy, and other psychological factors that may be unique to the individual have not received the same level of scrutiny. Milwaukee, WI has experienced major flooding events, classified as floods with an expected frequency of once every 100 years or less, in 1986 and most recently in 1997 and 1998. In this study, 1000 residents of the Menomonee watershed in Milwaukee were interviewed in a two-wave panel survey (i.e., telephone interviews took place in 2000 and 2001) to determine their willingness to pay for a referendum which would prevent flood risks from worsening. The interviews queried respondents about their attitudes concerning flooding and ecological risks, political beliefs, information seeking behavior, and other psychological factors unique to the respondent. Information was also gathered on demographic characteristics of the respondent, and also that individuals address. The address was geocoded and hydrologic modeling was used to determine the unique flood risk associated with the residence. A willingness to pay function was estimated using Tobit analysis. Preliminary findings indicated that all three categories of factors influence willingness to pay, with psychological factors and flood risk factors having a relatively strong impact on willingness to pay. Paper prepared for the 2005 Annual Meetings of the Midcontinent Regional Science Association and the Southern Regional Science Association in Arlington VA, April 8-10, 2005. PLEASE DO NOT QUOTE WITHOUT PERMISSION.

Suggested Citation

  • David E. Clark & Robert Griffin & Vladimir Novoty, 2005. "Assessing the Determinants of Willingness to Pay for Urban Flood Control: The Role of Locational, Demographic and attitudinal Factors," Working Papers and Research 0503, Marquette University, Center for Global and Economic Studies and Department of Economics.
    • Handle: RePEc:mrq:wpaper:0503
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.busadm.mu.edu/mrq/workingpapers/wpaper0503.pdf
    File Function: First Version, 2005
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Smith, V Kerry & Desvousges, William H, 1987. "An Empirical Analysis of the Economic Value of Risk Changes," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 95(1), pages 89-114, February.
    2. Richard T. Carson, 2011. "Contingent Valuation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2489.
    3. Smith, V. Kerry, 1992. "Arbitrary values, good causes, and premature verdicts," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 22(1), pages 71-89, January.
    4. Harrison, Glenn W., 1992. "Valuing public goods with the contingent valuation method: A critique of kahneman and knetsch," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 23(3), pages 248-257, November.
    5. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    6. Nickerson Carol A. E., 1993. "Valuing Public Goods: A Comment on Harrison's Critique of Kahneman and Knetsch," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 25(2), pages 93-102, September.
    7. Leonard Shabman & Kurt Stephenson, 1996. "Searching for the Correct Benefit Estimate: Empirical Evidence for an Alternative Perspective," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 72(4), pages 433-449.
    8. Schoemaker, Paul J H, 1982. "The Expected Utility Model: Its Variants, Purposes, Evidence and Limitations," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 20(2), pages 529-563, June.
    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. Morteza Chalak & Veronique Florec & Atakelty Hailu & Fiona Gibson & David Pannell, 2017. "Integrating non-market values in economic analyses of flood mitigation: a case study of the Brown Hill and Keswick creeks catchment in Adelaide," Working Papers 256513, University of Western Australia, School of Agricultural and Resource Economics.

    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. Ruud Hoevenagel, 1996. "The validity of the contingent valuation method: Perfect and regular embedding," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 7(1), pages 57-78, January.
    2. Richard Carson & Nicholas Flores & Norman Meade, 2001. "Contingent Valuation: Controversies and Evidence," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 19(2), pages 173-210, June.
    3. Richard T. Carson, 2011. "Contingent Valuation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2489.
    4. Bateman, Ian J. & Cole, Matthew & Cooper, Philip & Georgiou, Stavros & Hadley, David & Poe, Gregory L., 2004. "On visible choice sets and scope sensitivity," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 47(1), pages 71-93, January.
    5. Guofang Zhai & Takeshi Suzuki, 2008. "Effects of Risk Representation and Scope on Willingness to Pay for Reduced Risks: Evidence from Tokyo Bay, Japan," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(2), pages 513-522, April.
    6. W. Michael Hanemann, 1994. "Valuing the Environment through Contingent Valuation," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 8(4), pages 19-43, Fall.
    7. Richard D. Smith, 2003. "Construction of the contingent valuation market in health care:a critical assessment," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(8), pages 609-628, August.
    8. Ian J. Bateman & Michael P. Cameron & Antreas Tsoumas, 2006. "Investigating the Characteristics of Stated Preferences for Reducing the Impacts of Air Pollution: A Contingent Valuation Experiment," Working Papers in Economics 06/08, University of Waikato.
    9. Luís Santos-Pinto & Adrian Bruhin & José Mata & Thomas Åstebro, 2015. "Detecting heterogeneous risk attitudes with mixed gambles," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 79(4), pages 573-600, December.
    10. Christopher Prendergast, 1993. "Rationality, Optimality, and Choice," Rationality and Society, , vol. 5(1), pages 47-57, January.
    11. Stern, David I., 1997. "Limits to substitution and irreversibility in production and consumption: A neoclassical interpretation of ecological economics," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(3), pages 197-215, June.
    12. Finkelshtain, Israel & Feinerman, Eli, 1997. "Framing the Allais paradox as a daily farm decision problem: tests and explanations," Agricultural Economics, Blackwell, vol. 15(3), pages 155-167, January.
    13. Segal, Uzi, 1987. "The Ellsberg Paradox and Risk Aversion: An Anticipated Utility Approach," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 28(1), pages 175-202, February.
    14. Bruno Frey, 1990. "From paradoxes to social rules, or: How economics repeats itself," Constitutional Political Economy, Springer, vol. 1(2), pages 27-34, March.
    15. Gregory Poe & Richard Bishop, 1999. "Valuing the Incremental Benefits of Groundwater Protection when Exposure Levels are Known," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 13(3), pages 341-367, April.
    16. Clark, Jeremy & Friesen, Lana, 2008. "The causes of order effects in contingent valuation surveys: An experimental investigation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 56(2), pages 195-206, September.
    17. Veisten, Knut, 2007. "Contingent valuation controversies: Philosophic debates about economic theory," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 204-232, April.
    18. Robison, Lindon J. & Shupp, Robert S. & Myers, Robert J., 2010. "Expected utility paradoxes," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 39(2), pages 187-193, April.
    19. William C. McDaniel & Francis Sistrunk, 1991. "Management Dilemmas and Decisions," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 35(1), pages 21-42, March.
    20. Emmanuel Flachaire & Guillaume Hollard, 2006. "Controlling Starting-Point Bias in Double-Bounded Contingent Valuation Surveys," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 82(1), pages 103-111.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:mrq:wpaper:0503. 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: Andrew G. Meyer (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ecomuus.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.