IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/ajarec/v49y2005i1p91-114.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Valuing options for reserve water in the Fitzroy Basin

Author

Listed:
  • John Rolfe
  • Jill Windle

Abstract

Option values may be an important component of non‐use values when development options for environmental assets are considered. These are values that the community might hold for maintaining options to make future choices about allocating resources. However, option values are very difficult to define, at both theoretical and practical levels, and there has been a retreat over the past decade to the more inclusive concept of option prices. In the present paper, estimates of option values are reported for retaining unallocated water in reserve rather than using it for current development. The use of option values rather than option prices is justified on the basis that the focus is on non‐use values, and demand and supply uncertainties have been minimised. These values have been assessed through a series of nine choice modelling surveys that have been conducted over a 3‐year period in the Fitzroy River Basin in central Queensland. The results are then extrapolated to the case study areas within the basin to assess whether unallocated water should be held in reserve or used for development.

Suggested Citation

  • John Rolfe & Jill Windle, 2005. "Valuing options for reserve water in the Fitzroy Basin," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 49(1), pages 91-114, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:ajarec:v:49:y:2005:i:1:p:91-114
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-8489.2005.00265.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8489.2005.00265.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1467-8489.2005.00265.x?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. Ian Langford* & Areti Kontogianni & Mihalis Skourtos & Stavros Georgiou & Ian Bateman, 1998. "Multivariate Mixed Models for Open-Ended Contingent Valuation Data: Willingness To Pay For Conservation of Monk Seals," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 12(4), pages 443-456, December.
    2. Nick Hanley & Robert Wright & Vic Adamowicz, 1998. "Using Choice Experiments to Value the Environment," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 11(3), pages 413-428, April.
    3. Productivity Commission, 2003. "Industries, land use and water quality in the Great Barrier Reef Catchment," Others 0305001, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    4. Richard C. Bishop, 1982. "Option Value: An Exposition and Extension," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 58(1), pages 1-15.
    5. Rolfe, John & Bennett, Jeffrey W., 2003. "WTP and WTA in relation to irrigation development in the Fitzroy Basin, Queensland," 2003 Conference (47th), February 12-14, 2003, Fremantle, Australia 58204, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    6. Rolfe, John & Bennett, Jeff & Louviere, Jordan, 2000. "Choice modelling and its potential application to tropical rainforest preservation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 35(2), pages 289-302, November.
    7. Kenneth J. Arrow & Anthony C. Fisher, 1974. "Environmental Preservation, Uncertainty, and Irreversibility," Palgrave Macmillan Books, in: Chennat Gopalakrishnan (ed.), Classic Papers in Natural Resource Economics, chapter 4, pages 76-84, Palgrave Macmillan.
    8. Jean-Paul Chavas & Daniel Mullarkey, 2002. "On the Valuation of Uncertainty in Welfare Analysis," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 84(1), pages 23-38.
    9. 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.
    10. Richard G. Walsh & John B. Loomis & Richard A. Gillman, 1984. "Valuing Option, Existence, and Bequest Demands for Wilderness," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 60(1), pages 14-29.
    11. Hoehn, John P & Randall, Alan, 1989. "Too Many Proposals Pass the Benefit Cost Test," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 79(3), pages 544-551, June.
    12. Shogren, Jason F. & Crocker, Thomas D., 1990. "Adaptation and the option value of uncertain environmental resources," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 2(4), pages 301-310, December.
    13. Poe, Gregory L. & Giraud, Kelly L. & Loomis, John B., 2001. "Simple Computational Methods for Measuring the Difference of Empirical Distributions: Application to Internal and External Scope Tests in Contingent Valuation," Staff Papers 121130, Cornell University, Department of Applied Economics and Management.
    14. Mark Morrison, 2000. "Aggregation Biases in Stated Preference Studies," Australian Economic Papers, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 39(2), pages 215-230, June.
    15. John P. Hoehn, 1991. "Valuing the Multidimensional Impacts of Environmental Policy: Theory and Methods," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 73(2), pages 289-299.
    16. Morrison, Mark, 2000. "Aggregation Biases in Stated Preference Studies," Australian Economic Papers, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 39(2), pages 215-230, June.
    17. Krinsky, Itzhak & Robb, A Leslie, 1986. "On Approximating the Statistical Properties of Elasticities," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 68(4), pages 715-719, November.
    18. Burton A. Weisbrod, 1964. "Collective-Consumption Services of Individual-Consumption Goods," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 78(3), pages 471-477.
    19. Unknown, 2003. "Industries, Land Use and Water Quality in the Great Barrier Reef Catchment," Commissioned Studies 31918, Productivity Commission.
    20. Jeff Bennett & Russell Blamey (ed.), 2001. "The Choice Modelling Approach to Environmental Valuation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2028.
    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. Marit Kragt & Jeffrey Bennett, 2012. "Attribute Framing in Choice Experiments: How Do Attribute Level Descriptions Affect Value Estimates?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 51(1), pages 43-59, January.
    2. Sukanya Das & Ekin Birol & Rabindra N. Bhattacharya, 2010. "Informing Efficient Solid Waste Management to Improve Local Environmental Quality and Public Health in West Bengal, India," Chapters, in: Jeff Bennett & Ekin Birol (ed.), Choice Experiments in Developing Countries, chapter 10, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    3. Birol, Ekin & Phoebe, Koundouri & Yiannis, Kountouris, 2008. "Using the Choice Experiment Method to Inform River Management in Poland: Flood Risk Reduction vs. Habitat Conservation in the Upper Silesia Region," MPRA Paper 41906, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    4. Roy Brouwer, 2009. "Multi-Attribute Choice Modeling of Australia’s Rivers and Wetlands: A Meta-Analysis of Ten Years of Research," Socio-Economics and the Environment in Discussion (SEED) Working Paper Series 2009-05, CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems.
    5. Diafas, Iason & Barkmann, Jan & Mburu, John, 2017. "Measurement of Bequest Value Using a Non-monetary Payment in a Choice Experiment—The Case of Improving Forest Ecosystem Services for the Benefit of Local Communities in Rural Kenya," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 140(C), pages 157-165.
    6. Sandorf, Erlend Dancke & Crastes dit Sourd, Romain & Mahieu, Pierre-Alexandre, 2018. "The effect of attribute-alternative matrix displays on preferences and processing strategies," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 29(C), pages 113-132.
    7. Richard Yao & Pamela Kaval, 2009. "Evaluating the Welfare Effects of Biodiversity on Private Lands: A Choice Modelling Application," Working Papers in Economics 09/04, University of Waikato.
    8. Marit E. Kragt & Jeff Bennett, 2008. "Developing a Questionnaire for Valuing Changes in Natural Resource Management in the George Catchment, Tasmania," Environmental Economics Research Hub Research Reports 0808, Environmental Economics Research Hub, Crawford School of Public Policy, The Australian National University.
    9. Romy Greiner, 2023. "Examining Participation in and Supply of Private Land for Voluntary Conservation in Australia’s Tropical Savannas: A Discrete-Continuous Choice Experiment," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-19, June.
    10. Zander, Kerstin K. & Straton, Anna, 2010. "An economic assessment of the value of tropical river ecosystem services: Heterogeneous preferences among Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Australians," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(12), pages 2417-2426, October.

    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. Rolfe, John & Windle, Jill, 2005. "Valuing options for reserve water in the Fitzroy Basin," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 49(1), pages 1-24.
    2. Rolfe, John & Windle, Jill, 2008. "Testing for differences in benefit transfer values between state and regional frameworks," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 52(2), pages 1-20.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. Mogas, Joan & Riera, Pere & Bennett, Jeff, 2006. "A comparison of contingent valuation and choice modelling with second-order interactions," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 12(1), pages 5-30, March.
    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. de Ayala, Amaia & Hoyos, David & Mariel, Petr, 2015. "Suitability of discrete choice experiments for landscape management under the European Landscape Convention," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(2), pages 79-96.
    9. Concu, Giovanni B., 2007. "Investigating distance effects on environmental values: a choice modelling approach," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 51(2), pages 1-20.
    10. Domínguez-Torreiro, Marcos & Soliño, Mario, 2011. "Provided and perceived status quo in choice experiments: Implications for valuing the outputs of multifunctional rural areas," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(12), pages 2523-2531.
    11. John Rolfe & Jill Windle, 2008. "Testing for differences in benefit transfer values between state and regional frameworks," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 52(2), pages 149-168, June.
    12. Vivien Foster & Susana Mourato, 2003. "Elicitation Format and Sensitivity to Scope," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 24(2), pages 141-160, February.
    13. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Hensher, David A., 2021. "The landscape of econometric discrete choice modelling research," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 40(C).
    14. Helen Scarborough & Jeff Bennett, 2012. "Cost–Benefit Analysis and Distributional Preferences," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 14376.
    15. Rolfe, John & Loch, Adam & Bennett, Jeffrey W., 2002. "Framing effects and benefit transfer in the Fitzroy basin," 2002 Conference (46th), February 13-15, 2002, Canberra, Australia 174038, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    16. Mikołaj Czajkowski & Nick Hanley, 2008. "How to ‘Sell’ an Environmental Good: Using Labels to Investigate Scope Effects," Working Papers 2008-03, Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw.
    17. Gonzalez, Matias & Leon, Carmelo J., 2003. "Consumption process and multiple valuation of landscape attributes," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 45(2), pages 159-169, June.
    18. Meyerhoff, Jürgen & Liebe, Ulf & Hartje, Volkmar, 2009. "Benefits of biodiversity enhancement of nature-oriented silviculture: Evidence from two choice experiments in Germany," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 15(1-2), pages 37-58, January.
    19. Sælensminde, Kjartan, 2003. "Embedding effects in valuation of non-market goods," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 10(1), pages 59-72, January.
    20. Gordillo, Fernando & Elsasser, Peter & Günter, Sven, 2019. "Willingness to pay for forest conservation in Ecuador: Results from a nationwide contingent valuation survey in a combined “referendum” – “Consequential open-ended” design," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 28-39.

    More about this item

    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:bla:ajarec:v:49:y:2005:i:1:p:91-114. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (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.