IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecolec/v69y2010i3p528-538.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Heterogeneous preferences for water quality attributes: The Case of eutrophication in the Gulf of Finland, the Baltic Sea

Author

Listed:
  • Kosenius, Anna-Kaisa

Abstract

This paper examines the preference heterogeneity of the general public regarding water quality attributes and provides welfare estimates (WTP) for three nutrient-reduction scenarios that would improve the water quality in the Gulf of Finland, part of the Baltic Sea. In the choice experiment (CE), the improvement is described in terms of four water quality attributes: water clarity, abundance of coarse (non-attractive) fish, status of bladder wrack (a type of seaweed), and mass occurrences of blue-green algae blooms. The data are analysed with multinomial logit (MNL), random parameters logit (RPL), and latent class (LCM) models. The results from MNL and RPL show that, on average for Finns, clear water is, relatively speaking, the most important water quality characteristics followed by desire for fewer occurrences of blue-green algae. The results also show that the probability of expressing willingness to contribute to improvement of the water quality increases with residential or recreational contact with the Gulf of Finland, a higher income than average, a younger than average age, and lack of dependent children in the household. The LCM reveals that opinions about the order of relative importance of attributes depend on age, household income, coastal residence, and vacation home ownership. The present values for three nutrient reduction scenarios of different intensities ranging from 28,000Â million euro to 54,000Â million euro were calculated using mean welfare estimates, discounted for perpetuity with a 2% rate.

Suggested Citation

  • Kosenius, Anna-Kaisa, 2010. "Heterogeneous preferences for water quality attributes: The Case of eutrophication in the Gulf of Finland, the Baltic Sea," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(3), pages 528-538, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:69:y:2010:i:3:p:528-538
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921-8009(09)00364-4
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Wang, Xuehong & Bennett, Jeff & Xie, Chen & Zhang, Zhitao & Liang, Dan, 2007. "Estimating non-market environmental benefits of the Conversion of Cropland to Forest and Grassland Program: A choice modeling approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(1), pages 114-125, June.
    2. W. Viscusi & Joel Huber & Jason Bell, 2008. "The Economic Value of Water Quality," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 41(2), pages 169-187, October.
    3. Greene, William H. & Hensher, David A., 2003. "A latent class model for discrete choice analysis: contrasts with mixed logit," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 37(8), pages 681-698, September.
    4. W. Michael Hanemann, 1984. "Welfare Evaluations in Contingent Valuation Experiments with Discrete Responses," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 66(3), pages 332-341.
    5. Hausman, Jerry & McFadden, Daniel, 1984. "Specification Tests for the Multinomial Logit Model," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 52(5), pages 1219-1240, September.
    6. Milon, J. Walter & Scrogin, David, 2006. "Latent preferences and valuation of wetland ecosystem restoration," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 56(2), pages 162-175, February.
    7. Edward Morey & Kathleen Greer Rossmann, 2003. "Using Stated-Preference Questions to Investigate Variations in Willingness to Pay for Preserving Marble Monuments: Classic Heterogeneity, Random Parameters, and Mixture Models," Journal of Cultural Economics, Springer;The Association for Cultural Economics International, vol. 27(3), pages 215-229, November.
    8. Phaneuf, Daniel J. & Smith, V. Kerry, 2006. "Recreation Demand Models," Handbook of Environmental Economics,in: K. G. Mäler & J. R. Vincent (ed.), Handbook of Environmental Economics, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 15, pages 671-761 Elsevier.
    9. Edward Morey & Jennifer Thacher & William Breffle, 2006. "Using Angler Characteristics and Attitudinal Data to Identify Environmental Preference Classes: A Latent-Class Model," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 34(1), pages 91-115, May.
    10. John A. Downing, 2009. "Valuing Water Quality as a Function of Water Quality Measures," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 91(1), pages 106-123.
    11. von Haefen, Roger H. & Phaneuf, Daniel J., 2003. "Estimating preferences for outdoor recreation:: a comparison of continuous and count data demand system frameworks," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 45(3), pages 612-630, May.
    12. Kaoru, Yoshiaki, 1995. "Measuring marine recreation benefits of water quality improvements by the nested random utility model," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 17(2), pages 119-136, August.
    13. Daniel McFadden & Kenneth Train, 2000. "Mixed MNL models for discrete response," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(5), pages 447-470.
    14. David Hensher & William Greene, 2003. "The Mixed Logit model: The state of practice," Transportation, Springer, vol. 30(2), pages 133-176, May.
    15. Eggert, Håkan & Olsson, Björn, 2009. "Valuing multi-attribute marine water quality," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 201-206, March.
    16. Peter Boxall & Wiktor Adamowicz, 2002. "Understanding Heterogeneous Preferences in Random Utility Models: A Latent Class Approach," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 23(4), pages 421-446, December.
    17. Birol, Ekin & Karousakis, Katia & Koundouri, Phoebe, 2006. "Using a choice experiment to account for preference heterogeneity in wetland attributes: The case of Cheimaditida wetland in Greece," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(1), pages 145-156, November.
    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. Ahtiainen, Heini & Vanhatalo, Jarno, 2012. "The value of reducing eutrophication in European marine areas — A Bayesian meta-analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 1-10.
    2. Yoo, James & Ready, Richard C., 2014. "Preference heterogeneity for renewable energy technology," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 101-114.
    3. Bertram, Christine & Rehdanz, Katrin, 2013. "On the environmental effectiveness of the EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 25-40.
    4. Jill Windle & John Rolfe, 2010. "Assessing community values for reducing agricultural emissions to improve water quality and protect coral health in the Great Barrier Reef," Environmental Economics Research Hub Research Reports 1084, Environmental Economics Research Hub, Crawford School of Public Policy, The Australian National University.
    5. Kosenius, Anna-Kaisa, 2013. "Preference discontinuity in choice experiment: Determinants and implications," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 138-145.
    6. Windle, Jill & Rolfe, John, 2010. "Assessing community values for reducing agricultural emissions to improve water quality and protect coral health in the Great Barrier Reef," Research Reports 107583, Australian National University, Environmental Economics Research Hub.
    7. Rolfe, John & Windle, Jill, 2011. "Assessing community values for reducing agricultural emissions to improve water quality and protect coral health in the Great Barrier Reef," 2011 Conference (55th), February 8-11, 2011, Melbourne, Australia 100705, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    8. Cyril Bourgeois & Pierre-Alain Jayet & Florence Habets & Pascal Viennot, 2018. "Estimating the Marginal Social Value of Agriculturally Driven Nitrate Concentrations in an Aquifer: A Combined Theoretical-Applied Approach," Water Economics and Policy (WEP), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 4(01), pages 1-30, January.
    9. Wolf, David & Klaiber, H. Allen, 2017. "Bloom and bust: Toxic algae's impact on nearby property values," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 135(C), pages 209-221.
    10. Wendong Zhang & Brent Sohngen, 2018. "Do US Anglers Care about Harmful Algal Blooms? A discrete choice experiment of Lake Erie recreational anglers," Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) Publications 17-wp573, Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) at Iowa State University.
    11. Montañez, Ana María & Maldonado, Jorge Higinio, 2014. "¿Qué tanto los hogares colombianos conocen y valoran las áreas marinas protegidas? Valoración económica usando experimentos de elección," Documentos CEDE Series 209384, Universidad de Los Andes, Economics Department.
    12. Marita Laukkanen & Céline Nauges, 2014. "Evaluating Greening Farm Policies: A Structural Model for Assessing Agri-environmental Subsidies," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 90(3), pages 458-481.
    13. Kristine Pakalniete & Juris Aigars & Mikolaj Czajkowski & Solvita Strake & Ewa Zawojska & Nick Hanley, 2016. "Understanding the distribution of economic benefits from improving coastal and marine ecosystems," Discussion Papers in Environment and Development Economics 2016-14, University of St. Andrews, School of Geography and Sustainable Development.
    14. Tomás del Barrio Casto & William Nilsson & Andrés J. Picazo-Tadeo, 2013. "How wrong can you be, without noticing? Further evidence on speci cation errors in the Conditional Logit," Working Papers 1318, Department of Applied Economics II, Universidad de Valencia.
    15. Viteri Mejía, César & Brandt, Sylvia, 2015. "Managing tourism in the Galapagos Islands through price incentives: A choice experiment approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 1-11.
    16. 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.
    17. Zhang, Congwen & Boyle, Kevin J. & Kuminoff, Nicolai V., 2015. "Partial identification of amenity demand functions," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 180-197.
    18. Kosenius, Anna-Kaisa & Markku, Ollikainen, 2015. "Ecosystem benefits from coastal habitats—A three-country choice experiment," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 15-27.
    19. Kermagoret, Charlène & Levrel, Harold & Carlier, Antoine & Dachary-Bernard, Jeanne, 2016. "Individual preferences regarding environmental offset and welfare compensation: a choice experiment application to an offshore wind farm project," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 230-240.
    20. Varela, Elsa & Jacobsen, Jette Bredahl & Soliño, Mario, 2014. "Understanding the heterogeneity of social preferences for fire prevention management," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 91-104.
    21. Yoo, James & Simonit, Silvio & Connors, John P. & Kinzig, Ann P. & Perrings, Charles, 2014. "The valuation of off-site ecosystem service flows: Deforestation, erosion and the amenity value of lakes in Prescott, Arizona," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 74-83.
    22. repec:wsi:wepxxx:v:03:y:2017:i:02:n:s2382624x16500314 is not listed on IDEAS
    23. Mullen, Jeffrey D. & Calhoun, Kayla & Colson, Gregory & Kriesel, Warren, 2015. "Effects of Uncertainty on Support for Water Quality Improvement Programs," 2015 AAEA & WAEA Joint Annual Meeting, July 26-28, San Francisco, California 205419, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.

    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:eee:ecolec:v:69:y:2010:i:3:p:528-538. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dana Niculescu). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolecon .

    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 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.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.