IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this article

Nonmarket valuation of water quality: Addressing spatially heterogeneous preferences using GIS and a random parameter logit model

  • Tait, Peter
  • Baskaran, Ramesh
  • Cullen, Ross
  • Bicknell, Kathryn
Registered author(s):

    The spatial distribution of agri-environmental policy benefits has important implications for the efficient allocation of management effort. The practical convenience of relying on sample mean values of individual benefits for aggregation can come at the cost of biased aggregate estimates. The main objective of this paper is to test spatial hypotheses regarding respondents' local water quality and quantity, and their willingness-to-pay for improvements in water quality attributes. This paper combines choice experiment and spatially related water quality data via a Geographical Information System (GIS) to develop a method that evaluates the influence of respondents' local water quality on willingness-to-pay for river and stream conservation programmes in Canterbury, New Zealand. Results showed that those respondents who live in the vicinity of low quality waterways are willing to pay more for improvements relative to those who live near to high quality waterways. The study also found that disregarding the influence of respondents' local water quality data has a significant impact on the magnitude of welfare estimates and causes substantial underestimation of aggregated benefits.

    If 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.

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

    Article provided by Elsevier in its journal Ecological Economics.

    Volume (Year): 75 (2012)
    Issue (Month): C ()
    Pages: 15-21

    in new window

    Handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:75:y:2012:i:c:p:15-21
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.12.009
    Contact details of provider: Web page:

    References listed on IDEAS
    Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

    as in new window
    1. David Hensher & William Greene, 2003. "The Mixed Logit model: The state of practice," Transportation, Springer, vol. 30(2), pages 133-176, May.
    2. Chen, Nengwang & Li, Huancheng & Wang, Lihong, 2009. "A GIS-based approach for mapping direct use value of ecosystem services at a county scale: Management implications," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(11), pages 2768-2776, September.
    3. Jenkins, W. Aaron & Murray, Brian C. & Kramer, Randall A. & Faulkner, Stephen P., 2010. "Valuing ecosystem services from wetlands restoration in the Mississippi Alluvial Valley," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(5), pages 1051-1061, March.
    4. Ekin Birol & Melinda Smale & Ágnes Gyovai, 2006. "Using a Choice Experiment to Estimate Farmers’ Valuation of Agrobiodiversity on Hungarian Small Farms," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 34(4), pages 439-469, August.
    5. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521766555, April.
    6. Danny Campbell & W. George Hutchinson & Riccardo Scarpa, 2007. "Using Choice Experiments to Explore the Spatial Distribution of Willingness to Pay for Rural Landscape Improvements," Working Papers in Economics 07/06, University of Waikato, Department of Economics.
    7. David Hensher & John Rose & William Greene, 2005. "The implications on willingness to pay of respondents ignoring specific attributes," Transportation, Springer, vol. 32(3), pages 203-222, 05.
    8. Taylor, R. Garth & McKean, John R. & Johnson, Donn M., 2010. "Measuring the Location Value of a Recreation Site," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 35(1), April.
    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), June.
    10. Condon, Brian & Hodges, Alan W. & Matta, Rao, 2007. "Public Preferences and Values for Rural Land Preservation in Florida," 2007 Annual Meeting, July 29-August 1, 2007, Portland, Oregon TN 9857, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    11. Bateman, Ian J. & Day, Brett H. & Georgiou, Stavros & Lake, Iain, 2006. "The aggregation of environmental benefit values: Welfare measures, distance decay and total WTP," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(2), pages 450-460, December.
    12. Hanemann, W Michael, 1984. "Discrete-Continuous Models of Consumer Demand," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 52(3), pages 541-61, May.
    13. I.J. Bateman & A.P. Jones & A.A. Lovett & I.R. Lake & B.H. Day, 2002. "Applying Geographical Information Systems (GIS) to Environmental and Resource Economics," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 22(1), pages 219-269, June.
    14. Roy Brouwer & Julia Martin-Ortega & RJulio Berbel, 2010. "Spatial Preference Heterogeneity: A Choice Experiment," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 86(3).
    15. Mark Agee & Thomas Crocker, 2010. "Directional heterogeneity of environmental disamenities: the impact of crematory operations on adjacent residential values," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 42(14), pages 1735-1745.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:75:y:2012:i:c:p:15-21. 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: (Shamier, Wendy)

    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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 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.

    This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.