IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ers/ijfirm/v3y2013i4p593.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Methodological Issues for Estimating the Total Value of the Rehabilitation of Mining Fields: the Case of S. Domingo’s Mine

Author

Listed:
  • Isabel Mendes
  • Idalina Dias Sardinha
  • Sérgio Milheiras

Abstract

The rehabilitation of abandoned mining fields is perceived by locals as of great value for nurturing the sustainable development of socio-economically depressed regions, as it is characteristic of regions home to abandoned mines. One way of contributing towards the success of such rehabilitation projects is to evaluate their total economic value. In this paper we discuss the use of a contingent valuation methodology as the most appropriate to estimate the total economic value that the rehabilitation of the abandoned S. Domingos Mine will generate. We seek to provide a preliminary discussion of some key aspects essential to design a convincing stated preference methodological framework, enabling us to further estimate a valid and reliable money measure for the total benefits of the rehabilitation process. Such money measure should be an additional incentive towards the commitment of local authorities and stakeholders towards the project and the overall acceptance and recognition of its environmental and social value by society (besides the more obvious market economic value). Furthermore, the elicitation of the nonmarket benefits of the rehabilitation can be used subsequently for a Cost-Benefit Analysis, enabling public authorities to take truly sustainable local development decisions promoting development in accordance with the Triple-Bottom-Line framework.

Suggested Citation

  • Isabel Mendes & Idalina Dias Sardinha & Sérgio Milheiras, 2013. "Methodological Issues for Estimating the Total Value of the Rehabilitation of Mining Fields: the Case of S. Domingo’s Mine," International Journal of Finance, Insurance and Risk Management, International Journal of Finance, Insurance and Risk Management, vol. 3(4), pages 593-593.
    • Handle: RePEc:ers:ijfirm:v:3:y:2013:i:4:p:593
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journalfirm.com/journal/83/download
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kristin M. Jakobsson & Andrew K. Dragun, 1996. "Contingent Valuation and Endangered Species," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 1120.
    2. Bohm, Peter, 1972. "Estimating demand for public goods: An experiment," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 3(2), pages 111-130.
    3. Strong, Aaron & Flores, Nicholas E., 2008. "Estimating the economic benefits of acidic rock drainage clean up using cost shares," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(2), pages 348-355, April.
    4. Pemberton, Carlisle A. & Harris-Charles, Emaline & Patterson-Andrews, Hazel, 2010. "Cultural bias in contingent valuation of copper mining in the Commonwealth of Dominica," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(1), pages 19-23, November.
    5. Timothy C. Haab & Kenneth E. McConnell, 2002. "Valuing Environmental and Natural Resources," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2427.
    6. Robert A. Simons & Jesse Saginor & Aly H. Karam & Hlengani Baloyi, 2008. "Use of Contingent Valuation Analysis in a Developing Country: Market Perceptions of Contamination on Johannesburg’s Mine Dumps," International Real Estate Review, Global Social Science Institute, vol. 11(2), pages 75-104.
    7. Peter Bohm, 1972. "Estimating the demand for public goods: An experiment," Framed Field Experiments 00126, The Field Experiments Website.
    8. Borghi, Josephine & Shrestha, Daya L. & Shrestha, Deepa & Jan, Stephen, 2007. "Using focus groups to develop contingent valuation scenarios--A case study of women's groups in rural Nepal," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 64(3), pages 531-542, February.
    9. Michael Ahlheim & Oliver Frör & Ulrike Lehr & Gerhard Wagenhals & Ursula Wolf, 2004. "Contingent Valuation of Mining Land Reclamation in East Germany," Diskussionspapiere aus dem Institut für Volkswirtschaftslehre der Universität Hohenheim 245/2004, Department of Economics, University of Hohenheim, Germany.
    10. Lankford, R. Hamilton, 1988. "Measuring welfare changes in settings with imposed quantities," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 15(1), pages 45-63, March.
    11. Paul R. Portney, 1994. "The Contingent Valuation Debate: Why Economists Should Care," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 8(4), pages 3-17, Fall.
    12. Randall, Alan & Ives, Berry & Eastman, Clyde, 1974. "Bidding games for valuation of aesthetic environmental improvements," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 1(2), pages 132-149, August.
    13. Johansson,Per-Olov, 1987. "The Economic Theory and Measurement of Environmental Benefits," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521348102.
    14. Howard R. Bowen, 1943. "The Interpretation of Voting in the Allocation of Economic Resources," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 58(1), pages 27-48.
    15. S. V. Ciriacy-Wantrup, 1947. "Capital Returns from Soil-Conservation Practices," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 29(4_Part_II), pages 1181-1196.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Isabel Mendes, 2013. "Mining Rehabilitation Planning, Mining Heritage Tourism, Benefits and Contingent Valuation," Working Papers wp032013, Socius, Socio-Economics Research Centre at the School of Economics and Management (ISEG) of the Technical University of Lisbon.
    2. Richard T. Carson, 2011. "Contingent Valuation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2489.
    3. Banzhaf, H. Spencer, 2016. "Constructing markets: environmental economics and the contingent valuation controversy," MPRA Paper 78814, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    4. Isabel Mendes, 2015. "Tackling the Multidimensional Characteristics of Archaeological Heritage with Preference Based Approaches," International Journal of Finance, Insurance and Risk Management, International Journal of Finance, Insurance and Risk Management, vol. 5(4), pages 995-995.
    5. Isabel Mendes, 2016. "Assessing the Values of Archaeological Heritage," Working Papers Department of Economics 2016/02, ISEG - Lisbon School of Economics and Management, Department of Economics, Universidade de Lisboa.
    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. Catherine L. Kling & Daniel J. Phaneuf & Jinhua Zhao, 2012. "From Exxon to BP: Has Some Number Become Better Than No Number?," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 26(4), pages 3-26, Fall.
    8. Isabel Mendes, 2004. "Valuing Ecosystems - A Methodological Applying Approach," Working Papers Department of Economics 2004/11, ISEG - Lisbon School of Economics and Management, Department of Economics, Universidade de Lisboa.
    9. 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.
    10. Daniel McFadden, 2009. "The human side of mechanism design: a tribute to Leo Hurwicz and Jean-Jacque Laffont," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 13(1), pages 77-100, April.
    11. 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.
    12. Cropper, Maureen L & Oates, Wallace E, 1992. "Environmental Economics: A Survey," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 30(2), pages 675-740, June.
    13. Taale, Francis & Kyeremeh, Christian, 2016. "Households׳ willingness to pay for reliable electricity services in Ghana," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 280-288.
    14. Brookshire, David S, et al, 1982. "Valuing Public Goods: A Comparison of Survey and Hedonic Approaches," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 72(1), pages 165-177, March.
    15. Wiser, Ryan H., 2007. "Using contingent valuation to explore willingness to pay for renewable energy: A comparison of collective and voluntary payment vehicles," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 62(3-4), pages 419-432, May.
    16. Eunae Son & Song Soo Lim, 2021. "Consumer Acceptance of Gene-Edited versus Genetically Modified Foods in Korea," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(7), pages 1-17, April.
    17. Quainoo, Ruth & Petrolia, Daniel, 2018. "Mitigating Hypothetical Bias: An Application to WTP for Beach Conditions Information," 2018 Annual Meeting, February 2-6, 2018, Jacksonville, Florida 266715, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    18. Trine Hansen, 1997. "The Willingness-to-Pay for the Royal Theatre in Copenhagen as a Public Good," Journal of Cultural Economics, Springer;The Association for Cultural Economics International, vol. 21(1), pages 1-28, March.
    19. Zawojska Ewa, 2017. "A Consequential Contingent Valuation Referendum: Still Not Enough to Elicit True Preferences for Public Goods!," Central European Economic Journal, Sciendo, vol. 2(49), pages 73-90, December.
    20. Del Valle Mesa, Laura, 2018. "Barreras institucionales de la puesta en valor del patrimonio: El caso del Real de la almadraba de Nueva Umbría/Institutional Barriers of the Put in Value of the Heritage: The Case of the Real de la A," Estudios de Economia Aplicada, Estudios de Economia Aplicada, vol. 36, pages 825-850, Septiembr.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    -Contingent Valuation; Mine; Non-Marketed Benefits; Rehabilitation.;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • Q51 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Valuation of Environmental Effects
    • Q56 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Environment and Development; Environment and Trade; Sustainability; Environmental Accounts and Accounting; Environmental Equity; Population Growth
    • R58 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - Regional Government Analysis - - - Regional Development Planning and Policy

    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:ers:ijfirm:v:3:y:2013:i:4:p:593. 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: Marios Agiomavritis (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journalfirm.com/ .

    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.