IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v12y2020i24p10377-d460678.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Does Water Pollution Influence Willingness to Accept the Installation of a Mine Near a City? Case Study of an Open-Pit Lithium Mine

Author

Listed:
  • Eva Crespo-Cebada

    (Department of Economics, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Extremadura–Ctra, 06071 Badajoz, Spain)

  • Carlos Díaz-Caro

    (Department of Finance and Accounting, Faculty of Business, Finance and Tourism, University of Extremadura, Avda. de la Universidad, 10071 Cáceres, Spain)

  • María Teresa Nevado Gil

    (Department of Finance and Accounting, Faculty of Business, Finance and Tourism, University of Extremadura, Avda. de la Universidad, 10071 Cáceres, Spain)

  • Ángel Sabino Mirón Sanguino

    (Department of Finance and Accounting, Faculty of Business, Finance and Tourism, University of Extremadura, Avda. de la Universidad, 10071 Cáceres, Spain)

Abstract

Currently, the use of lithium as a resource in the manufacturing of technological components such as mobile phones, computers or even in the automotive sector, is in high demand. In this sense, the prospects for lithium open-pit mines in order to obtain this highly valued resource have improved remarkably. However, the installation of this type of mine causes certain negative environmental consequences such as air pollution, water pollution, and even a reduction in the biodiversity of the environment, which generates welfare losses due to the cost involved. The objective of this work is to analyse the preferences of the citizens of Cáceres (Spain) regarding the possible opening of an open-pit lithium mine in the surroundings of the city. For this, a choice experiment was carried out to identify the willingness to accept certain levels of contamination and/or reduction of biodiversity and to quantify its monetary quantification. Likewise, a mixed-effects model was applied in order to analyse the heterogeneity in preferences and the willingness to accept the installation. The results showed that water pollution is one of the most relevant attributes in the preferences, revealing a very high willingness to accept (€12–38/year) for water pollution compared to other attributes.

Suggested Citation

  • Eva Crespo-Cebada & Carlos Díaz-Caro & María Teresa Nevado Gil & Ángel Sabino Mirón Sanguino, 2020. "Does Water Pollution Influence Willingness to Accept the Installation of a Mine Near a City? Case Study of an Open-Pit Lithium Mine," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(24), pages 1-13, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:24:p:10377-:d:460678
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/24/10377/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/24/10377/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Adelina Gschwandtner & Michael Burton, 2020. "Comparing treatments to reduce hypothetical bias in choice experiments regarding organic food," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 47(3), pages 1302-1337.
    2. Elżbieta Izabela Szczepankiewicz & Przemysław Mućko, 2016. "CSR Reporting Practices of Polish Energy and Mining Companies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(2), pages 1-17, January.
    3. Rehdanz, Katrin & Schröder, Carsten & Narita, Daiju & Okubo, Toshihiro, 2017. "Public preferences for alternative electricity mixes in post-Fukushima Japan," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 262-270.
    4. Verity Watson & Frauke Becker & Esther de Bekker‐Grob, 2017. "Discrete Choice Experiment Response Rates: A Meta‐analysis," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 26(6), pages 810-817, June.
    5. Chuanwang Sun & Nan Lyu & Xiaoling Ouyang, 2014. "Chinese Public Willingness to Pay to Avoid Having Nuclear Power Plants in the Neighborhood," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 6(10), pages 1-27, October.
    6. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521766555, January.
    7. David Revelt & Kenneth Train, 1998. "Mixed Logit With Repeated Choices: Households' Choices Of Appliance Efficiency Level," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 80(4), pages 647-657, November.
    8. Sun, Chuanwang & Yuan, Xiang & Yao, Xin, 2016. "Social acceptance towards the air pollution in China: Evidence from public's willingness to pay for smog mitigation," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 313-324.
    9. Joan Martínez Alier, 2001. "Environmental Conflicts, Environmental Justice, and Valuation," UHE Working papers 2001_03, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Departament d'Economia i Història Econòmica, Unitat d'Història Econòmica.
    10. Casey, James F. & Kahn, James R. & Rivas, Alexandre A.F., 2008. "Willingness to accept compensation for the environmental risks of oil transport on the Amazon: A choice modeling experiment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 67(4), pages 552-559, November.
    11. Doherty, Edel & Murphy, Geraldine & Hynes, Stephen & Buckley, Cathal, 2014. "Valuing ecosystem services across water bodies: Results from a discrete choice experiment," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 7(C), pages 89-97.
    12. Wuepper, David & Clemm, Alexandra & Wree, Philipp, 2019. "The preference for sustainable coffee and a new approach for dealing with hypothetical bias," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 158(C), pages 475-486.
    13. 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.
    14. van der Horst, Dan, 2007. "NIMBY or not? Exploring the relevance of location and the politics of voiced opinions in renewable energy siting controversies," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(5), pages 2705-2714, May.
    15. Louviere,Jordan J. & Hensher,David A. & Swait,Joffre D. With contributions by-Name:Adamowicz,Wiktor, 2000. "Stated Choice Methods," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521788304.
    16. Grosjean, Camille & Miranda, Pamela Herrera & Perrin, Marion & Poggi, Philippe, 2012. "Assessment of world lithium resources and consequences of their geographic distribution on the expected development of the electric vehicle industry," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 16(3), pages 1735-1744.
    17. Sama, Celia & Crespo-Cebada, Eva & Díaz-Caro, Carlos & Escribano, Miguel & Mesías, Francisco J., 2018. "Consumer Preferences for Foodstuffs Produced in a Socio-environmentally Responsible Manner: A Threat to Fair Trade Producers?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 150(C), pages 290-296.
    18. AvcI, Duygu & Adaman, Fikret & Özkaynak, Begüm, 2010. "Valuation languages in environmental conflicts: How stakeholders oppose or support gold mining at Mount Ida, Turkey," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(2), pages 228-238, December.
    19. Alexandra K. Shannon & Faraz Usmani & Subhrendu K. Pattanayak & Marc Jeuland, 2019. "The Price of Purity: Willingness to Pay for Air and Water Purification Technologies in Rajasthan, India," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 73(4), pages 1073-1100, August.
    20. Fredrik Carlsson & Peter Martinsson, 2003. "Design techniques for stated preference methods in health economics," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(4), pages 281-294, April.
    21. Wu, Yican, 2017. "Public acceptance of constructing coastal/inland nuclear power plants in post-Fukushima China," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 101(C), pages 484-491.
    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. 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).
    2. Alfredo J. Escribano & Maria Belen Peña & Carlos Díaz-Caro & Ahmed Elghannam & Eva Crespo-Cebada & Francisco J. Mesías, 2021. "Stated Preferences for Plant-Based and Cultured Meat: A Choice Experiment Study of Spanish Consumers," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(15), pages 1-21, July.
    3. Christian A. Oberst & Reinhard Madlener, 2015. "Prosumer Preferences Regarding the Adoption of Micro†Generation Technologies: Empirical Evidence for German Homeowners," Working Papers 2015.07, International Network for Economic Research - INFER.
    4. Stefania Troiano & Daniel Vecchiato & Francesco Marangon & Tiziano Tempesta & Federico Nassivera, 2019. "Households’ Preferences for a New ‘Climate-Friendly’ Heating System: Does Contribution to Reducing Greenhouse Gases Matter?," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(13), pages 1-19, July.
    5. Marit E. Kragt & J.W. Bennett, 2011. "Using choice experiments to value catchment and estuary health in Tasmania with individual preference heterogeneity," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 55(2), pages 159-179, April.
    6. Bruno Lanz & Allan Provins, 2013. "Valuing Local Environmental Amenity with Discrete Choice Experiments: Spatial Scope Sensitivity and Heterogeneous Marginal Utility of Income," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 56(1), pages 105-130, September.
    7. Tavárez, Héctor & Elbakidze, Levan, 2019. "Valuing recreational enhancements in the San Patricio Urban Forest of Puerto Rico: A choice experiment approach," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    8. Halkos, George & Galani, Georgia, 2016. "Assessing willingness to pay for marine and coastal ecosystems: A Case Study in Greece," MPRA Paper 68767, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    9. Eggert, Håkan & Olsson, Björn, 2004. "Heterogeneous preferences for marine amenities: A choice experiment applied to water quality," Working Papers in Economics 126, University of Gothenburg, Department of Economics.
    10. Eva Crespo-Cebada & Carlos Díaz-Caro & Aurora E. Rabazo-Martín & Edilberto J. Rodríguez-Rivero, 2021. "Do Narcissistic Managers Prefer Incentive Systems Based on Financial Instruments? An Analysis Based on Choice Experiments," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(3), pages 1-13, January.
    11. Beharry-Borg, Nesha & Scarpa, Riccardo, 2010. "Valuing quality changes in Caribbean coastal waters for heterogeneous beach visitors," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(5), pages 1124-1139, March.
    12. Mulatu, Dawit W. & van der Veen, Anne & van Oel, Pieter R., 2014. "Farm households' preferences for collective and individual actions to improve water-related ecosystem services: The Lake Naivasha basin, Kenya," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 7(C), pages 22-33.
    13. David Hensher & John Rose, 2009. "Toll product preferences and implications for alternative payment options and going cashless," Transportation, Springer, vol. 36(2), pages 131-145, March.
    14. Ortega, David L. & Wang, H. Holly & Wu, Laping & Hong, Soo Jeong, 2015. "Retail channel and consumer demand for food quality in China," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 359-366.
    15. Clark, Andrew E. & Senik, Claudia & Yamada, Katsunori, 2017. "When experienced and decision utility concur: The case of income comparisons," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 1-9.
    16. 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.
    17. Cao, Ying (Jessica) & Cranfield, John & Chen, Chen & Widowski, Tina, 2021. "Heterogeneous informational and attitudinal impacts on consumer preferences for eggs from welfare enhanced cage systems," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    18. repec:dpr:wpaper:0930 is not listed on IDEAS
    19. 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.
    20. Basu, Debasis & Hunt, John Douglas, 2012. "Valuing of attributes influencing the attractiveness of suburban train service in Mumbai city: A stated preference approach," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 46(9), pages 1465-1476.
    21. Broberg, Thomas & Daniel, Aemiro Melkamu & Persson, Lars, 2021. "Household preferences for load restrictions: Is there an effect of pro-environmental framing?," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 97(C).

    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:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:24:p:10377-:d:460678. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.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.