IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/enreec/v13y1999i3p341-367.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Valuing the Incremental Benefits of Groundwater Protection when Exposure Levels are Known

Author

Listed:
  • Gregory Poe
  • Richard Bishop

Abstract

Both economic theory and psychological research indicate that benefit functions for reductions in health risk exposures may be conditional on current exposures. Using nitrates found in household wells, it is demonstrated that perceptions of health risks across exposure levels are affected by the individual's current exposure level, thus providing support for a conditional benefits function approach. Functions of conditional incremental benefits are estimated from a contingent valuation study of households that had been informed of their water test results. Incremental benefits reach a peak at an intermediate level of nitrates and then decline. Possible explanations for this non-convexity are provided. Copyright Kluwer Academic Publishers 1999

Suggested Citation

  • Gregory Poe & Richard Bishop, 1999. "Valuing the Incremental Benefits of Groundwater Protection when Exposure Levels are Known," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 13(3), pages 341-367, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:enreec:v:13:y:1999:i:3:p:341-367
    DOI: 10.1023/A:1008251418007
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1023/A:1008251418007
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1023/A:1008251418007?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
    ---><---

    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. S. B. Kask & S. A. Maani, 1992. "Uncertainty, Information, and Hedonic Pricing," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 68(2), pages 170-184.
    2. Shogren, Jason F. & Crocker, Thomas D., 1991. "Risk, self-protection, and ex ante economic value," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 20(1), pages 1-15, January.
    3. Smith, V Kerry & Desvousges, William H, 1987. "An Empirical Analysis of the Economic Value of Risk Changes," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 95(1), pages 89-114, February.
    4. Edwards, Steven F., 1988. "Option prices for groundwater protection," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 15(4), pages 475-487, December.
    5. Diamond, Peter, 1996. "Testing the Internal Consistency of Contingent Valuation Surveys," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 30(3), pages 337-347, May.
    6. Cameron, Trudy Ann, 1988. "A new paradigm for valuing non-market goods using referendum data: Maximum likelihood estimation by censored logistic regression," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 15(3), pages 355-379, September.
    7. Sun, Henglun & Bergstrom, John C. & Dorfman, Jeffrey H., 1992. "Estimating the Benefits of Groundwater Contamination Control," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 24(2), pages 63-71, December.
    8. John B. Loomis & Pierre H. duVair, 1993. "Evaluating the Effect of Alternative Risk Communication Devices on Willingness to Pay: Results from a Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation Experiment," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 69(3), pages 287-298.
    9. Jones-Lee, M W & Hammerton, M & Philips, P R, 1985. "The Value of Safety: Results of a National Sample Survey," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 95(377), pages 49-72, March.
    10. Viscusi, W Kip, 1989. "Prospective Reference Theory: Toward an Explanation of the Paradoxes," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 2(3), pages 235-263, September.
    11. Richard T. Carson, 2011. "Contingent Valuation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2489.
    12. Shibata, Hirofumi & Winrich, J Steven, 1983. "Control of Pollution when the Offended Defend Themselves," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 50(200), pages 425-437, November.
    13. Trudy Ann Cameron, 1991. "Interval Estimates of Non-Market Resource Values from Referendum Contingent Valuation Surveys," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 67(4), pages 413-421.
    14. Shogren, Jason F. & Crocker, Thomas D. & Forster, Bruce A., 1991. "Valuing Potential Groundwater Protection Benefits," Staff General Research Papers Archive 335, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    15. V. Kerry Smith & William H. Desvousges & F. Reed Johnson & Ann Fisher, 1990. "Can public information programs affect risk perceptions?," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 9(1), pages 41-59.
    16. W. Kip Viscusi & Wesley A. Magat & Joel Huber, 1987. "An Investigation of the Rationality of Consumer Valuations of Multiple Health Risks," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 18(4), pages 465-479, Winter.
    17. Repetto, Robert, 1987. "The policy implications of non-convex environmental damages: A smog control case study," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 14(1), pages 13-29, March.
    18. Smith, V Kerry & Johnson, F Reed, 1988. "How Do Risk Perceptions Respond to Information? The Case of Radon," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 70(1), pages 1-8, February.
    19. Kerry Smith, V. & Desvousges, William H., 1986. "Averting behavior: Does it exist?," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 20(3), pages 291-296.
    20. Jones-Lee, Michael W, 1974. "The Value of Changes in the Probability of Death or Injury," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 82(4), pages 835-849, July/Aug..
    21. N D Hanley, 1989. "Problems in Valuing Environmental Improvements Resulting from Agricultural Policy Changes: The Case of Nitrate Pollution," Working Papers Series 89/1, University of Stirling, Division of Economics.
    22. Page, Talbot & Ferejohn, John A, 1974. "Externalities as Commodities: Comment," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 64(3), pages 454-459, June.
    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. Lanz, Bruno & Provins, Allan, 2017. "Using averting expenditures to estimate the demand for public goods: Combining objective and perceived quality," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 20-35.
    2. Hasler, Berit & Lundhede, Thomas, 2005. "Are Agricultural Measures for Groundwater Protection Beneficial When Compared to Purification of Polluted Groundwater?," 2005 International Congress, August 23-27, 2005, Copenhagen, Denmark 24587, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    3. Schläpfer, Felix & Erickson, Jon D., 2001. "A Biotic Control Perspective on Nitrate Contamination of Groundwater from Agricultural Production," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 30(2), pages 113-126, October.
    4. Olivier Beaumais & Anne Briand & Katrin Millock & Céline Nauges, 2010. "What are Households Willing to Pay for Better Tap Water Quality? A Cross-Country Valuation Study," Documents de travail du Centre d'Economie de la Sorbonne 10051, Université Panthéon-Sorbonne (Paris 1), Centre d'Economie de la Sorbonne.
    5. Schlapfer, Felix, 2006. "Survey protocol and income effects in the contingent valuation of public goods: A meta-analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(3), pages 415-429, May.
    6. Melo, Grace, 2016. "Valuing Groundwater Quality: Does Averting Behavior Matter?," 2016 Annual Meeting, February 6-9, 2016, San Antonio, Texas 230001, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    7. Isabell Goldberg & Jutta Roosen, 2007. "Scope insensitivity in health risk reduction studies: A comparison of choice experiments and the contingent valuation method for valuing safer food," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 34(2), pages 123-144, April.
    8. Cai, Yongxia & Shaw, W. Douglass & Wu, Ximing, 2008. "Risk Perception and Altruistic Averting Behavior: Removing Arsenic in Drinking Water," 2008 Annual Meeting, July 27-29, 2008, Orlando, Florida 6149, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    9. Guignet, Dennis, 2012. "The impacts of pollution and exposure pathways on home values: A stated preference analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 53-63.
    10. Li, Xiaoshu & Boyle, Kevin J. & Pullis, Genevieve, 2012. "Does On-site Experience Affect Responses to Stated Preference Questions?," 2012 Annual Meeting, August 12-14, 2012, Seattle, Washington 124991, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    11. Kountouris, Yiannis & Nakic, Zoran & Sauer, Johannes, 2015. "Political instability and non-market valuation: Evidence from Croatia," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 19-39.
    12. Mukherjee, Sacchidananda, 2008. "Factors influencing farmers\u2019 willingness to protect groundwater from nonpoint source of pollution in the Lower Bhavani River Basin, Tamil Nadu," Conference Papers h041886, International Water Management Institute.
    13. Nick Hanley & Felix Schlapfer, "undated". "What determines the demand for programmes providing local environmental public goods," Working Papers 2001_7, Business School - Economics, University of Glasgow.
    14. Johnson, Kris A. & Polasky, Stephen & Nelson, Erik & Pennington, Derric, 2012. "Uncertainty in ecosystem services valuation and implications for assessing land use tradeoffs: An agricultural case study in the Minnesota River Basin," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 71-79.
    15. Li, Xiaoshu & Boyle, Kevin J. & Holmes, Thomas P. & LaRouche, Genevieve Pullis, 2014. "The effect of on-site forest experience on stated preferences for low-impact timber harvesting programs," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 20(4), pages 348-362.
    16. Onjala, Joseph & Ndiritu, Simon Wagura & Stage, Jesper, 2013. "Risk Perception, Choice of Drinking Water, and Water Treatment: Evidence from Kenyan Towns," RFF Working Paper Series dp-13-10-efd, Resources for the Future.
    17. Poe, Gregory L. & Boyle, Kevin J. & Bergstrom, John C., 2000. "A Meta Analysis Of Contingent Values For Groundwater Quality In The United States," 2000 Annual meeting, July 30-August 2, Tampa, FL 21871, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    18. Tanellari, Eftila & Bosch, Darrell J. & Mykerezi, Elton, 2009. "On Consumers' Attitudes and Willingness to Pay for Improved Drinking Water Quality and Infrastructure," 2009 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, 2009, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 49535, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.

    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. Poe, Gregory L. & Bishop, Richard C., 1992. "Measuring the Benefits of Groundwater Protection from Agricultural Contamination: Results from a Two-Stage Contingent Valuation Study," Staff Papers 200549, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics.
    2. Poe, Gregory L. & Bishop, Richard C., 1992. "Prior Information, General Information, and Specific Information in the Contingent Valuation of Environmental Risks: The Case of Nitrates in Groundwater," Staff Papers 121335, Cornell University, Department of Applied Economics and Management.
    3. John Bergstrom & Kevin Boyle & Mitsuyasu Yabe, 2004. "Trading Taxes vs. Paying Taxes to Value and Finance Public Environmental Goods," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 28(4), pages 533-549, August.
    4. Peter A. Groothuis & George Van Houtven & John C. Whitehead, 1998. "Using Contingent Valuation to Measure the Compensation Required to Gain Community Acceptance of a Lulu: the Case of a Hazardous Waste Disposal Facility," Public Finance Review, , vol. 26(3), pages 231-249, May.
    5. James Hammitt & Kevin Haninger, 2010. "Valuing fatal risks to children and adults: Effects of disease, latency, and risk aversion," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 40(1), pages 57-83, February.
    6. Henrik Andersson & Nicolas Treich, 2011. "The Value of a Statistical Life," Chapters, in: André de Palma & Robin Lindsey & Emile Quinet & Roger Vickerman (ed.), A Handbook of Transport Economics, chapter 17, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    7. 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.
    8. Poe, Gregory L. & Boyle, Kevin J. & Bergstrom, John C., 2000. "A Meta Analysis Of Contingent Values For Groundwater Quality In The United States," 2000 Annual meeting, July 30-August 2, Tampa, FL 21871, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    9. Shiping Liu & Ju‐Chin Huang & Gregory L. Brown, 1998. "Information and Risk Perception: A Dynamic Adjustment Process," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(6), pages 689-699, December.
    10. Konishi, Yoshifumi & Adachi, Kenji, 2011. "A framework for estimating willingness-to-pay to avoid endogenous environmental risks," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 130-154, January.
    11. Henrik Andersson & James Hammitt & Gunnar Lindberg & Kristian Sundström, 2013. "Willingness to Pay and Sensitivity to Time Framing: A Theoretical Analysis and an Application on Car Safety," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 56(3), pages 437-456, November.
    12. Hoehn, John P. & Randall, Alan, 2002. "The effect of resource quality information on resource injury perceptions and contingent values," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 24(1-2), pages 13-31, February.
    13. Richard T. Carson, 2011. "Contingent Valuation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2489.
    14. Bruno Lanz, 2015. "Avertive expenditures, endogenous quality perception, and the demand for public goods: An instrumental variable approach," CIES Research Paper series 36-2015, Centre for International Environmental Studies, The Graduate Institute.
    15. Owens, Nicole N. & Swinton, Scott M. & Ravenswaay, Eileen O. van, 1995. "Farmer Demand for Safer Pesticides," Staff Paper Series 201201, Michigan State University, Department of Agricultural, Food, and Resource Economics.
    16. O'Conor, Richard M. & Blomquist, Glenn C., 1997. "Measurement of consumer-patient preferences using a hybrid contingent valuation method," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 16(6), pages 667-683, December.
    17. K. McConnell* & I. Strand & Sebastián Valdés, 1998. "Testing Temporal Reliability and Carry-over Effect: The Role of Correlated Responses in Test-retest Reliability Studies," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 12(3), pages 357-374, October.
    18. E. Strazzera & R. Scarpa & P. Calia & G. Garrod & K. Willis, 2000. "Modelling zero bids in contingent valuation surveys," Working Paper CRENoS 200006, Centre for North South Economic Research, University of Cagliari and Sassari, Sardinia.
    19. Shaw, W. Douglass & Woodward, Richard T., 2008. "Why environmental and resource economists should care about non-expected utility models," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(1), pages 66-89, January.
    20. Scotton, Carol R. & Taylor, Laura O., 2011. "Valuing risk reductions: Incorporating risk heterogeneity into a revealed preference framework," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 381-397, May.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    contingent valuation; damage and benefit functions; groundwater quality; risk perceptions; JEL classification: Q21; Q25; D62;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • Q21 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation - - - Demand and Supply; Prices
    • Q25 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation - - - Water
    • D62 - Microeconomics - - Welfare Economics - - - Externalities

    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:kap:enreec:v:13:y:1999:i:3:p:341-367. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.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.