IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/envpol/v8y2007i4d10.1007_bf03353961.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Valuing acid mine drainage remediation in West Virginia: benefit transfer with preference calibration

Author

Listed:
  • James M. Williamson

    (National Risk Management Research Laboratory)

  • Hale W. Thurston

    (National Risk Management Research Laboratory)

  • Matthew T. Heberling

    (National Risk Management Research Laboratory)

Abstract

Several thousand kilometers of West Virginia streams are degraded by acid mine drainage, and the estimates for cleanup range in the billions of dollars (US$). This article demonstrates the use of a nonmarket valuation technique, benefit transfer, to estimate the benefits of restoring an impaired region of the Cheat River Watershed in West Virginia. Second, we compare two benefit transfer tools that can be used for making decisions about restoration under constrained budgets. We find the annual value of remediation in a two-county region to be between $1.4 and $8.9 million, depending on the estimating model. The results from our research demonstrate the challenges involved in applying benefit transfer to a policy site, as well as the differences in outcome between a simple unit transfer technique and a new preference calibration benefit transfer technique.

Suggested Citation

  • James M. Williamson & Hale W. Thurston & Matthew T. Heberling, 2007. "Valuing acid mine drainage remediation in West Virginia: benefit transfer with preference calibration," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 8(4), pages 271-293, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:envpol:v:8:y:2007:i:4:d:10.1007_bf03353961
    DOI: 10.1007/BF03353961
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/BF03353961
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/BF03353961?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. Leggett, Christopher G. & Bockstael, Nancy E., 2000. "Evidence of the Effects of Water Quality on Residential Land Prices," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 39(2), pages 121-144, March.
    2. Morgan, Cynthia & Owens, Nicole, 2001. "Benefits of water quality policies: the Chesapeake Bay," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 39(2), pages 271-284, November.
    3. Farber, Stephen & Griner, Brian, 2000. "Valuing watershed quality improvements using conjoint analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(1), pages 63-76, July.
    4. Englin, Jeffrey & Lambert, David & Shaw, W. Douglass, 1997. "A Structural Equations Approach to Modeling Consumptive Recreation Demand," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 33-43, May.
    5. Kirchhoff, Stefanie & Colby, Bonnie G. & LaFrance, Jeffrey T., 1997. "Evaluating the Performance of Benefit Transfer: An Empirical Inquiry," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 75-93, May.
    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. James Williamson & Hale Thurston & Matthew Heberling, 2007. "Valuing acid mine drainage remediation in West Virginia: benefit transfer with preference calibration," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 8(4), pages 271-293, December.
    2. Chris Dumas & Pete Schuhmann & John C. Whitehead, 2004. "Measuring the Economic Benefits of Water Quality Improvement with the Benefit Transfer Method: An Introduction for Non-Economists," Working Papers 04-12, Department of Economics, Appalachian State University.
    3. Smith, V. Kerry & van Houtven, George & Pattanayak, Subhrendu K., 1999. "Benefit Transfer as Preference Calibration," Discussion Papers 10607, Resources for the Future.
    4. Ge, Jiaqi & Kling, Catherine L. & Herriges, Joseph A., 2013. "How much is clean water worth? Valuing water quality improvement using a meta analysis," ISU General Staff Papers 201302250800001050, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    5. Kuwayama, Yusuke & Olmstead, Sheila & Krupnick, Alan, 2013. "Water Resoures and Unconventional Fossil Fuel Development: Linking Physical Impacts to Social Costs," RFF Working Paper Series dp-13-34, Resources for the Future.
    6. V. Kerry Smith & George Van Houtven & Subhrendu K. Pattanayak, 2002. "Benefit Transfer via Preference Calibration: "Prudential Algebra" for Policy," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 78(1), pages 132-152.
    7. James Williamson & Hale Thurston & Matthew Heberling, 2008. "Valuing acid mine drainage remediation in West Virginia: a hedonic modeling approach," The Annals of Regional Science, Springer;Western Regional Science Association, vol. 42(4), pages 987-999, December.
    8. Sheila M. Olmstead, 2010. "The Economics of Water Quality," Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 4(1), pages 44-62, Winter.
    9. Ge, Jiaqi, 2014. "Stepping into new territory: Three essays on agent-based computational economics and environmental economics," ISU General Staff Papers 201401010800004899, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    10. Phoebe Koundouri & Nikos Papandreou & Kyriaki Remoundou & Yiannis Kountouris, 2013. "A Bird s Eye View of the Greek Water Situation: The Potential for the Implementation of the EU WFD," DEOS Working Papers 1309, Athens University of Economics and Business.
    11. Cropper, Maureen L. & Isaac, William, 2011. "The Benefits of Achieving the Chesapeake Bay TMDLs (Total Maximum Daily Loads): A Scoping Study," RFF Working Paper Series dp-11-31, Resources for the Future.
    12. Meya, Jasper N. & Drupp, Moritz A. & Hanley, Nick, 2021. "Testing structural benefit transfer: The role of income inequality," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(C).
    13. Catherine Heyes & Anthony Heyes, 1999. "Willingness to Pay Versus Willingness to Travel: Assessing the Recreational Benefits from Dartmoor National Park," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 50(1), pages 124-139, January.
    14. Herbohn, Kathleen, 2005. "A full cost environmental accounting experiment," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 30(6), pages 519-536, August.
    15. John Loomis & Bryon Allen, 2008. "Using Non Market Valuation to Inform the Choice Between Permits and Fees in Environmental Regulation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 40(3), pages 329-337, July.
    16. Thomas G Poder & Jérôme Dupras & Franck Fetue Ndefo & Jie He, 2016. "The Economic Value of the Greater Montreal Blue Network (Quebec, Canada): A Contingent Choice Study Using Real Projects to Estimate Non-Market Aquatic Ecosystem Services Benefits," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(8), pages 1-16, August.
    17. David A Keiser & Joseph S Shapiro, 2019. "Consequences of the Clean Water Act and the Demand for Water Quality," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 134(1), pages 349-396.
    18. Rosenberger, Randall S. & Stanley, Tom D., 2006. "Measurement, generalization, and publication: Sources of error in benefit transfers and their management," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(2), pages 372-378, December.
    19. Steve Gibbons & Stephan Heblich & Esther Lho & Christopher Timmins, 2016. "Fear of Fracking? The Impact of the Shale Gas Exploration on House Prices in Britain," SERC Discussion Papers 0207, Centre for Economic Performance, LSE.
    20. Kousky, Carolyn & Walls, Margaret, 2014. "Floodplain conservation as a flood mitigation strategy: Examining costs and benefits," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 119-128.

    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:spr:envpol:v:8:y:2007:i:4:d:10.1007_bf03353961. 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.