IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/jenpmg/v60y2017i11p1944-1966.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Monetary assessment of the recreational benefits of improved water quality – description of a new model and a case study

Author

Listed:
  • Turo Hjerppe
  • Elina Seppälä
  • Sari Väisänen
  • Mika Marttunen

Abstract

The European Union Water Framework Directive (WFD) has created a demand for comparing the benefits and costs of the remedial measures. A major part of the benefits from improved water quality relate to the increased recreational value. However, there is a lack of easily operative and widely applicable quantitative methods to assess the benefits of improved water quality for recreational use. We present a new model to link physical indicators of water quality, water feasibility indicators for different recreational uses, individuals’ perceptions concerning the current feasibility of water for recreational purposes and monetary measures of water-related recreation benefits. The model has been applied to nine lakes, three rivers and one large coastal area in Finland. In this paper, we present the principles of the method and the results from one case study. In Finland, the method has been applied for the economic analysis required in the WFD.

Suggested Citation

  • Turo Hjerppe & Elina Seppälä & Sari Väisänen & Mika Marttunen, 2017. "Monetary assessment of the recreational benefits of improved water quality – description of a new model and a case study," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 60(11), pages 1944-1966, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:jenpmg:v:60:y:2017:i:11:p:1944-1966
    DOI: 10.1080/09640568.2016.1268108
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/09640568.2016.1268108
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/09640568.2016.1268108?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. Lipton, Douglas W., 2003. "The Value Of Improved Water Quality To Chesapeake Bay Boaters," Working Papers 28603, University of Maryland, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
    2. Sandström, Mikael, 1996. "Recreational Benefits from Improved Water Quality: A Random Utility Model of Swedish Seaside Recreation," SSE/EFI Working Paper Series in Economics and Finance 121, Stockholm School of Economics.
    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. Stina Hökby & Tore Söderqvist, 2003. "Elasticities of Demand and Willingness to Pay for Environmental Services in Sweden," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 26(3), pages 361-383, November.
    2. Van Houtven, George & Powers, John & Pattanayak, Subhrendu K., 2007. "Valuing water quality improvements in the United States using meta-analysis: Is the glass half-full or half-empty for national policy analysis?," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 29(3), pages 206-228, September.
    3. Halkos, George, 2012. "The use of contingent valuation in assessing marine and coastal ecosystems’ water quality: A review," MPRA Paper 42183, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    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. Robert J. Johnston & Elena Y. Besedin & Benedict M. Holland, 2019. "Modeling Distance Decay Within Valuation Meta-Analysis," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 72(3), pages 657-690, March.
    6. Jerrod Penn & Wuyang Hu & Linda Cox & Lara Kozloff, 2016. "Values for Recreational Beach Quality in Oahu, Hawaii," Marine Resource Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 31(1), pages 47-62.
    7. Chris Moore & Dennis Guignet & Kelly B. Maguire & Chris Dockins & Nathalie B. Simon, 2015. "A Stated Preference Study of the Chesapeake Bay and Watershed Lakes," NCEE Working Paper Series 201506, National Center for Environmental Economics, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, revised Nov 2015.
    8. Marius Yapo & Jie He & Bruno Gagnon & Luc Savard & Roland Leduc, 2015. "La valeur économique pour l’amélioration de la qualité de l’eau: le cas de la rivière Magog et du lac Magog (Québec, Canada)," Cahiers de recherche 15-15, Departement d'économique de l'École de gestion à l'Université de Sherbrooke.
    9. Eric Nævdal, 2001. "Optimal Regulation of Eutrophying Lakes, Fjords, and Rivers in the Presence of Threshold Effects," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 83(4), pages 972-984.
    10. Robert J. Johnston & Elena Y. Besedin & Ryan Stapler, 2017. "Enhanced Geospatial Validity for Meta-analysis and Environmental Benefit Transfer: An Application to Water Quality Improvements," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 68(2), pages 343-375, October.
    11. Catalina M. Torres Figuerola & Antoni Riera Font, 2009. "Defining environmental attributes as external costs in choice experiments: A discussion," CRE Working Papers (Documents de treball del CRE) 2009/1, Centre de Recerca Econòmica (UIB ·"Sa Nostra").
    12. Nikola Jovanoski, 2015. "Estimating the Value of Preserving the Doubs," IRENE Working Papers 15-02, IRENE Institute of Economic Research.
    13. Baulcomb, Corinne & Böhnke-Henrichs, Anne, 2014. "A Review of the Marine Economic Valuation Literature 1975 – 2011: Classifying Existing Studies by Service Type, Value Type, and Valuation Methodology," Working Papers 190935, Scotland's Rural College (formerly Scottish Agricultural College), Land Economy & Environment Research Group.
    14. Bertram, Christine & Rehdanz, Katrin, 2013. "On the environmental effectiveness of the EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 25-40.
    15. 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.
    16. 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.
    17. Breen, Benjamin & Curtis, John & Hynes, Stephen, 2017. "Recreational Use of Public Waterways and the Impact of Water Quality," Papers WP552, Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI).
    18. Gibson, Fiona & Pannell, David & Boxall, Peter & Burton, Michael & Johnston, Robert & Kragt, Marit & Rogers, Abbie & Rolfe, John, 2016. "Non-market valuation in the economic analysis of natural hazards," Working Papers 236941, University of Western Australia, School of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
    19. Ahtiainen, Heini & Vanhatalo, Jarno, 2012. "The value of reducing eutrophication in European marine areas — A Bayesian meta-analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 1-10.
    20. Mikołaj Czajkowski & Wiktor Budziński & Marianne Zandersen & Wojciech Zawadzki & Uzma Aslam & Ioannis Angelidis & Katarzyna Zagórska, 2024. "The Recreational Value of the Baltic Sea Coast: A Spatially Explicit Site Choice Model Accounting for Environmental Conditions," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 87(1), pages 135-166, January.

    More about this item

    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:taf:jenpmg:v:60:y:2017:i:11:p:1944-1966. 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: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/CJEP20 .

    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.