IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/aaea11/103653.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Estimation of a Surface Water Quality Valuation Index for the Appalachian Region

Author

Listed:
  • Khatri-Chhetri, Arun
  • Collins, Alan R.

Abstract

A surface water quality valuation index is developed and used to compare counties across the Appalachian Region. This index was based on a meta-analysis of non-market water quality valuation studies along with an application of benefit transfer. The results reveal that Pennsylvania, Georgia, and New York had the highest percentages of counties with high index values within the Appalachian Region. As this research was part of an inter-disciplinary team assembled by the Appalachian Regional Commission, results of this index can be compared to other indices computed for water resources in the region.

Suggested Citation

  • Khatri-Chhetri, Arun & Collins, Alan R., 2011. "Estimation of a Surface Water Quality Valuation Index for the Appalachian Region," 2011 Annual Meeting, July 24-26, 2011, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 103653, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:aaea11:103653
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://purl.umn.edu/103653
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. John A. Downing, 2009. "Valuing Water Quality as a Function of Water Quality Measures," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 91(1), pages 106-123.
    2. Whitehead John C. & Blomquist Glenn C. & Hoban Thomas J. & Clifford William B., 1995. "Assessing the Validity and Reliability of Contingent Values: A Comparison of On-Site Users, Off-Site Users, and Non-users," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 238-251, September.
    3. John C. Whitehead, 2006. "Improving Willingness to Pay Estimates for Quality Improvements through Joint Estimation with Quality Perceptions," Southern Economic Journal, Southern Economic Association, vol. 73(1), pages 100-111, July.
    4. Cameron, Trudy Ann & Huppert, Daniel D., 1989. "OLS versus ML estimation of non-market resource values with payment card interval data," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 17(3), pages 230-246, November.
    5. Johnston, Robert J. & Thomassin, Paul J., 2010. "Willingness to Pay for Water Quality Improvements in the United States and Canada: Considering Possibilities for International Meta-Analysis and Benefit Transfer," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 39(1), February.
    6. Roberts, Lisa A. & Leitch, Jay A., 1997. "Economic Valuation Of Some Wetland Outputs Of Mud Lake, Minnesota-South Dakota," Agricultural Economics Reports 23406, North Dakota State University, Department of Agribusiness and Applied Economics.
    7. Brouwer, Roy, 2000. "Environmental value transfer: state of the art and future prospects," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 137-152, January.
    8. 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.
    9. W. Viscusi & Joel Huber & Jason Bell, 2008. "The Economic Value of Water Quality," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 41(2), pages 169-187, October.
    10. Collins, Alan R. & Rosenberger, Randall S., 2007. "Protest Adjustments in the Valuation of Watershed Restoration Using Payment Card Data," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 36(02), pages 321-335, October.
    11. Bergstrom, John C. & Taylor, Laura O., 2006. "Using meta-analysis for benefits transfer: Theory and practice," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(2), pages 351-360, December.
    12. Huang, Ju-Chin & Haab, Timothy C. & Whitehead, John C., 1997. "Willingness to Pay for Quality Improvements: Should Revealed and Stated Preference Data Be Combined?," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 34(3), pages 240-255, November.
    13. Holmes, Thomas P. & Bergstrom, John C. & Huszar, Eric & Kask, Susan B. & Orr, Fritz III, 2004. "Contingent valuation, net marginal benefits, and the scale of riparian ecosystem restoration," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 49(1), pages 19-30, May.
    14. Isabelle Huault & V. Perret & S. Charreire-Petit, 2007. "Management," Post-Print halshs-00337676, HAL.
    15. Farber, Stephen & Griner, Brian, 2000. "Valuing watershed quality improvements using conjoint analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(1), pages 63-76, July.
    16. Ronald J. Sutherland & Richard G. Walsh, 1985. "Effect of Distance on the Preservation Value of Water Quality," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 64(3), pages 281-291.
    17. Whitehead, John C. & Haab, Timothy C. & Huang, Ju-Chin, 2000. "Measuring recreation benefits of quality improvements with revealed and stated behavior data," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 22(4), pages 339-354, October.
    18. Ian J. Bateman & Andrew P. Jones, 2003. "Contrasting Conventional with Multi-Level Modeling Approaches to Meta-Analysis: Expectation Consistency in U.K. Woodland Recreation Values," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 79(2), pages 235-258.
    19. Herriges, Joseph A. & Shogren, Jason F., 1996. "Starting Point Bias in Dichotomous Choice Valuation with Follow-Up Questioning," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 30(1), pages 112-131, January.
    20. Yoshiaki Kaoru, 1993. "Differentiating use and nonuse values for coastal pond water quality improvements," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 3(5), pages 487-494, October.
    21. Jon Nelson & Peter Kennedy, 2009. "The Use (and Abuse) of Meta-Analysis in Environmental and Natural Resource Economics: An Assessment," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 42(3), pages 345-377, March.
    22. Mathews, Leah Greden & Homans, Frances R. & Easter, K. William, 1999. "Reducing Phosphorus Pollution In The Minnesota River: How Much Is It Worth?," Staff Papers 13771, University of Minnesota, Department of Applied Economics.
    23. James A. Brox & Ramesh C. Kumar & Kenneth R. Stollery, 2003. "Estimating Willingness to Pay for Improved Water Quality in the Presence of Item Nonresponse Bias," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 85(2), pages 414-428.
    24. Collins, Alan R. & Rosenberger, Randall S., 2007. "Protest Adjustments in the Valuation of Watershed Restoration Using Payment Card Data," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 36(2), October.
    25. Robert J. Johnston & Elena Y. Besedin & Richard Iovanna & Christopher J. Miller & Ryan F. Wardwell & Matthew H. Ranson, 2005. "Systematic Variation in Willingness to Pay for Aquatic Resource Improvements and Implications for Benefit Transfer: A Meta-Analysis," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 53(2-3), pages 221-248, June.
    26. Loomis, John & Kent, Paula & Strange, Liz & Fausch, Kurt & Covich, Alan, 2000. "Measuring the total economic value of restoring ecosystem services in an impaired river basin: results from a contingent valuation survey," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 103-117, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Meta-analysis; benefit transfer; contingent valuation; willingness-to-pay; Environmental Economics and Policy;

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:ags:aaea11:103653. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (AgEcon Search). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/aaeaaea.html .

    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 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.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.