The Value Of Improved Water Quality To Chesapeake Bay Boaters
As part of an economic survey of Maryland registered boat owners, an open ended contingent valuation question was posed regarding willingness to pay for an improvement in water quality in Chesapeake Bay. The boaters ranked their perception of water quality on a scale of one to five, and the payment was for an improvement of one unit. Boaters also indicated the type of concern poor water quality raised, ranging from no concern to concern about long term effects of exposure to toxic chemicals. Median willingness to pay for a one step improvement in water quality was $17.50 per year and the mean was $63, with 38% expressing a zero willingness-to-pay. A tobit model was estimated to determine what factors influenced willingness to pay amounts. Sailboaters and boats that were kept in the water rather than trailered were willing to pay more for water quality improvements. Additionally, the lower the individual ranked water quality and the greater concern for the health effects from water quality, the more the willingness to pay for a water quality improvement. In aggregate, Chesapeake Bay boaters in Maryland were willing to pay approximately $7.3 million per year to achieve the stated water quality improvement. The present value of this improvement, at a 5% discount rate is a $146 million.
|Date of creation:||2003|
|Contact details of provider:|| Phone: 301-405-1290|
Web page: http://www.arec.umd.edu/
More information through EDIRC
References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Mark L. Messonnier & John C. Bergstrom & Christopher M. Cornwell & R. Jeff Teasley & H. Ken Cordell, 2000. "Survey Response-Related Biases in Contingent Valuation: Concepts, Remedies, and Empirical Application to Valuing Aquatic Plant Management," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 82(2), pages 438-450.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:umdrwp:28603. 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)
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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 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.