IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/umdrwp/28603.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The Value Of Improved Water Quality To Chesapeake Bay Boaters

Author

Listed:
  • Lipton, Douglas W.

Abstract

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.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:umdrwp:28603
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://purl.umn.edu/28603
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    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. 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.
    2. repec:kap:enreec:v:68:y:2017:i:2:d:10.1007_s10640-016-0021-7 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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).
    6. Ghermandi, Andrea & Nunes, Paulo A.L.D., 2013. "A global map of coastal recreation values: Results from a spatially explicit meta-analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 1-15.
    7. 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'Economique de l'École de gestion à l'Université de Sherbrooke.
    8. repec:taf:jenpmg:v:60:y:2017:i:11:p:1944-1966 is not listed on IDEAS
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. Nikola Jovanoski, 2015. "Estimating the Value of Preserving the Doubs," IRENE Working Papers 15-02, IRENE Institute of Economic Research.
    12. Cropper, Maureen L. & Isaac, William, 2011. "The Benefits of Achieving the Chesapeake Bay TMDLs (Total Maximum Daily Loads): A Scoping Study," Discussion Papers dp-11-31, Resources For the Future.
    13. Scharin, Henrik, 2004. "Management of eutrophicated coastal zones," Department of Economics publications 717, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Department of Economics.
    14. 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.
    15. Ge, Jiaqi & Kling, Catherine L. & Herriges, Joseph A., 2013. "How Much is Clean Water Worth? Valuing Water Quality Improvement Using A Meta Analysis," Staff General Research Papers Archive 36597, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Resource /Energy Economics and Policy;

    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: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). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/daumdus.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.