IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/fem/femwpa/2004.65.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Reducing Acidification: The Benefits of Increased Nature Quality. Investigating the Possibilities of the Contingent Valuation Method

Author

Listed:
  • E.C.M. Ruijgrok

    (Witteveen+ Bos)

Abstract

In order to complete cost benefit analyses of acidification policies, an attempt was made to monetarize the benefits of increased nature quality. So far, several benefits of acidification abatement, such as reduced health risks, had been determined, but the benefits of increased nature quality were lacking, although nature is actually one of the most important reasons for abating acidification in the Netherlands. This study shows that CVM can be used to estimate two specific benefits of increased nature quality due to acidification abatement: the non-use value and the recreational perception value. For other benefits, other valuation methods are needed. This study also shows that CVM is not suited for specifying benefits of different acidification scenarios, which differ little in physical effects on ecosystems. If abatement scenarios are rather extreme, it may be possible to differentiate benefits per scenario. A CVM questionnaire was designed to determine the difference between the welfare generation of healthy ecosystems not suffering from acidification and unhealthy ecosystems affected by acidification. A striking result of the pre test was that all respondents were familiar with the environmental theme of acidification. The results of the pre test suggest that the benefits of nature may be quite large and that they should therefore not be overlooked.

Suggested Citation

  • E.C.M. Ruijgrok, 2004. "Reducing Acidification: The Benefits of Increased Nature Quality. Investigating the Possibilities of the Contingent Valuation Method," Working Papers 2004.65, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
  • Handle: RePEc:fem:femwpa:2004.65
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://feem-media.s3.eu-central-1.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/NDL2004-065.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Nick Hanley & Clive L. Spash, 1993. "Cost–Benefit Analysis and the Environment," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 205.
    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. Mogaka, Violet Moraa & Mbatia, O.L.E. & Nzuma, Jonathan M., 2012. "Feasibility of Biofuel Production in Kenya: The Case of Jatropha," 2012 Conference, August 18-24, 2012, Foz do Iguacu, Brazil 126427, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    2. Gurluk, Serkan, 2006. "The estimation of ecosystem services' value in the region of Misi Rural Development Project: Results from a contingent valuation survey," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 9(3), pages 209-218, December.
    3. Martin C. Whitby & W. Neil Adger, 1997. "Natural And Reproducible Capital And The Sustainability Of Land Use In The Uk: A Reply," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 48(1‐3), pages 454-458, January.
    4. Spash, Clive L. & Ryan, Anthony M., 2010. "Ecological, Heterodox and Neoclassical Economics: Investigating the Differences," MPRA Paper 26292, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    5. Bashar Raisa & Nandy Ananya, 2019. "A more efficient valuation of beaches using tourists’ perspectives and Geographic Information System (GIS): The case of Patenga of Chittagong, Bangladesh," Environmental & Socio-economic Studies, Sciendo, vol. 7(3), pages 54-65, September.
    6. Rosalie Arendt & Till M. Bachmann & Masaharu Motoshita & Vanessa Bach & Matthias Finkbeiner, 2020. "Comparison of Different Monetization Methods in LCA: A Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(24), pages 1-39, December.
    7. Karine Nyborg & Inger Spangen, 2000. "Cost-Benefit Analysis and the Democratic Ideal," Nordic Journal of Political Economy, Nordic Journal of Political Economy, vol. 26, pages 83-93.
    8. Maria Nijnik & Arie Oskam & A. Nijnik, 2005. "Contribution Of Afforestation To Sustainable Land Management In Ukraine," ERSA conference papers ersa05p746, European Regional Science Association.
    9. van der Straaten, J., 1995. "Tourism in national parks," WORC Paper 95.12.030/2, Tilburg University, Work and Organization Research Centre.
    10. Olena Hankivsk & Jane Friesen & Colleen Varcoe & Fiona MacPhail & Lorraine Greaves & Charmaine Spencer, 2004. "Expanding Economic Costing in Health Care: Values, Gender and Diversity," Canadian Public Policy, University of Toronto Press, vol. 30(3), pages 257-282, September.
    11. Onil Banerjee & Martin Cicowiez & Adela Moreda, 2017. "Reconciliation Once and For All: Economic Impact Evaluation and Social Cost Benefit Analysis," CEDLAS, Working Papers 0207, CEDLAS, Universidad Nacional de La Plata.
    12. Erdlenbruch, Katrin & Thoyer, Sophie & Grelot, Frédéric & Kast, Robert & Enjolras, Geoffroy, 2009. "Risk-sharing policies in the context of the French Flood Prevention Action Programmes," MPRA Paper 20187, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    13. Volker Meyer & Sally Priest & Christian Kuhlicke, 2012. "Economic evaluation of structural and non-structural flood risk management measures: examples from the Mulde River," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 62(2), pages 301-324, June.
    14. Ivo Bischoff, 2008. "Endowment effect theory, prediction bias and publicly provided goods: an experimental study," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 39(3), pages 283-296, March.
    15. Alfred Endres & Cornelia Ohl, 2000. "Taxes versus quotas to limit global environmental risks: new insights into an old affair," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 3(4), pages 399-423, December.
    16. Robin Holt, 2001. "Creating whole life value proxemics in construction projects," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 10(3), pages 148-160, May.
    17. Schilizzi, Steven, 1999. "Deciding between development and preservation of a natural asset: a way out of the impasse?," 1999 Conference (43th), January 20-22, 1999, Christchurch, New Zealand 124547, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    18. Campbell, Harry F. & Brown, Richard P.C., 2005. "A multiple account framework for cost-benefit analysis," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 28(1), pages 23-32.
    19. Buchholz Wolfgang & Heindl Peter, 2015. "Ökonomische Herausforderungen des Klimawandels," Perspektiven der Wirtschaftspolitik, De Gruyter, vol. 16(4), pages 324-350, December.
    20. GOBERT, Karine & POITEVIN, Michel, 1998. "Environmental Risks : Should Banks Be Liable?," Cahiers de recherche 1198, Universite de Montreal, Departement de sciences economiques.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Acidification; Biodiversity; Economic value; Nature; CVM; Non use value;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • Q20 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation - - - General

    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:fem:femwpa:2004.65. 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: Alberto Prina Cerai (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/feemmit.html .

    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.