IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/foi/wpaper/2020_12.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Assessing the value of surface water and groundwater quality improvements when time lags and outcome uncertainty exist: Results from a choice experiment survey across four different countries

Author

Listed:
  • Tobias Holmsgaard Larsen

    () (Department of Food and Resource Economics, University of Copenhagen)

  • Thomas Lundhede

    () (Department of Food and Resource Economics, University of Copenhagen)

  • Søren Bøye Olsen

    () (Department of Food and Resource Economics, University of Copenhagen)

Abstract

This report summarizes the main results from a choice experiment survey addressing peoples’ willingness to pay (WTP) for improvements in surface water quality as well as groundwater quality. A particular novel focus is on estimating the extent to which WTP is impacted by the time lags and outcome uncertainties that commonly occur in practice when implementing new policies to improve water quality. The survey is conducted across four different case areas in four different countries, involving responses from more than 3000 respondents. Results generally confirm previous findings that people on average have quite high WTP for improvements in water quality, both in relation to surface water and groundwater. In addition, the results show that the WTPs reduce significantly with increasing time lags and outcome uncertainty in relation to the actual water quality improvements.

Suggested Citation

  • Tobias Holmsgaard Larsen & Thomas Lundhede & Søren Bøye Olsen, 2020. "Assessing the value of surface water and groundwater quality improvements when time lags and outcome uncertainty exist: Results from a choice experiment survey across four different countries," IFRO Working Paper 2020/12, University of Copenhagen, Department of Food and Resource Economics.
  • Handle: RePEc:foi:wpaper:2020_12
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://okonomi.foi.dk/workingpapers/WPpdf/WP2020/IFRO_WP_2020_12.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jürgen Meyerhoff & Ulf Liebe, 2009. "Status Quo Effect in Choice Experiments: Empirical Evidence on Attitudes and Choice Task Complexity," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 85(3), pages 515-528.
    2. Zawojska, Ewa & Bartczak, Anna & Czajkowski, Mikołaj, 2019. "Disentangling the effects of policy and payment consequentiality and risk attitudes on stated preferences," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 63-84.
    3. Andrew Meyer, 2013. "Intertemporal Valuation of River Restoration," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 54(1), pages 41-61, January.
    4. Boxall, Peter C. & Adamowicz, Wiktor L. & Moon, Amanda, 2009. "Complexity in choice experiments: choice of the status quo alternative and implications for welfare measurement," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 53(4), pages 1-17.
    5. Christian A. Vossler & Maurice Doyon & Daniel Rondeau, 2012. "Truth in Consequentiality: Theory and Field Evidence on Discrete Choice Experiments," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 4(4), pages 145-171, November.
    6. Halstead, John M. & Luloff, A.E. & Stevens, Thomas H., 1992. "Protest Bidders In Contingent Valuation," Northeastern Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 21(2), pages 1-10, October.
    7. Steffen Andersen & Glenn W. Harrison & Morten I. Lau & E. Elisabet Rutström, 2008. "Eliciting Risk and Time Preferences," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 76(3), pages 583-618, May.
    8. Klaus Glenk & Sergio Colombo, 2011. "How Sure Can You Be? A Framework for Considering Delivery Uncertainty in Benefit Assessments Based on Stated Preference Methods," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 62(1), pages 25-46, February.
    9. De Marchi, Elisa & Caputo, Vincenzina & Nayga, Rodolfo M. & Banterle, Alessandro, 2016. "Time preferences and food choices: Evidence from a choice experiment," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 99-109.
    10. Laura O. Taylor & Ronald G. Cummings, 1999. "Unbiased Value Estimates for Environmental Goods: A Cheap Talk Design for the Contingent Valuation Method," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 89(3), pages 649-665, June.
    11. Hanley, Nick & Mourato, Susana & Wright, Robert E, 2001. "Choice Modelling Approaches: A Superior Alternative for Environmental Valuation?," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 15(3), pages 435-462, July.
    12. Torres, Cati & Faccioli, Michela & Riera Font, Antoni, 2017. "Waiting or acting now? The effect on willingness-to-pay of delivering inherent uncertainty information in choice experiments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 231-240.
    13. Sonia Akter & Jeff Bennett & Michael B. Ward, 2013. "Climate change scepticism and public support for mitigation: evidence from an Australian choice experiment," Monash Economics Working Papers archive-47, Monash University, Department of Economics.
    14. Dan Marsh & Lena Mkwara & Riccardo Scarpa, 2011. "Do Respondents’ Perceptions of the Status Quo Matter in Non-Market Valuation with Choice Experiments? An Application to New Zealand Freshwater Streams," Sustainability, MDPI, Open Access Journal, vol. 3(9), pages 1-23, September.
    15. Glenn W. Harrison & Morten I. Lau & Melonie B. Williams, 2002. "Estimating Individual Discount Rates in Denmark: A Field Experiment," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 92(5), pages 1606-1617, December.
    16. Armatas, Christopher A. & Venn, Tyron J. & Watson, Alan E., 2014. "Applying Q-methodology to select and define attributes for non-market valuation: A case study from Northwest Wyoming, United States," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 447-456.
    17. 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.
    18. Kenneth J. Arrow & Anthony C. Fisher, 1974. "Environmental Preservation, Uncertainty, and Irreversibility," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 88(2), pages 312-319.
    19. Roberts, David C. & Boyer, Tracy A. & Lusk, Jayson L., 2008. "Preferences for environmental quality under uncertainty," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 66(4), pages 584-593, July.
    20. Falk, Armin & Becker, Anke & Dohmen, Thomas & Huffman, David B. & Sunde, Uwe, 2016. "The Preference Survey Module: A Validated Instrument for Measuring Risk, Time, and Social Preferences," IZA Discussion Papers 9674, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    21. Adamowicz W. & Louviere J. & Williams M., 1994. "Combining Revealed and Stated Preference Methods for Valuing Environmental Amenities," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 271-292, May.
    22. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521747387.
    23. Dudinskaya, Emilia Cubero & Naspetti, Simona & Zanoli, Raffaele, 2020. "Using eye-tracking as an aid to design on-screen choice experiments," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 36(C).
    24. I. Bateman & R. Brouwer & S. Ferrini & M. Schaafsma & D. Barton & A. Dubgaard & B. Hasler & S. Hime & I. Liekens & S. Navrud & L. De Nocker & R. Ščeponavičiūtė & D. Semėnienė, 2011. "Making Benefit Transfers Work: Deriving and Testing Principles for Value Transfers for Similar and Dissimilar Sites Using a Case Study of the Non-Market Benefits of Water Quality Improvements Across E," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 50(3), pages 365-387, November.
    25. Henry, Claude, 1974. "Investment Decisions Under Uncertainty: The "Irreversibility Effect."," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 64(6), pages 1006-1012, December.
    26. Danny Campbell & Morten Raun Mørkbak & Søren Bøye Olsen, 2017. "Response time in online stated choice experiments: the non-triviality of identifying fast and slow respondents," Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 6(1), pages 17-35, January.
    27. Roy Brouwer & Noémie Neverre, 2020. "A global meta-analysis of groundwater quality valuation studies," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Foundation for the European Review of Agricultural Economics, vol. 47(3), pages 893-932.
    28. Robert J. Johnston & Kevin J. Boyle & Wiktor (Vic) Adamowicz & Jeff Bennett & Roy Brouwer & Trudy Ann Cameron & W. Michael Hanemann & Nick Hanley & Mandy Ryan & Riccardo Scarpa & Roger Tourangeau & Ch, 2017. "Contemporary Guidance for Stated Preference Studies," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 4(2), pages 319-405.
    29. Ladenburg, Jacob & Olsen, Søren Bøye, 2014. "Augmenting short Cheap Talk scripts with a repeated Opt-Out Reminder in Choice Experiment surveys," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 39-63.
    30. Kahneman, Daniel & Tversky, Amos, 1979. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 47(2), pages 263-291, March.
    31. Samuelson, William & Zeckhauser, Richard, 1988. "Status Quo Bias in Decision Making," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 1(1), pages 7-59, March.
    32. Day, Brett & Bateman, Ian J. & Carson, Richard T. & Dupont, Diane & Louviere, Jordan J. & Morimoto, Sanae & Scarpa, Riccardo & Wang, Paul, 2012. "Ordering effects and choice set awareness in repeat-response stated preference studies," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 63(1), pages 73-91.
    33. Daniel Kahneman & Jack L. Knetsch & Richard H. Thaler, 1991. "Anomalies: The Endowment Effect, Loss Aversion, and Status Quo Bias," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 5(1), pages 193-206, Winter.
    34. Kelvin J. Lancaster, 1966. "A New Approach to Consumer Theory," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 74, pages 132-132.
    35. W. Viscusi & Joel Huber & Jason Bell, 2008. "Estimating discount rates for environmental quality from utility-based choice experiments," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 37(2), pages 199-220, December.
    36. W. J. Wouter Botzen & Jeroen C. J. M. Van Den Bergh, 2012. "Monetary Valuation Of Insurance Against Flood Risk Under Climate Change," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 53(3), pages 1005-1026, August.
    37. Thomas Lundhede & Jette Bredahl Jacobsen & Nick Hanley & Niels Strange & Bo Jellesmark Thorsen, 2015. "Incorporating Outcome Uncertainty and Prior Outcome Beliefs in Stated Preferences," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 91(2), pages 296-316.
    38. Roger H. von Haefen & D. Matthew Massey & Wiktor L. Adamowicz, 2005. "Serial Nonparticipation in Repeated Discrete Choice Models," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 87(4), pages 1061-1076.
    39. Carsten L. Jensen & Brian H. Jacobsen & Søren B. Olsen & Alex Dubgaard & Berit Hasler, 2013. "A practical CBA-based screening procedure for identification of river basins where the costs of fulfilling the WFD requirements may be disproportionate - applied to the case of Denmark," Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 2(2), pages 164-200, July.
    40. Oehlmann, Malte & Meyerhoff, Jürgen & Mariel, Petr & Weller, Priska, 2017. "Uncovering context-induced status quo effects in choice experiments," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 59-73.
    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. Tobias Holmsgaard Larsen & Thomas Lundhede & Søren Bøye Olsen & Brian H. Jacobsen, 2021. "Incorporating time lags and uncertainty in cost-benefit analysis of water quality improvements – a case study of Limfjorden, Denmark," IFRO Working Paper 2021/01, University of Copenhagen, Department of Food and Resource Economics.

    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. Robert J. Johnston & Kevin J. Boyle & Wiktor (Vic) Adamowicz & Jeff Bennett & Roy Brouwer & Trudy Ann Cameron & W. Michael Hanemann & Nick Hanley & Mandy Ryan & Riccardo Scarpa & Roger Tourangeau & Ch, 2017. "Contemporary Guidance for Stated Preference Studies," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 4(2), pages 319-405.
    2. Bruno Lanz & Allan Provins, 2015. "Using discrete choice experiments to regulate the provision of water services: do status quo choices reflect preferences?," Journal of Regulatory Economics, Springer, vol. 47(3), pages 300-324, June.
    3. Zack Dorner & Daniel A. Brent & Anke Leroux, 2019. "Preferences for Intrinsically Risky Attributes," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 95(4), pages 494-514.
    4. Thomas Lundhede & Jette Bredahl Jacobsen & Nick Hanley & Niels Strange & Bo Jellesmark Thorsen, 2015. "Incorporating Outcome Uncertainty and Prior Outcome Beliefs in Stated Preferences," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 91(2), pages 296-316.
    5. West, Grant H. & Snell, Heather & Kovacs, Kent & Nayga, Rodolfo M., 2020. "Estimation of the preferences for the intertemporal services from groundwater," 2020 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, Kansas City, Missouri 304220, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    6. Shi, Wei & Halstead, John M. & Huang, Ju-Chin, 2017. "Market Experience Matters: Status Quo Effect in the Economic Valuation of Consumer Preferences for Local Produce," 2017 Annual Meeting, July 30-August 1, Chicago, Illinois 258290, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    7. Wan Norhidayah W Mohamad & Ken Willis & Neil Powe, 2019. "The Status Quo In Discrete Choice Experiments: Is It Relevant?," The Singapore Economic Review (SER), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 65(02), pages 507-532, March.
    8. Bujosa, Angel & Torres, Cati & Riera, Antoni, 2018. "Framing Decisions in Uncertain Scenarios: An Analysis of Tourist Preferences in the Face of Global Warming," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 148(C), pages 36-42.
    9. Murwirapachena, Genius & Dikgang, Johane, 2018. "An empirical examination of reducing status quo bias in heterogeneous populations: evidence from the South African water sector," MPRA Paper 91549, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    10. Bruno Lanz & Allan Provins, 2012. "Do status quo choices reflect preferences? Evidence from a discrete choice experiment in the context of water utilities' investment planning," CEPE Working paper series 12-87, CEPE Center for Energy Policy and Economics, ETH Zurich.
    11. Lew, Daniel K., 2018. "Discounting future payments in stated preference choice experiments," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 150-164.
    12. Helen Scarborough & Jeff Bennett, 2012. "Cost–Benefit Analysis and Distributional Preferences," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 14376.
    13. Oehlmann, Malte & Meyerhoff, Jürgen & Mariel, Petr & Weller, Priska, 2017. "Uncovering context-induced status quo effects in choice experiments," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 59-73.
    14. Williams, Galina & Rolfe, John, 2017. "Willingness to pay for emissions reduction: Application of choice modeling under uncertainty and different management options," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 302-311.
    15. Amilon, Anna & Ladenburg, Jacob & Siren, Anu & Vernstrøm Østergaard, Stine, 2020. "Willingness to pay for long-term home care services: Evidence from a stated preferences analysis," The Journal of the Economics of Ageing, Elsevier, vol. 17(C).
    16. Weng, Weizhe & Morrison, Mark & Boyle, Kevin & Boxall, Peter, 2017. "The effect of the number of alternatives in a choice experiment with an application to the Macquarie Marshes, AU," 2017 Annual Meeting, February 4-7, 2017, Mobile, Alabama 252836, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    17. Milad Haghani & Michiel C. J. Bliemer & John M. Rose & Harmen Oppewal & Emily Lancsar, 2021. "Hypothetical bias in stated choice experiments: Part II. Macro-scale analysis of literature and effectiveness of bias mitigation methods," Papers 2102.02945, arXiv.org.
    18. Ndebele, Tom & Marsh, Dan & Scarpa, Riccardo, 2019. "Consumer switching in retail electricity markets: Is price all that matters?," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 88-103.
    19. Barr, Rhona F. & Mourato, Susana, 2014. "Investigating fishers' preferences for the design of marine Payments for Environmental Services schemes," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 91-103.
    20. Sandri, Serena & Schade, Christian & Mußhoff, Oliver & Odening, Martin, 2010. "Holding on for too long? An experimental study on inertia in entrepreneurs' and non-entrepreneurs' disinvestment choices," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 76(1), pages 30-44, October.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Economic Valuation; Choice Experiment; Water Quality; Outcome Uncertainty; Time Lags;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C83 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Data Collection and Data Estimation Methodology; Computer Programs - - - Survey Methods; Sampling Methods
    • D60 - Microeconomics - - Welfare Economics - - - General
    • Q51 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Valuation of Environmental Effects
    • Q53 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Air Pollution; Water Pollution; Noise; Hazardous Waste; Solid Waste; Recycling

    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:foi:wpaper:2020_12. 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: (Geir Tveit). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/foikudk.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.