Contingent Valuation of Mining Land Reclamation in East Germany
Large parts of East German landscapes are formed by lignite mining activities. The mining pits destroy vast areas of the existing cultural landscapes. These areas have to be made re-accessible to society through extensive reclamation projects after mining has been finished. For an appraisal of the social benefits that need to be compared to the costs of these projects the Contingent Valuation Method (CVM) is the method of choice. The CVM measures the willingness to pay of households for such a project. This paper reports the findings of a Con-tingent Valuation study assessing the social utility created by a reclamation project north of the city of Cottbus in Brandenburg, Germany. The goal of the study is threefold. Firstly, the affected population's aggregate willingness to pay for the planned reclamation project is cal-culated; it amounts to 2.7 mil. Euro per year. Secondly, the determinants of this willingness to pay are analyzed. Apart from the expected positive impact of income on willingness to pay we find that it is also influenced by people's recreational activities, their general attitudes to-wards public spending and by their concerns about the economic situation. Thirdly, the study explores methodological specifics of an application of the CVM to Germany, especially in East Germany, by focusing on the appropriate design of the willingness to pay question which is an important feature still controversially discussed in the literature.
|Date of creation:||2004|
|Date of revision:|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: |
Web page: http://www.uni-hohenheim.de/institution/institut-fuer-economics-11
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.:
- Richard Carson & Nicholas Flores & Norman Meade, 2001.
"Contingent Valuation: Controversies and Evidence,"
Environmental & Resource Economics,
European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 19(2), pages 173-210, June.
- Carson, Richard T & Flores, Nicholas A, 2000. "Contingent Valuation: Controversies and Evidence," University of California at San Diego, Economics Working Paper Series qt75k752s7, Department of Economics, UC San Diego.
- Hanemann, W Michael, 1991. "Willingness to Pay and Willingness to Accept: How Much Can They Differ?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 81(3), pages 635-47, June.
- Joseph C. Cooper, 1994. "A Comparison of Approaches to Calculating Confidence Intervals for Benefit Measures from Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation Surveys," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 70(1), pages 111-122.
- Krinsky, Itzhak & Robb, A Leslie, 1986. "On Approximating the Statistical Properties of Elasticities," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 68(4), pages 715-19, November.
- Timothy Park & John B. Loomis & Michael Creel, 1991. "Confidence Intervals for Evaluating Benefits Estimates from Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation Studies," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 67(1), pages 64-73.
- Blomquist, Glenn C. & Whitehead, John C., 1998. "Resource quality information and validity of willingness to pay in contingent valuation," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 20(2), pages 179-196, June.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:hoh:hohdip:245. 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: (Ulrike Berberich)The email address of this maintainer does not seem to be valid anymore. Please ask Ulrike Berberich to update the entry or send us the correct address
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.