IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/rff/dpaper/dp-11-31.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The Benefits of Achieving the Chesapeake Bay TMDLs (Total Maximum Daily Loads): A Scoping Study

Author

Listed:
  • Cropper, Maureen L.

    () (Resources for the Future)

  • Isaac, William

    () (Resources for the Future)

Abstract

Concerns about nutrient pollution in the Chesapeake Bay have led to the establishment of pollution limits—total maximum daily loads (TMDLs)—which, by 2025, are expected to reduce nitrogen loadings to the Bay by 25 percent and phosphorous loadings by 24 percent from current levels. This paper outlines how the benefits associated with achieving the Chesapeake Bay TMDLs could be measured and monetized. We summarize studies that measure the benefits of improved water quality in the Bay and evaluate whether these studies could be used to value the water quality benefits associated with the TMDLs.In cases where studies conducted in the Bay watershed either do not exist or are out of date, we discuss whether results from studies conducted elsewhere could be transferred to the Chesapeake Bay. We also discuss original studies that would be useful to conduct in the future.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
  • Handle: RePEc:rff:dpaper:dp-11-31
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.rff.org/RFF/documents/RFF-DP-11-31.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Yoshiaki Kaoru & V. Kerry Smith & Jin Long Liu, 1995. "Using Random Utility Models to Estimate the Recreational Value of Estuarine Resources," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 77(1), pages 141-151.
    2. Leggett, Christopher G. & Bockstael, Nancy E., 2000. "Evidence of the Effects of Water Quality on Residential Land Prices," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 39(2), pages 121-144, March.
    3. Robert L. Hicks & Ivar E. Strand, 2000. "The Extent of Information: Its Relevance for Random Utility Models," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 76(3), pages 374-385.
    4. Morgan, Cynthia & Owens, Nicole, 2001. "Benefits of water quality policies: the Chesapeake Bay," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 39(2), pages 271-284, November.
    5. Kevin J. Boyle & P. Joan Poor & Laura O. Taylor, 1999. "Estimating the Demand for Protecting Freshwater Lakes from Eutrophication," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 81(5), pages 1118-1122.
    6. von Haefen, Roger H., 2003. "Incorporating observed choice into the construction of welfare measures from random utility models," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 45(2), pages 145-165, March.
    7. Massey, D. Matthew & Newbold, Stephen C. & Gentner, Brad, 2006. "Valuing water quality changes using a bioeconomic model of a coastal recreational fishery," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 52(1), pages 482-500, July.
    8. 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.
    9. Poor, P. Joan & Pessagno, Keri L. & Paul, Robert W., 2007. "Exploring the hedonic value of ambient water quality: A local watershed-based study," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(4), pages 797-806, February.
    10. Kahn, James R. & Kemp, W. Michael, 1985. "Economic losses associated with the degradation of an ecosystem: The case of submerged aquatic vegetation in Chesapeake Bay," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 12(3), pages 246-263, September.
    11. Huang, Ju-Chin & Boyle, Kevin J. & Halstead, John M. & Gibbs, Julie P., 2002. "An Hedonic Analysis of the Effects of Lake Water Clarity on New Hampshire Lakefront Properties," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 31(1), pages 1-8, April.
    12. 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.
    13. P. Joan Poor & Kevin J. Boyle & Laura O. Taylor & Roy Bouchard, 2001. "Objective versus Subjective Measures of Water Clarity in Hedonic Property Value Models," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 77(4), pages 482-493.
    14. George R. Parsons & Mary Jo Kealy, 1992. "Randomly Drawn Opportunity Sets in a Random Utility Model of Lake Recreation," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 68(1), pages 93-106.
    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. Nikolaos Mykoniatis & Richard Ready, 2016. "Spatial Harvest Regimes for a Sedentary Fishery," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 65(2), pages 357-387, October.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Chesapeake Bay restoration; total maximum daily loads; benefits of water quality improvements;

    JEL classification:

    • 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
    • Q57 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Ecological Economics

    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:rff:dpaper:dp-11-31. 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: (Webmaster). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/degraus.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.