Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T09:41:48.108Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Valuing Water Quality Monitoring: A Contingent Valuation Experiment Involving Hypothetical and Real Payments

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 September 2016

Michael A. Spencer ,
Stephen K. Swallow  and
Christopher J. Miller
Michael A. Spencer
Affiliation:
Department of Environmental and Natural Resource Economics, University of Rhode Island
Stephen K. Swallow
Affiliation:
Department of Environmental and Natural Resource Economics, University of Rhode Island
Christopher J. Miller
Affiliation:
Department of Environmental and Natural Resource Economics, University of Rhode Island
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper studies the preferences and willingness-to-pay of individuals for volunteer water quality monitoring programs. The study involves supporting water quality monitoring at two ponds in the state of Rhode Island. The paper uses both a hypothetical and a real-payment contingent valuation survey to directly measure individual preferences and willingness-to-pay (WTP) for volunteer water quality monitoring at the two ponds. The overall results of the study suggest that hypothetical WTP is not statistically greater than real WTP, and that the average survey respondent is willing to support water quality monitoring on one of the two ponds. The study also finds that the specified purpose of water quality monitoring and certain socioeconomic characteristics of a respondent significantly affect the respondent's decision to support volunteer water quality monitoring.

Type
Articles
Information
Agricultural and Resource Economics Review , Volume 27 , Issue 1 , April 1998 , pp. 28 - 42
Copyright
Copyright © 1998 Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Addelman, S., and Kempthorne, O. 1961. Orthogonal Main-Effect Plans. ARL Technical Report 79. Aeronautical Research Laboratory, Office of Aerospace Research, United States Air Force, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bagnoli, M., and Lipman, B.L. 1989. “Provision of Public Goods: Fully Implementing the Core through Private Contributions.” Review of Economic Studies 56(4): 583–601.Google Scholar
Bagnoli, M., and McKee, M. 1991. “Voluntary Contribution Games: Efficient Private Provision of Public Goods.” Economic Inquiry 29(2): 351–66.Google Scholar
Blackburn, M., Harrison, G.W., and Rutström, E.E. 1994. “Statistical Bias Functions and Informative Hypothetical Surveys.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 76(5): 1084–88.Google Scholar
Bockstael, N.E., McConnell, K.E., and Strand, I.E. 1989. “Measuring the Benefits of Improvements in Water Quality: The Chesapeake Bay.” Marine Resource Economics 6(1): 1–18.Google Scholar
Boyle, K.J. 1990. “Dichotomous-Choice, Contingent-Valuation Questions: Functional Form Is Important.” Northeastern Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 19(2): 125–31.Google Scholar
Brown, T.C., Champ, P.A., Bishop, R.C., and McCollum, D.W. 1996. “Which Response Format Reveals the Truth about Donations to a Public Good?” Land Economics 72(2): 152–66.Google Scholar
Champ, P.A., Bishop, R.C., Brown, T.C., and McCollum, D.W. 1997. “Using Donation Mechanisms to Value Nonuse Benefits from Public Goods.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 33(2): 151–62.Google Scholar
Cummings, R.G., Elliott, S., Harrison, G.W., and Murphy, J. 1997. “Are Hypothetical Referenda Incentive Compatible?” Journal of Political Economy 105(3): 609–21.Google Scholar
Cummings, R.G., Harrison, G.W., and Rutström, E.E. 1995. “Homegrown Values and Hypothetical Surveys: Is the Dichotomous Choice Approach Incentive-Compatible?” American Economic Review 85(1): 260–66.Google Scholar
Cummings, R.G, and Taylor, L.O. 1997. “Unbiased Value Estimates for Environmental Goods: A Cheap Talk Design for the Contingent Valuation Method.” Unpublished ms., Department of Economics, School of Policy Studies, Georgia State University. August.Google Scholar
Davis, D.D., and Holt, C.A. 1993. Experimental Economics. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Day, K.M., and Devlin, R.A. 1996. “Volunteerism and Crowding Out: Canadian Econometric Evidence.” Canadian Journal of Economics 29(1): 37–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fisher, A., Wheeler, W.J., and Zwick, R. 1993. “Experimental Methods in Agricultural and Resource Economics: How Useful Are They?” Agricultural and Resource Economics Review 22(2): 103–16.Google Scholar
Foster, V., Bateman, I.J., and Harley, D. 1997. “Real and Hypothetical Willingness to Pay for Environmental Preservation: A Non-Experimental Comparison.” Journal of Agricultural Economics 48(2): 123–38.Google Scholar
Fox, J.A., Shogren, J.F., Hayes, D.J., and Kliebenstein, J.B. 1995. “CVM-X: Calibrating Contingent Values with Experimental Auction Markets.” Kansas Agricultural Experiment Station Contribution no. 95-470-J. Manhattan: Kansas State University. November.Google Scholar
Freeman, A.M. III. 1990. “Water Pollution Policy.” In Public Policies for Environmental Protection, ed. Portney, P.R., pp. 97–149. Washington, D.C.: Resources for the Future.Google Scholar
Freeman, A.M. III. 1995. “The Benefits of Water Quality Improvements for Marine Recreation: A Review of the Empirical Evidence.” Marine Resource Economics 10(4): 385–406.Google Scholar
Green, L.T., and Gold, A.J. 1993. “Rhode Island Watershed Watch.” Fact Sheet no. 89-2. Cooperative Extension and Department of Natural Resources Science, University of Rhode Island.Google Scholar
Greene, W.H. 1995. LIMDEP: Version 7.0 User's Manual. Bellport, N.Y.: Econometric Software, Inc.Google Scholar
Hanemann, W.M. 1984. “Welfare Evaluations in Contingent Valuation Experiments with Discrete Responses.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 66(3): 332–41.Google Scholar
Hanemann, W.M. 1994. “Valuing the Environment through Contingent Valuation.” Journal of Economic Perspectives 8(4): 19–43.Google Scholar
Harrison, G.W., Beekman, R.L., Brown, L.B., Clements, L.A., McDaniel, T.M., Odom, S.L., and Williams, M.B. 1998. “Environmental Damage Assessment with Hypothetical Surveys: The Calibration Approach.” In Topics in Environmental Economics, ed. Boman, M., Brännlund, R., and Kriström, B. Amsterdam: Kluwer Academic Press (forthcoming).Google Scholar
Hausman, J., and McFadden, D. 1984. “Specification Tests for the Multinomial Logit Model.” Econometrica 52(5): 1219–40.Google Scholar
Herron, E.M., and Green, L.T. 1996. “University of Rhode Island Watershed Watch: 1995.” Natural Resources Science Technical Report 96-3. Cooperative Extension and Department of Natural Resources Science, University of Rhode Island.Google Scholar
Isaac, R.M., Schmidtz, D., and Walker, J.M. 1989. “The Assurance Problem in a Laboratory Market.” Public Choice 62(3): 217–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahneman, D., and Tversky, A. 1979. “Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk.” Econometrica 47(2): 263–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keeney, T.R.E. 1996. “Volunteers Needed to Monitor Ponds.” Providence Journal-Bulletin, April 13.Google Scholar
Kmenta, J. 1971. Elements of Econometrics. New York: Macmillan Publishing Co.Google Scholar
Kuitunen, M., and Törmälä, T. 1994. “Willingness of Students to Favour the Protection of Endangered Species in a Tradeoff Conflict in Finland.” Journal of Environmental Management 42(2): 111–18.Google Scholar
Ledyard, J.O. 1995. “Public Goods: A Survey of Experimental Research.” In The Handbook of Experimental Economics, ed. Kagel, J.H. and Roth, A.E., pp. 111–94. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Loomis, J., Brown, T., Lucero, B., and Peterson, G. 1996. “Improving Validity Experiments of Contingent Valuation Methods: Results of Efforts to Reduce the Disparity of Hypothetical and Actual Willingness to Pay.” Land Economics 72(4): 450–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Macmillan, D., Hanley, N., and Buckland, S. 1996. “A Contingent Valuation Study of Uncertain Environmental Gains.” Scottish Journal of Political Economy 43(5): 519–33.Google Scholar
McFadden, D. 1974. “Conditional Logit Analysis of Qualitative Choice Behavior.” In Frontiers in Econometrics, ed. Zarembka, P., pp. 105–42. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 1993. “Report of the NOAA Panel on Contingent Valuation.” Federal Register 58(10): 4601–14.Google Scholar
Needelman, M.S., and Kealy, M.J. 1995. “Recreational Swimming Benefits of New Hampshire Lake Water Quality Policies: An Application of a Repeated Discrete Choice Model.” Agricultural and Resource Economics Review 24(1): 78–87.Google Scholar
Neill, H.R., Cummings, R.G., Ganderton, P.T., Harrison, G.W., and McGuckin, T. 1994. “Hypothetical Surveys and Real Economic Commitments.” Land Economics 70(2): 145–54.Google Scholar
Rondeau, D., Poe, G.L., and Schulze, W.D. 1996. “Developing a Demand Revealing Market Criterion for Contingent Valuation Validity Tests.” Working Paper 96-16. Department of Agricultural, Resource, and Managerial Economics, Cornell University. November.Google Scholar
Rondeau, D., Schulze, W.D., and Poe, G.L. 1997. “Voluntary Revelation of the Demand for Public Goods Using a Provision Point Mechanism.” Working Paper 97-20. Department of Agricultural, Resource, and Managerial Economics, Cornell University. October.Google Scholar
Rose, S.K., Clark, J., Poe, G.L., Rondeau, D., and Schulze, W.D. 1997. “The Private Provision of Public Goods: Tests of a Provision Point Mechanism for Funding Green Power Programs.” Working Paper 97-09. Department of Agricultural, Resource, and Managerial Economics, Cornell University. July.Google Scholar
Seip, K., and Strand, J. 1992. “Willingness to Pay for Environmental Goods in Norway: A Contingent Valuation Study with Real Payment.” Environmental and Resource Economics 2(1): 91–106.Google Scholar
Shogren, J.F. 1993. “Experimental Markets and Environmental Policy.” Agricultural and Resource Economics Review 22(2): 117–29.Google Scholar
Simpson, J.T. 1991. Volunteer Lake Monitoring: A Methods Manual. EPA 440/4-91-002. Office of Water. Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
Swallow, S.K., Weaver, T., Opaluch, J.J., and Michelman, T.S. 1994. “Heterogeneous Preferences and Aggregation in Environmental Policy Analysis: A Landfill Siting Case.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 76(3): 431–43.Google Scholar
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1990. Volunteer Water Monitoring: A Guide for State Managers. EPA 440/4-90-010. Office of Water. Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1995. Liquid Assets: A Summertime Perspective on the Importance of Clean Water to the Nation's Economy. EPA 800-R-96-002. Office of Water. Washington, D.C.Google Scholar