Estimating the economic benefits of maintaining residential lake levels at an irrigation reservoir: A contingent valuation study

The contingent valuation method (CVM) was used to estimate homeowners' willingness to pay for water leasing to maintain stable lake levels at an irrigation reservoir in a residential neighborhood. A binary logit model was used to analyze households' voter referendum responses for maintaining the lake level. The median willingness to pay (WTP) was found to be $368 per year for lakefront residents and $59 per year for off‐lake residents. The median WTP for lakefront residents was significantly different from off‐lake residents at the 90% confidence level. Using the median WTP for lakefront and nonlakefront residents, we found that the increase in homeowner association fees would generate approximately $43,000, enough money to lease sufficient water to reach the target higher lake level in a normal water year.

[1]  Christian A. Vossler,et al.  A criterion validity test of the contingent valuation method: comparing hypothetical and actual voting behavior for a public referendum , 2003 .

[2]  Timothy C. Haab,et al.  Valuing Environmental and Natural Resources: The Econometrics of Non-Market Valuation , 2002 .

[3]  R. Cornes,et al.  The theory of externalities, public goods and club goods. 2nd. ed. , 1996 .

[4]  Paul R. Portney,et al.  The Contingent Valuation Debate: Why Economists Should Care , 1994 .

[5]  D. Parker,et al.  Economic and Environmental Principles and Guidelines for Water and Related Land Resources Implementation Studies , 1994 .

[6]  A. E. Luloff,et al.  Protest Bidders in Contingent Valuation , 1992 .

[7]  Per-Olov Johansson,et al.  Welfare Evaluations in Contingent Valuation Experiments with Discrete Response Data: Comment , 1989 .

[8]  Trudy Ann Cameron,et al.  A New Paradigm for Valuing Non-market Goods Using Referendum Data: Maximum Likelihood Estimation by Censored Logistic Regression' , 1988 .

[9]  Timothy O'Riordan,et al.  Valuing Environmental Goods: An Assessment of the Contingent Valuation Method , 1987 .

[10]  Richard G. Walsh,et al.  Recreation Economic Decisions Comparing Benefits and Costs , 1986 .

[11]  W. Michael Hanemann,et al.  Welfare Evaluations in Contingent Valuation Experiments with Discrete Responses , 1984 .

[12]  A. Buse,et al.  Elements of econometrics , 1972 .

[13]  Clement A. Tisdell,et al.  On the Theory of Externalities , 1970 .

[14]  K. McConnell,et al.  Valuing Environmental and Natural Resources , 2002 .

[15]  Richard C. Bishop,et al.  Which Response Format Reveals the Truth about Donations to a Public Good , 1996 .

[16]  Daniel L. Rubinfeld,et al.  Contingent Valuation and Revealed Preference Methodologies : Comparing the Estimates for Quasi-Public Goods , 1997 .

[17]  W. Michael Hanemann,et al.  THE STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF DISCRETE-RESPONSE CV DATA , 1996 .

[18]  R. G. Cummings,et al.  Homegrown Values and Hypothetical Surveys: Is the Dichotomous Choice Approach Incentive-Compatible? , 1995 .

[19]  Helen R. Neill,et al.  Hypothetical Surveys and Real Economic Commitments , 1994 .

[20]  Paul Mohai,et al.  Men, women, and the environment: An examination of the gender gap in environmental concern and activism , 1992 .

[21]  Michael Creel,et al.  Confidence intervals for evaluating benefits estimates from dichotomous choice contingent valuation studies. , 1991 .

[22]  D. Eckberg,et al.  Environmental issues as women’s issues: General concerns and local hazards , 1989 .

[23]  David S. Brookshire,et al.  Valuing Public Goods: A Comparison of Survey and Hedonic Approaches , 1982 .