Contingent valuation, net marginal benefits, and the scale of riparian ecosystem restoration

Abstract A study was undertaken to estimate the benefits and costs of riparian restoration projects along the Little Tennessee River in western North Carolina. Restoration benefits were described in terms of five indicators of ecosystem services: abundance of game fish, water clarity, wildlife habitat, allowable water uses, and ecosystem naturalness. A sequence of dichotomous choice contingent valuation questions were presented to local residents to assess household willingness to pay increased county sales taxes for differing amounts of riparian restoration. Results showed that the benefits of ecosystem restoration were a non-linear function of restoration scale and the benefits of full restoration were super-additive. We estimated the costs of riparian restoration activities by collecting and analyzing data from 35 projects in the study area. After adjusting our estimated valuation function for socio-economic characteristics of the local population, the benefit/cost ratio for riparian restoration ranged from 4.03 (for 2 miles of restoration) to 15.65 (for 6 miles of restoration). Riparian restoration in this watershed is therefore an economically feasible investment of public funds at all measured spatial scales.

[1]  R. O'Neill,et al.  Complex systems and valuation , 2002 .

[2]  Thomas P. Holmes,et al.  Attribute-Based Methods , 2003 .

[3]  S. Carpenter,et al.  ECONOMIC VALUATION OF FRESHWATER ECOSYSTEM SERVICES IN THE UNITED STATES: 1971-1997 , 1999 .

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

[5]  Philip Cooper,et al.  Valuing nature: lessons learned and future research directions , 2003 .

[6]  R. Turner.  The Place of Economic Values in Environmental Valuation , 2001 .

[7]  P. Madden.  A Generalization of Hicksian q Substitutes and Complements with Application to Demand Rationing , 1991 .

[8]  Zhang Zhiqiang,et al.  Applying contingent valuation in China to measure the total economic value of restoring ecosystem services in Ejina region , 2003 .

[9]  J. Karr,et al.  Restoring life in running waters : better biological monitoring , 1998 .

[10]  W. Michael Hanemann,et al.  Valuing the Environment through Contingent Valuation , 1994 .

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

[12]  Raymond J. Kopp,et al.  On measuring economic values for nature , 2000 .

[13]  Thomas C. Brown,et al.  A primer on nonmarket valuation , 2003 .

[14]  P. Boxall,et al.  Complements, Substitutes, Budget Constraints and Valuation , 2000 .

[15]  John B. Loomis,et al.  Measuring the total economic value of restoring ecosystem services in an impaired river basin: results from a contingent valuation survey , 2000 .

[16]  Richard C. Bishop,et al.  Measuring Values of Extramarket Goods: Are Indirect Measures Biased? , 1979 .

[17]  Robert Costanza,et al.  Economic Reasons for Conserving Wild Nature , 2002, Science.

[18]  G. Harrison,et al.  Must Contingent Valuation Surveys Cost So Much , 1996 .

[19]  Randall A. Kramer,et al.  An Independent Sample Test of Yea-Saying and Starting Point Bias in Dichotomous-Choice Contingent Valuation , 1995 .

[20]  David N. Wear,et al.  Land-Use Changes in Southern Appalachian Landscapes: Spatial Analysis and Forecast Evaluation , 1998, Ecosystems.

[21]  Joel Huber,et al.  An Iterative Choice Approach to Valuing Clean Lakes, Rivers, and Streams , 2000 .

[22]  Frank Lupi,et al.  Untying a Lancastrian bundle: valuing ecosystems and ecosystem services for wetland mitigation. , 2003, Journal of environmental management.

[23]  Cheng Hsiao,et al.  Analysis of Panel Data , 1987 .