Estimating the economic value of improvements in river ecology using choice experiments: an application to the water framework directive.

The Water Framework Directive is a major regulatory reform of water resources management within the European Union. Integrated catchment management plans must be prepared for all river basins, in order to achieve 'good ecological status' in all EU waters. Ecological status is a broader measure of water quality than the chemical and biological measures that were previously dominant. The Directive calls for a consideration of the economic costs and benefits of improvements to ecological status. In this paper, we use the choice experiment method to estimate the value of improvements in three components of ecological status. Given the high resource cost of valuation studies, benefits transfer methods will be needed in implementing the Directive. We thus also test the ability of choice experiments for benefits transfer across two very similar rivers in the UK.

[1]  A. Wald.  Contributions to the Theory of Statistical Estimation and Testing Hypotheses , 1939 .

[2]  A. Wald.  Tests of statistical hypotheses concerning several parameters when the number of observations is large , 1943 .

[3]  Matthew T. Heberling,et al.  The Effect Of The Number Of Choice Sets On Responses In A Stated Choice Survey , 2000 .

[4]  A. Bergmann,et al.  Valuing the attributes of renewable energy investments , 2006 .

[5]  Erik Meijer,et al.  Measuring Welfare Effects in Models with Random Coefficients , 2000 .

[6]  I. Bateman.  Economic valuation with stated preference techniques : a manual : department for transport , 2002 .

[7]  N. Hanley,et al.  Choice modelling approaches: a superior alternative for environmental valuation? , 2002 .

[8]  K. Train.  Recreation Demand Models with Taste Differences Over People , 1998 .

[9]  G. Garrod,et al.  Estimating the Benefits of Environmental Enhancement: A Case Study of the River Darent , 1996 .

[10]  G. Chow.  Tests of equality between sets of coefficients in two linear regressions (econometrics voi 28 , 1960 .

[11]  Community attitudes towards water management in the Moore Catchment, WA. , 2000 .

[12]  Gregory L. Poe,et al.  Measuring the Difference in Mean Willingness to Pay When Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation Responses Are Not Independent , 1997 .

[13]  Tore Söderqvist,et al.  Elasticities of Demand and Willingness to Pay for Environmental Services in Sweden , 2003 .

[14]  B. Álvarez-Farizo.  Estimating the Benefits of Agri-environmental Policy: Econometric Issues in Open-ended Contingent Valuation Studies , 1999 .

[15]  Gregory L. Poe,et al.  Implementing the Convolutions Approach: A Companion to "Measuring the Difference (X-Y) of Simulated Distributions: A Convolutions Approach" , 1994 .

[16]  Ian J. Bateman,et al.  Economic Valuation With Stated Preference Techniques , 2002 .

[17]  P. Zarembka.  Frontiers in econometrics , 1973 .

[18]  J. Bennett,et al.  The choice modelling approach to environmental valuation , 2001 .

[19]  R. Duncan Luce,et al.  Individual Choice Behavior , 1959 .

[20]  Greg M. Allenby,et al.  The effects of in-store displays and feature advertising on consideration sets , 1995 .

[21]  Gary Koop,et al.  Modelling Recreation Demand Using Choice Experiments: Climbing in Scotland , 2002 .

[22]  Nick Hanley,et al.  Aggregating the benefits of environmental improvements: distance-decay functions for use and non-use values. , 2003, Journal of environmental management.

[23]  David N. Barton,et al.  The transferability of benefit transfer: contingent valuation of water quality improvements in Costa Rica , 2002 .

[24]  D. McFadden,et al.  MIXED MNL MODELS FOR DISCRETE RESPONSE , 2000 .

[25]  Kristin Magnussen,et al.  Benefit transfer: testing for accuracy and reliability , 2002 .

[26]  Kenneth E. Train,et al.  Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation , 2016 .

[27]  D. McFadden.  Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior , 1972 .

[28]  P. Riera,et al.  Is the income elasticity of environmental improvements less than one? , 1996 .

[29]  J. Louviere,et al.  Choice Modelling and Tests of Benefit Transfer 1 , 1998 .

[30]  William H. Desvousges,et al.  Environmental Policy Analysis With Limited Information , 1998 .

[31]  Russell Blamey,et al.  Choice Modeling and Tests of Benefit Transfer , 2002 .

[32]  K. Train,et al.  Mixed Logit with Repeated Choices: Households' Choices of Appliance Efficiency Level , 1998, Review of Economics and Statistics.

[33]  M. Wedel,et al.  Market Segmentation: Conceptual and Methodological Foundations , 1997 .

[34]  D. Wise,et al.  A CONDITIONAL PROBIT MODEL FOR QUALITATIVE CHOICE: DISCRETE DECISIONS RECOGNIZING INTERDEPENDENCE AND HETEROGENEOUS PREFERENCES' , 1978 .

[35]  J. Louviere,et al.  Combining Revealed and Stated Preference Methods for Valuing Environmental Amenities , 1994 .

[36]  D. Hensher,et al.  Stated Choice Methods: Analysis and Applications , 2000 .

[37]  Anne Rozan,et al.  Benefit Transfer: A Comparison of WTP for Air Quality between France and Germany , 2004 .

[38]  Helge Berger,et al.  Central Bank Independence: An Update of Theory and Evidence , 2000, SSRN Electronic Journal.

[39]  Roy Brouwer,et al.  Environmental value transfer: state of the art and future prospects , 2000 .

[40]  John B. Loomis,et al.  Testing a meta-analysis model for benefit transfer in international outdoor recreation , 2001 .

[41]  D. McFadden,et al.  Specification tests for the multinomial logit model , 1984 .