Perspectives on valuing water quality improvements using stated preference methods.

Ian J Bateman, Bonnie Keeler, Sheila M Olmstead, John Whitehead
Author Information
  1. Ian J Bateman: Land, Environment, Economics and Policy Institute, Department of Economics, University of Exeter Business School, Exeter, EX4 4PU, United Kingdom. ORCID
  2. Bonnie Keeler: Center for Science, Technology and Environmental Policy, Hubert H. Humphrey School of Public Affairs, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 55455.
  3. Sheila M Olmstead: Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX 78713-8925. ORCID
  4. John Whitehead: Department of Economics, Appalachian State University, Boone, NC 28608. ORCID

Abstract

Improvements to the quality of freshwater rivers and lakes can generate a wide array of benefits, from "use values" such as recreational boating, fishing, and swimming to "nonuse values" such as improved outcomes for aquatic biodiversity. Bringing these nonmarket values into decision-making is crucial to determining appropriate levels of investment in water quality improvements. However, progress in the economic valuation of water quality benefits has lagged similar efforts to value air quality benefits, with implications for water policy. New data sources, modeling techniques, and innovation in stated preference survey methods offer notable improvements to estimates of use and nonuse benefits of improved water quality. Here, we provide a perspective on how recent applications of stated preference techniques to the valuation of the nonmarket benefits of water quality improvements have advanced the field of environmental valuation. This overview is structured around four key questions: i) What is it about water quality that we seek to value? ii) How should we design and implement the surveys which elicit individuals' stated preferences? iii) How do we assess the validity of the findings provided by such studies? and iv) What are the contributions of these valuation exercises to public policy? In answering these questions, we make reference to the contributions provided by the papers in this Symposium.

Keywords

References

  1. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2012 Nov 6;109(45):18619-24 [PMID: 23091018]
  2. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2023 May 2;120(18):e2120261120 [PMID: 37094116]
  3. Science. 2021 Apr 16;372(6539):241-243 [PMID: 33859024]
  4. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2023 May 2;120(18):e2120259119 [PMID: 37094141]
  5. J Med Internet Res. 2014 Jul 07;16(7):e164 [PMID: 25001007]
  6. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2023 May 2;120(18):e2120251119 [PMID: 37094119]
  7. J Environ Manage. 2003 Jul;68(3):297-304 [PMID: 12837258]
  8. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2023 May 2;120(18):e2120255119 [PMID: 37094143]
  9. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2023 May 2;120(18):e2120252120 [PMID: 37094134]
  10. Science. 2017 Apr 21;356(6335):253-254 [PMID: 28428387]

Grants

  1. BB/V011588/1/Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council

MeSH Term

Humans
Quality Improvement
Biodiversity
Lakes
Water Quality
Surveys and Questionnaires

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0qualitywaterbenefitsvaluationstatedimprovementspreferencevalues"improvednonmarkettechniquesmethodsprovidedcontributionsImprovementsfreshwaterriverslakescangeneratewidearray"userecreationalboatingfishingswimming"nonuseoutcomesaquaticbiodiversityBringingvaluesdecision-makingcrucialdeterminingappropriatelevelsinvestmentHoweverprogresseconomiclaggedsimilareffortsvalueairimplicationspolicyNewdatasourcesmodelinginnovationsurveyoffernotableestimatesusenonuseprovideperspectiverecentapplicationsadvancedfieldenvironmentaloverviewstructuredaroundfourkeyquestions:seekvalue?iidesignimplementsurveyselicitindividuals'preferences?iiiassessvalidityfindingsstudies?ivexercisespublicpolicy?answeringquestionsmakereferencepapersSymposiumPerspectivesvaluingusingeconomics

Similar Articles

Cited By

No available data.