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

The effect of risk perception on public preferences and willingness to pay for reductions in the health risks posed by toxic cyanobacterial blooms

“…However, when benefits are likely to accrue to both users and non-users of the resource, or where changes in environmental quality beyond the range of current variation are in prospect, a stated preference method is more appropriate (Hanley and Barbier, 2009). Previous studies of the economic benefits of water quality improvements have shown both use and non-use values to be important (Hanley et al, 2003a;Holmes et al, 2004;Birol et al, 2006). Given our expectation that both those who directly use our case study waterbody (e.g.…”

The Value of Forest Conservation for Water Quality Protection

“…Other economic valuation studies that measure WTP to protect water quality propose the use of nonspecific "environmental programs" and do not disclose if the program intends to use specific forest conservation tools [27,32,35,[43][44][45][46][47]. These studies focus on valuing the benefits or outcomes of resource protection and WTP to protect water quality independent of detailed information regarding the policy process or make vague references to policy implementation techniques [27,44,[47][48][49]. In a few cases the primary purpose of a valuation study is not to directly provide policy makers with information on measures of discrete welfare outcomes to different management alternatives, but to empirically test different stated preference methods or the effect of biophysical factors on WTP [50,51].…”

“…When valuing forest conservation efforts, some economic studies focus exclusively on the water quality protection benefits [27,28,39,41] while other studies present water quality protection as part of a bundle of co-benefits along with conservation of green spaces, recreation opportunities, wildlife habitat preservation, and environmental education [25,37,38,40,42]. Other economic valuation studies that measure WTP to protect water quality propose the use of nonspecific "environmental programs" and do not disclose if the program intends to use specific forest conservation tools [27,32,35,[43][44][45][46][47].…”

“…Maintaining the function and structure of forests through conservation programs and policies can be an important water quality protection tool [25][26][27][28]. Indeed, the relatively low cost of ex ante forest conservation versus ex post water quality treatment has made forest conservation popular with policy makers [3].…”

Variations in ecosystem service values in response to changes in environmental flows: A case study of Baiyangdian Lake, China

“…of harvestable products (Batie and Wilson 1978, Rönnbäck 1999, Patterson 2002, Costanza et al 2007), estimation of the value of recreational use (Daubert and Young 1981, Brookshire and Smith 1987, Sanders et al 1991, Duffield et al 1992, Weber and Berrens 2006 or the preservation of endangered native fish species (Berrens et al 1996). A smaller number of studies have looked at combinations of ecosystem services (e.g., Holmes et al 2004). Morrison et al (1999) and Carlsson et al (2003) proposed the use of "stakeholder choice" modeling to evaluate the multiple potential services provided.…”