Toward empirical estimation of the total value of protecting rivers

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to develop and apply a procedure to estimate a statistical demand function for the protection of rivers in the Rocky Mountains of Colorado. Other states and nations around the world face a similar problem of estimating how much they can afford to pay for the protection of rivers. The results suggest that in addition to the direct consumption benefits of onsite recreation, total value includes offsite consumption of the flow of information about these activities and resources consumed as preservation benefits. A sample of the general population of the state reports a willingness to pay rather than forego both types of utility. We recommended that offsite values be added to the value of onsite recreation use to determine the total value of rivers to society.At the time of this study (1985), no rivers in Colorado were protected either by the state or by federal designation as recreational, wild, or scenic rivers. Sections of 11 rivers have been studies by public agencies and found to be suitable for protection. These rivers represent only about 4.5% of the total kilometers of fiver in the state, and include sections of the Cache la Poudre, Colorado, Conejos, Dolores, Elk, Encampment, Green, Gunnison, Los Pinos, Piedra, and Yampa rivers. Since this study, bills have been introduced in the U.S. Congress to protect several of these rivers under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (PL 90-542) of 1968. So far, only one river has been protected, !21 km of the Cache la Poudre in 1986. There is a need to develop information on the economic benefit of river protection to help the people involved at the local, state, regional, and national levels make decisions about their future use. Nations throughout the world face similar problems of how much they can afford to pay for river protection.The Act provides that selected rivers or sections of rivers may be protected in their natural free-flowing condition. Protection under the act would mean no further construction of dams, reservoirs, water diversions, and other development incompatible with free-flowing rivers. Existing multiple uses would continue so long as the rivers are protected essentially in their natural condition. These include recreation activities such as fishing, boating, hunting, hiking, camping, sightseeing, and staying at resorts; livestock grazing and ranching; living in mountain homes; watershed protection; and timber harvesting. The Act allows for protection under three categories: wild, scenic, and recreational. Of the 893 km recommended in the environmental impact statements as suitable for protection in Colorado, 521 km are qualified as wild flyers, 163 km scenic, and 209 km recreational. The Act defines the characteristics of each as follows: 1. Wild river areas: those flyers or sections of rivers that are free of impoundments and generally inaccessible except by trail, with watersheds or shorelines essentially primitive and waters unpolluted. These represent vestiges of primitive America. 2. Scenic river areas: those rivers or s...

The Value of Forest Conservation for Water Quality Protection

“…Further research is warranted on the influence of program design attributes such as incentives, education programs, and assistance on WTP to protect water quality, and how the WTP for these programs compares to WTP for acquisition and easement strategies, as well as non-specified programs. Unfortunately, there are relatively few valuation studies that focus on the role of forest conservation to reduce pollution [36,39,41] compared to those that focus on WTP to improve water quality in polluted aquatic systems [13,[29][30][31][32][33]. We also see a need for identifying how information about the proposed program type may lead to WTP estimates that are more representative of actual WTP, and whether providing this information can reduce unexplained variation in econometric models of WTP.…”

“…Despite this, there are relatively few studies that adequately describe the forest conservation-water quality link in a valuation context. In the body of valuation literature addressing water quality issues, many studies focus on WTP to improve water quality in already polluted aquatic systems, for example [13,[29][30][31][32][33][34]. Such studies would be appropriate for assessing afforestation efforts (i.e., WTP to improve water quality through increased forest cover), but they are not compatible for assessing conservation efforts (e.g., WTP to prevent reductions in forest cover).…”

“…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].…”

Planning Landscape Corridors in Ecological Infrastructure Using Least-Cost Path Methods Based on the Value of Ecosystem Services

“…The weight value for the geographical position was set to one within a cell, which reflects a minimum cost movement [115,116]. The resistance value was ultimately assigned to the cost-surface raster by summarizing the relative weight cost of each land cover using the Calculation Cost Surface Tool in ArcToolbox.…”

Fundamentals of estimating the net benefits of ecosystem preservation: the case of the Salton Sea

“…Indeed, perhaps the largest benefit associated with preserving and restoring the Salton Sea does not necessarily accrue to current users of the Sea, but rather to people that care about the Sea regardless of whether they tangibly willing to pay to protect them, just by knowing the resources exist. For example, Sanders et al (1990) estimates what people are willing to pay (i.e., their value) for preserving free flowing rivers with no intention of ever visiting them. Alternatively, Olsen et al (1991) estimate peoples willingness to pay (value or benefits) for maintaining salmon migrations, again, without actively engaging in any recreation activities (e.g., fishing, photography) involving these salmon.…”