Who are resource nonusers and what can they tell us about nonuse values? Decomposing user and nonuser willingness to pay for coastal wetland restoration

Abstract

[1] This article assesses the potential for incomplete definitions of resource use to influence estimates of nonuser willingness to pay (WTP), with an emphasis on resources for which an exhaustive set of uses may be difficult to characterize. The data are drawn from a stated preference analysis involving coastal wetland restoration. Results suggest that mechanisms used to distinguish users and nonusers of wetland services may influence estimates of nonuser WTP and that for some attributes, traditional distinctions between user and nonuser WTP may have arguable empirical justification. More broadly, results suggest that relationships among use behaviors and restoration values may be more complex than are typically assumed and point to limitations in methods frequently used to distinguish user and nonuser WTP.

Spatially induced disparities in users' and non-users' WTP for water quality improvements—Testing the effect of multiple substitutes and distance decay

“…However, a direct test of differences in the relative strength in the distance decay relation between users and non-users is not carried out. 2 Different (non-)user definitions have been explored in the literature and found to influence the preference structure (Johnston et al, 2005;Kniivilä, 2006;Whitehead et al, 1995). Nevertheless, the relation between the respondent's present use or non-use of the good and the spatial properties of the good has to the authors' knowledge only been tested (in terms of specific tests of differences in the relations between users and non-users) in Schaafsma (2011) She finds that users' preferences are less sensitive towards the distance to the good compared to non-users, and that the non-users demand declines faster with the distance to the resource (see later in this section).…”

Valuing Ecological Improvements in the Chesapeake Bay and the Importance of Ancillary Benefits

“…After a brief introduction, the NRS questionnaire poses four questions about individuals’ awareness and use of the Chesapeake Bay and Watershed lakes. Familiarity and use of the Bay may be correlated with WTP for improvements (Johnston et al., 2005) and therefore it is important to assess whether there are systematic differences between respondents and nonrespondents. Table 5 compares the percentage of positive responses to these questions.…”

Spatial asynchrony in environmental and economic benefits of stream restoration

“…Restoration success in achieving nutrient reduction goals appears to vary substantially with contributing watershed conditions, mediated by stormwater and nutrient loading regimes (Groffman et al 2004, Shields et al 2008, and the benefits and support of local residents may also vary based on prerestoration environmental and community characteristics. Many studies have investigated sediment and nutrient load reductions and ecological effects on aquatic and riparian ecosystems (Sudduth and Meyer 2006, Alexandra and Allan 2007, Tullos et al 2009, Filoso and Palmer 2011, Pennino et al 2016a, Mcmillan and Noe 2017, or have addressed economic aspects of stream restoration (Johnston et al 2005, Kenney et al 2012, Jarrad et al 2018. However, the spatial alignment of water quality and economic benefits to nearby residents at the watershed level has not been rigorously evaluated.…”