2018
DOI: 10.1007/s10640-018-0228-x
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Willingness to Pay to Avoid Water Restrictions in Australia Under a Changing Climate

Abstract: Mandatory water use restrictions have become a common feature of the urban water management landscape in countries like Australia. Water restrictions limit how water can be used and their impacts have often been enumerated by using stated preference techniques, like contingent valuation. Most interest in these studies emerged in times of drought, when the severity of restrictions and their deployment had increased and water managers contemplate supply augmentation measures. A question thus arises as to whether… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1

Citation Types

0
10
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

2
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 17 publications
(10 citation statements)
references
References 42 publications
0
10
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Hensher et al (2006) used a choice model to also show that households in Canberra had a low willingness to pay for moderate water restrictions, but their estimates of willingness to pay increased substantially when the restrictions were more severe. Cooper et al (2019) reviewed several studies that focus on customers' willingness to pay to avoid water restrictions and noted variations in estimated willingness to pay. For example, Australian studies in the 2000s and late 1990s report household willingness to pay off between approximately A$150 per year and A$240 per year, while other US studies covering the same time period show willingness to pay estimates ranging from about US$55 to US$410 per year.…”
Section: A Sy Nop Si S Of Wat Er M a Nage M E N T I N Aust R A L I A ...mentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…Hensher et al (2006) used a choice model to also show that households in Canberra had a low willingness to pay for moderate water restrictions, but their estimates of willingness to pay increased substantially when the restrictions were more severe. Cooper et al (2019) reviewed several studies that focus on customers' willingness to pay to avoid water restrictions and noted variations in estimated willingness to pay. For example, Australian studies in the 2000s and late 1990s report household willingness to pay off between approximately A$150 per year and A$240 per year, while other US studies covering the same time period show willingness to pay estimates ranging from about US$55 to US$410 per year.…”
Section: A Sy Nop Si S Of Wat Er M a Nage M E N T I N Aust R A L I A ...mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Cooper et al (2019) reviewed several studies that focus on customers' willingness to pay to avoid water restrictions and noted variations in estimated willingness to pay. For example, Australian studies in the 2000s and late 1990s report household willingness to pay off between approximately A$150 per year and A$240 per year, while other US studies covering the same time period show willingness to pay estimates ranging from about US$55 to US$410 per year.…”
Section: A Synopsis Of Water Management In Australia and The Status O...mentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Discrete choice experiments are underpinned by random utility theory [23] where the frequency with which a participant selects one alternative over another is linked to the benefits (i.e., utility) assigned to the alternative. Choice modelling is one form of discrete choice and is a widely employed stated preference technique (see, for example, [24,25]). The popularity of the technique is in part due to the notion that it is able to replicate real markets where individuals make choices between products based on various attributes [26].…”
Section: A Synopsis Of the Discrete Choice Approachmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This effect is reflected in the positive estimated regression coefficients for WTP. Thus, for example, although for Amondo et al (2013) the income variable was not significant, Moffat et al (2011) and Roldán (2016) obtained positive coefficients with statistical significance at the 5% level, and Jalilov (2018), Cooper et al (2018), Wang et al (2015), Meibodi et al (2011), Diamini (2015, Kwak et al (2013)'s results were significant even at the 1% level. However, although many primary studies find this positive correlation between income level and WTP, results may differ when integrated into a meta-analysis because the ceteris paribus of each base study is not homogeneous, which implies that new variables emerge.…”
mentioning
confidence: 93%