Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Contingent Valuation of Residents’ Attitudes and Willingness-to-Pay for Non-point Source Pollution Control: A Case Study in AL-Prespa, Southeastern Albania

  • Published:
Environmental Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Recently, local governments in Albania have begun paying attention to management of small watershed, because there are specific boundaries and people living within a watershed basin tend to be more concerned about the basin’s environmental, economic, and social development. But this natural resource management and non-point source (NPS) pollution control is still facing challenges. Albanian part of Prespa Park (AL-Prespa) is a good case study, as it is a protected wetland area of high biodiversity and long human history. In this framework, this study was undertaken, the main objectives of which were to explore: (1) the attitudes of the residents toward NPS pollution control, (2) their willingness-to-pay for improving water quality, and (3) factors affecting the residents’ willingness-to-pay. Descriptive statistics, one-way ANOVA (analysis of variance), Chi-square analysis, and multivariate data analysis techniques were used. Findings strongly suggested that the residents’ attitudes toward NPS pollution control in this area were positive. With the combination of two major contingent valuation methods—dichotomous choice and open-ended formats, the survey results indicated that the average yearly respondents’ WTP was €6.4. The survey revealed that residents’ yearly income and education level were the main factors affecting residents’ willingness-to-pay for NPS pollution control in this area, and there was no significant correlation between residents’ yearly income and their education level. The current study would lay a solid foundation on decision-making in further NPS pollution control and public participation through community-based watershed management policies in AL-Prespa watershed and similar areas.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alberini A, Cooper J (2000) Applications of the contingent valuation method in developing countries—a survey. FAO economic and social development paper 146. UN FAO, Rome, Italy

  • Alberini A, Krupnick A (1997) Air pollution and acute respiratory illness-evidence from Taiwan and Los Angeles. Am J Agric Econ 79:1620–1624

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alberini A, Boyle K, Welsh M (2003) Analysis of contingent valuation data with multiple bids and response options allowing respondents to express uncertainty. J Environ Econ Manag 45:40–62

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Altaf MA, Hughes JA (1994) Measuring the demand for improved urban sanitation services: results of a contingent valuation study in Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso. Urban Stud 31(4):1763–1776

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Amirnejad H, Khalilian S, Assaresh MH, Ahmadain M (2006) Estimating the existence value of north forests of Iran by using a contingent valuation method. Ecol Econ 58(4):665–675

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arrow K, Solow R, Portney PR, Leamer EE, Radner R, Schuman H (1993) Report of the NOAA panel on contingent valuation. Fed Reg 58:4601–4614

    Google Scholar 

  • Bateman IJ, Willis KG (1999) Valuing environmental preferences - Theory and practice of the contingent valuation method in the US, EU, and developing countries. Oxford University Press Inc., New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Champ P, Alberini A, Correas C (2005) Using contingent valuation to value noxious weeds control program: the effects of including an unsure response category. Ecol Econ 55(1):47–60

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Choe K, Whittington D, Lauria DT (1996) The economic benefits of surface water quality improvement in developing countries: a case study of Davao, Philippines. Land Econ 72(4):519–537

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cummings RG, Brookshire DS, Schulze WD (1986) Valuing environmental goods - An assessment of the contingent valuation method. Rowman & Allanheld Publishers, Totowa

    Google Scholar 

  • D’Arge RC (1985) Environmental quality benefits research for the next five years-some observations and recommendations. Draft Report to USEPA, Washington

  • Davies J, Mazurek J (1998) Pollution control in the United States: evaluating the system. Resources for the Future Inc., Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • Desvousges WH, Smith VK, McGivney MP (1983) A comparison of alternative approaches for estimating recreation and related benefits of water quality improvements. Office of Policy Analysis, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • Diamond PA, Hausman JA (1994) Contingent valuation: is some number better than no number. J Econ Perspect 8(4):45–64

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dillman DA (2007) Mail and internet survey—the tailored design method (2nd edition, 2007 update with new Internet, visual, and mixed-mode guide). Wiley, New York

  • FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations) (2006) The new generation of watershed management programmes and projects: a resource book for practitioners and local decision-makers based on the findings and recommendations of a FAO review. FAO Forestry Paper 150

  • Fink A (2006) How to conduct surveys: a step-by-step guide, 3rd edn. Sage, Thousand Oaks

    Google Scholar 

  • Fonta WM, Ichoku HE (2005) The application of contingent valuation method to community-led financing schemes: evidence from rural Cameroon. J Dev Areas 39(1):109–126

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freeman AM (1993) The measurement of environmental and resource values-theory and methods. Resources for the Future, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • Gay LR, Mills GE, Airasian P (2006) Educational research-competencies of analysis and application, 8th edn. Merrill, Upper Saddle River

    Google Scholar 

  • Grazhdani D (2013) Trends and opportunities for sustainable development and integrated management of ecosystem in transboundry Prespa Park region. Dissertation, Agricultural University of Tirana

  • Green C, Tunstall S (1999) A psychological perspective. In: Bateman IJ, Willis KG (eds) Valuing environmental preferences—theory and practice of the contingent valuation method in the US, EU, and developing countries. Oxford University Press Inc., New York

  • Hadker N, Sharma S, David A, Muraleedharan TR (1997) Willingness to pay for Borivli National Park: evidence from a contingent valuation. Ecol Econ 21(2):105–122

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hanemann WM (1994) Valuing the environment through contingent valuation. J Econ Perspect 8(4):19–43

  • Hite D, Hudson D, Intarapapong W (2002) Willingness to pay for water quality improvements: the case of precision application technology. J Agric Resour Econ 27(2):433–449

    Google Scholar 

  • Hudson D, Hite D (2003) Producer willingness to pay for precision application technology: implications for government and technology industry. Can J Agric Econ 51:39–53

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hurle JB (2000) Valuing environmental preferences: theory and practice of the contingent valuation method in the US, EU, and developing countries. Eur Rev Agric Econ 27(2):245–247

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson N, Knox A (2002) Participatory natural resource management in watersheds: concepts, issues and challenges for research. Ann Arid Zones 40(3):1–20

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaffashi S (2010) Economic valuation of ecosystems in shadegan international wetland, Iran. Dissertation, University Putra of Malaysia

  • Kerr JM (2002) Watershed development, environmental services, and poverty alleviation in India. World Dev 30(8):1387–1400

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loomis JB, Gonzalez-Cabab A (1998) A willingness to pay function for protecting acre of spotted owl habitat from fire. Ecol Econ 25:315–322

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCullagh P, Nelder JA (1992) Generalized linear model. Chapman & Hall, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell RC, Carson RT (1989) Using survey to value public goods: the contingent method. Resources for the Future, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • Nardi PM (2006) Doing survey research: a guide to quantitative methods, 2nd edn. Pearson Education Inc., Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Navrud S, Mungatana ED (1994) Environmental valuation in developing countries: the recreational value of wildlife viewing. Ecol Econ 11:135–151

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Portney PR (1994) The contingent valuation debate: why economists should care. J Econ Perspect 8(4):3–17

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ribaudo M (2001) NPS pollution control policy in the USA. In: Shortle JS, Abler D (eds) Environmental policies for agricultural pollution control. CABI Publishing, Wallingford

    Google Scholar 

  • Roach B, Boyle KJ, Welsh M (2002) Testing bid design effects in multiple-bounded contingent valuation. Land Econ 78(1):121–131

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosado M (1998) Willingness to pay for drinking water in urban areas of developing countries. Paper presented to the AAEA annual meetings, Salt Lake, Utah, USA

  • Sairinen R (2001) Public support for environmental policy in Finland: cultural interpretations of survey results. Scand Political Stud 24(2):129–148

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salant P, Dillman DA (1994) How to conduct your own survey. Wiley

  • Schott S, Koontz T (2002) Impacts of state involvement on community-based watershed management. Presented in: Western Political Science Association Annual Meeting, Long Beach, CA

  • Segerson K (1988) Uncertainty and incentives for NPS pollution. J Environ Econ Manag 15:87–98

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shortle JS, Horan RD (2001) The economics of NPS pollution control. J Econ Surv 15:255–289

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shulze S, Pinazzo J, Cifuentes M (1998) Opportunities and limitations of contingent valuation surveys to determine national park entrance fees: evidence from Costa Rica. Environ Dev Econ 3:131–149

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • SPP (2005) Strategic action plan for the sustainable development of the Prespa Park, Executive Summary. Aghios Germanos, 76 pp

  • Stevens TH, Belkner R, Dennis D, Kittredge D, Willis C (2000) Comparison of contingent valuation and conjoint analysis in ecosystem management. Ecol Econ 32:63–74

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strazzera E, Genius M, Scarpa R, Hutchinson G (2003) The effect of protest votes on the estimates of WTP for use values of recreational sites. Environ Resour Econ 25:461–476

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swallow BM, Woudylew M (1994) Evaluating willingness to contribute to a local public good: application of contingent valuation to tsetse control in Ethiopia. Ecol Econ 11:153–161

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Urama KC, Hodge I (2006) Participatory environmental education and willingness to pay for river basin management: empirical evidence from Nigeria. Land Econ 82(4):542–561

    Google Scholar 

  • Wagner MM (2005) Watershed-scale social assessment. J Soil Water Conserv 60(4):177–186

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang XJ, Zhang W, Li Y, Yang KZ, Bai M (2006) Air quality improvement estimation and assessment using contingent valuation method: a case study in Beijing. Environ Monit Assess 120(3):153–168

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Whitehead JC (2002) Incentive incompatibility and starting-point bias in iterative valuation questions. Land Econ 78(2):285–297

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whitehead JC (2006) Improving willingness to pay estimates for quality improvements through joint estimation with quality perception. South Econ J 73(1):100–111

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whitehead JC, Hoban TJ, Clifford WB (2001) Willingness to pay for agricultural research and extension programs. J Agric Appl Econ 33(1):91–101

    Google Scholar 

  • Whittington D (1998) Administering contingent valuation surveys in developing countries. World Dev 26(1):26–30

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Support for this study was provided by the Agricultural University of Tirana (Grant 2012/09/113), funded by the Albanian Ministry of Education and Research in the framework of the Program “Research for Development.” The author is also very grateful to the two anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments and suggestions on an earlier version of the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Agricultural University of Tirana, Faculty of Economy and Agribusiness, Kamëz-Tirana, Albania

    Dorina Grazhdani

Authors
  1. Dorina Grazhdani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dorina Grazhdani.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Grazhdani, D. Contingent Valuation of Residents’ Attitudes and Willingness-to-Pay for Non-point Source Pollution Control: A Case Study in AL-Prespa, Southeastern Albania. Environmental Management 56, 81–93 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-015-0480-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-015-0480-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation