Wetlands

, Volume 10, Issue 2, pp 187–201 | Cite as

Measuring willingness-to-pay for wetlands preservation with the contingent valuation method

  • John C. Whitehead
Article

Abstract

Preservation of bottomland hardwood forest wetlands is threatened by pressure from surface coal mining activities in the western Kentucky coalfield. The contingent valuation, survey method was used to measure the economic benefits (willingness-to-pay) of preserving the Clear Creek wetland, the largest wetland area in the coalfield, from surface coal mining. Results indicated that Kentucky households are willing to pay between $6 and $13, in the form of voluntary contributions to a hypothetical “Wetland Preservation Fund,” for preservation. Mine reclamation as a substitute for preservation recreational use of wetlands by survey respondents, conservation club membership, and age are determinants of willingness-to-pay. Annual aggregate benefits of Clear Creek wetland preservation are estimated to be between $2.94 million and $19 million depending on aggregation assumptions.

Key Words

willingness-to-pay contingent valuation method surface coal mining wetlands 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literature Cited

  1. Amemiya, T. 1981. Qualitative response models: a survey. Journal of Economic Literature XIX:1493–1536.Google Scholar
  2. Bowker, J.M. and J.R. Stoll. 1988. Use of dichotomous choice nonmarket methods to value the whooping crane resource. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 70:372–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Boyle, K.J. and R.C. Bishop. 1987. Valuing wildlife in benefit-cost analyses: a case study involving endangered species. Water Resources Research 23:943–950.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cameron, T.A. 1988. A new paradigm for valuing non-market goods using referendum data. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 15:355–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cummings, R.G., D.S. Brookshire, and W.D. Schulze. 1986. Valuing Environmental Goods: An Assessment of the Contingent Valuation Method. Rowman and Allanheld. Totowa, NJ, USA.Google Scholar
  6. Dillman, D.A. 1978. Mail and Telephone Surveys: The Total Design Method. John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY, USA.Google Scholar
  7. Farber, S. 1987. The value of coastal wetlands for protection of property against hurricane wind damage. Journal of Environmentla Economics and Management 14:143–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Farber S. and R. Costanza. 1987. The economic value of wetlands systems. Journal of Environmental Management 24:41–51.Google Scholar
  9. Hanemann, W.M. 1984. Welfare evaluation in contingent valuation experiments with discrete responses. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 66:332–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hannan, R.R., W.L. Fisher, C. Justis, and R.R. Cicerello. 1986. Wetland Protection Strategies for Kentucky. Kentucky Nature Preserves Commission, Frankfort, KY, USA.Google Scholar
  11. Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources, Illinois Department of Conservation, Indiana Department of Natural Resources, Missouri Department of Conservation, and Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency. 1988. The New Madrid wetlands project: a component of the lower Mississippi Valley joint venture of the North American waterfowl management plan. In cooperation with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and other supporting agencies. Frankfort, KY, USA.Google Scholar
  12. Krutilla, J.V. 1967. Conservation reconsidered. American Economic Review 57:777–784.Google Scholar
  13. Leitch, J.A. 1983. Progress, problems, and prospects for successful economic evaluation of wetlands. Wetlands 3:153–160.Google Scholar
  14. McConnell K.E. 1990. Models for referendum data: the structure of discrete choice models for contingent valuation. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 18:19–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Mitchell, R.C. and R.T. Carson. 1989. Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Method. Resources for the Future, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
  16. Mitsch, W.J., J.R. Taylor, K.B. Benson, and P.L. Hill, Jr. 1983a. Wetlands and coal surface mining in western Kentucky—a regional impact assessment. Wetlands 3:161–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Mitsch, W.J., J.R. Taylor, K.B. Benson, and P.L. Hill, Jr. 1983b Atlas of Wetlands in the Principal coal Surface Mining Region of Western Kentucky. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Biological Services. Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
  18. Office of Technology Assessment 1984. Wetlands: Their Use and Regulation. U.S. Congress, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
  19. Stoll, J.R. and J.C. Bergstrom. 1988. Contingent valuation of recreation benefits for Louisiana coastal wetlands: implications for valuing changes in a wetland area. Natural Resources Working Paper Series, Department of Agricultural Economics, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, USA.Google Scholar
  20. Sudman, S. 1976. Applied Sampling. Academic Press, New York, NY, USA.Google Scholar
  21. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 1982. 1980 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation. Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
  22. University of Kentucky, Center for Business and Economic Research, 1988. Kentucky Statistical Abstract. Lexington, KY, USA.Google Scholar
  23. Whitehead, J.C. 1989. The effect of substitutes on existence value and nature preservation in benefit cost analysis. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY, USA.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of Wetland Scientists 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • John C. Whitehead
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of EconomicsEast Carolina UniversityGreenville

Personalised recommendations