Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Intertemporal Valuation of River Restoration

Environmental and Resource Economics volume 54, pages 41–61 (2013)Cite this article

Abstract

Willingness to pay for an environmental improvement is a function of how long it takes to deliver the improvement. To measure the effect of time on benefits, I utilize a discrete choice experiment that includes an attribute for delay until the improvement occurs and simultaneously estimate discount rates and valuation parameters. I estimate the present value of immediate and delayed Minnesota River Basin improvements using discount rates directly estimated from the econometric model. Compared to an immediate river basin cleanup, Minnesota residents lose almost half of the benefits when cleanup is delayed by 5 years.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

39,95 €

Price includes VAT (Finland)

References

  • Alberini A, Chiabai A (2007) Discount rates in risk versus money and money versus money tradeoffs. Risk Anal 27: 483–498

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alberini A, Cropper M, Krupnick A, Simon NB (2006) Willingness to pay for mortality risk reductions: does latency matter?. J Risk Uncertain 32: 231–245

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alberini A, Scasny M (2011) Context and the vsl: evidence from a stated preference study in Italy and the Czech Republic. Environ Resour Econ 49: 511–538

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alberini A, Tonin S, Turvani M, Chiabai A (2007) Paying for permanence: public preferences for contaminated site cleanup. J Risk Uncertain 34: 155–178

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Balogh SJ, Meyer ML, Johnson DK (1997) Mercury and suspended sediment loadings in the lower Minnesota River. Environ Sci Technol 31:198–202. http://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/es960327t

  • Bond CA, Cullen KG, Larson DM (2009) Joint estimation of discount rates and willingness to pay for public goods. Ecol Econ 68: 2751–2759

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cairns J, van der Pol M (2000) Valuing future private and social benefits: the discounted utility model versus hyperbolic discounting models. J Econ Psychol 21: 191–205

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Center MRBD (2007) Minnesota River Basin data center. Available at http://mrbdc.mnsu.edu/

  • Collins A, Rosenberger R, Fletcher J (2005) The economic value of stream restoration. Water resources research 41 NU: citation no. W02017; TR: CS0507258

  • Daly A, Hess S, Train K (2012) Assuring finite moments for willingness to pay in random coefficient models. Transportation 39: 19–31

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Farber S, Griner B (2000) Valuing watershed quality improvements using conjoint analysis. Ecol Econ 34: 63–76

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fennessy MS, Cronk JK (1997) The effectiveness and restoration potential of riparian ecotones for the management of nonpoint source pollution, particularly nitrate. Crit Rev Environ Sci Technol 27:285–317. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/10643389709388502

  • Flores NE, Shafran A (2007) What we know about valuing ecosystem improvements and restoration. Working paper. Department of Economics, University of Colorado, Boulder

  • Hanley N, Adamowicz W, Wright RE (2005) Price vector effects in choice experiments: an empirical test. Resour Energy Econ 27: 227–234

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harvey CM (1986) Value functions for infinite-period planning. Manag Sci 32: 1123–1139

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hensher DA, Rose JM, Greene WH (2005) Applied choice analysis: a primer. Cambridge University Press, New York

  • Herrnstein R (1981) Self-control as response strength. Quantification of steady-state operant behavior. Elsevier/North-Holland, New York, pp 3–20

  • Holmes TP, Adamowicz WL (2003) A primer on nonmarket valuation: attribute-based methods. Economics of non-market goods and resources, vol 3, Southern Research Station, US Forest Service, pp 171–219

  • Keller LR, Strazzera E (2002) Examining predictive accuracy among discounting models. J Risk Uncertain 24: 143–160

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kovacs KF, Larson DM (2008) Identifying individual discount rates and valuing public open space with stated-preference models. Land Econ 84: 209–224

    Google Scholar 

  • Laibson D (1997) Golden eggs and hyperbolic discounting. Q J Econ 112: 443–477

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Magat WA (2000) An iterative choice approach to valuing clean lakes, rivers, and streams. J Risk Uncertain 21: 7–43

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mazur JE (1987) An adjustment procedure for studying delayed reinforcement. Quantitative analysis of behaviour: the effect of delay and intervening events on reinforcement value. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp 55–73

  • Meyer AG (2012) Estimating discount factors for public and private goods and testing competing discounting hypotheses. SSRN eLibrary

  • MPCA, Water quality standards. Available at http://www.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/water/water-monitoring-and-reporting/water-quality-and-pollutants/water-quality-standards.html

  • Page MRBI (2008) Minnesota River Basin information page. Department of Soil, Water, and Climate, University of Minnesota. Available at http://www.soils.umn.edu/research/mn-river/

  • Phelps ES, Pollak RA (1968) On second-best national saving and game-equilibrium growth. Rev Econ Stud 35: 185–199

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rheinberger CM (2011) A mixed logit approach to study preferences for safety on alpine roads. Environ Resour Econ 49: 121–146

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith VK, Desvousges WH (1986) Measuring water quality benefits. Kluwer, Boston

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Train KE (2003) Discrete choice methods with simulation. Cambridge University Press, New York, NY

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • US EPA (2008) Monitoring and assessing water quality. Available at http://www.epa.gov/305b/

  • Viscusi WK, Huber J, Bell J (2008) Estimating discount rates for environmental quality from utility-based choice experiments. J Risk Uncertain 37:199–220. RX:850816 (on 24 May 2010)

    Google Scholar 

  • Weitzman ML (2001) Gamma discounting. Am Econ Rev 91: 260–271

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weitzman ML (2010) Risk-adjusted gamma discounting. J Environ Econ Manag 60: 1–13

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whitmore GA, Cavadias GS (1974) Experimental determination of community preferences for water quality-cost alternatives. Decis Sci 5: 614–631

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson MA, Carpenter SR (1999) Economic valuation of freshwater ecosystem services in the united states: 1971–1997. Ecol Appl 9: 772–783

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Economics, Ohio Wesleyan University, 61 S. Sandusky St., Delaware, OH, 43015, USA

    Andrew Meyer

Authors
  1. Andrew Meyer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Andrew Meyer.

Additional information

This work was supported by the STC program of the National Science Foundation via the National Center for Earth-surface Dynamics under the agreement Number EAR- 0120914.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Meyer, A. Intertemporal Valuation of River Restoration. Environ Resource Econ 54, 41–61 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-012-9580-4

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-012-9580-4

Keywords

  • Non-market valuation
  • Intertemporal choice
  • Discounting
  • Water pollution

JEL Classification

  • D90
  • Q25
  • Q51
  • H43

Search

Navigation