The economic value of stream restoration

被引:33
作者
Collins, A
Rosenberger, R
Fletcher, J
机构
[1] W Virginia Univ, Morgantown, WV 26506 USA
[2] Oregon State Univ, Dept Forest Resources, Corvallis, OR 97331 USA
关键词
D O I
10.1029/2004WR003353
中图分类号
X [环境科学、安全科学];
学科分类号
08 ; 0830 ;
摘要
The economic value of restoring Deckers Creek in Monongalia and Preston counties of West Virginia was determined from mail, Internet, and personal contact surveys. Multiattribute, choice experiments were conducted and nested logit models were estimated to derive the economic values of full restoration for three attributes of this creek: aquatic life, swimming, and scenic quality. Their relative economic values were that aquatic life > scenic quality approximate to swimming. These economic values imply that respondents had the highest value for aquatic life when fully restoring Deckers Creek to a sustainable fishery rather than a "put and take" fishery that cannot sustain fish populations. The welfare improvement estimates for full restoration of all three attributes ranged between $12 and $16 per month per household. Potential stream users (anglers) had the largest welfare gain from restoration, while nonangler respondents had the lowest. When these estimates were aggregated up to the entire watershed population, the benefit from restoration of Deckers Creek was estimated to be about $1.9 million annually. This benefit does not account for any economic values from partial stream restoration. On the basis of log likelihood tests of the nested logit models, two subsamples of the survey population (the general population and stream users) were found to be from the same population. Thus restoration choices by stream users may be representative of the watershed population, although the sample size of stream users was small in this research.
引用
收藏
页码:1 / 9
页数:9
相关论文
共 15 条
[1]   Choice modelling: assessing the environmental values of water supply options [J].
Blamey, R ;
Gordon, J ;
Chapman, R .
AUSTRALIAN JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL AND RESOURCE ECONOMICS, 1999, 43 (03) :337-357
[2]   A test of policy labels in environmental choice modelling studies [J].
Blamey, RK ;
Bennett, JW ;
Louviere, JJ ;
Morrison, MD ;
Rolfe, J .
ECOLOGICAL ECONOMICS, 2000, 32 (02) :269-286
[3]   Watershed associations in West Virginia: Their impact on environmental protection [J].
Cline, SA ;
Collins, AR .
JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT, 2003, 67 (04) :373-383
[4]  
Dillman DA, 2000, Mail and internet surveys: The tailored design method, V2
[5]   Valuing watershed quality improvements using conjoint analysis [J].
Farber, S ;
Griner, B .
ECOLOGICAL ECONOMICS, 2000, 34 (01) :63-76
[6]  
GREENE WH, 2002, LIMDEP VERSION 8 0
[7]  
HANEMANN EM, 1984, 241 U CAL
[8]   The implications of model specification for welfare estimation in nested logit models [J].
Kling, CL ;
Thomson, CJ .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS, 1996, 78 (01) :103-114
[9]  
Krueger R.A., 2000, Focus Groups: A practical guide for applied research, V3rd
[10]  
Louviere J. J., 2000, STATE CHOICE METHODS