Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-18T20:39:44.812Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Valuing Ecological Improvements in the Chesapeake Bay and the Importance of Ancillary Benefits

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 June 2017

Chris Moore ,
Dennis Guignet ,
Chris Dockins ,
Kelly B. Maguire  and
Nathalie B. Simon
Chris Moore*
Affiliation:
1200 Pennsylvania Ave, NW (1809T), Washington, DC 20460, 202-566-2348, USA, e-mail: [email protected] US EPA, National Center for Environmental Economics, USA
Dennis Guignet
Affiliation:
US EPA, National Center for Environmental Economics, USA, e-mail: [email protected]
Chris Dockins
Affiliation:
US EPA, National Center for Environmental Economics, USA, e-mail: [email protected]
Kelly B. Maguire
Affiliation:
US EPA, National Center for Environmental Economics, USA, e-mail: [email protected]
Nathalie B. Simon
Affiliation:
US EPA, National Center for Environmental Economics, USA, e-mail: [email protected]
*
*e-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Reducing the excess nutrient and sediment pollution that is damaging habitat and diminishing recreational experiences in coastal estuaries requires actions by people and communities that are within the boundaries of the watershed but may be far from the resource itself, thus complicating efforts to understand tradeoffs associated with pollution control measures. Such is the case with the Chesapeake Bay, one of the most iconic water resources in the United States. All seven states containing part of the Chesapeake Bay Watershed were required under the Clean Water Act to submit detailed plans to achieve nutrient and sediment pollution reductions. The implementation plans provide information on the location and type of management practices making it possible to project not only water quality improvements in the Chesapeake Bay but also improvements in freshwater lakes throughout the watershed, which provide important ancillary benefits to people bearing the cost of reducing pollution to the Bay but unlikely to benefit directly. This paper reports the results of a benefits study that links the forecasted water quality improvements to ecological endpoints and administers a stated preference survey to estimate use and nonuse value for aesthetic and ecological improvements in the Chesapeake Bay and watershed lakes. Our results show that ancillary benefits and nonuse values account for a substantial proportion of total willingness to pay and would have a significant impact on the net benefits of pollution reduction programs.

Keywords

Q51Q53Chesapeake Baychoice experimentstated preferencewater quality
Type
Article
Information
Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis , Volume 9 , Issue 1 , Spring 2018 , pp. 1 - 26
Copyright
© Society for Benefit-Cost Analysis 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of the US EPA. Although research in this paper may have been funded entirely or in part by the US EPA, it has not been subjected to formal Agency peer and policy review. No official Agency endorsement should be inferred. We thank Elena Besedin, Maureen Cropper, and Alan Krupnick for valuable guidance and feedback throughout the development of the survey used in this study. We also thank Kevin Boyle, John Whitehead, and Robert Johnston for comments on earlier drafts of the survey instrument, and thank Julie Hewitt, George Parsons, Dan Phaneuf, and Greg Poe for comments on earlier paper drafts. Finally, we thank Bryan Milstead, Gary Shenk, and Steve Newbold for providing the hydrological and ecological modeling results we used to forecast future baseline and policy conditions when estimating economic benefits.

References

Banzhaf, H. Spencer, Burtraw, Dallas, Evans, David & Krupnick, Alan (2006). Valuation of Natural Resource Improvements in the Adirondacks. Land Economics, 82, 445–464.Google Scholar
Barbier, Edward B., Hacker, Sally D., Kennedy, Chris, Koch, Evamaria W., Stier, Adrian C. & Silliman, Brian R. (2011). The Value of Estuarine and Coastal Ecosystem Services. Ecological Monographs, 81(2), 169–193.Google Scholar
Blomquist, Glenn C., Blumenschein, Karen & Johannesson, Magnus (2009). Eliciting Willingness to Pay Without Bias Using Follow-up Certainty Statements: Comparisons Between Probably/Definitely and a 10-point Certainty Scale. Environmental and Resource Economics, 43(4), 473–502.Google Scholar
Blumenschein, Karen, Blomquist, Glenn C., Johannesson, Magnus, Horm, Nancy & Freeman, Patricia (2008). Eliciting Willingness to Pay Without Bias: Evidence From a Field Experiment. The Economic Journal, 118(525), 114–137.Google Scholar
Bockstael, Nancy E., McConnell, Kevin E. & Strand, Ivar E. (1988). Benefits from Improvements in Chesapeake Bay Water Quality (Vol. III). Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.Google Scholar
Bockstael, Nancy E., McConnell, Kevin E. & Strand, Ivar E. (1989). Measuring the Benefits of Improvements in Water Quality: The Chesapeake Bay. Marine Resource Economics, 6, 1–18.Google Scholar
Boyd, James & Krupnick, Alan (2009). The Definition and Choice of Environmental Commodities for Nonmarket Valuation. In RFF Discussion Paper (pp. 09–35). Resources for the Future.Google Scholar
Boyd, James & Krupnick, Alan (2013). Using Ecological Production Theory to Define and Select Environmental Commodities for Nonmarket Valuation. Agricultural and Resource Economic Review, 42(1), 1–32.Google Scholar
Carson, R. T. & Mitchell, R. C. (1989). Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: the Contingent Valuation Method. In Resources for the Future, Washington DC, 82.Google Scholar
Cropper, Maureen & Isaac, William (2011). The Benefits of Achieving the Chesapeake Bay TMDLs (Total Maximum Daily Loads): A scoping Study. In RFF Discussion Paper, 11-31. Resources for the Future.Google Scholar
Cummings, Ronald G., Ganderton, Philip T. & McGuckin, Thomas (1994). Substitution Effects in CVM Values. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 76, 205–214.Google Scholar
Greene, William H. (2003). Econometric Analysis. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Hanemann, W. Michael (1999). Welfare Analysis With Discrete Choice Models. In Kling, Catherine & Herriges, Joseph (Eds.), Valuing Recreation and the Environment in Theory and Practice. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Herriges, Joseph, Kling, Catherine, Liu, Chih-Chen & Tobias, Justin (2010). What Are the Consequences of Consequentiality? Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 59, 67–81.Google Scholar
Hicks, Robert, Kirkley, James E., McConnell, Kevin E., Ryan, Winifred, Scott, Tara L. & Strand, Ivar (2008). Assessing Stakeholder Preferences for Chesapeake Bay Restoration Options: A Stated Preference Discrete Choice-Based Assessment. Annapolis, MD: NOAA Chesapeake Bay Office, National Marine Fisheries Service and Virginia Institute of Marine Science.Google Scholar
Holmes, Thomas P. & Adamowicz, Wiktor L. (2003). Attribute-Based Methods. In Champ, Patricia A., Boyle, Kevin J. & Brown, Thomas C. (Eds.), A Primer on Nonmarket Valuation. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
Johnston, Robert J., Grigalunas, Thomas A., Opaluch, James J., Mazzotta, Marisa & Diamantedes, Jerry (2002). Valuing Estuarine Resource Services Using Economic and Ecological Models: The Peconic Estuary System study. Coastal Management, 30, 47–65.Google Scholar
Johnston, R. J., Opaluch, J. J., Magnusson, G. & Mazzotta, M. J. (2005). Who Are Resource Nonusers and What Can They Tell us About Nonuse Values? Decomposing User and Nonuser Willingness to Pay for Coastal Wetland Restoration. Water Resources Research, 41(7).Google Scholar
Johnston, Robert J., Jarvis, Daniel, Wallmo, Kristy & Lew, Daniel K. (2015). Multi-Scale Spatial Pattern in Nonuse Willingness to Pay: Applications to Threatened and Endangered Marine Species. Land Economics, 91(4), 739–761.Google Scholar
Johnston, Robert J. & Ramachandran, Mahesh (2014). Modeling Spatial Patchiness and hot Spots in Stated Preference Willingness to Pay. Environmental and Resource Economics, 59, 363–387.Google Scholar
Johnston, Robert J., Swallow, Stephen K., Tyrrell, Timothy J. & Bauer, Dana M. (2003). Rural Amenity Values and Length of Residency. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 85(4), 1000–1015.Google Scholar
Lipton, Douglas (2004). The Value of Improved Water Quality to Chesapeake Bay Boaters. Marine Resource Economics, 19, 265–270.Google Scholar
Maddala, G. S. (1983). Limited-Dependent and Qualitative Variables in Economics. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mansfield, Carol, Van Houtven, George, Hendershott, Amy, Chen, Patrick, Porter, Jeremy, Nourani, Vesall & Kilambi, Vikram(2012) Klamath River Basin Restoration: Nonuse Value Survey: Final Report. Prepared for the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. Research Triangle Park, NC: RTI International.Google Scholar
Moore, Chris, Guignet, Dennis, Maguire, Kelly B., Dockins, Chris & Simon, Nathalie B. (2015). A stated preference study of the Chesapeake Bay and Watershed lakes. US EPA National Center for Environmental Economics Working Paper 2015-06. Washington, DC. November.Google Scholar
Moore, Richard B., Johnston, Craig M., Smith, Richard A. & Milstead, Bryan (2011). Source and Delivery of Nutrients to Receiving Waters in the Northeastern and Mid-Atlantic Regions of the United States. Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 47(5), 965–990.Google Scholar
Newbold, Steve C., Matthew Massey, D. & Moore, Chris. Commercial and recreational fishing benefits of the Chesapeake Bay total maximum daily loads. US EPA National Center for Environmental Economics Working Paper. Washington, DC, forthcoming.Google Scholar
Phaneuf, Daniel J., von Haefen, Roger H., Mansfield, Carol & Van Houtven, George2013. Measuring nutrient reduction benefits for policy analysis using linked non-market valuation and environmental assessment models, final report on stated preference surveys. Report to the US EPA.Google Scholar
Ready, Richard C., Champ, Patricia A. & Lawton, Jennifer L. (2010). Using Respondent Uncertainty to Mitigate Hypothetical Bias in a Stated Choice Experiment. Land Economics, 86(2), 363–381.Google Scholar
Roberts, David C., Boyer, Tracy A. & Lusk, Jason I. (2008). Preferences for Environmental Quality Under Uncertainty. Ecological Economics, 66, 584–593.Google Scholar
Rolfe, John & Windle, Jill (2012). Distance Decay Functions for Iconic Assets: Assessing National values to Protect the Health of the Great Barrier Reef in Australia. Environmental and Resource Economics, 53, 347–365.Google Scholar
Schaafsma, Marije, Brouwer, Roy & Rose, John (2012). Directional Heterogeneity in WTP Models for Environmental Valuation. Ecological Economics, 79, 21–31.Google Scholar
Train, Kenneth E. (2009). Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
US EPA2010 Chesapeake Bay Phase 5.3 Community Watershed Model. EPA 903S10002 – CBP/TRS-303-10. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Chesapeake Bay Program Office, Annapolis, MD. December 2010.Google Scholar
Van Houtven, George, Mansfield, Carol, Phaneuf, Daniel J., von Haefen, Roger, Milstead, Bryan, Kenny, Melissa A. & Reckhow, Kenneth H. (2014). Combining Expert Elicitation and Stated Preference Methods to Value Ecosystem Services from Improved Lake Water Quality. Ecological Economics, 99, 40–52.Google Scholar
Viscusi, W. Kip, Huber, Joel & Bell, Jason (2008). The Economic Value of Water Quality. Environmental and Resource Economics, 41, 169–187.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Moore supplementary material

Moore supplementary material

Download Moore supplementary material(File)
File 985.1 KB