Environmental Valuation Techniques in Water Resource Decision Making
Publication: Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management
Volume 126, Issue 6
Abstract
Economic valuation of environmental uses of water resources has the potential to bring a more balanced perspective to the allocation and management of water resources. Environmental valuation allows water resource benefits received by nontraditional water users in society to be included in benefit-cost analyses. This allows for a more formal consideration in the decision-making process that is on par with historic uses of water. Some environmental valuation methods follow traditional economic approaches such as estimating the demand curve for recreation as a function of water flow or water quality. Other environmental valuation approaches utilize surveys to create simulated markets for public uses of water resources. These valuation methods are capable of monetizing the economic values of instream flow and water-based recreation as well as the value of preserving habitat for endangered species. Government-agency use of these environmental values and techniques in their resource analyses is presented. Several case studies illustrate how environmental valuation has been used to evaluate hydropower regulation at Glen Canyon Dam, hydropower relicensing, dam removal, and public trust benefits of water versus municipal uses.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
References
1.
Arrow, K., Solow, R., Portney, P., Leamer, E., Radner, R., and Schuman, H. ( 1993). “Report of the NOAA panel on contingent valuation.” Federal Register, 58(10), 4602–4614.
2.
Bishop, R., Brown, C., Welsh, M., and Boyle, K. ( 1989). “Grand Canyon and Glen Canyon dam operations: An economic evaluation.” W-133 benefits and costs in natural resources planning, Interim Report No. 2, K. Boyle and T. Heekin, eds., Dept. of Agric. and Resour. Economics, University of Maine, Orono, Maine.
3.
Bowker, J., English, D., and Donovon, J. ( 1996). “Toward a value for guided rafting on southern rivers.” J. Agric. and Appl. Economics, 28(2), 423–432.
4.
Carson, R., Flores, N., Martin, K., and Wright, J. ( 1996). “Contingent valuation and revealed preference methodologies.” Land Economics, 72(1), 80–99.
5.
Champ, P., Bishop, R., Brown, T., and McCollum, D. ( 1997). “Using donation mechanisms to value nonuse benefits from public goods.” J. Envir. Economics and Mgmt., 33(3), 151–162.
6.
Cordell, K., and Bergstrom, J. ( 1993). “Comparison of recreation use values among alternative reservoir management scenarios.” Water Resour. Res., 29(2), 247–258.
7.
Duffield, J. ( 1992). “Contingent valuation: Issues and applications.” Natural resource damages: Law and economics, K. Ward and J. Duffield, eds., Wiley, New York, 311–350.
8.
Gillian, D., and Brown, T. ( 1997). Instream flow protection, Island Press, Covello, Calif.
9.
Industrial Economics Inc. ( 1999). “Economic analysis for hydropower project relicensing: guidance and methods.” Rep. Prepared for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C.
10.
Jones, C. A. (2000). “Economic valuation of resource injuries in natural resource liability suits.”J. Water Resour. Plng. and Mgmt., ASCE, 126(6), 358–365.
11.
Jones and Stokes Associates. ( 1993). “Draft environmental impact report for the review of the Mono Basin water rights of the city of Los Angeles.” Rep. Prepared for California State Water Resources Control Board, Division of Water Rights, Sacramento, Calif.
12.
Loomis, J. ( 1987). “Balancing public trust resources of Mono Lake and Los Angeles' water right: An economic approach.” Water Resour. Res., 23(8), 1449–1456.
13.
Loomis, J. ( 1995). “Public trust doctrine produces water for Mono Lake.” J. Soil and Water Conservation, 50(3), 270–271.
14.
Loomis, J. ( 1996). “Measuring the benefits of removing dams and restoring the Elwha River: Results of a contingent valuation survey.” Water Resour. Res., 32(2), 441–447.
15.
Loomis, J. ( 1999). “Recreation use and NED benefits technical chapter.” Rep., Dept. of Agric. and Resour. Economics, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colo.
16.
Loomis, J., and Cooper, J. ( 1990). “Economic benefits of instream flow to fisheries: A case study of California's Feather River.” Rivers, 1(1), 23–30.
17.
Loomis, J., and Feldman, M. ( 1995). “An economic approach to giving equal consideration to environmental values in FERC hydropower relicensing.” Rivers, 5(2), 96–108.
18.
Loomis, J., and Walsh, R. ( 1997). Recreation economic decisions: Comparing benefits and costs, Venture Publishing, State College, Pa.
19.
Moser, D., and Dunning, M. ( 1986). “A guide for using the contingent valuation methodology in recreation studies.” National economic development procedures manual—recreation, Vol. 2, IWR Rep. 86-R-5, Institute for Water Resources, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Fort Belvoir, Va.
20.
Olsen, D., Richards, J., and Scott, D. ( 1991). “Existence and sport values for double the size of Columbia River Basin salmon and steelhead runs.” Rivers, 2(1), 44–56.
21.
Randall, A. ( 1998). “Beyond the crucial experiment: Mapping the performance characteristics of contingent valuation.” Energy and Resour. Economics, 20, 197–206.
22.
Roach, B., Boyle, K., Bergstrom, J., and Reiling, S. ( 1999). “The effect of instream flows on whitewater visitation and consumer surplus: A contingent valuation application to the Dead River, Maine.” Rivers, 7(1), 11–20.
23.
Samuelson, P. ( 1954). “Pure theory of public expenditure.” Rev. of Economics and Statistics, 36, 387–389.
24.
Sanders, L., Walsh, R., and Loomis, J. ( 1990). “Toward empirical estimation of the total value of protecting rivers.” Water Resour. Res., 26(7), 1345–1358.
25.
U.S. Department of Interior. ( 1986). “Natural resource damage assessments; final rule.” Federal Register, 51(4), 27674–27753.
26.
U.S. District Court of Appeals (for the District of Columbia). ( 1989). State of Ohio vs. U.S. Department of Interior (Case No. 86-1529, July 14, 1989).
27.
U.S. Water Resources Council. ( 1979). “Procedures for evaluation of national economic development (NED) benefits and costs in water resources planning; Final rule.” Federal Register, 44(242), 72892–72976.
28.
U.S. Water Resources Council. ( 1983). Economic and environmental principles and guidelines for water and related land resources implementation studies, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
29.
Vatn, A., and Bromley, D. ( 1994). “Choices without prices, without apologies.” J. Envir. Economics and Mgmt., 26(2), 129–148.
30.
Welsh, M., Bishop, R., Phillips, M., and Baumgartner, R. ( 1995). “GCES non-use value study.” Rep., Hagler Bailly Consulting, Madison, Wis.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management
Volume 126 • Issue 6 • December 2000
Pages: 339 - 344
History
Received: Jun 14, 2000
Published online: Dec 1, 2000
Published in print: Dec 2000
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Download citation
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.