Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T00:43:08.333Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Valuation of Water Quality in Livestock Regions: An Application to Rural Watersheds in Iowa

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 April 2015

Terrance M. Hurley ,
Daniel Otto  and
Janice Holtkamp
Terrance M. Hurley
Affiliation:
University of Rhode Island
Daniel Otto
Affiliation:
Iowa State University
Janice Holtkamp
Affiliation:
Iowa State University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper investigates rural residents' perceptions of the risk to water quality from large confinement facilities and their willingness to pay to delay nitrate contamination from these facilities. Rural residents are concerned about the environmental impact of confinement facilities and are willing to pay as much as $82 annually to delay nitrate contamination in their water for 20 years. These contingent valuation results are consistent with the result obtained in similar studies that used hedonic valuation methods.

Keywords

contingent valuationlivestock productionnitrate contaminationrural developmentwater quality
Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics , Volume 31 , Issue 1 , April 1999 , pp. 177 - 184
Copyright
Copyright © Southern Agricultural Economics Association 1999

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.)

References

Abeles-Allison, M. and Connor, L.. “An Analysis of Local Benefits and Costs of Michigan Hog Operations Experiencing Environmental Conflicts.” Agricultural Economics Report No. 536, Department of Agricultural Economics, Michigan State University, 1990.Google Scholar
Beeman, P. “Hog Waste Called a Bigger Threat than Thought.” Des Moines Register, September 18, 1996, pg. 1.Google Scholar
Boyle, K., Bishop, R., and Welch, M.. “Starting Point Bias in Contingent Valuation Surveys.” Land Economics 61(1985): 188–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diamond, P.A. and Hausman, J.A.. “Contingent Valuation: Is Some Number Better than No Number.” Journal of Economic Perspectives 8(Fall 1994):45–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edwards, S.F. “Option Prices for Groundwater Protection.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 15(1988):475–487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanemann, W.M. “Valuing the Environment Through Contingent Valuation.” Journal of Economic Perspectives 8(Fall 1994): 19–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayes, D., Otto, D., and Lawrence, J.. “Pork Production in Iowa: An Industry at the Crossroads.” 1996 Pork Industry Economic Review (1996): 129–154.Google Scholar
Herriges, J. and Shogren, J.. “Starting Point Bias in Dichotomous Choice Valuation with Follow-Up Questioning.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 30(1990):112–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McFadden, D. “Contingent Valuation and Social Choice.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics (1994):689–708.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mitchell, R. and Carson, R.. “Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Method.” Washington, DC: Resource for the Future, 1989.Google Scholar
O'Gorman, D. “Using Contingent Valuation for Cost-Benefit Analysis of Agricultural Expansion in Southern Iowa.” Unpublished Master's Thesis, Iowa State University, 1995.Google Scholar
Palmquist, R., Roka, F., and Vukina, T.. “Hog Operations, Environmental Effects, and Residential Property Values.” Land Economics 73(1997): 114–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Portney, P.R. “The Contingent Valuation Debate: Why Economists Should Care.” Journal of Economic Perspective 8(Fall 1994):3–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taff, S., Tiffany, D., and Weisberg, S.. “Measured Effects of Feedlots on Residential Property Values in Minnesota: A Report to the Legislature.” Staff Paper P96-12, Department of Applied Economics, University of Minnesota, July 1996.Google Scholar