Mainstream and Heterodox Approaches to Water Quality Valuation: A Case for Pluralistic Water Policy Analysis

Literature Cited

1. Ahtiainen H, Pouta E, Artell J 2015. Modelling asymmetric preferences for water quality in choice experiments with individual-specific status quo alternatives. Water Resour. Econ. 12:1–13
   [Google Scholar]
2. Angrist J, Azouley P, Ellison G, Hill R, Feng Lu S 2020. Inside job or deep impact? Extramural citations and the influence of economic scholarship. J. Econ. Lit. 58:3–52
   [Google Scholar]
3. Anthoff D, Hepburn C, Tol RS 2009. Equity weighting and the marginal damage costs of climate change. Ecol. Econ. 68:836–49
   [Google Scholar]
4. Bagstad KJ, Johnson GW, Voigt B, Villa F 2013. Spatial dynamics of ecosystem service flows: a comprehensive approach to quantifying actual services. Ecosyst. Serv. 4:117–25
   [Google Scholar]
5. Bardi A, Schwartz SH. 2003. Values and behavior: strength and structure of relations. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 29:1207–20
   [Google Scholar]
6. Bateman I, Agarwala M, Binner A, Coombes E, Day B et al. 2016. Spatially explicit integrated modeling and economic valuation of climate driven land use change and its indirect effects. J. Environ. Manag. 181:172–84
   [Google Scholar]
7. Berbés-Blázquez M, González JA, Pascual U 2016. Towards an ecosystem services approach that addresses social power relations. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 19:134–43
   [Google Scholar]
8. Biel A, Johansson-Stenman O, Nilsson A 2011. The willingness to pay-willingness to accept gap revisited: the role of emotions and moral satisfaction. J. Econ. Psychol. 32:908–17
   [Google Scholar]
9. Bouman T, Steg L, Kiers HA 2018. Measuring values in environmental research: a test of an environmental portrait value questionnaire. Front. Psychol. 9:564
   [Google Scholar]
10. Bowles S. 2008. Policies designed for self-interested citizens may undermine “the moral sentiments”: evidence from economic experiments. Science 320:1605–9
    [Google Scholar]
11. Boyle KJ, Kotchen MJ, Smith VK 2017. Deciphering dueling analyses of clean water regulations. Science 358:49–50
    [Google Scholar]
12. Brauman KA, Daily GC, Duarte TK, Mooney HA 2007. The nature and value of ecosystem services: an overview highlighting hydrologic services. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 32:67–98
    [Google Scholar]
13. Brekke KA, Kverndokk S, Nyborg K 2003. An economic model of moral motivation. J. Public Econ. 87:1967–83
    [Google Scholar]
14. Bremer LL, Brauman KA, Nelson S, Prado KM, Wilburn E, Fiorini ACO 2018. Relational values in evaluations of upstream social outcomes of watershed Payment for Ecosystem Services: a review. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 35:116–23
    [Google Scholar]
15. Brender JD, Olive JM, Felkner M, Suarez L, Marckwardt W, Hendricks KA 2004. Dietary nitrites and nitrates, nitrosatable drugs, and neural tube defects. Epidemiology 15:330–36
    [Google Scholar]
16. Brouwer R, Martin-Ortega J, Berbel J 2010. Spatial preference heterogeneity: a choice experiment. Land Econ 86:552–68
    [Google Scholar]
17. Bunse L, Rendon O, Luque S 2015. What can deliberative approaches bring to the monetary valuation of ecosystem services? A literature review. Ecosyst. Serv. 14:88–97
    [Google Scholar]
18. Chan KM, Goldstein J, Satterfield T, Hannahs N, Kikiloi K et al. 2011. Cultural services and non-use values. Natural Capital: Theory and Practice of Mapping Ecosystem Services P Kareiva, H Tallis, T Ricketts, GC Daily, S Polasky 206–28 Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
19. Chan KM, Guerry AD, Balvanera P, Klain S, Satterfield T et al. 2012. Where are ‘cultural’ and ‘social’ in ecosystem services: a framework for constructive engagement. Bioscience 62:744–56
    [Google Scholar]
20. Chatterjee A, Gupta U, Chinnakotla MK, Srikanth R, Galley M, Agrawal P 2019. Understanding emotions in text using deep learning and Big Data. Comput. Hum. Behav. 93:309–17
    [Google Scholar]
21. Cong W, Sun X, Guo H, Shan R 2020. Comparison of the SWAT and InVEST models to determine hydrological ecosystem service spatial patterns, priorities and trade-offs in a complex basin. Ecol. Indic. 112:106089
    [Google Scholar]
22. Crutchfield SR, Cooper JC, Hellerstein D 1997. The benefits of safer drinking water: the value of nitrate reduction Econ. Res. Serv. Agric. Econ. Rep. 752, US Dep. Agric Washington, DC:
23. Davenport M, Keeler BL. 2018. The value of Minnesota water: a resident survey Survey, Cent. Changing Landscapes, Univ. Minn St. Paul. https://www.changinglandscapes.umn.edu/sites/changinglandscapes.umn.edu/files/mn_water_value_questionnaire_final_1.pdf
24. Daw T, Brown K, Rosendo S, Pomeroy R 2011. Applying the ecosystem services concept to poverty alleviation: the need to disaggregate human well-being. Environ. Conserv. 38:370–79
    [Google Scholar]
25. de Oliveira LEC, Berkes F 2014. What value São Pedro's procession? Ecosystem services from local people's perceptions. Ecol. Econ. 107:114–21
    [Google Scholar]
26. Deitz S, Meehan K. 2019. Plumbing poverty: mapping hot spots of racial and geographic inequality in US household water insecurity. Ann. Am. Assoc. Geog. 109:1092–109
    [Google Scholar]
27. Dietz S, Atkinson G. 2010. The equity-efficiency trade-off in environmental policy: evidence from stated preferences. Land Econ 86:423–43
    [Google Scholar]
28. Donahue ML, Keeler BL, Wood SA, Fisher DM, Hamstead ZA, McPhearson T 2018. Using social media to understand drivers of urban park visitation in the Twin Cities, MN. Landsc. Urban Plan. 175:1–10
    [Google Scholar]
29. Drupp MA, Meya JN, Baumgartner S, Quass MF 2018. Economic inequality and the value of nature. Ecol. Econ. 150:340–45
    [Google Scholar]
30. Dumas CF, Schuhmann PW, Whitehead JC 2005. Measuring the economic benefits of water quality improvement with benefit transfer: an introduction for noneconomists. Am. Fish. Soc. Symp. 47:53–68
    [Google Scholar]
31. Egan KJ, Herriges JA, Kling CL, Downing JA 2009. Valuing water quality as a function of water quality measures. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 91:106–23
    [Google Scholar]
32. Einav L, Levin J. 2014. Economics in the age of big data. Science 346:1243089
    [Google Scholar]
33. Fellows S, Davenport M, Pradhananga A 2019. Conservation beliefs and actions in the Sand Creek Watershed, Minnesota Tech. Rep., Cent. Changing Landscapes, Univ. Minn St. Paul. https://www.changinglandscapes.umn.edu/sites/changinglandscapes.umn.edu/files/final_sand_creek_report.pdf
34. Feng L, Hou X, Zheng Y 2019. Monitoring and understanding the water transparency changes of fifty large lakes on the Yangtze Plain based on long-term MODIS observations. Remote Sens. Environ. 221:675–86
    [Google Scholar]
35. Ferraro PJ, Miranda JJ, Price MK 2011. The persistence of treatment effects with norm-based policy instruments: evidence from a randomized environmental policy experiment. Am. Econ. Rev. 101:318–22
    [Google Scholar]
36. Feuillette S, Levrel H, Boeuf B, Blanquart S, Gorin O et al. 2016. The use of cost-benefit analysis in environmental policies: some issues raised by the Water Framework Directive implementation in France. Environ. Sci. Policy 57:79–85
    [Google Scholar]
37. Folmer H, Johansson-Stenman O. 2011. Does environmental economics produce aeroplanes without engines? On the need for an environmental social science. Environ. Resour. Econ. 48:337–61
    [Google Scholar]
38. Fourcade M. 2011. Cents and sensibility: economic valuation and the nature of “nature. .” Am. J. Sociol. 116:1721–77
    [Google Scholar]
39. Gallup 2019. In depth: topics A to Z. Environment https://news.gallup.com/poll/1615/environment.aspx
    [Google Scholar]
40. Garnache C, Swinton SM, Herriges JA, Lupi F, Stevenson RJ 2016. Solving the phosphorus pollution puzzle: synthesis and directions for future research. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 98:1334–59
    [Google Scholar]
41. Garrick DE, Hall JW, Dobson A, Damania R, Grafton RQ et al. 2017. Valuing water for sustainable development. Science 358:1003–5
    [Google Scholar]
42. Ge J, Kling C, Herriges J 2013. How much is clean water worth? Valuing water quality improvement using a meta analysis Econ. Work. Pap. 13016, Iowa State Univ Ames: https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/econ_las_workingpapers/51
43. Gómez-Baggethun E, Barton DN. 2013. Classifying and valuing ecosystem services for urban planning. Ecol. Econ. 86:235–45
    [Google Scholar]
44. Gould E. 2009. Childhood lead poisoning: conservative estimates of the social and economic benefits of lead hazard control. Environ. Health Perspect. 117:1162–67
    [Google Scholar]
45. Gourevitch JD, Keeler BL, Ricketts TH 2018. Determining socially optimal rates of nitrogen fertilizer application. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 254:292–99
    [Google Scholar]
46. Gregory R, Satterfield T, Hasell A 2016. Using decision pathway surveys to inform climate engineering policy choices. PNAS 113:560–65
    [Google Scholar]
47. Gregory R, Slovic P. 1997. A constructive approach to environmental valuation. Ecol. Econ. 21:175–81
    [Google Scholar]
48. Griffiths C, Klemick H, Massey M, Moore C, Newbold S et al. 2012. US Environmental Protection Agency valuation of surface water quality improvements. Rev. Environ. Econ. Policy 6:130–46
    [Google Scholar]
49. Hackbart VCS, de Lima GTNP, dos Santos RF 2017. Theory and practice of water ecosystem services valuation: Where are we going. Ecosyst. Serv. 23:218–27
    [Google Scholar]
50. Haener MK, Boxall PC, Adamowicz WL 2001. Modeling recreation site choice: Do hypothetical choices reflect actual behavior?. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 83:629–42
    [Google Scholar]
51. Hampton SE, Strasser CA, Tewksbury JJ, Gram WK, Budden AE et al. 2013. Big data and the future of ecology. Front. Ecol. Environ. 11:156–62
    [Google Scholar]
52. Hanley N, Czajkowski M. 2019. The role of stated preference valuation methods in understanding choices and informing policy. Rev. Environ. Econ. Policy 13:248–66
    [Google Scholar]
53. Hansen L, Ribaudo M. 2008. Economic measures of soil conservation benefits: regional values for policy assessment Tech. Bull. 1922, US Dep. Agric Washington, DC:
54. Hausman D, McPherson M, Satz D 2016. Economic Analysis, Moral Philosophy, and Public Policy Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press. , 3rd ed..
55. Hausman J. 2012. Contingent valuation: from dubious to hopeless. J. Econ. Persp. 26:43–56
    [Google Scholar]
56. Holland B. 2014. Allocating the Earth: A Distributional Framework for Protecting Capabilities Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press. , 1st ed..
57. Irwin EG, Culligan PJ, Fischer-Kowalski M, Law KL, Murtugudde R, Pfirman S 2018. Bridging barriers to advance global sustainability. Nat. Sustain. 1:324–26
    [Google Scholar]
58. Jacobs S, Martín-López B, Barton DN, Dunford R, Harrison PA et al. 2018. The means determine the end—pursuing integrated valuation in practice. Ecosyst. Serv. 29:515–28
    [Google Scholar]
59. Jeon Y, Herriges JA. 2010. Convergent validity of contingent behavior responses in models of recreation demand. Environ. Resour. Econ. 45:223–50
    [Google Scholar]
60. Johnston RJ, Besedin EY, Iovanna R, Miller CJ, Wardwell RF et al. 2005. Systematic variation in willingness to pay for aquatic resource improvements and implications for benefit transfer: a meta-analysis. Can. J. Agric. Econ. 53:221–48
    [Google Scholar]
61. Johnston RJ, Besedin EY, Stapler R 2017a. Enhanced geospatial validity for meta-analysis and environmental benefit transfer: an application to water quality improvements. Environ. Resour. Econ. 68:343–75
    [Google Scholar]
62. Johnston RJ, Boyle KJ, Adamowicz W, Bennett J, Brouwer R et al. 2017b. Contemporary guidance for stated preference studies. J. Assoc. Environ. Res. Econ. 4:319–405
    [Google Scholar]
63. Kahneman D, Knetsch JL. 1992. Valuing public goods: the purchase of moral satisfaction. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 22:57–70
    [Google Scholar]
64. Kanjir U, Greidanus H, Oštir K 2018. Vessel detection and classification from spaceborne optical images: a literature survey. Remote Sens. Environ. 207:1–26
    [Google Scholar]
65. Keeler BL, Dalzell BJ, Gourevitch JD, Hawthorne PL, Johnson KA, Noe RR 2019. Putting people on the map improves the prioritization of ecosystem services. Front. Ecol. Environ. 17:151–56
    [Google Scholar]
66. Keeler BL, Derickson KD, Waters H, Walker R 2020. Advancing water equity demands new approaches to sustainability science. One Earth 2:211–13
    [Google Scholar]
67. Keeler BL, Gourevitch JD, Polasky S, Isbell F, Tessum CW et al. 2016. The social costs of nitrogen. Sci. Adv. 2:e1600219
    [Google Scholar]
68. Keeler BL, Polasky S. 2014. Land-use change and costs to rural households: a case study in groundwater nitrate contamination. Environ. Res. Lett. 9:074002
    [Google Scholar]
69. Keeler BL, Polasky S, Brauman KA, Johnson KA, Finlay JC et al. 2012. Linking water quality and well-being for improved assessment and valuation of ecosystem services. PNAS 109:18619–24
    [Google Scholar]
70. Keiser DA, Kling CL, Shapiro JS 2019. The low but uncertain measured benefits of US water quality policy. PNAS 116:5262–69
    [Google Scholar]
71. Keiser DA, Muller NZ. 2017. Air and water: integrated assessment models for multiple media. Annu. Rev. Resour. Econ. 9:165–84
    [Google Scholar]
72. Kenter JO, Bryce R, Christie M, Cooper N, Hockley N et al. 2016. Shared values and deliberative valuation: future directions. Ecosyst. Serv. 21:358–71
    [Google Scholar]
73. Kenter JO, O'Brien L, Hockley N, Ravenscroft N, Fazey I et al. 2015. What are shared and social values of ecosystems. Ecol. Econ. 111:86–99
    [Google Scholar]
74. Kling CL, Arritt RW, Calhoun G, Keiser DA 2017. Integrated assessment models of the food, energy, and water nexus: a review and an outline of research needs. Annu. Rev. Resour. Econ. 9:143–63
    [Google Scholar]
75. Kling CL, Phaneuf DJ. 2018. How are scope and adding up relevant for benefits transfer. Environ. Resour. Econ. 69:483–502
    [Google Scholar]
76. Kling CL, Phaneuf DJ, Zhao J 2012. From Exxon to BP: Has some number become better than no number. J. Econ. Perspect. 26:3–26
    [Google Scholar]
77. Kovacs K, Polasky S, Nelson E, Keeler BL, Pennington D et al. 2013. Evaluating the return in ecosystem services from investment in public land acquisitions. PLOS ONE 8:e62202
    [Google Scholar]
78. Krupnick A, Morgenstern R. 2002. The future of benefit-cost analyses of the Clean Air Act. Annu. Rev. Public Health 23:427–48
    [Google Scholar]
79. Kuminoff NV, Smith VK, Timmins C 2013. The new economics of equilibrium sorting and policy evaluation using housing markets. J. Econ. Lit. 51:1007–62
    [Google Scholar]
80. Lamont M. 2012. Toward a comparative sociology of valuation and evaluation. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 38:201–21
    [Google Scholar]
81. Latinopoulos D. 2014. Using a choice experiment to estimate the social benefits from improved water supply services. J. Integr. Environ. Sci. 11:187–204
    [Google Scholar]
82. Laurans Y, Rankovic A, Billé R, Pirard R, Mermet L 2013. Use of ecosystem services economic valuation for decision making: questioning a literature blindspot. J. Environ. Manag. 119:208–19
    [Google Scholar]
83. Lewandowski AM, Montgomery BR, Rosen CJ, Moncrief JF 2008. Groundwater nitrate contamination costs: a survey of private well owners. J. Soil Water Cons. 63:153–61
    [Google Scholar]
84. Lienhoop N, Bartkowski B, Hansjürgens B 2015. Informing biodiversity policy: the role of economic valuation, deliberative institutions and deliberative monetary valuation. Environ. Sci. Policy 54:522–32
    [Google Scholar]
85. Lin J, Cromley RG. 2015. Evaluating geo-located Twitter data as a control layer for areal interpolation of population. Appl. Geogr. 58:41–47
    [Google Scholar]
86. Lindenberg SM, Steg L. 2007. Normative, gain and hedonic goal frames guiding environmental behavior. J. Soc. Issues 63:117–37
    [Google Scholar]
87. Liu J, Opdam P. 2014. Valuing ecosystem services in community based landscape planning: introducing a wellbeing approach. Landsc. Ecol. 29:1347–60
    [Google Scholar]
88. Lo AY, Spash CL. 2013. Deliberative monetary valuation: in search of a democratic and value plural approach to environmental policy. J. Econ. Surv. 27:768–89
    [Google Scholar]
89. Manassaram DM, Backer LC, Moll DM 2006. A review of nitrates in drinking water: maternal exposure and adverse reproductive and developmental outcomes. Environ. Health Persp. 114:320–27
    [Google Scholar]
90. MDH (Minn. Dep. Health) 2019. Lead in Minnesota water: assessment of eliminating lead in Minnesota drinking water Rep., MDH, St. Paul Minn: https://www.health.state.mn.us/communities/environment/water/docs/leadreport.pdf
91. Mendelsohn R. 2019. An examination of recent revealed preference valuation methods and results. Rev. Environ. Econ. Policy 13:2267–82
    [Google Scholar]
92. MEP (Minn. Environ. Partn.). 2017. Minnesota voters’ environmental priorities in 2017: results of a statewide voter survey conducted February 1–5, 2017 Rep., MEP, St. Paul, Minn. https://www.mepartnership.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/MEP-Poll-Public-Release-3.1.17.pdf
93. Motew M, Chen X, Carpenter SR, Booth EG, Seifert J et al. 2019. Comparing the effects of climate and land use on surface water quality using future watershed scenarios. Sci. Total Environ. 693:133484
    [Google Scholar]
94. Neil C, Spyrakos E, Hunter PD, Tyler AN 2019. A global approach for chlorophyll—a retrieval across optically complex inland waters based on optical water types. Remote Sens. Environ. 229:159–78
    [Google Scholar]
95. Nicholls S, Crompton J. 2018. A comprehensive review of the evidence of the impact of surface water quality on property values. Sustainability 10:500
    [Google Scholar]
96. Noe RL, Heavenrich H, Nachman E, Keeler BL, Hernandez D, Hill J 2016. Assessing uncertainty in the profitability of prairie biomass production with ecosystem service compensation. Ecosys. Serv. 21:103–8
    [Google Scholar]
97. Nunn N. 2020. The historical roots of economic development. Science 367:eaaz9986
    [Google Scholar]
98. Nurmi V, Ahtiainen H. 2018. Distributional weights in environmental valuation and cost-benefit analysis: theory and practice. Ecol. Econ. 150:217–28
    [Google Scholar]
99. Olander LP, Johnston RJ, Tallis H, Kagan J, Maguire LA et al. 2018. Benefit relevant indicators: Ecosystem services measures that link ecological and social outcomes. Ecol. Indic. 85:1262–72
    [Google Scholar]
100. Olmstead SM. 2009. The economics of water quality. Rev. Environ. Econ. Policy 4:44–62
     [Google Scholar]
101. Ovaskainen V, Kniivilä M. 2005. Consumer versus citizen preferences in contingent valuation: evidence on the role of question framing. Aust. J. Agric. Resour. Econ. 49:379–94
     [Google Scholar]
102. Patel NN, Stevens FR, Huang Z, Gaughan AE, Elyazar I, Tatem AJ 2017. Improving large area population mapping using geotweet densities. Trans. GIS 21:317–31
     [Google Scholar]
103. Peppard CZ. 2013. Troubling waters: The Jordan River between religious imagination and environmental degradation. J. Environ. Stud. Sci. 3:109–19
     [Google Scholar]
104. Phaneuf DJ. 2002. A random utility model for total maximum daily loads: estimating the benefits of watershed-based ambient water quality improvements. Water Resour. Res. 38:1254
     [Google Scholar]
105. Phaneuf DJ, Van Houtven G 2015. Structural benefit transfer using Bayesian econometrics. Benefit Transfer of Environmental and Resource Values R Johnston, J Rolfe, R Rosenberger, R Brouwer 525–49 Dordrecht, Neth: Springer
     [Google Scholar]
106. Phaneuf DJ, Von Haefen RH, Mansfield C, Van Houtven G 2013. Measuring nutrient reduction benefits for policy analysis using linked non-market valuation and environmental assessment models Rep. to the US Environ. Prot. Agency Washington, DC: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-10/documents/final-report-stated-preferences-surveys.pdf
107. Pradhananga AK, Davenport M, Olson B 2015. Landowner motivations for civic engagement in water resource protection. J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 51:1600–12
     [Google Scholar]
108. Rabotyagov SS, Kling CL, Gassman PW, Rabalais NN, Turner RE 2014. The economics of dead zones: causes, impacts, policy challenges, and a model of the Gulf of Mexico hypoxic zone. Rev. Environ. Econ. Policy 8:58–79
     [Google Scholar]
109. Rabotyagov SS, Valcu-Lisman AM, Kling CL 2016. Resilient provision of ecosystem services from agricultural landscapes: trade-offs involving means and variances of water quality improvements. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 98:1295–313
     [Google Scholar]
110. Ramadas M, Samantaray AK. 2018. Applications of remote sensing and GIS in water quality monitoring and remediation: a state-of-the-art review. Water Remediation S Bhattacharya, AB Gupta, A Gupta, A Pandey 225–46 Singapore: Springer
     [Google Scholar]
111. Raworth K. 2017. A doughnut for the Anthropocene: humanity's compass in the 21st century. Lancet Planet. Health 1:e48–49
     [Google Scholar]
112. Raymond CM, Bryan BA, MacDonald DH, Cast A, Strathearn S et al. 2009. Mapping community values for natural capital and ecosystem services. Ecol. Econ. 68:1301–15
     [Google Scholar]
113. Sagoff M. 1998. Aggregation and deliberation in valuing environmental public goods: a look beyond contingent pricing. Ecol. Econ. 24:213–30
     [Google Scholar]
114. Satterfield T. 2001. In search of value literacy: suggestions for the elicitation of environmental values. Environ. Values 10:331–59
     [Google Scholar]
115. Schwartz AJ, Dodds PS, O'Neil‐Dunne JPM, Danforth CM, Ricketts TH 2019. Visitors to urban greenspace have higher sentiment and lower negativity on Twitter. People Nat 1:476–85
     [Google Scholar]
116. Schwartz SH. 1992. Universals in the content and structure of values: theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 25:1–65
     [Google Scholar]
117. Sen A. 2005. Why exactly is commitment important for rationality. Econ. Philos. 21:5–14
     [Google Scholar]
118. Smeltzer E, Heiskary SA. 1990. Analysis and applications of lake user survey data. Lake Res. Manag. 6:109–18
     [Google Scholar]
119. Smith VK, Van Houtven G, Pattanayak SK 2002. Benefit transfer via preference calibration: “prudential algebra” for policy. Land Econ 78:132–52
     [Google Scholar]
120. Soma K, Vatn A. 2014. Representing the common goods—stakeholders versus citizens. Land Use Policy 41:325–33
     [Google Scholar]
121. Spash CL. 2007. Deliberative monetary valuation: issues in combining economic and political processes to value environmental change. Ecol. Econ. 63:690–99
     [Google Scholar]
122. Sutton M, Oenema O, Erisman J, Leip A, van Grinsven H, Winiwarter W 2011. Too much of a good thing. Nature 472:159–61
     [Google Scholar]
123. Temkin A, Evans S, Manidis T, Campbell C, Naidenko OV 2019. Exposure-based assessment and economic valuation of adverse birth outcomes and cancer risk due to nitrate in United States drinking water. Environ. Res. 176:108442
     [Google Scholar]
124. Teschl M, Comim F. 2005. Adaptive preferences and capabilities: some preliminary conceptual explorations. Rev. Soc. Econ. 63:229–47
     [Google Scholar]
125. US EPA (US Environ. Prot. Agency). 2017. National summary: water quality attainment in assessed rivers and streams National Summary of State Information, US EPA Washington, DC: updated April 20, 2020. https://ofmpub.epa.gov/waters10/attains_nation_cy.control#total_assessed_waters
126. Van Grinsven HJ, Rabl A, De Kok TM 2010. Estimation of incidence and social cost of colon cancer due to nitrate in drinking water in the EU: a tentative cost-benefit assessment. Environ. Health 9:58
     [Google Scholar]
127. Van Houtven G, Mansfield C, Phaneuf DJ, von Haefen R, Milstead B et al. 2014. Combining expert elicitation and stated preference methods to value ecosystem services from improved lake water quality. Ecol. Econ. 99:40–52
     [Google Scholar]
128. Vatn A. 2009. An institutional analysis of methods for environmental appraisal. Ecol. Econ. 68:2207–15
     [Google Scholar]
129. Viscusi WK, Huber J, Bell J 2008. The economic value of water quality. Environ. Resour. Econ. 41:169–87
     [Google Scholar]
130. Walsh PJ, Wheeler WJ. 2013. Water quality indices and benefit-cost analysis. J. Benefit-Cost Anal. 4:81–105
     [Google Scholar]
131. Wang C, Chen S, Li D, Wang D, Liu W, Yang J 2017. Engineering technology center for remote sensing big data application. Geosci. Model. Dev. 10:4347–65
     [Google Scholar]
132. Ward MH, Jones RR, Brender JD, de Kok TM, Weyer PJ et al. 2018. Drinking water nitrate and human health: an updated review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Pub. Health 15:1557
     [Google Scholar]
133. Wegner G, Pascual U. 2011. Cost-benefit analysis in the context of ecosystem services for human well-being: a multidisciplinary critique. Glob. Environ. Chang. 21:492–504
     [Google Scholar]
134. Willemen L, Hein L, Verburg PH 2010. Evaluating the impact of regional development policies on future landscape services. Ecol. Econ. 69:2244–54
     [Google Scholar]
135. Wilson MA, Howarth RB. 2002. Discourse-based valuation of ecosystem services: establishing fair outcomes through group deliberation. Ecol. Econ. 41:431–43
     [Google Scholar]
136. Wood SA, Guerry AD, Silver JM, Lacayo M 2013. Using social media to quantify nature-based tourism and recreation. Sci. Rep. 3:2976
     [Google Scholar]
137. World Econ. Forum. 2015. Global risks 2015 10th edition Insight Rep., World Econ. Forum Geneva: http://reports.weforum.org/global-risks-2015
138. Wyborn C. 2015. Connectivity conservation: boundary objects, science narratives and the co-production of science and practice. Environ. Sci. Policy 51:292–303
     [Google Scholar]
139. Yaari ME, Bar-Hillel M. 1984. On dividing justly. Soc. Choice Welfare 1:1–24
     [Google Scholar]
140. Yao Y, Zhang J, Hong Y, Liang H, He J 2018. Mapping fine-scale urban housing prices by fusing remotely sensed imagery and social media data. Trans. GIS 22:561–81
     [Google Scholar]