1932

Abstract

Cost-benefit analyses have largely failed to demonstrate a positive benefit to cost ratio for programs designed to improve and protect water quality in the United States and European Union. At the same time, research from outside economics suggests that water quality ranks among the most urgent environmental concerns and highlights deep social and cultural connections to clean water. Exploring alternative explanations for this apparent water value paradox is essential to informing contemporary rulemaking and regulatory analyses, such as the Clean Water Act and the debated Waters of the United States (WOTUS) rule. I review contemporary advances in mainstream environmental economics relevant to the value of clean water, frontiers that have not yet been integrated into mainstream valuation methods, and pluralistic approaches from sociology, history, and moral philosophy that offer policy-relevant insights but do not fit neatly in cost-benefit frameworks of valuation. The review concludes with recommendations for improved water quality planning and policy in pursuit of a more comprehensive and pluralistic understanding of the value of clean water.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-resource-100517-023134
2020-10-06
2024-06-19
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/resource/12/1/annurev-resource-100517-023134.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-resource-100517-023134&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

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:
    [Google Scholar]
  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
    [Google Scholar]
  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
    [Google Scholar]
  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
    [Google Scholar]
  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:
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Hausman D, McPherson M, Satz D 2016. Economic Analysis, Moral Philosophy, and Public Policy Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press. , 3rd ed..
    [Google Scholar]
  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..
    [Google Scholar]
  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
    [Google Scholar]
  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
    [Google Scholar]
  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
    [Google Scholar]
  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
    [Google Scholar]
  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
    [Google Scholar]
  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]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-resource-100517-023134
Loading
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-resource-100517-023134
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error