ECONOMY AND ENVIRONMENT PROGRAM
FOR SOUTHEAST ASIA
The Use of Benefit Transfer in the Evaluation of Water
Quality Improvement: An Application in China
Du Yaping
EEPSEA RESEARCH REPORT SERIES
EEPSEA is supported by a consortium of donors and administered by IDRC.
Mailing address: Tanglin PO Box 101, Singapore 912404.
Visiting address: 7th Storey RELC Building, 30 Orange Grove Road.
Tel: 65 235 1344 Fax: 65 235 1849
Internet: dglover@,[Link] or henni([Link]
Website: [Link]
Comments should be sent to the author: Du Yaping, Editorial Office, World Economy,
Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, 5 Jiannei Dajie, Beijing 100732.
Email: duyaping@[Link]
The Economy and Environment Program for South East Asia (EEPSEA) was established
in May 1993 to support research and training in environmental and resource economics.
Its objective is to enhance local capacity to undertake the economic analysis of
environmental problems and policies. It uses a networking approach, involving courses,
meetings, technical support, access to literature and opportunities for comparative
research. Member countries are Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia; the Philippines, Vietnam,
Cambodia, Laos, China, PNG and Sri Lanka.
EEPSEA's funding is provided by a consortium of donors. As of June 1998, these
sponsors consisted of IDRC (Canada), Sida (Sweden), Danida (Denmark), CIDA
(Canada), the Ministries of Foreign Affairs of Norway and the Netherlands and the
MacArthur Foundation (USA).
EEPSEA Research Reports are the outputs of research projects supported by EEPSEA.
They have been peer reviewed and edited. In some cases, longer versions are available
from the authors. EEPSEA also issues a Special Papers Series, consisting of
commissioned papers emphasizing research methodology.
EEPSEA is supported by a consortium of donors and administered by IDRC.
Mailing address: Tanglin PO Box 101, Singapore 912404 *Visiting address: 7th Storey RELC
Building, 30 Orange Grove Road *Tel: 65 235 1344 Fax: 65 235 1849 Internet:
dglover@[Link] or hercni@[Link] Website: [Link]
I DRC - Lib.
ECONOMY AND ENVIRONMENT PROGRAM
FOR SOUTHEAST ASIA
The Use of Benefit Transfer in the Evaluation of Water
Quality Improvement: An Application in China
Du Yaping
March 1999
D8
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
2.0 BENEFIT TRANSFER METHOD 2
3.0 SCREENING OF LITERATURE 3
3.1 The Policy Site 3
3.2 Literature Search 3
3.3 Three Primary Study Cases 4
4.0 ADJUSTMENT 5
4.1 Per Capita GDP Adjustment for Transnational Transfer 5
4.2 Price Index Adjustment for Time Factor 5
5.0 RESULTS FROM AN ORIGINAL STUDY IN THE POLICY SITE 6
6.0 COMPARISONS BETWEEN THE BENEFIT TRANSFER ESTIMATE AND
THE "ACTUAL" VALUE 7
7.0 CONCLUSIONS 8
REFERENCES 10
LIST OF TABLES
Table Benefit transfer calculations (unit: $ or CNY per capita per annum).
1.
6
Table 2. Statistical values of variables. 7
Table 3. Comparison of the secondary estimates with the primary study results
(unit: CNY/capita/annum).
Table 4. Total benefit from the C&M case as compared with the "actual" case. 8
THE USE OF BENEFIT TRANSFER IN THE EVALUATION OF WATER
QUALITY IMPROVEMENT: AN APPLICATION IN CHINA
Du Yaping
Institute of Economics, Hubei Academy of Social Sciences*
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Since the late 1960s, economists have been developing methodologies to
measure environmental impacts. Among the approaches most widely used are the
travel cost method (TCM) and the contingent valuation method (CVM). Generally,
these methods provide a reasonable approximation of the value of a non-marketed
environmental good or service; their drawbacks are that they are time-consuming and
expensive.
The pressures of time and budget are common during project appraisals.
Traditional cost-benefit analyses (CBA) are now supplemented by environmental
impact assessments (EIA) with results that are often difficult to reconcile. While the
CBA is expressed in monetary value, the EIA is usually in physical terms. To compare
the two, the EIA must be converted to a monetary value; but time and money for a
full-scale valuation are rarely available. The use of 'benefit transfer' (BT) is often
advocated (ADB, 1996). This involves taking the results from one or more primary
economic studies with estimated values for similar impacts, and modifying and
transferring them to the project being evaluated. In cases where a high degree of
precision is not critical, BT may provide useful information for decision-making.
Frequently, it will be the only way of providing such information.
The inclusion of environmental impacts in project appraisals has increased
greatly in the last 10 years. Interest in benefit transfer has grown correspondingly and
literature on the subject is now substantial (e.g., Desvouges, et al. 1992; Navrud,
1996). But efforts to test the approach in developing countries are relatively few.
Since most original valuation studies have been done in developing countries, efforts
to validate the transfer of values between developed and developing countries, and
between developing countries, are especially needed.
This study uses the benefit transfer method to value water quality improvements
to a recreational lake in Wuhan, China. Particularly novel is the comparison of results
transferred from the US and the Philippines to the author's original study of the lake
(Du, 1998). After a brief review of methodological aspects in Section 1, relevant
literature is screened and suitable cases were selected for the transfer exercise. In
Section 3, the values from three primary studies were adjusted and transferred to the
policy site to derive the environmental benefits from water quality improvement in
East Lake, Wuhan. These benefit transfer values were further compared with results
from the author's primary study (Du, 1998) to examine the validity of BT and its scope
for wider application in China. Conclusions and discussion are provided in the last
section.
Current Address: Editorial Office, World Economy, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, 5 Jiannei
Dajie, Beijing 100732.
EEPSEA Research Report Series
2.0 BENEFIT TRANSFER METHOD
The idea of benefit transfer emerged in the early 1980s when the US
Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) proposed the use of desk studies as the
basis for cost-benefit analysis in environmental impact assessment because of
capital and time constraints. This approach puts forward the notion that the cost and
benefit associated with the supply of an environmental good or service in question
could be derived from findings in existing reports. However, derivation from available
original studies may involve biases from the estimates of the benefits. In a simple
model (Greene, 1997), the process could be described as
minimize MSE (e) = Var(e) + (Bias (e))2
subject to AF = AFO; AT = AT0
where: e :benefit estimate
MSE :mean variation
Var : sample variation
AF :means available capital resources
AT : available time
AFO and ATO: constraints as specified in Desvouges, et al. (1992).
Clearly this is an optimization problem with given constraints. The objective is to
minimize the mean variation with available resources. Policy makers have three-
choices: (1) give up the objective function or declare the non-existence of feasible
solutions; (2) relax the constraints so that a primary study can be undertaken; and (3)
search for transferable materials and adjust them as necessary for a benefit transfer
study. The first alternative is not acceptable as it implies that cost-benefit analysis
would not be undertaken. Decision-making without such analysis might result in social
costs much larger than the cost of a primary study. In fact, government regulation
stipulates that environmental benefits be valued as part of the environmental impact
assessment. The second choice does not seem realistic either. In many cases, an
original study in the US would need US$50,000 and 4 to 8 months of time
(McConnell, 1992); many studies cost much more. In addition, it is not economical to
repeat similar surveys. The last choice appears reasonable as it could obtain useful
information without too much time and money, particularly for projects that do not
require a high degree of accuracy. This raises the need for application of secondary
valuation methods such as a benefit transfer study.
In practical benefit transfer studies, the value to be transferred can be either
benefit or cost. It can also be a functional transfer or a single unit value transfer. If
suitable functional relations and parameters are available, then a functional transfer
can be more useful to reveal the dose-response relationship and provide valuable
information on the impact of a change on one variable. However, as the functions
obtained from travel cost method (TCM) and contingent valuation method (CVM)
often have low coefficients, the transfer of such functions can lead to further
uncertainties. In this case, the transfer of unit value can be more manageable as it
can be adjusted as necessary. In this exercise, unit values rather than functions were
transferred.
Du Yaping
EEPSEA Research Report Series
For a benefit transfer study, it is essential to start with initial environmental
examination (IEE) or environmental impact assessment (EIA) so that the scope of the
analysis can be properly defined. The second step is to select the literature. With the
impacts quantified in IEE/EIA, the selection of primary study materials must look for
those with environmental impacts similar in magnitude and type; similar
socioeconomic characteristics; and high quality up-to date information. The site of the
previous research is usually called the "study site" while the site to which the benefit
estimate is transferred is called the "policy site" (Navrud, 1996). Because differences
between the study site and the policy site are inevitable, values must be adjusted to
reflect site-specific features. After the adjustment, unit values for the policy site can
be calculated and discounted totals can be derived. This analysis focused on unit
values since total values were unnecessary for the comparison.
3.0 SCREENING OF LITERATURE
3.1 The Policy Site
East Lake (Donghu) is a recreational site well known for its vast water surface
area (33 km2), natural tranquility, and beauty within the metropolitan boundary of
Wuhan. Each year, millions of visitors come to the lake to enjoy recreational
activities, most of which are directly related to water such as boating, swimming, and
angling. Recently water pollution has seriously impaired recreational quality,
especially for swimming. Three sites with swimming facilities have been closed as
they are located in the most polluted part of the lake. As a result, people have to
travel farther to find cleaner water, in areas that are less safe and less enjoyable
because they lacked facilities. If water quality was a marketable good, its value would
be easily determined and realized in the market. Since it is not, there is a need to
estimate the value of water quality for recreation, which can be used as evidence by
policymakers and the managers of the lake to see if clean up efforts are worthwhile.
This provided the motivation for the author's 1997 study.
In selecting other studies for purposes of BT, the author concentrated on those
that valued water quality improvement for recreational purposes. The literature was
screened to find those study areas with similar features to the project case. Ideally,
the socioeconomic situations in the study site should be as close as possible to the
policy site. In reality, such similarities are very limited. In some cases, no information
on some features is given in the literature. Therefore, in the screening process,
socioeconomic features were used at the second stage.
3.2 Literature Search
As few Chinese cases were reported in the literature, the search was
concentrated on English literature published in journals in the last 20 years. There
were more than a dozen cases related to water quality improvement. All the studies
resulted in estimates of the values associated with water quality improvement. Some
of them had derived estimate functions but were not applicable to the policy site,
since the study sites and the policy sites were different. Others did not use
comparable measures. In the end, there were only three comparable studies; two in
the US and one in the Philippines.
Benefits Transferfor the Valuation of Water Quality Improvement 3
EEPSEA Research Report Series
3.3 Three Primary Study Cases
The first case is The Economic Benefits of Surface Water Quality Improvement in
Developing Countries: A Case Study of Davao, Philippines by Choe, Whittington, and
Lauria (hereafter referred as C, W & L), published in Land Economics in 1996. In this
study, a survey was undertaken on willingness to pay for water quality improvement
but no differentiation was made with regard to various quality levels. In the policy site,
there are different water quality levels suitable for different types of recreational uses.
However, the advantage of this case was that it was done in a developing country,
which made it more relevant to China.
The study area had a population of 600,000 (in 100,000 households). Per capita
income averaged $34 per month and the average adult had 10 years of education.
Among the 1,200 respondents, 36 refused to answer the questionnaire, while 777
replies (65%) were useful. The `useful' respondents were divided into three groups in
accordance with housing and water supplies. Both TCM and CVM were employed.
Correspondents were further divided into two groups: users and non-users. Results
showed that the estimates obtained from the two methods were very close. When
water quality was improved from boatable to swimmable, CVM value was US$3.41,
US$2.16 and US$2.56 per capita per annum for users, non-users, and combined
user-nonuser groups, respectively (excluding the refusals to pay). The TCM result
gave a value of US$2.88 per capita per annum, which was very close to the CVM
figure.
The second case is the paper by Carson and Mitchell (1993), published in Water
Resources Research. The study used the CVM approach and evaluated the
willingness to pay (WTP) for increased water quality for all the rivers in the US. The
authors used the national average income, price level, and population jas indicators
for this study. The findings suggest that WTP per capita per annum was US$139 for
water quality improvement from unusable to boatable; US$206 for further
improvement to swimmable. The incremental value of improvement from boatable to
fishable was US$38 and from fishable to swimmable, US$28.
The third case is the primary study by Desvousges, Smith, and Fisher (hereafter
referred as D,S&F), published in 1987, which estimated the option value for
increased water quality in Monogahela River. Sample of the population was from
nearby residents by the river aged 18 and above. Among the 393 questionnaires sent
out, 301 (77%) were returned. Household heads had an average of 10-12 years of
schooling, and average household size was four. Both payment cards and repeated
bidding methods were used in the survey. The study, had four subsets of surveys
with two starting points, iterative bidding, and two direct questionings for users and
nonusers. In comparison with the Philippine case, WTP figures from user and non-
user groups in the four sets of surveys were rather mixed. Therefore, the unit value
from this case used the mean figure from the four sets of surveys. The results
showed that the WTP value for water quality improvement from unusable to boatable
was US$10.00 per annum per household. The incremental value for quality
improvement from boatable to fishable was US$6.13, and US$3.22 for improvement
from fishable to swimmable. From boatable to swimmable, the WTP value was
US$9.78.
4 Du Yaping
EEPSEA Research Report Series
The above three cases were closest to the policy site with respect to
environmental impacts and socioeconomic features. All involved value of water
quality improvement for recreational uses, although none dealt with lake water quality
within an urban boundary. Both users and nonusers of environmental services
related to river water quality improvement were included in the valuation exercises.
CVM was the primary valuation method in all three.
4.0 ADJUSTMENT
The unit values from these three cases are summarized in the first column of
Table 1. Ideally, before comparing them, adjustment should be made to offset such
influences as differences of income, price level, preferences, culture, substitution,
social characteristics, climate, living style, and resource base. Hence, the transferred
value would be more realistic. However, such comprehensive adjustment is not
feasible; it is impossible to eliminate all biases or errors. In the following analysis, two
adjustments were made: for per capita GDP and price level.
4.1 Per Capita GDP Adjustment for Transnational Transfer
WTP for environmental goods is the monetary measure of the goods and
services given up by the consumer for environmental improvement. This means that
WTP value is a function of purchasing power. Therefore for transnational transfer, it
is necessary to take into account the purchasing power and monetary unit between
the country of the original study and that of the policy site. In the ADB Workbook
(1996) for environmental evaluation, a simple approach of per capita GDP is
suggested. Such an approach implies that people always spend the same proportion
of their disposable income on environmental impacts. The underlying implication is
that environmental services are neither necessities nor luxury goods, since the poor
spend more of their income on necessities than the rich. Despite this somewhat
unrealistic assumption, it is still an appropriate approach since income is the most
important factor affecting an individual's willingness to pay.
4.2 Price Index Adjustment for Time Factor
Normally there is a time difference between the primary study and the transfer
exercise. Often when one searches for primary cases with similar features, one has
to review the literature for studies done years before. It is very likely that the level of
development could have changed drastically during the period. In addition to income
levels, consumption preferences and the environment may also undergo significant
changes. Therefore, it is also necessary to remove the time influence as much as
possible. However, the only measurable indicator is the price index, which often
reflects the rate of inflation. So after the GDP adjustment, price index is used to take
into account the impact of time difference. Other potential factors are added to the
error item.
The above two adjustments are presented in Table 1. The figures from the three
original cases are given in column 1. Figures in columns 2 and 3 are per capita GDP
in the countries of original study and the policy site, respectively. Figures in column 4
are the estimates for the project after GDP adjustment, while those in column 6 are
Benefits Transfer for the Valuation of Water Quality Improvement 5
EEPSEA Research Report Series
final estimates after further time adjustment. The time adjustment was made with
reference to the survey time rather than the publication time as there is a time lag
between survey and publication. All the figures are in per capita terms per annum
given the quality improvement for recreational water. The results varied greatly, with
some figures very close and others far apart. The reasons for the large variation are
analyzed in a subsequent section.
Table 1. Benefit transfer calculations (unit: $ or CNY per capita per annum).
WTP0 GDPf GDPd WTP1 Pt / P0 WTPP
(1) $ (2) $ (3) (4)=(1) x (3)/(2) (5) (6)=(4)x(5)
C,W&L
B S 2.56 963.9 3,755.20 9.97 1.00 9.97
M&C
U-B 139.00 6.09 16.08
U-S 206.00 15,291.5 669.55 9.02 2.64 23.81
B-F 38.00 1.66 4.38
F-S 28.00 1.23 3.25
D,S&F
U-B 10.00 0.38 1.06
B-F 6.13 12,639.1 479.32 0.23 2.80 0.64
F-S 3.22 0.12 0.34
B-S 9.78 0.37 1.04
Sources: World Economy Yearbook, 1982, 1987, 1988, 1990,1995; China Economic Yearbook, various
years.
Notes:
1. WTPo - WTP figures in the original study; GDPt - Per capita GDP in the country of original study;
GDPd - Per capita GDP in current year of investigation; WTP1 - WTP after first adjustment; Pt/Po -
the ratio of price index in the policy site (Wuhan, China); WTPp - the estimated value after the
benefit transfer calculation.
2. Water quality levels: U - unusable; B - boatable; F - fishable; S - swimmable.
5.0 RESULTS FROM AN ORIGINAL STUDY IN THE POLICY SITE
In 1996, a primary study was undertaken on the valuation of improved water
quality for the recreational East Lake using both CVM and TCM (Du, 1998). The
results (given below) were used as the "actual" value of the water quality
improvement to test the benefit transfer figures.
A total of 600 copies of a questionnaire were distributed by interviewers in the
survey. Of these 501 were returned and 408 were found usable for TCM and CVM
analyses. Survey results showed that over 50 percent of the sample were occasional
visitors; 16.7 percent visited only once a year and perhaps once in a lifetime for
visitors from outside Hubei Province. The main purposes of multiple visits were
walking, jogging, swimming, and boating, which were either highly localized or
seasonal activities. As to visitors' judgment on water quality, less than 5 percent of
the visitors considered it good, in contrast to nearly 60 percent who believed it was
bad or very bad; a third considered it tolerable or replied "don't know." Most visitors
were from relatively high income families, with an average of CNY 407 per capita per
month (1995 prices; 8.28 CNY = US$1). They had usually 13 years of schooling
6 Du Yaping
EEPSEA Research Report Series
which was higher than the national average; over half obtained higher education. The
age structure suggests that over 90 percent of the visitors were of working age.
Table 2. Statistical values of variables.
Variable Mean Std Dev Median Minimum Maximum
No. of visits
E-level existing quality 21.78 49.34 4.0 1.00 301.00
B-level suitable for 23.84 52.75 5.0 1.00 320.00
boating
S-level suitable for 26.91 54.89 7.0 1.00 330.00
swimming
D-level suitable for 31.14 60.49 9.5 1.00 350.00
drinking
Distance km 89.30 176.35 9.0 1.50 600.00
Self on a 1-5 scale 2.28 0.83 2.0 1.00 5.00
judgement on (1: polluted; 5:
WQ clean)
Income (Y/c/m) 407.34 123.20 450 130.00 570.00
Education schooling years 13.01 3.84 16.0 0 19.00
Age (ys) years 37.95 11.59 37.0 18.00 67.00
Sex m=1; f=0 0.73 0.45 1.0 0 1.00
WTP-D Y/a/c 27.46 32.24 20.0 0 200.00
WTP-S Y/a/c 18.14 24.41 10.0 0 250.00
WTP-B Y/a/c 10.26 13.88 5.0 0 100.00
WTP: y/n y=1; n=0 0.81 0.40 1.0 0 1.00
Note: water quality levels: D = drinkable; S = swimmable; B = boatable/fishable;
E = existing level; WQ = water quality; y/c/m = yuan per capita per calendar month;
ys = years; y/a/c = yuan per annum per capita.
6.0 COMPARISONS BETWEEN THE BENEFIT TRANSFER ESTIMATE
AND THE "ACTUAL" VALUE
If the results estimated from the author's CVM study are assumed to be the "real"
value of the water quality improvement, the findings can be compared with the benefit
transfer figures to see if the benefit transfer is valid or not.
The figures from the three transfer cases and the original study are given in
Table 3. The first case was the closest one, being one-fourth higher than the "actual"
value. The Carson and Mitchell case showed some similarities to the first one. The
second estimates departed from the "actual" values for unusable to boatable and
swimmable, ranging from less than 10 percent to 1/3. For the increment from
boatable to swimmable, the secondary figure was surprisingly close to that from the
primary study, having only a seven percent difference. However, the secondary
estimate from the third case was significantly lower than the "actual" value.
Benefits Transfer for the Valuation of Water Quality Improvement
EEPSEA Research Report Series
If the unit value is acceptable for the benefit transfer analysis, the aggregate
figures may be [Link] (Table 4). The figures suggest that the benefits of
water quality improvement are significant enough to warrant undertaking a primary
study of costs and benefits of cleaning up. In 1997, the provincial government started
a World Bank loan project on East Lake Water Quality Control which had a total
investment of US$106 million. An earlier benefit transfer study might have contributed
to a more timely decision-making.
Table 3. Comparison of the secondary estimates with the primary study results
(unit: CNY/capita/annum).
WTPBT(1) WTPCVM(2) WTP(3=1-2) rate of var. (4=3/1)
C,W&L
B S 9.97 7.88 2.09 +21.0%
M&C
U-B 16.08 10.26 5.82 +36.2%
U-S 23.81 18.14 5.67 +23.8%
BS 7.73 7.88 -0.55 -7.1%
D,S&F
U-B 1.06 10.26 9.2 -867.9%
U-S 2.04 18.14 16.1 -789.2%
Table 4. Total benefit from the C&M case as compared with the "actual" case.
Quality Average Present Value (aggregate, million)
/alc d=8% d=3%
"actual" BT value "actual" BT value "actual" BT value
Existing- 10.26 16.08 347.76 545.03 884.43 1,386.12
boatable
Boatable-
swimmable 7.88 7.73 267.17 262.08 679.46 666.53
Existing-
swimmable 18.14 23.81 614.93 807.14 1,563.88 2,082.17
7.0 CONCLUSIONS
The benefit transfer method has been advocated as a quick and low-cost
approach to valuation of environmental goods despite its likely inaccuracies and
uncertainties. The analysis using a CVM study of the economic benefits from
improved water quality for recreation in Wuhan, China as the "real" value to test the
validity of the transfer results, revealed a couple of interesting points.
First, benefit transfer estimates and the "real" value varied from very close to
over eight times. This indicated that the benefit transfer technique could lead to either
meaningful or biased figures. Controlling differences over long time spans and for
embedding effects seems to be particularly important.
8
Du Yaping
EEPSEA Research Report Series
Second, how the quality of the environmental good is specified is very
important. In this case, the "good" to be offered was water quality improvement. For
a meaningful derivation of benefit transfer estimate, the actual change of water
quality must be specified. If the existing water quality is acceptable to the consumer,
he/she may not wish to pay for further improvement. When the physical features of
the "good" are included for adjustment, benefit transfer values could be more reliable.
This study has shown the potential for the application of benefit transfer, and
pointed out some of the areas where particular attention is called for in the transfer
and adjustment process. Further research and more empirical studies would be
valuable in further developing this technique.
Benefits Transferfor the Valuation of Water Quality Improvement 9
EEPSEA Research Report Series
REFERENCES
ADB. 1996. Economic Evaluation of Environmental Impacts. A Workbook. ADB,
Manila, Philippines
Bell, F. W. and V. K. Leeworthy. 1990. Recreational Demand by Tourists For
Saltwater Beach Days. Journal of Environmental Economics. Vol. 18.
Bouwes, N. W. and R. Schneider. 1979. Procedures in Estimating Benefits of Water
Quality Change. American Journal of Agricultural Economics. Vol. 61.
Boyle, K. J and J.C. Bergstrom. 1992. Benefit Transfer Studies: Myths, Pragmatism
and Idealism. Water Resources Research. Vol. 28.
Brookshire, D. S. and H. R. Neill. 1992. Benefits Transfer: Conceptual and Empirical
Issues. Water Resources Research. Vol. 28.
Carson, R. T. and R. C. Mitchell. 1993. The Value of Clean Water: The Public's
Willingness to Pay for Boatable, Fishable and Swimmable Quality Water.
Water Resources Research. 29: 7, pp. 2445-2454.
Choe, K., D. Whittington, and D. T. Lauria. 1996. The Economic Benefits of Surface
Water Quality Improvements in Developing Countries: A Case Study of Davao,
Philippines. Land Economics. Vol. 72.
Desvousges, W. H., M. C. Naughton, and G. R. Parsons. 1992. Benefits Transfer:
Conceptual Problems in Estimating Water Quality Benefits Using Existing
Studies. Water Resources Research. Vol. 28.
Desvousges, W. H., V. K. Smith, and A. Fisher. 1987. Option Price Estimates for
Water Quality Improvements: A Contingent Valuation Study for the
Monogahela River. Journal of Environmental Economics. Vol. 14.
Downing, M. and T. O. Zuna. 1996. Testing the Reliability of the Benefits Function
Transfer Approach. Journal of Environmental Economics. Vol. 30.
Du Yaping. 1998. The Value of .Improved Water Quality: An Application of Contingent
Valuation and Travel Cost Methods to East Lake in Wuhan, China. EEPSEA
Workshop.
Editorial Board of the Yearbook of World Economy. 1982, 1984, 1990, 1995. The
Yearbook of World Economy. Economic Science Press, Beijing.
Envalue. 1996. NSW EPA Environmental Valuation Database. New South Wales,
Austrlia.
Feather, P. and D. Hellerstein. 1997. Calibrating Benefits Function Transfer to
Assess the Conservation Reserve Program. American Journal of Agricultural
Economics. Vol. 79.
10
Du Yaping
EEPSEA Research Report Series
Freeman III, A. M. 1993. The Measurement of Environmental and Resource Values:
Theory and Methods, Resources for the Future. Washington D.C.
Greene, W. H. 1997. Econometric Analysis. 3rd ed. Prentice Hall, New Jersey.
Improvements. 1984. Draft Report to the Office of Policy Planning, and Evaluation.
U.S. EPA, Resources for the Future, Washington, D.C.
Kirchhoff, S., B. G. Colby, and J. T. La France. 1997. Evaluating the Performance of
Benefits Transfer: An Empirical Inquiry. Journal of Environmental Economics.
Vol. 33.
Loomis, J. B. 1992. The Evolution of a More Rigorous Approach to Benefits Transfer:
Benefits Function Transfer. Water Resources Research. Vol. 28.
McConnell, K. E. 1992. Model Building and Judgment Implications for Benefits
Transfers with Travel Cost Methods. Water Resources Research. Vol. 28.
Navrud, S. 1996. The Benefits Transfer Approach to Environmental Valuation.
EEPSEA, Singapore.
Provencher, B. and R. C. Bishop. 1997. An Estimable Dynamic Model of Recreation
Behavior with an Application to Great Lakes Angling. Journal of Environmental
Economics. Vol. 33.
Smith, V. K., W. H. Desvousges, and A. Fisher. 1984. A Comparison of Direct and
Indirect Methods for Estimating Environmental Benefits. Working Paper 83-
w32, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee.
The Development Research Center of the State Council. 1982, 1984, 1995. Almanac
of China's Economy. Economic Administration Press, Beijing.
Walsh, R. G., O. M. Johnson, and J. R. McKean. 1992. Benefits Transfer of Outdoor
Recreation Demand Studies. 1968-1988. Water Resources Research. Vol. 28.
Benefits Transferfor the Valuation of Water Quality Improvement 11
EEPSEA RESEARCH REPORT SERIES
Economic Benefits of Watershed Protection Damage Schedules for Thai Coastal Areas:
and Trade-off with Timber Production: An Alternative Approach to Assessing
A Case Study in Malaysia Environmental Values
Mohd Shahwahid H. 0., Awang Noor, A. G., Ratana Chuenpagdee
Abdul Rahim N., Zulkifli Y. & Razani U. August 1998
May 1997
The Pollution Charge System in China:
An Economic Analysis of Alternative Mangrove An Economic Incentive?
Management Strategies in Koh Kong Province, Yun Ping
Cambodia September 1998
Camille Bann
November 1997 Environmental Valuation: An Entrance Fee System
for National Parks in Thailand
An Economic Analysis of Tropical Forest Land Adis Isangkura
Use Options, Ratanakiri Province, Cambodia September 1998
Camille Bann
November 1997 Estimation of Environmental Damages from
Mining Pollution: The Marinduque Island Mining
Pricing for Groundwater Use of Industries in Accident
Metro Manila, Philipp7nes Ma. Eugenia Bennagen
Maria Corazon M Ebarvia November 1998
November 1997
Surrogate Pricing for Water: The Case of
Micro Hydro-electricity Cooperatives in Northern
Overfishing in the Philippine Marine
Thailand
Fisheries Sector
Sitanon Jesdapipat and Siriporn Kiratikarnkul
Danilo C. Israel and Cesar P. Banzon
December 1998
January 1998
Impact of Agro-Chemical Use on
Understanding Household Demand for Water: Productivity and Health in Vietnam
The Metro Manila Case Nguyen Huu Dung, Tran Chi Thien,
Cristina C. David and Arlene B. Inocencio Nguyen Van Hong, Nguyen Thi Loc,
January 1998 Dang Van Minh, Trinh Dinh Thau,
Huynh Thi Le Nguyen, Nguyen Tan Phong,
The Value of Improved Water Quality for and Thai Thanh Son
Recreation in East Lake, Wuhan, China: January 1999
Application of Contingent Valuation
and Travel Cost Methods Economic and Health Consequences of Pesticide Use
Du Yaping in Paddy Production in the Mekong Delta, Vietnam
May 1998 Nguyen Huu Dung and Tran Thi Thanh Dung
February 1999
Tradable Discharge Permits System for Water
Pollution of the Upper Nanpan River, China
Wendong Tao, Weimin Yang, & Bo Zhou
June 1998
Economic Valuation of Mangroves and the Roles
of Local Communities in the Conservation of
Natural Resources: Case Study of Surat Thani,
South of Thailand
Suthawan Sathirathai
June 1998
(0 Economy and Environment Program for Southeast Asia