Hedonic Price Analysis and Selectivity Bias: Water Salinity and Demand for Land
Groundwater scarcity has an important qualitative dimension that further limits the supply of usable water. Groundwater quality may affect the productivity of land as an input in agricultural production. Where this is so, the structure of land rents and prices will reflect these environmentally determined productivity differentials. Hence, by using data on land rent or land value for different properties we can in principle identify the contribution which the attribute in question, fresh groundwater quality, makes to the value of uwillingness to pay for) the traded good, land. This identifies an implicit or shadow price for the attribute fresh groundwater quality, which in turn can be interpreted as an estimate of the in situ scarcity value of the marginal unit of the environmental resource. Methods commonly used to implement this approach include (i) the hedonic technique pioneered by Griliches (1971) and formalized by Rosen (1974); and (ii) the travel cost valuation methods first proposed by Hotelling (1931), and subsequently developed by Clawson (1959) and Clawson and Knetsch (1966). The relationship between land prices and surface and groundwater access (both in quantity and quality terms) has been studied in the hedonic framework by Miranowski and Hammes (1984), Gardner and Barrows (1985), Ervin and Mill (1985), King and Sinden (1988), Caswell and Zilberman (198b) and Torell et al. (1990). Travel cost techniques employed to measure the welfare effects to changes in water quality of recreational sites include Binkley (1978), Freeman (1979), Caulkins et al. (1986), Smith and Desvousges (1986) and Bockstael et al. (1987).
KeywordsSeawater Intrusion Saltwater Intrusion Touristic Development Fresh Groundwater Land Usage
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Binkley, C. (1978) The Recreation Benefits of Water Quality Improvements: An Analysis of Day Trips in an Urban Setting, US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
- Bockstael, N.E., Hanemann, W.M. and Strand, I.E. (1987) Measuring the benefits of water quality improvements using recreation demand models, Environmental Protection Agency Cooperative Agreement CR-811043–01-o.Google Scholar
- Clawson, M. (1959) Methods of measuring the demand for and value of outdoor recreation, REF Reprint No. 10, Resources for the Future, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
- Clawson, M. and Knetsch, J. (1966) Economics of Outdoor Recreation, Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD.Google Scholar
- Freeman, A.M. (1979) The Benefits of Environmental Improvement: Theory and Practice, John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD, for Resources for the Future.Google Scholar
- Griliches, Z. (ed.) (1971) Price Indexes and Quality Change, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
- Hausman, J., Leonard, G. and McFadden, D. (1992) A utility-consistent, combined discrete choice and count data model: Assessing recreational use losses due to natural resource damage, Paper presented at the Cambridge Economics Symposium titled ‘Contingent Valuation: A Critical Assessment’, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
- Heckman, J. (1976) The common structure of statistical models of truncation, sample selection and limited dependent variables and a simple estimator for such models, Annals of Economic and Social Measurement 5, 475–492.Google Scholar
- Hellerstein, D. and Mendelsohn, R. (1992) A theoretical foundation for applying count data models to measure recreation values, Working Paper, Economic Research Service, US Department of Agriculture.Google Scholar
- Hotelling, H. (1931) The economics of exhaustible resources, Journal of Political Economy 39, 1937–1975.Google Scholar
- Koundouri, P. (2000) Three approaches to measuring natural resource scarcity: Theory and application to groundwater, Ph.D. Thesis, Faculty of Economics and Politics, University of Cambridge.Google Scholar