UNIVERSITY OF WAIKATO
Hamilton New Zealand
Review of Freshwater Non-Market Value Studies
Dan Marsh and Lena Mkwara
Department of Economics
August 2013
Corresponding Author
Dan Marsh
Department of Economics University of Waikato
Private Bag 3105 Hamilton, New Zealand
Tel: +64 (7) 838 4950
Email: [email protected]
i
Table of Contents
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................. 1
2. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................ 7
3. SIGNIFICANT FRESHWATER BODIES IN THE WAIKATO REGION .................................................................... 9
4. MĀORI VALUES ASSOCIATED WITH FRESHWATER IN THE WAIKATO REGION ............................................ 13
INTEGRATING MĀORI VALUES INTO DECISION MAKING .................................................................................................. 13
MÄTAURANGA MĀORI ........................................................................................................................................... 13
SIGNIFICANT CULTURAL AND HISTORICAL SITES ............................................................................................................ 20
MĀORI VALUES AND NON-MARKET VALUATION ........................................................................................................... 24
THE CULTURAL HEALTH INDEX ................................................................................................................................. 24
5. A FRAMEWORK FOR NON-MARKET VALUATION OF FRESH WATER ........................................................... 25
NON-MARKET VALUES ............................................................................................................................................ 25
CLASSIFICATION OF FRESHWATER ECOSYSTEM SERVICES................................................................................................. 25
APPLIED FRAMEWORK FOR VALUING FRESHWATER ECOSYSTEM BENEFITS .......................................................................... 27
USE VALUES ......................................................................................................................................................... 30
NON-USE VALUES .................................................................................................................................................. 30
REVEALED AND STATED PREFERENCE NON MARKET VALUATION METHODS ......................................................................... 31
6. THE INTERNATIONAL LITERATURE.............................................................................................................. 32
OVERVIEW OF INTERNATIONAL FRESHWATER MANAGEMENT ISSUES ................................................................................ 32
CRITERIA FOR INCLUSION IN REVIEW OF NON-MARKET VALUATION LITERATURE .................................................................. 33
FRESHWATER NON-MARKET VALUES IDENTIFIED IN THE INTERNATIONAL LITERATURE ........................................................... 34
7. THE NEW ZEALAND LITERATURE ................................................................................................................ 38
REVIEW AND DESCRIPTION OF VALUES ....................................................................................................................... 38
SUMMARY OF NEW ZEALAND NON-MARKET VALUES .................................................................................................... 39
8. THE WAIKATO REGION LITERATURE ........................................................................................................... 42
REVIEW AND DESCRIPTION OF VALUES ....................................................................................................................... 42
SUMMARY OF WAIKATO NON-MARKET VALUES ........................................................................................................... 43
9. SIMILARITIES BETWEEN WAIKATO FRESHWATER VALUES AND THE NEW ZEALAND AND INTERNATIONAL
LITERATURE ................................................................................................................................................... 46
COMPARISON OF WATER QUALITY INTERNATIONALLY .................................................................................................... 46
COMPARISON OF WATER BASED RECREATIONAL USAGE ................................................................................................. 48
COMPARISON BY NON-MARKET VALUE ....................................................................................................................... 50
COMPARISON BY TYPE OF FRESHWATER BODY ............................................................................................................. 51
10. THE SCOPE FOR BENEFIT TRANSFER ......................................................................................................... 53
AN INTRODUCTION TO THE KEY ISSUES ....................................................................................................................... 53
VALUE TRANSFER IN NEW ZEALAND .......................................................................................................................... 55
CONSTRAINTS AND REQUIREMENTS FOR VALUE TRANSFER ............................................................................................. 57
METHODS FOR IDENTIFICATION OF APPROPRIATE VALUES FOR BENEFIT TRANSFER ............................................................... 59
SUMMARY - IDENTIFICATION OF APPROPRIATE VALUES FOR TRANSFER .............................................................................. 61
ii
11. KNOWLEDGE GAPS AND PRIORITIES FOR FURTHER WORK ...................................................................... 63
KNOWLEDGE GAPS ................................................................................................................................................ 63
LEVEL OF AGGREGATION ......................................................................................................................................... 63
PRIORITIES FOR FURTHER DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS ............................................................................................ 64
12. REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................................. 66
13. APPENDICES ............................................................................................................................................. 75
APPENDIX 1: FRESHWATER NON-MARKET VALUES FROM INTERNATIONAL STUDIES (1990-2013) ......................................... 75
APPENDIX 2: FRESHWATER NON-MARKET VALUES FROM THE REST OF NEW ZEALAND STUDIES (1990-2013) ....................... 119
APPENDIX 3: FRESHWATER NON-MARKET VALUES FROM THE WAIKATO REGION STUDIES (1990-2013) .............................. 133
APPENDIX 4: TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR LITERATURE REVIEW COMPONENT ................................................................... 141
APPENDIX 5: GLOSSARY OF MĀORI WORDS ............................................................................................................. 142
APPENDIX 6: CORE MAORI VALUES AND USES RELATING TO THE FRESHWATER ENVIRONMENT ............................................ 143
Marsh & Mkwara. Review of Freshwater NMV Studies, August 2013 Page 1
1. Executive Summary
Background
The Waikato Region draws its name from the Waikato River which is a tupuna (ancestor), a taonga
(treasure), and the mauri (life force) of Tainui Waka and Ngati Tuwharetoa. The region is
characterised by many important lakes, rivers and wetlands including Lake Taupo, the largest lake in
New Zealand and the Waikato, New Zealand’s longest river which runs for 425 km from the slopes of
Mount Ruapehu to Port Waikato. These lakes, rivers and wetlands are of spiritual significance to
Māori and provide ecological, aesthetic, scientific, and educational benefits to the region. The
region’s freshwater bodies provide recreational activities including swimming, boating, fishing and
bird watching and are pivotal to the region’s major tourist attractions such as Lake Taupo and
Waitomo. The continued delivery of the numerous services provided by these freshwater resources
remains essential to the Waikato Region’s economic prosperity and overall well-being. In recent
decades falling water quality has become a major environmental concern both in the Waikato
Region and New Zealand as a whole. According to the Waikato Regional Council, waterways in the
region have the third highest nitrate pollution levels of any region in New Zealand.
The Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI), Ministry for the Environment (MfE) and Department of
Conservation (DOC) established the ‘Economic Impact Joint Venture Studies’ (EIJVS) project to
provide economic analysis to support central government decision making on setting freshwater
quality and quantity objectives and limits and to work with regional councils to develop economic
analysis on the economic, environmental, social and cultural trade-offs in managing water quality
and quantity. Studies have been commissioned in three regions under the EIJVS project; Southland,
Canterbury and the Waikato. The Waikato Joint Venture Project is a joint effort involving Central
Government (MfE, MPI, DOC), Dairy NZ, Waikato Regional Council (WRC) and the Waikato River
Authority (WRA).
A key component of the Waikato Joint Venture Project is to assess the impact of central and regional
government water quality policies in the Waikato region on the non-market values of water (e.g.
recreational and cultural uses, existence, option and bequest values). The work in the Waikato will
also contribute to the regional plan change process which includes the aim of restoring and
protecting the health of the Waikato and Waipa rivers.
Many of the values (benefits) of good water quality cannot be directly assessed in dollar terms ‘in
the market’; these are called ‘non-market values’, for example ecological health (the life supporting
capacity of a water body). This is in contrast to the cost of restoring and protecting rivers and other
water bodies where a dollar value (or market value) can be put on many of the costs (e.g. improved
sewage treatment systems, effluent disposal systems, changes in farm management). Non-market
valuation methods have been developed and have proved to be a very useful tool for assessing the
value of environmental resources for which there is no price tag. These methods enable policy
makers to take account of the costs and benefits of alternative policies, while taking account of both
market (e.g. extra costs for farmers) and non-market values.
Marsh & Mkwara. Review of Freshwater NMV Studies, August 2013 Page 2
Objectives
This report documents the literature review component of the Waikato region joint venture non-
market value study. The purpose of this review is to identify the non-market values associated
with fresh water in the Waikato Region and to prioritise non-market values for further analysis.
This purpose is achieved through:
a literature review of international, New Zealand and Waikato Region non-market value
studies from 1990 onwards;
Identification of specific Māori values associated with water bodies in the Waikato Region;
Identification of gaps in the literature and areas that would benefit from further study; and
Comparison of overseas and New Zealand recreational value studies with water bodies in
the Waikato Region to determine which values are suitable for benefit transfer.
Methodology
An extensive review of the international, New Zealand and Waikato literature on the non-market
value of water has been conducted. A total of 80 non-market value studies from 16 countries were
included in the review of the international literature. These were selected from studies addressing
non-market values relevant to the Waikato region in countries with a similar social, economic and
environmental context. The review focusses on studies published in high quality peer reviewed
journals and studies based on the travel cost method, hedonic pricing, contingent valuation, choice
experiments and benefit transfer or a combination of these techniques. The review of the New
Zealand and Waikato literature is more comprehensive as all available literature is included except
for some unpublished work by students.
Findings
Māori values associated with water bodies in the Waikato Region
Māori values associated with water bodies in the Waikato are identified and described through a
review and compilation of literature in this area. The work of Awatere (2005) is used to describe the
world view that Māori are an intrinsic part of the natural world. The holistic Māori view with regard
to water resources is represented by the Mana Atua model, with tangata whenua values and
relationships with fresh water being illustrated using a Figure from the report of the Land and Water
Forum (2012). Information on significant cultural and historical sites is reproduced from work by the
Waikato Regional Council and Hicks et al. (2013). Māori values are identified and described namely
mätauranga Māori (Māori worldviews and perspectives); kaitiakitanga (guardianship); Mauri (life
force); whakapapa (genealogy); access; aesthetics; recreation; significant cultural and historical sites;
mahinga kai (cultural food and other resources) and taonga (treasures); and wai (cultural and
spiritual values)1.
1 See Chapter 4 and Appendix 4, for further explanation and discussion of Māori words/terms.
Marsh & Mkwara. Review of Freshwater NMV Studies, August 2013 Page 3
Non-market values associated with fresh water in the Waikato Region
Non-market values for the Waikato region can be categorised under the following main headings:
Recreation Landscape/aesthetic
Water quality Water quantity
Access/facilities Cultural/social
Research and education Food gathering
Economic/financial Ecological health
Biodiversity Pollution control
Flood control Erosion control
Climate regulation Non-use
The specific recreational values identified for the Waikato region include:
Walking Power boating
Picnicking River cruisers/tours
Exercising (running and cycling) Dragon boating/waka ama
Swimming Kayaking/Canoeing
Bird watching Scuba diving
Children's activities Skiing
Dog activities Tramping
Rafting/tubing Windsurfing
Hunting/duck shooting Yachting/sailing
Photography/painting Multisport/triathlons
Fishing/white baiting/eeling Camping
Ten studies providing information on non-market values in the Waikato region were reviewed. The
non-market values reported in these studies include recreation, access/facilities,
landscape/aesthetics, ecological services/biodiversity, water quality and non-use values. The
freshwater bodies for which non-market values were assessed include lakes Karapiro and Arapuni,
Lake Rotoroa (Hamilton Lake), gullies and streams in Hamilton city, streams in the Karapiro
Catchment area and the Tongariro river. A summary of the range of values which have been
estimated for specific changes at particular sites is provided below.
Waikato Region non-market values (NZ$2012)
Non-market value Low High
Swimming/household/year $70 $239
Rowing/person/year $173 $236 Fishing/person/year $67 $67
Access/Facility/household/ year $0.1 $25
Landscape/Aesthetic/household /year $12 $54
Ecological Health/household/year $25 $255
Biodiversity/household/year $23 $172
Water Quality/household/year $18 $143
Economic/household/year $85 $185 Note: these values should not be applied to other sites unless the requirements
for benefit transfer are met (see below).
Marsh & Mkwara. Review of Freshwater NMV Studies, August 2013 Page 4
Literature review of international and New Zealand non-market value studies
The international literature relating to non-market valuation of freshwater is large and varied. It
includes studies at different scales (specific sites, catchments, rivers, regions, national level studies),
using different methods (mainly stated or revealed preference) and with varying objectives ranging
from purely academic through to commissioned studies of immediate relevance to decision makers.
A total of 35 New Zealand freshwater non-market valuation studies were identified and included in
this review. Out of these, 13 studies provided data on the Waikato region. As the literature has
matured, many academics have focussed on methodological development rather than investigation
of non-market values using ‘standard’ methods.
The 80 international non-market value studies selected for inclusion in this analysis were reviewed
to assess whether the assessed values matched the broad categories of freshwater values in the
Waikato Region and whether or not the environmental concerns being addressed were similar. The
freshwater non-market values include recreation, aesthetic quality and ecological services such as
habitat provision and flood control.
The magnitudes and main categories of non-market values are summarised in Table 6.2 with all
monetary value estimates converted into New Zealand Dollars using the exchange rate for the study
year. Estimated monetary benefits vary greatly reflecting differences in factors including income,
valuation methods and the extent of environmental change from the baseline. A summary of each
study is provided in the Appendices, organised by author, valuation method, type of water body,
objective, type of ecosystem service and monetary values. Summaries are also provided for the New
Zealand (Table 7.1) and Waikato region literature (Table 8.1).
The rapid growth in the scale of the non-market valuation literature has been matched over the last
decade, by a steady increase in the use of non-market valuation methods in environmental decision
making. Much of this growth is related to the increased use and development of choice experiments.
This technique has many advantages including the ability to capture more information from each
respondent and can facilitate informed discussion of trade-offs between different attributes (or
values). Current developments in efficient sample design and use of panels to collect information
using on-line surveys have enabled significant reductions in the cost of data collection.
Comparison of non-market value studies to assess which values are suitable for benefit transfer
Benefit transfer is the term used to describe the transfer of information from completed studies in
one location to another location. Benefit transfer has generally been applied in cases were primary
studies could be undertaken due to time and financial constraints. Some authors use the term value
transfer since this covers the transfer of both costs and benefits.
The benefit transfer approach has been promoted as a cost effective means of obtaining non-market
values for sites where values are unknown from existing primary studies. However, it is important to
note that benefit transfer is a highly contested technique, with regards to the validity and accuracy
of the value estimates obtained. The criteria that must be met for reasonably accurate benefit
transfer have been well established in the literature for many years. Specifically, the primary studies
should be based on adequate data, sound economic method and correct empirical techniques
(Freeman, 1984). In addition the basic commodities to be valued must be essentially equivalent; the
baseline and extent of change should be similar and the affected populations should be similar.
Marsh & Mkwara. Review of Freshwater NMV Studies, August 2013 Page 5
Since in practice these conditions are rarely met, estimates based on benefit transfer are often
subject to very large transfer errors which limit the usefulness of results.
After detailed assessment of the available literature and the criteria for successful transfer we
conclude that these transfer criteria are far from being met for transfer of specific values into the
Waikato region for use in the current exercise. As a consequence we conclude that none of the
values included in this review are suitable for transfer to assess the impact of different central and
regional government water quality policies on non-market values in the Waikato.
In the future, especially as more New Zealand data becomes available there may be some situations
where values can be transferred for example: i) values may sometimes be transferred directly
provided a high degree of accuracy is not required, transfer criteria are met and the source and
policy good are known to be highly similar; ii) values can be transferred to somewhat different sites
provided an analysis based on a large number of New Zealand studies (a meta-analysis) has been
conducted to provide a good understanding of the drivers of value; iii) values may be transferred in
the future if work is commissioned to enable estimation of spatially explicit value functions in New
Zealand.
Knowledge Gaps
Overall there is a lack of data for many freshwater non-market values including several types of
recreation common in the Waikato Region. Data on non-use values (the value of freshwater that is
independent of people’s own use e.g. cultural or ‘existence’ values) is typically confounded with
other use values e.g. recreation and so is difficult to separate. Also notably missing are data on
Māori specific values of freshwater including customary use of water ways such as Waahi, Mahinga
kai and taonga values. For the Waikato Region non-market values currently available are limited to
lakes gullies and streams only (Hamilton streams and gullies, lakes Karapiro, Arapuni and Rotoroa
(Hamilton Lake); Karapiro Catchment streams and the Tongariro River).
There appears to be very little non-market valuation data for the Waikato region relating to rivers
(except in the form of hydro lakes and fishing values for the Tongariro river), wetlands, groundwater,
springs, canals, lagoons or reservoirs. All of these water body types are important in the Waikato
region and may require valuation. Further valuation may be required for lakes – most notably Lake
Taupo which is a popular tourist destination for both local and overseas visitors. Data is also
required on the sites in the region which are of cultural or other significance to Māori. Valuation
may be required for rivers, most notably the Waikato, Waipa and Waihou. There are several
important wetlands including the Whangamarino and Kopuatai Peat Dome which are two of six sites
registered under the Ramsar convention as being of international significance. Other important
freshwater resources for which some form of valuation may be required are detailed in Chapters 9
and 11.
Marsh & Mkwara. Review of Freshwater NMV Studies, August 2013 Page 6
Priorities for further work
We suggest the following priorities for further work.
1. Identification of the specific aspects of decision making on water quality limits where non-
market valuation data is most likely to be used. This will require consultation with Waikato
Regional Council and the Ministry for the Environment as well as other stakeholders.
2. Primary research to enable calibration of spatially explicit value functions as proposed by
Bateman (see Chapter 10). These value functions can be used for value transfer provided the
items to be valued are estimated by the function and required data is available for the site
to which values are to be transferred. Research aimed at estimation of value functions can
make use of the data that will be collected under the planned survey on the recreational and
cultural use of freshwater in the Waikato. However this survey will not provide data for all of
the required variables so it will be important to ensure that data that may be collected in
any follow on survey takes account of data requirements for value function estimation.
3. Conditional on item 1 (above) priority should be given to filling some of the major gaps
identified above and in Chapter 11 of this report including:
a. Assessment of non-market value by visitors from outside the Waikato e.g. tourists
visiting Lake Taupo and Waitomo, spectators at major events, recreational users of
Lakes.
b. Assessment of non-market values in areas for which we have little or no data e.g.
recreation, water quantity and other values detailed under item 3 in Chapter 11.
Assessment of non-market values for water body types for which we have little or
no data, e.g. rivers, wetlands, groundwater etc.
c. It should be noted that some of these gaps will be reduced by the proposed survey
on recreational and cultural use of freshwater in the Waikato.
4. Given the large gaps in our knowledge, and the potential difficulties in estimating overall
benefits from disaggregated non-market or ecosystem values, we propose that priority is
given to research into aggregate values (using revealed preference data) or broad categories
of values (using choice analysis), see Chapter 11 for further details.
Marsh & Mkwara. Review of Freshwater NMV Studies, August 2013 Page 7
2. Introduction
The Waikato Region draws its name from the Waikato River which is a tupuna (ancestor), a taonga
(treasure), and the mauri (life force) of Tainui Waka and Ngati Tuwharetoa2. The region is
characterised by many important lakes, rivers and wetlands including Lake Taupo, the largest lake in
New Zealand and the Waikato, New Zealand’s longest river which runs for 425 km from the slopes of
Mount Ruapehu to Port Waikato. These lakes, rivers and wetlands are of spiritual significance to
Māori and provide ecological, aesthetic, scientific, and educational benefits to the region. The
region’s freshwater bodies provide recreational activities including swimming, boating, fishing and
bird watching (Levy, Hickling, & Neill, 1996) and are pivotal to the region’s major tourist attractions
such as Lake Taupo and Waitomo3. The continued delivery of the numerous services provided by
these freshwater resources remains essential to the Waikato Region’s economic prosperity and
overall well-being. In recent decades falling water quality has become a major environmental
concern both in the Waikato Region and New Zealand as a whole. According to the Waikato Regional
Council, waterways in the region have the third highest nitrate pollution levels of any region in New
Zealand.
In recent decades falling water quality has become a major environmental concern both in the
Waikato Region and New Zealand as a whole. According to the Waikato Regional Council, waterways
in the region have the third highest nitrate pollution levels of any region in New Zealand4. While
many current and historical human activities have impacted negatively on water quality, dairy
farming is the largest contributor to the current trend towards increasing levels of nutrients.
Under the Resource Management Act 1991 regional councils are responsible for managing the
effects of using freshwater, land, air and coastal waters, by developing regional policy statements
and the issuing of consents. Regional councils are also responsible for managing rivers, mitigating
soil erosion, flood control and promoting sustainable regional well-being. When drawing up regional
policy statements, Section 32 of the Resource Management Act 1991 requires councils to prepare an
evaluation which demonstrates that the costs, benefits and alternatives of a proposed policy have
been considered. The evaluation must examine the extent to which each objective is the most
appropriate way to achieve the purpose of the Act and whether, having regard to efficiency and
effectiveness, the policies, rules, and other methods are the most appropriate for achieving the
objectives.
The National Policy Statement (NPS) for Freshwater Management 2011 sets out a nationwide
regulatory framework for managing water in an integrated and sustainable way. It directs regional
councils to set water quality and quantity limits that maintain or improve water quality and to
govern the efficient allocation and use of water.
2http://www.waikatoregion.govt.nz/Community/Your-community/Tangata-Whenua/Waikato-River-co-
management/Waikato-Te-Awa---a-taonga-treasure/ 3 Waitomo is a major tourist destination that is highly dependent on water quality for key activities e.g.
Waitomo caves and blackwater rafting. 4 http://www.waikatoregion.govt.nz/Community/About-the-Waikato-region/Our-economy/
Marsh & Mkwara. Review of Freshwater NMV Studies, August 2013 Page 8
“The Ministry for Primary Industries, Ministry for the Environment and Department of Conservation
established the ‘Economic Impact Joint Venture Studies’ (EIJVS) project to provide economic analysis
to support national decision making on setting freshwater quality and quantity objectives and limits
and to work with regional councils to develop economic analysis on the economic, environmental,
social and cultural trade-offs in managing water quality and quantity”5. Studies have been
commissioned in three regions under the EIJVS project; Southland, Canterbury and the Waikato. The
Waikato Joint Venture Project is a joint effort involving Central Government (MfE, MPI, DOC), Dairy
NZ, Waikato Regional Council (WRC) and the Waikato River Authority (WRA). The work in the
Waikato will contribute to the regional plan change process. The Healthy Rivers: Plan for
Change/Wai Ora: He Rautaki Whakapaipai project incorporates the requirements of the National
Policy Statement for Freshwater Management 2011 to set limits and to achieve the Vision and
Strategy for the Waikato River/Te Ture Whaimana o Te Awa o Waikato to “restore and protect the
health and wellbeing of the Waikato and Waipa rivers for future generations.”
A key component of the Waikato Joint Venture Project is to assess the impact of central and regional
government water quality policies in the Waikato region on the non-market values of water (e.g.
recreational and cultural uses, existence, option and bequest values).
Many of the values (benefits) of good water quality cannot be directly assessed in dollar terms ‘in
the market’; so they are called ‘non-market values’. This is in contrast to the cost of restoring and
protecting rivers and other water bodies where a dollar value (or market value) can be put on many
of the costs (e.g. improved sewage treatment systems, effluent disposal systems, changes in farm
management). Non-market valuation methods have been developed and have proved to be a very
useful tool for assessing the value of environmental resources for which there is no price tag. These
methods enable policy makers to take account of the costs and benefits of alternative policies, while
taking account of both market and non-market values.
This report documents the literature review component of the Waikato region joint venture
studies. The purpose of this review is to identify the non-market values associated with fresh
water in the Waikato Region and to prioritise non-market values for further analysis. This
purpose is achieved through:
a literature review of international, New Zealand and Waikato Region non-market value
studies from 1990 onwards;
Identification of specific Māori values associated with water bodies in the Waikato Region;
Identification of gaps in the literature and areas that would benefit from further study; and
Comparison of overseas and New Zealand recreational value studies with water bodies in
the Waikato Region to comment on whether values are suitable for benefit transfer.
5 Draft Terms of Reference, Economic Impact Joint Venture Studies, Waikato Region Meeting, 20 March 2013.
Marsh & Mkwara. Review of Freshwater NMV Studies, August 2013 Page 9
3. Significant freshwater bodies in the Waikato Region
Overview
The Waikato Region is characterised by many important lakes, rivers and wetlands including Lake
Taupo, the largest lake in New Zealand and the Waikato, New Zealand’s longest river. These lakes,
rivers and wetlands are of spiritual significance to Māori and provide ecological, aesthetic, scientific,
recreational, tourism and educational benefits to the region. They provide important habitat for
native fish, as well as freshwater crayfish (koura), shrimps, and invertebrates6. Restoration and
protection of the health of the Waikato and Waipa rivers is seen as being key to a vibrant regional
economy7 with direct use being particularly important for industrial, domestic, horticultural,
agricultural and commercial purposes.
Significant water bodies in the region include Lake Taupo, the Waikato River and its associated hydro
lakes and the Waipa River. Significant freshwater wetlands in the region include the Kopuatai Peat
Dome and the Whangamarino Wetland which are two of six sites registered under the Ramsar
convention as being of international significance in New Zealand8. The identification of freshwater
bodies in the Waikato Region is part of the Ministry for the Environment National Policy Statement
Freshwater Management (NPSFM) Objective 2 which “recognises there are a small number of
outstanding water bodies across New Zealand that should be protected. “Outstanding water bodies”
are defined in the NPSFM as “bodies with outstanding values including ecological, landscape,
recreational and spiritual values”. Regional communities will determine which water bodies are
outstanding through the regional objective-setting process” (MfE, 2011, p. 12). In principal, non-
market values should be identified and where possible quantified for all freshwater bodies in the
region that may be affected by central and regional government water quality policies.
Lake Taupo
Lake Taupo is the largest lake in New Zealand (and the Southern hemisphere) with a surface area of
622 square km. The Lake is nationally and internationally renowned for trout fishing and supports
New Zealand’s trout fishery which is reported to generate “approximately $70 million of economic
activity each year”9. It is also popular for other recreational activities such as water skiing, boating,
hiking and walking10. In addition, the Lake provides an important habit for indigenous fish and
invertebrates and other aquatic and biotic life.
The Waikato River
The Waikato River is the longest river in New Zealand with a catchment area of 14,260 square km. It
extends from the upper tributaries of Lake Taupo at the southern boundary to the sea at Port
Waikato on the west coast, covering a total distance of 425 km. The Waikato River straddles the rohe
(territories) of Tainui, Ngati Tahu, Ngati Rauhoto and Tuwharetoa. It is the main source of electricity
6 http://www.waikatoregion.govt.nz/Environment/Natural-resources/Water/Rivers/Our-other-rivers/
7 http://www.waikatoregion.govt.nz/healthyrivers
8 http://www.doc.govt.nz/conservation/land-and-freshwater/wetlands/wetlands-by-region/waikato/
9 http://www.waikatoregion.govt.nz/PageFiles/7058/strategy.PDF
10 http://www.laketaupo.co.nz/recreation.htm
Marsh & Mkwara. Review of Freshwater NMV Studies, August 2013 Page 10
generation in the region. There are eight hydro lakes on the River including Lakes Karapiro, Arapuni,
Waipapa, Maraetai, Whakamaru, Atiamuri, Ohakuri and Aratiatia.
The Waipa and other rivers
The Waipa River is the largest tributary of the Waikato River, with a catchment area of 306,569
hectares representing 22% of the Waikato catchment area. Other important rivers in the region
include the Waihou, Piako and Mokau Rivers.
Waikato River recreational values
Various studies conducted in the Waikato Region on recreational usage of water bodies have
identified activities associated with the Waikato River (e.g. Levy et al., 1996; Simmons, Devlin, &
Schellhorn, 2000; Stewart, Johnston, Rosen, & Boyce, 2000). These recreational activities are
outlined below:
Recreational values identifies for the Waikato Region
Walking Power boating
Picnicking River cruisers/tours
Exercising (running and cycling) Dragon boating/waka ama
Swimming Kayaking/Canoeing
Bird watching Scuba diving
Children's activities Skiing
Dog activities Tramping
Rafting/tubing Windsurfing
Hunting/duck shooting Yachting/sailing
Photography/painting Multisport/triathlons
Fishing/white baiting/eeling Camping
Marsh & Mkwara. Review of Freshwater NMV Studies, August 2013 Page 11
Wetlands in the Waikato Region
Prior to European settlement in 1840, it is estimated that wetlands covered about 108,000 hectares
representing five per cent of the total land area in the Waikato Region. Many wetlands have been
drained and turned into pasture. Figure 3.1 compares the total wetland area in 1840 and 1995.
Today wetlands cover only one per cent of the region, and are mostly located in the lower Waikato
Valley and Hauraki Plains.
Figure 3.1: Wetland area in the Waikato Region in 1840 and 1995
Source: Waikato Regional Council11
Three of the six wetlands registered under the Ramsar convention as being of international
significance in New Zealand are found in the Waikato region. Two of these are freshwater wetlands,
namely the Kopuatai Peat Dome and the Whangamarino wetland.
11http://www.waikatoregion.govt.nz/Environment/Natural-resources/Water/Freshwater-wetlands/What-
wetlands-have-we-got/Wetlands-in-the-Waikato-region/
Marsh & Mkwara. Review of Freshwater NMV Studies, August 2013 Page 12
Kopuatai Peat Dome
Kopuatai Peat Dome covers a total area of 10,201 hectares. It is the largest unaltered restiad peat
bog in New Zealand and is also unique globally. The area is gazetted as a Wetland Management
Reserve under the Conservation Act 1987 and managed by the Department of Conservation. The
physical features of the peat dome and in particular the mineralised swamps play an important role
in flood control and protection as they provide storage for floodwater from the Piako and Waitoa
catchments. The Kopuatai Peat Dome is also an important habitat for bird and fish species. Fifty four
species of birds have been recorded in Kopuatai (27 protected, 17 unprotected and 10 game birds).
The threatened Australasian bittern (Botaurus poiciloptilus) is found in the wetland along with
banded rail (Rallus philipensis assimillis), marsh crake (Porzana pusilla affinis) and the North Island
fernbird (Bowdleria punctata vealeae). The waters of Kopuatai contain a number of important fish
species including black mudfish (Neochanna diversus) and the endemic long finned eels (Anguilla
dieffencachii)12.
Whangamarino Wetland
The Whangamarino Wetland is the second largest bog and swamp complex in New Zealand and
constitutes one of the largest wetlands connected with the Waikato River, covering a total area of
7,100 hectares. The Whangamarino wetland supports over 20,000 waterfowl and populations of rare
and endemic species of plants and animals including an estimated 25% of the total Australasian
bittern population in New Zealand and one of the largest populations of North-Island fernbird. It is
the only known New Zealand location of the swamp helmet orchid. The Whangamarino wetland also
plays a significant role in the Lower Waikato/Waipa Flood Protection Scheme13.
The Kopuatai Peat Dome and Whangamarino wetland, together with numerous other wetlands in
the region provide significant ecological and social benefits (Environment Waikato, 2007) including;
Maintaining good water quality by storage of contaminants and/or transformative process
Prevention/mitigation of shoreline erosion and sedimentation
Reduction in drought and flood risks
Recharge of groundwater supplies
Provision of food and habit for a wide variety of indigenous plants, waterfowl, fish and other
wildlife, including rare and endangered species
They are also important storage areas for floodwaters
Wetlands are highly valued by local communities and tangata whenua for their recreational, educational, scientific, aesthetic, spiritual and cultural values.
12http://www.doc.govt.nz/conservation/land-and-freshwater/wetlands/wetlands-by-region/waikato/kopuatai-
peat-dome/ 13
http://www.doc.govt.nz/conservation/land-and-freshwater/wetlands/wetlands-by-region/waikato/
Marsh & Mkwara. Review of Freshwater NMV Studies, August 2013 Page 13
4. Māori values associated with freshwater in the Waikato Region
Integrating Māori values into decision making
Identifying specific Māori values with regard to water in the Waikato Region is a key element of this
report. The importance of incorporating these values in decision-making is enacted in, inter alia, the
Resource Management Act 1991, the Conservation Act 1987, the Te Runanga o Ngai Tahu Act 1996
and the Local Government Act 2002. On 14 January 2011, the Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims
(Waikato River) Settlement Act 2010 (the Waikato River Settlement Act) came into force, with the
overarching purpose of restoring and protecting the health and wellbeing of the Waikato River for
future generations. The Act incorporates the Vision and Strategy which was given legislative status
to be incorporated directly into the Waikato Regional Policy Statement and given effect under the
Resource Management Act 1991 and Conservation Act 1987 and other relevant legislation.
The Waikato Regional Council (WRC) acknowledges the special position of tangata whenua
(indigenous people of the land) within the region, and recognises the need to work with iwi (tribe),
and hapu (sub-tribe) as appropriate in river and catchment management. Co-management
legislation of relevance to the Region includes the Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River)
Settlement Act 2010. Later that year legislation was passed covering Ngāti Tūwharetoa, Raukawa
and Te Arawa river iwi (specifically the hapū Ngāti Tahu - Ngāti Whaoa, Ngāti Kearoa - Ngāti Tuara
and Tuhourangi - Ngati Wahiao). The co-management arrangements under this legislation cover the
Waikato River from Te Toka a Tia near Taupō through to Karāpiro. A third piece of co-management
legislation covering Ngāti Maniapoto -the Nga Wai o Maniapoto (Waipa River) Act 2012 -came into
effect in April 2012. It was the catalyst for Ngāti Maniapoto to enter into co-management
arrangements with local government authorities for the Waipa River, and Nga Wai o Maniapoto
(Waipa River) Act 201214.
Mätauranga Māori
Māori people have unique values, beliefs and concepts that underpin the way they view and
interrelate with the natural environment. Their world view is embedded in mätauranga Māori,
ERMA, (2004, p 15):
The framework for identifying and characterising mätauranga Māori (Māori worldviews and perspectives) is based on an analysis of the traditional practices of Māori society. These traditional practices were and continue to be developed as tools controlling behaviour, particularly in regard to sustainable management of the environment in which Māori live. Mätauranga Māori is essentially a system of knowledge and understanding about Māori beliefs relating to creation and the relationship between atua (supernatural guardians) and tängata (mankind). This relationship or whakapapa (genealogy) determines the way people behave in the context of their environmental ethical practices.
14http://www.waikatoregion.govt.nz/Community/Your-community/Tangata-Whenua/Waikato-River-co-
management/
Marsh & Mkwara. Review of Freshwater NMV Studies, August 2013 Page 14
Interacting with waterways serves the functions of passing on traditional knowledge from one
generation to the next. Mätauranga Māori is developed and transmitted through the use of natural
resources, such as the practices of food management, harvesting and preparation. For example,
gathering kai requires knowledge of techniques and ecosystems. If populations of aquatic species
decline because of degraded water systems, knowledge of the techniques of gathering these foods
along with the associated ecological and cultural knowledge will likely also begin to disappear (Tipa,
2011).
According to Awatere (2005, pp. 10-11), “the Māori world-view is holistic in nature in that it
embodies historical, environmental, and spiritual values, as well as modern experiences.” Andersen,
Kerr, & Lambert (2012a, p. 2) state that “traditional Māori beliefs, like the beliefs of many
indigenous cultures, are centred around the view that Māori are an intrinsic part of the natural
world. Water holds both spiritual non-use, and use significance for Māori.” The rights to use, access
and manage natural resources are integrated in the concept of Whakapapa (genealogy) as
summarised below by Awatere (2008, p. 1):
Land, mountains, valleys, rocks, water and sea ways are viewed not only as resources,
but more importantly, as manifestations of collective identity. They are the essential
roots that entwine the component parts of what it means to be Māori. Such resources
are vital taonga (treasured possessions) to be protected.
The holistic Māori view with regard to water resources is represented by the Mana Atua. It
includes the life cycle of water as it circulates between the realms of Ranginui (father or the
heavens) and Papatuanuku (Earth mother or the earth). Mana Tangata represents the human
interaction with that system, and the impacts of our interaction on the resource within the
cycle. This holistic Māori view can be understood through the Mana Atua Mana Tangata model
as shown in Figure 4.1 below.
Marsh & Mkwara. Review of Freshwater NMV Studies, August 2013 Page 15
Figure 4.1: Tangata Whenua Values and Relationship with Fresh water
Source: Land and Water Forum (2012, p. 71)
This Mana Atua Mana Tangata model “differentiates a set of values (Mana Atua, including
Mauri, Wairua, Mana) – akin to yet distinct from intrinsic values – from six classes of use
values. The use values include: Wai Whakaika – ceremonial waters, Wai Māori – drinking and
other consumptive water, Mahinga kai – food gathering, He Ara Haere – navigation or right of
passage, Au Pūtea –economic use, and Wai takaro – recreation” (Land and Water Forum, 2012,
p.10). It aligns an iwi world view of (tangata whenua) relationships and responsibilities in
respect to fresh water.
Five Iwi are identified with the Waikato Region, namely Waikato-Tainui, Ngati Tuwharetoa,
Raukawa, Hauraki and Nga Wai o Maniapoto. Their genealogy and relationship with
environmental resources including water bodies in the Waikato Region is outlined in Box 4.1
below.
Marsh & Mkwara. Review of Freshwater NMV Studies, August 2013 Page 16
Box 4.1: Iwi in the Waikato Region
Marsh & Mkwara. Review of Freshwater NMV Studies, August 2013 Page 17
Box 4.1 (continued): Iwi in the Waikato Region
Source:http://www.waikatoregion.govt.nz/Council/Policy-and-plans/Rules-and-regulation/Regional-Plan/Waikato-Regional-Plan/2-Matters-of-Significance-to-Māori/22-
Iwi-in-the-Waikato-Region/221-The-Iwi-of-Hauraki/
Marsh & Mkwara. Review of Freshwater NMV Studies, August 2013 Page 18
Māori values associated with the Waikato River
The core Māori values associated with the Waikato River and other water bodies in the region (see
the Mana Atua Mana Tangata model and Box 4.1) are identified below. These values include
matauranga Māori; kaitiakitanga; Mauri; whakapapa; access; aesthetics; recreation; significant
cultural and historical sites; mahinga kai and taonga; and wai. A number of these values are also
outlined in the Waikato River Independent Scoping Study by NIWA (2010). A report prepared for
Environment Southland by Tipa (2011) also outlines a number of Māori values and the summary is
presented in Appendix 6.
Matauranga Māori values
The matauranga Māori concept is about knowledge and understanding of everything in both the
seen and unseen world. The Māori believe that the knowledge and educational experiences that the
Waikato Region waterways provide can be passed on to future generations by managing and
interacting safely with water resources as previously practiced by their tūpuna (ancestors).
Kaitiakitanga values
According to (Kawharu, 2000, p 349), the concept’s “literal interpretations stem from the core word
tiaki meaning ‘to care for, guard, protect, to keep watch over and shelter’…Kai is a generic term and
when applied to tiaki as a prefix, it has a literal translation meaning ‘caretaker, guardian,
conservator, or trustee.” The concept is also an “expression of a two-way relationship that involves
obligations to give, receive and repay” (Awatere, 2008, p. 1). The concept of Kaitiakitanga is
illustrated by Majurey, et al (2010, p.271):
Kaitiakitanga means more than just mere guardianship. It is the intergenerational responsibility inherited at birth to care for the environment, which is passed down from generation to generation. The purpose of kaitiakitanga is not only about protecting the life supporting capacity of resources, but of fulfilling spiritual and inherited responsibilities to the environment, of maintaining mana over those resources and of ensuring the welfare of the people those resources support.
This underscores the value of restoration to safeguard progressive and complete functioning of the
regional waterways. For instance, the Tuwharetoa are the iwi with mana whenua in the Lake Taupo
catchment. They hold legal title to the bed of the Lake and its tributaries, and are the kaitiaki of the
Lake15.
Mauri (life force)
Mauri is a central component of the Māori perspective on the environment and revolves around
preserving the mauri of waterways (environmental integrity/wholeness). It can be defined as the life
principle, life supporting capacity, or life force present in all things. For example, in a river mauri is
about the diversity of life in and around a river (Tipa, 2011). For example, the Waikato River which is
15 http://www.waikatoregion.govt.nz/PageFiles/7058/strategy.PDF
Marsh & Mkwara. Review of Freshwater NMV Studies, August 2013 Page 19
a tupuna (ancestor), a taonga (treasure), and the mauri (life force) of Waikato-Tainui and Ngati
Tuwharetoa, which are two of the five iwi in the Region16.
Whakapapa (genealogy)
The Māori whānau and hapū (family and sub-tribes) are defined with respect to the environment
and resources that they relate to. The whakapapa (genealogy) values suggest that for each whānau
and hapū, the waterways are tied to their genealogy, ancestry and cultural identity. To date, there
exist some specific river and lake sites in the Waikato Region that are identified with specific whānau
and hapū including paa (traditional settlements), middens, pits and terraces (NIWA, 2010). These are
reviewed in more detail below under the section on significant cultural and historical sites.
Access values
Waterways, especially the Waikato River, have a historic value for Māori regarding “transport and
communication by providing walking and boat access” (NIWA, 2010, p. 46). Although there is no
complete information pertaining to the length of riverbank serviced by walkways and cycle ways,
there is a consensus that towns have better access than rural areas.
Aesthetic values
Over many generations, Tangata Whenua (indigenous people of the land) have developed and
passed on a deep, intimate familial appreciation and connection with river aesthetics. Some of the
river aesthetics include landscape setting, riparian vegetation, water colour, flow types, visual
diversity and the knowledge that the river is in a healthy state.
Recreational values
Water related recreation is another important value for Māori. The recreational values of waterways
are usually understood and discussed in relation to social and family experiences and the
significance of upholding an active and healthy lifestyle. From the information that NIWA (2010)
gathered from various iwi and hapū (tribe and sub-tribe) in the Waikato Region a number of
recreational values were identified including swimming, waka ama (canoeing), rowing, picnicking
and boating.
Mahinga kai and taonga values
The term ‘mahinga kai’ refers primarily to cultural food and other natural resources; and where
those resources are acquired. ‘Taonga’ stands for a treasured tangible or intangible thing. The
Waikato Region waterways are home to various valuable kai and taonga species including, kanga
wai, maara, eels, watercress, kokopu, kakahi, manu, kereru, trout, puha, cherries, strawberries,
riwai, kamokamo, kumara, harakeke, kereru, tui, koaro, weta, pukeko and wild ducks. These values
are said to sustain the Māori way of life both the physical and spiritual as illustrated by the Raukawa.
For Raukawa, fisheries are a taonga: they sustain our way of life, both physically and spiritually. In
the physical sense, the fishery is a source of food for the Iwi. It was plentiful during all seasons of the
16http://www.waikatoregion.govt.nz/Community/Your-community/Tangata-Whenua/Waikato-River-co-
management/Waikato-Te-Awa---a-taonga-treasure/
Marsh & Mkwara. Review of Freshwater NMV Studies, August 2013 Page 20
year, it was reliable and it was respected. Spiritually it reflected the health of the broader
environment with which we, as tāngata whenua, are inextricably linked17.
Wai values
These values are mainly associated with certain parts of waterways that bear cultural and spiritual
connections including healing. They could be burials sites or places where people can communicate
with their tapuna (ancestors). Some of the wai characteristics are geothermal waters, waterfalls,
rapids, lagoon, springs, swamps and wetlands. Wai values may also be about the waterways being
clean, healthy and drinkable.
Significant cultural and historical sites
The Māori whānau and hapū (family and sub-tribes) are defined with respect to the environment
and resources that they relate to. The whakapapa values suggest that for each whānau and hapū,
the waterways are tied to their genealogy, ancestry and cultural identity. To date, there exist some
specific river and lake sites that are identified with specific whānau and hapū including paa
(traditional settlements), middens, pits and terraces. According to NIWA (2010, p. 41) there are 66
significant and historic sites in Waipa district, 41 in Waikato district and 40 in Hamilton city.
However, “location-specific information is regarded as private, held by the iwi themselves…”
Nonetheless, some examples of significant sites have been identified such as Te Toke Marae,
Okakuki Stream, Waikarakia Stream and Nga Makawe O Hinengawari.
Identification of the significant sites is in line with the Waikati-Tainui 2010 Act in which specified
sites of cultural significance to Waikato-Tainui to the Waikato Raupatu River Trust are provided. The
reserve sites are together declared a single reserve and classified as local purpose reserve, the
specific local purpose of which is: The purpose of the reserve is to:
(a) to protect and preserve in perpetuity the intrinsic worth and cultural value to Waikato-
Tainui of the Waikato River.
(b) to preserve and enable public access to and along the river.
(c) to contribute to the maintenance of natural functioning of the Waikato River by protecting:
(i) the habitats of the species that typify the lower Waikato River, (ii) associated
archaeological and historic values.
(d) to maintain the value of the reserve as a soil conservation and river control area
(The Waikato-Tainui 2010 Act, 2010, p. 58)
Hicks et al. (2013, p.13):
The land titles for the various discrete sites making up the Waikato-Tainui Whenua Raahui
Reserve were gazetted in December 2011. The sites are found from the upstream area of
Huntly to one site about 2.5 kilometres downstream of the Taukau Bridge. Most of the sites
are relatively small sections of river bank (e.g., Waahi waka Tauranga, Rangiriri-Meremere
Takinga Wairua) or islands (e.g., Tarakokomako Islands, Maurea Islands), or drain areas
17 http://www.waikatoregion.govt.nz/PageFiles/15805/2380761%20Raukawa%20Fisheries%20Plan.pdf
Marsh & Mkwara. Review of Freshwater NMV Studies, August 2013 Page 21
(Hukanui-a-muri Marae Lands), that may be covered by water in flood events. Two sites are
of relatively significant size (Lake Waikare lake bed, and Lake Kopuera Wildlife Refuge).
The significant sites (Hicks et al., 2013, pp.14 -17) are as shown as below:
Marsh & Mkwara. Review of Freshwater NMV Studies, August 2013 Page 22
Marsh & Mkwara. Review of Freshwater NMV Studies, August 2013 Page 23
The Waikato waterways are also significant for customary and recreational fishing. In a study carried
out by Hicks et al (2013) which was carried out in consultation with the iwi in the region18 on
customary fishing within the Region’s waterways, 27% of the 45 participants indicated that they
fished for both customary and recreational fishing.
Figure 4.2: Customary fishing locations in the Waikato Catchment identified by participants at the five hui
Source: Hicks et al (2013, p.51). Note that Te Puaha, Waahi Whaanui and Karapiro hui contribute to the
Waikato-Tainui findings, and that three Karapiro hui fishing locations in area B clustered within Raukawa hui
fishing locations were identified as customary fishing locations at both the Karapiro and Raukawa hui.
18 Ngati Tuwharetoa Iwi Trust Board indicated that they were no known customary fishers in their rohe in the
Upper Waikato River Catchment.
Marsh & Mkwara. Review of Freshwater NMV Studies, August 2013 Page 24
Māori values and non-market valuation
Māori hold a holistic world view covering environmental, historic, spiritual and modern experiences
and view themselves as an intrinsic part of the natural world (Awatere, 2005). This view of the
environment and the extent to which it can be measured in monetary terms is encapsulated by
Awatere in Box 2 below.
Source: Awatere (2005, p. 10)
While non-market valuation techniques can be very useful in measuring value, it is important to note
that some aspects of Māori values may not be adequately measured and these techniques will not
be acceptable to some Māori. An alternative method for dealing with these issues is through the
Cultural Health Index (MfE 2006), an assessment tool that allows iwi/hapü to assess the cultural and
biological health of a stream or catchment of their choosing.
The Cultural Health Index
The Cultural Health Index (MfE, 2006) provides a means by which iwi can communicate with policy
makers in a way that can be understood and integrated into resource management processes. It was
developed to help Māori participate meaningfully in the management of freshwater – specifically
stream health. It aims to achieve two main goals:
1. To provide a way for Māori to take an active role in managing freshwater resources. The index
does this by providing a framework for Māori to apply traditional methods and perspectives in
assessing the overall health of waterways in their area.
2. To provide an opportunity for resource management agencies to discuss and incorporate Māori
perspectives and values for stream health in management decisions.
Marsh & Mkwara. Review of Freshwater NMV Studies, August 2013 Page 25
5. A framework for non-market valuation of fresh water
Non-market values
The term non-market value refers to the fact that many environmental attributes are not valued in
the market. For example, a nature lover may gain great enjoyment and satisfaction from visiting a
national park – but does not have to pay an entry fee. As a consequence, the market may not
provide any indication of the value (or benefit) of such goods or services. By contrast, the price of
houses, strawberries and other market goods provides an indication of value of those good since
these prices reflect the actions and preferences of those who wish to sell and those who wish to buy.
In practice the situation is more complicated, since many goods have market and non-market
components. For example, the value of houses reflect the actions of buyers and sellers and also the
actions of planning authorities in controlling the availability of land on which building is allowed. In
the same way, we may obtain some indication of the minimum value that anglers place on fishing by
observing behaviour in the market – in buying a license, travelling to fishing places and buying gear.
However, many anglers may state that the value that they obtain from fishing far exceeds their
direct expenditure in the market.
Classification of freshwater ecosystem services
In this report we use the term ecosystem services to refer to those contributions of freshwater
bodies which generate goods and services which people value. Goods refer to physical products for
instance provision of fish as well as less tangible goods e.g. flood control (I. J Bateman, Mace, Fezzi,
Atkinson, & Turner, 2011). The freshwater services offered by water bodies in the Waikato region
can be classified into four main categories; provisioning, regulating, cultural and supporting services.
This classification is consistent with the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA, 2005).These
classifications and related examples are illustrated in Table 5.1.
Marsh & Mkwara. Review of Freshwater NMV Studies, August 2013 Page 26
Adapted from Morris & Camino (2011)
Table 5.1: Freshwater non-market values and ecosystem services Final goods of freshwater habitat Lakes &
Rivers Wetlands Examples and relationships
Provisioning
Food ☒ ☒ Wetlands provide grasses for grazing, silage and ha. Lakes and rivers are a significant source of commercial fisheries.
Biomass: fibre and energy materials, including peat
☐ ☒ Wetlands produce reeds and osiers under saturated conditions. Peatlands provide energy and soil improvement products.
Water for use ☒ ☐ Freshwater bodies are a source of water supply for household use, agricultural and other industrial processes.
Navigation services ☒ ☐ Lakes and rivers with sufficient depth provide waterways for navigation.
Health products ☒ ☒ Mineral spas, medicinal plants, medical leeches.
Regulating
Carbon regulation ☐ ☒ Wetlands are vital for carbon storage in organic soils thereby, helping in maintaining a balanced chemical composition in the atmosphere
Water flow and flood regulation ☒ ☒ River flow, influenced by landscape location, connection with other water bodies and discharge excessive water flows. Flood reduction relies on available water storage; Wetlands temporarily store excessive water flows, which moderate flood impacts on downstream environments.
Water quality regulation ☒ ☒ Freshwater systems can dilute, store and detoxify waste products and pollutants. Wetlands perform a vital function of water purification by removing nitrogen and phosphorous from agricultural runoff, preventing eutrophication of rivers and lakes.
Human health regulation ☒ ☒ Freshwater ecosystems with good water quality and aesthetic appeal can enhance the well –being of individuals through physical recreation. Poor water quality can be sources of water borne diseases.
Supporting services
Biodiversity ☒ ☒ All freshwater habitats with open water; species depend on conditions such as, temperature, oxygen level, depth and velocity of water and area with suitable conditions.
Nutrient recycling ☒ ☒ Recycling of soil and water natural and artificial nutrient occurs in wetlands, supporting enhanced water quality.
Cultural services
Science and education ☒ ☒ Lakes and wetlands sequences contain archives and human (pre)history and artefacts that may be lost if disturbed. Freshwater ecosystems are important outdoor laboratories.
Recreation and tourism ☒ ☒ Recreational fisheries, tourism depends on landscape appeal and iconic species. Good water quality and visual appearance required for natural swimming and boating.
Cultural and historic information ☒ ☒ Water is important in defining specific landscape character and features strongly in art and local culture. Freshwaters are a recurrent feature at the heart of many historically important places.
Spiritual and historic ☒ ☒ Freshwater bodies and their features can be a place of significant spiritual values.
Marsh & Mkwara. Review of Freshwater NMV Studies, August 2013 Page 27
Applied framework for valuing freshwater ecosystem benefits
The total economic value (TEV) framework provides a widely accepted means of aggregating the
value of services provided by ecosystems. Hein et al. (2006) gives a general outline of the necessary
steps required for ecosystem valuation (Figure 5.1) and show how the different ecosystems services
identified in Table 5.1 relate to the TEV framework.
Figure 5.1: TEV framework for valuing freshwater ecosystem services
Adapted from Hein et al (2006) and Philcox (2007)
Figure 5.2 provides a similar classification including examples of the various categories of use and
non-use values. Direct use values are separated into marketed outputs (e.g. crops, timber,
renewable energy) and non-market use values e.g recreation, landscape and aesthetics.
Freshwater values under the TEV framework can be classified into marketed and non-marketed
services. Marketed services are those that can be bought or sold through market transactions. For
example water for irrigation is combined with other factors of production to produce crops which
can be sold in a market. This also includes commercial fisheries, electricity generation and other
industrial uses of water. Many of the freshwater services provided by the Waikato River identified in
section do not have a price tag associated with them and are classified as non-market services, see
Table 5.2.
Fresh water ecosystem
Production
services
Total economic value
Step 1: Define the boundaries
of the system to be valued
Step 2: Assess and define the
ecosystem services in terms of
bio-physical attributes
Regulation
services
Cultural
services
Direct use
values
Indirect
use values
Future
option use
Values
Non-use
values
Step 3: Conduct valuation
using monetary or other units
of measurement
Step 4: Aggregate/compare
values
Marsh & Mkwara. Review of Freshwater NMV Studies, August 2013 Page 28
TOTAL ECONOMIC VALUE
Non-use values
Bequest values Existence values
Benefits
Passing benefits to future generations
Benefits
Satisfaction from knowing the resource exists
Direct use values Indirect use values Future option values
Marketed outputs
Crops Meat/fish Timber Renewable
energy Industrial
Unpriced benefits
Recreation Landscape Aesthetics
Functional Benefits
Flood control
Carbon storage
Water storage
Waste assimilation
Benefits
Future drugs Potential gene
pool Recreational
options
Use values
Source: Adopted from Anderson et al (1999 p. 3)
Figure 5.1: Total economic value (TEV) with examples of different categories of use values
Marsh & Mkwara. Review of Freshwater NMV Studies, August 2013 Page 29
Table 5.2: Summary of market and non-market freshwater values using the TEV framework
Total Economic Value
Use Values
Direct Use Values
Extractive & Non-extractive
Irrigation Marketed services
Commercial fisheries
Hydro electricity
Industry
Domestic/Municipal
Recreational fishing and all other forms of recreation such as swimming, walking, picnicking, wildlife watching, kayaking, boating bird hunting and traditional food gathering
Non-marketed services
Baptism and other cultural and spiritual values
Aesthetic and landscape values
Indirect Use Values
Functional benefits
Habitat provision
Water quality regulation
Erosion control
Flood water control
Other freshwater ecological functions
Option value
Future Direct and Indirect values
Future recreational use
Water reserved for future use e.g. future irrigation in agriculture
Non - Use Values
Bequest value
Environ Integrity for future generations
Habitat and species preservation
Spiritual and cultural values
Existence value
Value from knowledge of continued existence
Aesthetic values
Educational & Scientific information
Marsh & Mkwara. Review of Freshwater NMV Studies, August 2013 Page 30
Use values
Use value refers to the benefits that individuals derive from actual use of freshwater resources. It
can be classified into direct, indirect and option values.
Direct use values reflect the satisfaction that individuals derive from using freshwater
directly. They are classified into extractive and non-extractive uses. Extractive uses involve
taking something out of water for instance, fishing and food harvesting. This also includes
abstraction of water for electricity generation, irrigation and other industrial uses. Non-
extractive uses of freshwater include enjoying recreational and cultural amenities such as
wildlife and bird-watching, water sports, and spiritual and social utilities that do not require
taking something out of the water.
Direct use values include the use of water for commercial purposes such as electricity
generation and irrigation. In this case water is combined with other factors of production to
produce electricity or meat, milk or horticultural products from agricultural irrigation. Direct
use values also include cultural services such as recreation and aesthetic values.
Indirect use values are those that are gained from freshwater through support and
protection of other economic activities. For example, diluting, storing and detoxifying waste
products and pollutants thus ensuring a healthy environment for human well-being.
Option values recognize that people may wish to secure a resource for their own future
direct or indirect use (Desvouges, Smith, & Fisher, 1987). For example, individuals can attach
value to the continued availability of trout in Lake Taupo for their own future trout angling
use.
Non-use values
Non-use values are independent of people’s own use of resources and are classified into bequest
and existence values. Under bequest value people place a value on a healthy freshwater ecosystem
to ensure its continued sustenance for the future generation. Alternatively, people might derive
satisfaction from the mere knowledge that a resource exists or its quality is preserved independent
of their own use and that of the future generation. This aspect of non-use value is called existence
value.
Marsh & Mkwara. Review of Freshwater NMV Studies, August 2013 Page 31
Revealed and stated preference non market valuation methods
A number of non-market valuation methods have been developed to assess the value of
environmental goods and services for which markets are non-existent or partially developed (for
example water quality, recreational enjoyment, biodiversity). These valuation methods are classified
into two groups: revealed preference and stated preference techniques.
In revealed preference techniques economists use ‘detective work’ to estimate that value that
people put on environmental goods by analysing behaviour that reveals their preference for
environmental goods. For example the travel cost method is used for valuing the recreational
benefits of natural resources; it assumes that the recreational use value of environmental resources
can be inferred indirectly through what people are willing to pay to travel to a recreational site. This
method can be applied to assess the benefits or costs of changes in environmental quality at
recreational sites, elimination and/or addition of recreational sites as well as changes in the costs of
recreational site access (Parsons, 2003). Current research using the travel cost method often
incorporates spatially explicit modelling so that the alternatives faced by different recreational users
can be individually accounted for.
The hedonic pricing technique is based on the assumption that the underlying value of a good
depends on its different characteristics. So for example, the value of a house on the shore of a lake
depends in part on water quality in that lake, so the aesthetic and landscape value of the lake can be
indirectly inferred through housing prices (Palmquist, 2005; J. A Sinden, 1994). Hedonic pricing is
commonly applied to assess the contribution of environmental resources to land and houses. As is
the case with the travel cost method, hedonic pricing is capable of providing dependable value
estimates which are inferred from actual market transactions.
The main stated preference techniques are contingent valuation and choice experiments in which
respondents are asked to directly state their preferences and willingness to pay (WTP) for
environmental improvements or their willingness to accept (WTA) environmental deterioration in
return for compensation. These methods are applied to assess the value of both use and non-use
values. The contingent valuation method relies on a hypothetical market to assess the value of non-
marketed environmental services. Respondents are asked to state the maximum price they would be
willing to pay either to obtain more of the services if desirable or willingness to accept compensation
if undesirable. Under choice experiment, respondents are presented with different alternatives
defined in terms of environmental attributes and are asked to select their preferred choice. The
attributes are varied from one alternative to another and it is recommended that one of the
attributes should involve a monetary measure to enable the researcher to estimate the rate at which
respondents are willing to trade one attribute for another.
In addition to the above valuation methods, benefit transfer can be used to transfer existing
information from completed studies in one location to another location. Benefit transfer is generally
applied in cases were primary studies cannot be undertaken due to time and financial constraints.
Further discussion of this approach is provided in Chapter 10.
Marsh & Mkwara. Review of Freshwater NMV Studies, August 2013 Page 32
6. The international literature
The main objective of this review is to identify the non-market values of freshwater estimated
internationally and in New Zealand, and to identify similarities to water bodies in the Waikato
Region. In this overview of the international literature, global water quality issues, particularly in
Europe, the USA and Australia are highlighted and the fresh water non-market value literature from
1990 to date is reviewed.
Overview of international freshwater management issues
Declining water quality is one of the major environmental issues of global concern. According to the
UN Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA) on the current state of the world’s ecosystems, fresh
water was among the 60 per cent of ecosystem services that are being degraded or used in
unsustainable ways. Nutrient pollution from agriculture through increased use of nitrogen and
phosphorus fertilizer is one of the major causes of falling water quality. The use and rate of
phosphorus accumulation in agricultural soils increased almost threefold between 1960 and 1990,
while the flow of nitrogen to the oceans doubled since 1860 (MEA, 2005).
While increased fertilizer application has led to substantial gains in the form of increased agricultural
production, the MEA noted that such increases have been achieved at a considerable cost including
a general decline in some of the worlds’ fresh water ecosystems. In one of its recommendations the
MEA states:
To prevent irreversible damage to natural systems, we must make sweeping changes in the way
we use and think about natural resources. The first order of business, then, is to value nature’s
services - to understand their contribution to well-being, and then design policies and practices
that allocate these costs in an equitable way (MEA, 2007, p. 7).
Although water quality has “ improved over the last century in the original EU member states as a
result of more sophisticated wastewater treatment” (Birol, Karousakis, & Koundouri, 2006, p. 106),
significant sources of water pollution exist, especially from agriculture and urban storm flows. When
asked to list the five main environmental issues that Europeans are worried about, averaged results
for the EU25 show that nearly half of the respondents are worried about “water pollution” (47%),
with figures for individual countries going up as far as 71% (European Commission, 2013). Currently,
water quality is being addressed through the European Community Water Framework Directive
(WFD).
The WFD [European Parliament, 2000] is a European Union directive which commits European Union
member states to achieve good ecological status of all water bodies by 2015. Good status
underscores the need for surface water to have “low levels of distortion resulting from human
activity” based on three main criteria: biological quality elements, hydro-morphological quality
elements and physico-chemical quality elements (The European Parliament and the Council of the
European Union, 2000, p. 38).
Water quality issues in the USA fall under the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) governed
by the Clean Water Act 1972. The EPA’s measures of water quality are “based on whether water
quality is rated good on a variety of dimensions, including fishing, swimming, and the aquatic
environment” (Viscusi, Huber, & Bell, 2008). Non-point source of pollution from agriculture (mainly
Marsh & Mkwara. Review of Freshwater NMV Studies, August 2013 Page 33
nitrogen and phosphorous) is a major problem with the annual cost to government agencies,
drinking water facilities and individual Americans has been exceeding US$4.3 billion19.
In Australia the situation is a somewhat different with sediments and salinity being the major water
quality challenges at national scale. The National Water Quality Management Strategy (NWQMS)
provides guidelines for water quality management and recognizes the protection of aquatic
ecosystems; primary industries; recreation and aesthetics; drinking water; industrial water; and
cultural and spiritual values. No water quality guidelines are provided for the last two environmental
values (ANZECC & ARMCANZ, 2000).
This overview has highlighted the significance of water quality issues in the USA, Europe and
Australia and some of the policy initiatives being pursued to manage and preserve freshwater
ecosystems. The non-market valuation studies reviewed in this report compliment these initiatives.
Non-market valuation techniques play an important role in the design of efficient, equitable and
sustainable policies for water resource management. The techniques allow the identification and
quantification of freshwater values which may otherwise overlooked and their relative importance
to society not fully captured in policy decisions.
Criteria for inclusion in review of non-market valuation literature
Four main criteria were used to select studies for inclusion in this review with priority being given to:
Studies of countries with a similar social, economic and environmental context to New
Zealand and/or members of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
(OECD).
Studies addressing non-market values relevant to the Waikato region as highlighted in
section 3.
High quality research – Only studies published in high quality peer reviewed journals and a
few from book chapters20 were considered.
Studies that employed travel cost method, hedonic pricing, contingent valuation, choice
experiment and benefit transfer or a combination of these techniques.
A total of 80 non-market value studies from 16 countries were reviewed as summarised in Table 6.1.
19 http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/11/081112124418.htm
20 Except for Australia where in addition to peer reviewed journal publications, a few studies from reports and
working papers were included.
Marsh & Mkwara. Review of Freshwater NMV Studies, August 2013 Page 34
Figure 6.1: Studies included in the review, by country
Country Number of studies
Australia 28
United States of America 20
United Kingdom 14
France 3
Ireland 3
Spain 2
Austria, Denmark, Finland, Germany 1
Greece, Italy, Sweden, Netherlands 1
United Kingdom/Belgium/Denmark/Lithuania/Norway 1
Iceland/Norway/Sweden 1
Grand Total 80
Of the 80 studies two were conducted in more than one country, namely (1) United Kingdom, Belgium, Denmark, Lithuania and Norway (2) Iceland, Norway and Sweden.
Freshwater non-market values identified in the international literature
The 80 non-market value studies selected for inclusion in this analysis were reviewed to assess
whether the assessed values matched the broad categories of freshwater values in the Waikato
Region and whether or not the environmental concerns being addressed were similar. The
freshwater non-market values include recreation, aesthetic quality and ecological services such as
habitat provision and flood control. A large number of studies were concerned with water quality
and the general ecological health of water bodies and the associated effect on ecosystem services.
Estimated monetary benefits vary greatly reflecting differences in factors including income,
valuation methods and the extent of environmental change from the baseline. A summary is
provided in the Appendix where the studies are summarised by author, valuation method, type of
water body, objective, type of ecosystem service and monetary values. The valuation methods used
in assessing the values of freshwater include choice experiments, contingent valuation, travel cost
and to a lesser extent hedonic pricing and benefit transfer.
The main categories and ranges of dollar value estimates of non-market values are presented in
Table 6.2 below. The monetary values estimates for each value have been converted into New
Zealand Dollars using the exchange rate for the study year. These values were then converted to
2012 equivalents using the all groups’ consumers’ price index21. Descriptive analysis was used to
determine the minimum (low), median and maximum (high) values for each value category. In a few
cases very high values were excluded from the analysis. The number of values for each category is
not equal to the number of studies since most studies provide more than one value estimate.
21 Monetary values in the appendix are reported in the original currency.
Marsh & Mkwara. Review of Freshwater NMV Studies, August 2013 Page 35
Table 6.2: An overview of international non-market values (NZ$, 2012) Non-market value Low Median High No. of
values No. of studies
Primary contact/household/year $7 $88 $407 15 12
Fishing/person/trip $0.17 $26 $567 10 5
Fishing/person/year $0.03 $31 $191 9 11
Boating & Kayaking/person/trip $45 $77 $339 3 1
Boating & Kayaking/person/year $136 $204 $272 2 2
Wildlife viewing/household/year $23 $130 $324 5 3
General recreation/person/trip $57 $178 $298 2 5
General recreation/household/year $2 $34 $612 7 7
Access & facility/person/year $0.6 $113 $191 7 3
Landscape & aesthetic/person/year $4 $31 $283 5 3
Landscape & aesthetic/household/year $0.5 $49 $174 11 8
Landscape & aesthetic/household1 $33,656 $46,946 $60,236 2 2
Water quality/person/year2 $0.2 $53 $260 5 4
Water quality/household/year2 $0.8 $69 $362 20 12
Ecological health/household/year $0.1 $46 $474 38 28
Biodiversity/household/year $0.4 $34 $474 14 11
Water quantity/household/year $4 $47 $216 10 8
Climate regulation/hectare/year $287 $324 $1822 3 1
Flood & erosion control/household/year $ 0.4 $0.4 $0.4 2 1
General ecosystem services/household/year3 $ 0.1 $59 $600 12 9
Cultural & social/household/year $0.4 $186 $489 14 8
Research & education/household/year $0.01 $0.01 $0.01 1 1
Economic/person/year 4 $258 $484 $720 4 1
Economic/household/year5 $0.1 $90 $435 14 8
Option/household/year $7 $8.6 $30 4 3
Existence/household/year $7 $20 $30 2 1 1Household proximity to water bodies (0.001km to 1km away)
2Various improvements from low to high
3General benefits of preserving water ways
4Willingnness to Pay (WTP) to safeguard pasture
5WTP to avoid job losses in agricultural related
employment
Recreation
The main recreational values identified in the literature are included in Table 6.2 above. The contact
recreation category includes recreational activities which involve direct contact with water (mostly
swimming and diving). The general recreation category provides a composite measure for cases
where a value was estimated for more than one type of recreational activity for instance,
recreational fishing and boating. The recreational activities identified under the general category and
the individual recreational activites are as follows:
Swimming
Diving
Fishing
Boating
Kayaking
Wildlife viewing/nature appreciation
Wildbird hunting
Picnicking
General beach use
Marsh & Mkwara. Review of Freshwater NMV Studies, August 2013 Page 36
The range of the monetary values is generally high across all recreational categories reviewed. This
variability is expected due to differences in the unit of measure and factors that determine non-
market values including income levels, population densities, extent of policy changes from the
baseline conditions and other factors across countries. Median values describe the level of benefit or
willingness to pay for the 50th percentile, in simple terms half of all respondents would be willing to
pay more than this amount and half less. The median values provide a more useful indication of the
relevant orders of magnitude since they are less influenced by extreme values. The lowest median
value is NZ$26 per person per trip for recreational fishing and while the highest value is NZ$204 per
person per year for the boating and Kayaking.
Amenity values
The amenity values associated freshwater bodies and their margins are the natural and physical
qualities and characteristics that contribute to people’s appreciation and enjoyment of the water
body. Landscape, aesthetic coherence, ease of access and recreational facilities all contribute to the
enjoyment and appreciation of water bodies. Amenity values are categorized into access/facilities
and landscape/aesthetic values.
Access or facility is a measure of the importance that people place on recreational amenities such as
boat ramps, parking facilities and the general ease of access to recreational sites. The values
reported are mainly the value of recreational site access. Very few studies reported the monetary
values of recreational amenities, although this factor was sometimes included as one of the factors
influencing destination choice for water-based recreation.
The landscape and aesthetic qualities of freshwater bodies that are valued in the internatinal
literature include the proximity of water bodies to housing property, bankside condition of
waterways, water colour and visibility, beach cleanliness, pleasant views and presence of algal
blooms. The high variability in the willingness to pay (WTP) values in this category is attributed to
high values that people attach to the proximity of water or water views when purchasing houses,
with values ranging from $33,656 to $60,236 per hosehold for up to one kilometer away from
waterbodies.
Water quality and ecological health
A number of studies were concerned with the value of water quality and its associated effect on
recreational usage and ability to enjoy other ecosystem services. As with other monetary values, the
range is high, ranging from less than one dollar to NZ$368 per household per year.
Ecological health is a measure of the life-supporting capacity of water bodies which covers aquatic
ecosystems, associated native fauna and flora. The values being assessed under this category
included improvements in the general ecology of rivers and lakes, health bankside vegetation and
biodiversity as measured by native plants and animal populations. The WTP values are again highly
variable ranging from as low as NZ$0.12 to as high as NZ$474 per household per year. Generally, the
overall preservation of water ways was more highly valued compared to the WTP values for single
attributes measures of ecological health such as amount of native vegetation on river banks.
Biodiversity values were also summarised separately, with average WTP values of NZ$0.4 to NZ$474
per household per year.
Marsh & Mkwara. Review of Freshwater NMV Studies, August 2013 Page 37
Water quantity
The issues addressed pertaining to water quantity includes reduction in flow rates, allocation of
water among different user groups and amount of water reserved. The monetary values range from
$4 to $216 per household per year, partly reflecting differences in measures of water quantity
values, extent of change, valuation methods and other factors affecting WTP values.
The other values reported are for the ecological services of wetland including climate regulation,
flood and soil erosion control, both of these were reported in one study only. The estimated value
for climate regulation is high compared to the very low values estimated for flood and erosion
control. On the other hand, very high values were reported for general ecosystem services category,
with values up to NZ$600 with a median WTP of NZ$59 per household per year.
Cultural/Social values
The cultural/social values were mainly estimated for Australia. The main issue addressed was the
preservation of Aboriginal customary use of waterholes with an estimated WTP as high as NZ$489
per household per year.
Economic, Option and Non-Use Values
The economic category is used to provide an indication of the value that people place on agricultural
related jobs, most studies being from Australia. Median WTP was NZ$90 per household per year
indicating that respondents had strong preferences to avoid substantial job losses in agriculture.
Option and existence Values. The highest median WTP of NZ$484 per person per year in this
category relate to individual’s preferences for safeguarding pasture in Ireland. Option values relate
to WTP to preserve water for future use in Australia. Existence values were not reported, except in a
study by Peirson (2001) in which the contingent valuation method was used to assess existence
values for salmon in in the river Thames, Teifi and Aire in the UK. The WTP values ranged from NZ$7
to NZ$30 per angler per trip.
Concluding remarks
The international literature relating to non-market valuation of freshwater is large and varied. It
includes studies at different scales (specific sites, catchments, rivers, regions, national level studies),
using different methods (mainly stated or revealed preference) and with varying objectives ranging
from purely academic through to commissioned studies of immediate relevance to decision makers.
As the literature has matured, many academics have focussed on methodological development
rather than investigation of non-market values using ‘standard’ methods.
The rapid growth in the scale of the non-market valuation literature has been matched over the last
decade, by a steady increase in the use of non-market valuation methods in environmental decision
making, especially in Europe and the USA. Much of this growth is related to the increased use and
development of choice experiments. This technique has many advantages including the ability to
capture more information from each respondent and can facilitate informed discussion of trade-offs
between different attributes (or values). Current developments in efficient sample design and use of
panels to collect information using on-line surveys have enabled significant reductions in the cost of
data collection. Our conclusions with regard to the suitability of values from the international
literature for benefit transfer are detailed in Chapter 10.
Marsh & Mkwara. Review of Freshwater NMV Studies, August 2013 Page 38
7. The New Zealand literature
Review and description of values
New Zealand is generally regarded as having an abundance of high quality fresh water. This position
is supported by international researchers such as Carr & Rickwood (2008) for the United Nations
Environment Programme (UNEP) who concluded that New Zealand had the best water quality in the
world, based on the UNEP water quality index.
However, like many other countries declining water quality in some lakes and rivers over the past
decades has become an environmental issue of national concern. Non-point source pollution from
agricultural activities remains the major source of falling water quality. Pollutants from agricultural
activities have impacted on water quality in many ways including sedimentation, nutrient
contamination and alteration of physical characteristics of water (MfE, 2007; Williamson, Taylor,
Torrens, & Vojvodic-Vukovic, 1998).
To address the situation, Regional Councils are responsible for managing the environment under the
1991 Resource Management Act (RMA) and have sought to encourage farmers to improve
environmental management through measures such as the adoption of better land-management
practices and nutrient management plans, exclusion of animals from water ways, creation of riparian
buffer zones and building of wetlands near farmlands (McKergow, Tanner, Monaghan, & Anderson,
2007). While current measures to reduce non-point pollution from agricultural activities are mainly
voluntary, the introduction of regulatory limits is now under detailed consideration in many regions.
Yao and Kaval (2007, p. 2) who provide an overall assessment of the New Zealand non-market value
literature up to that date found a significant increase in the volume of studies, specifically those
requested by government agencies, following the passage of the RMA. These studies were
concentrated in three main areas: outdoor recreation, environmental conservation/management,
and travel time savings. In spite of this increased activity there is a severe lack of studies in many
areas including pest control, water resources and outdoor recreation.
The freshwater non-market valuation studies reviewed in this report consist of both commissioned
and other studies conducted in New Zealand from 1990 to date. The New Zealand Valuation
Database22 provides a record of all the non-market value studies conducted in New Zealand since
1974. A number of non-market value studies are also published under the Ag Econ search website. A
few studies from New Zealand are also documented in the Environmental Valuation Reference
Inventory (EVRI) database23. A total of 35 studies for the whole of New Zealand were identified and
included in this review. Out of these, 25 studies were carried out in other regions of New Zealand
and 10 in the Waikato Region. Key variables and values for these studies is presented in Appendix 2
for the rest of New Zealand and Appendix 3 for the Waikato Region. Each study has been reviewed
to identify the nature of the items valued, the time of the study and the estimated values. No
attempt was made to evaluate the quality of the individual studies which range from student theses
22 http://www2.lincoln.ac.nz/nonmarketvaluation/
23 http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/publications/evri.htm
Marsh & Mkwara. Review of Freshwater NMV Studies, August 2013 Page 39
to commissioned studies and publications in refereed journals. All prices have been converted to
2012 equivalents using the all groups’ consumers’ price index.
Several different valuation methods are used to estimate non-market values of freshwater ranging
from the value of improved water quality and its associated effect on recreation to aesthetic quality
and biodiversity. The most frequently utilized valuation method was the use of choice experiments
followed by contingent valuation, partly reflecting the world wide popularity of choice experiments
since their introduction in the 1990s. The travel cost method and hedonic pricing were used less
commonly, with the latter being applied in only one study.
Summary of New Zealand non-market values
A summary of the non-market values together with their dollar value estimates are presented in
Table 7.1. The value estimates per category of ecosystem indicate the low, medium and upper
values estimated in the studies. The number of values is greater than the number of studies since
most studies report several values depicting different levels of attributes or improvements from the
baseline. Recreation values are categorised based on whether the value estimate is per trip or per
year. The general recreation category is a composite measure for studies in which a single monetary
value was reported for more than one type of recreation.
Table 7.1: Non-market values of freshwater from selected New Zealand studies in NZ$ 2012
Non-market value Low Median High Number of values
Number of studies
Swimming/household/year $72 $101 $129 2 1
Fishing/angler/trip $5 $31 $125 7 5
Fishing/household/year $2 $25 $603 9 4
General recreation /household/year $6 $93 $236 10 6
Landscape/Aesthetic/ household/year $1.2 $55 $160 16 11
Water quality/ household/year $1.4 $73 $222 20 13
Ecological health/ household/year $0.5 $43 $269 14 9
Biodiversity/ household/year $5 $12 $31 6 3
General ecosystem services/ household/year
$31 $56 $80 2 1
Climate regulation/household/year $17 $17 $17 1 1
Water quantity/household/year $29 $141 $485 4 4
Cultural/ household/year $17 $39 $61 2 1
Economic/household/year -$474 -$223 $29 2 2
Non-use values/household/year $19 $25 $30 2 2
Recreation
Three categories of recreational activities were reviewed namely, swimming, fishing and general
recreation. Non-market values were mostly available for fishing and general recreation category. The
values for recreational fishing range from $5 to $125 per angler per trip and $2 to $603 per
household per year. For the general recreational category the values range from $6 to $236 per
household per year. The types of recreational activities included in this category are:
Marsh & Mkwara. Review of Freshwater NMV Studies, August 2013 Page 40
Motorized boating
jet skiing
yachting
kayak/rowing
wind sailing
canoeing
trout angling
swimming
picnicking
traditional food gathering
scenic driving
walking/photograph
bird watching.
Landscape and aesthetic values
Landscape and aesthetic values reported in the studies reviewed range from $1 to $160 per
household per year. Landscape and aesthetic attributes assessed in these studies include:
Scenic view
Unspoilt environment
Lakeside living
Water view
Water visibility
Health risks
Natural character of water ways
Conditions of river banks
Channel form
Water quality and ecological health
The monetary values for improved water quality are somehow variable ranging from about a $1 to
$222 per household per year. This variability is also observed for improved ecology with monetary
values ranging from $0.5 to $269 per household per year. Biodiversity values are reported
separately, with monetary values for maintaining or improving biodiversity range from NZ$5 to
NZ$31 per household per year.
Other ecological values reported are the general ecosystem services provided by wetlands with WTP
values in the range of $31 to $80 per household per year. The other ecological value is climate
regulation with mean WTP of $17 per household per year for a 30% reduction in methane gas.
Water quantity
Non-market values associated with water quantity relate to changes in river flow conditions,
abstractions and water allocation in South Island. The WTP values range from $29 to $485 per
household per year.
Cultural/social values
The only category reported from the reviewed non-market value studies is traditional food gathering
with a range of $17 to $61 per household per year.
Marsh & Mkwara. Review of Freshwater NMV Studies, August 2013 Page 41
Economic values
The economic values are the WTP for job losses in agriculture due to policies aimed at improving
water quality. The WTP values for job losses range from -$474 to $29 per household per year. The
negative WTP values is an indicator that generally people are less willing to accept policies that
would lead to substantial job losses in agriculture.
Non-use values
Non-use values for preservation of waterways reported from the review range from $19 to $30 per
household per year, reported separately only in two studies.
Again it should be noted that the monetary values summarised here should only be used to
understand the general order of magnitude of the estimated values in the New Zealand literature.
The specific values which have been summarised relate only to the specific conditions under which
the data was collected, the valuation method, the definition of attributes and other study and site
specific factors.
Comparison between different studies is also made difficult by variation in the attributes included in
choice experiments, for example suitability for recreational swimming can be assessed by changes in
water clarity and/or presence/absence of algal blooms. Common attributes relating to fishing
include catch rates and to a lesser extent water quality, fish size, bag limit, encounters with other
fishers and the bankside conditions of water ways.
Concluding remarks
Overall there is a lack of data for many freshwater non-market values including several types of
recreation common in the Waikato Region, this fact being first highlighted by Yao & Kaval (2007).
Non-use values are typically confounded with other values and difficult to separate. Also notably
missing are Māori specific values of freshwater including customary use of water ways such as
Waahi, Mahinga kai and taonga values.
Marsh & Mkwara. Review of Freshwater NMV Studies, August 2013 Page 42
8. The Waikato Region literature
Review and description of values
A total of eleven studies were identified and are presented in Appendix 3, some selected studies
being referred to in subsequent sections. The Non-market values reported in these studies include:
Recreation
Access/facilities
Landscape/aesthetics
Ecological services
Water quality
Non-use values
The freshwater bodies for which non-market values were assessed include:
Lakes Karapiro and Arapuni
Lake Rotoroa (Hamilton Lake)
Tongariro River
Streams in the Karapiro Catchment area
Hamilton streams
Gullies in Hamilton City
One study addressed water management in the Waikato Region in general
One study estimated non-market values in the Waikato Region using benefit transfer.
Marsh & Mkwara. Review of Freshwater NMV Studies, August 2013 Page 43
Summary of Waikato non-market values
All values from the Waikato literature were converted to equivalent 2012 New Zealand dollars using
the all price consumer index. Table 8.1 shows the non-market value categories and their associated
WTP values as well as the counts within each category24.
Table 8.1: Waikato Region non-market values and their frequencies (NZ$2012)
Non-market value Low Median High Number of values
Number of studies
Swimming/household/year $70 $131 $239 7 3
Rowing/person/year $173 $205 $236 2 1
Fishing/person/year $87 $87 $87 1 1
Access/Facility/household/ year $0.1 $8 $25 3 2
Landscape/Aesthetic/household /year $12 $38 $54 4 2
Ecological Health/household/year $25 $120 $255 10 5
Biodiversity/household/year $23 $58 $172 8 4
Water Quality/household/year $18 $58 $143 11 7
Economic/household/year $85 $138 $185 4 3
In the subsequent section the non-market values and the corresponding studies are discussed in
more detail with values as reported in the original studies.
Recreation
Non-market valuation estimates are available for three recreation categories in the Waikato: -
swimming, rowing and fishing. Marsh & Baskaran (2009) estimated the recreational value of water
that is suitable for swimming for Lakes Karapiro and Arapuni to the Karapiro Catchment Residents.
The median WTP of NZ$125/household/year to reduce the risk of algal blooms to 2% chance was
reported. Updated findings based on improved modelling are reported in Marsh (2012).
In a related study Marsh et al. (2011) estimated the recreational value of water that is suitable for
recreational swimming for the streams in the Karapiro Catchment area using a sample of residents in
the catchment. The Mean WTP of NZ$67.19- NZ$109.05/household/year for a 90% chance of
readings rated satisfactory for swimming was estimated. Both of these studies included both users
and non-users of lakes and streams and the suitability for swimming attribute was used as a catch all
for all forms of contact recreation.
The study by Marsh, et al (2010) was more focused to recreational users of Lake Karapiro. A sample
of recreational users was drawn from a total population of 3940 participants in Rowing New Zealand
Karapiro events. Out of 939 respondents contacted only of 115 recreational users completed the
survey, representing 14% response rate. Rowers had a median WTP of NZ$170/year to reduce the
incidence of health warning in summer from current level of 50% chance to at least 2% chance. Non-
24 The summary of non-market values reported in Table 8.1 excludes those from studies that were applied to
the whole New Zealand context and the benefit transfer study by Patterson & Cole (1999) in which individual/household level non-market values appropriate to this review were not reported.
Marsh & Mkwara. Review of Freshwater NMV Studies, August 2013 Page 44
rowers had median WTP of NZ$231/year for the same improvement. Recreational users from
Auckland had a median WTP of NZ$234/year while respondents from Hamilton, Cambridge and Bay
of Plenty reported a median WTP of NZ$174/year for the same improvements in water quality.
The only study that assessed the value of recreational fishing was by McBeth (1997) in which the
recreational fishing value of Tongariro River was estimated at NZ$67/person /visit.
Landscape and aesthetic values
Landscape and/or aesthetic values were investigated in two studies. A report by Matthews (2009)
assessed the benefits that would accrue from policies designed to improve local stream quality in
Hamilton. Vegetation type, channel form and grass type were used as indicator values for landscape.
Mean WTP of NZ$52/individual /year was estimated for native vegetation, NZ$51 for channel form
and NZ$11/individual /year for mown grass. More recently, Geck (2012) estimated the mean WTP of
Hamilton Residents for 75% of gullies and forests being in mostly native vegetation at NZ$22.50
per/individual/year for 5 years.
Access and facilities
Only two studies estimated the access value of waterways. The study by Mathews (2009) estimated
the mean WTP of NZ$24/individual/year for Walkway access to streams in Hamilton. In a more
recent study Geck (2012) estimated the mean WTP equal to NZ$7.7 per/individual /year for 5 years
for 75% of gullies with walkways and NZ$0.05 for a 50% increase in gullies and forests with
amenities.
Water quality
Non-market values relating to water quality were estimated in studies by Marsh & Baskaran (2009)
for Lakes Karapiro and Arapuni using a sample of households in the Karapiro Catchment Area. The
median WTP of NZ$ 125/household/year was estimated. Similar results are reported in Marsh
(2012). In a related study Marsh et al (2011) assessed the Karapiro Catchment residents’ preferences
for cleaner streams and the mean WTP in the range of NZ$19.75 to NZ$69.30/household/year was
reported.
Matthews (2009) estimated the value of cleaner water in Hamilton streams to be
NZ$55/individual/year. Bell, Yap, & Cudby (2009) estimated a number of non-market values for
different levels of water quality for Lake Rotoroa. Cullen, Hughey, & Kerr (2006) estimated mean
WTP of NZ$20 per/respondent/year for improvement in lowland water conditions areas across the
whole New Zealand.
Ecological health
The non-market values for good ecological health are reported 5of the studies reviewed. Marsh
(2012) estimated the value of an increase in the proportion of excellent ecological health readings to
above 80% of NZ$103/household/year for Lakes Karapiro and Arapuni. Similar results are reported in
Marsh & Baskaran (2009). Mean WTP in the range of NZ$ 30.29 - NZ$91.01/household/year for
improved ecological conditions (more than 70% of readings rated as excellent) for streams in the
Karapiro Catchment Area was estimated in a study by Marsh et al (2011). In another study, Bell et al.
(2009) estimated a mean WTP: of NZ$243.71/household/year to completely remove hypothetical
Hydrilla incursion in Lake Rotoroa for a sample of households around the lake.
Marsh & Mkwara. Review of Freshwater NMV Studies, August 2013 Page 45
Biodiversity
Biodiversity values are reported in only three studies. Mathews (2009) estimated the mean WTP of
NZ$39/individual/year for plentiful native fish for the Hamilton streams. Bell et al. (2009) estimated
mean WTP of NZ$164.33/household/year for all four shag bird species to continue to visit the Lake
Rotoroa & NZ$135.28/household/year for mussels and all fish species to remain in the lake using a
sample of residents around the lake.
Cultural/social values
A study by Andersen et al. (2012b) used a sample of 102 Waikato University students of which 63%
identified as New Zealand European and 23% Māori to assess the strength of affiliation with
traditional Māori identity, strength of connection with nature, and monetary measures of value
derived from a choice experiment on water management in the Waikato Region. The Māori Cultural
Identity (MCI) scale was used to measure the strength of affiliation with the cultural and traditional
relationships of Māori and water bodies including waahi tapu and other taonga, their kaitiaki
responsibilities and the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. Findings supported the notion that in a
situation where Māori and non-Māori are similarly educated, and integrated into an urban western
society, there may be little difference between the values of the two populations. Non-market
values were not reported. Respondents preferred water bodies with: healthy riparian vegetation,
water clarity, better water quality, healthy ecosystem.
Economic values
Marsh (2012) assessed preferences for availability of agricultural related local jobs that might be
affected by water quality management options. A median WTP of - NZ$177/household/year is
reported for a choice scenario associated with a 20% reduction in dairy related jobs for residents in
the Karapiro catchment area. In general management options which lead to job losses were less
preferred.
Concluding remarks
Variability in the range of monetary values estimated is lower than for the summary tables for the
international and New Zealand literature. This is unsurprising given the small number of studies and
the similarities between them. As reported for the New Zealand literature non-market values are
either lacking or very limited for Māori values, recreation, landscape/aesthetic, access/facility values
and various ecological services e.g. water regulation and flood control.
Marsh & Mkwara. Review of Freshwater NMV Studies, August 2013 Page 46
9. Similarities between Waikato freshwater values and the New
Zealand and international literature
This chapter provides an assessment of the similarities (and differences) between Waikato
freshwater values and the New Zealand and international literature. An assessment of the extent to
which these values may be suitable for value transfer is provided in Chapter 10. Comparisons are
drawn with countries with a similar social-economic and environmental context to New Zealand
and/or members of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and are
also based on the condition of freshwater bodies, demographic factors and the freshwater values
which are regarded as being important.
Comparison of water quality internationally
New Zealand is regarded as having an abundance of high quality fresh water. However, like many
other countries declining water quality in some lakes and rivers over the past decades has become
an environmental issue of national concern. In Europe Birol et al (2006, p. 106), highlights that
although water quality has “ improved over the last century in the original European Union (EU)
member states as a result of more sophisticated wastewater treatment” significant sources of water
pollution exist, especially from agriculture and urban storm flows. When asked to list the five main
environmental issues that Europeans are worried about, averaged results for the EU25 show that
nearly half of the respondents are worried about “water pollution” (47%), with figures for individual
countries going up as far as 71% (European Commission, 2013). Currently, water quality is being
addressed through the European Community Water Framework Directive (WFD).
In the USA a recent survey on the conditions of lakes indicate that poor habitat conditions along the
lakeshore and high levels of the nutrients nitrogen and phosphorus are the most significant stressors
of the lakes assessed. The major impairments to rivers and streams were sediments, pathogens,
habitat alteration and nutrients (US EPA, 2002, 2010). In Australia the situation is a somewhat
different with sediments and salinity being the major water quality challenges at national scale
(Department of Sustainability Environment Water Population and Communities, 2001).
A study by Verburg et al (2010) compared the status of water quality in New Zealand Lakes using
mean water quality indicators for 2005-2009 to water quality in Europe, the United States of
America and Canada. The lakes were compared using measures of water quality including total
nitrogen, phosphorus and chlorophyll a concentrations as shown in Figure9.1 below.
The results indicated that median total nitrogen (TN) was lower in New Zealand lakes compared to
lakes in Europe and USA. Median total phosphorus (TP) concentrations in New Zealand and
European lakes were similar and lower than that of the USA. The median chlorophyll a
concentrations in European lakes was slightly higher than in New Zealand lakes. The lakes in the USA
registered the highest concentrations of TN, TP and chlorophyll a concentrations, while lakes in
Canada registered lowest concentrations in all the three measures used.
More recently, New Zealand has been ranked amongst the strong performers at global level based
on the Environmental Performance Index 2012 (EPI, 2012). With regards ecosystem vitality for
freshwater performance, New Zealand registered a Water Quality Index score of 40.3 out of 100. In
Figure 9.1 below New Zealand’s ecosystem vitality for freshwater is compared to selected countries.
Marsh & Mkwara. Review of Freshwater NMV Studies, August 2013 Page 47
Overall, New Zealand’s ecosystem vitality for freshwater score was higher than the United Kingdom
(UK) and United States of America (USA) but below Finland, Ireland and Canada.
Source: Verburg, et al (2010, p.35)
Figure 9.1: Lakes Water quality in New Zealand compared to Europe, USA and Canada
Marsh & Mkwara. Review of Freshwater NMV Studies, August 2013 Page 48
Figure 9.2: Water quality Index Score based on Environmental Performance Index 2012
Source: (EPI, 2012).
Comparison of water based recreational usage
One of the criteria for valid benefit transfer is that the commodity to be valued be the same
between the primary study and policy site. Identification of non-market recreational freshwater
values for use in benefit transfer to the Waikato Region entails identifying countries with similar
preferences for water-based recreation. It is expected that in general countries sharing similar
preferences for water-based recreation are more likely to attach similar values to water bodies
including water quality.
Information on water-based recreational activities in New Zealand is available from national surveys
for example Galloway (2008) who carried out a survey of individuals who were involved in
recreational activities on and around rivers in New Zealand from October 2007 to March 2008.
Individuals were invited to participate in an internet based survey via direct contact at river
recreation-related events and electronically via a range of related web sites, group membership, and
internet bulletin boards. Sixteen hundred people registered their interest in participation at
www.riversurvey.otago.ac.nz, with 1312 respondents completing the survey. A wide range of
recreational activities were reported and are presented in Table 9.1.
11.7
12.6
29.7
30.7
31.8
33.2
35.5
40.3
41.7
51.5
51.8
55.5
64.3
Portugal
USA
Denmark
France
Germany
Australia
UK
New Zealand
Canada
Sweden
Ireland
Finland
Iceland
Marsh & Mkwara. Review of Freshwater NMV Studies, August 2013 Page 49
Table 9.1: Water based recreational studies in New Zealand
Primary activity Per cent Primary activity Per cent
Whitewater Kayaking 27.7 Slalom Kayaking 1.8 Fishing 20.4 Jet Boating 1.7 Multisport 11.2 Rowing 1.2 Tramping 7.3 Picnicking 1.2 Waka/Waka Ama 5.9 Canadian Canoeing 0.8 Swimming 4.3 Camping 0.8 Off Road/4x4 2.9 Water-ski/Wake
Boarding 0.7
Hunting 2.4 Whitebaiting 0.5 Rafting 2.3 Eeling 0.2 Bird watching 2.3 Rodeo Kayaking 0.2 Sea Kayaking 2.2 Riversurfing 0.1 Down River Racing (kayak)
2.0
Source: Galloway (2008)
Based on the results of this survey, white water kayaking, fishing and multisport emerged as the
most popular river-based recreational activities. The authors however, reported a wide range of
activities with relatively low number of responses in most activities.
These recreational activities can be compared to water-based recreational usage in other countries.
For instance, results of the 1999-2000 National Survey on Recreation and the Environment (NSRE) in
the USA in shows recreational participation in water-based activities by people 16 years and older
(NSRE, 2000).
Freshwater swimming and fishing
Motor-boating
Floating, Rafting
Canoeing
Jet skiing
Water skiing
Sailing
Rowing
Kayaking
Surfing
Sailboarding/Windsurfing
The recreational activities are listed in order of ranking from the highest to the lowest in terms of
the percentage of the total population who participated in these recreational activities, except for
freshwater swimming and fishing which were ranked equally. Swimming and fishing were
categorized based on types of water, we focus on freshwater to align with the objectives of this
report.
Studies conducted in the Waikato Region on recreational usage of water bodies provide a useful
benchmark for comparing the values explored in the literature review (e.g. Levy et al., 1996;
Marsh & Mkwara. Review of Freshwater NMV Studies, August 2013 Page 50
Simmons et al., 2000; Stewart et al., 2000). The recreational activities associated with the Waikato
River from these studies are outlined below:
Recreational values identified for the Waikato Region
Walking Power boating
Picnicking River cruisers/tours
Exercising (running and cycling) Dragon boating/waka ama
Swimming Kayaking/Canoeing
Bird watching Scuba diving
Children's activities Skiing
Dog activities Tramping
Rafting/tubing Windsurfing
Hunting/duck shooting Yachting/sailing
Photography/painting Multisport/triathlons
Fishing/white baiting/eeling Camping
In general it can be seen that the recreational activities the recreational activities reported in the
Waikato, New Zealand and USA are broadly similar.
Comparison by non-market value
Non-market value studies conducted in the Waikato Region are compared in Table 9.2 below, to
New Zealand and international studies based on the different non-market value categories.
Table 9.2: Comparison of non-market value estimates
Non-market value International Rest of New Zealand Waikato Region
Recreation X X X
Landscape/Aesthetic X X X
Water quality X X X
Water quantity X X
Access/Facility X X X
Cultural/social X
X
Research and Education X
Food gathering X X
Economic X X X
Ecological Health X X X
Biodiversity X X X
Pollution control X
Flood control X
Erosion control X
Climate regulation X X
Non-use X X X
X denotes the values identified in some of the studies reviewed.
Marsh & Mkwara. Review of Freshwater NMV Studies, August 2013 Page 51
Gaps in the Waikato region literature - values
There is limited Waikato data on landscape/aesthetic and access/facilities (2 out of 10 studies) and
no Waikato data for the values in the box below.
Comparison by type of freshwater body
Non-market value studies conducted in the Waikato Region are compared in Table 9.3 below, to
New Zealand and international studies based on the type of freshwater body.
Table 9.3: Types of freshwater bodies identified from the non-market value studies
Freshwater body Overseas Rest of New Zealand Waikato Region
River X X X
Lake X X X
Wetland X X
Canal X
Dam X X
Groundwater X X
Lagoon X
Reservoir X
Spring X
Stream X X X
Gullies X
X denotes the type of water bodies valued
Gaps in the Waikato region literature – freshwater bodies
For the Waikato Region non-market values currently available are limited to lakes gullies and
streams only specifically:
Lakes Karapiro, Arapuni and Rotoroa (Hamilton Lake);
Tongariro River;
The Karapiro Catchment streams;
Hamilton streams and gullies.
It is clear that there is no non-market valuation data for the Waikato region relating to rivers (except
in the form of hydro lakes25), wetlands, groundwater, springs, canals, lagoons or reservoirs.
All of these water body types are important in the Waikato region and may require valuation.
2525 Except some values for Tangariro River.
water quantity research and education food gathering pollution control
flood control erosion control climate regulation
Marsh & Mkwara. Review of Freshwater NMV Studies, August 2013 Page 52
Further valuation may be required for lakes – most notably Lake Taupo which is a popular
tourist destination for both local and overseas visitors.
Valuation may be required for rivers, most notably the Waikato, Waipa and Waihou.
There are several important wetlands including the Whangamarino and Kopuatai Peat Dome
which are two of six sites registered under the Ramsar convention as being of international
significance26.
Groundwater provides an important resource in many parts of the region. WRC monitoring
has revealed increasing levels of nitrate in some areas27 e.g. Matamata.
The Waitomo area28 also offers a multitude of recreational sightseeing and tourist
attractions. Springs are highly valued in several areas. Much of New Zealand’s bottled water
comes from the Blue Springs in Putaruru.
An extensive network of drainage canals exists especially on the Hauraki plains
The region includes several important lagoons e.g. the Raglan (Whaingaroa) Harbour is a
tidal lagoon and drowned river valley.
Reservoirs for provision of domestic and industrial water supply appear to be relatively less
important e.g. compared to Europe. It should be noted that we have some data on
hydroelectric reservoirs – namely Lakes Karapiro and Arapuni.
In addition, the Māori people have significant and historic sites in the region, outlined in section 6.1
and reproduced here as follows:
According to NIWA (2010, p. 41) there are 66 significant and historic sites in Waipa
district, 41 in Waikato district and 40 in Hamilton city. However, “Location-specific
information is regarded as private, held by the iwi themselves…” Nonetheless, some
examples of significant sites have been identified such as Te Toke Marae, Okakuki Stream,
Waikarakia Stream and Nga Makawe O Hinengawari.
26 http://www.doc.govt.nz/conservation/land-and-freshwater/wetlands/wetlands-by-region/waikato/
27
http://www.waikatoregion.govt.nz/PageFiles/10480/Soil%20and%20water%20issues.pdf 28
http://www.waitomo.com/about-waitomo.aspx
Marsh & Mkwara. Review of Freshwater NMV Studies, August 2013 Page 53
10. The Scope for Benefit Transfer
An introduction to the key issues
Benefit transfer is the term used to describe the transfer of information from completed studies in
one location to another location. Benefit transfer is generally applied in cases were primary studies
cannot be undertaken due to time and financial constraints. Some authors (for example Kerr, below)
use the term value transfer since this covers the transfer of both costs and benefits.
As required in the ‘statement of requirements’, we have conducted a review of recreation value
studies relating to water bodies internationally and in New Zealand (Chapters 6-8) and assessed
similarities to water bodies in the Waikato (Chapter 9) with the aim of determining which values are
suitable for benefit transfer (Chapter 10).
The benefit transfer approach has been promoted as a cost effective means of obtaining non-market
values for sites were values are unknown from existing primary studies. However, it is important to
note that the use of benefit transfer remains a highly contested issue, with regards to the validity
and accuracy of the value estimates obtained. Use of benefit transfer to obtain reasonably accurate
value estimates requires that several demanding conditions are met. Since in practice these
conditions are rarely met, estimates based on benefit transfer are often subject to large transfer
errors which may limit the usefulness of results (Spash & Vatn, 2006).
Geoff Kerr was invited to provide a paper on “the New Zealand perspective on benefit transfer” in a
special session on benefit transfer at the Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society
Conference in Melbourne in 2011. The purpose of this paper was “to identify what value transfer has
occurred, consider the conditions necessary for environmental value transfer studies to occur, and
to speculate upon future prospects”. This paper provides an excellent summary on the use of benefit
transfer and is consistent with the views of many environmental and resource economists in New
Zealand. Rather than attempting to paraphrase this paper, key sections are reproduced below
starting with a review of applications and developments in value transfer (Box 10.1).
Marsh & Mkwara. Review of Freshwater NMV Studies, August 2013 Page 54
Applications and developments of value transfer have become prominent in the economics literature.
Google Scholar indicates a rapid increase in the number of studies containing the terms “benefit
transfer” and “value transfer” from slow beginnings in the early 1990s to about 300-500 studies per
year recently (Figure 1).
Figure 1: Google Scholar frequencies.
State of the art assessments of value transfer have occurred in two academic journal special issues
(Water Resources Research, Volume 28(3), 1992; Ecological Economics, Volume 60(2), 2006).
Assessments of the state of the art, alternative approaches to value transfer, value transfer reliability
and conditions that improve quality of value transfers are provided in books by Ready & Navrud (2007)
and Rolfe & Bennett (2006), book chapters by Vandenberg et al. (2001) and Rosenberger & Loomis
(2003) and journal articles (e.g. Boyle et al., 2009; Brouwer & Spaninks, 1999; Kristofersson & Navrud,
2005; Plummer, 2009; Rosenberger & Johnston, 2009; Stapler & Johnston, 2009; Johnston &
Rosenberger, 2010). Nelson & Kennedy (2009) provide guidance on procedures for undertaking quality
meta-analysis value transfers.
Environmental value transfer offers the prospect of rapid and relatively inexpensive information for
informing management decisions. However, despite over thirty years of non-market valuation
experience in New Zealand, resulting in about 140 original studies (Kerr, undated), there has been very
little environmental value transfer. The purpose of this paper is to identify what value transfer has
occurred, consider the conditions necessary for environmental value transfer studies to occur, and to
speculate upon future prospects.
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
19
92
19
93
19
94
19
95
19
96
19
97
19
98
19
99
20
00
20
01
20
02
20
03
20
04
20
05
20
06
20
07
20
08
20
09
20
10
Nu
mb
er
of
ite
ms
Benefit Transfer Value Transfer
Box 10.1: Applications, developments and the state of the art
Reproduced from Kerr (2011), bold has been added.
Marsh & Mkwara. Review of Freshwater NMV Studies, August 2013 Page 55
Value transfer in New Zealand
Geoff Kerr’s paper also provides a comprehensive summary of New Zealand environmental value
transfer studies reproduced below in box 10.2.
Box 10.2: New Zealand environmental value transfer studies
Reproduced from Kerr (2011)
Reference Topic Commissioned by
Ball et al. (1995) Outdoor recreation: Auckland Regional Council parks
Auckland Regional Council
Cole & Patterson (1997) Patterson & Cole (1999b)
Ecosystem services: NZ Department of Conservation & Ministry for the Environment
Patterson & Cole (1999a) Ecosystem services: Waikato Environment Waikato
Kaval et al. (2003) Outdoor recreation, ecosystem services: Te Kouma Farm Park
Environment Waikato
Kaval (2004) Outdoor recreation, ecosystem services: Maungatautari Ecological Island
Author
Kerr (2004a) River recreation: Waitaki River Meridian Energy Limited
Kerr (2004b) New Zealand existence values Meridian Energy Limited
Sharp & Kerr (2005) Option and existence values: Waitaki catchment
Ministry for the Environment
Yao & Kaval (2007) Outdoor recreation - generic Authors
Kerr (2009) River recreation: Lower Waitaki River Meridian Energy Limited
Bell et al. (2009) Biosecurity Foundation of Research, Science and Technology
Kerr & Woods (2010) Big game hunting: Generic Authors, Game and Forest Foundation
Marsh & Mkwara. Review of Freshwater NMV Studies, August 2013 Page 56
In reviewing the New Zealand studies outlined above, Kerr provided the following commentary.
Box 10.3: Commentary on the New Zealand Benefit Transfer Literature
Reproduced from Kerr (2011)
Another more recent example of value transfer is provided by Marsh (2012) who used various New
Zealand sources to estimate the minimum compensation that residents of the Manawatu-Wanganui
region would be willing to accept before they would agree to continued deterioration in water
quality in that region. It should be noted that this exercise involved the estimation of relevant
‘orders of magnitude’ rather than a formal exercise in value transfer. This exercise allowed some
conclusions to be drawn about the costs and benefits of alternative future scenarios for water
quality in the Manawatu-Wanganui region.
Ball et al. (1995) was a response to Local Government Amendment Act (1994 – since repealed)
requirements for councils to justify investments in public facilities. The study transferred United
States outdoor recreation values to indicate the likely magnitude of recreation benefits obtained
from the Auckland Regional Parks network. The values derived were remarkably similar to a
contingent valuation study of Wellington Regional Parks undertaken for the same purpose (Kerr,
1996).
The Patterson & Cole studies transferred ecosystem service values based on methods and values
developed by Costanza et al. (1997), supplemented with local information. Kaval et al. (2003) and
Kaval (2004) subsequently transferred Patterson & Cole (1999a) values, in addition to making
unit transfer estimates of recreation values based on both New Zealand and United States data.
Yao & Kaval (2007) undertook unit transfer of New Zealand recreation values. Kerr & Woods
(2010) was an academic research project that made unit and meta-transfers of 467 international
big game hunting studies.
Several studies have addressed values associated with the Waitaki River system. Meridian Energy
Limited explorations of the impacts of hydro-electricity generation prompted assessments of
recreation benefits (Kerr, 2004a) and existence and option values (Kerr, 2004b) that were
potentially affected by Project Aqua. Subsequent government investigations of broader water
allocation issues in the Waitaki catchment sought guidance on option and existence values
(Sharp and Kerr, 2005). Kerr (2009) presented evidence in the Environment Court on transferred
New Zealand recreational fishing values in order to evaluate potential impacts of Meridian
Energy Limited’s proposed North Bank Tunnel project.
Bell et al. (2009) has resulted in a rapid evaluation tool for assessment of the value of
intervention in biodiversity incursions. It is the result of a long term research project that was
designed to facilitate value transfer, but also derived estimates of source values for the process.
With only twelve cases over 15 years, particularly as three of those were author initiated, value
transfer has not taken a significant role in environmental policy, plan or project evaluation. Given
the oft-cited ease and low cost of application, and the frequency with which value transfer is
undertaken elsewhere, this is a surprising result. The reasons for such low adoption are worth
investigation.
Marsh & Mkwara. Review of Freshwater NMV Studies, August 2013 Page 57
Constraints and requirements for value transfer
Geoff Kerr (2011) also discussed the lack of quality New Zealand studies suitable for value transfer
and other factors that are likely to impede increased use of value transfer in the future.
Box 10.4: Constraints on increased use of value transfer in New Zealand
Reproduced from Kerr (2011).
The criteria that must be met for reasonably accurate benefit transfer have been well established in
the literature for many years. Specifically, the primary studies should be based on adequate data,
sound economic method and correct empirical techniques (Freeman, 1984). Some empirical studies
Many of the studies in the Database do not provide adequate information to permit quality value
transfer. Missing data can include such basic items as who was sampled, when the study was
undertaken, the unit of valuation (household/individual), the time period values relate to and
how the data were collected. After environmental attribute and data suitability filters have been
applied more studies are likely to be rejected because of poor quality design, execution or
analysis. Most travel cost analyses estimate the value of the current experience, so they are not
suitable for estimation of values of changes not entailing complete loss. Similarly, contingent
valuation studies address specific change scenarios, limiting their use for valuing different types
of change. Taking all these factors into account, it is extremely difficult to find quality New
Zealand source studies suitable for value transfer. The alternative is adoption of studies
undertaken in other countries. A prime tool in this respect is the EVRI database (EVRI, undated).
International transfer of values raises additional problems related to currency conversion,
income differences and cultural context, but these appear to be minor in terms of overall
reliability of value transfer (Ready & Navrud, 2006; Kristoferson & Navrud, 2007; Lindhjem &
Navrud, 2008)…
New Zealand is currently in a position where cost benefit analysis is permitted, but is not
required. We are a considerable distance from acceptance of non-market valuation and value
transfer in the legal context. While at least one judge has accepted and encouraged non-market
valuation, that is not a universal position. The weight that would be given by the courts to
evaluations relying on transferred values is unclear. The returns to investment in value transfer,
both for those wanting to use them to support their position and for potential suppliers, are far
from certain…
To summarise the state of the market; there is no legal endorsement for either cost benefit
analysis or non-market valuation. Consequently, demand for non-market value estimates,
including those made by value transfer, is negligible. Demand issues are compounded by lack of
information about value transfer for potential users. Investment in value transfer skills is unlikely
with such a small market. Source data in local studies is sparse and not always of high quality,
but access to EVRI overcomes many of the problems raised by reliance on local data…
Marsh & Mkwara. Review of Freshwater NMV Studies, August 2013 Page 58
have shown that errors in benefit transfer tend to decrease as number of primary studies used in
meta-analysis function transfer29 increase (for example, Rosenberger & Loomis, 2000).
In addition to the need for high quality primary studies, other widely accepted criteria for valid
benefit transfer reported by Desvousges et al (1992) include; the basic commodities to be valued
must be essentially equivalent; the baseline and extent of change should be similar and the affected
populations should be similar.
These benefit transfer criteria are also highlighted in the US EPA (2000) guidelines for economic
analyses. In New Zealand, Sharp & Kerr (2005) emphasize that careful consideration should be given
to matching environments, users and proposed changes as closely as possible. A useful summary is
provided by Boyle et al (2009, p. 2) who states “Key issues in establishing the credibility of any
benefit transfer include the definition of value, the quality of the original studies, and the need to
address differences in environmental quality and consumer characteristics between the original
study and new policy applications”. Benefit transfer criteria are discussed in more detail below.
The commodity to be valued should be equivalent
This criterion implies that the non-market good to be valued should be the same both at the primary
study and policy site. In the context of this report, the commodity to be valued is the change in non-
market values of freshwater that would result from the impact of different central and regional
government water quality policies. In addition, the types of freshwater recreational activities in the
Waikato Region should be same as those for the transfer source. Equivalence in the good to be
valued is a necessary but insufficient condition for valid benefit transfer estimates since accuracy of
the non-market values also depends on the similarities in environmental conditions and
demographic characteristics at the primary and policy site.
The baseline and extent of change should be similar
Accurate benefit transfer requires that information on the current level of site quality at the policy
site called the baseline should be similar to that of the primary studies. In the context of this report,
site quality may include measures of environmental quality such water quality and how changes in
water quality impact upon recreational values. Furthermore, benefit transfer is easier to apply if the
quality characteristics at the primary site are described in terms of more objective policy relevant
quantitative measures. For instance, water visibility at the primary site measured in metres as
opposed to whether or not one can see the bottom makes the use of benefit transfer more
meaningful and easier to apply. In addition to similarity in baseline conditions, the extent of the
change from the baseline condition to some predetermined level should be similar between the
primary and policy site. Loomis & Rosenberger (2006) points out that many water quality regulations
and land management actions tend to have small effects generally in the ranges of 5-10%. Primary
studies which assume relatively high changes from baseline conditions may lead to unrealistic value
estimates.
29 Meta-analysis function transfer is discussed below under ‘Methods for identification of appropriate values
for benefit transfer’.
Marsh & Mkwara. Review of Freshwater NMV Studies, August 2013 Page 59
Similarity in the affected populations
Valid benefit transfer also requires that the affected populations between the primary and policy
site be similar in a number of dimensions including size of the area both in size and population, and
demographic characteristics. For example, the recreational value of a lake in a city with millions of
people compared to a rural area with fewer populations is expected to be different. Further
consistent definitions and measures of relevant demographic variables for the policy site should
match what is available from primary sources.
In addition valid benefit transfer can be affected by factors such as respondent's attitudes, beliefs
perceptions and cultural norms. In general there is a consensus that benefit transfer accuracy is
improved when both primary and policy sites share common experiences and attitudes. Loomis &
Rosenberger (2006, p. 345) state “not all important characteristics of a value transfer are associated
with objectively measured attributes of sites; sometimes the latent variables, such as the attitudes,
beliefs and perceptions of respondents, are important to minimizing errors”. They further highlight
the difficulty of obtained detailed information on attitudes and other latent variables. Even if such
information is reported, differences in attitudinal scales used across different studies limit the
usability of such data in benefit transfer.
Methods for identification of appropriate values for benefit transfer
The appropriateness (or otherwise) of use of benefit transfer depends mainly on:-
The extent to which benefit transfer criteria can be met;
The intended purpose of the transferred value and the degree of accuracy likely to be
required for this purpose;
The cost of the benefit transfer exercise, compared to the cost of a new primary data
collection exercise30; and
The attitude of decision makers to economic approaches to assessment of non-market
values and to benefit transfer in particular.
Assuming that transfer criteria can be met, the intended purpose is appropriate, the degree of
accuracy required is not too high, that benefit transfer will be more cost effective than primary data
collection and that decision makers will find values from benefit transfer useful, then some general
statements can be made about the values which it may be appropriate to transfer. These will vary
depending on the value transfer method which it is intended to employ.
Mean value transfer method
The simplest approach, often referred to as mean value transfer31 may be appropriate provided that
the context for the source and policy good are highly similar and a high degree of accuracy is not
required. For example, it may be reasonable to assume that there will be a degree of similarity
between the preferences for better water quality in two similar provincial cities which are
30 On line surveys and developments in choice analysis and efficient design have considerable reduced the cost
of primary data collection compared to the 1990s when value transfer was first promoted. 31
Mean value transfer generally refers to the direct transfer of mean values from one location to another.
Marsh & Mkwara. Review of Freshwater NMV Studies, August 2013 Page 60
intersected by a significant river – namely Hamilton and Palmerston North, especially given a
number of other similarities between these two cities.
Even this approach should be undertaken with considerable care as demonstrated by Kerr and Sharp
(2003). The authors applied a choice model to two different communities in Auckland “to identify
the values people place on stream attributes and to identify the types and scale of mitigation
necessary to offset environmental damages. Tests of benefit transfer between the two communities
identify significant, unexplainable differences in values for the same environmental changes.”
Meta-analysis method
Given the shortage of primary data on fresh water values in New Zealand, there are likely to be few
situations where mean value transfer can be applied with any accuracy. In such circumstances, one
approach would be to conduct:
A meta-analysis of results from previous studies, relating values to the characteristics
of those studies and the goods and contexts valued. Such an analysis typically yields a
regression model linking values to the characteristics captured in the available source
data … for example, Brander et al. (2006) conducted a meta-analysis of over 190
wetland valuation studies to determine the significant determinants of value
(Bateman et al., 2011).
Again the constraints faced by New Zealand become obvious – there are not have enough studies of
any non-market value to enable a worthwhile meta-analysis to be conducted.
International transfer method
The use of benefit transfer in an international context should be undertaken with considerable
caution due to large potential errors emanating from a number of sources including differences in
attitudinal and social economic demographic factors. Kristofersson & Navrud (2004) tested if non-
market values can be transferred internationally using primary samples drawn from three (relatively
similar) countries Iceland, Norway and Sweden while controlling for context and methodological
issues. The authors found a very high transfer error between Iceland and both Sweden and Norway.
In the case of river fishing, the transfer error from Sweden to Iceland was -76%, while the transfer
error from Sweden to Norway was -9%. For lake fishing, the transfer errors from Iceland to Norway
and Sweden were 186%, and 236%, respectively. In general errors in the range of 25 - 40% are
considered acceptable, although the accuracy required will depend on usage. Given the lack of any
other country that has much similarity with New Zealand, it can be concluded that international
benefit transfer should only be undertaken with extreme caution.
Bateman, et al. (2009) used a common design for valuing water quality change applied across five
highly heterogeneous European countries, the United Kingdom, Denmark, Belgium and Norway. The
mean WTP values by countries reflected income constraints across countries. For instance, as the
mean WTP for a small and a large improvement in Lithuania was estimated at €6 and €8,
respectively; whereas in Belgium, the mean WTP for a small and a large improvement in water
quality is estimated at €47 and €48, respectively. Bateman was somewhat more optimistic on the
possibility of value transfer, after achieving a reduction in transfer error from 116% to 38% using
theory driven value functions (compared to a univariate/mean value transfer method).
Marsh & Mkwara. Review of Freshwater NMV Studies, August 2013 Page 61
Estimation of spatially explicit value functions
Another approach described by Bateman et al., appears much more relevant for the New Zealand
context provided sufficient resources can be made available. This approach would require the
commissioning of a significant new research exercise but could enable more effective value transfer
in the future. Details are provided in Box 5 below.
Box 10.5: Estimation of a spatially explicit value function
Reproduced from Bateman et al., (2011)
Work of along these lines has been carried out by Lena Mkwara for the Rotorua Lakes whereby a
value function has been constructed using revealed preference data on the preferences of anglers
for water quality (and other key drivers of angler behaviour). This enables estimation of the benefits
that would be obtained from improved water quality in the different lakes in the Rotorua area (Lena
Mkwara & Dan Marsh, 2011).
Summary - identification of appropriate values for transfer
Summarising the discussion above:-
Values can sometimes be transferred directly provided a high degree of accuracy is not
required, transfer criteria are met and the source and policy good are known to be highly
similar.
Values can be transferred to somewhat different sites provided a meta-analysis has been
conducted to provide a good understanding of the drivers of value, sufficient data is
available to make the necessary adjustments and adjustments are not carried out beyond
the range of values encompassed by the meta-analysis.
Values may be transferred in the future if work is commissioned to enable estimation of
spatially explicit value functions in New Zealand.
Marsh & Mkwara. Review of Freshwater NMV Studies, August 2013 Page 62
International estimates of recreational value should generally not be transferred to New
Zealand.
None of the values included in our review are suitable for transfer to assess the impact of
different central and regional government water quality policies on non-market values in the
Waikato.
Nonetheless the overseas literature provides much valuable analysis and description that can enable
a better understanding of the New Zealand context. It may also provide guidance on methods for
non-market valuation, the range of values across different countries and the general magnitude of
values that may be expected (provided always that the two contexts are sufficiently similar).
Marsh & Mkwara. Review of Freshwater NMV Studies, August 2013 Page 63
11. Knowledge Gaps and Priorities for Further Work
Knowledge Gaps
There are major gaps in our knowledge of the non-market value of freshwater resources in New
Zealand and in the Waikato region. In particular:
1. There is no non-market valuation data for the Waikato region relating to rivers (except in the
form of hydro lakes32), wetlands, groundwater, springs, drainage canals, lagoons or
reservoirs.
2. There is no Waikato data on Māori non-market values of fresh water sites of significance to
the Māori people.
3. There is only very limited Waikato data on non-market values associated with recreation and
amenity (mainly limited to swimming and rowing).
4. There is limited Waikato data on non-market values associated with landscape, access &
facilities.
5. There is no Waikato data on non-market values associated with water quantity, research &
education, food gathering, pollution flood & erosion control or water & climate regulation.
A survey on the recreational and cultural use of freshwater in the Waikato has been designed and
peer reviewed under the Waikato region joint venture non-market value study. Data obtained from
this survey should make a valuable contribution to reducing knowledge gaps under items 1 to 4
above.
Level of Aggregation
In deciding on priorities for further data collection and analysis, decisions need to be made about
the appropriate level of aggregation. Variables can be estimated at different aggregation levels both
across space and across values or attributes. For example we may estimate the willingness to pay of
Waikato region residents for an improvement to a safe swimmable standard across all freshwater
bodies in the region, or may make separate estimates for individual water bodies or separate
stretches of a river. Likewise we may estimate overall willingness to pay for satisfactory water
quality (for particular sites), or we may attempt to make separate estimates of the components of
value which contribute to overall willingness to pay for water quality (for example recreation,
ecosystem services, cultural etc).
Combining individual estimates into an aggregate value is not straightforward. For example people
may be willing to pay $50 per year for improved water quality in one river but we cannot say that
they would be willing to pay $500 per year for improved water quality in ten rivers. Likewise point
estimates of willingness to pay for change in specific attributes cannot be simply added up to
estimate the overall benefit of a policy across several attributes. There is a large and sometimes
complex literature on this topic (Bateman, Day, Georgiou, & Lake, 2006; Borghi, 2008; Morrison,
2000).
32 and some data for the Tongariro river.
Marsh & Mkwara. Review of Freshwater NMV Studies, August 2013 Page 64
When resources are limited and policy decisions will affect overall water quality then non-market
valuation studies at higher levels of aggregation are likely to be more cost effective. An example of
data collection at this higher level of aggregation is provided by the current survey on recreational
and cultural use of freshwater in the Waikato. Data on visits made to different sites should enable
estimates to be made of overall willingness to pay to visit specific water bodies using the travel cost
method. There is likely to be only limited scope to assess the separate components of value. A major
study completed for the Irish Environmental Protection Agency (Norton et al., 2012) provides
another useful illustration of this aggregate approach, whereby the Irish Environmental Protection
Agency was interested in assessing the costs and benefits from achieving ‘good ecological status’
across various catchments.
Priorities for further data collection and analysis
Establishment of priorities for further analysis must take account of the policy context and the needs
of policy makers. In several countries non-market valuation has made important contributions to
policy formation. A recent example is provided by economic analysis for the United Kingdom’s
national ecosystem assessment exercise which led to a government new white paper. This work was
led by Professor Ian Bateman who visited the Waikato recently33 and holds the role of Adjunct
Professor in the Department of Economics at the University of Waikato.
However, in New Zealand a leading authority in the field recently concluded that “there is no legal
endorsement for either cost benefit analysis or non-market valuation. Consequently, demand for
non-market value estimates, including those made by value transfer, is negligible” (Kerr, 2011). On
the other hand, we note that the Waikato Regional Council has played a leading role in promoting
the use of economics in environmental decision making. We also understand that government
intends to strengthen the role of economic analysis in the RMA and hope that this may allow scope
for increased utilisation of non-market valuation methods.
Some evidence of an intention to make more use of non-market valuation methods is provide by the
commissioning of this report by the Ministry for Primary Industries, Ministry for the Environment
and Department of Conservation under the ‘Economic Impact Joint Venture Studies’ (EIJVS) project
which aims to provide economic analysis to support central government decision making on
environmental limit setting and allocation and to work with regional councils to develop economic
analysis on the economic, environmental, social and cultural trade-offs in managing water quality
and quantity.
Subject to the above remarks and based on our assessment of the policy context we suggest the
following priorities for further work.
We suggest the following priorities for further work.
1. Identification of the specific aspects of decision making on water quality limits where non-
market valuation data is most likely to be used. This will require consultation with Waikato
Regional Council and the Ministry for the Environment as well as other stakeholders.
33 May 2013
Marsh & Mkwara. Review of Freshwater NMV Studies, August 2013 Page 65
2. Primary research to enable calibration of spatially explicit value functions as proposed by
Bateman (see Chapter 10). These value functions can be used for value transfer provided the
items to be valued are estimated by the function and required data is available for the site
to which values are to be transferred. Research aimed at estimation of value functions can
make use of the data that will be collected under the planned survey on the recreational and
cultural use of freshwater in the Waikato. However this survey will not provide data for all of
the required variables so it will be important to ensure that data that may be collected in
any follow on survey takes account of data requirements for value function estimation.
3. Conditional on item 1 (above) priority should be given to filling some of the major gaps
identified above and including:
a. Assessment of non-market value by visitors from outside the Waikato e.g. tourists
visiting Lake Taupo and Waitomo, spectators at major events, recreational users of
Lakes.
b. Assessment of non-market values in categories for which we have little or no data
e.g. recreation, water quantity and other values detailed above.
c. Assessment of non-market values for water body types for which we have little or
no data, e.g. rivers, wetlands, groundwater etc.
d. It should be noted that some of these gaps will be reduced by the current (2013)
survey on recreational and cultural use of freshwater in the Waikato.
4. Given the large gaps in our knowledge, and the potential difficulties in estimating overall
benefits from disaggregated non-market or ecosystem values, we propose that priority is
given to research into aggregate values (using revealed preference data) or broad categories
of values (using choice analysis).
Marsh & Mkwara. Review of Freshwater NMV Studies, August 2013 Page 66
12. References
Alberini, A., & Zannatta, V. (2007). Combining actual and contingent behaviour to estimate the value
of sports fishing in the Lagoon of Venice. Ecological Economics, 61(2-3), 530-541. Amigues, J., Boulatoff, C., Desaigues, B., Gauthier, C., & Keith, J. (2002). The benefits and costs of
riparian analysis habitat preservation: A willingness to accept/willingness to pay contingent valuation approach. Ecological Economics, 43, 17-31.
Andersen, M. D., Kerr, G. N., & Lambert, S. (2012a). Cultural differences in environmental valuation. Paper presented at the Paper presented at the 2012 NZARES Conference, Tahuna Conference Centre – Nelson, New Zealand. August 30-31, 2012.
Andersen, M. D., Kerr, G. N., & Lambert, S. (2012b). Cultural differences in environmental valuation. Paper presented at the the 2012 NZARES Conference, Tahuna Conference Centre – Nelson, New Zealand.
Anderson, A., Bauer, B., Deller, S., Korth, R., Marcouiller, D., & Shepard, R. (1999). Water Issues in Wisconsin - The economic value of water: An introduction (G3698-1).
ANZECC & ARMCANZ. (2000). National Water Quality Management Strategy: An introduction to the Australian and New Zealand guidelines for fresh and marine water quality: ANZECC & ARMCANZ, Australia.
Awatere, S. (2005). Can non-market valuation measure indigenous knowledge? Paper presented at the Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society 2005 Conference (49th), February 9-11 Coff's Harbour, Australia.
Awatere, S. (2008). The price of Mauri: Exploring the validity of Welfare Economics when seeking to measure Mātauranga Māori. PhD, University of Waikato.
Awondo, S. N., Egan, K. J., & Dwyer, D. F. (2011). Increasing beach recreation benefits by using wetlands to reduce contamination. Marine Resource Economics, 26, 1-15.
Baskaran, R., Cullen, R., & Colombo, S. (2009). Estimating values of environmental impacts of dairy farming in New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Agricultural Research 54(4), 377-389.
Bateman, I., Brouwer, R., Ferrini, S., & Schaafsma, M. (2009). Guidelines for designing and implementing transferable non-market valuation studies: A multi-country study of open-access water quality improvements. Paper presented at the European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Bateman, I. J., Cole, M. A., Georgiou, S., & Hadley, D. J. (2006). Comparing contingent valuation and contingent ranking: A case study considering the benefits of urban river water quality improvements. Journal of Environmental Management 79, 221-231.
Bateman, I. J., Cooper, P., Georgiou, S., Navrud, S., Poe, G. L., Ready, R. C., . . . Vossler, C. A. (2005). Economic valuation of policies for managing acidity in remote mountain lakes: Examining validity through scope sensitivity testing. Aquatic Science, 67, 274-291.
Bateman, I. J., Day, B. H., Georgiou, S., & Lake, I. (2006). The aggregation of environmental benefit values: Welfare measures, distance decay and total WTP. Ecological Economics, 60(2), 450-460.
Bateman, I. J., Mace, G. M., Fezzi, C., Atkinson, G., & Turner, K. (2011). Economic analysis for ecosystem service assessments. Environ Resource Economics 48, 177–218. doi: DOI 10.1007/s10640-010-9418-x
Bell, B., Sinner, J., Phillips, Y., Yap, M., Scarpa, R., Batstone, C., & Marsh, D. (2012). Valuing Our Waters Mixed signals: stated preferences for future states of 3 NZ rivers. Paper presented at the AARES Annual Conference, Perth, February 10.
Bell, B., & Yap, M. (2004). The Rotorua Lakes: Evaluation of less tangible values. Nimmo-Bell & Company Ltd, Wellington: Environment Bay of Plenty.
Bell, B., Yap, M., & Cudby, C. (2009). Valuing indigenous biodiversity in the freshwater environment. Paper presented at the 2009 NZARES Conference. , Nelson, New Zealand.
Marsh & Mkwara. Review of Freshwater NMV Studies, August 2013 Page 67
Bennett, J. W., Dumsday, R., Howell, G., Lloyd, C., Sturgess, N., & Van Raalte, L. (2008). The economic value of improved environmental health in Victorian rivers. Australasian Journal of Environmental Management, 15(3), 138-148.
Beville, S., & Kerr, G. N. (2008). Fishing for understanding: A mixed logit model of freshwater angler preferences. Paper presented at the New Zealand Agricultural and Resource Economic Society conference, Nelson.
Beville, S. T., Kerr, G. N., & Hughey, K. F. D. (2012). Valuing impacts of the invasive alga Didymosphenia geminata on recreational angling. Ecological Economics, 82(0), 1-10. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.08.004
Birol, E., Karousakis, K., & Koundouri, P. (2006). Using economic valuation techniques to inform water resources management: A survey and critical appraisal of available techniques and an application. Science of the Total Environment, 365(1-3), 105-122. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2006.02.032
Black, A., Colombo, S., Hanley, N., Tinch, D., Aftab, A., & Bergmann, A. (2006). Transferring the benefits of water quality enhancements in small catchments. Paper presented at the International Association of Agricultural Economists Conference, Gold Coast, Australia.
Blamey, R. K., Bennett, J. W., & Morrison, M. D. (1999). Yea-saying in contingent valuation surveys. Land Economics, 75(1), 126-141.
Bliem, M., Getzner, M., & Rodiga-Laßnig, P. (2012). Temporal stability of individual preferences for river restoration in Austria using a choice experiment. Journal of Environmental Management, 103(0), 65-73. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.02.029
Borghi, J. (2008). Aggregation Rules for Cost-Benefit Analysis: A Health Economics Perspective. Health Economics, 17, 863-875. doi: 10.1002/hec.1304
Boyle, K. J., Kuminoff, N. V., Parmeter, C. F., & Pope, J. C. (2009). Using meta-analysis for benefits transfer: Theory and practice. Paper presented at the AAEA annual meeting in Milwaukee, WI.
Brouwer, R., & Bateman, I. J. (2005). Temporal Stability and Transferability of Models of Willingness to Pay for Flood Control and Wetland Conservation. Water Resources Research, 41(3), W03017.
Buckley, C., Hynes, S., & Mechan, S. (2012). Supply of an ecosystem service—Farmers’ willingness to adopt riparian buffer zones in agricultural catchments. Environmental Science & Policy 24, 101-109.
Campbell, D., Hutchinson, W. G., & Scarpa, R. (2008). Incorporating discontinuous preferences into the analysis of discrete choice experiments. Environmental and Resource Economics, 41(3), 401-417.
Carr, G. M., & Rickwood, C. J. (2008). Water quality index for biodiversity technical development document. UNEP GEMS/Water Programme, Gatineau,CANADA: Prepared for Biodiversity Indicators Partnership: World Conservation Monitoring Center.
Cavailhès, J., T. , Brossard, M., Hilal, D., Joly, P., C., T., P., T. a., & Wavresky. (2007). The price of peri-urban landscapes. Rural Economy, 297-298, 71-84.
Cho, S., Bowker, J. M., & Park, W. M. (2006). Measuring the contribution of water and green space amenities to housing values: An application and comparison of spatially-weighted hedonic models. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 31(3), 485-507.
Christie, M., & Rayment, M. (2012). An economic assessment of the ecosystem service benefits derived from the SSSI Biodiversity Conservation Policy in England and Wales. Ecosystem Services 1, 70–84.
Collins, A. R., & Rosenberger, R. S. (2007). Protest adjustments in the valuation of watershed restoration using payment card data. Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, 36(2), 321-335.
Marsh & Mkwara. Review of Freshwater NMV Studies, August 2013 Page 68
Colombo, S., Calatrava-Requena, J., & Hanley, N. (2007). Testing choice experiment for benefit transfer with preference heterogeneity. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 89(1), 135-151.
Connelly, N. A., Brown, T. L., & Brown, J. W. (2007). Measuring the net economic value of recreational boating as water levels fluctuate. Journal of American Water Resources Association, 43(4), 1016-1023.
Crase, L., & Gillepsie, R. (2008). The impact of water quality and water level on the recreation values of Lake Hume. Australasian Journal of Environmental Management, 15(1), 21-29.
Cullen, R., Hughey, K., & Kerr, G. (2006). New Zealand freshwater management and agriculture impacts. The Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 50, 327-346.
Del Saz-Salazar, S., Hernandez-Sancho, F., & Sala-Garrido, R. (2009). The social benefits of restoring water quality in the context of the water framework directive: A comparison of willingness to pay and willingness to accept. Science of the Total Environment, 407, 4574-4583.
Department of Sustainability Environment Water Population and Communities. (2001). Australia State of the Environment Report 2001 fact sheet Retrieved 5 July, 2013, from http://www.environment.gov.au/soe/2001/publications/fact-sheets/salinity.html
Desvouges, W. H., Smith, V. K., & Fisher, A. (1987). Option price estimates for water quality improvements: A contingent valuation study for the Monongahela River. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 14, 248-267.
Desvousges, W. H., Naughton, M. C., & Parsons, G. R. (1992). Benefit transfer: conceptual problems in estimating water quality benefits using existing studies. Water Resources. Research, 28(3), 675-683.
Egan, K. J., Herriges, J. A., Kling, C. L., & Downing, J. A. (2009). Valuing water quality as a function of water quality measures. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 91(1), 106-123. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8276.2008.01182.x
Environment Waikato. (2007). Waikato Regional Policy Statement. Environment Waikato Policy Series 2000/30. Hamilton: Environment Waikato Regional Council.
EPI. (2012). Environmental Performance Index rankings Retrieved 3 July, 2013, from http://www.epi.yale.edu/epi2012/rankings
European Commission. (2013). Environment Retrieved 22 June, 2013, from http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/info/intro_en.htm
Freeman, A. M. (1984). On the tactics of benefit estimation under Executive Order 12291. In V. K. Smith (Ed.), Environmental Policy Under Reagan's Executive Order: The Role of Benefit–Cost Analysis. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC.
Galloway, S. (2008). New Zealand recreational river use study: specialization, motivation and site preference: School of Physical Education, University of Otago, New Zealand.
Garrod, G., & Willis, K. G. (1998). "Using contingent ranking to estimate the loss of amenity value for Inland Waterways from public utility structures". Environmental and Resource Economics 12(241-247).
Garrod, G. D., & Willis, K. G. (1996). Estimating the benefits of environmental enhancement: A case study of the River Darent. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 39(2), 189-203.
Geck, E. (2012). Valuing Hamilton City’s urban ecological restoration using choice experiments. Masters of Management Studies, University of Waikato.
Glenk, K., Lago, M., & Moran, D. (2011). Public references for water quality improvements: Implications for the implementation of the EC Water Framework Directive in Scotland. Water Policy, 13, 645-662.
Grossmann, M. (2011). Impacts of boating trip limitations on the recreational value of the Spreewald wetland: A pooled revealed/contingent behaviour application of the travel cost method. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 54(2), 211-226.
Marsh & Mkwara. Review of Freshwater NMV Studies, August 2013 Page 69
Hanley, N., Colombo, S., Tinch, D., Black, A., & Aftab, A. (2006). Estimating the benefits of water quality improvements under the Water Framework Directive: are benefits transferable? European Review of Agricultural Economics, 33(3), 391-413. doi: 10.1093/erae/jb1019
Hein, L., van Koppen, K., de Groot, R. S., & van Lerland, E. C. (2006). Spatial scales, stakeholders and valuation of ecosystem services. Ecological Economics, 57(2), 209.
Hicks, B. J., Allen, D. J., Kilgour, J. T., Matene-Rawiri, E. M., Stichbury, G. A., & Walsh, C. (2013). Fishing activities in Waikato and Waipa Rivers. ERI Report Number 7: Prepared for the Ministry of Primary Industries.
Hodgkinson, A., & Valadkhani, A. (2009). Community valuations of environmental quality in coastal lakes: Lake Illawarra case study. Economics Working Paper Series 09-03. University of Wollongong, Wollongong.
Huth, W. L., & Morgan, O. A. (2011). Measuring the Willingness to Pay for Cave Diving. Marine Resource Economics, 26(2), 151-166. doi: 10.5950/0738-1360-26.2.151
Hynes, S., & Hanley, N. (2006). Preservation versus development on Irish rivers: Whitewater kayaking and hydro-power in Ireland. Land Use Policy 23, 170-180.
Jenkins, W. A., Murray, B. C., Kramer, R. A., & Faulkner, S. P. (2010). Valuing ecosystem services from wetlands restoration in the Mississippi Alluvial Valley. Ecological Economics, 69(5), 1051-1061. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.11.022
Johnstone, C., & Markandya, A. (2006). Valuing river characteristics using combined site choice and participation travel cost models. Journal of Environmental Management 80, 237-247.
Kataria, M. (2009). Willingness to pay for environmental improvements in hydropower regulated rivers. Energy Economics, 31, 69-76.
Kataria, M., Bateman, I., Christensen, T., Dubgaard, A., Hasler, B., Hime, S., . . . Nissen, C. (2012). Scenario realism and welfare estimates in choice experiments – A non-market valuation study on the European water framework directive. Journal of Environmental Management, 94(1), 25-33.
Kawharu, M. (2000). Kaitiakitanga: A Maori anthropological perspective of the Maori socio-environmental ethic of resource management. The Journal of Polynesian Society, 109(4), 349-370.
Kenney, M. A., Wilcock, P. R., Hobbs, B. F., Flores, N. E., & Martínez, D. C. (2012). Is urban stream restoration worth it? JAWRA Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 48(3), 603-615. doi: 10.1111/j.1752-1688.2011.00635.x
Kerr, G. (2011). A New Zealand Perspective on Value Transfer. Paper presented at the 55th AARES Annual Conference, Melbourne, 8-11 February 2011, Melbourne, 8-11 February 2011.
Kerr, G. N., & Greer, G. (2004). New Zealand River Management: Economic Values of Rangitata River Fishery Protection. Australasian Journal of Environmental Management 11(2), 139-149.
Kerr, G. N., & Sharp, B. M. H. (2004). Benefit Transfer: Choice Experiment Results. Paper presented at the 2004 New Zealand Agricultural and Resource Economics Society (NZARES) Conference, Blenheim Country Hotel, Blenheim, New Zealand. June 25-26, 2004.
Kerr, G. N., & Sharp, B. M. H. (2008). Evaluating off-site mitigation using choice modelling. Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 52, 381-399.
Kerr, G. N., Sharp, B. M. H., & Leathers, K. L. (2004). Instream water values: Canterbury's Rakaia and Waimakariri Rivers. Research Report No. 272, Lincoln University.
Kerr, G. N., Sharp, B. M. H., & White, P. (2001). Non-marketed Impacts of Ground Water Extraction. Paper presented at the Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society conference, Adelaide.
Kerr, G. N., Sharp, B. M. H., & White, P. (2003). The economics of augmenting Christchurch's water supply. Journal of Hydrology (NZ), 42(2), 113-124.
Kerr, G. N., & Swaffield, S. R. (2012). Identifying Cultural Service Values of a Small River in the Agricultural Landscape of Canterbury, New Zealand, Using Combined Methods. Society & Natural Resources: An International Journal, 25(12), 1330-1339.
Marsh & Mkwara. Review of Freshwater NMV Studies, August 2013 Page 70
Kragt, M., Bennett, J., Lloyd, C., & Dumsday, R. (2007). Comparing choice models of river health improvement for the Goulburn River. Paper presented at the 51st AARES Conference. , Queenstown, Australia.
Kramer, R. A., & Eisen-Hecht, J. I. (2002). Estimating the economic value of water quality protection in the Catawba River Basin. Water Resources Research 39(9), 1182-1192.
Kristofersson, D., & Navrud, S. (2004). Can use and non-use values be transferred between countries? Paper presented at the European Association of Environmental and Resource Economics Budapest Hungary.
Land and Water Forum. (2012). Second report of the land and water forum: Setting limits for water quality and quantity freshwater policy- and plan-making through collaboration Second report of the land and water forum.
Layman, R. C., Boyce, J. R., & Criddle, K. R. (1996). Economic valuation of chinook salmon sport fishery of the Gulkana River, Alaska, under current and alternate management plan. Land Economics, 72(1), 113-128.
Levy, M., Hickling, L., & Neill, B. (1996). Recreational uses of the Waikato river corridor Environment Waikato Technical Report 1996/9. Hamilton, New Zealand: University of Waikato & Environment Waikato.
Loomis, H., Kent, P., Strange, L., Fausch, K., & Covich, A. (2000). Measuring the total economic value of restoring ecosystem services in an impaired river basin: Results from a contingent valuation survey. Ecological Economics, 33, 103-117.
Loomis, J. (2002). Quantifying recreation use values from removing dams and restoring free-flowing rivers: A contingent behavior travel cost demand model for the Lower Snake River. Water Resources Research, 38(6), 1-8.
Loomis, J. (2003). Travel cost demand model based river recreation benefit estimates with on-site and household surveys:Comparative results and a correction procedure. Water Resources Research, 39(4), 1-4.
Loomis, J. (2005). The economic value of recreational fishing & boating to visitors & communities along the upper Snake River. Dept. of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Colorado State University, Fort Collins.
Loomis, J. B., & Rosenberger, R. S. (2006). Reducing barriers in future benefit transfers: Needed improvements in primary study design and reporting. Ecological Economics, 60, 343-350.
Luttik, J. (2000). The value of trees, water and open space as reflected by house prices in the Netherlands. Landscape and Urban Planning 48, 161-167.
Lynch, R. J., & Weber, J. A. (1992). Valuing water of the Ashburton River: In-stream flows versus irrigation. MAF Policy Technical Paper 92/13, MAF Policy, Wellington.
Majurey, P. F., Atkins, H., Morrison, V., & Hovell, T. (2010). Māori values supplement. Ministry for the Environment, Wellington: Prepared for the Ministry for the Environment.
Marsh, D. (2012). Water resource management in New Zealand: Jobs or algal blooms? Journal of Environmental Management, 109, 33-42. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.04.026
Marsh, D., & Baskaran, R. (2009). Valuation of water quality improvements in the Karapiro catchment: a choice modelling approach. Paper presented at the Australian Agricultural & Resource Economics Society conference, Cairns, Queensland.
Marsh, D., Mkwara, L., Pinkerton, R., & Sayadat, N. (2010). Rowing through the bloom: A survey of the water quality preferences of recreational users. Economics Department: University of Waikato.
Marsh, D., Mkwara, L., & Scarpa, R. (2011). Do Respondents’ Perceptions of the Status Quo Matter in Non-Market Valuation with Choice Experiments? An Application to New Zealand Freshwater Streams. Sustainability, 3(9), 1593-1615.
Marsh, D., & Phillips, Y. (2012). Which Future for the Hurunui? Combining Choice Analysis with Stakeholder Consultation. Working Paper in Economics 17/12: Department of Economics, University of Waikato.
Marsh & Mkwara. Review of Freshwater NMV Studies, August 2013 Page 71
Matthews, Y. (2009). Valuation of environmental improvements to Hamilton streams: A choice modelling approach. University of Waikato: University of Waikato.
Mazur, K., & Bennett, J. W. (2009). Location differences in communities' preferences for environmental improvements in selected New South Wales catchments: A choice modelling approach. Environmental Economics Research Hub, Research report No. 21, Crawford School of Economics and Development, Australian National University, Canberra, Australia.
McBeth, R. (1997). The recreational value of angling on the Tongariro River. Non-market valuation using the travel cost method and contingent valuation method. University of Auckland.
McKergow, L. A., Tanner, C. C., Monaghan, R. M., & Anderson, G. A. (2007). Stocktake of diffuse pollution attenuation tools for New Zealand pastoral farming systems (N. I. o. W. A. R. Ltd, Trans.) (Vol. NIWA Client Report: HAM2007-161). Hamilton, New zealand: Prepared for Pastoral 21 Research Consortium under contract to AgResearch.
MEA. (2005). Living beyond our means: Natural assets and human well-being (Statement from the Board). New York: United Nations.
MEA. (2007). A toolkit for understanding and action. Protecting nature’s services Protecting ourselves.
MfE. (2007). The dairying and clean streams accord: Snapshot of progress-2005/2006. Wellington: Ministry for the Environment, New Zealand.
MfE. (2011). National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management 2011: Implementation Guide: Wellington: Ministry for the Environment.
Mkwara, L., & Marsh, D. (2011). Valuing Trout Angling Benefits of Water Quality Improvements while Accounting for Unobserved Lake Characteristics: An Application to the Rotorua Lakes. Paper presented at the New Zealand Agricultural and Resource Economics Society Conference, Nelson.
Mkwara, L., & Marsh, D. (2011). Valuing trout angling benefits of water quality improvements while accounting for unobserved lake characteristics: An application to the Rotorua Lakes. Paper presented at the New Zealand Agricultural and Resource Economics Society annual conference, Nelson.
Morey, E. R., Breffle, W. S., Rowe, R. D., & Waldman, D. M. (2002). Estimating recreational trout fishing damages in Montana's Clark Fork River Basin: Summary of a natural resource damage assessment. Journal of Environmental Management 66, 159-170.
Morris, J., & Camino, M. (2011). Economic assessment of freshwater, wetland and floodplain (FWF) ecosystem services. School of Applied Sciences, Cranfield University, Bedford, MK45 2QP: Uk National Ecosystem Assessment (UK NEA).
Morrison, M. (2000). Aggregation Biases in Stated Preference Studies. Australian Economic Papers, 39(2), 215-230.
Morrison, M., & Bennett, J. (2004). Valuing New South Wales rivers for use in benefit transfer. The Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 48(4), 591-611.
Morrison, M., Bennett, J., Blamey, R., & Louviere, J. (2002). Choice modeling and tests of benefit transfer. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 84(1), 161-170.
Morrison, M. D., Bennett, J. W., & Blamey, R. K. (1998). Valuing the improved wetland quality using choice modelling. Paper presented at the 42nd Annual Conference of the Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, University of New South Wales, Canberra, ACT.
Ndebele, T. (2009). Economic non-market valuation techniques: theory and application to ecosystems and ecosystem services. A case study of the restoration and preservation of Pekapeka swamp. MA, University of Massey.
NIWA. (2010). Waikato River independent scoping study. Hamilton: National Institute of Water & Atmospheric Research Ltd.
Norton, D., Hynes, S., Doherty, E., Buckley, C., Campbell, D., & Stithou, M. (2012). Benefit Transfer for Irish Water. Using Benefit Transfer Techniques to Estimate the Value of achieving ‘Good Ecological’ Status in Irish Water Bodies: Environmental Protection Agency, Wexford, Ireland.
Marsh & Mkwara. Review of Freshwater NMV Studies, August 2013 Page 72
NSRE. (2000). American’s participation in outdoor recreation: Results from NSRE 2000 (with weighted data) (round 1) 1999-2000 National Survey on Recreation and the Environment, USDA Forest Service and the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee.: USDA Forest Service
Omwenga, R. M. (1995). The Manawatu River water quality improvement project: an economic policy study. MA, Massey University.
Palmquist, R. B. (2005). Property value models. In K. Mäler & J. R. Vincent (Eds.), Handbook of environmental economics: Valuing environmental changes (Vol. 2). North - Holland: Elsevier
Parsons, G. R. (2003). The travel cost model. In P. A. Champ, K. J. Boyle & T. C. Brown (Eds.), A primer on nonmarket valuation. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Patterson, M., & Cole, A. (1999). Assessing the value of New Zealand's biodiversity: Massey University.
Pearson, M. J., Bateman, I. J., & Codd, G. A. (2001). Measuring the Recreational and Amenity Values Affected by Toxic Cyanobacteria: a Contingent Valuation Study of Rutland Water, Leicestershire. Economics of Coastal and Water Resources, 3, 67-89.
Peirson, G., Tingley, D., Spurgeon, J., & Radford, A. (2001). Economic evaluation of inland fisheries in England and Wales. Fisheries Management and Ecology, 8(4-5), 415-424. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2400.2001.00263.x
Phaneuf, D. J., Smith, V. K., Palmquist, R. B., & Pope, J. C. (2008). Integrating property value and local recreation models to value ecosystem services in urban watersheds. Land Economics 84(3), 361-381.
Philcox, N. (2007). Literature review and framework analysis of non-market goods and services provided by British Columbia's ocean and marine coastal resources: Prepared for Canada/British Columbia Oceans Cordinating Committee.
Robinson, J., Clouston, B., & Suh, J. (2002). Estimating preferences for water quality improvements using a citizens’ jury and choice modelling: A case study on the Bremer River catchment, South East Queensland. Discussion Paper No 319, School of Economics, The University of Queensland, Australia.
Rolfe, J., & Bennett, J. (2003). WTP and WTA in relation to irrigation development in the Fitzroy Basin, Queensland. Faculty of Business and Law, Central Queensland University.
Rolfe, J., & Bennett, J. (2004). Assessing social values for water allocation with the contingent valuation method. Faculty of Business and Law, Central Queensland University.
Rolfe, J., & Bennett, J. W. (2009). The impact of offering two versus three alternatives in choice modelling experiments. Ecological Economics, 68(4), 1140-1148.
Rolfe, J., Loch, A., & Bennett, J. (2002). Tests of benefit transfer across sites and population in the Fitzroy Basin. Faculty of Business and Law, Central Queensland University.
Rolfe, J., & Prayaga, P. (2007). Estimating values for recreational fishing at freshwater dams in Queensland. The Australian Journal of Agricultural Resource Economics, 51(2), 157-174.
Rolfe, J., & Windle, J. (2003). Valuing the protection of Aboriginal cultural heritage sites. Economic Record, 79(Special issues), S85-S95.
Rolfe, J., & Windle, J. (2005). Valuing options for reserve water in the Fitzroy Basin. The Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 49(1), 91-114.
Rolfe, J., & Windle, J. (2009). Testing for differences in benefit transfer values between state and regional frameworks. Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 52, 149-168.
Rosenberger, R. S., & Loomis, J. B. (2000). Using meta-analysis for benefit transfer: in-sample convergent validity tests of an outdoor recreation database. Water Resources Res. 36 (4, 36(4), 1097–1107.
Sappideen, B. (1993). Valuing the recreational benefits of the sale wetlands using the contingent valuation method. Paper presented at the Australian Agricultural Economics Society, Sydney, Australia.
Marsh & Mkwara. Review of Freshwater NMV Studies, August 2013 Page 73
Sharp, B., & Kerr, G. (2005). Option and existence values for the Waitaki Catchment. Ministry for the Environment, Manatū Mō Te Taiao, Wellington, New Zealand: Report prepared for Ministry for the Environment.
Sheppard, R., Kerr, G. N., Tipler, C., Cullen, R., & Ferguson, T. (1992). Recreational water quality standards for the Waimakariri River: Lincoln University.
Simmons, D., Devlin, P., & Schellhorn, M. (2000). Lake Taupo/Waikato River recreation assessment. Tourism Recreation Research and Education Centre: Human sciences Division, Lincoln University.
Sinden, J. A. (1990). Valuation of the recreational benefits of river management: A case study in the Ovens and King Basin. Dept. of Conservation and Environment, Melbourn.
Sinden, J. A. (1994). A review of environmental valuation in Australia. Review of Marketing and Agricultural Economics, 62, 337-368.
Spash, C. L., Urama, K., Burton, R., Kenyon, W., Shannon, P., & Hill, G. (2009). Motives behind willingness to pay for improving biodiversity in a water ecosystem: Economics, ethics and social psychology. Ecological Economics, 68(4), 955–964.
Spash, C. L., & Vatn, A. (2006). Transferring environmental value estimates: Issues and alternatives. Ecological Economics, 60(379 - 388).
Stenger, A., & Willinger, M. (1998). "Preservation value for groundwater quality in a large aquifer: A contingent-valuation study of the Alsatian aquifer". Journal of Environmental Management 53(2), 177-193.
Stewart, C., Johnston, D., Rosen, M., & Boyce, W. (2000). Public involvement in environmental management of Lake Taupo: Preliminary results of the 1999 survey. Lower Hutt: New Zealand: Institute of Geological & Nuclear Sciences Limited.
Straton, A., & Zander, K. (2009). The value of Australia’s tropical river ecosystem services (1 of 3). Tropical Rivers and Coastal Knowledge, Charles Darwin University and CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems: Government Report.
Straton, A., & Zander, K. (2009). The value of Australia’s tropical river ecosystem services (3 of 3). Tropical Rivers and Coastal Knowledge, Charles Darwin University and CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems.
Streever, W. J., Callaghan-Perry, M., Searles, A., Stevens, T., & Svoboda, P. (1998). Public attitudes and values for wetland conservation in New South Wales, Australia. Journal of Environmental Management, 54(1), 1-14. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/jema.1998.0224
Tait, P., Baskaran, R., Cullen, R., & Bicknell, K. (2011). Valuation of agricultural impacts on rivers and streams using choice modelling: A New Zealand case study. New Zealand Journal of Agricultural Research, 54(3), 143-154.
Tapsuwan, S., MacDonald, D. H., King, D., & Poudyal, N. (2012). A combined site proximity and recreation index approach to value natural amenities: An example from a Natural Resource Management Region of Murray-Darling Basin. Journal of Environmental Management, 94, 69-77.
The European Parliament and the Council of the European Union. (2000). Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000: Establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy. Official Journal of the European Communities, L327, 1-72.
Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Act 2010. New Zealand Legislation (2010).
Tipa, G. (2011). Our Uses: Cultural Use in Murihiku: Report prepared for Environment Southland. Train, K. E. (1998). Recreation demand models with taste differences over people. Land Economics,
74(2), 230-239. Upneja, A., Shafer, E. L., Seo, W., & Yoon, J. (2001). Economic benefits of sport fishing and angler
wildlife watching in Pennsylvania. Journal of Travel Research, 40, 68-78.
Marsh & Mkwara. Review of Freshwater NMV Studies, August 2013 Page 74
US EPA. (2000). Guidelines for preparing economic analyses: US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
US EPA. (2002). National Summary Causes of Impairment in Assessed Rivers and Streams Reporting Year 2002 Retrieved 5 July, 2013, from http://ofmpub.epa.gov/tmdl_waters10/attains_nation.control?p_cycle=2002&p_report_type=A#total_assessed_waters
US EPA. (2010). National Lakes Assessment Fact Sheet. Retrieved 5 July, 2013, from US Environmental Protection Agency http://water.epa.gov/type/lakes/upload/nla_survey_fact_sheet.pdf
Verburg, P., Hamill, K., Unwin, M., & Abell, J. (2010). Lake water quality in New Zealand 2010: Status and trends: Report prepared for the Ministry for the Environment by the National Institute of Water & Atmospheric Research Ltd.
Vesterinen, J., Pouta, E., Huhtala, A., & Neuvonen, M. (2010). Impacts of changes in water quality on recreation behavior and benefits in Finland. Journal of Environmental Management, 91(4), 984-994. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2009.12.005
Viscusi, W. K., Huber, J., & Bell, J. (2008). The economic value of water quality. Environmental Resource Economics, 41, 169-187.
von Haefen, R. H., & Phaneuf, D. J. (2003). Estimating preferences for outdoor recreation: A comparison of continuous and count data demand system frameworks. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 45, 612-630.
Walpole, S. (1991). The recreational and environmental benefits of the Ovens-King River system. Australian Parks and Recreation, 27(4), 33-37.
Wheeler, S., & Damania, R. (2001). Valuing New Zealand recreational fishing and an assessment of the validity of the contingent valuation estimates. Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 45(4), 599-621.
White, P. A., Sharp, B. M. H., & Kerr, G. N. (2001). Economic valuation of the Waimea Plains groundwater system. Journal of Hydrology (NZ), 40(1), 59-76.
Williamson, J. C., Taylor, M. D., Torrens, R. S., & Vojvodic-Vukovic, M. (1998). Reducing nitrogen leaching from dairy farm effluent-irrigated pasture using dicyandiamide: a lysimeter study Paper presented at the Landcare Research, Hamilton, New Zealand.
Willis, K. G., & Garrod, G. D. (1999). Angling and recreation values of low-flow alleviation in rivers. Journal of Environmental Management 57, 71–83.
Woodham, M., & Marsh, D. (2011). The effects of water quality on house prices around the Rotorua Lakes. A preliminary Analysis: Economics Department, University of Waikato.
Yao, R., & Kaval, P. (2007). Non-market valuation in New Zealand: 1974 through 2005. Hamilton: Economics Department, University of Waikato.
Zander, K. K., Garnett, S. T., & Straton, A. (2010). Trade-offs between development, culture and conservation - Willingness to pay for tropical river management among urban Australians. Journal of Environmental Management 91(2519-2528).
Zander, K. K., & Straton, A. (2010). An economic assessment of the value of tropical river ecosystem services: Heterogeneous preferences among Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Australians. Ecological Economics, 69(12), 2417-2426.
Marsh & Mkwara. Review of Freshwater NMV Studies, August 2013 Page 75
13. Appendices
Appendix 1: Freshwater non-market values from international studies (1990-2013)
Authorship Country Valuation Method
Water Body Study Objectives Indicator Value Benefit Estimates
Recreation
Awondo, Egan, & Dwyer (2011)
USA Travel Cost Method
Lake Erie Estimate the recreational swimming benefits of restored wetlands.
swimming/ beach recreation
Mean WTP: US$166/visitor/year to construct wetlands & improve water quality to a swimmable level.
Egan, Herriges, Kling, & Downing (2009)
USA Travel Cost Random Utility Model
129 Principal Lakes in Iowa
Estimate the value of improved water quality.
Recreational boating, fishing, picnicking, nature appreciation/ wildlife & swimming/beach use
Mean WTP: $67.30 - $246.98/household/year for improvement in water quality in all 128 lakes.
Viscusi, Huber, & Bell (2008)
USA Conjoint Approach
All inland rivers and lakes in USA
Assess benefits of water quality.
Recreation in general & other uses
Mean WTP: US$32/person/year for each per cent increase in lakes and rivers water quality - where water quality was rated good. Total cost: US$20 billion for a decline in inland US water quality from 1994-2000.
Layman, Boyce, & Criddle (1996)
USA Travel Cost Method (Actual & hypothetical)
Gulkana River
Assess benefits generated by chinook salmon sport fishery.
Chinook abundance
Consumer surplus: US$16.99 - US$42.28/angler/day based on AAA travel cost; & US$28.91 - $60.80/angler/day based on reported travel cost.
Marsh & Mkwara. Review of Freshwater NMV Studies, August 2013 Page 76
Authorship Country Valuation Method
Water Body Study Objectives Indicator Value Benefit Estimates
Recreation
von Haefen & Phaneuf (2003)
USA Kuhn-Tucker & Count Data Demand Models
Iowa wetland
Estimate preferences for outdoor recreation.
Pheasants sightings per mile
Mean WTP: US$11.45 - US$14.22/individual/year for a 20% increase in pheasant count indices (at three zonal sites).
Vesterinen, Pouta, Huhtala, & Neuvonen (2010)
Finland Travel Cost Method
Inland lakes across Finland
Estimate recreational benefits of water quality improvements.
Swimming fishing & boating
Improvement in water clarity by 1 metre would: add 2.1 days of fishing annually on average. Increase the average number of swimming trips per person by 1.6 days annually. Increase consumer surplus for swimmers by €31 - €92m/ year. Increase consumer surplus for fishers from €43 - 129m annually.
Jenkins, Murray, Kramer, & Faulkner (2010)
USA Benefit Transfer
Mississippi alluvial valley wetlands
Estimate the value of restoring forested wetlands.
Waterfowl recreation
Waterfowl recreation valued at $16 per year.
Huth & Morgan (2011)
USA Contingent Valuation
Wakulla Springs, Florida
Estimate WTP for cave diving
Diving Mean WTP: US$52 - US$83/per dive. Aggregate annual WTP in the region of $500,000.
Appendix 1: International Studies (1990-2013)
Marsh & Mkwara. Review of Freshwater NMV Studies, August 2013 Page 77
Authorship Country Valuation Method
Water Body Study Objectives Indicator Value Benefit Estimates
Recreation
Kenney, Wilcock, Hobbs, Flores, & Martínez (2012)
USA
Contingent Valuation
Urban streams
Evaluate the value of aesthetic & recreation benefit of urban stream restoration.
Recreation The aesthetic and recreation value of an urban stream project to the city of Baltimore population is approximately $560-US1,100 per foot.
Peirson, Tingley, Spurgeon, & Radford (2001)
UK Contingent Valuation
River Thames, River Teifi and River Aire
Evaluate the socio-economic benefits of inland fisheries.
Existence value of salmon
Mean WTP: Thames Region: £2.40/household/ year. Assuming 5m households in the Thames Region, then gross economic value: £12m/year. Mean WTP: River Teifi: An extra £2.50 - £7.50 for each fishing trip to the river. The aggregate annual WTP estimated at £110 000.
Alberini & Zannatta (2007)
Italy Travel Cost Method Contingent Valuation
Lagoon of Venice
Estimate the value of sports fishing.
Catch rates Welfare estimates: €1056/household/year for a 50% improvement in catch rate. Differentiating between residents and non-residents of Venice, a 50% improvement in catch rate produces a welfare increase of €1379/year for residents and €745/year for non-residents.
Johnstone & Markandya (2006)
UK Travel Cost Method
303 rivers & streams in Berkshire & Marlborough downs
Assess river characteristics on anglers' fishing site choice and participation.
Fishing site choice & partipation
A 10% change in river attributes results in a change in the consumer surplus value per trip, ranging from a low of £0.04 to a high of £3.93.
Appendix 1: International Studies (1990-2013)
Marsh & Mkwara. Review of Freshwater NMV Studies, August 2013 Page 78
Authorship Country Valuation Method
Water Body Study Objectives Indicator Value Benefit Estimates
Recreation
Hynes & Hanley (2006)
Ireland Travel Cost Method
Roughty river in Co. Kerry
Evaluate preservation versus development on Irish rivers.
Kayaking Consumers’ surplus per trip of €83.3, while the population estimate of per trip consumer surplus was between €62.5 and €125. Total consumer surplus per kayaker €235.74 per year.
Grossmann (2011)
Germany Travel Cost Method
Spree River Basin
Assess the effect of reduced water availability on punt trips.
Punt trips Losses to recreation begin to appear at summer water deficits of ca. 25 hm
3.
Beyond this level, the marginal recreational loss is roughly €0.08/additional m3 of summer water deficit. The consumer surplus for day trips is approximately €19/trip. For trips from one to three days duration, it is €33/trip.
Sinden (1990) Australia Travel Cost Method Hedonic Pricing
Ovens and King Rivers
Assess recreational benefits of Ovens & King river management.
Angling & other recreational users
For each specialist anglers, the annual benefit was just under A$1,000. For all other recreationists, the total annual present value over 5 years was A$1.45m. For river management options the mean additional WTP was A$8.9 -A$16.0.
Walpole (1991) Australia Contingent Valuation
Recreational sites along the Ovens-King River system
Assess the recreational benefits of the sites connected to the Ovens-King River system.
Recreational activities including swimming, fishing, canoeing and sightseeing.
The average benefit value was A$15.90 for all 25 sites.
Appendix 1: International Studies (1990-2013)
Marsh & Mkwara. Review of Freshwater NMV Studies, August 2013 Page 79
Authorship Country Valuation Method
Water Body Study Objectives Indicator Value Benefit Estimates
Recreation
Morrison & Bennett (2004)
Australia Conjoint analysis
Bega, Clarence, Georges, Gwydir & Murrumbidgee
Assess the values of improved health of rivers in New South Wales.
Suitability for fishing & swimming
Implicit price estimates: Within-Catchment Estimates - Bega A$2.33, A$7.23, A$100.98, A$51.33 Within-Catchment Estimates - Clarence A$2.07, -A$0.05, A$72.77, A$46.63 Within-Catchment Estimates - Georges A$1.51, A$1.77, A$73.88, A$45.26 Within-Catchment Estimates - Gwydir A$1.46, A$2.12, A$104.07, A$48.94 Within-Catchment Estimates - Murrumbidgee A$1.46, A$2.77, A$75.24, A$54.16 Outside Catchment Estimates - Gwydir A$1.98, A$3.51, A$59.98, A$29.93 Outside Catchment Estimates - Murrumbidgee A$2.15, A$4.05, A$86.46, A$28.75 For healthy native riverside vegetation, number of native species present, suitability for fishing & suitability for swimming, respectively.
Appendix 1: International Studies (1990-2013)
Marsh & Mkwara. Review of Freshwater NMV Studies, August 2013 Page 80
Authorship Country Valuation Method
Water Body Study Objectives Indicator Value Benefit Estimates
Recreation
Rolfe & Prayaga (2007)
Australia Travel Cost Method Contingent Valuation
Boondooma Dam, Bjelke-Petersen Dam & Fairbairn Dam
Estimate the values for recreational fishing.
Catch rates The consumer surplus for a 20% increase in catch rates for frequent anglers ranged from A$543 - A$1,776/group & from A$221 -A$441/person. Consumer surplus for occasional anglers ranged from A$191 - A$3,437/group & A$60 - A$904/person. Aggregate consumer surplus ranged from A$1.0m for Bjelke-Petersen to A$4.5m for Fairbairn. For predictions of WTP for a 20% improvement in fishing experience the mean annual WTP ranged from A$19 - A$43/group or a total annual WTP ranging from A$0.1m (Bjelke-Petersen) - A$0.4m (Boondooma).
Sappideen (1993)
Australia Contingent Valuation
Sale wetlands
Assess peoples' WTP to protect environmental values.
Bird game hunting
Mean WTP: A$2.58household/year Aggregate annual value: A$766,234. For bird game hunters the mean WTP: A$4.67 Aggregate annual value: A$6,776.
Appendix 1: International Studies (1990-2013)
Marsh & Mkwara. Review of Freshwater NMV Studies, August 2013 Page 81
Authorship Country Valuation Method
Water Body Study Objectives Indicator Value Benefit Estimates
Recreation
Bennett et al (2008)
Australia Choice Experiment
Goulburn, Broken and Corangamite river catchments
Assess the values of improvements in the environmental condition of Victorian rivers.
Percentage of the river suitable for primary contact recreation
Implicit prices: Moorabool River/in-catchment A$4.95, A$5.56, A$22.07, A$0.09 Moorabool River/Melbourne sample A$5.34, A$5.33, A$18.19, A$0.34 Gellibrand River/in-catchment A$2.19, A$2.91, A$17.33, -A$0.05 Goulburn River/rural out-of-catchment A$5.56, A$4.65, A$3.04, -A$0.59 Goulburn River/in-catchment A$4.39, A$3.56, A$3.9, A$2.12 Goulburn River/Melbourne sample A$4.47, A$5.53, A$3.35, A$1.64 For pre-settlement fish species & populations,% of the river's length with healthy vegetation on both banks, number of native waterbird & animal species with sustainable populations & % of the river suitable for primary contact recreation without threat to public health, respectively.
Crase & Gillepsie (2008)
Australia Travel Cost Method Contingent Valuation
Lake Hume Estimate the recreational values held by visitors to Lake Hume under different water quality and water level scenarios.
Value of water quality & recreation
The total direct recreational benefits derived from the lake when it is near full was approximately A$3m/year. Annual consumer surplus reduces by one third if the water level is reduced by 50% or if there is an algal alert. The recreational use benefits are increased by about A$1.3m (and doubled) when the water level is lifted from 50% (10% respectively) capacity to near full.
Appendix 1: International Studies (1990-2013)
Marsh & Mkwara. Review of Freshwater NMV Studies, August 2013 Page 82
Authorship Country Valuation Method
Water Body Study Objectives Indicator Value Benefit Estimates
Recreation
Straton & Zander (2009)
Australia Choice Experiment
Daly River catchment
Estimate the value of Australia’s tropical river ecosystem services.
High recreational fishing quality
One-time payment/household WTP estimates for the ecosystem services in the Daly River: A$90.21 - A$153.85
Straton & Zander (2009)
Australia Choice Experiment
Fitzroy River Catchment
Estimate the value of Australia’s tropical river ecosystem services.
High quality recreational fishing
One-time payment/household WTP estimates for the ecosystem services in Fitzroy River: A$179.52 - A$181.44.
Straton & Zander (2009)
Australia Choice Experiment
Mitchell River Catchment
Estimate the value of Australia’s tropical river ecosystem services.
Value of water quality & recreation
One-time payment/household WTP estimates for the ecosystem services in the Mitchell River: A$110.66 - A$327.19.
Zander, Garnett, & Straton (2010)
Australia Choice Experiment
Daly River & Fitzroy River
Assess urban Australians’ WTP for non-market ecosystem services provided by Australia’s tropical rivers.
Quality of the river for recreational fishing
Respondents' WTP: A$126 for an increase of fishing quality.
Train (1998) USA Travel Cost Method
River fishing sites in Montana
Assess the anglers' recreational demand and fishing value of river sites.
Fish stock Compensating variation per trip ranged from US$0.93 - US$1.44 for an increase in the fish stock at each site by 100 fish per 1,000 feet of river. Doubling the fish stock at all sites increased compensating variation to US$4.25 per trip. The elimination of the Madison River sites from anglers' choice sets resulted in a reduction in consumer surplus by US$0.54 - US$0.74 per trip.
Appendix 1: International Studies (1990-2013)
Marsh & Mkwara. Review of Freshwater NMV Studies, August 2013 Page 83
Authorship Country Valuation Method
Water Body Study Objectives Indicator Value Benefit Estimates
Recreation
Kristofersson & Navrud (2004)
Iceland Norway Sweden
Contingent Valuation Benefit Transfer
Lakes & rivers in Norway, Sweden, and Iceland
Assess if use & non-use values could be transferred between countries.
Recreational fishing
Transfer error between each pair of countries in both directions was measured. Very high transfer error between Iceland and both Sweden and Norway. E.g., in the case of river fishing, the transfer error from Sweden to Iceland was -76%, while the transfer error from Sweden to Norway was -9%. For lake fishing transfer error from Iceland to Norway and Sweden were 186%, and 236%, respectively. For Non-use values: From Iceland to Norway 104%; to Sweden 133% . From Norway to Iceland -51%, Sweden 14%. From Sweden to Iceland -57%, Norway -13% .
Connelly, Brown, & Brown (2007)
USA Contingent Valuation
USA portion of Lake Ontario and the Upper St. Lawrence River
Estimate the economic value of recreational boating.
Boating Boaters spent an average of US$137/day/boat with an aggregate yearly value of US$178m. The consumer surplus per day (WTP above current expenditure) was US$69.36 with an aggregate value US$90m.
Loomis (2002) USA Travel Cost Method
Lower Snake River
Quantify recreation use values from removing dams and restoring free-flowing rivers.
Recreational use values in general
The average consumer surplus per trip was US$401 while the average value per day was US$160. The present value (1998 United States Dollar) of recreation benefits at 6.875% was US$4,516.5m and the average annual equivalent value at 6.875% is US$310.5m over a period of a 100 years.
Appendix 1: International Studies (1990-2013)
Marsh & Mkwara. Review of Freshwater NMV Studies, August 2013 Page 84
Authorship Country Valuation Method
Water Body Study Objectives Indicator Value Benefit Estimates
Recreation
Loomis (2003) USA Travel Cost Method
Snake River, Jackson Hole
Compare the magnitude of the recreation per trip bias caused by endogenous stratification.
Recreational use values in general
The difference in average benefits found was quite large, with the on-site visitor survey yielding US$24 per day trip, while the household survey yields US$9.67 per day trip.
Morey, Breffle, Rowe, & Waldman (2002)
USA Travel Cost Method
Clark Fork River basin (Upper Clark Fork 1-5 and Silver Bow Creek)
Estimate recreational trout fishing damages in Montana's Clark Fork River Basin.
Expected fish catch
For anglers who are residents of Montana, the expected annual WTP for the expected catch rates in the absence of injuries ranged from US$0.01 to US$42.96. WTP for non-resident anglers who fish in Montana ranged from US$1.19 to US$40.35 with a mean of US$14.17 and a median of US$12.62.
Awondo et al.(2011)
USA Travel Cost Method
Lake Erie Estimate the recreational swimming benefits of restored wetlands.
Beach use Aggregate annual benefits to an estimated 37,300 annual beach visitors: US$6.19m.
Phaneuf, Smith, Palmquist, & Pope (2008)
USA Hedonic Pricing Travel Cost Method
Lynn Lake Assess the effect of residential development on water quality & ecosystem services.
Recreational loss Welfare Losses per homeowner in Morrisville ranged from US$0.30 to US$18.58. In Wake Forest the losses ranged from US$0 to US$1.11. For Lynn Lake, recreation loss resulted in decline in welfare by a maximum of US$15.81 while amenity loss resulted in loss of US$2.13.
Appendix 1: International Studies (1990-2013)
Marsh & Mkwara. Review of Freshwater NMV Studies, August 2013 Page 85
Authorship Country Valuation Method
Water Body Study Objectives Indicator Value Benefit Estimates
Recreation
Loomis (2005) USA Travel Cost Method & Contingent Valuation
Snake River Estimate the economic value of recreational fishing and boating to visitors & communities.
Fishing & boating Anglers' WTP: US$16m & US$30m/year to maintain current levels of fishing quality in South Fork &Henry’s Fork, respectively. In Wyoming anglers' WTP is between US$5.5m & US$9.5m to maintain current levels of fishing quality. For the entire Snake River, WTP for cutthroat trout is between US$13m & US$20m. The Net Economic Value of Boating to Visitors is: (i) Henry’s Fork: US $0.5m; (ii) South Fork: US$1.5m; and (iii) SW Wyoming: US$16m.
Upneja, Shafer, Seo, & Yoon (2001)
USA Travel Cost Method
All fishing waters in Pennsylvania
Estimate the value of sports fishing & wild life viewing resources.
Sport fishing & wildlife viewing
The annual values of the sport fishing resources and the wildlife-watching resources were US$3.98 & US$0.50 billion, respectively. The annual economic impact of sport fishing was $4.75 billion.
Willis & Garrod (1999)
UK Contingent Valuation Choice Experiments
River catchment areas in England
Assess angling & recreation values of low-flow alleviation in rivers.
Angling & other recreational users
Mean WTP: For informal recreational users the value for 130 km reduction in the length of low-flow rivers was £6.16 for the general public according to the stated preference survey and £10.78 according to the discrete choice Contingent Valuation Method (CVM).
Willis & Garrod (1999)
UK Contingent Valuation Choice Experiments
River catchment areas in England
Assess angling & recreation values of low-flow alleviation in rivers.
Beach cleanliness
Mean WTP: Respondents were willing to pay £1.43 to ensure that one additional beach meets EC standards on cleanliness.
Appendix 1: International Studies (1990-2013) Appendix 1: International Studies (1990-2013)
Marsh & Mkwara. Review of Freshwater NMV Studies, August 2013 Page 86
Authorship Country Valuation Method
Water Body Study Objectives Indicator Value Benefit Estimates
Access/ Facility
von Haefen & Phaneuf (2003)
USA Kuhn-Tucker & Count Data Demand Models
Iowa wetland
Estimate preferences for outdoor recreation.
Change in access fee
Mean WTP: US$37.66 - US$57.21/individual/year for a 50% increase in access fee (at the six zonal sites that contain riverine wetlands along the Missouri and Mississippi Rivers; and Iowa's western and eastern borders) 8.52 trips per respondent were estimated.
Cho, Bowker, & Park (2006)
USA Hedonic Pricing
Several Tennessee Valley Authority lakes
Estimate the influence of proximity to water bodies & park amenities on residential housing values.
Park amenities Marginal Implicit prices for local parks: Ranged from -US$662 to US$840/household/year.
Garrod & Willis (1998)
UK Contingent Valuation
Canals (five canal locations across Britain)
Assess respondent's relative sense of loss of amenity value for inland waterways from public utility structures.
Amenity loss from service structures
The aggregate WTP for a 1% reduction in service structures by canal users was: £147,587 for pipe bridges reduction, £290,601 for pylon reduction and £308,287 for other cable crossings.
Connelly et al. (2007)
USA Contingent Valuation
USA portion of Lake Ontario and the Upper St. Lawrence River
Estimate the economic value of recreational boating.
Site access Boaters using a boat ramp had value of US$64.95, private dock user had a value of US$70.25, and marina or yatch club users had a value of US$76.99.
Marsh & Mkwara. Review of Freshwater NMV Studies, August 2013 Page 87
Authorship Country Valuation Method
Water Body Study Objectives Indicator Value Benefit Estimates
Access/ Facility
Phaneuf et al. (2008)
USA Hedonic Pricing & Travel Cost Method
Lynn Lake Assess the effect of residential development on water quality & ecosystem services.
Recreational loss Welfare Losses per homeowner in Morrisville ranged from US$0.30 to US$18.58. In Wake Forest the losses ranged from US$0 to US$1.11. For Lynn Lake, recreation loss resulted in decline in welfare by a maximum of US$15.81 while amenity loss resulted in loss of US$2.13.
Landscape/Aesthetic
Hanley, Colombo, Tinch, Black, & Aftab (2006)
UK Choice Experiment
Wear & Clyde rivers
Estimate of the value of improved river ecology from fair to good.
Aesthetic & bankside conditions
Mean WTP: £12.07 & £28.57/household/year for improved aesthetic conditions for River Wear and Clyde, respectively. Mean WTP: £12.67 and £42.99/household/year for improved bankside conditions for River Wear & Clyde, respectively.
Cho et al. (2006) USA Hedonic Pricing
Several Tennessee Valley Authority lakes
Estimate the influence of proximity to water bodies & park amenities on residential housing values.
Proximity to water bodies
Marginal Implicit price/household/year for water bodies: Rivers -US$86 to US$6,032. Lakes -US$497 to US$2,543. Creeks US$287 to US$1,108. Others (Branches, Reservoirs) -US$113 to US$1,717.
Appendix 1: International Studies (1990-2013)
Marsh & Mkwara. Review of Freshwater NMV Studies, August 2013 Page 88
Authorship Country Valuation Method
Water Body Study Objectives Indicator Value Benefit Estimates
Landscape/Aesthetic
Colombo, Calatrava-Requena, & Hanley (2007)
Spain Choice Experiment Benefit Transfer
Genil and Guadajoz watersheds
Estimating benefits of reducing soil erosion & the possibility of benefit transfer.
Landscape desertification
Implicit prices based on the CL model: Big improvements in landscape desertification €26.51 (Genil) and €24.80 (Guadajoz).
Kenney et al. (2012)
USA Contingent Valuation
Urban streams
Evaluate the value of aesthetic & recreation benefit of urban stream restoration.
Aesthetic and recreation
The aesthetic and recreation value of an urban stream project to the city of Baltimore population is approximately $560-US1,100 per foot.
Luttik (2000) Netherlands
Hedonic property
Water bodies in Randstad
Assess the impact of water frontage, pleasant views or open spaces on residential property values.
Water frontage, pleasant views or open spaces
Contribution of lake to property value as a percentage: Lake facing garden 11-12% Lake vicinity 5-10% Lake presence 6%
Cavailhès et al.(2007)
France Hedonic property
Water bodies in 14 towns on the outskirts of Dijon and 305 suburban or rural towns
Estimate the value of landscape attributes including water on house properties.
Landscape attributes
The hedonic price of the landscape was estimated for 12 different landscape attributes giving positive & negative values. E.g., an additional spot hardwood within 70 mtr is priced €660; while the price of the length of the edge is -€25/extra mtr in the suburban belt. Overall, the price varies between landscape attributes - €8,140 & €4,388.
Appendix 1: International Studies (1990-2013)
Marsh & Mkwara. Review of Freshwater NMV Studies, August 2013 Page 89
Authorship Country Valuation Method
Water Body Study Objectives Indicator Value Benefit Estimates
Landscape/Aesthetic
Hodgkinson & Valadkhani (2009)
Australia Hedonic Pricing
Lake Illawarra
Assess the aesthetic value of Lake Illawarra.
Lake proximity to residential properties
Being located one more metre further away from Lake Illwarra leads to an average decrease of A$24 in the value of a property valued at A$307,035. A house with lake frontage adds A$48,326 to the value of the house. If all houses were located 2.5 metres from the lake, the average property price would increase by A$13,596.
Tapsuwan, MacDonald, King, & Poudyal (2012)
Australia Hedonic pricing
South Australian Murray-Darling Basin
Assess the value of environmental amenities on property sales.
Amenities value, water bodies.
For proximity to the river, it was estimated that for a property that is 1 km away, moving that property half km closer would add A$245,000 to its value, holding other variables at their mean values. This value is estimated to increase by A$27,000 if located in area of high river recreational attractiveness.
Walpole (1991) Australia Contingent Valuation
Recreational sites along the Ovens-King River system
Assess the recreational benefits of the sites connected to the Ovens-King River system.
Effect of environmental quality on recreation
The average benefit value was A$15.90 for all 25 sites. Benefit values were significantly influenced by the quality and naturalness of the environment (sites with native vegetation and a clean, well-developed stream received the highest values).
Marsh & Mkwara. Review of Freshwater NMV Studies, August 2013 Page 90
Authorship Country Valuation Method
Water Body Study Objectives Indicator Value Benefit Estimates
Landscape/Aesthetic
Morrison & Bennett (2004)
Australia Conjoint analysis
Bega, Clarence, Georges, Gwydir and Murrumbidgee
Assess the values of improved health of rivers in New South Wales.
Healthy native riverside vegetation
Implicit price estimates: Within-Catchment Estimates - Bega A$2.33, A$7.23, A$100.98, A$51.33 Within-Catchment Estimates - Clarence A$2.07, -A$0.05, A$72.77, A$46.63 Within-Catchment Estimates - Georges A$1.51, A$1.77, A$73.88, A$45.26 Within-Catchment Estimates - Gwydir A$1.46, A$2.12, A$104.07, A$48.94 Within-Catchment Estimates - Murrumbidgee A$1.46, A$2.77, A$75.24, A$54.16 Outside Catchment Estimates - Gwydir A$1.98, A$3.51, A$59.98, A$29.93 Outside Catchment Estimates - Murrumbidgee A$2.15, A$4.05, A$86.46, A$28.75 For healthy native riverside vegetation, number of native species present, suitability for fishing, suitability for swimming respectively.
Rolfe & Windle (2003)
Australia Choice Experiment
The Fitzroy Basin
Evaluate the protection of Aboriginal cultural heritage sites.
Healthy riverside vegetation
Implicit Prices/household/year: Healthy vegetation: Not sig, A$2.45, A$2.68 For Rockhampton Indigenous sample, Rockhampton general community sample & Brisbane general community sample, respectively.
Marsh & Mkwara. Review of Freshwater NMV Studies, August 2013 Page 91
Authorship Country Valuation Method
Water Body Study Objectives Indicator Value Benefit Estimates
Landscape/Aesthetic
Robinson, Clouston, & Suh (2002)
Australia Choice Experiment
Bremer River catchment in south east Queensland
Assess the value of improved water quality in the Bremer River catchment.
Very good visual appearance
The value for appearance ranged from A$0.61 - A$0.37 per 1% change.
Willis & Garrod (1999)
UK Contingent Valuation Choice Experiments
River catchment areas in England
Assess angling & recreation values of low-flow alleviation in rivers.
Beach cleanliness
Mean WTP: Respondents were willing to pay £1.43 to ensure that one additional beach meets EC standards on cleanliness.
Christie & Rayment (2012)
UK Choice Experiment
General Ecosystems in England and Wales
Assess the value of ecosystem services.
Appreciation of nature’s gifts, sense of experience
Annual household consumer surplus (CS) values for 10 years of ecosystem services delivered by Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) habitats under the ‘Maintain funding’ scenario. For Lakes and Rivers, the annual per household CS was £0.00 for nature’s gifts.
Campbell, Hutchinson, & Scarpa (2008)
Ireland Choice Experiments
Assess the value of improvements in rural environmental landscape in Ireland.
Conservation of hedgerows
Mean WTP/person/year: Between €67.53 & €134.98 for a lot of action, and between €22.38 & € 58.55 for some action.
Appendix 1: International Studies (1990-2013)
Marsh & Mkwara. Review of Freshwater NMV Studies, August 2013 Page 92
Authorship Country Valuation Method
Water Body Study Objectives Indicator Value Benefit Estimates
Ecological health
Hanley et al. (2006)
UK Choice Experiment
Wear & Clyde rivers
Estimate of the value of improved river ecology from fair to good.
Aesthetic & bankside conditions
Mean WTP: £12.07 & £28.57/household/year for improved aesthetic conditions for River Wear and Clyde, respectively. Mean WTP: £12.67 & £42.99/household/year for improved bankside conditions for River Wear and Clyde, respectively.
Hanley et al. (2006)
UK Choice Experiment
Wear & Clyde rivers
Estimate of the value of improved river ecology from fair to good.
River ecology Mean WTP: £12.19 & £38.70/household/year for improved river ecology in River Wear and Clyde, respectively.
Kragt, Bennett, Lloyd, & Dumsday (2007)
Australia Choice Experiment
Goulburn River
Assess peoples' preferences health attributes of Goulburn river.
Healthy vegetation
The average WTP for an increase in healthy vegetation along the Goulbourn River was estimated between A$3.21 and A$5.39.
Rolfe & Bennett (2003)
Australia Choice Experiment
Fitzroy River Basin
Estimate values for environmental & social impacts of further irrigation development in the Fitzroy River Basin.
Healthy vegetation
The estimated values per household per year for 20 years were A$3.04 for additional 1% healthy vegetation remaining in flood plains. A$0.05 for an additional kilometre of waterways in catchment remaining in good health.
Appendix 1: International Studies (1990-2013)
Marsh & Mkwara. Review of Freshwater NMV Studies, August 2013 Page 93
Authorship Country Valuation Method
Water Body Study Objectives Indicator Value Benefit Estimates
Ecological health
Rolfe, Loch, & Bennett (2002)
Australia Choice Experiment
Comet/Nogoa/Mackenzie river & Dawson river
Estimate non-use values associated with further floodplain development.
Healthy waterways
The part-worth in the Comet/Nogoa/Mackenzie river and Dawson river ranged from A$0.08 - A$0.09 per kilometre of waterways in catchment remaining in good health. For a 1% change in healthy vegetation remaining in flood plains, the part-worth ranged from A$1.20 - A$1.43.
Bennett et al. (2008)
Australia Choice Experiment
Goulburn, Broken and Corangamite river catchments
Assess the values of improvements in the environmental condition of Victorian rivers.
percentage of the river suitable for primary contact recreation
Implicit prices: Moorabool River/in-catchment A$4.95, A$5.56, A$22.07, A$0.09 Moorabool River/Melbourne sample A$5.34, A$5.33, A$18.19, A$0.34 Gellibrand River/in-catchment A$2.19, A$2.91, A$17.33, -A$0.05 Goulburn River/rural out-of-catchment A$5.56, A$4.65, A$3.04, -A$0.59 Goulburn River/in-catchment A$4.39, A$3.56, A$3.9, A$2.12 Goulburn River/Melbourne sample A$4.47, A$5.53, A$3.35, A$1.64 For pre-settlement fish species and populations, % of the river's length with healthy vegetation on both banks, number of native waterbird & animal species with sustainable populations & % of the river suitable for primary contact recreation without threat to public health, respectively.
Appendix 1: International Studies (1990-2013)
Marsh & Mkwara. Review of Freshwater NMV Studies, August 2013 Page 94
Authorship Country Valuation Method
Water Body Study Objectives Indicator Value Benefit Estimates
Ecological health
Rolfe & Bennett (2009)
Australia Choice Experiment
The Fitzroy River Basin
Assess the values people placed on impacts of further water resource development.
Healthy waterways
Part-worth: Healthy vegetation: A$2.891/household/year Part-worth: Healthy waterways: A$0.056/household/year
Mazur & Bennett (2009)
Australia Choice Experiment
Lachlan catchment, Namoi catchment, & Hawkesbury-Nepean catchment.
Evaluate improvements in environmental quality in New South Wales.
Kilometres of healthy waterway
Implicit prices for Hawkesbury-Nepean catchment: Area of native vegetation in good quality A$0.06, A$0.03, A$0.01, -A$0.07 Kilometres of healthy waterways: A$1.10, A$0.90, A$0.84, A$0.87 For Sydney sub-sample (distant/urban), Hawkesbury-Nepean sub-sample (local/rural) and Namoi sub-sample (distant/rural), respectively.
Rolfe & Windle (2003)
Australia Choice Experiment
The Fitzroy Basin
Evaluate the protection of Aboriginal cultural heritage sites.
Healthy waterways
Implicit Prices/household/year: Healthy waterways: A$0.05, A$ 0.06, A$0.006 For Rockhampton Indigenous sample, Rockhampton general community sample and Brisbane general community sample, respectively.
Appendix 1: International Studies (1990-2013)
Marsh & Mkwara. Review of Freshwater NMV Studies, August 2013 Page 95
Authorship Country Valuation Method
Water Body Study Objectives Indicator Value Benefit Estimates
Ecological health
Zander & Straton (2010)
Australia Choice Experiment
Mitchell River region, Daly River region & Fitzroy River region
Assess the value of ecosystem services of tropical rivers in Australia.
Floodplain in good condition
94% of Australians willing to pay a once-off payment for the management of tropical rivers. Mean WTP: $54 for an increase from small size to medium size and $124 from small size to large size.
Straton & Zander (2009)
Australia Choice Experiment
Fitzroy River Catchment
Estimate the value of Australia’s tropical river ecosystem services.
Floodplain in good condition
On-time payment/household WTP estimates for the ecosystem services in Fitzroy River: A$66.88 - A$86.47
Straton & Zander (2009)
Australia Choice Experiment
Mitchell River Catchment
Estimate the value of Australia’s tropical river ecosystem services.
Floodplain in good condition
One-time payment/household WTP estimates for the ecosystem services in the Mitchell River: A$69.41 to A$322.06.
Zander et al. (2010)
Australia Choice Experiment
Daly River & Fitzroy River)
Assess urban Australians’ WTP for non-market ecosystem services provided by Australia’s tropical rivers.
Good environmental condition
Respondents' WTP is A$238 for an increase of condition from Poor to Good and A$162 from Poor to OK.
Appendix 1: International Studies (1990-2013)
Marsh & Mkwara. Review of Freshwater NMV Studies, August 2013 Page 96
Authorship Country Valuation Method
Water Body Study Objectives Indicator Value Benefit Estimates
Ecological health
Black et al. (2006)
UK Choice Experiments Benefit transfer
Motray & Brothock catchments
Assess the benefits of water quality improvements & test the transferability of estimates between catchments.
Big ecological improvement
Mean WTP: £24 .03 - £28.26/household/ year for big improvements in river ecology.
Bateman et al. (2005)
UK Mountain Lakes in Scotland
Assess individuals WTP for programme aimed at reducing acidity levels in the lakes.
Degradation Mean annual household WTP to avoid degradation ranged from £16.39 - £28.40.
Brouwer & Bateman (2005)
UK Contingent Valuation
Norfolk Broads in East Anglia
Assess preservation of the Norfolk Broads, in its current (1991) state.
Preservation The mean annual WTP (in 1991 prices) to preserve the Broads in its current 1991 state was about £248.1 in 1991 and £215.8 in 1996.
Campbell et al. (2008)
Ireland Choice Experiments
Assess the value of improvements in rural environmental landscape in Ireland.
Conservation of rivers & lakes
Mean WTP/person/year: Between €193.93 and €507.37 per person per year for a lot of action, and between €106.66 and €311.23 for some action.
Appendix 1: International Studies (1990-2013) Appendix 1: International Studies (1990-2013)
Marsh & Mkwara. Review of Freshwater NMV Studies, August 2013 Page 97
Authorship Country Valuation Method
Water Body Study Objectives Indicator Value Benefit Estimates
Biodiversity
Morrison & Bennett (2004)
Australia Conjoint analysis
Bega, Clarence, Georges, Gwydir and Murrumbidgee
Assess the values of improved health of rivers in New South Wales.
Native species Implicit price estimates: Within-Catchment Estimates - Bega A$2.33, A$7.23, A$100.98, A$51.33 Within-Catchment Estimates - Clarence A$2.07, -A$0.05, A$72.77, A$46.63 Within-Catchment Estimates - Georges A$1.51, A$1.77, A$73.88, A$45.26 Within-Catchment Estimates - Gwydir A$1.46, A$2.12, A$104.07, A$48.94 Within-Catchment Estimates - Murrumbidgee A$1.46, A$2.77, A$75.24, A$54.16 Outside Catchment Estimates - Gwydir A$1.98, A$3.51, A$59.98, A$29.93 Outside Catchment Estimates - Murrumbidgee A$2.15, A$4.05, A$86.46, A$28.75 For healthy native riverside vegetation, number of native species present, suitability for fishing, suitability for swimming respectively.
Colombo et al. (2007)
Spain Choice Experiment Benefit Transfer
Genil and Guadajoz watersheds
Estimating benefits of reducing soil erosion &the possibility of benefit transfer.
Flora & fauna quality
Implicit prices based on the CL model: Good flora and fauna quality €18.34 (Genil) and €16.47 (Guadajoz).
Appendix 1: International Studies (1990-2013)
Marsh & Mkwara. Review of Freshwater NMV Studies, August 2013 Page 98
Authorship Country Valuation Method
Water Body Study Objectives Indicator Value Benefit Estimates
Biodiversity
Spash et al. (2009)
UK Contingent Valuation
Tummel catchment in Scotland
Assess respondent's WTP to restore biodiversity in the river Tummel and its surrounding area.
Restoring biodiversity
Mean WTP of £5.6 for the total sample for change in water management in the Tummel catchment from the "business as usual" scenario with biodiversity at 14% of natural levels due to reduced water flow in the catchment to a scenario with an increase in water flows and an associated increase in biodiversity at 70% of natural levels.
Morrison & Bennett (2004)
Australia Conjoint analysis
Bega, Clarence, Georges, Gwydir and Murrumbidgee
Assess the values of improved health of rivers in New South Wales.
Native & species Implicit price estimates: Within-Catchment Estimates - Bega A$2.33, A$7.23, A$100.98, A$51.33 Within-Catchment Estimates - Clarence A$2.07, -A$0.05, A$72.77, A$46.63 Within-Catchment Estimates - Georges A$1.51, A$1.77, A$73.88, A$45.26 Within-Catchment Estimates - Gwydir A$1.46, A$2.12, A$104.07, A$48.94 Within-Catchment Estimates - Murrumbidgee A$1.46, A$2.77, A$75.24, A$54.16 Outside Catchment Estimates - Gwydir A$1.98, A$3.51, A$59.98, A$29.93 Outside Catchment Estimates - Murrumbidgee A$2.15, A$4.05, A$86.46, A$28.75 For healthy native riverside vegetation, number of native species present, suitability for fishing, suitability for swimming, resp’tly.
Appendix 1: International Studies (1990-2013)
Marsh & Mkwara. Review of Freshwater NMV Studies, August 2013 Page 99
Authorship Country Valuation Method
Water Body Study Objectives Indicator Value Benefit Estimates
Biodiversity
Bennett et al. (2008)
Australia Choice Experiment
Goulburn, Broken and Corangamite river catchments
Assess the values of improvements in the environmental condition of Victorian rivers.
Native water birds &animal species
Implicit prices: Moorabool River/in-catchment A$4.95, A$5.56, A$22.07, A$0.09 Moorabool River/Melbourne sample A$5.34, A$5.33, A$18.19, A$0.34 Gellibrand River/in-catchment A$2.19, A$2.91, A$17.33, -A$0.05 Goulburn River/rural out-of-catchment A$5.56, A$4.65, A$3.04, -A$0.59 Goulburn River/in-catchment A$4.39, A$3.56, A$3.9, A$2.12 Goulburn River/Melbourne sample A$4.47, A$5.53, A$3.35, A$1.64 For pre-settlement fish species and populations, % of the river's length with healthy vegetation on both banks, number of native waterbird & animal species with sustainable populations & % of the river suitable for primary contact recreation without threat to public health, respectively.
Morrison, Bennett, & Blamey (1998)
Australia Choice Experiment
The Macquarie Marshes in central western New South Wales
Estimate the value of improved wetland quality.
Breeding event frequency & protection
Mean WTP for an additional square kilometre of wetland area was about A$0.04, (between A$22 and A$25) for an increase of 1 year in breeding event frequency, A$4 for an additional endangered/protected species.
Appendix 1: International Studies (1990-2013)
Marsh & Mkwara. Review of Freshwater NMV Studies, August 2013 Page 100
Authorship Country Valuation Method
Water Body Study Objectives Indicator Value Benefit Estimates
Biodiversity
Mazur & Bennett (2009)
Australia Choice Experiment
Lachlan catchment, Namoi catchment, & Hawkesbury-Nepean catchment.
Evaluate improvements in environmental quality in New South Wales.
Number of native species
Implicit prices for Hawkesbury-Nepean catchment: Number of native species: A$5.25, A$6.97, A$4.97, A$4.85 For Sydney sub-sample (distant/urban), Hawkesbury-Nepean sub-sample (local/rural) and Namoi sub-sample (distant/rural), respectively.
Robinson et al. (2002)
Australia Choice Experiment
Bremer River catchment in south east Queensland
Assess the value of improved water quality in the Bremer River catchment.
Aquatic vegetation
The implicit price for an increase of 1% of riparian vegetation was A$1.47. The implicit price for aquatic vegetation fell by $0.19/household per 1% change.
Kragt et al. (2007)
Australia Choice Experiment
Goulburn River
Assess peoples' preferences health attributes of Goulburn river.
Native fish, birds and fauna
The average WTP for increasing the number of fish and bird species lies between A$4.02 and A$5.86 per fish species, and between A$2.18 and A3.18 per species of waterbirds and native animals.
Christie & Rayment (2012)
UK Choice Experiment
General Ecosystems in England and Wales
Assess the value of ecosystem services.
Charismatic species
Various annual household consumer surplus (CS) values for 10 years of ecosystem services delivered by Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) habitats under the ‘Maintain funding’ scenario. For Lakes and Rivers, the annual per household CS was £0.14 charismatic species, £0.03 non-charismatic species.
Appendix 1: International Studies (1990-2013)
Marsh & Mkwara. Review of Freshwater NMV Studies, August 2013 Page 101
Authorship Country Valuation Method
Water Body Study Objectives Indicator Value Benefit Estimates
Biodiversity
Campbell et al. (2008)
Ireland Choice Experiments
Assess the value of improvements in rural environmental landscape in Ireland.
Wildlife habitat Mean WTP/person/year: Between €92.14 and €226.05 for a lot of action for improvement, and between €46.01 and €158.54 for some action.
Flood & erosion control
Bliem, Getzner, & Rodiga-Laßnig (2012)
Austria Choice Experiment
Danube River
Assess WTP for river restoration - flood protection and water quality.
Flood frequency Mean WTP: €0.20 (2007) & €0.17 (2008)/household/year.
General
Morrison, Bennett, Blamey, & Louviere (2002)
Australia Choice Experiment Benefit Transfer
Macquarie & Gwydir wetlands
Estimate the value of improved wetlands & tests of benefit transfer.
Employment & conservation
Convergent validity was most valid for transfers across sites than populations. Implicit prices were best suited for benefit transfer than compensating surplus.
Straton & K Zander (2009)
Australia Choice Experiment
Daly River catchment
Estimate the value of Australia’s tropical river ecosystem services.
Ecosystem services
One-time payment/household WTP estimates for the ecosystem services in the Daly River: A$61.99 - A$79.86.
Amigues, Boulatoff, Desaigues, Gauthier, & Keith (2002)
France Contingent Valuation
Garonne River
Assess benefits and costs of riparian analysis habitat preservation: A WTP/WTA
Riparian preservation & Water pollution reduction
Mean WTP for 70 and 20 km of stripe of land: $13/ household/year. Mean WTA: $114 per hectare for the land owners.
Appendix 1: International Studies (1990-2013)
Marsh & Mkwara. Review of Freshwater NMV Studies, August 2013 Page 102
Authorship Country Valuation Method
Water Body Study Objectives Indicator Value Benefit Estimates
General
Birol, Karousakis, & Koundouri (2006)
Greece Contingent Valuation
Cheimaditida
Wetland Estimate non-use values of the wetland.
Biodiversity, Open water surface area, Research & educational values
Mean WTP: €22.3/household/year for a change from no management to managing the wetland to maintain current conditions. Mean WTP: €34.9/household/year for a change from no management to managing the wetland to improve current conditions.
Streever, Callaghan-Perry, Searles, Stevens, & Svoboda (1998)
Australia Contingent Valuation
Wetlands To estimate WTP value and examine attitudes about wetland conservation.
Wetlands with various attributes
Mean WTP: A$124·37/household/year. Aggregate WTP: A$38m/year for the next 5 years in order to have wetlands that provide recreation, contain rare species of plants, provide food such as shellfish, provide flood protection, water supply & water pollution control.
Rolfe & Windle (2009)
Australia Choice Experiment Benefit Transfer
The Great Barrier Reef, the Murray-Darling Basin
To assess benefit transfer of environmental factors between state & regional contexts.
Soil, water, vegetation
Marginal WTP per household per year: Regional model: A$3.72, A$ 5.80, A$2.88 State-wide model: A$4.64, A$6.62, A$4.54 For a 1% improvement in Soil, Water, Vegetation attributes, respectively for the pooled models.
Appendix 1: International Studies (1990-2013)
Marsh & Mkwara. Review of Freshwater NMV Studies, August 2013 Page 103
Authorship Country Valuation Method
Water Body Study Objectives Indicator Value Benefit Estimates
General
Kataria (2009) Sweden Choice Experiment
Swedish rivers
Measure Swedish households’ WTP a higher electricity price to obtain electricity from hydropower regulated rivers.
Fish stock, birds, benthic invertebrates, river-margin vegetation
Mean WTP for the single attributes range between 1100 and 1400 SEK. The WTP for an improvement of a combination of the attributes from the current levels to the best possible level is around 2100 SEK. The attributes are: Increased fish stock, Improved conditions for the bird life, Species richness of benthic invertebrates, Effects from measures on the river-margin vegetation.
Loomis, Kent, Strange, Fausch, & Covich (2000)
USA Contingent Valuation
A 45-mile easement along the South Platte River.
Estimate the benefits of restoring ecosystem services along the South Platte River.
Ecosystem services
Mean household WTP for improved ecosystem services was estimated at between US$21 per month or US$252 per annum. Annual benefits for the region were estimated at between US$18.54m and US$71.15m which is greater than estimated project costs: US$12.3m.
Christie & Rayment (2012)
UK Choice Experiment
General Ecosystems in England and Wales
Assess the value of ecosystem services.
Water regulation Annual household consumer surplus (CS) values for 10 years of ecosystem services delivered by Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) habitats under the ‘Maintain funding’ scenario. For Lakes and Rivers, the annual per household CS was £0.06 water regulation.
Appendix 1: International Studies (1990-2013)
Marsh & Mkwara. Review of Freshwater NMV Studies, August 2013 Page 104
Authorship Country Valuation Method
Water Body Study Objectives Indicator Value Benefit Estimates
Climate regulation
Jenkins et al. (2010)
USA Benefit Transfer
Mississippi alluvial valley wetlands
Estimate the value of restoring forested wetlands.
Greenhouse gas mitigation
Greenhouse gas mitigation valued in the range of $171 - $222 per hectare per year. Nitrogen gas mitigation valued at $1248 per hectare per year.
Christie & Rayment (2012)
UK Choice Experiment
General Ecosystems in England and Wales
Assess the value of ecosystem services.
Climate regulation
Annual household consumer surplus (CS) values for 10 years of ecosystem services delivered by Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) habitats under the ‘Maintain funding’ scenario. For Lakes and Rivers, the annual per household CS was £0.02 climate regulation.
Water Quality
Awondo, Egan, & Dwyer (2011)
USA Travel Cost Method
Lake Erie Estimate the recreational swimming benefits of restored wetlands.
Swimming/beach recreation
Mean WTP: US$166/visitor/year to construct wetlands & improve water quality to a swimmable level.
Del Saz-Salazar, Hernandez-Sancho, & Sala-Garrido (2009)
Spain Contingent Valuation
Serpis River Assess peoples' WTP for improved water quality & WTA compensation if there was no improvement.
Water quality Mean WTP: €30.6 and Mean WTA: €53/household/year for water quality for recreation and wildlife calculated from open ended elicitation format.
Appendix 1: International Studies (1990-2013)
Marsh & Mkwara. Review of Freshwater NMV Studies, August 2013 Page 105
Authorship Country Valuation Method
Water Body Study Objectives Indicator Value Benefit Estimates
Water Quality
Kataria et al. (2012)
Denmark Choice Experiments
Odense River
Assessing peoples' WTP for improved water quality.
Water quality Mean WTP: 585 DKK/household/year for improved water quality from moderate to good conditions. Mean WTP: 637 DKK/household/year for improved water quality from moderate to very good conditions.
Viscusi et al. (2008)
USA Conjoint Approach
All inland rivers and lakes in USA
Assess benefits of water quality.
Water quality Mean WTP: US$32/person/year for each per cent increase in lakes and rivers water quality - where water quality was rated good. Total cost: US$20 billion for a decline in inland US water quality from 1994-2000.
Colombo et al. (2007)
Spain Choice Experiment Benefit Transfer
Genil and Guadajoz watersheds
Estimating benefits of reducing soil erosion &the possibility of benefit transfer.
Surface & ground water quality
Implicit prices based on the CL model High improvements in surface and ground water quality €26.26 (Genil) and €31.25 (Guadajoz).
Bliem, Getzner, & Rodiga-Laßnig (2012)
Austria Choice Experiment
Danube River
Assess WTP for river restoration - flood protection and water quality.
Water quality Mean WTP: Improvement in water quality from moderate to good €44.49 (2007) & €31.80 (2008)/household/year. Mean WTP: Improvement in water quality from moderate to very good €75.31 (2007) and €61.30 (2008)/household/year.
Appendix 1: International Studies (1990-2013)
Marsh & Mkwara. Review of Freshwater NMV Studies, August 2013 Page 106
Authorship Country Valuation Method
Water Body Study Objectives Indicator Value Benefit Estimates
Water Quality
Johnstone & Markandya (2006)
UK Travel Cost Method
303 rivers & streams in Berkshire & Marlborough downs
Assess river characteristics on anglers' fishing site choice & participation.
River quality A 10% change in river attributes results in a change in the consumer surplus value per trip, ranging from a low of £0.04 to a high of £3.93.
Sappideen (1993)
Australia Contingent Valuation
Sale wetlands
Assess peoples' WTP to protect environmental values.
Preservation of wetland from saline water
The present value of Sale wetlands over a 30-year period is estimated to be $13.12m.
Blamey, Bennett, & Morrison (1999)
Australia Contingent Valuation
Upper South-East of South Australia
Assess households' WTP for the construction of a pipe that would carry the saline water directly to the ocean.
Preservation of wetland from saline water
Median WTP: A$16 - A$53/household/ year for the construction pipe to preserve the wetland.
Pearson, Bateman, & Codd (2001)
UK Contingent Valuation
Rutland Water Reservoir
Assess peoples' WTP to protect the Rutland Water reservoir from a future outbreak of cyanobacteria.
Prevent the outbreak of cyanobacteria
Mean WTP estimates to prevent the outbreak of cyanobacteria in Rutland Water Reservoir of £16.74/household/year.
Appendix 1: International Studies (1990-2013)
Marsh & Mkwara. Review of Freshwater NMV Studies, August 2013 Page 107
Authorship Country Valuation Method
Water Body Study Objectives Indicator Value Benefit Estimates
Water Quality
Stenger & Willinger (1998)
France Contingent Valuation
Alsatian groundwater
Assess households' WTP to adopt a programme intended to stop pollution in the region & secure water quality.
Aquifer Mean WTP of Alsace households to preserve groundwater quality of the Alsatian aquifer 617 French Francs (FF)/household/year.
Bateman, Cole, Georgiou, & Hadley (2006)
UK Contingent Valuation
River Tame which passes through the city of Birmingham
Assess residents' WTP for water quality improvements.
Water quality Mean annual WTP per household of £7.60, £12.07 and £18.12 for small, medium and large improvements in water quality in River Tame.
Buckley, Hynes, & Mechan (2012)
Ireland Contingent Valuation
12 small scale river catchments in the Republic of Ireland.
Assess farmers’ willingness to adopt riparian buffer zones in agricultural catchments.
Provision of riparian buffer zone
The mean WTA based cost of provision for a 10 m riparian buffer zone was €1513 per ha per annum.
Black et al. (2006)
UK Choice Experiments Benefit transfer
Motray and Brothock catchments
Assess the benefits of water quality improvements & test the transferability of estimates between catchments.
Baseline scenario Compensation surplus: £57 (Motray) and £62 (Brothock)/household/year for the improvements over the baseline Scenario.
Appendix 1: International Studies (1990-2013)
Marsh & Mkwara. Review of Freshwater NMV Studies, August 2013 Page 108
Authorship Country Valuation Method
Water Body Study Objectives Indicator Value Benefit Estimates
Water Quality
Glenk, Lago, & Moran (2011)
UK Choice Experiment
Scottish river basin district (RBD), Solway-Tweed RBD, and Scotland as a whole
Assess public preferences for water quality improvements.
Water quality For the Solway-Tweed RBD WTP for water quality improvements in rivers in 7 years was £1.81 in the Scottish river basin district (RBD), £0.23 in the Solway-Tweed RBD, and £1.05 at the national level. For loch water quality improvements in 7 years, the marginal WTP results for these three areas are £1.2, £0.52, and £0.89. For the Solway-Tweed RBD, water quality improvements in 20 years were valued at £0.45 for rivers and £0.30 for lochs. For the Scottish RBD and water quality improvements at the national scale, households do not value water quality improvements in 20 years.
Bateman, Brouwer, Ferrini, & Schaafsma (2009)
UK Belgium Denmark Lithuania Norway
Contingent Valuation
Rivers in Norway, Lithuania, Denmark, Belgium and the UK.
Assess a multi-country transfer exercise & investigate methods for the transferral of non-market valuation studies.
Small and a large improvement in water quality
Respondents across the 5 countries were willing to pay €31 for a small improvement in water quality and €37 for a large improvement. When considering WTP by country, mean WTP values reflect income constraints, as the mean WTP for a small and a large improvement in Lithuania is estimated at €6 and €8, respectively; whereas in Belgium, the mean WTP for a small and a large improvement in water quality is estimated at €47 and €48, respectively.
Appendix 1: International Studies (1990-2013)
Marsh & Mkwara. Review of Freshwater NMV Studies, August 2013 Page 109
Authorship Country Valuation Method
Water Body Study Objectives Indicator Value Benefit Estimates
Water Quality
Kramer & Eisen-Hecht (2002)
USA Contingent Valuation
Catawba River basin
Estimate the economic value of water quality protection.
Water quality Mean annual WTP estimate per household for the management plan to maintain water quality at its current level over time was US$194.
Collins & Rosenberger (2007)
USA Contingent Valuation
Cheat River watershed
Estimate resident’s WTP to restore the Cheat River watershed for treatment of acid mine drainage.
Restoration Mean residents' WTP: $97.61/participant/year to restore the Cheat River watershed for treatment of acid mine drainage.
Amigues et al. (2002)
France Contingent Valuation
Garonne River
Assess benefits and costs of riparian analysis habitat preservation: A WTP/WTA
Riparian preservation & Water pollution reduction
Mean WTP for 70 and 20 km of stripe of land: $13/ household/year. Mean WTA: $114 per hectare for the land owners.
Bateman et al. (2005)
UK Mountain Lakes in Scotland
Assess individuals WTP for programme aimed at reducing acidity levels in the lakes.
Avoid further rise in acidity level
Mean annual household WTP for an improvement in acidity level of Mountain Lakes in the Scottish Highlands ranged from £11.75 - £30.18.
Appendix 1: International Studies (1990-2013)
Marsh & Mkwara. Review of Freshwater NMV Studies, August 2013 Page 110
Authorship Country Valuation Method
Water Body Study Objectives Indicator Value Benefit Estimates
Water Quantity
Grossmann (2011)
Germany Travel Cost Method
Spree River Basin
Assess the effect of reduced water availability on punt trips.
Punt trips Losses to recreation begin to appear at summer water deficits of ca. 25 hm
3.
Beyond this level, the marginal recreational loss is roughly €0.08/additional m3 of summer water deficit. The consumer surplus for day trips is estimated to be approximately €19 per trip. For trips from one to three days duration, it is estimated to be €33 per trip.
Rolfe & Bennett (2004)
Australia Contingent Valuation
Fitzroy River Basin
Assess social values for water allocation.
Allocate half the available water reserve to under privileged user groups
The predicted median and mean payments per household were -A$10.77 and A$65.85, respectively. Extrapolating the results across Brisbane households by substituting the age and household income data for that population from the 2001 census into the model, the estimated median and mean payments were slightly higher, A$6.27 and US$74.28 per household, respectively.
Rolfe & Windle (2003)
Australia Choice Experiment
The Fitzroy Basin
Evaluate the protection of Aboriginal cultural heritage sites.
Amount of water reserve
Implicit Prices/household/year: Water reserve: A$ 3.62, A$ 3.12, A$3.33 For Rockhampton Indigenous sample, Rockhampton general community sample and Brisbane general community sample, respectively.
Marsh & Mkwara. Review of Freshwater NMV Studies, August 2013 Page 111
Authorship Country Valuation Method
Water Body Study Objectives Indicator Value Benefit Estimates
Water Quantity
Rolfe & Windle (2005)
Australia Choice Experiment
The Fitzroy River Basin, The Dawson River & The Comet/Nogoa/Mackenzie (CNM)
Evaluate options for reserve water in the Fitzroy Basin.
Amount of unallocated water in reserve
WTP: A$37.44/household/year to maintain the current amount of water reserved in the CNM system (4% of the reserve), A$22.40/ household/year for the Dawson system (10% of the reserve), & A$22.80/household/year for the whole Fitzroy Basin (15% of the reserve).
Crase & Gillepsie (2008)
Australia Travel Cost Method & Contingent Valuation
Lake Hume Estimate the recreational values held by visitors to Lake Hume under different water quality and water level scenarios.
Value of water quality & recreation
The total direct recreational benefits derived from the lake when it is near full was approximately A$3m/year. Annual consumer surplus reduces by one third if the water level is reduced by 50% or if there is an algal alert. The recreational use benefits are increased by about A$1.3m (and doubled) when the water level is lifted from 50% (10% respectively) capacity to near full.
Garrod & Willis (1996)
UK Contingent Valuation
River Darent Estimate the benefits of environmental enhancement.
Flow levels The total aggregate annual benefit (users and non-users) of maintaining current flow levels in the River Darent, based on mean WTP (WTP) was £ 4,901,578. The aggregate benefit of improving current flows was £ 9,465,551.
Appendix 1: International Studies (1990-2013)
Marsh & Mkwara. Review of Freshwater NMV Studies, August 2013 Page 112
Authorship Country Valuation Method
Water Body Study Objectives Indicator Value Benefit Estimates
Water Quantity
Black et al. (2006)
UK Choice Experiments Benefit transfer
Motray and Brothock catchments
Assess the benefits of water quality improvements & test the transferability of estimates between catchments.
Flow rate Mean WTP: £2.70 - £3.87 per household for each month's reduction in low flows.
Connelly et al. (2007)
USA Contingent Valuation
United States portion of Lake Ontario and the Upper St. Lawrence River
Estimate the economic value of recreational boating.
Flow levels The loss in value due to water level change was found to be most pronounced in July and August. It was estimated that change in water level from 245 ft to 244 ft for the month of August would result in loss of US$1.7m for marina and yacht club users. If all other users were included this loss was estimated to be about US$8m.
Willis & Garrod (1999)
UK Contingent Valuation & Choice Experiments
River catchment areas in England
Assess angling & recreation values of low-flow alleviation in rivers.
Flow levels Mean WTP: For low-flow alleviation benefits anglers were willing to pay (WTP) £71.34 per year for syndicate members and £25.28 for club members.
Cultural/ Social
Rolfe & Bennett (2003)
Australia Choice Experiment
Fitzroy River Basin
Estimate values for environmental & social impacts of further irrigation development in the Fitzroy River Basin.
Number of people leaving rural or country areas every year
The estimated value per household per year for 20 years was: -A$1.09 for an increase in the number of people leaving rural or country areas every year.
Appendix 1: International Studies (1990-2013)
Marsh & Mkwara. Review of Freshwater NMV Studies, August 2013 Page 113
Authorship Country Valuation Method
Water Body Study Objectives Indicator Value Benefit Estimates
Cultural/ Social
Rolfe & Bennett (2004)
Australia Contingent Valuation
Fitzroy River Basin
Assess social values for water allocation.
allocate half the available water reserve to under privileged user groups
The predicted median and mean payments per household were -A$10.77 and A$65.85, respectively. Extrapolating the results across Brisbane households by substituting the age and household income data for that population from the 2001 census into the model, the estimated median and mean payments were slightly higher, A$6.27 and US$74.28 per household, respectively.
Rolfe & Bennett (2009)
Australia Choice Experiment
The Fitzroy River Basin
Assess the values people placed on impacts of further water resource development.
People leaving for cities
Part-worth: More people leaving for cities -A$0.895/household/ year.
Rolfe & Windle (2003)
Australia Choice Experiment
The Fitzroy Basin
Evaluate the protection of Aboriginal cultural heritage sites.
Cultural heritage protection
Implicit Prices/household/year: Cultural heritage protection: A$3.22, -A$2.08, -A$1.78 For Rockhampton Indigenous sample, Rockhampton general community sample and Brisbane general community sample, respectively.
Zander & Straton (2010)
Australia Choice Experiment
Mitchell River region, Daly River region, and Fitzroy River region
Assess the value of ecosystem services of tropical rivers in Australia.
Recreational fishing
94% of Australians willing to pay a once-off payment for the management of tropical rivers. Mean WTP: $238 for an increase of condition from Poor to Good and $162 from Poor to Ok. For the recreational fishing quality, WTP was $126 for an increase of fishing quality from “1-star” to “4-star”.
Appendix 1: International Studies (1990-2013)
Marsh & Mkwara. Review of Freshwater NMV Studies, August 2013 Page 114
Authorship Country Valuation Method
Water Body Study Objectives Indicator Value Benefit Estimates
Cultural/ Social
Straton & Zander (2009)
Australia Choice Experiment
Daly River catchment
Estimate the value of Australia’s tropical river ecosystem services.
Ecosystem services
One time payment/household WTP estimates for the ecosystem services in the Daly River: A$215.56 - A$232.42.
Straton, A. & K. Zander (2009)
Australia Choice Experiment
Fitzroy River Catchment
Estimate the value of Australia’s tropical river ecosystem services.
Aboriginal use of water holes
One-time payment/household WTP estimates for the ecosystem services in Fitzroy River: A$299.08 - A$392.07.
Straton & Zander (2009)
Australia Choice Experiment
Mitchell River Catchment
Estimate the value of Australia’s tropical river ecosystem services.
Aboriginal use of water holes
One-time payment/household WTP estimates for the ecosystem services in the Mitchell River:A$172.65 - A$547.89.
Research & Education
Christie & Rayment (2012)
UK Choice Experiment
General Ecosystems in England and Wales
Assess the value of ecosystem services.
Research and education
Annual household consumer surplus (CS) values for 10 years of ecosystem services delivered by Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) habitats under the ‘Maintain funding’ scenario. For Lakes and Rivers, the annual per household CS was £0.04 for research and education.
Appendix 1: International Studies (1990-2013)
Marsh & Mkwara. Review of Freshwater NMV Studies, August 2013 Page 115
Authorship Country Valuation Method
Water Body Study Objectives Indicator Value Benefit Estimates
Economic
Morrison, Bennett, & Blamey (1998)
Australia Choice Experiment
The Macquarie Marshes
Estimate the value of improved wetland quality.
Irrigation related job
The average WTP for an additional square kilometre of wetland area was about A$0.14 for an additional irrigation related job.
Mazur & Bennett (2009)
Australia Choice Experiment
Lachlan catchment, Namoi catchment, &Hawkesbury-Nepean catchment.
Evaluate improvements in environmental quality in New South Wales.
Number of people working in agriculture
Implicit prices for Hawkesbury-Nepean catchment: Number of people working in agriculture A$0.17, A$0.23, A$0.09, A$0.04 For Sydney sub-sample (distant/urban), Hawkesbury-Nepean sub-sample (local/rural) and Namoi sub-sample (distant/rural), respectively.
Zander & Straton (2010)
Australia Choice Experiment
Mitchell River region, Daly River region, and Fitzroy River region
Assess the value of ecosystem services of tropical rivers in Australia.
Management of rivers, Agricultural income
94% of Australians willing to pay a once-off payment for the management of tropical rivers. Mean WTP: -A$96 for a decrease in income from irrigated agriculture from high to low.
Straton & Zander (2009)
Australia Choice Experiment
Daly River catchment
Estimate the value of Australia’s tropical river ecosystem services.
Ecosystem services, Agricultural income
One time payment/household WTP estimates for the ecosystem services in the Daly River: A$43.84 - A$51.20 for high income from agriculture.
Appendix 1: International Studies (1990-2013)
Marsh & Mkwara. Review of Freshwater NMV Studies, August 2013 Page 116
Authorship Country Valuation Method
Water Body Study Objectives Indicator Value Benefit Estimates
Economic
Straton & Zander (2009)
Australia Choice Experiment
Fitzroy River Catchment
Estimate the value of Australia’s tropical river ecosystem services.
High income from agriculture
One-time payment/household WTP estimates for the ecosystem services in Fitzroy River: $46.65 - $101.94.
Straton & Zander (2009)
Australia Choice Experiment
Mitchell River Catchment
Estimate the value of Australia’s tropical river ecosystem services
High income from agriculture.
One-time payment/household WTP estimates for the ecosystem services in the Mitchell River: A$124.53 - A$349.03.
Zander, Garnett, & Straton (2010)
Australia Choice Experiment
Daly River & Fitzroy River
Assess urban Australians’ WTP for non-market ecosystem services provided by Australia’s tropical rivers.
Good environmental condition
Respondents' WTP is A$238 for an increase of condition from Poor to Good and A$162 from Poor to OK.
Zander, Garnett, & Straton (2010)
Australia Choice Experiment
Daly River & Fitzroy River
Assess urban Australians’ WTP for non-market ecosystem services provided by Australia’s tropical rivers.
Income from agriculture.
Respondents, WTP is -A$96 for a decrease in income from irrigated agriculture from high to low, whereas this value is A$35 for a decrease in income from irrigated agriculture from high to medium.
Appendix 1: International Studies (1990-2013)
Marsh & Mkwara. Review of Freshwater NMV Studies, August 2013 Page 117
Authorship Country Valuation Method
Water Body Study Objectives Indicator Value Benefit Estimates
Economic
Campbell, Hutchinson, & Scarpa (2008)
Ireland Choice Experiments
Assess the value of improvements in rural environmental landscape in Ireland.
Safe guarding pastures
Mean WTP/person/year: Between €96.60 and €232.99 for a lot of action, and between €83.46 and €216.64 for some action.
Option
Peirson, Tingley, Spurgeon, & Radford (2001)
UK Contingent Valuation
River Thames, River Teifi & River Aire
Evaluate the socio-economic benefits of inland fisheries.
existence value of salmon
Mean WTP: Thames Region: £2.40/household/ year. Assuming 5 million households in the Thames Region, then gross economic value: £12m/year. Mean WTP: River Teifi: An extra £2.50 - £7.50 for each fishing trip to the river. Assuming that the mean WTP represented a reasonable estimate of consumer surplus, based upon the numbers of angler-trips made annually to the River Teifi, the aggregate annual WTP could be in the order of £110 000.
Rolfe & Bennett (2003)
Australia Choice Experiment
Fitzroy River Basin
Estimate values for environmental & social impacts of further irrigation development in the Fitzroy River Basin.
Water left in reserve for future use
The estimated value per household per year for 20 years was A$5.31 for a 1% increase in water left in reserve for future use.
Appendix 1: International Studies (1990-2013)
Marsh & Mkwara. Review of Freshwater NMV Studies, August 2013 Page 118
Authorship Country Valuation Method
Water Body Study Objectives Indicator Value Benefit Estimates
Option
Rolfe & Bennett (2009)
Australia Choice Experiment
The Fitzroy River Basin
Assess the values people placed on impacts of further water resource development.
Water reserved for future use
Part-worth: Water reserved for future use: A$5.949/household/year.
Non-use
Peirson, Tingley, Spurgeon, & Radford (2001)
UK Contingent Valuation
River Thames, River Teifi & River Aire
Evaluate the socio-economic benefits of inland fisheries.
Existence value of salmon
Mean WTP: Thames Region: £2.40/household/ year. Assuming 5 million households in the Thames Region, then gross economic value: £12m/year. Mean WTP: River Teifi: An extra £2.50 - £7.50 for each fishing trip to the river. Assuming that the mean WTP represented a reasonable estimate of consumer surplus, based upon the numbers of angler-trips made annually to the River Teifi, the aggregate annual WTP could be in the order of £110 000.
Appendix 1: International Studies (1990-2013)
Marsh & Mkwara. Review of Freshwater NMV Studies, August 2013 Page 119
Appendix 2: Freshwater non-market values from the rest of New Zealand studies (1990-2013)
Ecosystem Service
Authorship Valuation Method
Water Body Study Objectives Indicator Value Benefit Estimates
Recreation
Bell & Yap (2004)
Contingent Valuation
Lakes Rotorua & Rotoiti
Evaluation of less tangible values & associated opportunity costs.
Recreation: Motorized boating, jet skiing, yachting, kayak/rowing, wind sailing, trout angling, swimming, picnicking, traditional food, walking/photography, bird watching, shooting & scenic driving.
Mean WTP: NZ$93.22 (Rotorua) & NZ$29.81 (BOP)/household/year.
Mkwara & Marsh (2011)
Travel Cost Method
Rotorua Lakes To assess the benefits of better water quality to trout anglers
Trout angling Consumer surplus for a 1 metre rise in water clarity/ angler/year: Lake Rotorua NZ$22.70 Lake Rotoiti NZ$26.16 Lake Rerewhakaaitu NZ$3.90 Lake Rotoehu NZ$1.30 Lake Okareka NZ$0.75 Lake Okaro NZ$0.20 Lake Rotomahana NZ$0.04
Marsh & Mkwara. Review of Freshwater NMV Studies, August 2013 Page 120
Ecosystem Service
Authorship Valuation Method
Water Body Study Objectives Indicator Value Benefit Estimates
Recreation
Bell et al. (2012)
Choice Experiment
Takaka, Matakitaki & Lee-Wairoa-Waimea in Tasman District
Value water mixed signals: stated preferences for future states of 3 NZ rivers
Swimming & boating Not statistically significant
Kerr & Swaffield (2012)
Choice Experiment Semi-quantitative Q method
Lower Selwyn River
Identifying cultural service values of a small river in the agricultural landscape of Canterbury.
Safe to swim Mean annual WTP: NZ$S67.98 - NZ$121.88 for farmers & NZ$298.58 for anglers.
Lynch & Weber (1992)
Contingent valuation
Ashburton River
To assess the value of water in the Ashburton River.
In-stream values of the Ashburton River
Mean WTP: NZ$161/Ashburton household/ year. Mean WTP: NZ$56/Outside Ashburton household/ year.
Marsh & Phillips (2012)
Choice Experiment
Hurunui catchment in South Island
Investigate water resource management in the Hurunui catchment, New Zealand
Suitability for swimming and recreation
Mean WTP: NZ$33/household/year
Bell et al. (2012)
Choice Experiment
Three rivers: Takaka, Matakitaki and Lee-Wairoa-Waimea in Tasman District
Value water mixed signals: stated preferences for future states of 3 NZ rivers
Fishing Mean WTP: Matakitaki river: NZ$250/year for 5 years to avoid a change from excellent to good or fair in fish & fishing & NZ$600/year to avoid a change to poor. (Similar patterns with lower values for the other two rivers).
Appendix 2: The Rest of New Zealand Studies (1990-2013)
Marsh & Mkwara. Review of Freshwater NMV Studies, August 2013 Page 121
Ecosystem Service
Authorship Valuation Method
Water Body Study Objectives Indicator Value Benefit Estimates
Recreation
Beville & Kerr (2008)
Choice Experiment
mainstream-Braided Rivers, Backcountry Rivers, Lowland Streams, Lakes
Investigate how the quality of fishery attributes impact anglers’ selection of fishing sites.
Angler catch, trout size, bag limit, angler encounter
Marginal values (per angler visit): 1 trout = NZ$16, Increased fish size = NZ$24 per pound, Bag limit = NZ$27 per trout.
Beville, Kerr, & Hughey (2012)
Choice experiment
Sumner & Coleridge lakes and the Waimakariri River
To assess the impacts of the invasive alga didymosphenia geminata on recreational angling.
Fishing Total cost: NZ$44/angler/day. The naïve cost of Didymo: NZ$10.05m. If all mainstream-rivers are closed regardless of Didymo infestation, the total welfare costs: NZ$19.88 m.
Kerr & Sharp (2004)
Travel cost method Contingent valuation
The Waimakariri River and Rakai River
Assess in-stream river water values
Changes in salmon abundance
Consumers' Surplus per visit for fishers of the Rakaia River: NZ$7.88. The mean values for changes in salmon abundance: NZ$4.75 - NZ$27.62.
Kerr & Greer (2004)
Travel Cost Method
Rangitata River To estimate the Rangitata River angling benefits.
Angling experience Benefits: NZ$40 - NZ$103/angler/visit
Marsh & Phillips (2012)
Choice Experiment
Hurunui catchment in South Island
Investigate water resource management in the Hurunui catchment, New Zealand
Salmon and trout Mean WTP: NZ$25/household/year
Appendix 2: The Rest of New Zealand Studies (1990-2013)
Marsh & Mkwara. Review of Freshwater NMV Studies, August 2013 Page 122
Ecosystem Service
Authorship Valuation Method
Water Body Study Objectives Indicator Value Benefit Estimates
Recreation
Wheeler & Damania (2001)
Contingent Valuation
All water bodies in New Zealand
To estimate the recreational value of fishing in New Zealand
Catch rate & bag limit Marginal WTP/angler/year for fish caught: Snapper: NZ$5.73, Kingfish: NZ$19.76, Blue Cod: NZ$1.61, Kahawai: NZ$3.44, Rock Lobster: NZ$6.54
Access/ Facility
Mkwara & Marsh (2011)
Travel Cost Method
Rotorua Lakes To assess the benefits of better water quality to trout anglers
Trout angling value of lakes
Annual welfare loss per angler for a hypothetical lake closure Lake Rotorua NZ$232.08/angler/year Lake Rotoiti NZ$273.02/angler/year Lake Tarawera NZ$215.02/angler/year Lake Rotoma NZ$85.07/per angler/year Lake Okataina NZ$34.77/per angler/year Lake Rerewhakaaitu NZ$33.14/angler/year Lake Rotoehu NZ$11.36/angler/year Lake Okareka NZ$6.51/angler/year Lake Tikitapu NZ$ 1.71/angler/year Lake Okaro NZ$1.02/angler/year Lake Rotomahana NZ$0.34/angler/year
Mkwara & Marsh (2011)
Travel Cost Method
Rotorua Lakes To assess the benefits of better water quality to trout anglers
Facility development Anglers preferred lakes which were easily accessible, had more boat ramps and other recreational facilities. Non market values were not estimated.
Appendix 2: The Rest of New Zealand Studies (1990-2013)
Marsh & Mkwara. Review of Freshwater NMV Studies, August 2013 Page 123
Ecosystem Service
Authorship Valuation Method
Water Body Study Objectives Indicator Value Benefit Estimates
Access/ Facility
Beville & Kerr (2008)
Choice Experiment
Mainstem-Braided Rivers, Backcountry Rivers, Lowland Streams, Lakes
To investigate how the quality of fishery attributes impact anglers’ selection of fishing sites.
Encounters Marginal values (per angler visit): Encounters = -NZ$5
Landscape/ aesthetic
Baskaran, Cullen, & Colombo (2009)
Choice Experiment
Streams, rivers and underground water in Canterbury
Estimate values of environmental impacts of dairy farming in New Zealand.
Scenic view Mean WTP: NZ16.34/household/year for 5 years for a 30% more trees, hedges and plantations.
Bell & Yap (2004)
Contingent Valuation
Lakes Rotorua and Rotoiti
Evaluation of less tangible values and associated opportunity costs.
Unspoiled environment, aesthetics, lakeside living
Mean WTP: Passive benefits (aesthetics, fresh air & unspoilt environment): NZ$86.51 (Rotorua) and NZ$11.86 (BOP)/household/year. Mean WTP: Lakeside living: 'not significant' (Rotorua) and NZ$57.42 (BOP)/household/year.
Appendix 2: The Rest of New Zealand Studies (1990-2013)
Marsh & Mkwara. Review of Freshwater NMV Studies, August 2013 Page 124
Ecosystem Service
Authorship Valuation Method
Water Body Study Objectives Indicator Value Benefit Estimates
Landscape/ aesthetic
Bell et al. (2012)
Choice Experiment
Three rivers: Takaka, Matakitaki and Lee-Wairoa-Waimea in Tasman District
Value water mixed signals: stated preferences for future states of 3 NZ rivers
Natural character Implicit WTP/year for five years: Matakitaki River (SQ Mainly Natural) Change to Mixed Vegetation NZ$-152 Change to Highly Modified NZ$-198 Takaka River (SQ Highly Modified) Change to Mixed Vegetation NZ$57 Change to Mainly Natural NZ$100 Change to Natural Species NZ$189 Waimea River (SQ Highly Modified) Change to Mixed Vegetation NZ$85 Change to Mainly Natural NZ$135 Change to Natural Species NZ$159
Beville & Kerr (2008)
Choice Experiment
Mainstream-Braided Rivers, Backcountry Rivers, Lowland Streams, Lakes
To investigate how the quality of fishery attributes impact anglers’ selection of fishing sites.
Water visibility, eroded riverbanks
Marginal values (per angler visit): Eroded riverbanks = -NZ$60.
Kerr & Sharp (2004)
Choice Experiment Benefit Transfer
Auckland Streams
Identification and evaluation of important Auckland stream quality attributes.
water clarity, Native streamside vegetation Channel form
Water clarity: Mean WTP: NZ$66 (North Shore) & NZ$67 (S. Auckland)/household/year. Moderate vegetation: Mean WTP: NZ$28 (North Shore) & NZ $16 (S. Auckland)/household/year. Plentiful vegetation: Mean WTP: NZ$21 (North Shore) & NZ$41 (S. Auckland)/household/year.
Appendix 2: The Rest of New Zealand Studies (1990-2013)
Marsh & Mkwara. Review of Freshwater NMV Studies, August 2013 Page 125
Ecosystem Service
Authorship Valuation Method
Water Body Study Objectives Indicator Value Benefit Estimates
Landscape/ aesthetic
Kerr & Swaffield (2012)
Choice Experiment Semi-quantitative Q method
Lower Selwyn River
Identifying cultural service values of a small river in the agricultural landscape of Canterbury.
water clarity (clear or murky)
Mean annual WTP: NZ$S-1.92 - NZ$44.99 for farmers & NZ$182.53 for anglers.
Kerr & Sharp (2008)
Choice Experiment
Two hypothetical streams in Auckland
Evaluate off-site mitigation using choice modelling
Plentiful vegetation Mean WTP: NZ$34.62/household/year
Tait, Baskaran, Cullen & Bicknell (2011)
Choice Experiment
Rivers and streams in Canterbury
Valuing agricultural impacts on rivers and streams.
Health risk Mean WTP: NZ$27/household/year if the risk of people getting sick from recreational contact is reduced to 10 people per 1000 per year.
Woodham & Marsh (2011)
Hedonoc Pricing Lakes Rotorua, Rotoiti, Tarawera & Okareka
Analyse the effect of water quality on the value of property surrounding the Rotorua lakes
water view and distance of property from the lakes
Property Value if no water view (400 metres to lake): NZ$209,038 Property Value if 100 metres to lake: NZ$281,146
Appendix 2: The Rest of New Zealand Studies (1990-2013)
Marsh & Mkwara. Review of Freshwater NMV Studies, August 2013 Page 126
Ecosystem Service
Authorship Valuation Method
Water Body Study Objectives Indicator Value Benefit Estimates
Ecological Health
Beville & Kerr (2008)
Choice Experiment
mainstream-Braided Rivers, Backcountry Rivers, Lowland Streams, Lakes
To investigate how the quality of fishery attributes impact anglers’ selection of fishing sites.
Didymo Marginal values (per angler visit): Didymo = -NZ$41, Encounters = -NZ$5
Marsh & Phillips (2012)
Choice Experiment
Hurunui catchment in South Island
Investigate water resource management in the Hurunui catchment, New Zealand
Ecological Health Mean WTP: NZ$44/household/year
Bell & Yap (2004)
Contingent Valuation
Lakes Rotorua and Rotoiti
Evaluation of less tangible values and associated opportunity costs.
Recreation & healthy trout fishery
Mean WTP: NZ$103.80 (Rotorua) & NZ$0 (BOP)/household/year.
Tait, Baskaran, Cullen & Bicknell (2011)
Choice Experiment
Rivers and streams in Canterbury
Valuing agricultural impacts on rivers and streams.
good quality ecology Mean WTP: NZ$84/household/year for good quality ecology.
Appendix 2: The Rest of New Zealand Studies (1990-2013)
Marsh & Mkwara. Review of Freshwater NMV Studies, August 2013 Page 127
Ecosystem Service
Authorship Valuation Method
Water Body Study Objectives Indicator Value Benefit Estimates
Methane Gas
Baskaran, Cullen, & Colombo (2009)
Choice Experiment
Streams, rivers and groundwater in Canterbury
Estimate values of environmental impacts of dairy farming in New Zealand.
Reduction in methane gas
Mean WTP: NZ15.85/household/year for 5 years for a 30% reduction in methane gas.
Biodiversity
Kerr & Sharp (2004)
Choice Experiment Benefit Transfer
Auckland Streams
Identification and evaluation of important Auckland stream quality attributes.
Native fish species Native fish species: Mean WTP: NZ$11 (North Shore) & NZ$5 (S. Auckland)/household/year. Fish habitat: Mean WTP: -NZ$1 (North Shore) & -NZ$3 (S. Auckland)/household/year.
Kerr & Sharp (2008)
Choice Experiment
Two hypothetical streams in Auckland
Evaluate off-site mitigation using choice modelling
Mean WTP/household/year: Native fish species: NZ$13.69 Fish habitat: NZ$4.13
General
Ndebele (2009) Contingent Valuation & Travel Cost
Pekapeka Swamp
Non-market valuation of the restoration and preservation of Pekapeka swamp (Hawke’s Bay region)
General benefits provided by wetlands
Mean WTP: NZ$30.00 - NZ$76.89/household/year five years. Unit value: NZ$17,898 - NZ$45,866/ha/year NPV for the restoration and preservation programme: NZ$5.05m - NZ$18.20m
Appendix 2: The Rest of New Zealand Studies (1990-2013)
Marsh & Mkwara. Review of Freshwater NMV Studies, August 2013 Page 128
Ecosystem Service
Authorship Valuation Method
Water Body Study Objectives Indicator Value Benefit Estimates
Water Quality
Baskaran, Cullen, & Colombo (2009)
Choice Experiment
Streams, rivers and underground water in Canterbury
Estimate values of environmental impacts of dairy farming in New Zealand.
Reduction in nitrate leaching to water ways
Mean WTP: NZ$31.82/household/year for 5 years for a 30% reduction in Nitrate leaching.
Bell & Yap (2004)
Contingent Valuation
Lakes Rotorua and Rotoiti
Evaluation of less tangible values and associated opportunity costs.
Lake water quality Mean WTP: NZ$91.24 (Rotorua), NZ$11.85 (BOP) and NZ$245.78 (Auckland anglers)/household/angler/year.
Cullen, Hughey, & Kerr (2006)
Contingent valuation
Lakes and rivers in the North and South Island
To assess the New Zealand freshwater management and agriculture impacts.
Improvement in lowland water conditions
Mean WTP: (53% of the 771 respondents): NZ$20/respondent/year, with those over 50 years much less willing to pay the NZ$20 than those under 50.
Sheppard, Kerr, Tipler, Cullen, & Ferguson (1992)
Contingent Valuation
Lower Waimakariri River
To assess the costs & benefits associated with improving the water quality in the Lower Waimakariri River.
Water pollution Mean WTP: NZ$102/household/year with a range of NZ$72 - $153 representing the 95% CI. PV of benefits: NZ$94.4m. (80% discount rate over 10 years). This clearly exceeds the PV of water quality improvement costs of up to $17.2m.
Kerr & Sharp (2004)
Choice Experiment Benefit Transfer
Auckland Streams
Identification and evaluation of important Auckland stream quality attributes.
water clarity Mean WTP: NZ$66 (North Shore) & NZ$67 (S. Auckland)/household/year
Appendix 2: The Rest of New Zealand Studies (1990-2013)
Marsh & Mkwara. Review of Freshwater NMV Studies, August 2013 Page 129
Ecosystem Service
Authorship Valuation Method
Water Body Study Objectives Indicator Value Benefit Estimates
Water Quality
Kerr, Sharp, & Leathers (2004)
Travel cost method Contingent valuation
The Waimakariri River and Rakai River
Assess in-stream river water values
benefits of improved water quality
Mean preservation value at NZ$27.34 (Waimakariri River).
Kerr & Sharp (2008)
Choice Experiment
Two hypothetical streams in Auckland
Evaluate off-site mitigation using choice modelling
water clarity Mean WTP: NZ$78.86/household/year
Marsh & Phillips (2012)
Choice Experiment
Hurunui catchment in South Island
Investigate water resource management in the Hurunui catchment, New Zealand
tributary water quality
Mean WTP: NZ$87/household/year
Mkwara & Marsh (2011)
Travel Cost Method
Rotorua Lakes To assess the benefits of better water quality to trout anglers
Water clarity Compensating surplus for a 1 metre rise in water clarity: Lake Rotorua NZ$22.70/angler/year Lake Rotoiti NZ$26.16/angler/year Lake Rerewhakaaitu NZ$3.90/angler/year Lake Rotoehu NZ$1.30/angler/year Lake Okareka NZ$0.75/angler/year Lake Okaro NZ$0.20/angler/year Lake Rotomahana NZ$0.04/angler/year
Appendix 2: The Rest of New Zealand Studies (1990-2013)
Marsh & Mkwara. Review of Freshwater NMV Studies, August 2013 Page 130
Ecosystem Service
Authorship Valuation Method
Water Body Study Objectives Indicator Value Benefit Estimates
Water Quantity
Baskaran, Cullen, & Colombo (2009)
Choice Experiment
Streams, rivers and underground water in Canterbury
Estimate values of environmental impacts of dairy farming in New Zealand.
Reduction for water use in irrigation
Mean WTP: NZ$26.93/household/year for 5 years for a 30% reduction in water use for irrigation.
Kerr, Sharp, & White (2003)
Contingent Valuation
Christchurch City
To assess the economics of augmenting Christchurch's water supply.
Augmenting water supply through use of new wells and preventing lower river flows
Mean WTP: NZ$516 - NZ$1,939/household/year. Aggregating a lower-bound estimate of NZ$400 in benefits/household across the 116,000 households in the study area, total annual benefits: NZ$46.4m. Total costs: NZ$6.7m for a new benefit in excess of $39m/year.
Kerr, Sharp, & White (2001)
Contingent Valuation
Aquifers beneath Christchurch city
To value non-marketed impacts of ground water extraction
Cost associated with further abstraction
Cost: NZ$63.2m/year. Increase in cost if switched to Wamakariri River: NZ$17.0m/year Net benefit of switching to the Ellesmere supply (assuming zero impacts on alternative users): NZ$57.2m/year.
Tait, Baskaran, Cullen & Bicknell (2011)
Choice Experiment
Rivers and streams in Canterbury
Valuing agricultural impacts on rivers and streams.
Flow conditions of local streams and rivers.
Mean WTP: NZ$52/household/year for 1 month of low-flow conditions per year.
White, Sharp, & Kerr (2001)
Contingent valuation
Waimea Plains To assess the economic values of groundwater in the Waimea Plains.
Water allocations Lower bound of WTP: NZ$183/household/year for a 20% reduction in extractive
Appendix 2: The Rest of New Zealand Studies (1990-2013)
Marsh & Mkwara. Review of Freshwater NMV Studies, August 2013 Page 131
Ecosystem Service
Authorship Valuation Method
Water Body Study Objectives Indicator Value Benefit Estimates
Food Gathering
Bell & Yap (2004)
Contingent Valuation
Lakes Rotorua and Rotoiti
Evaluation of less tangible values and associated opportunity costs.
Traditional food supply
Mean WTP of NZ$55.59 (Rotorua) and NZ$15.33 (BOP)/household/year.
Economic
Bell et al. (2012)
Choice Experiment
Three rivers: Takaka, Matakitaki and Lee-Wairoa-Waimea in Tasman District
Value water mixed signals: stated preferences for future states of 3 NZ rivers
Job loss Mean WTP: Matakitaki: NZ$-472/year for five years for 200 jobs lost.
Marsh & Phillips (2012)
Choice Experiment
Hurunui catchment in South Island
Investigate water resource management in the Hurunui catchment, New Zealand
Number of jobs in Canterbury (500 or more)
Mean WTP: NZ$29/household/year
Appendix 2: The Rest of New Zealand Studies (1990-2013)
Marsh & Mkwara. Review of Freshwater NMV Studies, August 2013 Page 132
Ecosystem Service
Authorship Valuation Method
Water Body Study Objectives Indicator Value Benefit Estimates
Non-use
Kerr, Sharp, & Leathers (2004)
Travel cost method Contingent valuation
The Waimakariri River and Rakai River
Assess in-stream river water values
non-use benefits from protection of in-stream flows for the Rakaia River
Mean aggregate option benefits for the Rakaia River: NZ$17.60, and preservation value at NZ$17.38.
Omwenga (1995)
Contingent Valuation
Wetland Assess the value of improved wetland quality
Improved wetland quality
Use value $0.70/household p.a.; Option value $2.70/household p.a.; Existence value $3.17/household p.a.; Bequest value $6.75/household p.a.; WTP for improved wetland quality $6.31/household p.a.
Kerr, Sharp, & Leathers (2004)
Travel cost method Contingent valuation
The Waimakariri River and Rakai River
Assess in-stream river water values
Non-use benefits from protection of in-stream flows
Mean preservation value at NZ$27.34.
Appendix 2: The Rest of New Zealand Studies (1990-2013)
Marsh & Mkwara. Review of Freshwater NMV Studies, August 2013 Page 133
Appendix 3: Freshwater non-market values from the Waikato Region studies (1990-2013)
Ecosystem service
Authorship Valuation Method
Water Body Study Objectives Indicator Value
Benefit Estimates
Recreation
Marsh & Baskaran (2009)
Choice Experiment
Lakes Karapiro and Arapuni
To assess the Karapiro catchment residents' preferences for water quality.
Suitability for swimming
Median WTP: NZ$125/household/year to reduce the risk of algal blooms to 2%.
Marsh, Mkwara, & Scarpa (2011)
Choice Experiment
Streams in the Karapiro Catchment Area
Assessing the value of cleaner streams in the Karapiro Catchment Area
Suitability for swimming
Mean WTP: NZ$ 67.19 - NZ$109.05/household/year for a 90% chance of readings rated satisfactory for swimming.
Marsh, Mkwara, Pinkerton, & Sayadat (2010)
Choice Experiment
Lake Karapiro & Arapuni
To assess water quality preferences of recreational users on Lake Karapiro & Arapuni.
Rowing & other forms of recreation in general
Rowers had a median WTP of NZ$170/year to reduce the incidence of health warning in summer from current level of 50% chance to at least 2% chance. Non-rowers had median WTP of NZ$231/year for the same improvement. Recreational users from Auckland: had median WTP of NZ$234/year for the same improvement. Rest of respondents from Hamilton, Cambridge & Bay of Plenty: had a median WTP of NZ$174/year for the same improvement.
Marsh & Mkwara. Review of Freshwater NMV Studies, August 2013 Page 134
Ecosystem service
Authorship Valuation Method
Water Body Study Objectives Indicator Value
Benefit Estimates
Recreation
McBeth (1997) Travel cost & Contingent Valuation Methods
Tongariro River Assessing the recreational value of angling
fishing NZ$67/person/visit
Wheeler & Damania (2001)
Contingent Valuation
All water bodies in New Zealand
To estimate the recreational value of fishing in New Zealand
Catch rate & bag limit
Marginal WTP/angler/year for fish caught: Snapper: NZ$5.73, Kingfish: NZ$19.76, Blue Cod: NZ$1.61, Kahawai: NZ$3.44, Rock Lobster: NZ$6.54
Access/Facility
Matthews (2009)
Choice experiments
Hamilton streams
To assess the benefits that would accrue from policies designed to improve local stream quality
Walkway access
Mean WTP: NZ$24/individual/year.
Geck (2012) Choice experiments
Hamilton gullies and forests
To assess preferences of residents in Hamilton City for improvements in the city’s gullies and forests
Walkway access & amenities
Mean WTP: NZ$7.7 per/individual /year for 5 years for 75% of gullies with walkways and NZ$0.05 for a 50% increase in gullies and forests with amenities.
Appendix 3: Waikato Region Studies (1990-2013)
Marsh & Mkwara. Review of Freshwater NMV Studies, August 2013 Page 135
Ecosystem service
Authorship Valuation Method
Water Body Study Objectives Indicator Value
Benefit Estimates
Landscape/ Aesthetic
Matthews (2009)
Choice experiments
Hamilton streams
To assess the benefits that would accrue from policies designed to improve local stream quality
Natural vegetation & channel; & mown grass
Mean WTP: Native vegetation: NZ$52/individual/year. Mean WTP: Natural channel: NZ$51/individual/year. Mean WTP: Mown grass: NZ$11/individual/year.
Geck (2012) Choice experiments
Hamilton gullies and forests
To assess preferences of residents in Hamilton City for improvements in the city’s gullies and forests
Native vegetation
Mean WTP: NZ$22.50 per/individual/year for 5 years for 75% of gullies and forests with mostly native vegetation
Ecological Health
Marsh & Baskaran (2009)
Choice Experiment
Lakes Karapiro and Arapuni
To assess the Karapiro catchment residents' preferences for water quality.
Ecological Health
Median WTP: NZ$126/household/year to increase the proportion of excellent ecological health readings to above 80%.
Marsh (2012) Choice Experiments
Lakes Karapiro and Arapuni
To address the way in which preference to avoid job losses affects choice behaviour & WTP to pay for improved water quality.
Ecological Health
Median WTP: NZ$103/household/year to increase the proportion of excellent ecological health readings to above 80%.
Marsh & Mkwara. Review of Freshwater NMV Studies, August 2013 Page 136
Ecosystem service
Authorship Valuation Method
Water Body Study Objectives Indicator Value
Benefit Estimates
Ecological Health
Geck (2012) Choice experiments
Hamilton gullies and forests
To assess preferences of residents in Hamilton City for improvements in the city’s gullies and forests
Stream quality
Mean WTP: NZ$25.20 per/individual/year for 5 years for excellent stream quality
Marsh, Mkwara, & Scarpa (2011)
Choice Experiment
Streams in the Karapiro Catchment Area
Assessing the value of cleaner streams in the Karapiro Catchment Area
Ecological health
Mean WTP: NZ$ 30.29 - NZ$91.01/household/year for improved ecological conditions (more than 70% of readings rated as excellent).
Marsh, Mkwara, Pinkerton, & Sayadat (2010)
Choice Experiment
Lake Karapiro and Arapuni
To assess water quality preferences of recreational users on Lake Karapiro & lake Arapuni.
Ecological health
Median WTP of NZ$222 & NZ$106/year to increase ecological health from fewer than 40% excellent readings to at least 80% of excellent readings for web & household surveys, respectively.
Bell, Yap, & Cudby (2009)
Choice experiment
Lake Rotoroa To value indigenous biodiversity in the freshwater environment
Hydrilla extent
Mean WTP: NZ$243.71/ household/year to completely remove Hydrilla in Rotoroa & Z$151.05/household/year in the far away city of Wellington. Mean WTP: NZ$200.34/household/year for 21% of the lake to be Charophyte cover.
Appendix 3: Waikato Region Studies (1990-2013)
Marsh & Mkwara. Review of Freshwater NMV Studies, August 2013 Page 137
Ecosystem service
Authorship Valuation Method
Water Body Study Objectives Indicator Value
Benefit Estimates
Biodiversity
Marsh, Mkwara, & Scarpa (2011)
Choice Experiment
Streams in the Karapiro Catchment Area
Assessing the value of cleaner streams in the Karapiro Catchment Area
Biodiversity Mean WTP: NZ$27.69 - NZ$85.46/household/year for presence of trout.
Matthews (2009)
Choice experiments
Hamilton streams
To assess the benefits that would accrue from policies designed to improve local stream quality
Biodiversity Mean WTP: NZ$39/individual/year for plentiful native fish.
Geck (2012) Choice experiments
Hamilton gullies and forests
To assess preferences of residents in Hamilton City for improvements in the city’s gullies and forests
Native animals
Mean WTP: NZ$63.9 per/individual/year for 5 years for increase in fauna
Bell, Yap, & Cudby (2009)
Choice experiment
Lake Rotoroa To value indigenous biodiversity in the freshwater environment
Biodiversity Mean WTP: NZ$164.33/household/year for all four shag bird species to continue to visit the lake & NZ$135.28/household/year for mussels and all fish species to remain in the lake.
Appendix 3: Waikato Region Studies (1990-2013)
Marsh & Mkwara. Review of Freshwater NMV Studies, August 2013 Page 138
Ecosystem service
Authorship Valuation Method
Water Body Study Objectives Indicator Value
Benefit Estimates
Water Quality
Marsh & Baskaran (2009)
Choice Experiment
Lakes Karapiro and Arapuni
To assess the Karapiro catchment residents' preferences for water quality.
Risk of algal blooms
Median WTP: NZ$125/household/year to reduce the risk of algal blooms to 2%.
Marsh (2012) Choice Experiments
Lakes Karapiro and Arapuni
To address the way in which preference to avoid job losses affects choice behaviour & WTP to pay for improved water quality.
Risk of algal blooms
Median WTP: NZ$102/household/year to reduce the risk of algal blooms to 2%.
Matthews (2009)
Choice experiments
Hamilton streams
To assess the benefits that would accrue from policies designed to improve local stream quality
Clarity (muddy or clear)
Mean WTP: NZ$55/individual/year for clear water
Marsh, Mkwara, & Scarpa (2011)
Choice Experiment
Streams in the Karapiro Catchment Area
Assessing the value of cleaner streams in the Karapiro Catchment Area
Water clarity Mean WTP of NZ$19.75 to NZ$69.30/household/year.
Marsh, Mkwara, Pinkerton, & Sayadat (2010)
Choice Experiment
Lake Karapiro & Arapuni
To assess water quality preferences of recreational users on Lake Karapiro & lake Arapuni.
Water clarity Median WTP of NZ$140 & NZ$80/year to increase water clarity from 1 metre to at least 4 metre for the web and household surveys, respectively.
Cullen et al. (2006)
Contingent valuation
Lakes, rivers and aquifers in the North and South Island
To assess the New Zealand freshwater management and agriculture impacts.
Improvement in lowland water conditions
Mean WTP: (53% of the 771 respondents): NZ$20/respondent/year, with those over 50 years much less willing to pay the NZ$20 than those under 50.
Marsh & Mkwara. Review of Freshwater NMV Studies, August 2013 Page 139
Ecosystem service
Authorship Valuation Method
Water Body Study Objectives Indicator Value
Benefit Estimates
Water Quality
Bell, Yap, & Cudby (2009)
Choice experiment
Lake Rotoroa To value indigenous biodiversity in the freshwater environment
Water quality Three different mean WTP for differing water quality levels -NZ$16.91, NZ$33.92 & NZ$43.04/household/year.
Cultural/ Social
Andersen, Kerr, & Lambert (2012a)
Choice Experiment The Māori Cultural Identity (MCI) scale
water management in the Waikato Region
Cultural differences in environmental valuation
The cultural and traditional relationships of Māori and water bodies
Non market values were not estimated Respondents preferred water bodies with: healthy riparian vegetation, water clarity, better water quality, healthy ecosystem
Appendix 3: Waikato Region Studies (1990-2013)
Marsh & Mkwara. Review of Freshwater NMV Studies, August 2013 Page 140
Ecosystem service
Authorship Valuation Method
Water Body Study Objectives Indicator Value
Benefit Estimates
Economic
Marsh (2012) Choice Experiments
Lakes Karapiro and Arapuni
To address the way in which preference to avoid job losses affects choice behaviour & WTP to pay for improved water quality.
Jobs loss in dairying
Median WTP: - NZ$177/household/year when a choice scenario was associated with a 20% reduction in dairy related jobs.
Marsh & Baskaran (2009)
Choice Experiment
Lakes Karapiro and Arapuni
To assess the Karapiro catchment residents' preferences for water quality.
Jobs loss in dairying
Median WTP: NZ$129/household/year to avoid a 20% reduction in dairy related jobs.
Marsh, Mkwara, Pinkerton, & Sayadat (2010)
Choice Experiment
Lake Karapiro and Arapuni
To assess water quality preferences of recreational users on Lake Karapiro & Arapuni.
loss of dairying jobs
Median WTP of NZ$83 & NZ$139 /year to avoid 20% job loss in dairying jobs for the web and household surveys, respectively.
General ecosystem services
Patterson & Cole (1999)
Benefit transfer Lakes, rivers & wetlands
Estimation of ecosystem services in the Waikato Region
Direct & Indirect uses
Lakes produced NZ$1,513 million (16%) of ecosystem services in Waikato Region. Wetland: NZ$1,211 million (13%) of ecosystem services in the Region. River produced NZ$343 million (4%) of ecological services. Direct uses also included marketed output.
Appendix 3: Waikato Region Studies (1990-2013)
Marsh & Mkwara. Review of Freshwater NMV Studies, August 2013 Page 141
Task 2: Literature review of existing studies
Review existing studies on non-market value studies conducted internationally, in New Zealand and in the Waikato region since 1990. The purpose is of the review is to identify non-market values associated with fresh water in the Waikato region and to prioritise non-market values for further analysis (e.g. recreational value, aesthetic and landscape value).
o Identify specific Maori values associated with water in the Waikato region (e.g. spirituality, hospitality, food gathering).
o Identify gaps in the literature and areas that would benefit from further study such as significant or unique sites, high value activities, or where the links between use and water quality objectives are unclear.
Review recreation value studies estimating values at other water bodies internationally and in New Zealand to identify similarities to water bodies in Waikato, and to determine which values are suitable for benefit transfer.
o Specify the methods used to identify appropriate values for benefit transfer.
The supplier will provide the literature review as a draft document initially and then as a final document that will incorporate amendments and feedback from the Ministry (and other stakeholders).
Appendix 4: Terms of Reference for Literature Review Component
Marsh & Mkwara. Review of Freshwater NMV Studies, August 2013 Page 142
Appendix 5: Glossary of Māori Words
Atua supernatural guardians
Au Pūtea economic use
Hapu sub-tribe
He Ara Haere navigation or right of passage
Iwi tribe
Kaitiaki resource manager
Kaitiakitanga the expression of a two way relationship that involves obligations to give, receive and repay
Mahinga kai food gathering
Mana power, authority, prestige
Manawhakahaere authority and rights of control
Manawhenua territorial rights
Mätauranga Māori Māori knowledge
Mauri life force
Papatuanuku earth mother or the earth
Ranginui father or heavens
Rohe tribal area, boundary
Tangata mankind
Tangata whenua indigenous people of the land
Taonga treasured possessions
Tikanga correct procedure or customs
Tūpuna ancestors
Waahi tapu sacred place
Wai Māori drinking and other consumptive water
Wai takaro recreation
Wai Whakaika ceremonial waters
Wairua Soul
Whakapapa genealogy
Whānau family
Marsh & Mkwara. Review of Freshwater NMV Studies, August 2013 Page 143
Appendix 6: Core Maori values and uses relating to the freshwater environment
Core Value Description Relationship to Cultural Use of freshwater environment
Whakapapa Whakapapa (genealogy) is about the relationships of all life forms to each other as well as the atua (gods). Whakapapa describes bonds, relationships, and connections. All things are linked by whakapapa.
Water has its own whakapapa and Māori link to this whakapapa. Whakapapa is also central to passing on kai gathering knowledge through the generations.
Te Ao Māori The environment is viewed as a whole – not as divided parts.
This holistic view of the freshwater environment requires consideration of the whole catchment. A catchment constitutes soils, water, flora, fauna and the relationships between them.
Mauri Mauri is a central component of the Māori perspective on the environment. It can be defined as the life principle, life supporting capacity, or life force present in all things. For example, in a river mauri is about the diversity of life in and around a river.
Protecting the mauri of a resource is the fundamental management principle for Māori. Māori treasure the mauri of freshwater and may experience cultural offence and distress when the mauri is degraded. The overuse, depletion or destruction of natural resources leads to a diminishment of mauri.
Wairua Spiritual connection/wellbeing. Ngāi Tahu, like other Māori, use different ways to feel spiritually connected with their takiwā. This spiritual connection can occur by gathering kai with whānau at a traditional fishing place that they know have been named by their tūpuna, and utilised by successive generations of their whānau; being able to contribute the kai that their takiwā is renowned for, to ceremonies. Being denied these opportunities can impact on spiritual wellbeing.
Kaitiakitanga The exercise of guardianship by manawhenua of an area and resources in accordance to tikanga Māori (customs and rules).
Kaitiakitanga governs the way humans interact with the environment. The notions of sharing and maintaining balance with nature underpin cultural uses and practices. Balance requires respect to be shown when interacting with the environment; and use of the resource (within limits) afforded by healthy ecosystems. Māori continue to have a duty to protect the natural world.
Tino Rangatiratanga
Tino Rangatiratanga is the right to make decisions for your own people concerning the resources within your takiwā.
This means determining what, from a cultural perspective, represents satisfactory aquatic conditions and appropriate use.
Mahinga kai Mahinga kai encompasses the resource harvested, the ability to access the resource, the site where gathering occurs, the act of gathering and using the resource, and the good health of the resource.
Mahinga kai is considered to be the principle ‘environmental indicator’ in natural systems. If mahinga kai is not present, or is unsafe to harvest, then, that natural system is under stress and requires remedial action. The state of freshwater is important as a medium for sustaining and accessing mahinga kai. Ideally streams will sustain healthy and diverse koiora/life.
Marsh & Mkwara. Review of Freshwater NMV Studies, August 2013 Page 144
Core Value Description Relationship to Cultural Use of freshwater environment
Manaakitanga The support, caring and hospitality shown to guests.
The ability to manaaki visitors by supplying kai sourced locally means that the activities of fishing, eeling and gathering foods creates and maintains whānau and hapū ties and reinforces identity. Conversely the inability to manaaki guests and sustain whāungatanga can lead to cultural loss.
Mātauranga Māori
Māori knowledge. Interacting with waterways serves the functions of passing on traditional knowledge from one generation to the next. Mātauranga Māori is developed and transmitted through the use of natural resources, such as the practices of food management, harvesting and preparation. For example, gathering kai requires knowledge of techniques and ecosystems. If populations of aquatic species decline because of degraded water systems, knowledge of the techniques of gathering these foods along with the associated ecological and cultural knowledge will likely also begin to disappear.
Te Reo Language. Te Reo contains knowledge and is another expression of culture and identity.
Stories, waiata and Te Reo that pertain to particular uses, and these uses sustain the culture. When a valued species disappears from a local ecosystem or the activities associated with a species decrease, the associated Te Reo drops away.
Whānaungatanga The interrelationship of Māori with their ancestors, their whānau, hapū and iwi as well as the natural resources within their tribal boundaries. For example, mountains, rivers, streams, forests, etc. This genealogical relationship is one of the foundations upon which the Māori culture is based.
Sustainable management seeks to sustain the health, wealth and well-being of the natural environment while sustaining communities dependent upon it. In a catchment it is water that makes and maintains connections between different waterbodies and entities within a catchment.
Source: Tipa (2011). Our Uses: Cultural Use in Murihiku. Report prepared for Environment Southland.