Measuring benefits from spatially-explicit surface water quality improvements: The roles of distance, scope, scale, and size

Abstract

Programs to improve water quality do not improve all water bodies equally. Evaluation of the benefits of such programs must account for where improvements occur and the relative magnitude of improvements that occur in different places. This study uses a choice experiment survey to explore how the value to a household of a surface water quality improvement varies as a function of (i) the distance between the household and the affected streams and rivers, (ii) the degree to which the quality of the water has been improved, (iii) how many stream and river miles have been improved, and (iv) the sizes of the affected streams and rivers. Results show evidence that value declines with distance in an approximately linear way, weak evidence that large rivers are worth more than small rivers, and no evidence that willingness-to-pay is nonlinear in either the degree of water quality improvement or the number of stream miles improved. These results indicate that it may be defensible in applied work to value small, spatially-explicit water quality improvement projects independently and then sum over projects.