My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
7793
CWCB
>
UCREFRP
>
Copyright
>
7793
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/14/2009 5:01:46 PM
Creation date
5/22/2009 12:33:25 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
UCREFRP
UCREFRP Catalog Number
7793
Author
Douglas, A. J. and R. L. Johnson
Title
Instream Flow Assessment and Economic Valuation
USFW Year
1993
USFW - Doc Type
A Survey of Nonmarket Benefits Research
Copyright Material
YES
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
16
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />~ <br /> <br />A. J. DOUGLAS AND R. L. JOHNSON <br /> <br />sportfishing, wading, swimming. canoeing, whitewater rafting, and kayaking. Water <br />is a medium of transport for municipal, industrial, and agricultural wastes. Also, <br />stream water may provide substantial aesthetic benefits. Some of these benefits are <br />neglected in any particular instream flow benefits study. This reflects the competitive <br />nature of some of the outputs; water that is used to transport industrial wastes is <br />usually unsuitable for swimming or the provision of aquatic habitat. <br />Diversionary uses of streamflows obviously compete with instream uses. Streams <br />may be completely dewatered by agricultural diversions for crop irrigation.7 <br />However, the competitive nature of instream uses and diversionary uses is often <br />more subtle. Recreational instream uses are high quality water uses. Agricultural <br />return flow is usually low quality water. Hence the competitive na ture of the two sets <br />of demands for the water resource stems in part from the fact that agricultural diver- <br />sions lower water quality. But seepage and evaporation in irrigation canals, and <br />evaporation and evapotranspiration from fields and crops, also generate substantial <br />consumptive losses. 6 These two factors-low quality return flows and consumptive <br />losses-create competition between instream flow demands and irrigation demands. <br />Municipal and industrial water uses also create major diversionary demands for the <br />stream water. Finally, it is important to note that recreational streamflow demands <br />may compete with market oriented instream flow demands. Goodman8 points out <br />that hydropower facilities consume only a small quantity of water and usually have <br />a negligible effect on water quality. But bottom release dams typically lower water <br />temperature, while dams or reservoirs with release gates located near the top of the <br />structure typically raise water temperatures. Maddux el al.9 note that these tempera- <br />ture changes can impact fisheries adversely. Rapid flow alterations downstream from <br />hydropower facilities supplying peak load electricity can also have major adverse <br />fisheries effects.9 <br /> <br />NONMARKET VALUATION METHODS <br /> <br />Contemporary research deals with a remarkably broad range of water resource valu- <br />ation issues. Thus it is not surprising that there are two broadly accepted methods for <br />obtaining economic estimates of instream flow benefits, namely, the contingent value <br />method (CVM) and the travel cost method (TCM). Clawson and KnetschlO use the <br />travel cost method to estimate the social benefits conferred by an outdoor recreation <br />site. The TCM can also be used to estimate benefits from an improvement in some <br />site characteristic such as augmented streamflows.]O The survey instrument for a <br />travel cost method study may be mailed out to a group of residents in some geo-. <br />graphic area or it may be administered to recreationists who have recently used the <br />site. 10,] ] The travel cost method solicits data from respondents about travel costs to <br />estimate a demand curve for trips to the site. Clawson and KnetschlO use the travel <br />cost method to estimate a relation between travel costs and the participation rate- <br />trips to the site per annum per thousand residents-for each of several concentric <br />regions around the site. This is the zonal variant of the travel cost method. Richards <br />and Wood]] use a micro-data travel cost approach that estimates a relation between <br />travel costs and trips to the site for recreationists who have used the site. This <br />method produces estimates of per trip benefits, and must be combined with inde- <br />pendent data on participation days to generate aggregate benefits conferred value <br />estimates. <br />The contingent value method also uses data from questionnaires. The contingent <br />value method directly queries respondents with regard to the payment they would <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.