A contingent valuation (CV) study was undertaken to investigate individuals' stated willingness to pay (WTP) to reduce perceived risks of illness from the quality of bathing water at two beaches in East Anglia, United Kingdom. One beach, Great Yarmouth, failed to meet the EC (European Community) Bathing Water Quality Directive standard, whereas the other at Lowestoft passed. The analysis focuses on determinants of individuals' WTP, including measures of risk perception and attitudes to health not usually measured in CV studies. A conceptual model is then presented which sets the valuation of individual preferences in the context of personal worldviews, and external cultural, societal, and environmental factors which may influence, directly or indirectly, an individual's stated WTP.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BatemanILangfordI H, 1995, “Design effects in contingent valuation studies: Mental account and temporal ordering effects”, Global Environmental Change WP-95-02, Centre for Social and Economic Research on the Global Environment, University of East Anglia, Norwich, Norfolk and University College London, London
2.
BatemanI JLangfordI HTurnerR KWillisK GGarrodG D, 1995, “Elicitation and truncation effects in contingent valuation studies”Ecological Economics12161–179
3.
BatemanI JLangfordI HWillisK GTurnerR KGarrodG D, 1993, “The impacts of changing willingness to pay question format in contingent valuation studies: An analysis of open-ended, iterative bidding and dichotomous choice formats”, Global Environmental Change, WP-93-05, Centre for Social and Economic Research on the Global Environment, University of East Anglia, Norwich, Norfolk and University College London, London
4.
BatemanI JTurnerR K, 1993, “Valuation of the environment, methods and techniques: The contingent valuation method”, in Sustainable Economics and Management: Principles and Practice Ed. TurnerR K (Belhaven Press, London) pp 120–191
5.
BrownTSlovicP, 1988, “Effects of context on economic measures of values”, in Amenity Resource Valuation: Integrating Economics with Other Disciplines Eds PetersonG LDriverB LGregoryR, Venture State College, PA, pp 23–30
6.
CEC, 1976, “Council directive of 8 December 1975 concerning the quality of bathing water”, 76/160/EEC, Commission of the European Communities Official Journal of the European Communities number L 31/1, 5 February 1976
7.
DakeK, 1991, “Orienting dispositions in the perception of risk”Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology2261–82
8.
GeorgiouSLangfordIBatemanITurnerK, 1996a, “Determinants of individuals willingness to pay for reductions in environmental health risks: A case study of bathing water quality”, CSERGE WP GEC 96–14, Centre for Social and Economic Research on the Global Environment, University of East Anglia, Norwich, Norfolk and University College London, London
9.
GeorgiouSLangfordIBatemanITurnerK, 1996b, “Willingness to pay for improved coastal bathing water quality: A contingent valuation study”, report submitted to House of Lords European Communities Committee, Centre for Social and Economic Research on the Global Environment, University of East Anglia, Norwich, Norfolk and University College London, London
10.
House of Lords Select Committee on the European Communities, 1994Bathing Water 1st Report (session 1994–95) HL Paper 6–1 (The Stationery Office, London)
11.
Jones-LeeM J, 1985The Economics of Safety and Physical Risk (Basil Blackwell, Oxford)
12.
KahnemanDKnetschJ L, 1992, “Valuing public goods: The purchase of moral satisfaction”Journal of Environmental Economics and Management22 pp 57–70
13.
LangfordI HMcDonaldA-L, 1997, “Risk perception, health and environmental change: A conceptual model”, CSERGE GEC Working Paper, University of East Anglia, Norwich, Norfolk, in the press
14.
MaddalaG S, 1989Introduction to Econometrics (Macmillan, New York)
15.
MarrisCO'RiordanTLangfordI, 1996, “Integrating sociological approaches to public perceptions of environmental risks: Detailed results from a questionnaire survey”, CSERGE Working Paper GEC 96–07, University of East Anglia, Norwich, Norfolk
16.
RamchandaniRPearceD W, 1992, “Alternative approaches to setting effluent quality standards: Precautionary, critical load, and cost benefit approaches”, CSERGE Working Paper WM 92–04, University College London, London
17.
SjöbergL, 1995, “Explaining risk perception: An empirical and quantitative evaluation of cultural theory”RHIZIKON Risk Research Reports, Report No. 22Center for Risk Research, Stockholm School of Economics, Stockholm
18.
SlovicPFischoffBLichtensteinS, 1981, “Perceived risk: Psychological factors and social implications”, in The Assessment and Perception of Risk Ed. WarnerFProceedings of the Royal Society37617–34
19.
UNEP, 1991Epidemiological Studies Related to Environmental Quality Criteria for Bathing Waters MAP Technical Report No. 53, Mediterranean Action Plan, United Nations Environment Programme, Athens
20.
ViscusiW K, 1992Fatal Tradeoffs (Oxford University Press, New York)
21.
WallstonK AWallstonB SDeVellisR, 1978, “Development of the multidimensional health locus of control scales”Health Education Monographs6160–170
