Review of Freshwater Non Market Value Studies · Review of Freshwater Non-Market Value Studies Dan Marsh and Lena Mkwara Department of Economics August 2013 Corresponding Author Dan

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.


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.


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).


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.


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.


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.


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/


“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.


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

http://www.waikatoregion.govt.nz/Environment/Natural-resources/Water/Rivers/Our-other-rivers/

http://www.waikatoregion.govt.nz/healthyrivers

http://www.doc.govt.nz/conservation/land-and-freshwater/wetlands/wetlands-by-region/waikato/

http://www.laketaupo.co.nz/recreation.htm


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













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/

http://www.waikatoregion.govt.nz/Environment/Natural-resources/Water/Freshwater-wetlands/What-wetlands-have-we-got/Wetlands-in-the-Waikato-region/

http://www.waikatoregion.govt.nz/Environment/Natural-resources/Water/Freshwater-wetlands/What-wetlands-have-we-got/Wetlands-in-the-Waikato-region/


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/kopuatai-peat-dome/

http://www.doc.govt.nz/conservation/land-and-freshwater/wetlands/wetlands-by-region/waikato/kopuatai-peat-dome/



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.


management/

http://www.waikatoregion.govt.nz/Community/Your-community/Tangata-Whenua/Waikato-River-co-management/

http://www.waikatoregion.govt.nz/Community/Your-community/Tangata-Whenua/Waikato-River-co-management/


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.


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.


Box 4.1: Iwi in the Waikato Region


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/


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

http://www.waikatoregion.govt.nz/PageFiles/7058/strategy.PDF


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


management/Waikato-Te-Awa---a-taonga-treasure/


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

http://www.waikatoregion.govt.nz/PageFiles/15805/2380761%20Raukawa%20Fisheries%20Plan.pdf


(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:



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.


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.


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.


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.


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


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


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


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.


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.


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


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.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/11/081112124418.htm


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.


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


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.


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.


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


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:


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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


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


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;


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












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.


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


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


http://www.waikatoregion.govt.nz/PageFiles/10480/Soil%20and%20water%20issues.pdf

http://www.waitomo.com/about-waitomo.aspx


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).


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.


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


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.


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…


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’.


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.


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).


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.


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).


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.


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


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).


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.




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)




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.





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.





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.





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.





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.





Recreation

Straton & Zander (2009)


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



Fitzroy River Catchment


High quality recreational fishing

One-time payment/household WTP estimates for the ecosystem services in Fitzroy River: A$179.52 - A$181.44.



Mitchell River Catchment



One-time payment/household WTP estimates for the ecosystem services in the Mitchell River: A$110.66 - A$327.19.

Zander, Garnett, & Straton (2010)


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.





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 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.





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)


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)



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.





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)


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).





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)




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)


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 portion of Lake Ontario and the Upper St. Lawrence River


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.




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.





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)


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.





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).




Landscape/Aesthetic



Bega, Clarence, Georges, Gwydir and Murrumbidgee


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)


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.




Landscape/Aesthetic

Robinson, Clouston, & Suh (2002)


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.





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)


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.





Ecological health

Hanley et al. (2006)


Wear & Clyde rivers


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)


Wear & Clyde rivers


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)


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)


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.





Ecological health

Rolfe, Loch, & Bennett (2002)


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)




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.





Ecological health



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)


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.



The Fitzroy Basin


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.





Ecological health

Zander & Straton (2010)


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.






On-time payment/household WTP estimates for the ecosystem services in Fitzroy River: A$66.88 - A$86.47






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)


Daly River & Fitzroy River)


Good environmental condition

Respondents' WTP is A$238 for an increase of condition from Poor to Good and A$162 from Poor to OK.





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)


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)



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)




Biodiversity





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)



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).





Biodiversity

Spash et al. (2009)


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.





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.





Biodiversity

Bennett et al. (2008)




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)


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.





Biodiversity



Lachlan catchment, Namoi catchment, & Hawkesbury-Nepean catchment.


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)


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)


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.





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.





Biodiversity

Campbell et al. (2008)



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)




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.





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)


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.


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.





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)


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.





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.





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.





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)



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.





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)



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.





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)


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)


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)


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.





Water Quality

Stenger & Willinger (1998)


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)


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)


Motray and Brothock catchments


Baseline scenario Compensation surplus: £57 (Motray) and £62 (Brothock)/household/year for the improvements over the baseline Scenario.





Water Quality

Glenk, Lago, & Moran (2011)


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


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.





Water Quality

Kramer & Eisen-Hecht (2002)


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)


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)


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.





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.



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.



The Fitzroy Basin


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.




Water Quantity



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.


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)


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.





Water Quantity

Black et al. (2006)


Motray and Brothock catchments


Flow rate Mean WTP: £2.70 - £3.87 per household for each month's reduction in low flows.

Connelly et al. (2007)


United States portion of Lake Ontario and the Upper St. Lawrence River


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.


UK Contingent Valuation & Choice Experiments



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



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.





Cultural/ Social



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.





People leaving for cities

Part-worth: More people leaving for cities -A$0.895/household/ year.



The Fitzroy Basin


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.



Mitchell River region, Daly River region, and Fitzroy River region


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”.





Cultural/ Social





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)




Aboriginal use of water holes

One-time payment/household WTP estimates for the ecosystem services in Fitzroy River: A$299.08 - A$392.07.





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





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.





Economic

Morrison, Bennett, & Blamey (1998)


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.



Lachlan catchment, Namoi catchment, &Hawkesbury-Nepean catchment.


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.



Mitchell River region, Daly River region, and Fitzroy River region


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.





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.





Economic





High income from agriculture

One-time payment/household WTP estimates for the ecosystem services in Fitzroy River: $46.65 - $101.94.




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.





Good environmental condition

Respondents' WTP is A$238 for an increase of condition from Poor to Good and A$162 from Poor to OK.





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.





Economic

Campbell, Hutchinson, & Scarpa (2008)



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



River Thames, River Teifi & River Aire


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.



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.





Option





Water reserved for future use

Part-worth: Water reserved for future use: A$5.949/household/year.

Non-use



River Thames, River Teifi & River Aire


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 2: Freshwater non-market values from the rest of New Zealand studies (1990-2013)

Ecosystem Service

Authorship Valuation Method


Recreation

Bell & Yap (2004)


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


Ecosystem Service



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


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)


Ecosystem Service



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


Choice Experiment



Salmon and trout Mean WTP: NZ$25/household/year



Ecosystem Service



Recreation

Wheeler & Damania (2001)


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


Travel Cost Method


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


Travel Cost Method


Facility development Anglers preferred lakes which were easily accessible, had more boat ramps and other recreational facilities. Non market values were not estimated.



Ecosystem Service



Access/ Facility


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)


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.



Ecosystem Service




Bell et al. (2012)

Choice Experiment



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


Choice Experiment

Mainstream-Braided Rivers, Backcountry Rivers, Lowland Streams, Lakes


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.



Ecosystem Service




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



Ecosystem Service



Ecological Health


Choice Experiment

mainstream-Braided Rivers, Backcountry Rivers, Lowland Streams, Lakes


Didymo Marginal values (per angler visit): Didymo = -NZ$41, Encounters = -NZ$5


Choice Experiment



Ecological Health Mean WTP: NZ$44/household/year

Bell & Yap (2004)




Recreation & healthy trout fishery

Mean WTP: NZ$103.80 (Rotorua) & NZ$0 (BOP)/household/year.


Choice Experiment



good quality ecology Mean WTP: NZ$84/household/year for good quality ecology.



Ecosystem Service



Methane Gas


Choice Experiment

Streams, rivers and groundwater in Canterbury


Reduction in methane gas

Mean WTP: NZ15.85/household/year for 5 years for a 30% reduction in methane gas.

Biodiversity

Kerr & Sharp (2004)


Auckland Streams


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



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



Ecosystem Service



Water Quality


Choice Experiment



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)




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)


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)


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)


Auckland Streams


water clarity Mean WTP: NZ$66 (North Shore) & NZ$67 (S. Auckland)/household/year



Ecosystem Service



Water Quality

Kerr, Sharp, & Leathers (2004)




benefits of improved water quality

Mean preservation value at NZ$27.34 (Waimakariri River).

Kerr & Sharp (2008)

Choice Experiment



water clarity Mean WTP: NZ$78.86/household/year


Choice Experiment



tributary water quality



Travel Cost Method


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



Ecosystem Service



Water Quantity


Choice Experiment



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)


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)


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.


Choice Experiment



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)


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



Ecosystem Service



Food Gathering

Bell & Yap (2004)




Traditional food supply

Mean WTP of NZ$55.59 (Rotorua) and NZ$15.33 (BOP)/household/year.

Economic

Bell et al. (2012)

Choice Experiment



Job loss Mean WTP: Matakitaki: NZ$-472/year for five years for 200 jobs lost.


Choice Experiment



Number of jobs in Canterbury (500 or more)




Ecosystem Service



Non-use





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)


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.





Non-use benefits from protection of in-stream flows

Mean preservation value at NZ$27.34.



Appendix 3: Freshwater non-market values from the Waikato Region studies (1990-2013)

Ecosystem service


Water Body Study Objectives Indicator Value

Benefit Estimates

Recreation

Marsh & Baskaran (2009)

Choice Experiment


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.


Ecosystem service



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)


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)


Ecosystem service



Benefit Estimates

Landscape/ Aesthetic

Matthews (2009)

Choice experiments

Hamilton streams


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.




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


Choice Experiment



Ecological Health

Median WTP: NZ$126/household/year to increase the proportion of excellent ecological health readings to above 80%.

Marsh (2012) Choice Experiments


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%.


Ecosystem service



Benefit Estimates

Ecological Health




Stream quality

Mean WTP: NZ$25.20 per/individual/year for 5 years for excellent stream quality


Choice Experiment



Ecological health

Mean WTP: NZ$ 30.29 - NZ$91.01/household/year for improved ecological conditions (more than 70% of readings rated as excellent).


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.



Ecosystem service



Benefit Estimates

Biodiversity


Choice Experiment



Biodiversity Mean WTP: NZ$27.69 - NZ$85.46/household/year for presence of trout.

Matthews (2009)

Choice experiments

Hamilton streams


Biodiversity Mean WTP: NZ$39/individual/year for plentiful native fish.




Native animals

Mean WTP: NZ$63.9 per/individual/year for 5 years for increase in fauna


Choice experiment


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.



Ecosystem service



Benefit Estimates

Water Quality


Choice Experiment



Risk of algal blooms





Risk of algal blooms


Matthews (2009)

Choice experiments

Hamilton streams


Clarity (muddy or clear)

Mean WTP: NZ$55/individual/year for clear water


Choice Experiment



Water clarity Mean WTP of NZ$19.75 to NZ$69.30/household/year.


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)


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.


Ecosystem service



Benefit Estimates

Water Quality


Choice experiment


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



Ecosystem service



Benefit Estimates

Economic




Jobs loss in dairying

Median WTP: - NZ$177/household/year when a choice scenario was associated with a 20% reduction in dairy related jobs.


Choice Experiment



Jobs loss in dairying

Median WTP: NZ$129/household/year to avoid a 20% reduction in dairy related jobs.


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.



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


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


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.


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.

Documents

Review of Freshwater Non Market Value Studies · Review of Freshwater Non-Market Value Studies Dan Marsh and Lena Mkwara Department of Economics August 2013 Corresponding Author Dan