Studia i Prace WNEiZ US

Previously: Zeszyty Naukowe Uniwersytetu Szczecińskiego. Studia i Prace WNEiZ

ISSN: 2450-7733     eISSN: 2300-4096    OAI    DOI: 10.18276/sip.2017.49/1-02
CC BY-SA   Open Access 

Issue archive / nr 49/1 2017
Interpretacja wartości ekonomicznej wody w kontekście teorii oczekiwanej użyteczności
(Interpretation of economic value of water in the context of expected utility theory)

Authors: Anna Dubel
AGH Akademia Górniczo-Hutnicza
Keywords: economic value water resources expected utility theory
Data publikacji całości:2017
Page range:11 (21-31)
Klasyfikacja JEL: Q01 Q20 Q25
Cited-by (Crossref) ?:

Abstract

Water is the basic ingredient of living organisms on Earth. It constitutes the basis of their feeding, an important habitat and the resource used in the production processes. At the same time, water, changing states and circulating in nature, can become a dangerous element that threatens the lives and health of people, destroys their property and deteriorates the state of ecosystems. The dynamics of the variation in the amount of water and the amount of water resources in a given area are threats to the functioning of ecosystems and the economy. This threat manifests itself through floods, droughts, or water shortages. The paper deals with the issue of defining and estimating the economic value of water as a resource, from the point of view of the hypothesis of expected utility. Literature has been reviewed with regard to the economic value of water. The basic assumptions of the hypothesis of expected utility and its implications for determining the economic value of water are presented. To this aim, types of water users are identified and for them the utility functions have been defined according to the assumptions of expected utility hypothesis. A discussion of the possibilities of using these utility functions in decision-making processes related to water resources is discussed.
Download file

Article file

Bibliography

1.Allais, M. (1953). Le comportement de l’homme rationnel devant le risque: critique des postulats et axiomes de l’école Américaine. Econometrica, 21, 503–546.
2.Brouwer, R., Brander, L., Kuik, O., Papyrakis, E., Bateman, I. (2013). A Synthesis of Approaches to Assess and Value Ecosystem Services in the EU in the Context of TEEB. TEEB follow-up study for Europe. VU Institute for Environmental Studies.
3.Costanza, R., de Groot, R., Sutton, P., van der Ploeg, S., Anderson, S.J., Kubiszewski, I., Farber, S., Turner, R.K. (2014). Changes in the Global Value of Ecosystem Services. Global Environmental Change, 26, 152–158.
4.Ellsberg, D. (1961). Risk, Ambiguity, and the Savage Axioms. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 75, 643–669.
5.Folmer, H., Gabel, L., Opschoor, H. (1996). Ekonomia środowiska i zasobów naturalnych. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Krupski i S-ka.
6.Fromm, O. (2000). Ecological Structure and Functions of Biodiversity as Element of Its Total Economic Value. Environ. Resour. Econ., 16, 303–328.
7.GUS (2015). Ochrona Środowiska. Rocznik GUS. Warszawa.
8.Kronenberg, J. (2012). Usługi ekosystemów w miastach. Zrównoważony Rozwój – Zastosowania, 3.
9.Kumar, P. (red.) (2010). The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity Ecological and Economic Foundations. London–Washington: Earthscan.
10.McCauley, D.J. (2006). Selling out on Nature. Nature, 443, 27–28.
11.Miłaszewski, R., Walczykiewicz, T. (2004). Wytyczne do przeprowadzenia analiz ekonomicznych w regionach wodnych dla potrzeb planów gospodarowania wodami. Warszawa: Ministerstwo Środowiska, maszynopis.
12.Ministerstwo Środowiska (2015). Poradnik przygotowania inwestycji z uwzględnieniem zmian klimatu, ich łagodzenia i przystosowania do tych zmian oraz odporności na klęski żywiołowe. Warszawa: Ministerstwo Środowiska, Departament Zrównoważonego Rozwoju.
13.Rekacewicz, P. (2008). FAO, Water Resources Institute. Pobrano z: http://www.unep.org/dewa/vitalwater/jpg/0221-waterstress-EN.jpg (10.04.2017).
14.Rhine 2020 (2001). Program of the Sustainable Development of the Rhine. Pobrane z: https://www.iksr.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Dokumente_en/rhein2020_e.pdf.
15.Samuelson, P. (1950). Probability and the Attempts to Measure Utility. Economic Review, 1, 167–173.
16.von Neumann, J., Morgenstern, O. (1944). Theory of Games and Economic Behavior. Princeton University Press.