Coverage of Native vegetation
WTP to increase the size and improve the quality of wetlands in the Upper South East, South Australia, for Adelaide respondents. Fire
Flood
Storm
Earthquake
Tsunami
Heatwave
WTP DetailsHazard types identified
Human activity
Specific Value Type measured
Native vegetation; Endangered species; Ecosystem function
Currency Year - original study
WTP estimate - original study value
$1.41 per 1,000 hectares per household per year
Currency - original study
AUD
WTP converted to $AU in original year from the study
$1.41 AUD
WTP measure
Mean
Other variables that significantly explain WTP
Scrublands, wetlands, levy, gender, education, age, income Study DetailsValue type applicable
Ecosystems
Study conducted in the context of a natural hazard?
No
Study quality
High
Benefits transfer applicability
Average
Recommendations
Useful for BT in Australia - be aware of generalised context - not NH specific MethodsData collection method used
Choice modeling
Analysis model
Conditional logit model
Modelled number of individuals
731
Modelled number of observations
1457
Sample CharacteristicsCountry/region studied
Upper South East, South Australia
Country of source studies
Australia
Sampled population
Adelaide
Range in years of data
n/a
Mean sample age
47.48
Percent Male
49
Percent Female
51
Mean sample income
$43,232
Income units
AUD
PublicationValuing biodiversity using habitat typesHatton MacDonald, D., Morrison, M.D., 2010. Valuing biodiversity using habitat types. Australiasian Journal of Environemental Management. 17:4, 235-243.
Citation
Hatton MacDonald, et al. 2010
Year published
Peer reviewed?
Yes
Journal name
Australasian Journal of Environmental Management
Additional informationNotes on this study
Wetland is described in terms of its value for habitat, threat status of species present and ecosystem function. Respondents were told that each option had a household cost that would be collected via an incomes tax levey each year for 5 years. The date the survey was administered was not included, hence CPI conversation assumes the orginal WTP estimate is from 2010, date of publish. |
||||||
WTP to increase the size and improve the quality of wetlands in the Upper South East, South Australia, for Upper South East respondents. Fire
Flood
Storm
Earthquake
Tsunami
Heatwave
WTP DetailsHazard types identified
Human activity
Specific Value Type measured
Native vegetation; Endangered species; Ecosystem function
Currency Year - original study
WTP estimate - original study value
$0.45 per 1,000 hectares per household per year
Currency - original study
AUD
WTP converted to $AU in original year from the study
$0.45 AUD
WTP measure
Mean
Other variables that significantly explain WTP
Scrublands, wetlands, levy, gender, education, age, income Study DetailsValue type applicable
Ecosystems
Study conducted in the context of a natural hazard?
No
Study quality
High
Benefits transfer applicability
Average
Recommendations
Useful for BT in Australia - be aware of generalised context - not NH specific MethodsData collection method used
Choice modeling
Analysis model
Conditional logit model
Modelled number of individuals
731
Modelled number of observations
1457
Sample CharacteristicsCountry/region studied
Upper South East, South Australia
Country of source studies
Australia
Sampled population
Upper South East
Range in years of data
n/a
Mean sample age
47.59
Percent Male
52
Percent Female
48
Mean sample income
$39,109
Income units
AUD
PublicationValuing biodiversity using habitat typesHatton MacDonald, D., Morrison, M.D., 2010. Valuing biodiversity using habitat types. Australiasian Journal of Environemental Management. 17:4, 235-243.
Citation
Hatton MacDonald, et al. 2010
Year published
Peer reviewed?
Yes
Journal name
Australasian Journal of Environmental Management
Additional informationNotes on this study
Wetland is described in terms of its value for habitat, threat status of species present and ecosystem function. Respondents were told that each option had a household cost that would be collected via an incomes tax levey each year for 5 years. The date the survey was administered was not included, hence CPI conversation assumes the orginal WTP estimate is from 2010, date of publish. |
||||||
WTP to improve biodiversity in native forest areas of the Mid North Forests, South Australia. Fire
Flood
Storm
Earthquake
Tsunami
Heatwave
WTP DetailsHazard types identified
Invasive species
Specific Value Type measured
Native vegetation; Species; Endangered species
Currency Year - original study
WTP estimate - original study value
$44.69 per 20% (900 hectares) improvement per household per year
Currency - original study
AUD
WTP converted to $AU in original year from the study
$44.69 AUD
WTP measure
Mean
95% confidence interval (upper)
$58.61 AUD
95% confidence interval (lower)
$35.39 AUD
Other variables that significantly explain WTP
Payment, education Study DetailsValue type applicable
Ecosystems
Study conducted in the context of a natural hazard?
No
Study quality
High
Benefits transfer applicability
Average
Recommendations
Useful for BT in Australia - be aware of generalised context - not NH specific
MethodsData collection method used
Contingent valuation
Analysis model
Logit model
Modelled number of individuals
380
Modelled number of observations
380
Sample CharacteristicsCountry/region studied
Mid North Forests, South Australia
Country of source studies
Australia
Sampled population
Adelaide area (82%) and South Australia (18%)
Range in years of data
n/a
Mean sample age
49
Percent Male
48
Percent Female
52
Mean sample income
n/a
Income units
n/a
PublicationQuantifying the non-timber values of South Australia's northern forest reservesWindle, J., Rolfe, J., Tucker, G. 2012. Quantifying the non-timber values of South Australia's northern forest reserves. Environmental Economics Programme Center for Environmental Management. CQUniversity Australia.
Citation
Windle, et al. 2012
Year published
Peer reviewed?
No
Journal name
n/a
Additional informationNotes on this study
The value is described in the wtp question as an improvement in biodiversity in native forest areas. The information provided in the survey was that, "There are important biodiversity values associated with the native forests which provide habitat for over 200 rare, endangered or vulnerable plant and animal species. The areas of native forest have high habitat and connectivity value because the overall area of remnant vegetation in the Mt Lofty Ranges is limited." The improvement is achieved by reducing the area of native forest under threat from weeds and pests by 20%, where the current area under threat is 60-70%. |
||||||
WTP to improve biodiversity in native forest areas of the Mount Lofty Ranges State Forest, South Australia. Fire
Flood
Storm
Earthquake
Tsunami
Heatwave
WTP DetailsHazard types identified
Invasive species
Specific Value Type measured
Native vegetation; Species; Endangered species
Currency Year - original study
WTP estimate - original study value
$63.88 per 20% (1050 hectares) improvement per household per year
Currency - original study
AUD
WTP converted to $AU in original year from the study
$63.88 AUD
WTP measure
Mean
95% confidence interval (upper)
$86.89 AUD
95% confidence interval (lower)
$51.20 AUD
Other variables that significantly explain WTP
Payment, time spent in the forest Study DetailsValue type applicable
Ecosystems
Study conducted in the context of a natural hazard?
No
Study quality
High
Benefits transfer applicability
Average
Recommendations
Useful for BT in Australia - be aware of generalised context - not NH specific
MethodsData collection method used
Contingent valuation
Analysis model
Logit model
Modelled number of individuals
372
Modelled number of observations
372
Sample CharacteristicsCountry/region studied
State Forests, Mount Lofty Ranges, South Australia
Country of source studies
Australia
Sampled population
Adelaide area (82%) and South Australia (18%)
Range in years of data
n/a
Mean sample age
49
Percent Male
48
Percent Female
52
Mean sample income
n/a
Income units
n/a
PublicationQuantifying the non-timber values of South Australia's northern forest reservesWindle, J., Rolfe, J., Tucker, G. 2012. Quantifying the non-timber values of South Australia's northern forest reserves. Environmental Economics Programme Center for Environmental Management. CQUniversity Australia.
Citation
Windle, et al. 2012
Year published
Peer reviewed?
No
Journal name
n/a
Additional informationNotes on this study
The value is described in the WTP question as an improvement in biodiversity in native forest areas. The information provided in the survey was that, "There are important biodiversity values associated with the native forests which provide habitat for over 200 rare, endangered or vulnerable plant and animal species. The areas of native forest have high habitat and connectivity value because the overall area of remnant vegetation in the Mt Lofty Ranges is limited." The improvement is achieved by reducing the area of native forest under threat from weeds and pests by 20%, where the current area under threat is 60-70%. |
||||||
WTP to increase the size and improve the quality of scrublands in the Upper South East, South Australia, for Upper South East respondents. Fire
Flood
Storm
Earthquake
Tsunami
Heatwave
WTP DetailsHazard types identified
Human activity
Specific Value Type measured
Native vegetation, Species-endangered
Currency Year - original study
WTP estimate - original study value
$0.97 per 1,000 hectares per household per year
Currency - original study
AUD
WTP converted to $AU in original year from the study
$0.97 AUD
WTP measure
Mean
Other variables that significantly explain WTP
Scrublands, wetlands, levy, gender, education, age, income Study DetailsValue type applicable
Ecosystems
Study conducted in the context of a natural hazard?
No
Study quality
High
Benefits transfer applicability
Average
Recommendations
Useful for BT in Australia - be aware of generalised context - not NH specific MethodsData collection method used
Choice modeling
Analysis model
Conditional logit model
Modelled number of individuals
731
Modelled number of observations
1457
Sample CharacteristicsCountry/region studied
Upper South East, South Australia
Country of source studies
Australia
Sampled population
Upper South East
Range in years of data
n/a
Mean sample age
47.59
Percent Male
52
Percent Female
48
Mean sample income
$39,109
Income units
AUD
PublicationValuing biodiversity using habitat typesHatton MacDonald, D., Morrison, M.D., 2010. Valuing biodiversity using habitat types. Australiasian Journal of Environemental Management. 17:4, 235-243.
Citation
Hatton MacDonald, et al. 2010
Year published
Peer reviewed?
Yes
Journal name
Australasian Journal of Environmental Management
Additional informationNotes on this study
Native vegetation is described in terms of its value for habitat, threat status of species present and ecosystem function. Respondents were told that each option had a household cost that would be collected via an incomes tax levey each year for 5 years. The data the survey was administered was not included, hence CPI conversation assumes the orginal WTP estimate is from 2010, date of publish. |
||||||
WTP to increase the area of native vegetation on farmland in Australia Fire
Flood
Storm
Earthquake
Tsunami
Heatwave
WTP DetailsHazard types identified
Human activity
Specific Value Type measured
Native vegetation
Currency Year - original study
WTP estimate - original study value
$19.16 per household per hectare per year
Currency - original study
AUD
WTP converted to $AU in original year from the study
$19.16 AUD
WTP measure
Mean
Other variables that significantly explain WTP
Cost, native vegetation, carbon storage, education, Queensland Study DetailsValue type applicable
Ecosystems
Study conducted in the context of a natural hazard?
No
Study quality
Average
Benefits transfer applicability
Average
Recommendations
Limited application - not NH specific
MethodsData collection method used
Choice modeling
Analysis model
Multinomial logit model
Modelled number of individuals
n/a
Modelled number of observations
5568
Sample CharacteristicsCountry/region studied
Australia
Country of source studies
Australia
Sampled population
Urban; non-urban; New South Wales, Queensand, Victoria, Western Australia
Range in years of data
2013
Mean sample age
41.76
Percent Male
49
Percent Female
51
Mean sample income
n/a
Income units
n/a
PublicationPublic willingness to pay for carbon farming and its co-benefitsKragt, M.E., Gibson, F.L., Maseyk, F., Wilson, K.A. 2016. Public willingness to pay for carbon farming and its co-benefits. Ecological Economics. 126:125-131
Citation
Kragt, et al. 2016
Year published
Peer reviewed?
Yes
Journal name
Ecological Ecconomics
Additional informationNotes on this study
The WTP estimates in this study are provided in the context of farmers receiving compensation for making changes to farm management enable carbon farming. |
||||||
WTP to increase the size and improve the quality of grassy woodlands in the Upper South East, South Australia. Fire
Flood
Storm
Earthquake
Tsunami
Heatwave
WTP DetailsHazard types identified
Human activity
Specific Value Type measured
Native vegetation, Species-endangered
Currency Year - original study
WTP estimate - original study value
$1.04 per 1,000 hectares per household per year
Currency - original study
AUD
WTP converted to $AU in original year from the study
$1.04 AUD
WTP measure
Mean
Other variables that significantly explain WTP
Scrubland, grassland, wetland, levy, gender, education, age, own land in the Upper South East Study DetailsValue type applicable
Ecosystems
Study conducted in the context of a natural hazard?
No
Study quality
High
Benefits transfer applicability
Average
Recommendations
Useful for BT in Australia - be aware of generalised context - not NH specific MethodsData collection method used
Choice modeling
Analysis model
Conditional logit model
Modelled number of individuals
731
Modelled number of observations
1457
Sample CharacteristicsCountry/region studied
Upper South East, South Australia
Country of source studies
Australia
Sampled population
Adelaide
Range in years of data
n/a
Mean sample age
47.48
Percent Male
49
Percent Female
51
Mean sample income
$43,232
Income units
AUD
PublicationValuing biodiversity using habitat typesHatton MacDonald, D., Morrison, M.D., 2010. Valuing biodiversity using habitat types. Australiasian Journal of Environemental Management. 17:4, 235-243.
Citation
Hatton MacDonald, et al. 2010
Year published
Peer reviewed?
Yes
Journal name
Australasian Journal of Environmental Management
Additional informationNotes on this study
Native vegetation is described in terms of its value for habitat, threat status of species present and ecosystem function. Respondents were told that each option had a household cost that would be collected via an incomes tax levey each year for 5 years. The data the survey was administered was not included, hence CPI conversation assumes the orginal WTP estimate is from 2010, date of publish. |
||||||
WTP to increase the size and improve the quality of scrublands in the Upper South East, South Australia, for Adelaide respondents. Fire
Flood
Storm
Earthquake
Tsunami
Heatwave
WTP DetailsHazard types identified
Human activity
Specific Value Type measured
Native vegetation; Endangered species
Currency Year - original study
WTP estimate - original study value
$0.73 per 1,000 hectares per household per year
Currency - original study
AUD
WTP converted to $AU in original year from the study
$0.73 AUD
WTP measure
Mean
Other variables that significantly explain WTP
Scrubland, grassland, wetland, levy, gender, education, age, own land in the Upper South East Study DetailsValue type applicable
Ecosystems
Study conducted in the context of a natural hazard?
No
Study quality
High
Benefits transfer applicability
Average
Recommendations
Useful for BT in Australia - be aware of generalised context - not NH specific MethodsData collection method used
Choice modeling
Analysis model
Conditional logit model
Modelled number of individuals
731
Modelled number of observations
1457
Sample CharacteristicsCountry/region studied
Upper South East, South Australia
Country of source studies
Australia
Sampled population
Adelaide
Range in years of data
n/a
Mean sample age
47.48
Percent Male
49
Percent Female
51
Mean sample income
$43,232
Income units
AUD
PublicationValuing biodiversity using habitat typesHatton MacDonald, D., Morrison, M.D., 2010. Valuing biodiversity using habitat types. Australiasian Journal of Environemental Management. 17:4, 235-243.
Citation
Hatton MacDonald, et al. 2010
Year published
Peer reviewed?
Yes
Journal name
Australasian Journal of Environmental Management
Additional informationNotes on this study
Native vegetation is described in terms of its value for habitat, threat status of species present and ecosystem function. Respondents were told that each option had a household cost that would be collected via an incomes tax levey each year for 5 years. The data the survey was administered was not included, hence CPI conversation assumes the orginal WTP estimate is from 2010, date of publish. |
||||||
WTP for improvements in environmental quality on River Murray for respondents from Northern Territory, Western Australia, Queensland, Tasmania Fire
Flood
Storm
Earthquake
Tsunami
Heatwave
WTP DetailsHazard types identified
Drought
climate change
Specific Value Type measured
Native vegetation
Currency Year - original study
WTP estimate - original study value
$3.31 per 1,780 hectares per household per year
Currency - original study
AUD
WTP converted to $AU in original year from the study
$3.31 AUD
WTP measure
Mean
95% confidence interval (upper)
$4.78 AUD
95% confidence interval (lower)
$2.53 AUD
Other variables that significantly explain WTP
Waterbird breeding, cost, native fish, health vegetation, waterbird habitat, age, environmental attitudes Study DetailsValue type applicable
Ecosystems
Study conducted in the context of a natural hazard?
No
Study quality
High
Benefits transfer applicability
Average
Recommendations
Useful for BT in Australia - be aware of generalised context - not NH specific
MethodsData collection method used
Choice modeling
Analysis model
Panel multinomial logit error components
Modelled number of individuals
n/a
Modelled number of observations
11644
Sample CharacteristicsCountry/region studied
Murray River, Australia
Country of source studies
Australia
Sampled population
Northerth Territory; Queensland; Westerna Australia; Tasmania
Range in years of data
2008-2009
Mean sample age
48.2
Percent Male
43
Percent Female
57
PublicationValuing a multistate river: the case of the River MurrayHatton MacDonald, D., Morrison, M.D., Rose, J.M., and Boyle, K.J. 2011. Valuing a multistate river: the case of the River Murray. AJARE. 55: 374-392.
Citation
Hatton MacDonald, et al. 2011
Year published
Peer reviewed?
Yes
Journal name
Australian Journal of Agriculture and Resource Economics
Additional informationNotes on this study
The current area of healthy vegetation is 178,000 hectares, therefore 1% is 1,780 hectares. Respondents were told each option has an annual household cost that will be paid each year for a 10-year period through increased taxes and higher prices for food. |
||||||
WTP for improvements in environmental quality on River Murray for respondents from South Australia Fire
Flood
Storm
Earthquake
Tsunami
Heatwave
WTP DetailsHazard types identified
Drought
climate change
Specific Value Type measured
Native vegetation
Currency Year - original study
WTP estimate - original study value
$3.88 per 1,780 hectares per household per year
Currency - original study
AUD
WTP converted to $AU in original year from the study
$3.88 AUD
WTP measure
Mean
95% confidence interval (upper)
$4.78 AUD
95% confidence interval (lower)
$3.13 AUD
Other variables that significantly explain WTP
Waterbird breeding, native fish, cost, healthy vegetation, waterbird habitat, income, environmental attitudes Study DetailsValue type applicable
Ecosystems
Study conducted in the context of a natural hazard?
No
Study quality
High
Benefits transfer applicability
Average
Recommendations
Useful for BT in Australia - be aware of generalised context - not NH specific
MethodsData collection method used
Choice modeling
Analysis model
Panel multinomial logit error components
Modelled number of individuals
n/a
Modelled number of observations
11644
Sample CharacteristicsCountry/region studied
Murray River, Australia
Country of source studies
Australia
Sampled population
South Australia
Range in years of data
2008-2009
Mean sample age
47.9
Percent Male
45
Percent Female
55
PublicationValuing a multistate river: the case of the River MurrayHatton MacDonald, D., Morrison, M.D., Rose, J.M., and Boyle, K.J. 2011. Valuing a multistate river: the case of the River Murray. AJARE. 55: 374-392.
Citation
Hatton MacDonald, et al. 2011
Year published
Peer reviewed?
Yes
Journal name
Australian Journal of Agriculture and Resource Economics
Additional informationNotes on this study
The current area of healthy vegetation is 178,000 hectares, therefore 1% is 1,780 hectares. Respondents were told each option has an annual household cost that will be paid each year for a 10-year period through increased taxes and higher prices for food. |
||||||
WTP for improvements in environmental quality on River Murray for respondents from Victoria Fire
Flood
Storm
Earthquake
Tsunami
Heatwave
WTP DetailsHazard types identified
Drought
climate change
Specific Value Type measured
Native vegetation
Currency Year - original study
WTP estimate - original study value
$2.87 per 1,780 hectares per household per year
Currency - original study
AUD
WTP converted to $AU in original year from the study
$2.87 AUD
WTP measure
Mean
95% confidence interval (upper)
$3.86 AUD
95% confidence interval (lower)
$1.91 AUD
Other variables that significantly explain WTP
Waterbird breeding, native fish, cost, waterbird habitat, health vegetation, waterbird habitat, income, age, environmental attitudes, Study DetailsValue type applicable
Ecosystems
Study conducted in the context of a natural hazard?
No
Study quality
High
Benefits transfer applicability
Average
Recommendations
Useful for BT in Australia - be aware of generalised context - not NH specific
MethodsData collection method used
Choice modeling
Analysis model
Panel multinomial logit error components
Modelled number of individuals
n/a
Modelled number of observations
11644
Sample CharacteristicsCountry/region studied
Murray River, Australia
Country of source studies
Australia
Sampled population
Victoria
Range in years of data
2008-2009
Mean sample age
44.7
Percent Male
44
Percent Female
56
Mean sample income
n/a
Income units
n/a
PublicationValuing a multistate river: the case of the River MurrayHatton MacDonald, D., Morrison, M.D., Rose, J.M., and Boyle, K.J. 2011. Valuing a multistate river: the case of the River Murray. AJARE. 55: 374-392.
Citation
Hatton MacDonald, et al. 2011
Year published
Peer reviewed?
Yes
Journal name
Australian Journal of Agriculture and Resource Economics
Additional informationNotes on this study
The current area of healthy vegetation is 178,000 hectares, therefore 1% is 1,780 hectares. Respondents were told each option has an annual household cost that will be paid each year for a 10-year period through increased taxes and higher prices for food. |
||||||
WTP for improvements in environmental quality on River Murray for respondents from Australian Capital Territory Fire
Flood
Storm
Earthquake
Tsunami
Heatwave
WTP DetailsHazard types identified
Drought
climate change
Specific Value Type measured
Native vegetation
Currency Year - original study
WTP estimate - original study value
$4.42 per 1,780 hectares per household per year
Currency - original study
AUD
WTP converted to $AU in original year from the study
$4.42 AUD
WTP measure
Mean
95% confidence interval (upper)
$5.91 AUD
95% confidence interval (lower)
$3.21 AUD
Other variables that significantly explain WTP
Waterbird breeding, cost, waterbird habitat, native fish Study DetailsValue type applicable
Ecosystems
Study conducted in the context of a natural hazard?
No
Study quality
High
Benefits transfer applicability
Average
Recommendations
Useful for BT in Australia - be aware of generalised context - not NH specific
MethodsData collection method used
Choice modeling
Analysis model
Panel multinomial logit error components
Modelled number of individuals
n/a
Modelled number of observations
11644
Sample CharacteristicsCountry/region studied
Murray River, Australia
Country of source studies
Australia
Sampled population
Australian Capital Territory
Range in years of data
2008-2009
Mean sample age
47.9
Percent Male
48
Percent Female
52
Mean sample income
n/a
Income units
n/a
PublicationValuing a multistate river: the case of the River MurrayHatton MacDonald, D., Morrison, M.D., Rose, J.M., and Boyle, K.J. 2011. Valuing a multistate river: the case of the River Murray. AJARE. 55: 374-392.
Citation
Hatton MacDonald, et al. 2011
Year published
Peer reviewed?
Yes
Journal name
Australian Journal of Agriculture and Resource Economics
Additional informationNotes on this study
The current area of healthy vegetation is 178,000 hectares, therefore 1% is 1,780 hectares. Respondents were told each option has an annual household cost that will be paid each year for a 10-year period through increased taxes and higher prices for food. |
||||||
WTP for improvements in environmental quality on River Murray for respondents from New South Wales Fire
Flood
Storm
Earthquake
Tsunami
Heatwave
WTP DetailsHazard types identified
Drought
climate change
Specific Value Type measured
Native vegetation
Currency Year - original study
WTP estimate - original study value
$2.88 per 1,780 hectares per household per year
Currency - original study
AUD
WTP converted to $AU in original year from the study
$2.88 AUD
WTP measure
Mean
95% confidence interval (upper)
$3.54 AUD
95% confidence interval (lower)
$2.27 AUD
Other variables that significantly explain WTP
Water bird breeding, cost, healthy vegetation, native fish, age, gender, environmental attitudes Study DetailsValue type applicable
Ecosystems
Study conducted in the context of a natural hazard?
No
Study quality
High
Benefits transfer applicability
Average
Recommendations
Useful for BT in Australia - be aware of generalised context - not NH specific
MethodsData collection method used
Choice modeling
Analysis model
Panel multinomial logit error components
Modelled number of individuals
n/a
Modelled number of observations
11644
Sample CharacteristicsCountry/region studied
Murray River, Australia
Country of source studies
Australia
Sampled population
New South Wales
Range in years of data
2008-2009
Mean sample age
47.6
Percent Male
45
Percent Female
55
Mean sample income
n/a
Income units
n/a
PublicationValuing a multistate river: the case of the River MurrayHatton MacDonald, D., Morrison, M.D., Rose, J.M., and Boyle, K.J. 2011. Valuing a multistate river: the case of the River Murray. AJARE. 55: 374-392.
Citation
Hatton MacDonald, et al. 2011
Year published
Peer reviewed?
Yes
Journal name
Australian Journal of Agriculture and Resource Economics
Additional informationNotes on this study
The current area of healthy vegetation is 178,000 hectares, therefore 1% is 1,780 hectares. Respondents were told each option has an annual household cost that will be paid each year for a 10-year period through increased taxes and higher prices for food. |