Importance of forest attributes in the willingness to pay for recreation: A contingent valuation study of Irish forests

Forest Policy and Economics

Volumn 1, Issue 3-4, 2000, Pages 315-329

  Scarpa, Riccardo ^a,b   Hutchinson, W George ^c   Chilton, Susan M ^d   Buongiorno, Joseph ^e  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TUSCIA   (Italy)

^b NEWCASTLE UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^c QUEEN'S UNIVERSITY BELFAST   (United Kingdom)

^d UNIVERSITY OF YORK   (United Kingdom)

^e UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN MADISON   (United States)

Author keywords

Censored regression; Forest characteristics; Forest recreation; Hedonic valuation; Non market valuation; Referendum contingent valuation

Indexed keywords

EID: 0000011981     PISSN: 13899341     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/s1389-9341(00)00026-5     Document Type: Article

References (17)

1. Alberini A. Efficiency versus bias of WTP estimates: bivariate and interval-data models. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management. 29:1995;169-180.
2. Amemiya T. Advanced Econometrics. 1985;Harvard University Press, Cambridge.
3. Arrow K., Solow R., Portney P.R., Leamer E.E., Radner R., Shuman E.H. Report to the General Counsel of the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration panel on Contingent Valuation. Natural resource damage assessments under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990. Federal Register. 58:1993;4601-4614.
4. Bishop R.C., Champ P., Mullarkey D. Contingent valuation. Bromley D.W. Handbook of Environmental Economics. 1995;Basil Blackwell, London.
5. Boxall P.C., Adamowicz W.L., Swait J., Williams M., Louviere J. A comparison of stated preferences methods for environmental valuation. Ecological Economics. 18:1996;243-253.
6. Cameron T.A., James M.D. Efficient estimation methods for 'closed-ended' contingent valuation surveys. Review of Economics and Statistics. LXIX:1987;269-276.
7. Cameron T.A., Quiggin J. Estimation using contingent valuation data from a dichotomous choice with follow-up questionnaire. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management. 27:1994;218-234.
8. Dhubhain, N., Gardiner, J., Davis, J. et al., 1994. The socio-economic impact of afforestation on rural development. Final Report EU CAMAR, Contract No 8001-CT90-0008 (01.02.91 TO 31.07.94) by University College of Dublin. The Queens University of Belfast and University of Aberdeen.
9. Englin J., Mendelsohn R. A hedonic travel cost analysis for valuation of multiple components of site quality: the recreation value of forest management. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management. 21:1991;275-290.
10. Freeman III A.M. The Measurement of Environmental and Resource Values: Theory and Methods. 1993;Resources for the Future, Washington.
11. Garrod G.D., Willis K.G. The non-use benefits of enhancing forest biodiversity: a contingent ranking study. Ecological Economics. 21:1997;45-61.
12. Greene W.H. LIMDEP Version 7.0 User's Manual. 1995;Econometric Software, Inc, Bellport, NY.
13. Hanemann M.W., Loomis J., Kanninen B. Statistical efficiency of double bounded dichotomous choice contingent valuation. American Journal of Agricultural Economics. 73:1991;1255-1263.
14. Kennedy P. A Guide to Econometrics. 1993;The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
15. Mattson L., Li C-Z. How do different forest management practices affect the non-timber value of forests? An economic analysis. Journal of Environmental Management. 40:1995;79-88.
16. Scarpa R., Chilton S., Hutchinson G., Buongiorno J. Valuing the recreational benefits from the creation of nature reserves in Irish forests. Ecological Economics. 33:2000;237-250.
17. Scarpa, R., Chilton, S., Hutchinson, G., Buongiorno, J., 2000b. Reliability of Benefit Value Transfers from Contingent Valuation Data with Forest-Specific Attributes. Economics Energy Environment, Nota di Lavoro 34.00, Fondazione ENI Enrico Mattei, Milano.