Willingness-to-pay for borivli national park: Evidence from a contingent valuation

Ecological Economics

Volumn 21, Issue 2, 1997, Pages 105-122

  Hadker, Nandini ^a   Sharma, Sudhir ^a   David, Ashish ^a   Muraleedharan, T R ^a  

^a INDIRA GANDHI INSTITUTE OF DEVELOPMENT RESEARCH   (India)

Author keywords

Contingent valuation; Double dichotomous bid; Embedding effects; Hypothetical bias; Starting point bias

Indexed keywords

CONTINGENT VALUATION; DEVELOPING COUNTRY; ENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMICS; METHODOLOGICAL EVALUATION; NATURE CONSERVATION; PROTECTED AREA; WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

INDIA, MAHARASHTRA, BORIVILI NATIONAL PARK;

EID: 0030620132     PISSN: 09218009     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0921-8009(96)00094-8     Document Type: Article

References (16)

1. Arrow, K. et al., 1993. Report of the NOAA Panel on CV. Resources for the Future, Washington, DC.
2. Bateman, I. et al., 1993. The impacts of changing WTP, question format in CV studies: an analysis if open-ended, iterative biding and dichotomous choice formats. GEC Working Pap. 93-05, CSERGE, UEA and UCL.
3. Bishop, R. and Heberlein, T., 1979. Measuring values of extra market goods: are indirect methods biased. Am. J. Agric. Econ., 61: 926-30.
4. Bombay Metropolitan Region Development Authority, 1990. Multi-Purpose Household Survey of Bombay Metropolitan Region.
5. Cameron, T.A., 1988. A new paradigm for valuing non-market goods using referrandum data: maximum likelihood estimation by censored logistics regression. J. Environ. Econ. Manage., 15: 355-379.
6. Cameron, T.A. and James, M.D., 1987. Efficient estimation methods for use with close-ended Contingent Valuation survey data. Rev. Econ. Stat., 69: 269-276.
7. Cummings, R. et al., 1986. Valuing Environmental Goods: An Assessment of the Contingent Valuation Method. Rowman and Allenheld, Totowa, NJ.
8. Hadker, N. et al., 1995. Are people in developing countries willing to pay for natural reserve preservation? Evidence from a Contingent Valuation of the Borivli National Park, Bombay. IGIDR Discussion Pap. 121.
9. Hanemann, W., 1984. Welfare evaluations in contingent valuation experiments in the Discrete Responses. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 66(3).
10. Hanemann, M., Loomis, J. and Kanninen, B., 1991. Statistical efficiency of double-bounded dichotomous choice contingent valuation. Am. J. Agric. Econ., 73(4): 1255-1263.
11. Hoovenagel, R., 1994. The CV Method: Scope and Validity. Free University, Amsterdam.
12. Imber, D., Stevenson, G. and Wilks, L., 1991. A Contingent Valuation survey of the Kakadu conservation zone. Resource Assessment Commission, Res. Pap. 3.
13. Knetsch, J., 1993. Environmental Valuation: some practicle problems of wrong questions and misleading answers. Resource Assessment Commission, Occas. Publ. 5.
14. McConnell, K.E., 1990. Models for referendum data: The structure for discrete models for Contingent Valuation. J. Environ. Econ. Manage., 18: 19-34.
15. Mitchell, R. and Carson, R., 1989. Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Method. Resources for the Future, Washington, DC.
16. Pearce, D., Whittington, D. and Georgiou, S., 1994. Economic values and the environment in the developing world. Rep. to the UNEP, Nairobi.