Comparing the economic value of reducing fire risk to spotted owl habitat in California and Oregon

Forest Science

Volumn 43, Issue 4, 1997, Pages 473-482

  Loomis, John B ^a   González Cabán, Armando ^b  

^a Department of Environmental and Radiological Health Sciences   (United States)

^b PACIFIC SOUTHWEST RESEARCH STATION   (United States)

Author keywords

Contingent valuation method; Survey; Willingness to pay

Indexed keywords

EID: 0030699968     PISSN: 0015749X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. ARROW, K., ET AL. 1993. Report of the NOAA Panel on Contingent Valuation. Fed. Reg. 58(10):4602-4614.
2. CARSON, R., ET AL. 1994. Prospective interim lost use value due to DDT and PCB contamination in the Southern California Bight. Natural Resource Damage Assessment Inc., La Jolla, CA. 248 p.
3. CARSON, R., N. FLORES, K. MARTIN, AND J. WRIGHT. 1996. Contingent valuation and revealed preference methodologies: Comparing the estimates for quasi-public goods. Land Econ. 72:80-99.
4. CASPO. 1992. Minutes from June 11, 1992 meeting of California Spotted Owl Policy Implementation Planning Team Meeting. Sacramento, CA.
5. GONZÁLEZ-CABÁN, A., AND R. CHASE. 1992. Nonmarket commodities valuation problem and its implications for the Forest Service National Fire Management Analysis Planning System. USDA For. Serv. Pac. SW For. & Range Exp. Sta., For. Fire Lab, Riverside, CA.
6. GONZÁLEZ-CABÁN, A. 1993. Improving the U.S. Forest Service's fire management planning system capabilities to use non-market values. Wildfire 2:16-21.
7. HANEMANN, M. 1989. Welfare evaluations in contingent valuation experiments with discrete response data: reply. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 71:1057-1061.
8. HANEMANN, M., J. LOOMIS, AND B. KANNINEN. 1991. Statistical efficiency of double-bounded dichotomous choice contingent valuation. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 73:1255-1263.
9. HOEHN, J., AND A. RANDALL. 1989. Too many proposals pass the benefit-cost test. Am. Econ. Rev. 79:544-551.
10. KEALY, M., J. DOVIDIO, AND M. ROCKEL. 1988. Accuracy in valuation is a matter of degree. Land Econ. 64:158-170.
11. KRUTILLA, J. 1967. Conservation reconsidered. Am. Econ. Rev. 57:777-786.
12. LOOMIS, J. 1989. Test-retest reliability of the contingent valuation method: A comparison of general population and visitor responses. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 71:76-84.
13. LOOMIS, J. 1990. Comparative reliability of the dichotomous choice and open-ended contingent valuation techniques. J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 18:78-85.
14. LOOMIS, J., AND A. GONZÁLEZ-CABÁN. 1994. Estimating the value of reducing fire hazards to old growth forests in the Pacific Northwest: A contingent valuation approach. Internat. J. Wildl. Fire 4:209-216.
15. LOOMIS, J., AND D. WHITE. 1996. Economic benefits of rare and endangered species: summary and META Analysis. Ecol. Eicon. 18:197-206.
16. MITCHELL, R., AND R. CARSON. 1989. Using surveys to value public goods: The contingent valuation method. Resources for the Future, Washington DC. 463 p.
17. RANDALL, A., AND J. STOLL. 1983. Existence value in a total valuation framework. P. 246-253 in Managing air quality and scenic resources at national parks and wilderness areas, Rowe, R., and L. Chestnut (eds.). Westview Press, Boulder, CO.
18. RUBIN, J., G. HELFAND, AND J. LOOMIS. 1991. A benefit-cost analysis of the Northern Spotted Owl. J. For. 89:25-30.
19. RUTH, L., J. WUTZKE, J. ALLEN, K. NIELSEN, AND D. BATTS. 1994. Conserving the California Spotted Owl: Impacts of interim policies and implications for the long-term. Wildl. Resour, Cent., Div. of Agric. and Natur. Resour., Univ. of California, Davis.
20. SOUTER, R.A., AND M. BOWKER. 1993. A note on nonlinearity bias and dichotomous choice CVM: Implications for aggregate benefits estimation. Agric. Resour. Econ. Rev. 25:54-59.
21. STEVENS, T., J. ECHEVERRIA, R. GLASS, T. HAGER, AND T. MORE. 1991. Measuring the existence value of wildlife: What do CVM estimates really show? Land Econ. 67:390-400.
22. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR. 1986. Natural Resource Damage Assessments; Final Rule. Fed. Reg. 51. Washington, DC.
23. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS. (For the District of Columbia). State of Ohio v. U.S. Department of Interior. Case No. 86-1575. July 14, 1989.
24. USDA FOREST SERVICE. 1993. California Spotted Owl Sierran Province interim guidelines and environmental assessment. Pacific Southwest Region, San Francisco, CA.
25. UNITED STATES WATER RESOURCES COUNCIL. 1983. Economic and environmental principles for water and related land resources implementation studies. Washington, DC.
26. VAUX, H., P. GARDNER, AND T. MILLS. 1984. Methods for assessing the impact of fire on forest recreation. USDA For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-79. 13 p.
27. VERNER, J., ET AL. 1992. The California Spotted Owl: A technical assessment of its current status. USDA For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-133.
28. WELSH, M., AND R. BISHOP. 1993. Multiple bounded discrete choice models. P. 331-352 in W-133 benefits and costs transfers in natural resources planning, sixth interim report, Bergstrom, J. (compiler). Dep. of Agric. Econ., University of Georgia, Athens, GA.