Incorporating respondent uncertainty when estimating willingness to pay for protecting critical habitat for threatened and endangered fish

Water Resources Research

Volumn 34, Issue 11, 1998, Pages 3149-3155

  Ekstrand, Earl R ^a   Loomis, John ^b  

^a U S BUREAU OF RECLAMATION   (United States)

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

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ECONOMICS; ECOSYSTEMS; FISH; RESOURCE VALUATION;

CHOICE MODEL; DICHOTOMOUS CHOICE CONTINGENT VALUATION; ECONOMIC BENEFITS; FISH SPECIES; GOODNESS OF FIT; RIO GRANDE RIVER; STANDARD ERRORS; WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

UNCERTAINTY ANALYSIS;

CONTINGENT VALUATION; ENDANGERED SPECIES; ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION; FISH; NATURE CONSERVATION; UNCERTAINTY ROLE; WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

EID: 0031761093     PISSN: 00431397     EISSN: 19447973     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1029/98WR02164     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. Arrow, K., R. Solow, P. Portney, E. Learner, R. Radner, and H. Schuman, Report of the NOAA Panel on Contingent Valuation, Fed. Regis., 58(10), 4602-4614
2. Barrens, R., P. Ganderton, and C. Silva, Valuing the protection of minimum instream flows in New Mexico, J. Agric. Resour. Econ., 21(2), 294-309, 1996.
3. Champ, P., R. Bishop, T. Brown, and D. McCollum, Using donation mechanisms to value nonuse benefits from public goods, J. Environ. Econ. Manage., 33(2), 151-162, 1997.
4. Cummings, R. G., D. S. Brookshire, and W. B. Schulze, Valuing Public Goods, Rowan and Allenheld, Totowa, N.J., 1986.
5. Diamond, P., and J. Hausman, On contingent valuation measurement of nonuse values, in Contingent Valuation: A Critical Assessment, edited by J. Hausman, North-Holland, New York, 1993.
6. Dillman, D., Mail and Telephone Surveys, John Wiley, New York, 1978.
7. Greene, W., Limdep Version 6.0 User's Manual and Reference Guide, Econometric Software, Bellport, N.Y., 1992.
8. Hanemann, M., Welfare evaluations in contingent valuation experiments with discrete responses, Am. J. Agric. Econ., 66(3), 332-341, 1984.
9. Hanemann, M., Welfare evaluations in contingent valuation experiments with discrete response data: Reply, Am. J. Agric. Econ., 71(A), 1057-1061, 1989.
10. Johannesson, M., B. Liljas, and P. Johansson, An experimental comparison of dichotomous choice contingent valuation questions and real purchase decisions, Dep. of Econ., Stockholm School of Econ., Stockholm, Sweden, 1996.
11. Li, C, and L. Mattsson, Discrete choice under preference uncertainty: An improved structural model for contingent valuation, J. Environ. Econ. Manage., 28, 256-269, 1995.
12. Loomis, J., and D. White, Economic benefits of rare and endangered species: Summary and meta analysis, Ecol. Econ., 18, 197-206, 1996.
13. Magelby, D., Opinion formation and opinion change in ballot proposition campaigns, in Manipulating Public Opinion, edited by M. Marolis and G. Mauser, Brooks/Cole, Pacifc Grove, Calif., 1989.
14. Manski, C, Identification Problems in the Social Sciences, Harvard Univ. Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1995.
15. Polasky, S., O. Gainutdinova, and J. Kerkvliet, Comparing CV responses with voting behavior: Open space survey and referendum in Corvallis, Oregon, in W-133 benefits and costs transfer in natural resources planning, 9th interim report, Dep. of Econ., Iowa State Univ., Ames, 1996.
16. Ready, R., J. Whitehead, and G. Blomquist, Contingent valuation when respondents are ambivalent, J. Environ. Econ. Manage., 29(2), 181-197, 1995.
17. State of Ohio versus U.S. Department of Interior, U.S. District Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, no. 86-1575, 1989.
18. U.S. Department of Interior, Natural resource damage assessments, final rule, Fed. Regis., 5(148), 27,614-27,753, 1986.
19. U.S. Department of Interior, 1995. Recovery plan for the Mexican Spotted Owl (Strix Occidentalis lucida), vol. I, 172 pp. Fish and Wildlife Service, Albuquerque, N.M., 1995.
20. U.S. Water Resources Council, Economic and environmental principles and guidelines for water and related land resources implementation studies, Washington, D.C., 1983.
21. Welsh, M., and R. Bishop, Multiple bounded discrete choice models, in W-133 benefits and costs transfers in natural resources planning, 6th interim report, Dep. of Agric. Econ., Univ. of Ga., Athens, 1993.