Valuing environmental quality change on recreational hunting in Korea: A contingent valuation analysis

Journal of Environmental Management

Volumn 57, Issue 1, 1999, Pages 11-20

  Lee, Hee Chan ^a   Chun, Hyun Sun ^b  

^a MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b Korea Forest Service   (South Korea)

Author keywords

Confidence intervals; Contingent valuation; Functional form; Hunting quality; Korea

Indexed keywords

RESOURCE VALUATION; STATISTICAL METHODS;

CONDITION; CONFIDENCE INTERVAL; CONTINGENT VALUATIONS; ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY; FUNCTIONAL FORMS; HUNTING QUALITY; KOREA; QUALITY CHANGE; RESOURCE MANAGEMENT POLICY; WILLINGNESS-TO-PAY ESTIMATES;

QUALITY CONTROL;

CONTINGENT VALUATION; ENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMICS; HUNTING; RECREATIONAL ACTIVITY; WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

ARTICLE; ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT; HUMAN; KOREA; POLICY; RESOURCE MANAGEMENT; TECHNIQUE;

SOUTH KOREA;

EID: 0032861858     PISSN: 03014797     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1006/jema.1999.0284     Document Type: Article

References (17)

1. Adamowicz W., Fletcher J., Graham-Tomasi T. Functional form and statistical properties of welfare measures. American Journal of Agricultural Economics. 71:1989;414-421.
2. Bishop R., Heberlein T. Measuring values of extra-market goods: Are indirect measures biased? American Journal of Agricultural Economics. 61:1979;926-930.
3. Bockstael N., Strand I. The effect of common sources of regression error on benefit estimates. Land Economics. 63:1987;11-20.
4. Bowker J., Stoll J. Use of dichotomous choice nonmarket methods to value the whooping crane resource. American Journal of AgriÍcultural Economics. 70:1988;372-382.
5. Boyle K., Welsh M., Bishop R., Baumgartner R. Paper presented at the American Agricultural Economics Association Meetings, August 1987. Analyzing the effects of Glen Canyon dam releases on Colorado River recreation using scenarios on unexperienced flow conditions. 1987.
6. Cooper J. Optimal bid selection for dichotomous choice contingent valuation surveys. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management. 24:1993;25-40.
7. Cooper J. A comparison of approaches to calculating confidence intervals for benefit measures from dichotomous choice contingent valuation surveys. Land Economics. 70:1994;111-122.
8. Duffield J., Patterson D. Inference and optimal design for a welfare measure in dichotomous choice contingent valuation. Land Economics. 67:1991;225-239.
9. Hanemann M. Welfare evaluation in contingent valuation experiments with discrete responses. American Journal of Agricultural Economics. 66:1984;332-341.
10. Hanemann M., Kanninen B. Working Paper No. 798. Department of AgriÍcultural and Resource Economics, University of California at Berkeley. The Statistical Analysis of Discrete-Response CV Data. 1998.
11. Kling C., Sexton R. Bootstrapping in applied welfare analysis. American Journal of Agricultural Economics. 72:1990;406-418.
12. Lake I., Bateman I., Parfitt J. Assessing a kerbside recycling scheme: a quantitative and willingness to pay case study. Journal of Environmental Management. 46:1996;239-254.
13. Loomis J., Gonzales-Caban A., Gregory R. Do reminders of substitutes and budget constraints influence contingent valuation estimates? Land Economics. 70:1994;499-506.
14. Ozuna T., Jang K., Stoll J. Testing for misspecification in the referendum contingent valuation approach. American Journal of AgriÍcultural Economics. 75:1993;332-338.
15. Pagan A., Vella F. Diagnostic tests for models based on individual data: A Survey. Journal of Applied Econometrics. 4:1989;S29-S59.
16. Park T., Loomis J., Creel M. Confidence intervals for evaluating benefits estimates from dichotomous choice contingent valuation studies. Land Economics. 67:1991;64-73.
17. Willis K., Garrod G., Saunders C. Benefits of environmentally sensitive area policy in England: A contingent valuation assessment. Journal of Environmental Management. 44:1995;105-125.