Valuing the recreational benefits from the creation of nature reserves in Irish forests

Ecological Economics

Volumn 33, Issue 2, 2000, Pages 237-250

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

^a UNIVERSITY OF TUSCIA   (Italy)

^b Ctr Res Environ Appraisal Mgmt   (United Kingdom)

^c UNIVERSITY OF YORK   (United Kingdom)

^d QUEEN'S UNIVERSITY BELFAST   (United Kingdom)

^e UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN MADISON   (United States)

Author keywords

Contingent valuation; Forest attributes analysis; Nature reserves; Non market valuation

Indexed keywords

FOREST MANAGEMENT; NATURE RESERVE; PROTECTED AREA; RECREATIONAL ACTIVITY;

IRELAND;

EID: 0034014993     PISSN: 09218009     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0921-8009(99)00143-3     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Alberini A. Efficiency versus bias of WTP estimates: bivariate and interval-data models. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 29:1995;169-180.
2. Aptech Systems, 1997. Maximum Likelihood Reference Manual. Aptech Systems, Maple Valley, Washington, USA.
3. Bishop R.C., Heberlein T.A. Measuring values of extramarket goods: Are indirect measures biased? Am. J. Agri. Econ. 61:1979;926-930.
4. Boxall P.C., Adamowicz W.L., Swait J., Williams M., Louviere J. A comparison of stated preferences methods for environmental valuation. Ecol. Econ. 18:1996;243-253.
5. Boadway, R.W., Bruce, N., 1984. Welfare Economics. Blackwell Publishers, London.
6. Cameron T.A. A new paradigm for valuing non-market goods using referendum data. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 15:1988;355-379.
7. Cameron, T.A., James, M.D., 1987. Efficient Estimation Methods for 'closed-ended' Contingent Valuation Surveys. Review of Economics and Statistics, LXIX:269-276.
8. Cameron T.A., Quiggin J. Estimation using contingent valuation data from a dichotomous choice with follow-up questionnaire. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 27:1994;218-234.
9. Downing M., Ozuna T.J. Testing the reliability of the benefit function transfer approach. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 30:1996;316-322.
10. Duffield J.W., Patterson D.A. Inference and optimal design for a welfare measure in dichotomous choice contingent valuation. Land Econ. 67:1991;225-239.
11. Englin J., Mendelsohn R. A hedonic travel cost analysis for valuation of multiple components of site quality: The recreation value of forest management. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 21:1991;275-290.
12. Forest Service, 1991. Conservation and the Forest Service HMSO, Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland, Belfast.
13. Garrod G., Willis K. The amenity value of woodland in Great Britain: A comparison of economic estimates. Environ. Res. Econ. 2:1992;415-434.
14. Goldberger, A., 1993. A Course in Econometrics. Harvard University Press.
15. Hanemann M.W. Welfare evaluations in contingent valuations experiments with discrete responses. Am. J. Agr. Econ. 66:1984;332-341.
16. Hanemann M.W. Welfare evaluations in contingent valuations experiments with discrete response data: a reply. Am. J. Agri. Econ. 71:1989;1057-1061.
17. Hanemann, M.W., Kanninen, B., 1999. The Statistical Analysis of Discrete-Response CV data. In: Bateman, I., Willis, G.K. (Eds.), Valuing Environmental Preferences. Oxford University Press, pp. 302-441.
18. Hanemann M.W., Loomis J., Kanninen B. Statistical efficiency of double bounded dichotomous choice contingent valuation. Am. J. Agri. Econ. 73:1991;1255-1263.
19. Hoehn J.P., Randall A. A satisfactory benefit-cost indicator from contingent valuation. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 14:1987;226-247.
20. Krinsky I., Robb A. Approximating the statistical properties of elasticities. Rev. Econ. Stat. 68:1986;715-719.
21. Langford I.H., Bateman I.J., Jones A.P., Langford H.D., Stavros G. Improved estimation of willingness to pay in dichotomous choice contingent valuation studies. Land Econ. 74:1998;65-75.
22. Lockwood M., Loomis J., Delacy T. A contingent valuation survey and benefit-cost analysis of forest preservation in East Gippsland. J. Environ. Manag. 38:1992;233-243.
23. Mattson L., Li C.-Z. How do different forest management practices affect the non-timber value of forests? An Economic analysis. J. Environ. Manag. 40:1995;79-88.
24. McConnell K. Models for referendum data: the structure of discrete choice models for contingent valuation. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 18:1990;19-34.
25. McCurdy, R.J., 1989. Nature Reserves in Northern Ireland Forests. HMSO, Belfast.
26. McFadden, D., 1973. Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. In: Zarembka, P. (Ed.), Frontiers in Econometrics IV. Academic Press, London/New York.
27. NOAA, 1990. Natural resource damage assessments under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990. Federal Register, Vol. 58, pp.4601-4614.
28. Ready R.C., Hu D. Statistical approaches to the fat tail problem for dichotomous choice contingent valuation. Land Econ. 71:1995;491-499.
29. Scarpa, R., 1999. Assessing the amenity value of forests, with applications to Wisconsin and Ireland, Ph.D. dissertation. University of Wisconsin-Madison.
30. Sellar C., Chavas J.-P., Stoll R.J. Specification in the logit model: the case of valuation of nonmarket goods. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 13:1986;382-390.
31. Willis K. The recreation value of the forest commission estate. Scottish J. Polit. Econ. 38:1991;58-75.
32. Willis K., Benson J. Recreational values of forests. Forestry. 62:1989;93-110.