Contingent values for New Mexico instream flows: With tests of scope, group-size reminder and temporal reliability

Journal of Environmental Management

Volumn 58, Issue 1, 2000, Pages 73-90

  Berrens, R P ^a   Bohara, A K ^a   Silva, C L ^a   Brookshire, D ^a   McKee, M ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NEW MEXICO   (United States)

Author keywords

Contingent valuation; Instream flows; Scope; Temporal reliability

Indexed keywords

RELIABILITY; TELEPHONE SETS;

CONTINGENT VALUATIONS; DICHOTOMOUS CHOICE CONTINGENT VALUATION; ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES; GROUP SIZE; INSTREAM FLOWS; NATURAL RIVER CHANNEL; NEW MEXICO; NON-MARKET BENEFITS; SCOPE; TEMPORAL RELIABILITY;

SAMPLING;

CONTINGENT VALUATION; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS; SPATIOTEMPORAL ANALYSIS; WATER ECONOMICS;

ARTICLE; DECISION MAKING; ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT; ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION; RIVER; UNITED STATES; WATER FLOW;

NEW MEXICO; UNITED STATES;

EID: 0034066070     PISSN: 03014797     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1006/jema.1999.0308     Document Type: Article

References (48)

1. Arrow K., Solow R., Leamer E., Portney P., Radner R., Schuman . H. Report of the NOAA Panel on Contingent Valuation. Federal Register. 58:(1993);4601-4614.
2. Baron J. Bjornstad D., Kahn J. Rationality and Invariance: response to Schuman. The Contingent Valuation of Environmental Resources: Methodological Issues and Research Needs. (1996);145-163 Edward Elgar, London.
3. Bergland O., Magnussen K., Navrud S. Benefit Transfer: Testing for Accuracy and Reliability. (1998);The Agricultural University of NorwayDepartment of Economics and Social Sciences.
4. Berrens R., Ganderton P., Silva C. Valuing the protection of minimum instream flow protection in New Mexico. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics. 21:(1996);294-309.
5. Binger B., Copple R., Hoffman E. Contingent valuation methodology in the natural resource damage regulatory process. Natural Resources Journal. 35:(1996);443-460.
6. Bishop B., Champ P., Mullarkey D. Bromley D. Contingent valuation. The Handbook of Environmental Economics. (1995);629-654 Basil Blackwell, Cambridge.
7. Blamey R. Decisiveness, attitude expression and symbolic responses in contingent valuation studies. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization. 34:(1998);577-601.
8. Bohara A., McKee M., Berrens R., Jenkins-Smith H., Silva C., Brookshire D. Effects of total cost and group-size information on willingness to pay responses: open ended vs. dichotomous choice. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management. 35:(1998);142-163.
9. Bokum C., Gabin V., Morgan P. Living Within Our Means: A Water Management Policy for New Mexico in the Twenty-First Century. (1992);NM Environmental Law Center, Santa Fe.
10. Brown T., Duffield J. Testing part-whole valuation effects in contingent valuation of instream flow protection. Water Resources Research. 31:(1995);2341-2351.
11. Brown T., Champ P., Bishop R., Mcollum D. Which response format reveals the truth about donations to public goods. Land Economics. 72:(1996);152-166.
12. Cameron T. A new paradigm for valuing non-market goods using referendum format: maximum likelihood estimation by censored logistic regression. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management. 15:(1988);355-379.
13. Carson R. Contingent valuation: theoretical advances and empirical tests since the NOAA panel. American Journal of Agricultural Economics. 79:(1997);1501-1507.
14. Carson R., Mitchell R. Sequencing and nesting in contingent valuation surveys. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management. 28:(1995);155-173.
15. Carson R., Haneman W. H., Kopp R., Krosnick J., Mitchell R., Presser S., Ruud P., Smith V. K. Temporal reliability of estimates from contingent valuation. Land Economics. 73:(1997);151-163.
16. Carson R., Haneman W. H., Kopp R., Krosnick J., Mitchell R., Presser S., Ruud P., Smith V. K. Was the NOAA panel correct about contingent valuation? resources for the future. (1996).
17. Colby B. MacDonnell L., Rice T. Benefits, costs and water acquisition strategies: economic considerations in instream flow protection. Instream Flow Protection in the West. (1993);6·1-6·32 Natural Resources Law CenterUniversity of Colorado, Boulder.
18. Crawford C., Cully A., Leutheuser R., Sifuentes M., White L., Wilber J. Middle Rio Grande Ecosystem: Bosque Biological Management Plan. (1993);US Fish and Wildlife Service, Albuquerque.
19. Desvouges W., Johnson F., Dunford R., Boyle K., Hudson S., Wilson K. Hausman J. Measuring natural resource damages with contingent valuation: tests of validity and reliability. Contingent Valuation: A Critical Assessment. (1993);91-111 North Holland Press, New York.
20. Desvouges W., Hudson S., Ruby M. Bjornstad D., Kahn J. Evaluating CV performance: separating the light from the heat. The Contingent Valuation of Environmental Resources: Methodological Issues and Research Needs. (1996);117-144 Edward Elgar, London.
21. Diamond P., Hausman J. Contingent valuation is some number better than no number. Journal of Economic Perspectives. 8:(1994);45-64.
22. Duffield J., Patterson D. Field testing existence values: comparison of hypothetical and cash transactions. Benefits and Costs in Natural Resource Planning. (1992);Oregon State University, Corvallis. p. 1-32.
23. Gillilan D., Brown T. Instream Flow Protection: Seeking a Balance in Western Water Use. (1997);Island Press, Washington DC.
24. Green D., Kahneman D., Kunreuther H. How the scope and method of public funding affects willingness to pay for public goods. Public Opinion Quarterly. 58:(1994);49-67.
25. Guagnano G., Dietz T., Stern P. Willingness to pay for public goods: a test of the contribution model. Psychological Science. 5:(1994);411-415.
26. Habb T., McConnell K. Referendum models and negative willingness to pay: alternative solutions. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management. 32:(1997);251-270.
27. Hanemann W. M. Contingent valuation and economics. Journal of Economic Perpsectives. 8:(1994);19-44.
28. Hanemann W. M., Kanninen B. The Statistical Analysis of Discrete-Response Data. (1996);University of California at BerkeleyDepartment of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
29. Kahneman D., Knetsch J. Valuing public goods: the purchase of moral satisfaction. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management. 22:(1992);57-70.
30. Kahneman D., Ritov I. Determinants of stated willingness to pay for public goods: a study in the headline method. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty. 9:(1994);5-38.
31. Kahneman D., Ritov I., Jacowitz K., Grant P. Stated willingness to pay for public goods: a psychological perspective. Psychological Science. 4:(1993);310-315.
32. Kanninen B. Bias in discrete response contingent valuation. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management. 28:(1995);114-126.
33. Kmenta J. Elements of Econometrics. (1986);MacMillan Publishers, New York.
34. Kokoska S., Nevison C. Statistical Tables and Formulas. (1989);Springer-Verlag, New York.
35. Landry C. Saving Our Streams Through Water Markets. (1998);Political Economy Research Center, Bozeman.
36. Loomis J. The economic value of instream flow: methodology and benefit estimates of optimum flow. Journal of Environmental Management. 24:(1987);169-179.
37. Loomis J. Estimating the public's values for instream flows: economic techniques and dollar values. Journal of the American Water Resource Association. 34:(1998);1007-1114.
38. Mitchell R., Carson R. Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Method. (1989);Resources for the Future, Washington DC.
39. Park T., Loomis J., Creel M. Confidence intervals for evaluating benefits from dichotomous choice contingent valuation data. Land Economics. 67:(1991);64-73.
40. Poe G., Severance-Lossin E., Welsh M. Measuring the difference (X-Y) of simulated distributions: a convolutions approach. American Journal of Agricultural Economics. 76:(1994);904-915.
41. Portney P. The contingent valuation debate: Why economists should care. Journal of Economic Perspectives. 8:(1994);3-18.
42. Randall A. Beyond the crucial experiment: mapping the performance characteristics of contingent valuation. Resource and Energy Economics. 20:(1998);197-206.
43. Schuman H. Bjornstad D., Kahn J. The sensitivity of CV outcomes to CV survey methods. The Contingent Valuation of Environmental Resources: Methodological Issues and Research Needs. (1996);75-96 Edward Elgar, London.
44. Smith V. K. Can contingent valuation distinguish economic values for different public goods. Land Economics. 72:(1996);139-151.
45. Smith V. K., Osborne L. Do contingent valuation estimates pass a 'scope' test? A meta-analysis. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management. 31:(1996);287-301.
46. Stevens J. John Locke, environmental property and instream water rights. Land Economics. 72:(1996);261-268.
47. The Potential Economic Consequences of Designating Critical Habitat for the Rio Grande Silvery Minnow. (1996);New Mexico Ecological Services Field Office, Albuquerque.
48. Whitehead J., Haab T., Huang J. Part-whole bias in contingent valuation: will scope effects be detected with inexpensive survey methods. Southern Economic Journal. 65:(1998);160-168.