Measuring the total economic value of restoring ecosystem services in an impaired river basin: Results from a contingent valuation survey

Ecological Economics

Volumn 33, Issue 1, 2000, Pages 103-117

  Loomis, John ^a   Kent, Paula ^b   Strange, Liz ^a   Fausch, Kurt ^a   Covich, Alan ^a  

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

^b Northwest Economic Associates   (United States)

Author keywords

Contingent valuation method; Ecosystem services; Total economic value; Willingness to pay

Indexed keywords

ECOLOGICAL ECONOMICS; ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT; MEASUREMENT METHOD; RESTORATION ECOLOGY; RIVER BASIN;

UNITED STATES;

EID: 0034078767     PISSN: 09218009     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0921-8009(99)00131-7     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. Adamowicz, W., P. Boxall, M., Williams, J., Louviere., 1997. Stated Preference Approaches for Measuring Passive Use Values: Choice Experiments and Contingent Valuation, 4th Annual Canadian Resources and Environmental Economics Workshop.
2. Arrow K., Solow R., Portney P., Leamer E., Radner R., Schuman H. Report of the NOAA panel on contingent valuation. Fed. Regist. 58(10):1993;4602-4614.
3. Bromley D Constitutional political economy: property claims in a dynamic world. Contemp. Econom. Policy. 15:1997;43-54.
4. Brown T., Champ P., Bishop R., McCollum D. Which response format reveals the truth about donations to a public goods. Land Econom. 72(2):1996;152-166.
5. Brown T. Water for wilderness areas: instream flow needs; protection and economic value. Rivers. 2(4):1991;311-325.
6. Carson R., Flores N., Martin K., Wright J. Contingent valuation and revealed preference methodologies: comparing estimates for quasi-public goods. Land Econom. 72(1):1996;80-99.
7. Carson R., Hanemann M., Kopp R., Krosnick J., Mitchell R., Presser S., Ruud P., Smith V.K. Temporal reliability of estimates from contingent valuation. Land Econom. 73(2):1997;151-163.
8. Champ P., Bishop R., Brown T., McCollum D. Using donation mechanisms to value non-use benefits from public goods. J. Environ. Econom. Manag. 33(2):1997;151-162.
9. Costanza R Embodied energy, energy analysis and economics. Daly H.E., Umana A.F. Energy, Economics and the Environment: Conflicting Views of an Essential Relationship. AAAS Selected Symposium, Number 64. 1981;119-145W Westview Press, Boulder, CO.
10. Costanza R., d'Arge R., de-Groot R., Farber S., Grasso M., Hannon B., Limburg K., Naeem S., O'Neil R., Paruelo J., Raskin R., Sutton P., van den Belt J. The value of the worlds ecosystem services and natural capital. Ecol. Econom. 25(1):1997;3-15.
11. Costanza R., d'Arge R., de-Groot R., Farber S., Grasso M., Hannon B., Limburg K., Naeem S., O'Neil R., Paruelo J., Raskin R., Sutton P., van den Belt J. The value of ecosystem services: putting the issues in perspective. Ecol. Econom. 25(1):1998;67-72.
12. Cummings R., Elliot S., Harrison G., Murphy J. Are hypothetical referenda incentive compatible? J. Political Econom. 105(3):1997;609-621.
13. Dailey G Nature's Services: Societal Dependence on Natural Ecosystems. 1997;Island Press, Covelo, CA.
14. Desvousges W., Smith V.K., McGivney M. A Comparison of Alternative Approaches to Estimating Recreation and Related Benefits of Water Quality Improvements. 1983;Economic Analysis Division, US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
15. El Serafy S Pricing the invaluable. Ecol. Econom. 25(1):1998;25-27.
16. Feather P.D., Hellerstein D., Hansen L. Economic Valuation of Environmental Benefits and the Targeting of Conservation Programs: Agricultural Economic Report (778). 1999;USDA Economic Research Service, Washington, DC.
17. Greenley D., Walsh R., Young R. Economic Benefits of Improved Water Quality: Public Perceptions and Preservation Values. 1982;Westview Press, Boulder, CO.
18. Hanemann M Welfare evaluations in contingent valuation experiments with discrete responses. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 67(3):1984;332-341.
19. Hanemann M Welfare evaluations in contingent valuation experiments with discrete response data: reply. Am. J. Agric. Econom. 71(4):1989;1057-1061.
20. Hanemann M., Loomis J., Kanninen B. Statistical efficiency of double-bounded dichotomous choice contingent valuation. Am. J. Agric. Econom. 73(5):1991;1255-1263.
21. Hoehn J., Randall A. Too many proposals pass the benefit-cost test. Am. Econom. Rev. 79:1989;544-551.
22. Krutilla J Conservation reconsidered. Am. Econom. Rev. 57:1967;787-796.
23. Landry C Saving Our Streams Through Water Markets. 1998;Political Economy Research Center, Bozeman, MT.
24. Loomis J Balancing public trust resources of Mono Lake and Los Angeles' water right. Water Resour. Res. 23(8):1987;1449-1456.
25. Loomis J. Test-retest reliability of the contingent valuation method: a comparison of general population and visitor responses. Am. J. Agric. Econom. 71(1):1989;76-84.
26. Loomis J., White D. Economic benefits of rare and endangered species. Ecol. Econom. 18:1996;197-206.
27. Loomis J., Walsh R. Recreation Economic Decisions: Second Edition. 1997;Venture Press, State College, PA.
28. Loomis J., Brown T., Lucero B., Peterson G. Evaluating the validity of the dichotomous choice question format. Environ. Resour. Econom. 10:1997;109-123.
29. Loomis J., Ekstrand E. Alternative approaches for incorporating respondent uncertainty when estimating willingness to pay. Ecol. Econom. 27:1998;29-41.
30. Mitchell R., Carson R. Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Method. 1989;Resources for the Future, Washington, DC.
31. Moore W., McCarl B. Off-site costs of soil erosion: a case study of the Willamette valley. West. J. Agric. Econom. 12(1):1987;42-49.
32. Odum H.T Systems Ecology: An Introduction. 1983;Wiley, New York, NY.
33. Page S., Skold M. Crop Prices and CRP Participation: Some Analyses for Northeastern Colorado: Agricultural and Resource Policy Report. 1996;Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO.
34. Park T., Loomis J, Creel M. Confidence intervals for evaluating benefit estimates from dichotomous choice contingent valuation studies. Land Econom. 67(1):1991;64-73.
35. Strange E., Fausch K., Covich A. Sustaining ecosystem services in human dominated watersheds: biohydrology and ecosystem processes in South Platte river basin. Environ. Manag. 24(1):1999;39-54.
36. Toman M Why not to calculate the value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital. Ecol. Econom. 25(1):1998;57-60.
37. Department of Interior Natural Resource Damage Assessments: Final Rule, 1986. Federal Register 51 (148). Washington, DC.
38. Department of Interior Natural Resource Damage Assessments: Final Rule, 1994. Federal Register 59 (58). Washington, DC.
39. District Court of Appeals. State of Ohio v US Department of Interior, July 14, 1989. Case Number 86-1575. District of Columbia.
40. US Water Resources Council, March 10, 1983. Economic and Environmental Principles and Guidelines for Water and Related Land Resources Implementation Studies. US Government Printing Office, Washington DC.