Modelling the non-market environmental costs and benefits of biodiversity projects using contingent valuation data

Environmental and Resource Economics

Volumn 18, Issue 4, 2001, Pages 391-410

  Macmillan, Douglas C ^a   Duff, Elizabeth I ^b   Elston, David A ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ABERDEEN   (United Kingdom)

^b BIOMATHEMATICS AND STATISTICS SCOTLAND   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Biodiversity; CV; Non market costs; Willingness to accept; Willingness to pay

Indexed keywords

BIODIVERSITY; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; INDUSTRIAL ECONOMICS; MATHEMATICAL MODELS; PROJECT MANAGEMENT; RISK MANAGEMENT;

WILLING TO ACCEPT (WTA);

ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING;

BIODIVERSITY; CONTINGENT VALUATION; COST; ENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMICS; MODELING;

EID: 0035037413     PISSN: 09246460     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1023/A:1011169413639     Document Type: Article

References (19)

1. Boman, M. and G. Bostedt “1994”, Wildlife Valuation: Estimating the Benefits of the Wolf in Sweden. Working Paper No. 198. Umea: Dept. of Economics, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences.
2. Bostedt, G. and M. Boman “1996”, 'Nonresponse in Contingent Valuation-reducing Uncertainty in Value Inference', Environmental and Resource Economics 8, 119-124.
3. Buckland, S. T., D. C. Macmillan, E. I. Duff and N. Hanley “1999”, 'Estimating Mean Willingness to Pay from Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation Studies', The Statistician 48“1”, 109-124.
4. Carson, R. T., W. M. Hanemann, R. J. Kopp, S. Presser and P. Ruud “1992”, A Contingent Valuation Study of Lost Passive Use Values Resulting from the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill. Anchorage: Attorney General of the State of Alaska.
5. Cooper, J. C. “1994”, 'Optimal Bid Selection for Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation Surveys', Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 24, 25-37.
6. Dahle L., D. P. Sodal and B. Solberg “1987”, Haldninger tilog betalingsvillighetfor bjorn, jerv og ulv i Noreg. “Attitudes Towards and Willingness to Pay for Preservation of Brown Bear, Wolverine, and Wolf in Norway.” Report 5/1987, Department of Forest Economics, Agricultural University of Norway, 114 pp.
7. Dillman, D. A. “1979”, Mail and Telephone Surveys: The Total Design Method. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
8. Duffield, J. W. “1992”, 'An Economic Analysis of Wolf Recovery in Yellowstone: Park Visitor Attitudes and Values', in J. D. Varley and W. G. Brewsters, eds., Wolves for Yellowstone? A Report to the US Congress Vol IV Research and Analysis. Yellowstone NP: National Park Service.
9. Fredman, P. “1994”, A Test of Non-response Bias in a Mail Contingent Valuation Survey. Arbetsrapport 201. Sveriges Lantbruksuniversitet: Institutionen for Skogsekonomi.
10. Hanemann, W. M. “1991”, 'Willingness to Pay and Willingness to Accept: How Much Can They Differ?', The American Economic Review 81“3”, 635-647.
11. Hanley, N., D. C. Macmillan, R. E. Wright, C. Bullock, I. Simpson, D. Parsisson and J.R. Crabtree “1998”, 'Contingent Valuation Versus Choice Experiments: Estimating the Benefits of Environmentally Sensitive Areas in Scotland], Journal of Agricultural Economics 49“1”, 1-15.
12. Kahneman, D., J. L. Knetsch and R. H. Thaler “1990”, 'Experimental Tests of the Endowment Effect and the Coase Theorem', Journal of Political Economy 90“6”, 1325-1348.
13. Knetsch, J. L. “1992”, 'Preferences and Nonreversibility of Indifference Curves', Journal of Economic Behavior and Organisation 17, 131-139.
14. Kristrom, B “1995”, Spike Models in Contingent Valuation: Theory and Illustrations. Arbetsrapport 210. Sveriges Lantbruksuniversitet: Institutionen for Skogsekonomi, Umea, Sweden.
15. Mackay, J. W. “1995”, 'People, Perceptions and Moorland', in D. B. A. Thompson, A. J. Hester and M. B. Usher, eds., Heaths and Moorlands: Cultural Landscapes. Edinburgh: HMSO, 102-114.
16. Macmillan, D. C., N. Hanley and S. T. Buckland “1996”, 'A Contingent Valuation Study of Uncertain Environmental Gains', Scottish Journal of Political Economy 43“5”, 519-533.
17. Mitchell, R. C. and R. T. Carson “1989”, Using Surveys to Value Public Goods. Washington, D.C.: Resources for the Future.
18. NOAA “1993”, 'Natural Resource Damage Assessments: Proposed Rules', Federal Register 59“5”, 1062-1191.
19. RSPB “1993”, Time for Pine: A Future for Caledonian Pinewoods. Edinburgh: R.S.P.B.