Valuing the non-market benefits of wild goose conservation: A comparison of interview and group-based approaches

Ecological Economics

Volumn 43, Issue 1, 2002, Pages 49-59

  Macmillan, Douglas C ^a   Philip, Lorna ^a   Hanley, Nick ^b   Alvarez Farizo, Begona ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ABERDEEN   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF GLASGOW   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Contingent valuation; Market stall; Wild geese; Willingness to pay

Indexed keywords

COMPENSATION SYSTEM; CONTINGENT VALUATION; NATURE CONSERVATION; WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

EID: 0036859342     PISSN: 09218009     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0921-8009(02)00182-9     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. Ajzen, I., Brown, T.C., Rosenthal, L.H., 1996. Information bias in contingent valuation: Effects of personal relevance, quality of information, and motivational orientation. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 30, 43-57.
2. Blamey, R.K., 1998. Decisiveness, attitude expression, and symbolic responses in contingent valuation surveys. Journal of Economic Behaviour and Organisation 34 (4), 577-601.
3. Brouwer, R., Powe, N., Turner, R.K., Langford, I.H., Bateman, I.J., 1999. Public attitudes to contingent valuation and public consultation. Environmental Values 8, 325-347.
4. Brown, T., Peterson, G., Tonn, B., 1995. The values jury to aid natural resource decisions. Land Economics 71 (2), 250-260.
5. Brown, T.C., Barro, S.C., Manfredo, M.J., Peterson, G.L., 1995. Does better information about the good avoid the embedding effect. Journal of Environmental Management 44, 1-10.
6. Champ, P.A., Bishop, R.C., Brown, T.C., McCollum, D.W., 1997. Using donation mechanisms to value nonuse benefits from public goods. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 33, 151-162.
7. Clark, J., Burgess, J., Harrison, C.M., 2000. I struggled with this money business: Respondents' perspectives on contingent valuation. Ecological Economics 33, 45-62.
8. Coote, A., Lenaghan, J., 1997. Citizens Juries: Theory into Practice. Institute for Public Policy Research, London.
9. Crosby, N., 1998. Using the Citizen's Jury process for environmental decision-making. In: Sexton, K., Marcus, A.A., Easter, K.W., Burkhardt, T.D. (Eds.), Better Environmental Decisions. Strategies for Governments, Businesses and Communities. Island Press, Washington, DC.
10. Duffield, J.W., Patterson, D.A., 1992. Field testing existence values: Comparison of hypothetical and actual cash transaction values. Benefits and Costs in Natural Resource Planning (R.B. Rettig, Comp.). Western Regional Research Report, Department of Agriculture and Resource Economics, Oregon State University, Corvallis.
11. Hanemann, W.M., 1994. Valuing the environment through contingent valuation. Journal of Economic Perspectives 3, 1-23.
12. Harrison, G.W., Lesley, J.C., 1996. Must contingent valuation surveys cost so much. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 31, 79-95.
13. Isenberg, D.J., 1986. Group polarisation: A critical review and meta-analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 50 (6), 1141-1151.
14. Kealy, M.J., Montgomery, M., Dovidio, J.F., 1990. Reliability and predictive validity of contingent values: Does the nature of the good matter. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 19, 244-263.
15. Kenyon, W., Hanley, N., 2001. Economic and Participatory Approaches to Environmental Evaluation. Discussion Paper 00-15, Economics Department, University of Glasgow.
16. Kenyon, W., Hanley, N., Nevin, C., 2001. Citizen juries as an aid to environmental valuation. Environment and Planning C 19 (4), 557-566.
17. Loomis, J.B., 1990. Comparative reliability of the dichotomous choice and open-ended contingent valuation techniques. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 18, 78-85.
18. Munro, A., Hanley, N., 1999. Information, uncertainty and contingent valuation. In: Bateman, I., Willis, K. (Eds.), Contingent Valuation of Environmental Preferences. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
19. Navrud, S., Veisten, K., 1996. Validity of nonuse values in contingent valuation: An empirical test with real payments. Paper presented to the Seventh EAERE Conference, Lisbon.
20. NOAA, 1993. Natural resource damage assessments: Proposed rules. Federal Register 59 (5), 1062-1191.
21. Stephenson, K., Taylor, D.B., 1988. The influence of information on mail contingent valuation surveys. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 70 (5), 1199-1204.
22. Welsh, M., Poe, G.L., 1998. Elicitation effects in contingent valuation: Comparisons to a multiple-bounded discrete choice approach. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 34, 219-232.
23. Whittington, D., Smith, V.K., Okorafor, A., Okore, A., Liu, J.L., McPhail, A., 1992. Giving respondents time to think in contingent valuation studies: A developing country example. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 22, 205-225.