Economic benefit of the protection program for the Steller sea lion

Marine Policy

Volumn 26, Issue 6, 2002, Pages 451-458

  Giraud, Kelly ^a   Turcin, Branka ^b   Loomis, John ^c   Cooper, Joseph ^d  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA FAIRBANKS   (United States)

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

^d ECONOMIC RESEARCH SERVICE   (United States)

Author keywords

Contingent valuation; Endangered species; Steller sea lion

Indexed keywords

CONTINGENT VALUATION; ENDANGERED SPECIES; ENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMICS; MARINE MAMMAL; WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

UNITED STATES;

EUMETOPIAS JUBATUS; OTARIIDAE; PANTHERA LEO;

EID: 0036866197     PISSN: 0308597X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0308-597X(02)00025-8     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. US Department of the Interior: Fish and Wildlife Service. The Reintroduction of Gray Wolves to Yellowstone National Park and Central Idaho: Final Environmental Impact Statement, Helena, MT, 1994, p. 4.21-7.
2. Castellini M. Report of the Marine Mammal Working Group, Workshop Summary: Addressing Marine Mammal and Seabird Declines. Alaska Sea Grant Report 93-01, University of Alaska Fairbanks, Fairbanks, AK, 1994.
3. National Marine Fisheries Service/NOAA. Commerce. 226.12 North Pacific Ocean, Steller Sea Lion (Eumetopias jubatus). Federal Register, vol. 59:28805, 1994, p. 107-57.
4. Dearborn R. 'Preface' Workshop Summary: Addressing Marine Mammal and Seabird Declines, Alaska Sea Grant Report 93-01. University of Alaska Fairbanks. Fairbanks, AK, 1994.
5. Gandel M. Feds, Industry Lose Steller Sea Lion Ruling. Pacific Fishing Magazine, 1999.
6. Hermann M, Criddle K, Greenberg J, Feller E. Estimated economic impacts of potential policy changes affecting the total allowable catch for Alaska Pollock. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 1996;16(4):770-82.
7. US Code. Endangered Species. Title 16 USC 35, 1972.
8. Randall A, Stoll J. Existence value in a total valuation framework. In: Rowe R. Chestnut L. editors. Managing air quality and scenic resources at national parks and wilderness areas. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1983.
9. US Water Resources Council. Economic and Environmental Principles for Water and related Land Resources Implementation Studies, Washington DC, 1983.
10. US Department of Interior. Natural resource damage assessments; final rule. Federal Register 1986;51:27674-753.
11. Mitchell R, Carson R. Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Method. Resources for the Future. Washington DC, 1989.
12. Bishop R. Heberlein T. Measuring values of extra-market goods: are indirect measures biased? American Journal of Agricultural Economics 1979;61(5):926-30.
13. Brookshire D, Thayer M, Schulze W, d'Arge R. Valuing public goods: a comparison of survey and hedonic approaches. American Economic Review 1982;72(1):165-76.
14. Kealy M. Dovidio J. Rockel M. Accuracy in valuation is a matter of degree. Land Economics 1988;64:158-70.
15. Loomis J. Expanding contingent value sample estimates to aggregate benefit estimates. Land Economics 1987;63(4):396-402.
16. US District Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. State of Ohio v. U.S. Department of Interior. Case No. 86-1575, 1989.
17. Arrow K, Solow R, Portney P, Leamer E, Radner R, Schuman H. Report of the NOAA panel on contingent valuation. Federal Register 1993;58(10):4602-14.
18. Cummings R, Brookshire D, Schulze W. Valuing public goods. New Jersey: Rowan & Allenheld, 1986.
19. Hanemann M. Welfare evaluations in contingent valuation experiments with discrete responses. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 1984;66(3):332-41.
20. Hanemann M. Welfare evaluations in contingent valuation experiments with discrete response data: reply. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 1989;71(4):1057-61.
21. Loomis J, Gonzalez-Caban A. Estimating the value of reducing fire hazards to old growth forests in the pacific northwest: a contingent valuation approach. International Journal of Wildland Fire 1994;4(4):209-16.
22. Giraud K, Loomis J, Johnson R. Internal and external scope in willingness to pay estimates for threatened and endangered wildlife. Journal of Environmental Management 1999;56(3): 221-9.
23. Park T, Loomis J, Creel M. Confidence intervals for evaluating benefits from dichotomous choice contigent valuation studies. Land Economics 1991;67:64-73.
24. Dillman D. Mail and internet surveys: the tailored design method, 2nd ed., New York: Wiley, 2000.
25. US Bureau of the Census. Population Estimates Program, Population Division. US Census Bureau. Washington, DC 20233, 2001.
26. Welsh M, Bishop R. Multiple bounded discrete choice models. Western Regional Project W-133 6th Interim Report, J. Bergstrom. compiler, University of Georgia. Athens. GA, 1993.
27. Rubin, Jonathan, Gloria Helfand, John Loomis. A Benefit Cost Analysis of the Northern Spotted Owl. Journal of Forestry 1991;89(12):2530.
28. Mello, Susan. Wildlife Conservation: Stellar Sea Lion (Eumetopias jubatus). Alaska Fish and Game. Anchorage, AK, 1997.
29. Loomis, John. Comparative Reliability of the Dichotomous Choice and Open Ended Contingent Valuation Techniques. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 1990; 18:7885.