Valuing biodiversity, aesthetics, and job losses associated with ecosystem management using stated preferences

Forest Science

Volumn 49, Issue 2, 2003, Pages 247-257

  Xu, Weihuan ^a   Lippke, Bruce R ^b   Perez Garcia, John ^b  

^a TEXAS A AND M UNIVERSITY SYSTEM   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON   (United States)

Author keywords

Aesthetics; Biodiversity; Ecosystem management; Employment; Environmental valuation; Stated preferences; Willingness to pay

Indexed keywords

BIODIVERSITY; ECOSYSTEMS; STATISTICAL METHODS; TIMBER;

FOREST ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT;

FORESTRY;

BIODIVERSITY; ECOSYSTEMS; FOREST MANAGEMENT; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS;

EID: 0037388260     PISSN: 0015749X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. ADAMOWICZ, W., J. LOUVIERE, AND M. WILLIAMS. 1994. Combining revealed and stated preference methods for valuing environmental amenities. J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 26(3):271-292.
2. ADAMOWICZ, W., ET AL. 1998. Stated preference approaches to measuring passive use values: Choice experiments versus contingent valuation. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 80(1):64-75.
3. BEN-AKIVA, M., AND S.R. LERMAN. 1985. Discrete choice analysis: Theory and application to travel demand/ MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
4. BOXALL, P., W. ADAMOWICZ, J. SWAIT, M. WILLIAMS, AND J. LOUVIERE. 1996. A comparison of stated preference methods for environmental valuation. Ecol. Econ. 18:243-253.
5. BOYCE, S.G., AND W.H. MCNAB. 1994. Management of forested landscapes: Simulations of three alternatives. J. For. 92:27-32.
6. CAREY, A.B., AND R.O. CURTIS. 1996. Conservation of biodiversity: A useful paradigm for forest ecosystem management. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 24(4):610-620.
7. CARSON, R., J. LOUVIERE, D. ANDERSON, P. ARABIE, D. BUNCH, D. HENSHER, R. JOHNSON, W. KULRFIELD, D. STEINBERG, J. SWAIT, H. TIMMERMANS, AND J. WILEY. 1994. Experimental analysis of choice. Market. Lett. 5(4):351-368.
8. CHAMBERLAIN, G. 1980. Analysis of covariance with qualitative data. Rev. Econ. Stud. 47:225-238
9. DILLMAN, D. 1978. Mail and telephone surveys. Wiley, New York.
10. FEMAT. 1993. Draft supplemental environmental impact statement on management of habitat for late-successional and old-growth forest related species within the range of the northern spotted owl. USDA Forest Service, USDI Bureau of Land Management.
11. HANLEY, N., D. MACMILLAN, R. WRIGHT, C. BULLOCK, I. SIMPSON, D. PARSISSON, AND B. CRABTREE. 1998a. Contingent valuation versus choice experiments: Estimating the benefits of environmentally sensitive areas in Scotland, J. Agric. Econ. 1-15.
12. HANLEY, N., R. WRIGHT, AND W. ADAMOWICZ. 1998b. Using choice experiment to value the environment. Environ. Resource Econ. 11(3-4):413-428.
13. HAUSMAN, J., AND D. MCFADDEN. 1984. Specification test for the multinomial logit model, Econometrica 52:1219-1240.
14. HUBER, J., AND K. ZWERINA. 1996. The importance of utility balance in efficient choice designs. J. Market. Res. 33:307-317.
15. MCFADDEN, D. 1974. Conditional logit analysis of quantitative choice behavior. In Frontiers in econometrics, Zarembka, P. (ed.). Academic Press, New York.
16. OLIVER, C.D. 1992. A landscape approach: Achieving biodiversity and economic productivity. J. For. 90:20-25.
17. POE, G.L., M. WELSH, AND P. CHAMP. 1997. Measuring the difference in mean willingness to pay when dichotomous choice contingent valuation responses are not independent. Land Econ. 73(2):255-267.
18. STATACORP. 1999. Stata statistical software: Release 6.0. StataCorp., College Station, TX.
19. SWAIT, J., AND J. LOUVIERE. 1993. The role of the scale parameter in the estimation and comparison of multinomial logit models. J. Market. Res. Vol. XXX: 305-314.
20. XU, W. 1997. Experimental choice analysis of non-market values for ecosystem management with preference heterogeneity. Ph.D. Diss., University of Washington.