The existence value of biodiversity in South Africa: How interest, experience, knowledge, income and perceived level of threat influence local willingness to pay

Ecological Economics

Volumn 46, Issue 2, 2003, Pages 199-216

  Turpie, Jane K ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CAPE TOWN   (South Africa)

Author keywords

Climate change; Contingent valuation; Fynbos; Value of biodiversity

Indexed keywords

BIODIVERSITY; CONTINGENT VALUATION; ECOLOGICAL ECONOMICS; INCOME; KNOWLEDGE; WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

AFRICA; SOUTH AFRICA; SOUTHERN AFRICA; SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA;

EID: 0345530991     PISSN: 09218009     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0921-8009(03)00122-8     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. Arrow, K., Solow, R., Portney, P.R., Learner, E.E., Radner, R., Schuman, H., 1993. Report of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) panel on Contingent Valuation. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Washington DC, pp. 64.
3. Bower, J.M., Stoll, J.R., 1988. Use of dichotomous choice non-market methods to value the whooping crane resource. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 327-381.
4. Carson, R.T., Wilks, L., Imber, D., 1994. Valuing the preservation of Australia's Kakadu conservation zone. Oxford Economic Papers 46, 727-749.
5. Carson, R.T., Flores, N.E., Meade, N.F., 1996. Contingent Valuation: Controversies and Evidence. University of California, San Diego, p. 45.
6. Cooper, J., Loomis, J., 1992. Sensitivity of willingness-to-pay estimates to bid design in dichotomous choice contingent valuation models. Land Economics 68, 211-224.
7. Diamond, P.A., Hausman, J.A., Leonard, G.K., Denning, M.A., 1993. Does contingent valuation measure preferences? Experimental evidence. In: Contingent Valuation: A Critical Assessment. North-Holland, Amsterdam.
8. Edwards, P.J., Abivardi, C., 1998. The value of biodiversity: where ecology and economy blend. Biological Conservation 83, 239-246.
9. Fankhauser, S., Tol, R.S.J., 1996. Climate change costs: recent advancements in the economic assessment. Energy Policy 24, 665-673.
10. Fankhauser, S., Tol, R.S.J., 1997. The social costs of climate change: the IPCC second assessment report and beyond. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Climate Change 1, 385-403.
11. Fankhauser, S., Tol, R.S.J., Pearce, D.W., 1997. The aggregation of climate change damages: a welfare theoretic approach. Environment and Resource Economics 10, 249-266.
12. Fankhauser, S., Tol, R.S.J., Pearce, D.W., 1998. Extensions and alternatives to climate change impact valuation: on the critique of IPCC Working Group III's impact estimates. Environment and Development Economics 3, 59-81.
13. Hanemann, W.M., Loomis, J.B., Kanninen, B., 1991. Estimation efficiency of double bounded dichotomous choice coningent valuation. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 73, 1255-1263.
14. Herriges, J.A., Shogren, J.F., 1996. Starting point bias in dichotomous choice valuation with follow-up questioning. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 30, 112-131.
15. Holmes, T.P., Kramer, R.A., 1995. An independent sample test of yea-saying and starting point bias in dichotomous-choice contingent valuation. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 29, 121-132.
16. Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J., 1992. Valuing public goods: the purchase of moral satisfaction. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 22, 57-70.
17. Kiker, G.A., 2000. Synthesis report for the vulnerability and adaptation assessment section: South African Country Study on Climate Change, Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism, Pretoria.
18. Mitchell, R.C., Carson, R.T., 1989. Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Method. Resources for the Future, Washington, DC.
19. Myers, N., 1990. The biodiversity challenge: expanded hotspots analysis. Environmentalist 10, 243-256.
20. Schwarz, N., 1997. Cognition, communication, and survey measurement: some implications for contingent valuation surveys. In: Determining the Value of Non-Marketed Goods: Economic, Psychological, and Policy Relevant Aspects of Contingent Valuation Methods. Kluwer, Boston, pp. 129-149.
21. Stevens, T.H., DeCoteau, N.E., Willis, C.E., 1997. Sensitivity of contingent valuation to alternative payment schedules. Land Economics 73, 140-148.
22. Svedsäter, H., 2000. Contingent valuation of global environmental resources: test of perfect and regular embedding. Journal of Economic Psychology 21, 605-623.
23. Turner, R.K., Folke, C., Gren, I.M., Bateman, I.J., 1995. Wetland valuation: three case studies. In: Biodiversity Loss: Economic and Ecological Issues. Cambridge, Cambridge, MA, pp. 129-149.