How certain are visitors of their economic values of river recreation: An evaluation using repeated questioning and revealed preference

Water Resources Research

Volumn 33, Issue 5, 1997, Pages 1187-1193

  Loomis, John B ^a   González Cabán, Armando ^b  

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

^b U S DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ECONOMICS; RESOURCE VALUATION;

CONTINGENT VALUATION METHODS; ECONOMIC VALUES; INSTREAM FLOWS; REVEALED PREFERENCE; STATISTICAL DIFFERENCES; TRAVEL COSTS; WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

EXHIBITIONS;

EID: 1842371523     PISSN: 00431397     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1029/97WR00567     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Alberini, A., Efficiency vs bias of willingness-to-pay estimates: Bivariate and interval-data models, J. Environ. Econ. Manag., 29(2), 169-180, 1995.
2. Brown, T., P. Champ, R. Bishop, and D. McCollum, Which response format reveals the truth about donations to a public good? Land Econ., 72(2), 152-166, 1996.
3. Cameron, T., and J. Quiggin, Estimation using contingent valuation data from "dichotomous choice with follow-up" questionnaire, J. Environ. Econ. Manag., 27, 218-234, 1994.
4. Carson, R., N. Flores, K. Martin, and J. Wright, Contingent valuation and revealed preference methodologies: Comparing estimates for quasi-public goods, Land Econ., 72(1), 80-99, 1996.
5. Cesario, F., Value of time in recreation benefit studies, Land Econ., 52(1), 32-41, 1976.
6. Champ, P., R. Bishop, T. Brown, and D. McCollum, A comparison of contingent values and actual willingness to pay using a donation provision mechanism with possible implications for calibration, in W-133 Benefits and Costs Transfer in Natural Resources Planning, compiled by D. Larson, pp. 387-410, Dep. of Agri. Econ., Univ. of Calif., Davis, 1995.
7. Cooper, J., A comparison of approaches to calculating confidence intervals for benefit measures from dichotomous choice contingent valuation surveys, Land Econ., 70(1), 111-122, 1994.
8. Creel, M., and J. Loomis, Theoretical and empirical advantages of truncated count data estimators for analysis of deer hunting in California, Am. J. Agri. Econ., 71, 434-441, 1990.
9. Cummings, R., D. Brookshire, and W. Schulze, Valuing Environmental Goods: A State of the Art Assessment of the Contingent Valuation Method, Rowman and Allenheld, Totowa, N. J., 1986.
10. Cummings, R., G. Harrison, and E. Rutstrom, Homegrown values and hypothetical surveys: Is the dichotomous choice incentive compatible, Am. Econ. Rev., 85(1), 260-266, 1995.
11. Diamond, P., and J. Hausman, Contingent valuation: Is some number better than no number? J. Econ. Perspec., 8(4), 45-64, 1994.
12. Duffield, J., C. Neher, and T. Brown, Recreation benefits of instream flow: Application to Montana's Big Hole and Bitterroot Rivers, Water Resour. Res., 28(9), 2169-2181, 1992.
13. Englin, J., and J. S. Shonkwiler, Estimating social welfare using count data models: An application to long-run recreation demand under conditions of endogenous stratification and truncation, Rev. Econ. Stat., 77(1), 105-112, 1995.
14. Hanemann, M., Welfare evaluations in contingent valuation experiments with discrete responses: Reply, Am. J. Agri. Econ., 71, 1057-1061, 1989.
15. Hanemann, M., Valuing the environment through contingent valuation, J. Econ. Perspect., 8(4), 19-44, 1994.
16. Hanemann, M., and B. Kristrom, Preference Uncertainty, Optimal Designs and Spikes in Environmental Economics, edited by R. Brannlund, B. Kristrom, K. Lofgren, and L. Mattsson, Dep. of Forest Econ., Swed. Univ. of Agric. Sci., Umea, 1994.
17. Hanemann, M., J. Loomis, and B. Kanninen, Statistical efficiency of double bounded dichotomous choice contingent valuation, Am. J. Agri. Econ., 73, 1255-1263, 1991.
18. Herriges, J., and J. Shogren, Starting point bias in dichotomous choice valuation with follow-up questionning, J. Environ. Econ. Manag., 30(1), 112-131, 1996.
19. Li, C.-Z., and L. Mattsson, Discrete choice under preference uncertainty: An improved structural model for contingent valuation, J. Environ. Econ. Manag., 28(2), 256-269, 1995.
20. Mitchell, R., and R. Carson, Using surveys to value public goods: The contingent valuation method, Resour. for the Future, Washington, D. C., 1989.
21. Neill, H., R. Cummings, P. Ganderton, G. Harrison, and T. McGuckin, Hypothetical surveys and real economic committments, Land Econ., 70(2), 145-154, 1994.
22. Park, T., J. Loomis, and M. Creel, Confidence intervals for evaluating benefits from dichotomous choice contingent valuation studies, Land Econ., 67, 64-73, 1991.
23. Poe, G., E. Severance-Lossin, and M. Welsh, Measuring the difference (X - Y) of simulated distributions: A convolutions approach, Am. J. Agri. Econ., 76(4), 904-915, 1994.
24. Ready, R., J. Whitehead, and G. Blomquist, Contingent valuation when respondents are ambivalent, J. Environ. Econ. Manag., 29(2), 181-196, 1995.
25. Sellar, C., J. Stoll, and J.-P. Chavas, Validation of empirical measures of welfare change: A comparison of non-market valuation methods, Land Econ., 61(2), 156-175, 1985.
26. Ward, F., Measuring the cost of time in recreation demand analysis: Comment, Am. J. Agri. Econ., 65, 167-168, 1983.
27. Ward, F., Economics of water allocation to instream uses in a fully appropriated river basin: Evidence from a New Mexico Wild River, Water Resour. Res., 23(2), 381-392, 1987.
28. Welsh, M., and R. Bishop, Multiple bounded discrete choice models, in W-133 Benefits and Costs in Natural Resource Planning, Interim Rep. 6, compiled by J. Bergstrom, Dep. of Agri. and Appl. Econ., Univ. of Ga., Athens, 1993.