Economic tradeoffs in preserving riparian habitat

Natural Resources Journal

Volumn 45, Issue 1, 2005, Pages 15-31

  Colby, Bonnie ^a   Orr, Patricia ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA   (United States)

^b US Institute for Conflict Resolution   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CONTINGENT VALUATION; ENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMICS; HABITAT CONSERVATION; WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

ARIZONA; NORTH AMERICA; SAN PEDRO BASIN [(RVB) NORTH AMERICA]; UNITED STATES; WESTERN HEMISPHERE; WORLD;

EID: 22544481152     PISSN: 00280739     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. Robert Glennon, Water Follies: Groundwater Pumping and the Fate of America's Fresh Waters 53-54 (2002).
2. Id. at 53;
3. Fredrick Steiner et al., A Watershed at a Watershed: The Potential for Environmentally Sensitive Area Protection in the Upper San Pedro Drainage Basin (Mexico and USA), 49 Landscape & Urb. Plan. 129, 130, 137 (2000).
4. San Pedro Expert Study Team for the Commission on Environmental Cooperation, Sustaining and Enhancing Riparian Migratory Bird Habitatation [sic] on the Upper San Pedro River, Upper San Pedro River Technical Report 89 (1999).
5. Steiner et al., supra note 2, at 137.
6. Arizona Idaho Conservation Act, Pub. L. No. 100-696, tit. I, sec. 101(b), 102 Stat. 4571 (1988) (codified at 16 U.S.C. § 460xx (2000)).
7. Ibid. Id.
8. Dawn McKnight & Colin Deihl, Earthlaw, A Submission Pursuant to Article 13 of the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation 2 (1996), available at http://www.cec.org/files/pdf/sem/ACF158.pdf (last visited Mar. 6, 2005);
9. see also Glennon, supra note 1, at 53.
10. The Nature Conservancy et al., Miracle in the Desert: Explore the Last Great Places and Tour of the San Pedro, at http:// www.lastgreatplaces.org/SanPedro (last visited Mar. 6, 2005);
11. see also Glennon, supra note 1, at 53.
12. Glennon, supra note 1, at 53.
13. Arizona-Idaho Conservation Act, Pub. L. No. 100-696, tit. I, § 102(d), 102 Stat. 4571 (1988) (codified at 16 U.S.C. § 460xx (2000)).
14. Glennon, supra note 1, at 62.
15. Ibid. Id.
16. Joe Gelt, Saving Endangered Species Poses Water Policy Challenge, Arroyo, Oct. 1996, available at http://ag.arizona.edu/AZWATER/ arroyo/093save.html (last visited Mar. 6, 2005).
17. Glennon, supra note 1, at 64.
18. Ariz. Rev. Stat. §§ 45-401 to 45-704 (2003 & Supp. 2004-2005).
19. Laurel J. Lacher, Hydrologic and Legal Issues of the Upper San Pedro River Basin, Arizona (Dec. 3, 1994) (unpublished manuscript, on file with Semi-Arid Land Surface Atmosphere Program), available at http://www.tucson.ars.ag.gov/salsa/archive/publications/lacher/ lacher0.html (last visited Mar. 5, 2005).
20. San Pedro Expert Study Team for the Commission on Environmental Cooperation, supra note 3, at 58;
21. Glennon, supra note 1, at 66.
22. Glennon, supra note 1, at 66-67.
23. CLIMAS, An Assessment of Climate Vulnerability in the Middle San Pedro River, CLIMAS Report Series, Draft: CL3-00, U. Ariz. Inst. for Study of Planet Earth 27 (Timothy J. Finan ed., 2000), available at http:// www.ispe.arizona.edu/climas/pubs/CL3-00.html (last visited Mar. 6, 2005).
24. Glennon, supra note 1, at 62-63.
25. Stephanie Kirchoff, Estimating the Benefits of Instream Flows - Case Studies from Arizona and New Mexico 258-62 (1994) (unpublished M.S. thesis, University of Arizona). This study examined visitors' values for riparian habitat in several regions of the southwest, including the Upper San Pedro River.
26. Anni Huhtala, What Price Recreation in Finland? - A Contingent Valuation Study of Non-Market Benefits of Public Outdoor Recreation, 36 J. Leisure Res. 23, 31 (2004).
27. Robert Cameron Mitchell & Richard T. Carson, Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Method 267 (1989).
28. William H. Greene, Econometric Analysis 912-14 (4th ed. 1997).
29. James Tobin, Estimation of Relationships for Limited Dependent Variables, 26 Econometrica 24, 24-36 (1958).
30. John M. Halstead et al., Use of the Tobit Model in Contingent Valuation: Experimental Evidence from the Pemigewasset Wilderness Area, 33 J. Envtl. Mgmt. 79, 81 (1991).
31. Richard Breen, Regression Models: Censored, Sample Selected or Truncated Data, Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences Series, No. 111, at 2-4 (1996).
32. G.S. Maddala, Limited-Dependent and Qualitative Variables in Econometrics 160-62 (1983);
33. R.N. Rosett & F.D. Nelson, Estimation of the Two-Limit Probit Regression Model, 43 Econometrica 141, 141-46 (1975).
34. Jack Johnston & John DiNardo, Econometric Methods 439-40 (4th ed. 1997).
35. 2.
36. 2 for Tobit, STATA Statistical Software for Professionals, at http://www.stata.com/ support/faqs/stat/pseudor2.html (last visited Mar. 6, 2005).
37. Breen, supra note 27, at 28.
38. This question only pertained to respondents who made a positive bid.
39. See, e.g., L.D. Sanders et al., Toward Empirical Estimation of the Total Value of Protecting Rivers, 26 Water Resources Res. 1345 (1990);
40. Kristina B. Crandall et al., Valuing Riparian Areas: A Southwestern Case Study, 3 Rivers 88, 95-96 (1992);
41. Kirchoff, supra note 21, at 200.
42. Kirchoff, supra note 21, at 113.