Estimating the economic benefits of maintaining residential lake levels at an irrigation reservoir: A contingent valuation study

Water Resources Research

Volumn 41, Issue 8, 2005, Pages 1-9

  Loomis, John ^a   Smith, Adam ^a   Huszar, Paul ^a  

^a Department of Ecosystem Science and Sustainability   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

APPROXIMATION THEORY; IRRIGATION; MATHEMATICAL MODELS;

CONTINGENT VALUATION METHOD (CVM); LAKE LEVEL; LAKEFRONT RESIDENTS; WILLINGNESS TO PAY (WTP);

LAKES;

LAKE LEVEL; RESERVOIR; VALUATION; WATER RESOURCE;

IRRIGATION; LAKES; MATHEMATICAL MODELS;

EID: 25844432259     PISSN: 00431397     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1029/2004WR003812     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. Blocker, J., and D. Eckberg (1989), Environmental issues as women's issues: General concerns and local hazards, Social Sci. Q., 70(3), 586-593.
2. Brookshire, D., W. Schulze, M. Thayer, and R. d'Arge (1982), Valuing public goods: A comparison of survey and hedonic approaches, Am. Econ. Rev., 72(1), 165-177.
3. Brown, T., P. Champ, R. Bishop, and D. McCollum (1996), Which response format reveals the truth about donations to a public good, Land Econ., 72(2), 152-166.
4. Cameron, T. (1988), A new paradigm for valuing non-market goods using referendum data, J. Environ. Econ. Manage., 15, 355-380.
5. Carson, R., N. Flores, K. Martin, and J. Wright (1996), Contingent valuation and revealed preference methodologies: Comparing the estimates for quasi-public goods, Land Econ., 72(1), 80-99.
6. Cornes, R., and T. Sandler (1996), The Theory of Externalities. Public Goods and Club Goods, 2nd ed., Cambridge Univ. Press, New York.
7. Cummings, R., D. Brookshire, and W. Schulze (1986), Valuing Environmental Goods: An Assessment of the Contingent Valuation Method, Rowman and Allanheld, Totowa, N. J.
8. Cummings, R., G. Harrison, and E. E. Rutstrom (1995), Homegrown values and hypothetical surveys: Is the dichotomous choice approach incentive compatible?, Am. Econ. Rev., 85(2), 260-266.
9. Gujarati, D. (2003), Basic Econometrics, McGraw-Hill, New York.
10. Haab, T., and K. McConnell (2002), Valuing Environmental and Natural Resources: The Econometrics of Non-Market Valuation, Edward Elgar, Northampton, Mass.
11. Halstead, J. M., A. E. Luloff, and T. H. Stevens (1992), Protest bidders in contingent valuation, Northwest. J. Agric. Resour. Econ., 21(2), 160-169.
12. Hanemann, M. (1984), Welfare evaluations in contingent valuation experiments with discrete responses, Am. Agric. Econ. Assoc., 66(3), 332-341.
13. Hanemann, M. (1989), Welfare evaluations in contingent valuation experiments with discrete response data: Reply, Am. Agric. Econ. Assoc., 71(4), 1057-1061.
14. Hanemann, M., and B. Kanninen (1999), The statistical analysis of discrete-response CV data, in Valuing Environmental Preferences, edited by I. Bateman and K. Willis, pp. 302-441, Oxford Univ. Press, New York.
15. Kmenta, J. (1986), Elements of Econometrics, Macmillian, New York.
16. Loomis, J. B., and R. G. Walsh (1997), Recreation Economic Decisions: Comparing Benefits and Costs, 2nd ed., pp. 159-176, Venture, State College, Pa.
17. McStay, J., and R. Dunlap (1983), Male-female differences in concern for environmental quality, Int. J. Women's Stud., 6(4), 291-301.
18. Mohai, P. (1991), Men, women, and the environment: An examination of the gender gap in environmental concem and activism, Soc. Nat. Resour., 5, 1-19.
19. Neil, H., R. Cummings, P. Ganderton, G. Harrison, and T. McGukin (1994), Hypothetical surveys and real economic commitments, Land Econ., 70(2), 145-154.
20. Park, T., J. B. Loomis, and M. Creel (1991), Confidence intervals for evaluating benefits estimates from dichotomous choice contingent valuation studies, Land Econ., 67(1), 64-73.
21. Portney, P. R. (1994), The contingent valuation debate: Why economists should care, J. Econ. Perspect., 8(4), 317.
22. U.S. Water Resources Council (1979), Procedures for evaluation of national economic development (NED): Benefits and costs of water resources planning (Level C) final rule, Fed. Regist., 44(242), 72, 892-72, 977.
23. U.S. Water Resources Council (1983), Economic and environmental principles and guidelines for water and related land resources implementation studies, U.S. Gov. Print. Off., Washington, D. C., 10 March.
24. Vossler, C., and J. Kerkvliet (2003), A criterion validity test of the contingent valuation method: Comparing hypothetical and actual voting behavior for a public referendum, J. Environ. Econ. Manage., 45(3), 631-649.