Testing transferability of willingness to pay for forest fire prevention among three states of California, Florida and Montana

Journal of Forest Economics

Volumn 11, Issue 3, 2005, Pages 125-140

  Loomis, John B ^a   Le, Hung Trong ^b   Gonzales Caban, Armando ^c  

^a Veterinary Dentistry and Oral Surgery   (United States)

^b VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF FORESTRY   (Viet Nam)

^c PACIFIC SOUTHWEST RESEARCH STATION   (United States)

Author keywords

Benefits transfer; Contingent valuation; Mechanical fuel reduction; Prescribed burning

Indexed keywords

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION; FIRE PROTECTION; MATHEMATICAL MODELS; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; STATISTICAL TESTS;

BENEFITS TRANSFER; CONTINGENT VALUATION; FOREST FIRE PREVENTION; MECHANICAL FUEL REDUCTION;

FORESTRY;

FIRE MANAGEMENT; FOREST FIRE; PRESCRIBED BURNING; WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

FIRE PREVENTION; FIRE PROTECTION; FOREST MANAGEMENT; FORESTRY; MATHEMATICAL MODELS; PRESCRIBED BURNING; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; STATISTICAL METHODS;

CALIFORNIA; FLORIDA [UNITED STATES]; MONTANA; NORTH AMERICA; UNITED STATES;

EID: 28044441387     PISSN: 11046899     EISSN: 16181530     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jfe.2005.07.003     Document Type: Article

References (17)

1. Arrow, K., Solow, R., Portney, P., Leamer, E., Radner, R., Schuman, H., 1993. Report of the NOAA panel on contingent valuation. US Department of Commerce, Federal Register 58 (10), pp. 4602-4614.
2. K. Boyle J. Bergstrom Benefit transfer studies: Myths, pragmatism, and idealism Water Resources Research 28 3 1992 657-663
3. Bush, GW., 2002. Healthy forest: An initiative for wildfire prevention and stronger communities. Assessed at www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/ healthyforests, assessed on 2/20/2004.
4. Florida Division of Forestry, 2000. Prescribed fire position paper. Assessed at www.fl-dof.com/Enr/rx/html, assessed on 2/18/2004.
5. D. Gujarati Basic Econometrics 1997 McGraw-Hill Company New York
6. WM. Hanemann Welfare evaluations in contingent valuation experiments with discrete responses American Journal of Agricultural Economics 66 1984 332-341
7. WM. Hanemann Welfare evaluations in contingent valuation experiments with discrete response Data: Reply American Journal of Agricultural Economics 71 1989 1057-1061
8. WM. Hanemann In: I. Bateman K. Willis (Eds.) Neo-Classical Economic Theory and Contingent Valuation: Valuing Environmental Preferences 1999 Oxford University Press England 42-96
9. B. Kristrom Spike models in contingent valuation American Journal of Agricultural Economics 79 1997 1013-1023
10. CZ. Li J. Kuuluvainen E. Pouta M. Rekola O. Tahvonen Using choice experiments to value the natura 2000, nature conservation programs in Finland Environmental and Resource Economics 29 2004 361-374
11. J. Loomis Test-retest reliability of the contingent valuation method American Journal of Agricultural Economics 71 1989 76-84
12. J. Loomis A. Gonzalez-Caban Comparing the Economic Value of Reducing Fire Risk to Spotted Owl Habitat in California and Oregon Forest Science 43 1997 473-482
13. RC. Mitchell RT. Carson Using surveys to value public goods: The contingent valuation method 1989 Resources for the Future Washington, DC
14. L. Nahuelhual-Munoz M. Loureiro J. Loomis Addressing heterogeneous preferences using extended spike models Environmental and Resource Economics 27 2004 297-311
15. T. Park J. Loomis M. Creel Confidence intervals for evaluating benefits estimates from dichotomous choice contingent valuation studies Land Economics 67 1991 64-73
16. A. Randall J. Stoll In: R. Rowe L. Chestnut (Eds.) Existence Value in a Total Valuation Framework: Managing Air Quality and Scenic Resources at National Parks and Wilderness Areas 1983 Westview Press Boulder, CO 265-274
17. J. Rubin G. Helfand J. Loomis A benefit-cost analysis of the northern spotted owl Journal of Forestry 89 1991 25-30