A multi-attribute extension of discrete-choice contingent valuation for valuation of angling site characteristics

Journal of Leisure Research

Volumn 38, Issue 2, 2006, Pages 133-142

  Laitila, Thomas ^a   Paulrud, Anton ^b,c  

^a UMEÅ UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

^b SWEDISH UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES   (Sweden)

^c INSTITUTE OF MARINE RESEARCH   (Sweden)

Author keywords

Binary response models; Logit; RUM; Value of recreation; WTP

Indexed keywords

ANGLING; CONTINGENT VALUATION; DISCRETE CHOICE ANALYSIS; LOGIT ANALYSIS; NUMERICAL MODEL;

EID: 33744527404     PISSN: 00222216     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/00222216.2006.11950072     Document Type: Article

References (15)

1. Adamowicz, W., Boxall, P., Williams, M., & Louviere, J. (1998). Stated preference approaches for measuring passive use values: Choice experiments and contingent valuation. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 80, 64-75.
2. Bateman, I. J, Carson, R. T., Day, B., Hanemann, M., Hanley, N., Hett, T., et al. (2002). Economic valuation with stated preference techniques: A manual. Cheltenham, USA: Edward Elgar.
3. Bishop, R. C., & Heberlein, T. A. (1979). Measuring values of extramarket goods: Are indirect measures biased? American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 61, 926-930.
4. Boxall, P. C., Adamowicz, W. L., Swait, J., Williams, M., & Louviere, J. (1996). A comparison of stated preference methods for environmental valuation. Ecological Economics, 18, 243-256.
5. Boyle, K. J, Welsh M. P., & Bishop, R. C. (1993). The role of question order and respondent experience in contingent valuation studies. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 25, S80-S90.
6. Cameron, T. A. (1988). A new paradigm for valuing non-market goods using referendum data: Maximum likelihood estimation by censored logistic regression. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 15, 355-379.
7. Carson, R., Mitchell, R., Hanemann, W. M., Kopp, R., Presser, S., & Ruud, P. (1992). A contingent valuation study of lost passive use value from the exxon valdez oil spill (Reprint: a report to the attorney general of Alaska). La Jolla, CA: Natural Resource Damage Assessment, Inc.
8. Garrod, G., & Willis, K. G. (1999). Economic valuation of the environment - Methods and case studies. Cheltenham, USA: Edward Elgar.
9. Haefele, M. A., & Loomis, J. B. (2001). Using the conjoint analysis technique for the estimation of passive use values of forest health. Journal of Forest Economics, 7, 9-28.
10. Hanemann, W. M. (1984). Welfare evaluations in contingent valuation experiments with discrete responses. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 66, 332-41.
11. Kriström, B. (1990). A non-parametric approach to the estimation of welfare measures in discrete response valuation studies. Land Economics, 66, 135-39.
12. Kriström, B. (1997). Spike models in contingent valuation. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 79, 1013-1023.
13. 2 measure for limited and qualitative dependent variable models. Journal of Econometrics, 56, 341-356.
14. McFadden, D. L. (1978). Modelling the Choice of Residential Location. In A. Karlqvist, L. Lundqvist, F. Snickars, and J. Weibull (Eds.) Spatial Interaction Theory and Planning Models (pp. 75-96). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
15. Venkatachalam, L. (2004). The contingent valuation method: A review. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 24, 89-124.