Comparing payment-vehicle effects in contingent valuation studies for recreational use in two protected Spanish forests

Journal of Leisure Research

Volumn 39, Issue 1, 2007, Pages 60-85

  Campos, Pablo ^a   Caparrós, Alejandro ^a   Oviedo, José L ^a  

^a CSIC Instituto de Economia Geografia y Demografia IEGD   (Spain)

Author keywords

Contingent valuation; Entrance fee; Payment vehicle; Recreational use; Trip expenditures

Indexed keywords

CONTINGENT VALUATION; ENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMICS; ESTIMATION METHOD; PROTECTED AREA; RECREATIONAL ACTIVITY;

EURASIA; EUROPE; SOUTHERN EUROPE; SPAIN;

EID: 33847690190     PISSN: 00222216     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/00222216.2007.11950098     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Alberini, A. (1995). Optimal design for discrete choice contingent valuation surveys: single-bound, double-bound and bivariate models. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 28(3), 287-306.
2. Bateman, I. J., Brainard J., & Lovett A. (1995a). Modeling woodland recreation demand using geographical information systems: A benefit transfer study. CSERGE Working Paper GEC 95-06. Norwich, University of East Anglia, UK.
3. Bateman, I. J., Langford I. H., Turner R. K., Willis K. G., & Garrod G. D. (1995b). Elicitation and truncation effects in contingent valuation studies. Ecological Economics, 12(2), 161-179.
4. Bergstrom, J. C., Boyle, K. J. & Yabe, M. (2004). Trading taxes vs. paying taxes to value and finance public environmental goods. Environmental and Resources Economics, 28, 533-549.
5. Bishop, R., & Heberlein T. (1979). Measuring values of extramarket goods: are indirect measures biased? American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 61, 926-930.
6. Blamey, R. K. (1995). Consumers and contingent valuation: An investigation into respondent behaviour. Unpublished PhD Thesis. Canberra, Australian National University.
7. 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, S-80-S-99.
8. Brookshire, D. S., Randall, A., & Stoll, J. R. (1980). Valuing increments and decrements in natural resource service flows. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 62, 478-488.
9. 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.
10. Cameron, T. A. (1991). Interval estimates for non-market resource values from referendum contingent valuation surveys. Land Economics, 67, 413-421.
11. Cameron, T. A., & Quiggin, J. (1994). Estimation using contingent valuation data from a "Dichotomous choice with follow-up" questionnaire. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 27, 218-234.
12. Campos, P., de Andrés, R., Urzainqui, E., & Riera, P. (1996). Valor económico total de un espacio de interés natural. In D. Azqueta & L. Pérez (Eds.): Gestión de espacios naturales: la demanda de servicios recreativos. Madrid, Spain. McGraw-Hill, 193-215.
13. Campos, P., Caparrós, A., & Sanjurjo, E. (2005). Spain. In M. Merlo & L. Croitoru (Eds.): Valuing Mediterranean forests: Towards total economic value. Cambridge, UK. CABI, 319-330.
14. Carson, R. T., Mitchell, R. C., Hanemann, W. M., Kopp, R. J., Presser, S., & Rudd, P. A. (2003). A contingent valuation study of lost passive use values resulting from the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill. Environmental and Resources Economics, 25, 257-286.
15. Champ, P. A., Flores, N., Brown, T. C., & Chivers, J. (2002). Contingent valuation and incentives. Land Economics, 78, 591-604.
16. Chase, L. C., Lee, D. R., Schulze, W. D., & Anderson, D. J. (1998). Ecoturism demand and differential pricing of national park access in Costa Rica. Land Economics, 74, 466-482.
17. Cooper, J., & Loomis, J. (1992). Sensitivity of willingness-to-pay estimates to bid design in dichotomous choice contingent valuation models. Land Economics, 68, 211-224.
18. Duffield, J., & Patterson, D. (1991). Inference and optimal design for a welfare measure in dichotomous choice contingent valuation. Land Economics, 67, 225-239.
19. González, M., González, X. M., Polomé, P., & Prada, A. (2001). Galician natural heritage: Use values and preservation values. In A. Prada & M. X. Vázquez (Eds.): Environmental economics and society. Santiago de Compostela, Spain. Consello da Cultura Gallega, 103-123
20. Greenley, D. A., Walsh, R. G., & Young, R. A. (1981). Option value: Empirical evidence from a case study of recreation and water quality. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 96, 657-672.
21. Hanley, N., & Ruffell, R. (1993). The contingent valuation of forest characteristics: Two experiments. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 44, 218-229.
22. Holmes, T. P., & Kramer, R. A. (1995). An independent sample test of yea-saying and starting point bias in dichotomous-choice contingent valuation. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 29(1), 121-132.
23. International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (1994). Guidelines for Protected areas management categories. UICN, Cambridge.
24. Jakobsson, K. M., & Dragun, A. K. (2001). The worth of a possum: Valuing species with the contingent valuation method. Environmental and Resources Economics, 19, 211-227.
25. Jakus, P., & Shaw, D. (1997). Congestion at recreation areas: Empirical evidences on perceptions, mitigating behaviour and management preferences. Journal of Environmental Management, 50, 389-401.
26. Jorgensen, B. S., Syme, G. J., Bishop, B. J., & Nancarrow, B. E. (1999). Protest response in contingent valuation. Environmental and Resources Economics, 14, 131-150.
27. Kontoleon, A., Yabe, M., & Darby, L., (2005). Alternative payment vehicles in contingent valuation: The case of genetically modified foods. Paper presented at 14th EAERE Annual Conference. Bremen, Germany.
28. McFadden, D., & Leonard, G., (1993). Issues in the contingent valuation of environmental goods: Methodologies for data collection and analysis. In J. Hausman (Ed.): Contingent valuation: A critical assessment. Amsterdam, Netherlands. North Holland, 165-208.
29. Morrison, M. D., Blamey, R. K., & Bennett, J. W. (2000). Minimizing payment vehicle bias in contingent valuation studies. Environmental and Resources Economics, 16, 407-422.
30. Richer, J., & Christensen, N. (1999). Appropriate fees for wilderness day use: Pricing decisions for recreation on public land. Journal of Leisure Research, 31, 269-280.
31. Roach, B., Boyle, K., & Welsh, M. (2002). Testing bid design effects in multiple-bounded contingent valuation questions. Land Economics, 78, 121-131.
32. Santos, J. M. L. (1997). Valuation and cost-benefit analysis of multi-attribute environmental changes: Upland landscapes in England and Portugal. PhD Dissertation. Newcastle, University of Newcastle upon Tyne.
33. Strazzera, E., Genius, M., Scarpa, R., Hutchinson, G. (2003). The effect of protest votes on the estimates of WTP for use values of recreational sites. Environmental and Resources Economics, 25, 461-476.
34. Teisl, M. F., Boyle, K. J., McCollum, D. W., & Reiling, S. D. (1995). Test-retest reliability of contingent valuation with independent sample pretests and posttest control groups. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 77, 613-619.