A comparison of CVM survey response rates, protests and willingness-to-pay of Native Americans and general population for fuels reduction policies

Journal of Forest Economics

Volumn 13, Issue 1, 2007, Pages 49-71

  González Cabán, Armando ^a   Loomis, John B ^b   Rodriguez, Andrea ^a   Hesseln, Hayley ^c  

^a PACIFIC SOUTHWEST RESEARCH STATION   (United States)

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

^c UNIVERSITY OF MONTANA   (United States)

Author keywords

Mechanical fuels reduction; Prescribed burning; Probit model; Selection bias

Indexed keywords

DEVELOPING COUNTRIES; ENERGY CONSERVATION; MATHEMATICAL MODELS; SAMPLING; STATISTICAL METHODS;

CONTINGENT VALUATION METHOD (CVM); MECHANICAL FUELS REDUCTION; PERSCRIBED BURNING; PROBIT MODEL; SELECTION BIAS;

FUEL ECONOMY;

CONTINGENT VALUATION; FOREST MANAGEMENT; FUEL; INDIGENOUS POPULATION; MITIGATION; PRESCRIBED BURNING; WILDFIRE; WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

MONTANA; NORTH AMERICA; UNITED STATES;

EID: 34147092050     PISSN: 11046899     EISSN: 16181530     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jfe.2006.10.001     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Adamowicz W.L., Boxall P.C., Haener M.K., Zhang Y., Dosman D., and Marois J. An assessment of the impacts of forest management on Aboriginal hunters: evidence from stated and revealed preference data. Forest Science 50 2 (2004) 139-152
2. Arrow K., Solow R., Portney P., Leamer R., Radner R., and Schuman H. Report of the NOAA Panel on contingent valuation. Federal Register 58 10 (1993) 4602-4614
3. Boyes W.J., Hoffman D.L., and Low S.A. An econometric analysis of the bank credit scoring problem. Journal of Econometrics 40 (1989) 3-14
4. Cameron T., and James M. Efficient estimation methods for "closed-ended" contingent valuation surveys. Review of Economics and Statistics 69 (1987) 269-275
5. Carson R., Flores N., Martin K., and Wright J. Contingent valuation and revealed preference methodologies: comparing estimates for quasi-public goods. Land Economics 72 1 (1996) 80-99
6. Diamond P., and Hausman J. Contingent valuation: is some number better than no number?. Journal Economic Perspective 8 4 (1994) 45-64
7. Fried J., Winter G., and Gilless J. Assessing the benefits of reducing wildfire risk in the wildland urban interface: a contingent valuation approach. International Journal of Wildland Fire 9 1 (1999) 9-20
8. Greene, W.H., 1992. A statistical model for credit scoring. Working Paper No. EC-92-29, Department of Economics, Stern School of Business, New York University.
9. Greene W.H. Econometric Analysis. fourth ed (2000), Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ 1004pp.
10. Haab T.C., and McConnell K.E. Valuing Environmental and Natural Resources: The Econometrics of Non-Market Valuation (2002), Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, UK 326pp
11. Haener M.K., Dosman D., Adamowicz W.L., and Boxall P.C. Can stated preference methods be used to value attributes of subsistence hunting by Aboriginal Peoples? A case study in northern Saskatchewan. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 83 (2001) 1334-1340
12. Hanemann M. Welfare evaluations in contingent valuation experiments with discrete responses. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 66 3 (1984) 332-341
13. Hanemann M. Welfare evaluations in contingent valuation experiments with discrete response data: reply. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 71 4 (1989) 1057-1061
14. Heckman J. Sample selection bias as a specification error. Econometrica 47 1 (1979) 153-161
15. Jacobson T., and Roszbach K. Bank lending policy, credit scoring and value at risk. Journal of Banking & Finance 27 4 (2003) 615-633
16. Kristrom B. Spike models in contingent valuation. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 79 (1997) 1013-1023
17. Loomis J. Test-retest reliability of the contingent valuation method: a comparison of general population and visitor responses. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 71 (1989) 76-84
18. Loomis J. Comparative reliability of the dichotomous choice and open-ended contingent valuation techniques. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 18 (1990) 78-85
19. Loomis J.B., Bair L.S., and González-Cabán A. Prescribed fire and public support: knowledge gained, attitudes changed in Florida. Journal of Forestry 99 11 (2001) 18-22
20. Loomis J.B., Bair L.S., and González-Cabán A. Language related differences in a contingent valuation study: English versus Spanish. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 84 4 (2002) 1091-1102
21. Loomis J., Bair L.S., and González-Cabán A. Multicultural evaluation of the performance of contingent valuation for forest fire prevention. Contemporary Economic Policy 22 3 (2004) 407-419
22. McConnell K. Models for referendum data: the structure of discrete choice models for contingent valuation. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 18 1 (1990) 19-34
23. Park T., Loomis J., and Creel M. Confidence intervals for evaluating benefit estimates from dichotomous choice contingent valuation studies. Land Economics 67 (1991) 64-73
24. Pyne S. Fire in America: A Cultural History of Wildland and Rural Fire (1982), Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ 654pp
25. Reiling S., Boyle K., Philips M., and Anderson M. Temporal reliability of contingent values. Land Economics 66 2 (1990) 128-134
26. van de Ven W.P.M.M., and van Praag B.M.S. The demand for deductibles in private health insurance: a probit model with sample selection. Journal of Econometrics 17 (1981) 229-252