Green for green: The perceived value of a quantitative change in the urban tree estate of New Zealand

Ecological Economics

Volumn 63, Issue 2-3, 2007, Pages 605-615

  Vesely, Éva Terézia ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF AUCKLAND   (New Zealand)

^b LANDCARE RESEARCH   (New Zealand)

Author keywords

Contingent valuation; Urban tree estate

Indexed keywords

CONTINGENT VALUATION; LIVING STANDARD; RESOURCE ALLOCATION; TREE PLANTING; URBAN AREA; URBAN FORESTRY; VOLUNTARY APPROACH; WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

AUSTRALASIA; NEW ZEALAND;

EID: 34250203957     PISSN: 09218009     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.12.019     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. Ajzen I., Brown T.C., and Rosenthal L.H. Information bias in contingent valuation: effects of personal relevance, quality of information, and motivational orientation. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 30 (1996) 43-57
2. Alberini A. Optimal designs for discrete choice contingent valuation surveys. Single-bound, double-bound and bivariate models. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 28 (1995) 287-306
3. Arrow K., Solow R., Portney P.R., Leamer E.E., Radner R., and Schuman H. Report of the NOAA Panel on Contingent Valuation. US Federal Registe vol. 58 (10) (1993) 4601-4614
4. Blamey R.K., Bennett J.W., and Morrison M.D. Yea-saying in contingent valuation surveys. Land Economics 75 1 (1999) 126-141
5. Bryman A. Social Research Methods (2001), Oxford University Press, New York
6. Carson R.T. Contingent valuation: a user's guide. Environmental Science and Technology 34 8 (2000) 1413-1418
7. Carson R.T., Carson N., Alberini A., Flores N., and Wright J. A Bibliography of Contingent Valuation Studies and Papers (1993), Natural Resource Damage Assessment Inc, La Jolla
8. Carson R.T., Flores N., and Hanemann W.M. Sequencing and valuing public goods. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 36 (1998) 314-323
9. Cooper P., Poe G.L., and Bateman I.J. The structure of motivation for contingent values: a case study of lake water quality improvement. Ecological Economics 50 (2004) 69-82
10. Davis R. Recreation planning as an economic problem. Natural Resources Journal 3 (1963) 239-249
11. De Ridder K., Adamec V., Bañuelos A., Bruse M., Bürger M., Damsgaard O., Dufek J., Hirsch J., Lefebre F., Pérez-Lacorzana J.M., Thierry A., and Weber C. An integrated methodology to assess the benefits of urban green space. Science of the Total Environment 334 (2004) 489-497
12. Dillman D.A. Mail and other self-administered questionnaires. In: Rossi P.H., Wright J.D., and Anderson A.B. (Eds). Handbook of Survey Research (1983), Academic Press, Orlando, Florida
13. Duffield J.W., and Patterson D.A. Inference and optimal design for a welfare measure in dichotomous choice contingent valuation. Land Economics 67 2 (1991) 225-239
14. Fischhoff B. Informed consent for eliciting environmental values. Environmental Science and Technology 34 8 (2000) 1439-1444
15. Funtowitcz S.O., and Rayetz J.R. The worth of a songbird: Ecological Economics as a post-normal science. Ecological Economics 10 (1994) 197-207
16. Greene W.H. Econometric Analysis (2003), Pearson Education International, Prentice Hall, New Jersey
17. Haab T.C., and McConnell K.E. Valuing Environmental and Natural Resources: The Econometrics of Non-Market Valuation (2002), Edward Elgar, Cheltenham
18. Hanemann W.M. Welfare evaluations in contingent valuation experiments with discrete responses. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 66 (1984) 332-341
19. Hartig T., Mang M., and Evans G. Restorative effects of natural environments experiences. Journal of Environment and Behaviour 23 (1991) 3-26
20. Herriges J.A., and Shogren J.F. Starting point bias in dichotomous choice valuation with follow-up questioning. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 30 (1996) 112-131
21. Hosmer D.W., and Lemeshow S. Applied Logistic Regression (1989), John Wiley and Sons, USA
22. Ihaka R., and Gentleman R. R: a language for data analysis and graphics. Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics 5 3 (1996) 299-314
23. Jorgensen B.S., and Syme G.J. Protest response and willingness to pay: attitude toward paying for stormwater pollution abatement. Ecological Economics 33 (2000) 251-265
24. Júdez L., de Andrés R., Hugalde C.P., Urzainqui E., and Ibañez M. Influence of bid and subsample vectors on the welfare measure estimate in dichotomous choice contingent valuation: evidence from a case-study. Journal of Environmental Management 60 (2000) 253-265
25. Kanninen B.J. Bias in discrete response contingent valuation. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 28 (1995) 114-125
26. Kerr G.N. Dichotomous choice contingent valuation probability distributions. The Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 44 2 (2000) 233-252
27. Kuo F.E., Bacaioca M., and Sullivan W.C. Transforming inner city landscapes: trees, sense of safety, and preferences. Journal of Environmental Behaviour 30 1 (1998) 28-59
28. Laverne R.J., and Winson-Geideman K. The influence of trees and landscaping on rental rates at office buildings. Journal of Arboriculture 29 5 (2003) 281-290
29. McPherson E.G., Simpson J.R., Peper P.J., and Xiao Q. Benefit-cost analysis of Modesto's municipal urban forest. Journal of Arboriculture 25 5 (1999) 235-248
30. Meyerhoff J., and Liebe U. Protest beliefs in contingent valuation: explaining their motivation. Ecological Economics 57 4 (2006) 583-594
31. Ministry for the Environment. New Zealand Urban Design Protocol, (ME number: 579) (2005), Ministry for the Environment, Wellington, New Zealand
32. Nunes P.A.L.D., and Schokkaert E. Identifying the warm glow effect in contingent valuation. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 45 (2003) 231-245
33. Press W.H., Vetterling W.T., Teukolsky S.A., and Flannery B.P. Numerical Recipes in C++ (2002), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
34. Schläpfer, F., Bräuer, I., in press. Theoretical incentive properties of contingent valuation questions: do they matter in the field? Ecological Economics (available online 17 August 2006).
35. Spash C.L. Multiple value expression in contingent valuation: economics and ethics. Environmental Science and Technology 34 8 (2000) 1433-1438
36. Thompson R., Hanna R., Noel J., and Piirto D. Valuation of tree aesthetics on small urban-interface properties. Journal of Arboriculture 25 5 (1999) 225-234
37. Tyrväinen L. Economic valuation of urban forest benefits in Finland. Journal of Environmental Management 62 (2001) 75-92
38. Tyrväinen L., and Miettinen A. Property prices and urban forest amenities. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 39 (2000) 205-223
39. UNEP GEO Team. Global Environment Outlook 3 (2002), United Nations Environment Programme, Nairobi, Kenya
40. USEPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analysis. EPA-240-R-00-003 (2000)
41. Welsh M.P., and Poe G.L. Elicitation effects in contingent valuation: comparisons to a multiple bounded discrete choice approach. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 36 (1998) 170-185
42. Winpenny J.T. Values for the Environment: A Guide to Economic Appraisal (1991), KHMSO, London