Putting a value on trees: An economist's perspective

Arboricultural Journal

Volumn 30, Issue 1, 2007, Pages 7-19

  Price, Colin ^a  

^a BANGOR UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Environmental valuation; Revealed preference; Stated preference; Subjectivity

Indexed keywords

ENVIRONMENTAL VALUES; FOREST PRODUCT; TREE; VALUATION;

EURASIA; EUROPE; UNITED KINGDOM; WESTERN EUROPE;

EID: 34547679857     PISSN: 03071375     EISSN: 21681074     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/03071375.2007.9747474     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. Adamowicz, V., 1995. “ Alternative valuation techniques:a comparison and movement to a synthesis. In ”. In Environmental Valuation:New Perspectives Edited by:Willis, K. G., and Corkindale, J. T., 144–59. Wallingford, UK:CAB International.
2. Blamey, R. K., 1996. “ Citizens, consumers and contingent valuation:clarification and the expression of citizen values and issue-opinions. In ”. In Forestry, Economics and the Environment Edited by:Adamowicz, W. L., Boxall, P. C., Luckert, M. K., Phillips, W. E., and White, W. A., 103–33. Wallingford:CAB International.
3. Clawson, M., 1959. “ Methods of measuring the demand for and value of outdoor recreation ”. In Reprint 10 Washington:Resources for the Future.
4. Price, C., and COBHAM RESOURCE CONSULTANTS. 1991. The Benefits of Amenity Trees. Unpublished report to Department of the Environment London pages unnumbered. The section “Evaluating the benefits of amenity trees” is obtainable from c.price@bangor.ac.uk.
5. Fines, K. D., 1968. Landscape evaluation:a research project in East Sussex. Regional Studies, 2:41–55.
6. Helliwell, D. R., 2006. Visual Amenity Valuation of Trees and Woodlands:the Helliwell System Romsey:Arboricultural Association.
7. Henry, M. S., 1994. The contribution of landscaping to the price of single family houses:a study of home sales in Greenville, South Carolina. Journal of Environmental Horticulture, 12 (2):65–70.
8. Jones, P., 1979. “ A gap in nature—Dutch elm disease in Britain. In ”. In After the Elm Edited by:Clouston, B., and Stansfield, K., 80–98. London:Heinemann.
9. Luttik, J., 2000. The value of trees, water and open space as reflected by house prices in the Netherlands. Landscape and Urban Planning, 48:161–167.
10. Ovaskainen, V., and Kniivilä, M., 2005. Consumer versus citizen preferences:evidence on the role of question framing. Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 49:379–94.
11. Price, C., 1976. Cost-benefit analysis in a Nutshell. Notes for a course given in the Oxford Forestry Institute
12. Price, C., 1978. Landscape Economics 168London:Macmillan.
13. Price, C., 1994. Literature review [of landscape valuation]. Landscape Research, 19 (1):38–55.
14. Price, C., 1999. “ Stated and revealed preference analysis. In ”. In Multiple Use of Forests and Other Natural Resources Edited by:Helles, F., Holten-andersen, P., and Wichmann, L., 46–65. Dordrecht:Kluwer.
15. Price, C., 2003. Quantifying the aesthetic benefits of urban forestry. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 1:123–33.
16. Price, C., (in press). Superficial citizens and sophisticated consumers:what questions do respondents to stated preference surveys really answer?. Scandinavian Forest Economics.
17. Randall, A., 1994. Contingent valuation:an introduction. Landscape Research, 19 (1):12–14.
18. Sagoff, M., 1988. The Economy of the Earth 271Cambridge University Press.
19. Ulrich, R. S., 1984. View through a window may influence recovery from surgery. Science, 224:420–1.
20. Willis, K. G., and Garrod, G. D., 1992. Amenity value of forests in Great Britain and its impact on the internal rate of return from forestry. Forestry, 65:331–46.