Contingent values as implicit contracts: Estimating minimum legal willingness to pay for conservation of large carnivores in Sweden

Environmental and Resource Economics

Volumn 39, Issue 2, 2008, Pages 189-198

  Bostedt, Göran ^a   Ericsson, Göran ^a   Kindberg, Jonas ^a  

^a SWEDISH UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES   (Sweden)

Author keywords

Carnivores; Contingent valuation; Discrete choice; Minimum legal WTP; Willingness to pay

Indexed keywords

ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING; LAWS AND LEGISLATION; PARAMETER ESTIMATION;

CONTINGENT VALUATION; DISCRETE CHOICE; MINIMUM LEGAL WTP;

CONTRACTS;

CARNIVORE; CONSERVATION; CONTINGENT VALUATION; DISCRETE CHOICE ANALYSIS; ESTIMATION METHOD; WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

EURASIA; EUROPE; NORTHERN EUROPE; SCANDINAVIA; SWEDEN;

EID: 38149134539     PISSN: 09246460     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10640-007-9103-x     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Alberini A, Boyle KJ, Welsh MP (2003) Analysis of contingent valuation data with multiple bids response options allowing respondents to express uncertainty. J Environ Econ Manage 45:40-62
2. Bishop RC, Heberlein TA (1979) Measuring values of extra-market goods: are indirect measures biased?. Am J Agri Econ 61:926-930
3. Boman M, Bostedt G, Kriström B (1999) Obtaining welfare bounds in discrete-response valuation studies-a non-parametric approach. Land Econ 75:284-294
4. Bostedt G, Boman M (1996) Nonresponse in contingent valuation - reducing uncertainty in value inference. Environ Resour Econ 8:119-124
5. Boyle KJ (2003) Contingent valuation in practice. In: Champ PA, Boyle KJ, Brown TC (eds) A primer on nonmarket valuation. Kluwer, Dordrecht
6. Carson RT (2005) Contingent valuation: a comprehensive bibliography and history. Edward Elgar, Northampton, MA
7. Chambers CM, Whitehead JC (2003) A contingent valuation estimate of the benefits of wolves in Minnesota. Environ Resour Econ 26:249-267
8. Champ PA, Bishop RC, Brown TC, McCollum DW (1997) Using donation mechanisms to value nonuse benefits from public goods. J Environ Econ Manage 33:151-162
9. Dillman DA (2000) Mail and internet surveys: the tailored design method. Wiley, New York
10. Duffield JW, Neher CJ (1996) Economics of wolf recovery in Yellowstone national park. In: Proceedings of Transactions of the 61st North American wildlife and natural resources conference, pp 285-292
11. Ericsson G, Heberlein TA (2003) Attitudes of hunters, locals and the general public in Sweden now that the wolves are back. Biol Conserv 111:149-159
12. Haab TC, McConnell KE (1997) Referendum models and negative willingness to pay: alternative solutions. J Environ Econ Manage 32:251-270
13. Harrison GW, Kriström B (1995) On the interpretation of responses in contingent valuation surveys. In: Johansson P-O, Mäler K-G (eds) Current issues in environmental economics. Manchester University Press, Manchester
14. Heberlein TA, Ericsson G (2005) Ties to the countryside: accounting for urbanites attitudes towards hunting wolves and wildlife. Hum Dimens Wildlife 10:213-227
15. Jorgensen BS, Wilson M, Heberlein TA (2001) Fairness in the contingent valuation of environmental public goods: attitude toward paying for environmentl improvements at two levels of scope. Ecol Econ 36:133-148
16. Kellert SR (1985) Public perceptions of predators, particularly the wolf and the coyote. Biol Conserv 31:167-191
17. Kriström B (1997) Spike models in contingent valuation. Am J Agric Econ 79:1013-1027
18. Li C-Z, Mattsson L (1995) Discrete-choice under preference uncertainty-an improved structural model for contingent valuation. J Environ Econ Manage 28:256-269
19. Martinez-Espineira R (2006) A box-cox double-hurdle model of wildlife valuation: the citizen's perspective. Ecol Econ 58:192-208
20. Mitchell RC, Carson RT (1989) Using surveys to value public goods: the contingent valuation method. Resources For the Future, Washington, DC
21. NOAA (1993) Report of the NOAA panel on contingent valuation. Fed Regist 58:4602-4614
22. Ready RC, Whitehead JC, Blomquist GC (1995) Contingent valuation when respondents are ambivalent. J Environ Econ Manage 29:181-196
23. Sharpe VA, Norton B, Donnelley S (2001) Wolves and human communities. Biology, politics, and ethics. Island Press, Washington, DC
24. Swedish EPA (2006) Carnivore population estimates published on http://www.naturvardsverket.se/. Accessed 2007-02-07
25. Vossler CA, Poe GL, Welsh MP, Ethier RG (2004) Bid design effects in multiple bounded discrete choice contingent valuation. Environ Resour Econ 29:401-418
26. Wang H (1997) Treatment of Don't-Know responses in contingent valuation surveys: a random valuation model. J Environ Econ Manage 32:219-232
27. Welsh MP, Poe GL (1998) Elicitation effects in contingent valuation: comparisons to a multiple bounded discrete choice approach. J Environ Econ Manage 36:170-185
28. Williams CK, Ericsson G, Heberlein TA (2002) A quantitative summary of attitudes toward wolves and their reintroduction. Wildlife Soc Bull 30:575-584
29. Wilson M (1997) The wolf in Yellowstone: science, symbol or politics? Deconstructing the conflict between environmentalists and wise use. Soc Nat Resour 10:453-468