On the budget for national environmental objectives and willingness to pay for protection of forest land

Canadian Journal of Forest Research

Volumn 38, Issue 1, 2008, Pages 40-51

  Boman, Mattias ^a   Norman, Johan ^a   Kindstrand, Claes ^a   Mattsson, Leif ^a  

^a SWEDISH UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES   (Sweden)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BIODIVERSITY; BUDGET CONTROL; COSTS; ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT; UNCERTAINTY ANALYSIS;

ENVIRONMENTAL BUDGET; SWEDISH PARLIAMENT; VALUATION; VALUATION ESTIMATES;

FORESTRY;

BIODIVERSITY; CONTINGENT VALUATION; ECOLOGICAL ECONOMICS; ECONOMIC ANALYSIS; FOREST MANAGEMENT; WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

COST CONTROL; E I S; FORESTRY;

EID: 39649093135     PISSN: 00455067     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1139/X07-129     Document Type: Article

References (44)

1. Alberini, A., Boyle, K., and Welsh, M. 2003. Analysis of contingent valuation data with multiple bids and response options allowing respondents to express uncertainty. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 45: 40-62. doi:10.1016/S0095-0696(02)00010-4.
2. Anonymous. 1999. Gröna nyckeltal - följ den ekologiska omställningen. Brochure from Miljövårdsberedningen, Ministry of the Environment, Stockholm.
3. Boman, M., and Mattsson, L. 2008. A note on attitudes and knowledge concerning environmental issues in Sweden. J. Environ. Manag. 86: 575-579.
4. Boman, M., Bostedt, G., and Kriström, B. 1999. Obtaining welfare bounds in discrete-choice valuation studies: a nonparametric approach. Land Econ. 75: 284-294. doi:10.2307/3147011.
5. Cameron, T.A. 1988. A new paradigm for valuing non-market goods using referendum data: maximum likelihood estimation by censored logistic regression. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 15: 355-379. doi:10.1016/0095-0696(88)90008-3.
6. Carson, R.T., and Mitchell, R.C. 1995. Sequencing and nesting in contingent valuation surveys. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 28: 155-173. doi:10.1006/jeem.1995.1011.
7. Carson, R.T., Flores, N.E., and Meade, N.F. 1996. Contingent valuation: controversies and evidence. Discussion Pap. 96-36. Department of Economics, University of California, San Diego, Calif.
8. Carson, R., Flores, N.E., and Hanemann, W.M. 1998. Sequencing and valuing public goods. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 36: 314-323. doi:10.1006/jeem. 1998.1050.
9. Deaton, A., and Muellbauer, J. 1980. Economics and consumer behavior. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K.
10. Ethier, R.G., Poe, G.L., Vossler, C.A., and Welsh, M.P. 2001. Payment certainty in discrete choice contingent valuation responses: results from a field validity test. Working Paper WP 2001-21.
11. Department of Agricultural, Resource and Managerial Economics, Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y.
12. Evans, M.F., Flores, N.E., and Boyle, K.J. 2003. Multiple-bounded uncertainty data as probabilistic intentions. Land Econ. 79: 549-560. doi:10.2307/3147299.
13. Garrod, G., and Willis, K.G. 1999. Economic valuation of the environment. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, U.K.
14. Gorman, W.M. 1959. Separable utility and aggregation. Econometrica, 27: 469-481. doi:10.2307/1909472.
15. Greene, W.H. 2002. LIMDEP version 8.0. Reference guide. Econometric Software, Inc., New York.
16. Hanemann, W.M. 1984. Welfare evaluations in contingent valuation experiments with discrete responses. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 66: 332-341. doi:10.2307/1240800.
17. Hanley, N., and Kriström, B. 2002. What's it worth? Exploring value uncertainty using interval questions in contingent valuation. Discussion Pap. 2002-10. Department of Economics, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, Scotland.
18. Hoehn, J.P. 1991. Valuing the multidimensional impacts of environmental policy: theory and methods. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 73: 289-299. doi:10.2307/1242713.
19. Hökby, S., and Söderqvist, T. 2003. Elasticites of demand and willingness to pay for environmental services in Sweden. Environ. Resour. Econ. 26: 361-383. doi:10.1023/B:EARE.0000003581.97411.75.
20. Johansson, P.-O. 1993. Cost-benefit analysis of environmental change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K.
21. Johansson, P.-O., and Zavisic, S. 1989. Svenska folkets miljöbudget. Ekonomisk Debatt, 6: 472-474.
22. Kriström, B. 1990. Valuing environmental benefits using the contingent valuation method - an econometric analysis. Ph.D. thesis, Umeå Econ. Stud. No. 219. University of Umeå, Umeå, Sweden.
23. Kriström, B. 1997. Spike models in contingent valuation. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 79: 1013-1023. doi:10.2307/1244440.
24. Li, C. 1994. Welfare evaluations in contingent valuation - an econometric analysis. Ph.D. thesis, Umeå Econ. Stud. No. 341. University of Umeå, Umeå, Sweden.
25. Magnussen, K. 1992. Valuation of reduced water pollution using the contingent valuation method - testing for mental accounts and amenity misspecification. In Pricing the European environment. Edited by S. Navrud. Scandinavian University Press, Oslo, Norway. pp. 195-225.
26. Mitchell, R.C., and Carson, R.T. 1989. Using surveys to value public goods: the contingent valuation method. Resources for the Future, Washington, D.C.
27. Ramsey, F. 1928. A mathematical theory of saving. Econ. J. 38: 543-559. doi:10.2307/2224098.
28. Randall, A. 2002. Valuing the outputs of multifunctional agriculture. Eur. Rev. Agric. Econ. 29: 289-307. doi:10.1093/eurrag/29.3.289.
29. Ready, R.C., Navrud, S., and Dubourg, W.R. 2001. How do respondents with uncertain willingness to pay answer contingent valuation questions? Land Econ. 77: 315-326. doi:10.2307/3147126.
30. SCB. 1992. Statistisk Årsbok '92 [Statistical Yearbook of Sweden '92]. Statistiska Centralbyrån, Örebro.
31. SCB. 2004. Statistisk Årsbok för Sverige 2004 [Statistical Yearbook of Sweden 2004]. Statistiska Centralbyrån, Örebro.
32. SCB. 2005. Statistisk Årsbok för Sverige 2005 [Statistical Yearbook of Sweden 2005]. Statistiska Centralbyrån, Örebro.
33. SEEA. 2003. Integrated environmental and economic accounting. United Nations, European Commission, International Monetary Fund, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, and World Bank. United Nations, New York.
34. Smith, V.K., and Osborne, L.L. 1996. Do contingent valuation estimates pass a "scope" test? A meta-analysis. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 31: 287-301. doi:10.1006/jeem.1996.0045.
35. Söderqvist, T. 1996. Ekonomisk värdering av miljön: metoder och svenska erfarenheter. In Expertrapport från skatteväxlingskommitten, SOU 1996: 117. Fritzes, Stockholm.
36. Swedish Environmetal Objectives Council. 2004. De facto: Sweden's environmental objectives - are we getting there? Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, Stockholm.
37. Swedish Environmetal Objectives Council. 2005. De facto: Sweden's environmental objectives - for the sake of our children! Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, Stockholm.
38. Swedish Ministry of the Environment. 1999. Sustainable Sweden - a progress report on measures promoting ecologically sustainable development. Skr. 1999/2000: 13. Regeringskansliet, Stockholm.
39. United Nations. 2002. Report of the world summit on sustainable development, 26 August - 4 September 2002, Johannesburg, South Africa. United Nations, New York.
40. Varian, H.R. 1992. Microeconomic analysis. 3rd ed. Norton, New York.
41. WCED. 1987. Our common future. Oxford University Press, Oxford, New York.
42. Welsh, M.P., and Poe, G.L. 1998. Elicitation effects in contingent valuation: comparisons to a multiple bounded discrete choice approach. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 36: 170-185. doi:10.1006/jeem.1998.1043.
43. Whitehead, J.C., Haab, T.C., and Huang, J.C. 1998. Part-whole bias in contingent valuation: will scope effects be detected with inexpensive survey methods? South. Econ. J. 65: 160-168. doi:10.2307/1061359.
44. Willis, K.G., Garrod, G.D., and Saunders, C.M. 1995. Benefits of environmentally sensitive area policy in England: a contingent valuation assessment. J. Environ. Manag. 44: 105-125. doi:10.1006/jema.1995.0034.