Do colored photographs affect willingness to pay responses for endangered species conservation?

Environmental and Resource Economics

Volumn 40, Issue 2, 2008, Pages 251-264

  Labao, Rex ^a   Francisco, Herminia ^b   Harder, Dieldre ^a   Santos, Florence Ivy ^a  

^a Resources Environment and Economics Center for Studies Inc   (Philippines)

^b Economy and Environment Program for Southeast Asia (EEPSEA)   (Singapore)

Author keywords

Colored photographs; Contingent valuation; Philippine eagle; Willingness to pay

Indexed keywords

BIODIVERSITY; COLOR; CONSERVATION; COST REDUCTION; GEOLOGICAL SURVEYS; STATISTICAL METHODS;

COLORED PHOTOGRAPHS; CONTINGENT VALUATION; PHILIPPINE EAGLE;

PHOTOGRAPHY;

CONTINGENT VALUATION; ENDANGERED SPECIES; PHOTOGRAPH; QUESTIONNAIRE SURVEY; RAPTOR; SPECIES CONSERVATION; WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

AVES; PITHECOPHAGA JEFFERYI;

EID: 43849087493     PISSN: 09246460     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10640-007-9151-2     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Anglin G and Levie W (1985). Role of visual richness in picture recognition memory. Percept Mot Skills 61: 1303-1306
2. Alfnes F, Guttormsen A, Steine G and Kolstad K (2006). Consumers' willingness to pay for the color of salmon: a choice experiment with real economic incentives. Am J Agric Econ 88(4): 1050-1061
3. Arrow K, Solow R, Portney PR, Leamer EE, Radner R and Schuman H (1993). Report of the NOAA Panel on Contingent Valuation. Fed Regist 58: 4601-4614
4. Bateman I, Dent S, Peters E, Slovic P, Starmer C (2007) The affect heuristic and the attractiveness of simple gambles. J Behav Decis Mak, DOI: 10.1002/bdm.558
5. Bateman I, Jones A, Jude S, Day B (2006) Reducing gains/loss asymmetry: a virtual reality choice experiment (VRCE) valuing land use change. CSERGE Working Paper EDM 06-16. www.uea.ac.uk/env/cserge/pub/wp/edm/edm_2006_16.htm - 8k
6. Bishop RC and Heberlein TA (1979). Measuring values of extramarket goods: are indirect measures biased?. Am J Agric Econ 61: 926-930
7. Carson RT and Groves GT (2007). Incentive and informational properties of preference questions. Environ Resour Econ 37: 181-210
8. Champ PA, Bishop RC, Brown TC and McCollum DW (1997). Using donation mechanisms to value non-use benefits from public goods. J Environ Econ Manage 33(2): 151-162
9. Choe K, Whittington D and Lauria D (1996). The economic benefits of surface water quality improvement in developing countries: a case study of Davao, Philippines. Land Econ 72: 519-527
10. Corso PS, Hammitt JK and Graham JD (2001). Valuing mortality-risk reduction: using visual aids to improve the validity of contingent valuation. J Risk Uncertain 23(2): 165-184
11. Cummings R and Taylor L (1999). Unbiased value estimates for environmental goods: a cheap talk design for the contingent valuation method. Am Econ Rev 89(3): 649-665
12. Ekstrand ER and Loomis J (1998). Incorporating respondent uncertainty when estimating willingness to pay for protecting critical habitat for threatened and endangered fish. Water Resour Res 34(5): 3149-3155
13. Fagerlin A, Wang C and Ubel P (2005). Reducing the influence of anecdotal reasoning on people's health care decisions: is a picture worth a thousand statistics?. Med Decis Mak 25: 398-405
14. Greene WH (1990). Econometric analysis. Macmillan, New York
15. Hanemann M (1984). Welfare evaluations in contingent valuation experiments with discrete responses. Am J Agric Econ 66(3): 332-341
16. Hanemann M (1989). Welfare evaluations in contingent valuation experiments with discrete response data: reply. Am J Agric Econ 71(4): 1057-1061
17. Jordan J, Shewfelt R, Garner J and Variyam J (1990). Estimating the value of internal quality aspects to consumers. Acta Hort (ISHS) 259: 139-144
18. Jorgensen BS, Syme GJ, Bishop BJ and Nancarrow BE (1999). Protest responses in contingent valuation. Environ Resour Econ 14: 131-150
19. Joseph J and Proffitt D (1996). Semantic versus perceptual influences of color in object recognition. J Exp Psychol: Learn Mem Cognit 22: 407-429
20. Lauria D, Whittington D, Choe K, Turingan C and Abiad V (1999). Household demand for improved sanitation services: a case study for Calamba, Philippines. In: Bateman, I and Willis, K (eds) Valuing method in the US, EU and developing countries, pp. Oxford University Press, New York
21. Lipkus I and Hollands J (1999). The visual communication of risk. J Nat Canc Inst Monogr 25: 149-163
22. Loomis J and duVair PH (1993). Evaluating the effect of alternative risk communication devices on willingness to pay: results from a dichotomous choice contingent valuation experiment. Land Econ 69: 287-298
23. McGregor D and Slovic P (1986). Graphic representation of judgmental information. Hum Comput Interact 2(3): 179-200
24. Park T, Loomis J and Creel M (1991). Confidence intervals for evaluating benefit estimates from dichotomous choices contingent valuation studies. Land Econ 67(1): 64-73
25. Ready R, Navrud S (1999) How do respondents with uncertain willingness to pay answer contingent valuation questions? Manuscript, Agricultural University of Norway
26. Samnaliev M, Stevens T and More T (2006). A comparison of alternative certainty calibration techniques in contingent valuation. Ecol Econ 57(3): 507-519
27. Shyamsundar P and Kramer RA (1996). Tropical forest protection: an empirical analysis of the costs borne by local people. J Environ Econ Manage 31: 129-144
28. Solvic P, Finucane ML, Peters E and MacGregor DG (2002). The affect heuristic. In: Gilovich, T, Griffin, D, and Kahneman, D (eds) Heuristics and biases: the psychology of intuitive judgment., pp 397-420. Cambridge University Press, New York
29. Whittington D, Smith VK, Okorafor A, Okore A, Long Liu J and McPhail A (1992). Giving respondents time to think in contingent valuation studies: developing countries application. J Environ Econ Manage 22: 205-225
30. Wichmann F, Sharpe L and Gegenfurtner K (2002). The contributions of color to recognition memory for natural scenes. J Exp Psychol 28(3): 509-520
31. Zikmund-Fisher B, Fagerlin A and Ubel P (2005). What's time got to do with it? Inattention to duration in interpretation of survival graphs. Risk Anal 25(3): 589-595