On the value of large predators in Sweden: A regional stratified contingent valuation analysis

Journal of Environmental Management

Volumn 88, Issue 4, 2008, Pages 1066-1077

  Broberg, Thomas ^a   Brännlund, Runar ^a  

^a UMEÅ UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

Author keywords

Contingent valuation; Policy analysis; Predators; Willingness to pay

Indexed keywords

CONTINGENT VALUATION; FAUNA; NATURE CONSERVATION; PREDATOR; UNCERTAINTY ANALYSIS; WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT; WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

ADULT; AGED; ANIMAL CARE; ANIMAL HUNTING; ARTICLE; ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT; ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION; FEMALE; FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT; HUMAN; POLICY; PREDATOR; RURAL AREA; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS; SOCIAL BEHAVIOR; SOCIOECONOMICS; SWEDEN;

EURASIA; EUROPE; NORTHERN EUROPE; SCANDINAVIA; STOCKHOLM [SWEDEN]; SWEDEN;

EID: 47249144401     PISSN: 03014797     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2007.05.016     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Bjerke T., and Kaltenborn B.P. The relationship of general life values to attitudes toward large carnivores. Human Ecology Review 9 1 (2002) 55-61
2. Bjerke T., Reitan O., and Kellert S.R. Attitudes toward wolves in Southeastern Norway. Society and Natural Resources 11 (1998) 169-178
3. Boman M., and Bostedt G. Valuing the Wolf in Sweden: are Benefits Contingent on the Supply? Topics in Environmental Economics (1999), Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht pp. 157-174
4. Bostedt, G., Ericsson, G., Kindberg, J., 2007. Contingent valuse as implicit contracts-estimating minimum legal willingness to pay for wild carnivores in Sweden. Environmental and Resource Economics, In press.
5. Chambers C.M., and Whitehead J.C. A contingent valuation estimate of the benefits of Wolves in Minnesota. Environmental and Resource Economics 26 (2003) 249-267
6. Duffield, J.W., Neher, C.J., 1996. Economics of wolf recovery in Yellowstone National Park. Transactions of the 61st North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference, pp. 285-292.
7. Ericsson G., and Heberlein T. Attitudes of hunters, locals and the general public in Sweden now that the wolves are back. Biological Conservation 111 (2003) 149-159
8. Ericsson, G., Bostedt, G., Kindberg, J., 2007. Wolves as a symbol for people's willingness to pay for large carnivore conservation. Wildlife Biology, in press.
9. Evans M.F., Flores N.E., and Boyle K.J. Multiple bounded uncertainty choice data as probabilistic intentions. Land Economics 79 4 (2003) 549-560
10. Garcia D., and Riera P. Expansion versus density in Barcelona: a valuation exercise. Urban Studies 40 (2003) 1925-1936
11. Groothuis P., and Whitehead J.C. Does don't know mean no? Analysis of 'don't know' responses in dichotomous choice contingent valuation questions. Applied Economics 34 (2002) 1935-1940
12. Hanemann W.M. Welfare evaluations in contingent valuation experiments with discrete responses. American Journal of Agricultural Economics (1984) 332-341
13. Heberlein T., and Ericsson G. Ties to the countryside: accounting for urbanites attitudes toward hunting, wolves, and wildlife. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 10 (2005) 213-227
14. Kaltenborn B.P., Bjerke T., and Strumse E. Diverging attitudes towards predators: do environmental beliefs play a part?. Human Ecology Review 5 2 (1998) 1-9
15. Kaltenborn B.P., Bjerke T., and Vittersø J. Attitudes toward large carnivores among sheep farmers, wildlife managers, and research biologists in Norway. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 4 (1999) 57-73
16. Kellert S.R. The Public and the Timber Wolf in Minnesota (1985), Yale University, New Haven, CT
17. Kellert S.R. Public views of wolf restoration in Michigan. Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference 56 (1991) 152-161
18. Kellert S.R. The Value of Life. Biological Diversity and Human Society (1996), Island Press, Washington, DC
19. Kellert, S.R., 1999. The Public and the Wolf in Minnesota. International Wolf Center.
20. Kriström B. Spike models in contingent valuation. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 79 (1997) 1013-1023
21. McMillan D., Duff E.I., and Elston D.A. Modelling non-market environmental costs and benefits of biodiversity projects using contingent valuation data. Environmental and Resource Economics 18 (2001) 391-410
22. Nahuelhual-Munoz L., Loureiro M., and Loomis J. Addressing heterogeneous preferences using parametric extended spike models. Environmental and Resource Economics 27 (2004) 297-311
23. Vossler C.A., and Poe G.L. Analysis of contingent valuation data with multiple bids and response options allowing respondents to express uncertainty: a comment. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 49 (2005) 197-200
24. Wabakken, P., Aronsson, Å., Sand, H., Stromseth, T.H., Kojola, I., 2004. Ulv I Skandinavia Statusrapport for vinteren 2003-2004, Hedmark University Collage, Report 5.
25. Welsh M., 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
26. Yoo S.-H., and Kwak S.-J. Using a spike model to deal with zero response data from double bounded dichotomous choice contingent valuation surveys. Applied Economics 9 (2002) 929-932