The Florida manatee and eco-tourism: Toward a safe minimum standard

Ecological Economics

Volumn 50, Issue 1-2, 2004, Pages 101-115

  Solomon, Barry D ^a   Corey Luse, Cristi M ^b   Halvorsen, Kathleen E ^a  

^a MICHIGAN TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b Chequamegon Nicolet National Forest   (United States)

Author keywords

Contingent valuation method; Eco tourism; Florida manatee; Safe minimum standard; Willingness to pay

Indexed keywords

CONTINGENT VALUATION; ECOLOGICAL ECONOMICS; ECOTOURISM; SPECIES CONSERVATION; STANDARD (REFERENCE); WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

FLORIDA; NORTH AMERICA; UNITED STATES;

CITRUS; COELENTERATA; HYDRA; MAMMALIA; TRICHECHIDAE; TRICHECHUS MANATUS;

EID: 5344266753     PISSN: 09218009     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2004.03.025     Document Type: Article

References (43)

1. Ackerman B.B. Aerial surveys of manatees: a summary and progress report. O'Shea T.J., Ackerman B.B., Percival H.F. Population Biology of the Florida Manatee. 1995;13-33 National Biological Service, Washington, DC. Information and Technology Report No. 1
2. Amigues J.-P., Boulatoff C., Desaigues B., Gauthier C., Keith J.E. The benefits and costs of riparian analysis habitat preservation: a willingness to accept/willingness to pay contingent valuation approach. Ecol. Econ. 43:2002;17-31
3. Bateman I.J., Willis K.G. Valuing Environmental Preferences: Theory and Practice of the Contingent Valuation Method in the US, EU, and Developing Countries. 2002;Oxford University Press, New York
4. Bendle, B.J., Bell, F.W., 1995. An estimation of the total willingness to pay by Floridians to protect the endangered West Indian manatee through donations. Report to the Save the Manatee Club and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection's Bureau of Protected Species Management.
5. Berrens R.P. The safe minimum standard approach: an alternative to measuring non-use values for environmental assets? Adamowicz W., Boxall P., Luckert M.K., Phillips W.E., White W.A. Forestry, Economics and the Environment. 1996;195-211 CAB International, Wallingford, UK
6. Berrens R.P. The safe minimum standard of conservation and endangered species: a review. Environ. Conserv. 28:(2):2001;104-116
7. Berrens R.P., Brookshire D.S., McKee M., Schmidt C. Implementing the safe minimum standard approach: two case studies from the US Endangered Species Act. Land Econ. 74:(2):1998;147-161
8. Berrens R.P., McKee M., Farmer M.C. Incorporating distributional considerations in the safe minimum standard approach: endangered species and local impacts. Ecol. Econ. 30:1999;461-474
9. Bishop R.C. Endangered species and uncertainty: the economics of a safe minimum standard. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 57:(1):1978;10-18
10. Bishop R.C. Endangered species, irreversibility, and uncertainty: a reply. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 58:1979;376-379
11. Boyle K.J., Bishop R.C. Welfare measurement using contingent valuation: a comparison of techniques. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 70:(1):1988;20-28
12. Brown, J., 2000. In personal communication, Tallahassee, FL.
13. Brown G.M., Shogren J.F. Economics of the Endangered Species Act. J. Econ. Persp. 12:(3):1998;3-20
14. Ciriacy-Wantrup S.V. Resource Conservation: Economics and Policies. 1952;University of California Press, Berkeley, CA
15. Ciriacy-Wantrup S.V., Phillips W.E. Conservation of the California tule elk: a socioeconomic study of a survival problem. Biol. Conserv. 3:(1):1970;23-32
16. Craven, M., 2000. In personal communication, Lecanto, FL.
17. Crowards T.M. Safe minimum standards: costs and opportunities. Ecol. Econ. 25:1998;303-314
18. Dillman D.A. Mail and Telephone Surveys: The Total Design Method. 1978;Wiley, New York
19. Dunlap R.E., Van Liere K.D. The new environmental paradigm. J. Environ. Ed. 9:(4):1978;10-19
20. Farmer M.C. Getting the safe minimum standard to work in the real world: a case study in moral pragmatism. Ecol. Econ. 38:2001;209-226
21. Farmer M.C., Randall A. The rationality of a safe minimum standard. Land Econ. 74:(3):1998;287-302
22. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWCC) FWC staff conducts the 2004 synoptic survey. Manatee News Q. 8(1):2004;4
23. Freeman A.M. III. The Measurement of Environmental and Resource Values: Theory and Methods. 2nd ed.:2003;. Published by the Johns Hopkins University Press for Resources for the Future,Washington, DC
24. Hageman R. Valuing Marine Mammal Populations: Benefit Valuations in a Multi-species Ecosystem. Administrative Report No. LJ-85-22. 1985;National Marine Fisheries Service, Southwest Fisheries Center, La Jolla, CA
25. Hubin D. The moral justification of benefit/cost analysis. Econ. Philos. 10:(2):1994;169-194
26. Kleen, J., 2002. In personal communication, Crystal River, FL.
27. Krosnick J.A. Survey research. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 50:1999;537-567
28. Loomis J.B., White D.S. Economic benefits of rare and endangered species: summary and meta-analysis. Ecol. Econ. 18:1996;197-206
29. Marmontel M. Age and reproduction in female Florida manatees. O'Shea T.J., Ackerman B.B., Percival H.F. Population Biology of the Florida Manatee. 1995;98-119 National Biological Service, Washington, DC. Information and Technology Report No. 1
30. Mitchell R.C., Carson R.T. Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Method. 1989;. Published by The Johns Hopkins University Press for Resources for the Future, Washington, DC
31. Nunnally J.C., Bernstein I.H. Psychometric Theory. 3rd ed.:1994;McGraw-Hill, New York, NY
32. Polasky S., Doremus H., Rettig B. Endangered species conservation on private land. Contemp. Econ. Pol. 15:1997;66-76
33. Rogers M.F., Sinden J.A. Safe minimum standard for environmental choices: old-growth forest in New South Wales. J. Environ. Manage. 41:1994;89-103
34. Save the Manatee Club website, 2003. www.savethemanatee.org/.
35. Seller C., Stoll J.R., Chavas J.P. Validation of empirical measures of welfare change: a comparison of nonmarket techniques. Land Econ. 61:(2):1985;156-175
36. Shaw, C., 2001. In personal communication, Jacksonville, FL.
37. Solomon B.D. Impending recovery of Kirtland's warbler: case study in the effectiveness of the Endangered Species Act. Environ. Manage. 22:(1):1998;9-17
38. Thomas M.H., Stratis N. Compensating variation for recreational policy: a random utility approach to boating in Florida. Mar. Resour. Econ. 17:(1):2002;23-33
39. Turpie J.K. The existence value of biodiversity in South Africa: how interest, experience, knowledge, income and perceived level of threat influence local willingness to pay. Ecol. Econ. 46:2003;199-216
40. US Census Bureau, 2002. Website. http://quickfacts.census.gov/gfd/states/ 12/12017.html.
41. US Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Natural resource damage assessments under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990. Federal Register. 58:(10):1993;4601-4614. (January 15, 1993)
42. US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Florida manatee recovery plan (Trichechus manatus latiostris), Third Revision. 2001;145 US Fish and Wildlife Service, Atlanta, GA
43. Western Rural Development Center. Impacts of Visitor Expenditures on Local Revenues. Tourism. 1995;Western Regional Extension Publication, US Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC