What accounts for the divergence between ranchers' WTA and WTP for public forage?

Forest Policy and Economics

Volumn 11, Issue 4, 2009, Pages 271-279

  Sun, Lili ^a   van Kooten, G Cornelis ^b   Voss, Graham M ^b  

^a LAURENTIAN FORESTRY CENTRE   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITY OF VICTORIA   (Canada)

Author keywords

Divergence between WTA and WTP; Grazing rights and public forage; Quality of life and ranching

Indexed keywords

DIVERGENCE BETWEEN WTA AND WTP; ENDOWMENT EFFECT; GRAZING RIGHTS AND PUBLIC FORAGE; QUALITY OF LIFE AND RANCHING; WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

ECONOMICS;

EID: 67549137240     PISSN: 13899341     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.forpol.2009.04.005     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Bartlett E.T., Torell L.A., Rimbey N.R., Van Tassell L.W., and McCollum D.W. Valung grazing use on public land. Journal of Range Management 55 (2002) 426-438 (September)
2. Borges B.F.J., and Knetsch J.L. Test of market outcomes with asymmetric valuations of gains and losses: smaller gains, fewer trades and less value. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 33 (1998) 185-193
3. Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 2003. Program Area: 2003 Grazing Fee. Viewed on 18 March 2004 http://www.nv.blm.gov/range/Current_Rates.htm.
4. Cameron T.A., and Quiggin J. Estimation using contingent valuation data from a 'dichotomous choice with follow-up' questionnaire. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 27 (1994) 218-234
5. Dietz, N. and Rothenberg, L.S., 2000. Foundation of Policy Stability: The Institutional Basis of Non-Market Pricing. Political Science Working Paper Series. WP No.1. W. Allen Wallis Institute for Political Economy, Rochester Center for Economic Research, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY. September. 46 pp. Viewed 1 June 2004 at http://www.wallis.rochester.edu/PolsWP/PS_1.pdf.
6. Donkers, B., Gregory, R. and Knetsch, J.L., 2004. Discounting Future Gains and Future Losses: Predictable Differences and Appropriate Measures. Paper presented at the Canadian Resource and Environmental Economics (CREE) Workshop, Calgary, Alberta, 2-3 October. 23pp.
7. Gardner B.D. Transfer restrictions and misallocation in grazing public range. Journal of Farm Economics 44 (1962) 50-64
8. Gardner B.D. A proposal to reduce misallocation of livestock grazing permits. Journal of Farm Economic 45 (1963) 109-120
9. Greene W.H. Econometric Analysis. 4th Ed. (2000), Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ
10. Hanemann W.M. Welfare evaluations in contingent valuation experiments with discrete response data: reply. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 66 (1984) 332-341
11. Hanemann W.M. Willingness to pay and willingness to accept: how much can they differ?. American Economic Review 81 (1991) 635-647 (June)
12. Horowitz J.K., and McConnell K.E. A review of WTA/WTP studies. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 44 (2002) 426-447 (November)
13. Kahneman D., Knetsch J.L., and Thaler R.H. Experimental tests of the endowment effect and the Coase theorem. Journal of Political Economy 98 (1990) 1325-1348 (December)
14. Knetsch J.L. Asymmetric valuation of gains and losses and preference order assumptions. Economic Inquiry 33 (1995) 134-141
15. Knetsch J.L., Tang F.F., and Thaler R.H. The endowment effect and repeated market trials: is the Vickery auction demand revealing?. Experimental Economics 4 (2001) 257-269
16. List J.A. Does market experience eliminate market anomalies?. Quarterly Journal of Economics 118 (2003) 41-71
17. List J.A. Neoclassical Theory versus Prospect Theory: evidence from the marketplace. Econometrica 72 (2004) 615-625 (March)
18. McFadden D.L. Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice analysis. In: Zarembka P. (Ed). Frontiers in Econometrics (1974), Academic Press, New York, NY
19. Newell R.G., and Pizer W.A. Discounting the distant future: how much do uncertain rates increase valuations?. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 46 (2003) 52-71
20. Poe G.L., Welsh M.P., and Champ P.A. Measuring the difference in mean willingness to pay when dichotomous choice contingent valuation responses are not independent. Land Economics 73 2 (1997) 255-267
21. Randall A., and Stoll J.R. Consumer's surplus in commodity space. American Economic Review 71 (1980) 449-457 June
22. Shogren J.F., Shin S.Y., Hayes D.J., and Kliebenstein J.B. Resolving differences in willingness to pay and willingness to accept. American Economic Review 84 (1994) 255-270 (March)
23. Thomsen, R.W., 2002. The Role of Social Capital in the Ranch-Public Range Community of Nevada. MS Thesis, University of Nevada Reno, Reno, NV.
24. Torell, L.A., Rimbey, N.R., Barlett, E.T., van Tassell, L.W. and Tanaka, J., 2001. An Evaluation of the PRIA Grazing Fee Formula. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Society for Range Management at Kailua-Kona, Hawaii. Viewed 11 March 2004 at: .
25. Torell L.A., Rimbey N.R., Ramirez O.A., and McCollum D.W. Income earning potential versus consumptive amenities in determining ranchland values. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 30 (2005) 537-560 (December)
26. van Kooten G.C., Thomsen R.W., and Hobby T. Resolving range conflict in Nevada? The potential for compensation via monetary payouts and grazing alternatives. Review of Agricultural Economics 28 4 (2006) 515-530
27. van Kooten G.C., Thomsen R.W., Hobby T., and Eagle A.J. Social dilemmas and range management in Nevada. Ecological Economics 57 (2006) 709-723
28. van Kooten G.C., Eagle A.J., and Eiswerth M.E. Determinants of threatened sage grouse in northeastern Nevada. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 12 1 (2007) 53-70