Logit model assumptions and estimated willingness to pay for forest conservation in southern Finland

Empirical Economics

Volumn 37, Issue 3, 2009, Pages 681-691

  Haltia, Emmi ^a   Kuuluvainen, Jari ^a   Ovaskainen, Ville ^b   Pouta, Eija ^b   Rekola, Mika ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF HELSINKI   (Finland)

^b FINNISH FOREST RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (Finland)

Author keywords

Contingent valuation; Fat tail problem; Forest conservation; Pinched spike model

Indexed keywords

CONTINGENT VALUATION; FOREST COVER; MODELING; NATURE CONSERVATION; WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

EURASIA; EUROPE; FINLAND; NORTHERN EUROPE; SCANDINAVIA;

EID: 70350655715     PISSN: 03777332     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s00181-008-0252-8     Document Type: Article

References (14)

1. Ayer M, Brunk HD, Ewing GM, Silverman E (1955) An empirical distribution function for sampling with incomplete information. Ann Math Stat 26: 641-647
2. Bishop RC, Heberlein TA (1979) Measuring values of extra market goods: are indirect measures biased?. Am J Agric Econ 61: 926-930
3. Cicia G, Scarpa R (2000) Willingness to pay for rural landscape preservation: A case study in Mediterranean agriculture. Nota di lavoro 59, Fondazione Enrico Mattei
4. Clinch J, Murphy A (2001) Modelling winners and losers in contingent valuation of public goods: Appropriate welfare measures and econometric analysis. Econ J 111(470): 420-443
5. Duffield JW, Patterson DA (1991) Inference and optimal design for a welfare measure in dichotomous choice contingent valuation. Land Econ 67: 225-239
6. Haab TC, McConnell KE (1997) Referendum models and negative willingness to pay: Alternative solutions. J Environ Econ Manage 32(2): 251-270
7. Hanemann M, Kanninen B (1999) The statistical analysis of discrete response contingent valuation data. In: Bateman J, Willis I, Kenneth G(eds) Valuing environmental preferences. New York, Oxford
8. Håkansson C (2008) A new valuation question: Analysis of and insights from interval open-ended data in contingent valuation. Environ Resour Econ 39: 175-188
9. Kriström B (1990a) Non-parametric approach to the estimation of welfare measures in discrete response valuation studies. Land Econ 66(2): 135-139
10. Kriström B (1990b) Valuing environmental benefits using the contingent valuation method. Umeå Economic Studies 219, Umeå, Sweden
11. Kriström B (1997) Spike models in contingent valuation. Am J Agric Econ 79: 1013-1023
12. Lehtonen E, Kuuluvainen J, Pouta E, Rekola M, Li C-Z (2003) Non-market benefits of forest conservation in southern Finland. Environ Sci Policy 6(3): 195-204
13. Ready RC, Hu D (1995) Statistical approaches to the fat tail problem for dichotomous contingent valuation. Land Econ 71(4): 491-499
14. Saz-Salazar S, Garcia-Mendez L (2001) Willingness to pay for environmental improvements in a large city: Evidence from the spike model and from a non-parametric approach. Environ Resour Econ 20(2): 103-112