Income treatment effects in contingent valuation: The case of the swedish Predator Policy

Environmental and Resource Economics

Volumn 46, Issue 1, 2010, Pages 1-17

  Broberg, Thomas ^a  

^a Natl Institute of Economic Research   (Sweden)

Author keywords

Contingent valuation; Household composition; Income effect; Income measure; Income elasticity of WTP; Multiple bounded

Indexed keywords

ECONOMICS; ELASTICITY; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS;

CONTINGENT VALUATIONS; INCOME EFFECTS; INCOME ELASTICITIES; INCOME MEASURE; MULTIPLE BOUNDED;

ECONOMIC ANALYSIS;

CONTINGENT VALUATION; EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS; ENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMICS; HOUSEHOLD INCOME; HYPOTHESIS TESTING; INCOME DISTRIBUTION; POLICY IMPLEMENTATION; PREDATOR; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS; WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

SWEDEN;

EID: 77950692299     PISSN: 09246460     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10640-009-9330-4     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. Alberini A, Boyle K, Welsh M (2003) Analysis of contingent valuation data with multiple bids and response options allowing respondents to express uncertainty. J Environ Econ Manag 45: 40-62.
2. Arrow K, Solow R, Portney PR, Leamer EE, Radner R, Schuman H (1993) Report of the NOAA panel on contingent valuation. Fed Reg 58: 4601-4614.
3. Boman M, Bostedt G (1999) Valuing the wolf in Sweden: are benefits contingent on the supply?. In: Boman M, Kriström B, Brännlund R (eds) Topics in environmental economics. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp 157-174.
4. Broberg T, Brännlund R (2007a) On the value of preserving the four large predators in Sweden: a regional stratified contingent valuation analysis. J Environ Manag 88: 1066-1077.
5. Broberg T., Brännlund R (2007b) A new approach for analysing multiple bounded data-certainty dependent payment card intervals. Resour Energ Econ 30: 555-567.
6. Cameron TA (1988) A new paradigm for valuing non-market goods using referendum data: maximum likelihood estimation by censored logistic regression. J Environ Econ Manag 15: 355-379.
7. Cameron TA, Huppert DD (1989) OLS versus ML estimation of non-market resource values with payment card interval data. J Environ Econ Manag 17: 230-246.
8. Cameron T, James MD (1986) Utilizing "closed-ended" contingent valuation survey data for preliminary demand assessments. Working paper at the Department of Economics at University of California, Los Angeles, p 415.
9. Carson RT, Mitchell RC, Hanemann WM, Kopp RJ, Presser S, Ruud PA (2003) Contingent valuation and lost passive use: damages from the Exxon Valdez oil spill. Environ Resour Econ 25: 257-286.
10. Diamond PA, Hausman JA (1994) Contingent valuation: is some number better than no number?. J Econ Perspect 8: 45-64.
11. Ebert U (2003) Environmental goods and the distribution of income. Environ Resour Econ 25: 435-459.
12. Ericsson G, Heberlein T (2003) Attitudes of hunters, locals and the general public in Sweden now that the wolves are back. Biol Conserv 111: 149-159.
13. Evans MF, Flores NE, Boyle KJ (2003) 'Multiple bounded uncertainty choice data as probabilistic intentions. Land Econ 79: 549-560.
14. Flores N, Carson R (1997) The relationship between the income elasticities of demand and willingness to pay. J Environ Econ Manag 33: 287-295.
15. Freeman AM (2003) The measurement of environmental and resource values. Resources for the future, Washington, U. S.
16. Groothuis P, Whitehead JC (2002) Does don't know mean no? Analysis of 'don't know' responses in dichotomous choice contingent valuation questions'. Appl Econ 34: 1935-1940.
17. Haab TC, McConnell KE (2002) Valuing environmental and natural resources. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, UK.
18. Hanemann WM (1984) Welfare evaluations in contingent valuation experiments with discrete responses. Am J Agric Econ 66: 332-341.
19. Hanemann WM, Kanninen B (1999) The statistical analysis of discrete-response CV data'. In: Bateman IJ, Willis KG (eds) Valuing environmental preferences. Theory and practice of the contingent valuation method in US EU, and developing countries. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 302- 441.
20. Heckman JJ (1979) Sample selection bias as a specification error. Econometrica 47: 153-161.
21. Horowitz JK, McConnell KE (2003) Willingness to accept, willingness to pay and the income effect. J Econ Behav Org 51: 537-545.
22. Hökby S, Söderqvist T (2003) Elasticities of demand and willingness to pay for environmental services in Sweden. Environ Resour Econ 26: 361-383.
23. Jacobsen JB, Hanley N (2009) Are there income effects on global willingness to pay for biodiversity conservation?. Environ Resour Econ 43: 137-160.
24. Kanninen B, Kriström B (1992) Welfare benefit estimation and income distribution. In: Beijer discussion paper series 20. Beijer International Institute of Ecological Economics, The Royal Swedish Academy of Science, Stockholm.
25. Kriström B (1997) Spike models in contingent valuation. Am J Agric Econ 79: 1013-1023.
26. Kriström B, Riera P (1996) Is the income elasticity of environmental improvements less than one?. Environ Resour Econ 7: 45-55.
27. McFadden D, Leonard GK (1993) Issues in contingent valuation of environmental goods: methodologies for data collection and analysis. In: Hausman J. (eds) Contingent valuation a critical assessment. North-Holland Press, Amsterdam.
28. McMillan D, Duff EI, Elston DA (2001) Modelling nonmarket environmental costs and benefits of biodiversity projects using contingent valuation data. Environ Resour Econ 18: 391-410.
29. Munro A (2005) Household willingness to pay equals individual willingness to pay if and only if the household income pools. Econ Lett 88: 227-230.
30. Ready RC, Malzubris J, Senkane S (2002) The relationship between environmental values and income in a transition economy: surface water quality in Latvia. Environ Dev Econ 7: 147-156.
31. Schläpfer F (2006) Survey protocol and income effects in contingent valuation of public goods: a meta-analysis. Ecol Econ 57: 415-429.
32. Strand J (2007) Public-good valuation and intra-family allocation. Environ Resour Econ 18: 527-543.
33. Vuong QH (1989) Likelihood ratio test for model selection and non-nested hypothesis. Econometrica 57: 307-333.
34. Wabakken P, Aronsson Å, Sand H, Stromseth TH, Kojola I (2004) Ulv I Skandinavia Statusrapport for vinteren 2003-2004. Hedmark University Collage, Report 5.
35. Welsh M, Poe GL (1998) Elicitation effects in contingent valuation: comparisons to a multiple bounded discrete choice approach. J Environ Econ Manag 36: 170-185.
36. Wipon A, Rudolfo M, Nayga JR, Woodward R (2004) The treatment of income variable in willingness to pay studies. Appl Econ Lett 11: 581-585.