Valuing enhancements to endangered species protection under alternative baseline futures: The case of the steller sea lion

Marine Resource Economics

Volumn 25, Issue 2, 2010, Pages 133-154

  Lew, Daniel K ^a,b   Layton, Davis David F ^b   Rowe, Robert D ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON   (United States)

^c ABT ASSOCIATES   (United States)

Author keywords

Choice experiments; Non market valuation; Stated preference; Steiler sea lion; Threatened and endangered species

Indexed keywords

EID: 77955457524     PISSN: 07381360     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.5950/0738-1360-25.2.133     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. Adamowicz, W., P. Boxall, M. Williams, and J. Louviere. 1998. Stated Preference Approaches for Measuring Passive Use Values: Choice Experiments and Contingent Valuation. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 80:64-75.
2. Adamowicz, W., J. Louviere, and M. Williams. 1994. Combining Revealed and Stated Preference Methods for Valuing Environmental Amenities. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 26:271-92.
3. Alpizar, F., F. Carlsson, and P. Martinsson. 2003. Using Choice Experiments for Non-Market Valuation. Economic Issues 8(1):83-110.
4. Beggs, S., S. Cardell, and J. Hausman. 1981. Assessing the Potential Demand for Electric Cars. Journal of Econometrics 16:1-19.
5. Bhat, C.R. 2001. Quasi-Random Maximum Simulated Likelihood Estimation of the Mixed Multinomial Logit Model. Transportation Research Part B 35(7):677-93.
6. -. 2003. Simulation Estimation of Mixed Discrete Choice Models Using Randomized and Scrambled Halton Sequences. Transportation Research Part B 37(9):837-55.
7. Boyle, K.J., and R.C. Bishop. 1987. Valuing Wildlife in Benefit-cost Analyses: A Case Study Involving Endangered Species. Water Resources Research 23(5):943-50.
8. Bunch, D.S., J.J. Louviere, and D. Anderson. 1996. A Comparison of Experimental Design Strategies for Multinomial Logit Models: The Case of Generic Attributes. University of California, Davis, Graduate School of Management Working Paper #11-96.
9. Cameron, T.A. 2005. Individual Option Prices for Climate Change Mitigation. Journal of Public Economics 89:283-301.
10. Carson, R.T. 1997. Contingent Valuation Surveys and Tests of Insensitivity to Scope. Determining the Value of Non-Marketed Goods: Economic, Psychological, and Policy Relevant Aspects of Contingent Valuation Methods, R.J. Kopp, W. Pommerhene, and N. Schwartz, eds. Boston, MA: Kluwer.
11. Carson, R.T., and R.C. Mitchell. 1995. Sequencing and Nesting in Contingent Valuation Surveys. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 28:155-73.
12. Chapman, R.G., and R. Staelin. 1982. Exploiting Rank Ordered Choice Set Data within the Stochastic Utility Model. Journal of Marketing Research 19(3):288-301.
13. Desvousges, W.H., V.K. Smith, and A. Fisher. 1987. Option Price Estimates for Water Quality Improvements: A Contingent Valuation Study for the Monongahela River. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 14:248-67.
14. nd ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
15. Edwards, S.F. 1988. Option Prices for Groundwater Protection. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management. 15:475-87.
16. Ferrini, S., and R. Scarpa. 2007. Designs with A Priori Information for Nonmarket Valuation with Choice Experiments: A Monte Carlo Study. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management. 53:342-63.
17. Gerber, L.R., and G.R. VanBlaricom. 2001. Implications of Three Viability Models for the Conservation Status of the Western Population of Steiler Sea Lions (Eumetopias jubatus). Biological Conservation 102:261-69.
18. Giraud, K., B. Turcin, J. Loomis, and J. Cooper. 2002. Economic Benefits of the Protection Program for the Steller Sea Lion. Marine Policy 26(6):451-58.
19. Hanley, N., R.E. Wright, and W. Adamowicz. 1998. Using Choice Experiments to Value the Environment: Design Issues, Current Experience, and Future Prospects. Environmental and Resource Economics 11(3-4):413-28.
20. Huber, J., and K. Zwerina. 1996. The Importance of Utility Balance in Efficient Choice Designs. Journal of Marketing Research 33:307-17.
21. Jakobsson, K.M., and A.K. Dragun. 2001. The Worth of a Possum: Valuing Species with the Contingent Valuation Method. Environmental and Resource Economics 19:211-27.
22. Krinsky, I., and A.L. Robb. 1986. On Approximating the Statistical Properties of Elasticities. Review of Economics and Statistics 68:715-19.
23. Layton, D.F. 2000. Random Coefficient Models for Stated Preference Surveys. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 40:21-36.
24. Layton, D.F., and R.A. Levine. 2005. Bayesian Approaches to Modeling Stated Preference Data. Applications of Simulation Methods in Environmental and Resource Economics, R. Scarpa and A. Alberini, eds. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
25. Lew, D.K., and K. Wallmo. 2010. External Tests of Scope and Embedding in Stated Preference Choice Experiments: An Application to Endangered Species Valuation. Working paper, National Marine Fisheries Service.
26. Loomis, J.B., and D.S. White. 1996. Economic Benefits of Rare and Endangered Species: Summary and Meta-analysis. Ecological Economics 18:197-206.
27. Lusk, J.L., and F.B. Norwood. 2005. Effect of Experimental Design on Choice-Based Conjoint Valuation Estimates. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 87(3):771-85.
28. Morey, E.R., R.D. Rowe, and M. Watson. 1993. A Repeated Nested Logit Model of Atlantic Salmon Fishing. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 75(3):578-92.
29. National Marine Fisheries Service. 2008. Recovery Plan for the Steiler Sea Lion (Eumetopias jubatus), Revision. National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, MD.
30. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 1997. Threatened Fish and Wildlife: Change in Listing Status of Steller Sea Lions under the Endangered Species Act. Federal Register 62(86):24345-55.
31. Olar, M., W. Adamowicz, P. Boxall, and G.E. West. 2007. Estimation of the Economic Benefits of Marine Mammal Recovery in the St. Lawrence Estuary. Report to the Policy and Economics Branch, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Regional Branch, Quebec. Poe, G.L., K.L. Giraud, and J.B. Loomis. 2005. Computational Methods for Measuring the Difference of Empirical Distributions. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 87(2):353-65.
32. Poe, G.L., E.K. Severance-Lossin, and M.P. Welsh. 1994. Measuring the Difference (X-Y) of Simulated Distributions: A Convolutions Approach. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 76(4):904-15.
33. Richardson, L. and J. Loomis. 2009. The Total Economic Value of Threatened, Endangered and Rare Species: An Updated Meta-Analysis. Ecological Economics 68:1535-48.
34. Roberts, D.C., T.A. Boyer, and J.L. Lusk. 2008. Preferences for Environmental Quality under Preference Uncertainty. Ecological Economics 66(4):584-93.
35. Rollins, K., and A. Lyke. 1998. The Case for Diminishing Marginal Existence Values. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 36:324-44.
36. Rudd, M. 2009. National Values for Regional Aquatic Species at Risk in Canada. Endangered Species Research 6:239-49.
37. Sandor, Z., and M. Wedel. 2001. Designing Conjoint Choice Experiments Using Managers' Prior Beliefs. Journal of Marketing Research 38:430-44.
38. Train, K.E. 2000. Halton Sequences for Mixed Logit. Working paper #E00-278, Department of Economics, University of California, Berkeley.
39. -. 2003. Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
40. Tuffin, B. 1996. On the Use of Low-frequency Sequences in Monte Carlo Methods. Monte Carlo Methods and Applications 2:295-320.
41. Whitehead, J.C. 1992. Ex Ante Willingness to Pay with Supply and Demand Uncertainty: Implications for Valuing a Sea Turtle Protection Programme. Applied Economics 24:981-88.
42. Winship, A. J., and A. W. Trites. 2006. Risk of Extirpation of Steiler Sea Lions in the Gulf of Alaska and Aleutian Islands: A Population Viability Analysis Based on Alternative Hypotheses for Why Sea Lions Declined in Western Alaska. Marine Mammal Science 22(1): 124-55.