Forest Service use of nonmarket valuation in fire economics: Past, present, and future

Journal of Forestry

Volumn 108, Issue 8, 2010, Pages 389-396

  Loomis, John ^a   González Cabán, Armando ^b  

^a Veterinary Dentistry and Oral Surgery   (United States)

^b USDA FOREST SERVICE   (United States)

Author keywords

Contingent valuation method; Endangered species; Mechanical fuel reduction; Old growth forests; Prescribed burning; Willingness to pay

Indexed keywords

CONTINGENT VALUATION METHODS; ENDANGERED SPECIES; MECHANICAL FUEL REDUCTION; OLD-GROWTH FOREST; PRESCRIBED BURNING; WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

CONSERVATION; ECONOMICS; ECOSYSTEMS; FIRE HAZARDS; FIREPROOFING; FORESTRY; FUELS; SURVEYS;

FIRES;

CONTINGENT VALUATION; ENDANGERED SPECIES; FIRE MANAGEMENT; FOREST MANAGEMENT; OLD-GROWTH FOREST; PRESCRIBED BURNING; WILDFIRE; WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

ECONOMIC ANALYSIS; ECOSYSTEMS; FIRE PREVENTION; FIRE PROOFING; FOREST FIRES; FORESTRY; FUELS; GROWTH; SPECIES IDENTIFICATION; SURVEYS;

STRIGIFORMES;

EID: 78650812874     PISSN: 00221201     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Arrow, K., R. Solow, P. Portney, E. Leamer, R. Radner, and H. Schuman. 1993. Report of the NOAA Panel on Contingent Valuation. US Department of Commerce. Fed. Regist. 58(10):4602- 4614.
2. Bateman, I., B. Day, A. Jones, and S. Jude. 2009. Using "Reducing gain-loss asymmetry: A virtual reality choice experiment valuing land use change." J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 58: 106-118.
3. Bowes, M.D., and J.V. Krutilla. 1989. Multiple use management: The economics of public forest lands. Resources for the Future, Washington, DC. 357 p.
4. Brookshire, D., L. Eubanks, and A. Randall. 1983. Estimating option prices and existence values of wildlife resources. Land Econ. 59(1): 1-15.
5. Cameron, T.A. 1988. A new paradigm for valuing non-market goods using referendum data-Maximum-likelihood estimation by censored logistic-regression. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 15(3):355-379.
6. Champ, P., R. Bishop, T. Brown, and D. McCollum. 1997. Using donation mechanism to value nonuse benefits from public goods. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 33(2):151-162.
7. Cummings, R., and L. Taylor. 1999. Unbiased value estimates for environmental goods: A cheap talk design for the contingent valuation method. Am. Econ. Rev. 89(3):649-665.
8. Diamond, P., and D. Hausman. 1994. Contingent valuation: Is some number better than no number. J. Econ. Perspect. 8(4):45- 64.
9. Donnelly, D., and L. Nelson. 1986. Net economic value of deer hunting in Idaho. US For. Serv. Resour. Bull. RM-RB-13. 27 p.
10. Finney, M.A. 2004. FARSITE: Fire area simulator- model development and evaluation. US For. Serv. Res. Pap. RMRS-RP-4. 23 p.
11. Fiore, S., G. Harrison, C. Hughes, and E. Rutstrom. 2007. Virtual experiments and environmental policy. Available online at www.rff.org; last accessed Apr. 2010.
12. González-Cabán, A. 1993. Improving the U.S. Forest Service's fire management planning system capabilities to use non-market values. Wildfire 4(2):16 -21.
13. González-Cabán, A., J.B. Loomis, A. Rodriguez, and H. Hesseln. 2007. A comparison of CVM survey response rates, protests and willingness-to-pay for Native Americans and general population for fuels reduction policies. J. For. Econ. 13:49 -71.
14. Holmes, T., and V. Adamowicz. 2003. Attribute based methods. P. 121-220 in A primer on nonmarket valuation, Champ, P., K. Boyle, and T. Brown (eds.). Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston.
15. Holmes, T., J.B. Loomis, and A. GonzálezCabán. 2008. Homeowner preferences for wildfire risk reduction programs. In Proc. of the 3rd Int. Symp. on Fire economics, policy and planning, González-Cabán, A. (tech. coord.). US For. Serv., PSW Res. Stn., Albany, CA. (CD only.)
16. Kaval, P., J. Loomis, and A. Seidl. 2007. Willingness- to-pay for prescribed fire in Colorado (USA) wildland urban interface. For. Policy Econ. 9: 928-937.
17. Krutilla, J. 1967. Conservation reconsidered. Am. Econ. Rev. 57:777-786.
18. Knetsch, J., and R. Davis. 1966. Comparison of methods for recreation evaluation. P. 125- 142 in Water research, Kneese, A., and S. Smith (eds.). Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD.
19. Leon-Gonzalez, R., and R. Scarpa. 2008. Improving multi-site benefit functions via bayesian model averaging: A new approach to benefit transfer. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 56(1): 50-68.
20. Loomis, J. 1989. Test re-test reliability of the contingent valuation method: A comparison of general population and visitor responses. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 71(1):76-84.
21. Loomis, J., and A. González-Cabán. 1994. Estimating the value of reducing fire hazard to old-growth forests in the Pacific Northwest: A contingent valuation approach. Int. J. Wildl. Fire 4(4):209 -216.
22. Loomis, J., and A. González-Cabán. 1997. Comparing the economic value of reducing fire risk to spotted owl habitat in California and Oregon. For. Sci. 43(4):473- 482.
23. Loomis, J., and A. González-Cabán. 1998. A willingness-to-pay function for protecting acres of spotted owl habitat from fire. Ecol. Econ. 25:315-322.
24. Loomis, J., J.Miller, A. González-Cabán, and J. Champ. 2006. 2006. Testing the convergent validity of videotape survey administration and phone interviews in contingent valuation. Soc. Nat. Resour. 19:367-375.
25. Loomis, J., L.T. Hung, and A. GonzálezCabán. 2008. Willingness to pay function for two fuel treatments to reduce wildfire acreage burned: A scope test and comparison of white and Hispanic households. In Proc. of 3rd Int. Symp. on Fire economics, policy and planning, González-Cabán, A. (tech. coord.). US For. Serv, PSW Stn., Albany, CA. (CD only.)
26. Park, T., J. Loomis, and M. Creel. 1991. Confidence intervals for evaluating benefit estimates from dichotomous choice contingent valuation studies. Land Econ. 67:64 - 73.
27. Sorg, C.F., and J.B. Loomis. 1984. Empirical estimates of amenity forest values: A comparative review. US For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMGTR- 107. 23 p.
28. Talberth, J., R.P. Berrens,M.McKee, and M. Jones. 2006. Averting and insurance decisions in the wildland-urban interface: Implications of survey and experimental data for wildfire risk reduction policy. Contemp. Econ. Policy 24(2):203-224.
29. Thomas, J.W., E.D. Forsman, J.B. Lint, et al. 1990. A conservation strategy for the northern spotted owl: A report of the Interagency Scientific Committee to address the conservation of the northern spotted owl. US For. Serv., US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park Service, Portland, OR. 427 p.
30. US Forest Service and USDepartment of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 1994. Record of decision for amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management planning documents within the range of the northern spotted owl. Standards and guidelines for management of habitat for late-successional and old-growth forest related species within the range of the northern spotted owl. Washington, DC. [Sections numbered separately.] 73 p.
31. Verner, J., K.S. McKelvey, B.R. Noon, R.J. Gutiérrez, G.I., Jr. Gould, and T.W. Beck. 1992. The California spotted owl: A technical assessment of its current status. US For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-133. 285 p.
32. Walker, S., D. Rideout, J. Loomis, and R. Reich. 2007. Comparing the value of fuel treatment options in northern Colorado's urban and wildland- urban interface areas. For. Policy Econ. 9:694 -703.
33. Walsh, R., J. Loomis, and R.Gillman. 1984. Valuing option, existence and bequest demands for wilderness. Land Econ. 60(1):14-29.
34. Winter, G., and J.S. Fried. 2002. Homeowner perspectives on fire hazard, responsibility and management strategies at the wildland urban interface. Soc. Nat. Resour. 13:33- 49.