Valuation of environmental quality and eco-cultural attributes in Northwestern Idaho: Native Americans are more concerned than Caucasians

Environmental Research

Volumn 111, Issue 1, 2011, Pages 136-142

  Burger, Joanna ^a,b  

^a RUTGERS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b RUTGERS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Caucasians; Consumptive; Cultural and religious; Eco cultural attributes; Evaluation; Idaho; Native Americans; Non consumptive; Sacred

Indexed keywords

RADIOISOTOPE; WATER;

CULTURAL TRADITION; ECOSYSTEM SERVICE; ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY; INDIGENOUS POPULATION; PERCEPTION; QUESTIONNAIRE SURVEY; RELIGION; RESOURCE USE; VALUATION;

ARTICLE; BUTTERFLY; CAUCASIAN; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CRAB; CULTURAL FACTOR; ECOSYSTEM; ENVIRONMENT; FISH; FLOWER; HABITAT; HEALTH HAZARD; HUMAN; NOISE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITY CONTROL; RADIOACTIVE WASTE STORAGE; RELIGION; UNITED STATES;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; CONSERVATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES; CULTURE; ECOSYSTEM; EUROPEAN CONTINENTAL ANCESTRY GROUP; FEMALE; HUMANS; IDAHO; INDIANS, NORTH AMERICAN; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; QUESTIONNAIRES; YOUNG ADULT;

IDAHO; UNITED STATES;

DECAPODA (CRUSTACEA); PAPILIONOIDEA;

EID: 78751590965     PISSN: 00139351     EISSN: 10960953     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.envres.2010.09.013     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Arrow, K., Solow, R., Portney, P., Leaner, E., Radner, R., Schuman, H. 1993. Report of the NOAA Panel on contingent valuation. Federal Register 58, 4602-4614.
2. Bridgen P. Protecting Native Americans through the risk assessment process: a commentary on "An examination of U.S. EPA risk assessment principles and practices". Integr. Environ. Assess. Manage. 2005, 1:83-85.
3. Burger, J., Gochfeld, M. Gender differences in resource use and evaluation of attributes of places of resource use by Native Americans and Caucasians from Western Idaho: relevance to risk evaluations. J. Toxicol. Environ. Health., in press.
4. Burger J., Gochfeld M., Pletnikoff K., Snigaroff.R., Snigaroff D., Stamm T. Ecocultural attributes: evaluating ecological degradation: ecological goods and services vs subsistence and tribal values. Risk Anal. 2008, 28:1261-1271.
5. Costanza R., d"arge R., deGroot R., Farber S., Grasso M., Hannon B., Limburg K., Naeem S., O'Neill R.V., Paruelo J., Raskin R.G., Sutton P., van den Belt M. The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 1997, 387:253-260.
6. Donatuto J., Harper B.L. Issues in evaluating fish consumption rates for Native American tribes. Risk Anal. 2008, 28:1497-1506.
7. deGroot R.S., Wilson M.A., Boumans R.M.J. A typology for the classification, description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods, and services. Ecol. Econ. 2002, 41:393-408.
8. Folke C. The economic perspective: conservation against development versus conservation for development. Cons. Biol. 2006, 20:686-688.
9. Gadgill M. Indigenous knowledge for biodiversity conservation. Ambio 1993, 22:151-156.
10. Greenberg M., Crossney K. The changing face of public concern about pollution in the United States: a case study of New Jersey. Environmentalist 2006, 26:255-268.
11. Greenberg M., Lewis D., Frisch M. Regional economic impacts of environmental management of radiological hazards an initial analysis of a complex problem. J. Environ. Manage. 2001, 44:377-390.
12. Harper, B.L., Harding, A.K., Waterhous, T., Harris, S.G. 2008. Traditional tribal subsistence exposure scenario and risk assessment guidance manual. US EPA, Star-J1-R831046.
13. Harper B.L., Harris S.G. A possible approach for setting a mercury risk-based action level based on tribal fish ingestion rates. Environ. Res. 2008, 107:60-68.
14. Harris S.G. Risk analysis changes needed from a Native American perspective. Hum. Ecol. Risk Assess 2000, 6:529-536.
15. Harris S.G., Harper B.L. A Native American exposure scenario. Risk Anal. 1997, 17:789-795.
16. Harris S.G., Harper B.L. Using eco-cultural dependency webs in risk assessment and characterization of risks to tribal health and cultures. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2000, 2:91-100.
17. Johansson-Stenman O. The importance of ethics in environmental economics with a focus on existence values. Environ. Res. Econ. 1998, 11:429-442.
18. Kotchen M.J., Reiling S.D. Environmental attitudes, motivation, and contingent valuation of nonuse values: a case study involving endangered species. Ecol. Econ. 2000, 32:93-107.
19. Larson D.M. On measuring existence value. Land Econ. 1993, 69:177-188.
20. Long J., Tecle A., Burnette B. Cultural foundations for ecological restoration on the White Mountain Apache Reservation. Cons. Biol. 2003.
21. Posey D.A. Commodification of the sacred through intellectual property rights. J. Ethnopharmacol. 2002, 83:3-12.
22. Puukka E., Stehr-Green S., Becker T.M. Measuring the health status gap for American Indians/Alaska Natives: getting closer to the truth. Am. J. Publ. Health 2005, 95:838-843.
23. Spash C.L., Hanley N. Preferences information and biodiversity preservation. Ecol. Econ. 1995, 12:191-208.
24. Stumpff L.M. Reweaving earth: an indigenous perspective on restoration planning and the National Environmental Policy Act. Environ. Pract. 2006, 8:93-103.
25. Tisdell C., Wilson C. Information, wildlife valuation, conservation: experiments and policy. Contemp. Econ. Policy 2006, 24:144-159.
26. Wax M.L. The ethics of research in American Indian communities. Am. Indian Q. 1991, 15.
27. Wax M.L. Community relations service and American Indians. Anthropol. News 2009, 7:4.
28. Whitehead J.C. Total economic values for coast and marine wildlife: specification, validity, and valuation issues. Mar. Res. Econ. 1993, 8:119-132.
29. Zender, L.S., Gilbreath, S., Sebalo, S., Leeman, W. Erbeck, A. 2004. How much does tradition matter: comparison of tribal versus non-tribal values in the context of waste site pollution. (accessed 5 September 2007). http://www.zender-engr.net.