Exploring distributional determinants of large carnivore conservation in Sweden

Journal of Environmental Planning and Management

Volumn 54, Issue 5, 2011, Pages 577-595

  Håkansson, Cecilia ^a   Bostedt, Göran ^b   Ericsson, Göran ^b  

^a ROYAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (Sweden)

^b SWEDISH UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES   (Sweden)

Author keywords

Distributional effects; Equity; Large carnivores; Non market valuation

Indexed keywords

CARNIVORE; CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT; CONSERVATION PLANNING; CONTINGENT VALUATION; EQUITY; NATURE CONSERVATION; WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

SWEDEN;

EID: 79957448431     PISSN: 09640568     EISSN: 13600559     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/09640568.2010.524800     Document Type: Article

References (52)

1. Akter, S., Bennett, J., and Akhter, S., 2008. Preference uncertainty in contingent valuation. Ecological economics, 67 (3), 345-351.
2. Alberini, A., Boyle, K., and Welsh, M., 2003. Analysis of contingent valuation data with multiple bids and response options allowing respondents to express uncertainty. Journal of environmental economics and management, 45, 40-62.
3. Baumol, W.J., 1986. Superfairness: applications and theory. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
4. Bisi, J., et al., 2007. Human dimensions of wolf (Canis lupus) conflicts in Finland. European journal of wildlife resources, 53, 304-314.
5. Bostedt, G., Ericsson, G., and Kindberg, J., 2008. Contingent values as implicit contracts - estimating minimum legal willingness to pay for conservation of large carnivores in Sweden. Environmental and resource economics, 39, 189-198.
6. Boyle, K.J., 2003. Contingent valuation in practice. In: P.A. Champ, K.J. Boyle, and T.C. Brown, eds. A primer on nonmarket valuation. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 111-170.
7. Broberg, T. and Brä nnlund, R., 2008. On the value of large predators in Sweden: a regional stratified contingent valuation analysis. Journal of environmental management, 88 (4), 1066-1077.
8. Cameron, T.A. and Englin, J., 1997. Respondent experience and contingent valuation of environmental goods. Journal of environmental economics and management, 33, 296-313.
9. Cameron, T. and Huppert, D., 1989. OLS versus ML estimation of non-market resource values with payment card interval data. Journal of environmental economics and management, 17, 230-246.
10. Chambers, C. and Whitehead, J., 2003. A contingent valuation estimate of the value of wolves in Minnesota. Environmental and resource economics, 26 (2), 249-267.
11. Champ, P., et al., 1997. Using donation mechanisms to value nonuse benefits from public goods. Journal of environmental economics and management, 33, 151-162.
12. Clinch, J. and Murphy, A., 2001. Modelling winners and losers in contingent valuation of public goods: appropriate welfare measures and econometric analysis. The economic journal, 111 (470), 420-443.
13. Council Directive (CD) 2000/60/EC of 23 October 2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a framework for the community action in the field of water policy.
14. Decker, D.J., Brown, T.L., and Siemer, W.F., eds., 2001. Human dimensions of wildlife management in North America. Bethesda, MD: The Wildlife Society.
15. Dillman, D.A., 2000. Mail and internet surveys: the tailored design method. New York: Wiley and Sons.
16. Dupont, D.P., 2001. Gender and willingness to pay for recreational benefits from water quality improvements. In: R.S. Johnston and A.L. Shriver, eds. The tenth biennial conference of the International Institute for Fisheries Economics and Trade, 10-14 July 2000 Corvallis, Oregon, USA. Corvallis: International Institute for Fisheries Economics and Trade, [CD-ROM].
17. Ericsson, G. and Heberlein, T., 2003. Attitudes of hunters, locals and the general public in Sweden now that the wolves are back. Biological conservation, 111 (2), 149-159.
18. Ericsson, G., Bostedt, G., and Kindberg, J., 2008. Wolves as a symbol for people's willingness to pay for large carnivore conservation. Society and natural resources, 21, 1-16.
19. Farreras, V., Riera, P., and Mogas, J., 2005. Does gender matter in valuation studies? Evidence from three forestry applications. Forestry, 78 (3), 239-248.
20. Håkansson, C., 2008. A new valuation question - analysis of and insights from interval open-ended data in contingent valuation. Environmental and resource economics, 39, 175-188.
21. Hanley, N., et al., 2009. Accounting for negative, zero and positive willingness to pay for landscape change in a national park. Journal of agricultural economics, 60 (1), 1-16.
22. Heyes, A. and Dijkstra, B., 2001. Interest groups and the demand for environmental policy. In: H. Folmer and T. Tietenberg, eds. The international yearbook of environmental and resource economics 2001/2002: a survey of current issues. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 166-179.
23. Hicks, J.R., 1940. The valuation of the social income. Economica (New Series), 7 (26), 105-124.
24. Jorgensen, B.S., Wilson, M., and Heberlein, T.A., 2001. Fairness in the contingent valuation of environmental public goods: attitude toward paying for environmental improvements at two levels of scope. Ecological economics, 36, 133-148.
25. Kaldor, N., 1939. Welfare propositions of economics and interpersonal comparisons of utility. The economic journal, 49 (195), 549-552.
26. Kindberg, J., Ericsson, G., and Swenson, J., 2009. Monitoring rare or elusive large mammals using effort-corrected voluntary observers; the brown bear as a case study. Biological conservation, 142, 159-165.
27. Klasen, S., 2008. The efficiency of equity. Review of political economy, 20 (2), 257-274.
28. Kultenborn, P., Bjerke, T., and Nyahongo, J., 2006. Living with problem animals - selfreported fear of potentially dangerous species in the Serengeti region, Tanzania. Human dimensions of wildlife, 11, 397-409.
29. Li, C-H. and Mattsson, L., 1995. Discrete choice under preference uncertainty: an improved structural model for contingent valuation. Journal of environmental economics and management, 28 (2), 256-269.
30. Little, I.M.D., 1957. A critique of welfare economics. Oxford University Press.
31. Loomis, J. and Ekstrand, E., 1998. Alternative approaches for incorporating respondent uncertainty when estimating willingness to pay: the case of the Mexican spotted owl. Journal of ecological economics, 27, 29-41.
32. Mann, H.B. and Whitney, D.R., 1947. On a test of whether one of two random variables is stochastically larger than the other. Annals of mathematical statistics, 18, 50-60.
33. Martínez-Espiñ eira, R., 2006. A box-cox double-hurdle model of wildlife valuation: the citizen's perspective. Ecological economics, 58, 192-208.
34. McGuire, M.C. and Aaron, H.J., 1969. Efficiency and equity in the optimal supply of a public good. Review of economics and statistics, 51, 31-39.
35. Naughton-Treves, L., Grossberg, R., and Treves, A., 2003. Paying for tolerance: rural citizens' attitudes toward wolf depredation and compensation. Conservation biology, 17, 1500-1511.
36. Ready, R.C., Whitehead, J.C., and Bloomquist, G.C., 1995. Contingent valuation when respondents are ambivalent. Journal of environmental economics and management, 29, 219-232.
37. Røskaft, E., et al., 2007. Human attitudes towards large carnivores in Norway. Wildlife biology, 13, 172-185.
38. Stiglitz, J.E., 2002. Globalization and its discontents. New York: W.W. Norton.
39. Shaikh, S.L., Sun, L., and Kooten, C.V., 2007. Treating respondent uncertainty in contingent valuation: a comparison of empirical treatments. Ecological economics, 62 (1), 115-125.
40. Strahm, D., 1998. The human dimension in large carnivore conservation. Bericht: KORA.
41. Strandbu, A. and Krange, O., 2003. Youth and the environmental movement - symbolic inclusions and exclusions. The sociological review, 51 (2), 177-198.
42. Swallow, S.K., et al., 1994. Heterogeneous preferences and aggregation in environmental policy analysis: a landfill siting case. American journal of agricultural economics, 76, 431-443.
43. Treves, A., 2009. Review: hunting for large carnivore conservation. Journal of applied ecology, 46, 1350-1356.
44. Treves, A. and Naughton-Treves, L., 2005. Evaluating lethal control in the management of humanwildlife conflict. In: R. Woodroffe, S. Thirgood, and A. Rabinowitz, eds. People and wildlife, conflict or coexistence? Cambridge University Press, 86-106.
45. Vázquez, M., Arañ a, J., and Leó n, C., 2006. Economic evaluation of health effects with preference imprecision. Journal of health economics, 15, 403-417.
46. Vossler, C. and McKee, M., 2006. Induced-value tests of contingent valuation elicitation mechanisms. Environmental and resource economics, 35 (2), 137-168.
47. Wang, H., 1997. Treatment of 'don't-know' responses in contingent valuation surveys: a random valuation model. Journal of environmental economics and management, 32, 219-232.
48. Wang, H. and Whittington, D., 2005. Measuring individuals' valuation distributions using a stochastic payment card approach. Ecological economics, 55, 143-154.
49. Welsh, M.P. and Poe, G.L., 1998. Elicitation effects in contingent valuation: comparisons to a multiple bounded discrete choice approach. Journal of environmental economics and management, 36, 170-185.
50. White, P.J. and Garrott, R.A., 2005. Yellowstone's ungulates after wolves - expectations, realizations, and predictions. Biology conservation, 125, 141-152.
51. Wilcoxon, F., 1945. Individual comparisons by ranking methods. Biometrics bulletin, 1, 80-83.
52. Williams, C.K., Ericsson, G., and Heberlein, T.A., 2002. A quantitative summary of attitudes toward wolves and their reintroduction (1972-2000). Wildlife Society bulletin, 30 (2), 575-584.