Identifying the scope effect on a meta-analysis of biodiversity valuation studies

Resource and Energy Economics

Volumn 33, Issue 3, 2011, Pages 706-724

  Ojea, Elena ^a   Loureiro, Maria L ^b  

^a BASQUE CENTRE FOR CLIMATE CHANGE BC3   (Spain)

^b UNIVERSITY OF SANTIAGO DE COMPOSTELA   (Spain)

Author keywords

Biodiversity; Contingent valuation; Ecosystems; Meta analysis; Scope test

Indexed keywords

CONTINGENT VALUATION; CONTINGENT VALUATIONS; ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGE; META-ANALYSIS; SCOPE TEST;

BIODIVERSITY;

BIODIVERSITY; CONTINGENT VALUATION; ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGE; META-ANALYSIS;

EID: 79957602690     PISSN: 09287655     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.reseneeco.2011.03.002     Document Type: Article

References (153)

1. Amigues J.P., Boulatoff C., Desaigues B., Gauthier C., Keith J.E. The benefits and costs of riparian analysis habitat preservation: a willingness to accept/willingness to pay contingent valuation approach. Ecological Economics 2002, 43:17-31.
2. Amiran E.Y., Hagen D.A. The scope trials: variation in sensitivity to scope and WTP with directionally bounded utility functions. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 2010, 59:293-301.
3. Arrow K., Solow R., Portney P.R., Leamer E., Radner R., Schuman H.E. Report of the NOAA panel on contingent valuation. Federal Register 1993, 58:4601-4614.
4. Banerjee S., Murphy J.H. The scope test revisited. Applied Economic Letters 2005, 12:613-617.
5. Bandara R., Tisdell C. The net benefit of saving the Asian elephant: a policy and contingent valuation study. Ecological Economics 2004, 48:93-107.
6. Banzhaf H.S., Burtraw D., Evans D., Krupnick A. Valuation of natural resource improvements in the Adirondacks. Land Economics 2006, 82(3):445-464.
7. Barrio M., Loureiro M.L. A meta-analysis of contingent valuation forest studies. Ecological Economics 2010, 69(5):1023-1030.
8. Bateman I.J., Jones A.P. Contrasting conventional with multi-level modelling approaches to meta-analysis: expectation consistency in U.K. woodland recreation values. Land Economics 2003, 79(2):235-258.
9. Bateman I.J., Langford I.H. Non-users' willingness to pay for a National Park: an application and critique of the contingent valuation method. Regional Studies 1997, 31(6):571-582.
10. Bateman I.J., Willis K., Garrod G. Consistency between contingent valuation estimates: a comparison of two studies of UK National Parks. Regional Studies 1994, 28(5):457-474.
11. Bateman I.J., Cole M., Cooper P., Georgiou S., Hadley D., Poe G. On visible choice sets and scope sensitivity. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 2004, 47:71-93.
12. Bateman I.J., Cooper P., Georgiou S., Navrud S., Poe G.L., Ready R.C., Riera P., Ryan M., Vossler C.A. Economic valuation of policies for managing acidity in remote mountain lakes: examining validity through scope sensitivity testing. Aquatic Sciences 2005, 67:274-291.
13. Bateman I.J., Brouwer R. Consistency and construction in stated WTP for health risk reductions: a novel scope-sensitivity test. Resource and Energy Economics 2006, 28:199-214.
14. Bennett J., Morrison M., Blamey R. Testing the validity of responses to the contingent valuation questioning. Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 1998, 42(2):131-148.
15. Berrens R.P., Bohara A.K., Silva C.L., Brookshire D., McKee M. Contingent values for New Mexico instream flows: with tests of scope, group-size reminder and temporal reliability. Journal of Environmental Management 2000, 58:73-90.
16. Bowker J.M., Stoll J.R. Use of dichotomous choice nonmarket methods to value the whooping crane resource. Land Economics 1988, 70(2):372-381.
17. Boyle K.J., Bishop R. Valuing wildlife in benefit-cost analysis: a case study involving endangered species. Water Resources Research 1987, 23:943-950.
18. Boyle K.J., Desvousges W.H., Johnson F.R., Dunford R.W., Hudson S.P. An investigation of part-whole biases in contingent-valuation studies. Journal of Environmental Economics and. Management 1994, 27:64-83.
19. Boyle K.J., Poe G.L., Bergstrom J.C. What do we know about groundwater values? Preliminary implications from a meta-analysis of contingent-valuation studies. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 1994, 76:1055-1061.
20. Brander L.M., van Beukering P., Cesar H.S.J. The recreational value of coral reefs: a meta-analysis. Ecological Economics 2007, 63:209-218.
21. Bright, P.W., Halliwell, E.C., 1999. Species recovery programme for the pine marten in England. English Nature Research Reports 306, English Nature, Peterborough.
22. Broberg T., Brännlund R. On the value of large predators in Sweden: a regional stratified contingent valuation analysis. Journal of Environmental Management 2008, 88(4):1066-1077.
23. Brookshire D.S., Eukband L.S., Randall A. Estimating option prices and existence values for wildlife resources. Land Economics 1983, 59(1):1-15.
24. Brouwer R., Slangen L.H.G. Contingent valuation of the public benefits of agricultural wildlife management: the case of Dutch peat meadow land. European Review of Agricultural Economics 1998, 25:53-72.
25. Brouwer R., Langford I.H., Bateman I.J., Turner R.K. A meta-analysis of wetland contingent valuation studies. Regional Environmental Change 1999, 1:47-57.
26. Bulte E.H., Van Kooten G.C. Marginal valuation of charismatic species: implications for conservation. Environmental and Resource Economics 1999, 14:119-130.
27. Bulte E.H., Gerking S., List J.A., de Zeeuw A. The effect of varying the causes of environmental problems on stated WTP values: evidence from a field study. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 2005, 49(2):330-342.
28. Carson R.T., Mitchell R.C. The issue of scope in contingent valuation studies. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 1993, 75:1263-1267.
29. Carson R.T., Flores N.E., Martin K.M., Wright J.L. Contingent valuation and revealed preference methodologies: comparing the estimates for quasi-public goods. Land Economics 1996, 72(1):80-99.
30. Carson R.T. 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 1997, Kluwer, Boston. R.J. Kopp, W. Pommerhene, N. Schwartz (Eds.).
31. Carson R.T., Flores N.E., Meade N.F. Contingent valuation: controversies and evidence. Environmental and Resource Economics 2001, 19:173-210.
32. Chambers C.M., Whitehead J.C. A Contingent Valuation estimate of the benefits of wolves in Minnesota. Environmental and Resource Economics 2003, 26:249-267.
33. Chilton S.M., Hutchinson W.G. A qualitative examination of how respondents in a contingent valuation study rationalize their WTP responses to an increase in the quantity of the environmental good. Journal of Economic Psychology 2003, 24:65-75.
34. Christie M., Hanley N., Warren J., Murphy K., Wright R., Hyde T. Valuing the diversity of biodiversity. Ecological Economics 2006, 58:304-317.
35. Colombo S., Calatrava-Requena J., Hanley N. Analyzing the social benefits of soil conservation measures using stated preference methods. Ecological Economics 2006, 58:850-861.
36. Cordell H.K., Bergstrom J.C. Comparison of recreation use values among alternative reservoir water level management scenarios. Water Resources Research 1993, 29(2):247-258.
37. Cummings R.G., Ganderton P.T., McGuckin T. Substitution effects in CVM values. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 1994, 76:205-214.
38. Dalton R.S., Bastian C.T., Jacobs J.J., Wesche T.A. Estimating the economic value of improved trout fishing on Wyoming streams. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 1998, 18:786-879.
39. Desvousges W.H., Johnson F.R., Dunford R.W., Boyle K.J., Hudson S.P., Wilson K.N. Measuring natural resource damages with contingent valuation: tests of validity and reliability. Contingent Valuation: A Critical Assessment 1993, North-Holland, Amsterdam. J.A. Hausman (Ed.).
40. Diamond P.A., Hausman J.A. Contingent valuation: is some number better than no number?. Journal of Economic Perspectives 1994, 8:45-64.
41. Duffield J.W. Existence and non-consumptive values for wildlife: application of wolf recovery in Yellowstone National Park. Measuring Non-Market and Non-Use Values 1991, W-133/Western Regional Science Association Joint Session, Monterey, CA.
42. Duffield J.W. An economic analysis of wolf recovery in Yellowstone: park visitor attitudes and values. Wolves for Yellowstone 1992, National Park Service, Yellowstone National Park. J. Varley, W. Brewster (Eds.).
43. Duffield J.W., Patterson D.A. Inference and optimal design for a welfare measure in dichotomous choice contingent valuation. Land Economics 1992, 67(2):225-239.
44. Duffield J.W., Neher C.J., Brown T.C. Recreation benefits of instream flow: application to Montana's Big Hole and Bitterroot rivers. Water Resources Research 1992, 28(9):2169-2181.
45. Dupont D.P. CVM embedding effects when there are active, potentially active and passive users of environmental goods. Environmental and Resources Economics 2003, 25:319-341.
46. Ekstrand E.R., Loomis J. Incorporating respondent uncertainty when estimating willingness to pay for protecting critical habitat for threatened and endangered fish. Water Resources Research 1998, 34(11):3149-3155.
47. Fisher R.J. Social desirability bias and the validity of indirect questioning. Journal of Consumer Research 1993, 20(2):303-315.
48. Fix P., Loomis J.B. Comparing the economic value of mountain biking estimated using revealed and stated preference. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 1998, 41(2):227-236.
49. Frederick S., Fischhoff B. Scope (in)sensitivity in elicited valuations. Risk Decisions and Policy 1998, 3(2):109-123.
50. Fredman P. The existence of existence value. Journal of Forest Economics 1995, 1(3):307-327.
51. Giraud K.L., Loomis J.B., Johnson R.L. Internal and external scope in willingness-to-pay estimates for threatened and endangered wildlife. Journal of Environmental Management 1999, 56:221-229.
52. Gallet C.A. Meat meets meta: a quantitative review of the price elasticity of meat. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 2010, 92(1):258-272.
53. Giraud K., Turcin B., Loomis J., Cooper J. Economic benefit of the protection program for the Steller sea lion. Marine Policy 2002, 26:451-458.
54. Goodman S.L., Seabrooke W., Jaffry S.A. Considering conservation value in economic appraisals of coastal resources. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 1998, 41(3):313-336.
55. Gregory R.S. Valuing environmental policy options: a case study comparison of multiattribute and contingent valuation survey methods. Land Economics 2000, 76(2):151-173.
56. Hadker N., Sharma S., David A., Muraleedharan T.R. Willingness-to-pay for Borivli National Park: evidence from a contingent valuation. Ecological Economics 1997, 21:105-122.
57. Hageman, R., 1985. Valuing marine mammal populations: benefit valuations in a multi-species ecosystem. In: Loomis, J.B., White, D.S., 1996, Economic Benefits of Rare and Endangered Species: Summary and Meta-Analysis. Ecological Economics 18, 197-206.
58. Hammitt J.K., Liu J.T., Liu J.L. Contingent valuation of a Taiwanese wetland. Environmental and Development Economics 2001, 6:259-268.
59. Hanley N., Schläpfer F., Spurgeon J. Aggregating the benefits of environmental improvements: distance-decay functions for use and non-use values. Journal of Environmental Management 2003, 68:297-304.
60. Hanley N., Colombo S., Kristrom B., Watson F. Accounting for negative, zero and positive willingness to pay for landscape change in a National Park. Journal of Agricultural Economics 2009, 60(1):1-16.
61. Heberlein T.A., Wilson M.A., Bishop R.C., Schaeffer N.C. Rethinking the scope test as a criterion for validity in contingent valuation. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 2005, 50:1-22.
62. Heston R.S., Aten B. Penn World Table Version 6.2 2006, Center for International Comparisons of Production, Income and Prices at the University of Pennsylvania.
63. Hoevenagel R. The validity of the contingent valuation method: perfect and regular embedding. Environmental Resources and Economics 1996, 7:57-78.
64. Holmes T.P., Bergstrom J.C., Huszarc E., Kaskd S.B., Orr F. Contingent valuation, net marginal benefits, and the scale of riparian ecosystem restoration. Ecological Economics 2004, 49:19-30.
65. Horowitz J.K., McConnell K.E. A review of WTA/WTP studies. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 2002, 44:426-477.
66. Huang J., Haab T.C., Whitehead J.C. Willingness to pay for quality improvements: should revealed and stated preference data be combined?. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 1997, 34:240-255.
67. IFM, International Monetary Fund World Economic Outlook Database 2007, http://www.imf.org/external/ns/cs.aspx%3Fid=28, April 2007 edition.
68. Jakobsson K.M., Dragun A.K. The worth of a possum: valuing species with the contingent valuation method. Environmental and Resources Economics 2001, 19:211-227.
69. Johnston R.J., Besedin E.Y., Wardwell R.F. Modeling relationships between use and non use values for surface water quality: a meta-analysis. Water Resources Research 2003, 39(12):1363.
70. Johnston R.J., Besedin E.Y., Iovanna R., Miller C.J., Wardwell R.F., Ranson M.H. Systematic variation in willingness to pay for aquatic resource improvements and implications for benefit transfer: a meta-analysis. Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics 2005, 53:221-248.
71. Johnston R.J., Duke J.M. Informing preservation of multifunctional agriculture when primary research is unavailable: an application of meta-analysis. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 2009, 91(5):1353-1359.
72. Kahneman D., Knetsch J.L. Valuing public goods: the purchase of moral satisfaction. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 1992, 22(1):57-70.
73. Kahneman D., Knetsch J.L., Thaler R.H. The endowment effect, loss aversion, and status quo bias: anomalies. Journal of Economic Perspectives 1991, 5(1):193-206.
74. Kaoru Y Differentiating use and nonuse values for coastal pond water quality improvements. Environmental and Resource Economics 1993, 3:487-494.
75. Keith J.E., Fawson C., Johnson V. Preservation or use: a contingent valuation study of wilderness designation in Utah. Ecological Economics 1996, 18:207-214.
76. King, D., Flynn, D., Shaw, W., 1988. Total and existence values of a herd of desert Bighom sheep. Benefits and costs in natural resource planning. Interim Report, Western Regional Research Publication W-133, University of California, Davis, CA.
77. Kniivila M., Ovaskainen V., Saastamoinen O. Costs and benefits of forest conservation: regional and local comparisons in Eastern Finland. Journal of Forest Economics 2002, 8:131-150.
78. Köhlin G. Contingent valuation in project planning and evaluation: the case of social forestry in Orissa, India. Environment and Development Economics 2001, 6:237-258.
79. Kosz M. Valuing riverside wetlands: the case of the "Donau-Auen" National Park. Ecological Economics 1996, 16:109-127.
80. Kotchen M.J., Reiling S.D. Environmental attitudes, motivations, and contingent valuation of non-use values: a case study involving endangered species. Ecological Economics 2000, 32:93-107.
81. Kwak S., Yoo S., Han S. Estimating the public's value for urban forest in the Seul metropolitan area of Korea: a contingent valuation study. Urban Studies 2003, 11:2207-2221.
82. Langford H., Kontogianni A., Skourtos M.S., Georgiou S., Bateman I.J. Multivariate mixed models for open ended contingent valuation data willingness to pay for conservation of monk seals. Environmental and Resource Economics 1998, 12:443-456.
83. Laurence M.F., Langford I.H., Kenyon W. Valuing marine parks in a developing country: a case study of the Seychelles. Environmental and Development Economics 2003, 8(2):373-390.
84. Leggett C.G., Kleckner N.S., Boyle K.J., Duffield J.W., Mitchell R.C. Social desirability bias in contingent valuation surveys administered through in-person interviews. Land Economics 2003, 79(4):561-575.
85. Lehtonen E., Kuuluvainen J., Pouta E., Rekola M., Li C. Non-market benefits of forest conservation in southern Finland. Environmental Science and Policy 2003, 6:195-204.
86. Lindhjem H. 20years of stated preference valuation of non-timber benefits from Fennoscandian forests: a meta-analysis. Journal of Forest Economics 2007, 12:251-277.
87. List J.A., Gallet C.A. What experimental protocol influence disparities between actual and hypothetical stated values?. Environmental and Resource Economics 2001, 20:241-254.
88. Loomis J.B., Gonzalez-Caban A., Gregory R. Do reminders of substitutes and budget constraints influence contingent valuation?. Land Economics 1994, 70(4):499-506.
89. Loomis J.B., Larson D. Total economic values of increasing gray whale populations: results from a contingent valuation survey of visitors and households. Marine Resource Economics 1994, 9:275-286.
90. Loomis J.B., King M. Comparison of mail and telephone-mail contingent valuation surveys. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 1994, 41:309-324.
91. Loomis J.B., White D.S. Economic benefits of rare and endangered species: summary and meta-analysis. Ecological Economics 1996, 18:197-206.
92. Loomis J.B., Lockwood M., DeLacy T. Some empirical evidence on embedding effects in contingent valuation of forest protection. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 1993, 24:45-55.
93. Loomis J.B., Kent P., Strange L., Fausch K., Covich A. Measuring the total economic value of restoring ecosystem services in an impaired river basin: results from a contingent valuation survey. Ecological Economics 2000, 33:103-117.
94. Loureiro M.L., Lotade J. Interviewer effects on the valuation of goods with ethical and environmental attributes. Environmental and Resource Economics 2005, 30:49-72.
95. MacMillan D., Hanley N., Buckland S. A contingent valuation study of uncertain environmental gains. Scottish Journal of Political Economics 2004, 42(5):519-533.
96. Martin-Lopez B., Montes C., Benayas J. The non-economic motives behind the willingness to pay for biodiversity conservation. Biology Conservation 2007, 139:67-82.
97. McCartney A. The social value of seascapes in the Jurien Bay Marine Park: an assessment of positive and negative preferences for change. Journal of Agricultural Economics 2006, 57(3):577-594.
98. McDaniels T.L., Roessler C. Multiattribute elicitation of wilderness preservation benefits: a constructive approach. Ecological Economics 1998, 27:299-312.
99. McDaniels R., Gregory T.L., Arvai J., Chuenpagdee R. Decision structuring to alleviate embedding in environmental valuation. Ecological Economics 2003, 46:33-46.
100. McFadden D. Contingent valuation and social choice. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 1994, 76(4):689-708.
101. Mill G.A., van Rensburg T.M., Hymes S., Dooley C. Preferences for multiple use forests management in Ireland: citizen and consumer perspectives. Ecological Economics 2007, 60:612-653.
102. Montgomery C.A., Brown G.M., Adams D.M. The marginal cost of species preservation: the northern spotted owl. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 1994, 26:111-128.
103. Nelson J.P., Kennedy P.E. The use (and abuse) of meta-analysis in environmental and natural resource economics: an assessment. Environmental and Resource Economics 2009, 42:345-377.
104. Nunes P.A.L.D., Schokkaert E. Identifying the warm glow effect in contingent valuation. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 2003, 45:231-245.
105. Nunes P.A.L.D., Van der Bergh J.C. Economic valuation of biodiversity: sense or nonsense?. Ecological Economics 2001, 39:203-222.
106. Olsen D., Richards J., Scott D. Existence and sport values for doubling the size of Columbia River Basin salmon and steelhead runs. Rivers 1991, 2:44-56.
107. Ojea E., Loureiro M.L. Valuing local endangered species: the role of intra-species substitutes. Ecological Economics 2008, 68:362-369.
108. Ojea E., Loureiro M.L. Valuation of wildlife: revising some additional considerations for Scope Test. Contemporary Economic Policy 2009, 27(2):236-250.
109. Ojea E., Loureiro M.L. Valuing the recovery of overexploited fish stocks in the context of existence and option values. Marine Policy 2010, 34:514-521.
110. Ojea E., Nunes P.A.L.D., Loureiro M.L. Mapping biodiversity indicators and assessing biodiversity values in global forests. Environmental and Resource Economics 2010, 47(3):329-347.
111. Pate J., Loomis J.B. The effect of distance on willingness to pay values: a case study of wetlands and salmon in California. Ecological Economics 1997, 20:199-207.
112. Petrolia D.R., Kim T. What are barrier islands worth? Estimates of willingness to pay for restoration. Marine Resource Economics 2009, 24:131-146.
113. Powe N.A., Bateman I.J. Investigating insensitivity to scope: a split-sample test of perceived scheme realism. Land Economics 2004, 80(2):258-271.
114. Reaves D.W., Kramer R.A., Holmes T.P. Does question format matter? Valuing an endangered species. Environmental and Resource Economics 1999, 14:365-383.
115. Richardson L., Loomis J. The total economic value of threatened, endangered and rare species: an updated meta-analysis. Ecological Economics 2009, 68(5):1535-1548.
116. Riera, P., Mogas, J., 2003. Forest value inference using contingent valuation and choice experiments. Working paper.
117. Rollins K., Lyke A. The case for diminishing marginal existence values. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 1998, 36(3):324-344.
118. Rubin J., Helfand G., Loomis J. A benefit-cost analysis of the northern spotted owl. Journal of Forestry 1991, 89(12):25-30.
119. Samples, K., Hollyer, J., 1989. Contingent valuation of wildlife resources in the presence of substitutes and complement. In: Loomis, J.B., White, D.S., 1996, Economic Benefits of Rare and Endangered Species: Summary and Meta-Analysis. Ecological Economics 18, 197-206.
120. Sanders L.D., Walsh R.G., Loomis J.B. Toward empirical estimation of the total value of protecting rivers. Water Resources Research 1991, 26(7):1345-1357.
121. Sattout E.J., Talhouk S.N., Caligari P.D.S. Economic value of cedar relics in Lebanon: an application of contingent valuation method for conservation. Ecological Economics 2007, 61:315-322.
122. Scarpa R., Chilton S.M., Hutchinson W.G., Buongiorno J. Valuing the recreational benefits from the creation of nature reserves in Irish forests. Ecological Economics 2000, 33:237-250.
123. Schlapfer F., Roschewitz A., Hanley N. Validation of stated preferences for public goods: a comparison of contingent valuation survey response and voting behaviour. Ecological Economics 2004, 51(2):1-16.
124. Schulze W.D., McClelland G.H., Lazo J.K., Rowe R.D. Embedding and calibration in measuring non-use values. Resource and Energy Economics 1998, 20:163-178.
125. Shechter M., Reiser B., Zaitsev N. Measuring passive use value: pledges, donations and CV responses in connection with an important natural resource. Environmental and Resource Economics 1998, 12(4):457-478.
126. Silberman J., Gerlowski D.A., Williams N.A. Estimating existence value for users and nonusers of New Jersey beaches. Land Economics 1992, 68(2):225-236.
127. Smith V.K. Arbitrary values, good causes, and premature verdicts. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 1992, 22(1):71-89.
128. Smith V.K., Osborne L.L. Do contingent valuation estimates pass a scope test? A meta-analysis. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 1996, 31:287-301.
129. Smith V.K Pricing what is priceless: a status report on non-market valuation of environmental resources. Yearbook of Environmental and Resource Economics 1997-1998 1997, Edward Elgar Publishing, (Chapter 6). H. Folmer, T. Tietenberg (Eds.).
130. Solomon B.D., Corey-Luse C.M., Halvorsen K.E. The Florida manatee and eco-tourism: toward a safe minimum standard. Ecological Economics 2004, 50:101-115.
131. Spash C.L. Non-economic motivation for contingent values: rights and attitudinal beliefs in the willingness to pay for environmental improvements. Land Economics 2006, 82(4):602-622.
132. Stevens T.H., Echeverria J., Glass R.J., Hager T., More T.A. Measuring the existence value of wildlife: what do CVM estimates really show?. Land Economics 1991, 67(4):390-400.
133. Stevens T.H., Belkner R., Dennis D., Kittredge D., Willis C. Comparison of contingent valuation and conjoint analysis in ecosystem management. Ecological Economics 2000, 32(1):63-74.
134. Strazzera E., Genius M., Riccardo Scarpa G., Hutchinson The effect of protest votes on the estimates of WTP for use values of recreational sites. Environmental and Resource Economics 2003, 25:461-476.
135. Svedsäter H. Contingent valuation of global environmental resources: test of perfect and regular embedding. Journal of Economic Psychology 2000, 21:605-623.
136. Swanson, C., 1993. Economics of non-game management: bald eagles on the Skagit River Bald Eagle Natural Area, Washington. Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Agricultural Economics, Ohio State University.
137. Tanguay, M., Adamowicz, W., Boxall, P.L., 1995. An economic evaluation of woodland Caribou conservation programs in northwestern Saskatchewan. Project Report 95-01.
138. Tyrvainen L., Vaananen H. The economic value of urban forest amenities: an application of the contingent valuation method. Landscape Urban Planning 1998, 43:105-118.
139. Tyrvainen L. Economic valuation of urban forest benefits in Finland. Journal of Environmental Management 2001, 62:75-79.
140. Van Houtven G., Powers J., Pattanayak S.K. Valuing water quality improvements in the United States using meta-analysis: is the glass half-full or half-empty for national policy analysis?. Resource and Energy Economics 2007, 29:206-214.
141. Veisten K., Navrud S. Contingent valuation and actual payment for voluntarily provided passive-use values: assessing the effect of an induced truth-telling mechanism and elicitation formats. Applied Economics 2006, 38:735-756.
142. Veisten K., Hoen H.F., Navrud S., Strand J. Scope insensitivity in contingent valuation of complex environmental amenities. Journal of Environmental Management 2004, 73:317-331.
143. Walsh R.G., Loomis J.B., Gillman R.A. Valuing option, existence, and bequest demands for wilderness. Land Economics 1984, 60(1):14-29.
144. White P.C., Keith L., Gregory W., Lindley P.J., Richards G. Economic values of threatened mammals in Britain: a case study of the otter Lutra lutra and the water vole Arvicola terrestris. Biology Conservation 1997, 82(3):345-354.
145. White P.C., Bennett L.A.C., Hayes E.J.V. The use of willingness-to-pay approaches in mammal conservation. Mammal Review 2001, 31(2):151-167.
146. Whitehead J. Ex ante willingness to pay with supply and demand uncertainty: implications for valuing a sea turtle protection programme. Applied Economics 1992, 24:981-988.
147. Whitehead J.C., Blomquist G.C. Measuring contingent values for wetlands: effects of information about related environmental goods. Water Resources Research 1991, 27(10):2523-2531.
148. Whitehead J.C., Blomquist G.C., Hoban T.J., Clifford W.B. Assessing the validity and reliability of contingent values: a comparison of on-site users, off-site users and non-users. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 1995, 29:238-251.
149. Willis K.G., Garrod G.D., Saunders C.M. Benefits of environmentally sensitive area policy in England: a contingent valuation assessment. Journal of Environmental Management 1995, 44:105-125.
150. Wilson C., Tisdell C. How knowledge affects payment to conserve an endangered bird. Contemporary Economic Policy 2007, 25(2):226-237.
151. Woodward R.T., Wui Y. The economic value of wetland services: a meta-analysis. Ecological Economics 2001, 37:257-270.
152. Wooldridge J.M. Introductory Econometrics: A Modern Approach 2003, Thomson-South-Western College Publishing, Manson, OH.
153. Zandersen M., Tol R.S.J. A meta-analysis of forest recreation values in Europe. Journal of Forest Economics 2009, 15(1-2):109-130.