Evaluation of heterogeneous preferences for forest recreation in the UK using choice experiments

Choice Experiments Informing Environmental Policy: A European Perspective

Volumn , Issue , 2008, Pages 220-248

  Christie, Michael ^a   Hanley, Nick ^b  

^a ABERYSTWYTH UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF STIRLING   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84866500621     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.4337/9781848441255.00017     Document Type: Chapter

References (21)

1. Adamowicz, W., J. Louviere and M. Williams (1994), 'Combining Revealed and Stated Preference Methods for Valuing Environmental Amenities', Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 26(3), 271-292.
2. Arrow, K., R. Solow, H. Schuman, R. Radner and P. Portney (1993), 'Report to the NOAA-Panel on Contingent Valuation. Report to the General Council of the United States National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration', U.S. Federal Register, 58(10), 4601-4614.
3. Bateman, I.J., R.T. Carson, B. Day,W.M. Hanemann,N. Hanley, T. Hett, M. Jones-Lee, G. Loomes, S. Mourato, E. Özdemiroǧlu, D. Pearce, R. Sugden and J. Swanson (2002), Economic Valuation with Stated Preference Techniques: A Manual, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, USA, Edward Elgar.
4. Bishop, K.D. (1992), 'Assessing the Benefits of Community Forests: An Evaluation of the Recreational User Benefits of Two Urban Fringe Woodlands', Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 35(1), 63-76.
5. Clawson, M. (1959), Methods of Measuring the Demand for and Value of Outdoor Recreation, Washington D.C., Resources for the Future.
6. Commission of the European Communities (2006), Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on an EU Forest Action Plan. Com(2006) 302 final.
7. Davis, R. (1963), 'Recreation Planning as an Economic Problem', Natural Resources Journal, 3(2), 239-249.
8. Forestry Commission (2002), Wales Mountain Bike Survey 2002, Edinburgh, Forestry Commission.
9. Forestry Commission (2004a), Forest Visitor Surveys 2002, Edinburgh, Forestry Commission.
10. Forestry Commission (2004b), Forestry Statistics 2004, Edinburgh, Forestry Commission.
11. Hanemann, W.M. (1994), 'Valuing the Environment through Contingent Valuation', Journal of Economic Perspectives, 4, 19-44.
12. Hanley, N. (1989), 'Valuing Rural Recreation Benefits: An Empirical Comparison of Two Approaches', Journal of Agricultural Economics, 40, 361-374.
13. Hanley, N. and R. Ruffell (1993), 'The Valuation of Forest Characteristics', Adamowicz, W.L., W. White and W.E. Phillips (eds) Forestry and the Environment: Economic Perspectives, Wallingford, CAB International, 171-197.
14. Hensher, D.A., J.M. Rose and W.H. Greene (2005), Applied Choice Analysis: A Primer, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
15. HM Treasury (2003), The 'Green Book': Appraisal and Evaluation in Central Government, London, HM Treasury.
16. Louviere, J.J. (1988), 'Conjoint analysis modeling of stated preferences: a review of theory, methods, recent developments and external validity', Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, 22(1), 93-119.
17. Louviere, J.J.,D.A. Hensher and J.D. Swait (2000), Stated Choice Methods: Analysis and Application, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
18. Street, D.J., L. Burgess and J. Louviere (2005), 'Quick and Easy Choice Sets: Constructing Optimal and Nearly Optimal Stated Choice Experiments', International Journal of Research in Marketing, 22(4), 459-470.
19. TNS Travel and Tourism (2004), Leisure Day Visits: Report of the 2002-3 GB Day Visits Survey, Cheltenham, The Countryside Agency.
20. Willis, K.G. and J.F. Benson (1989), Values of User Benefits of Forest Recreation: Some Further Site Surveys, Edinburgh, Forestry Commission.
21. Willis, K.G., J.F. Benson and M.C.Whitby (1988), Values of User Benefits of Forest Recreation and Wildlife, Edinburgh, Forestry Commission.