Underground or overground? Measuring the visual disamenity from overhead electricity transmission lines

Environmental Valuation in Developed Countries: Case studies

Volumn , Issue , 2006, Pages 213-239

  Atkinson, Giles ^a   Day, Brett ^b   Mourato, Susana ^c  

^a Environmental Policy ^*  (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF EAST ANGLIA   (United Kingdom)

^c Centre for Environmental Policy   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84871743276     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: None     Document Type: Chapter

References (15)

1. Atkinson, G., B. Day, S. Mourato and C. Palmer (2004), '"Amenity" or "eyesore"? negative willingness to pay for options to replace electricity transmission towers', Applied Economic Letters, 11 (4), 203-8.
2. Bateman, I.J. and I.H. Langford (1997), 'Non-users' willingness to pay for a national park: an application and critique of the contingent valuation method', Regional Studies, 39 (1), 571-82.
3. Bateman, I.J., I.H. Langford, N. Nishikawa and I. Lake (2000),'The Axford debate revisited: a case study illustrating different approaches to the aggregation of benefits data', Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 43 (2), 291-302.
4. Bateman, I.J., R.T. Carson, B. Day, W.M. Hanemann, N. Hanley, T. Hett, M. Jones-Lee, G. Loomes, S. Mourato, E. Özdemiroglu, D.W. Pearce, R. Sugden and J. Swanson (2002), Economic Valuation with Stated Preference Techniques: A Manual, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar.
5. Bohara, A.K., J. Kerkvliet and R.P. Berrens (2001), 'Addressing negative willingness to pay in dichotomous choice contingent valuation', Environmental and Resource Economics, 20, 173-95.
6. Cesario, F.J. (1976), 'Value of time in recreation benefit studies', Land Economics, 52, 32-41.
7. Day, B., G. Atkinson, S. Mourato and C. Palmer (2001), The Environmental Benefits of Electricity Tower Designs, Report to the National Grid Company plc, London.
8. Hanley, N., F. Schlapfer and J. Spurgeon (2003), 'Aggregating the benefits of environmental improvements: distance-decay functions for use and non-use values', Journal of Environmental Management, 68, 297-304.
9. Horowitz, J. and K. McConnell (2002), 'A review of WTA/WTP studies', Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 44, 426-44.
10. Lichfield, N. (2003), Review of Permitted Development Rights, London: Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM).
11. Mitchell, R. and R. Carson (1989), Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Method, Baltimore: Resources for the Future.
12. Moran, D. (1999), 'Benefits transfer and low flow alleviation: what lessons for environmental valuation in the UK?' Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 42 (3), 425-36.
13. National Grid Company (NGC) plc (2000), Overhead or Underground? The National Grid Company Approach, Coventry: NGC plc.
14. Pate, J. and J. Loomis (1997), 'The effect of distance on willingness to pay values: a case study of wetlands and salmon in California', Ecological Economics, 20, 199-207.
15. Sutherland, R.J. and R.G. Walsh (1985), 'Effect of distance on the preservation value of water quality', Land Economics, 61 (3), 281-91.