Comparing households’ total economic values and recreation value of instream flow in an urban river

Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy

Volumn 1, Issue 1, 2012, Pages 5-17

  Loomis, John B ^a  

^a Veterinary Dentistry and Oral Surgery   (United States)

Author keywords

Colorado; contingent valuation; existence value; non use value; willingness to pay

Indexed keywords

EID: 84924738687     PISSN: 21606544     EISSN: 21606552     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/21606544.2011.640855     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. Arrow, K., 1993. Report of the NOAA panel on contingent valuation. Federal Register, 58: 4601–4614.
2. Berrens, R., Ganderton, P., and Silva, C., 1996. Valuing the protection of minimum instream flows in New Mexico. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 21 (2): 90–104.
3. Brookshire, D., 1982. Valuing public goods: a comparison of survey and hedonic approaches. American Economic Review, 72 (1): 165–177.
4. Brookshire, D., Eubanks, L., and Randall, A., 1983. Estimating option prices and existence values for wildlife resources. Land Economics, 59 (1): 1–15.
5. Brown, T., Champ, P., Bishop, R., and McCollum, D. 1996. Which response format reveals the truth about donations to a public good. Land Economics, 72 (2), 152–166
6. Brown, T., and Duffield, J., 1995. Testing part-whole valuation effects in contingent valuation of instream flow. Water Resources Research, 31 (9): 2341–2351.
7. Carson, R., 1991. “ Constructed markets ”. In Measuring the demand for environmental quality Edited by: Braden, J., and Kolstad, C., New York, North Holland
8. Carson, R., 1996. Contingent valuation and revealed preference methodologies: comparing the estimates for quasi-public goods. Land Economics, 72 (1): 80–99.
9. Champ, P., 1997. Using donation mechanisms to value nonuse benefits from public goods. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 33 (2): 151–162.
10. Cummings, R., Brookshire, D., and Schulze, W., 1986. Valuing environmental goods: An assessment of the contingent valuation method, Totowa, NJ: Rowman and Allanheld.
11. Cummings, R., Harrison, G., and Rutstrom, E.E., 1995. Homegrown values and hypothetical surveys: is the dichotomous choice approach incentive compatible?. American Economic Review, 85 (2): 260–266.
12. Czetwertynski, M., The sale and leasing of water rights in the western United States: an overview of the period 1990–2001. Water Policy Working Paper #2002-002. Atlanta: Georgia State University.
13. Davis, R.K., 1963. The Value of Outdoor Recreation: An Economic Study of the Maine Woods, Harvard University. Ph.D. dissertation
14. Dillman, D., 2000. Mail and internet surveys: The tailored design method., 2nd ed, New York: John Wiley & Sons.
15. Economics for Environemntal Consultancy (eftec). 2009. Scoping study on the economic (or non-market) valuation issues and the implementation of the WFD Final Report ENV.D.1/ETU 2009/0102rl
16. Fisher, A., and Raucher, R., 1984. “ Intrinsic benefits of improved water quality: conceptual and empirical perspectives ”. In Advances in micro-economics, Edited by: Smith, V.K, and Witte, A.D., Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
17. Greenley, D., Walsh, R., and Young, R., 1981. Option Value: Empirical Evidence from a case study of recreation and water quality. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 96 (4), 657–674
18. Greenley, D., Walsh, R., and Young, R., 1982. Economic benefits of improved water quality: Public perceptions of option and preservation values, Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
19. Haab, T., and McConnell, K., 2002. Valuing environmental and natural resources: The econometrics of non-market valuation, Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.
20. Hanemann, M., 1984. Welfare evaluations in contingent valuation experiments with discrete responses. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 66 (3): 332–341.
21. Johnston, R., Besdedin, E., and Wardwell, R., 2003. Modeling relationships between use and nonuse values for surface water quality: a meta-analysis. Water Resources Research, 39 (12): 1363–1372.
22. Johnston, R., 2005. Systematic variation in willingness to pay for aquatic resource improvements and implications for benefit transfer: a meta-analysis. Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics, 53: 221–248.
23. Krutilla, J., 1967. Conservation reconsidered. American Economic Review, 57: 777–786.
24. Loomis, J., 2003. Expanding institutional arrangements for acquiring water for environmental purposes. International Journal of Water Resources Development, 19 (1): 21–28.
25. Loomis, J., Douglas, A., and Harpman, D., 2005. “ Recreation use values and non use values of glen and grand canyons. Chapter 9 ”. In The state of the Colorado River Ecosystem in the Grand Canyon, US: Geological Survey, 2005. USGS Circular 1282
26. Mitchell, R., and Carson, R., 1981. An experiment in determining willingness to pay for national water quality improvements, Grant #R80690610. USEPA Report
27. Mitchell, R., and Carson, R., 1989. Using surveys to value public goods: The contingent valuation method, Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.
28. Neil, H., 1994. Hypothetical surveys and real economic commitments. Land Economics, 70 (2): 145–154.
29. Portney, P.R., 1994. The contingent valuation debate: why economists should care. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 8 (4): 3–17.
30. Sanders, L., Walsh, R., and Loomis, J., 1990. Toward empirical estimation of the total value of protecting rivers. Water Resources Research, 26 (7): 1345–1357.
31. Schulze, W., 1983. The economic benefits of preserving visibility in the national parklands of the southwest. Natural Resources Journal, 23(1): 149–174.
32. US Environmental Protection Agency. 2000. Guidelines for preparing economic analyses Washington, DC EPA 240-R-00-003
33. US Office of Management and Budget. 2000. Guidelines to standardize measures of costs and benefits and the format of accounting statements, 22Lew: March. M-00-08 from the Director of OMB Jacob
34. Vossler, C., and Kerkvliet, J., 2003. A criterion validity test of the contingent valuation method: comparing hypothetical and actual voting behavior for a public referendum. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 45 (3): 631–649.
35. Walsh, R., Loomis, J., and Gillman, R., 1984. Valuing option, existence and bequest demands for wilderness. Land Economics, 60 (1): 14–29.
36. Welsh, M., 1995. Glen Canyon Dam, Colorado River Storage Project, Arizona—non use value study final report, Madison, WI: Halger Bailly Consulting Inc. NTIS # PB98-105406
37. Williams, D., and Stewart, S., 1998. Sense of place: an elusive concept that is finding a home in ecosystem management. Journal of Forestry, 96 (5): 18–23.