The contingent valuation study of Heiðmörk, Iceland – Willingness to pay for its preservation

Journal of Environmental Management

Volumn 209, Issue , 2018, Pages 126-138

  Cook, David ^a   Eiríksdóttir, Kristín ^a   Davíðsdóttir, Brynhildur ^a   Kristófersson, Daði Már ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ICELAND   (Iceland)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ICELAND   (Iceland)

Author keywords

Contingent valuation method; Decision making; Iceland; Payment vehicle duration; Urban open space; Willingness to pay

Indexed keywords

CONTINGENT VALUATION; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DECISION MAKING; LAND MANAGEMENT; OPEN SPACE; POLICY MAKING; RECREATIONAL ACTIVITY; RECREATIONAL FACILITY; TRANSPORT VEHICLE; URBAN AREA; VALUATION; WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

CONTINGENT VALUATION; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DECISION MAKING; HUMAN; ICELAND; ICELANDER; INTERNET; WELFARE; ECONOMICS; ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION; FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT; PUBLIC OPINION; QUESTIONNAIRE;

ICELAND;

CHOICE BEHAVIOR; CONSERVATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; FINANCING, PERSONAL; ICELAND; PUBLIC OPINION; SURVEYS AND QUESTIONNAIRES;

EID: 85039448744     PISSN: 03014797     EISSN: 10958630     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2017.12.045     Document Type: Article

References (96)

1. Afroz, R., Masud, M.M., Using a contingent valuation approach for improved solid waste management facility: evidence from Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Waste Manage. 31 (2011), 800–808.
2. Antony, J., Rao, A., Contingent Valuation: a Review with Emphasis on Estimation Procedures. 2010.
3. Arrow, K., Solow, R., Portney, P.R., Leamer, E.E., Radner, R., Schuman, H., Report of the NOAA panel on contingent valuation. Fed. Regist. 58:1993 (1993), 4601–4614.
4. Bateman, I.J., Langford, I.H., Turner, R.K., Willis, K.G., Garrod, G.D., Elicitation and truncation effects in contingent valuation studies. Ecol. Econ. 12 (1995), 161–179.
5. Bateman, I.J., Willis, K.G., Valuing Environmental Preferences: Theory and Practice of the Contingent Valuation Method in the US, EU, and Developing Countries. 2001, Oxford University Press, Oxford, England.
6. Bell, S., Simpson, M., Tyrväinen, L., Sievänen, T., Pröbstl, U., European Forest Recreation and Tourism: a Handbook. 2009, Taylor Francis, London.
7. Boyle, K.J., Contingent valuation in practice. A Primer on Nonmarket Valuation, 2003, Springer, New York, 111–169.
8. Brander, L.M., Koetse, M.J., The value of urban open space: meta-analyses of contingent valuation and hedonic pricing results. J. Environ. Manage. 92 (2011), 2763–2773.
9. Broberg, T., Brännlund, R., On the value of large predators in Sweden: a regional stratified contingent valuation analysis. J. Environ. Manage. 88 (2008), 1066–1077.
10. Cameron, T.A., Huppert, D.D., OLS versus ML estimation of non-market resource values with payment card interval data. Environ. Econ. Manage. 17 (1989), 230–246.
11. Cameron, T.A., Quiggin, J., Estimation using contingent valuation data from a“ dichotomous choice with follow-up” questionnaire. Environ. Econ. Manage. 27 (1994), 218–234.
12. Carson, R.T., Contingent valuation: theoretical advances and empirical tests since the NOAA panel. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 79 (1997), 1501–1507.
13. Carson, R.T., Contingent valuation: a user's guide. Environ. Sci. Technol. 34 (2000), 1413–1418.
14. Carson, R.T., Contingent valuation: a practical alternative when prices aren't available. J. Econ. Perspect. 26 (2012), 27–42.
15. Carson, R.T., Flores, N.E., Meade, N.F., Contingent valuation: controversies and evidence. Environ. Resour. Econ. 19 (2001), 173–210.
16. Carson, R.T., Flores, N.E., Mitchell, R.C., The Theory and Measurement of Passive Use Value. 1995, University of California, San Diego Department of Economics.
17. Carson, R.T., Groves, T., Incentive and informational properties of preference questions. Environ. Resour. Econ. 37 (2007), 181–210.
18. Carson, R.T., Hanemann, W.M., Contingent valuation. Handb. Environ. Econ. 2 (2005), 821–936.
19. Carson, R.T., Mitchell, R.C., The issue of scope in contingent valuation studies. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 75:5 (1993), 1263–1267.
20. Carson, R.T., Mitchell, R.C., Hanemann, W.M., Kopp, R.J., Presser, S., Ruud, P.A., A Contingent Valuation Study of Lost Passive Use Values Resulting from the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill (No. 6984). 1992, University Library of Munich, Germany.
21. Caudill, S.B., Long, J.E., Do former athletes make better managers? Evidence from a partially adaptive grouped-data regression model. Empir. Econ. 39 (2010), 275–290.
22. Cook, D., Davíðsdóttir, B., Kristófersson, D.M., Energy projects in Iceland–Advancing the case for the use of economic valuation techniques to evaluate environmental impacts. Energy Pol. 94 (2016), 104–113.
23. Cook, D., Davíðsdóttir, B., Kristófersson, D.M., An ecosystem services perspective for classifying and valuing the environmental impacts of geothermal power projects. Energy Sustain. Dev. 40 (2017), 126–138.
24. Cook, D., Davíðsdóttir, B., Kristófersson, D.M., Willingness to pay for the preservation of geothermal areas in Iceland–The contingent valuation studies of Eldvörp and Hverahlíð. Renew. Energy 116 (2018), 97–108.
25. Cooper, J.C., Hanemann, M., Signorello, G., One-and-one-half-bound dichotomous choice contingent valuation. Rev. Econ. Stat. 84 (2002), 742–750.
26. Cummings, R.G., Brookshire, D.S., Schulze, W.D., Bishop, R.C., Arrow, K.J., Valuing Environmental Goods: an Assessment of the Contingent Valuation Method. 1986, Rowman Allanheld, Totowa, NJ.
27. Cummings, R.G., Taylor, L.O., Does realism matter in contingent valuation surveys?. Land Econ., 1998, 203–215.
28. Damigos, D., Tentes, G., Balzarini, M., Furlanis, F., Vianello, A., Revealing the economic value of managed aquifer recharge: evidence from a contingent valuation study in Italy. Water Resour. Res. 53 (2017), 6597–6611.
29. Davíðsdóttir, B., Ecosystem Services and Human Well-being: the Value of Ecosystem Services. Research in Social Sciences, 2010, University of Iceland, Iceland.
30. Diamond, P.A., Hausman, J.A., Contingent valuation: is some number better than no number?. J. Econ. Perspect. 8 (1994), 45–64.
31. Dickinson, D.C., Hobbs, R.J., Cultural ecosystem services: characteristics, challenges and lessons for urban green space research. Ecosyst. Serv. 25 (2017), 179–194.
32. Duffield, J.W., Patterson, D.A., Inference and optimal design for a welfare measure in dichotomous choice contingent valuation. Land Econ. 67 (1991), 225–239.
33. Dutta, M., Banerjee, S., Husain, Z., Untapped demand for heritage: a contingent valuation study of Prinsep Ghat, Calcutta. Tour. Manage. 28 (2007), 83–95.
34. Egilsson, K., Guðjónsson, G., Gróður í Heiðmörk – unnið fyrir Reykjavíkurborg. 2006, Náttúrufræðistofnun Íslands, Reykjavík.
35. European Commission, The Fifth Environmental Action Programme: towards Sustainability. 1992, European Commission, Brussels.
36. Faushold, C.J., Lilieholm, R.J., The economic value of open space: a review and synthesis. J. Environ. Manage. 23 (1999), 307–320.
37. Grammatikopoulou, I., Olsen, S.B., Accounting protesting and warm glow bidding in Contingent Valuation surveys considering the management of environmental goods–An empirical case study assessing the value of protecting a Natura 2000 wetland area in Greece. J. Environ. Manage. 130 (2013), 232–241.
38. Green, D., Jacowitz, K.E., Kahneman, D., McFadden, D., Referendum contingent valuation, anchoring, and willingness to pay for public goods. Resour. Energy Econ. 20 (1998), 85–116.
39. Guðmundsson, A.T., Íslenskar eldstöðvar. 2001, Vaka-Helgafell, Reykjavík.
40. Haab, T.C., Interis, M.G., Petrolia, D.R., Whitehead, J.C., From hopeless to curious? Thoughts on Hausman's “Dubious to hopeless” critique of contingent valuation. Appl. Econ. Perspect. Pol. 35:4 (2013), 593–612.
41. Haab, T.C., McConnell, K.E., Referendum models and economic values: theoretical, intuitive, and practical bounds on willingness to pay. Land Econ., 1998, 216–229.
42. Hanemann, W.M., Welfare evaluations in contingent valuation experiments with discrete responses. Am. J. Agr. Econ. 66 (1984), 332–341.
43. Hanemann, W.M., Information and the concept of option value. J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 16 (1989), 23–37.
44. Hanemann, W.M., Welfare evaluations in contingent valuation experiments with discrete response data: reply. Am. J. Agr. Econ. 71 (1989), 1057–1061.
45. Hanemann, W.M., Loomis, J., Kanninen, B., Statistical efficiency of double-bounded dichotomous choice contingent valuation. Am. J. Agr. Econ. 73 (1991), 1255–1263.
46. Hanley, N., Shogren, J., White, B., Introduction to Environmental Economics. 2013, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
47. Hanley, N., Splash, C.L., Valuing Environmental Goods: The Contingent Valuation Method. 1993, Edward Elgar Publishing, Great Britain.
48. Hausman, J., Contingent valuation: from dubious to hopeless. J. Econ. Perspect. 26 (2012), 43–56.
49. Invest in Iceland, Prinicipal taxes. Retrieved from: http://www.invest.is/doing-business/taxation/principal-taxes/, 2014. (Accessed 3 December 2014)
50. Johnston, R.J., Boyle, K.J., Adamowicz, W., Bennett, J., Brouwer, R., Cameron, T.A., Tourangeau, R., Contemporary guidance for stated preference studies. J. Assoc. Environ. Resour. Econ. 4 (2017), 319–405.
51. Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J.L., Valuing public goods: the purchase of moral satisfaction. J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 22 (1992), 57–70.
52. Kanninen, B.J., Bias in discrete response contingent valuation. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 28:1 (1995), 114–125.
53. Kling, C.L., Phaneuf, D.J., Zhao, J., From Exxon to BP: has some number become better than no number?. J. Econ. Perspect. 26 (2012), 3–26.
54. Kriström, B., Spike models in contingent valuation. Am. J. Agr. Econ. 79 (1997), 1013–1023.
55. Krutilla, J.V., Conservation reconsidered. Am. Econ. Rev. 57 (1967), 777–786.
56. Kutner, M.H., Nachtsheim, C.J., Neter, J., Applied Linear Regression Methods. 2004, McGraw-Hill/Irwin, Chicago.
57. Lindhjem, H., Navrud, S., Asking for individual or household willingness to pay for environmental goods?. Environ. Resour. Econ. 43 (2009), 11–29.
58. Lindhjem, H., Navrud, S., Are Internet surveys an alternative to face-to-face interviews in contingent valuation?. Ecol. Econ. 70 (2011), 1628–1637.
59. Loomis, J., Ekstrand, E., Alternative approaches for incorporating respondent uncertainty when estimating willingness to pay: the case of the Mexican spotted owl. Ecol. Econ. 27:1 (1998), 29–41.
60. Loomis, J.B., Comparative reliability of the dichotomous choice and open-ended contingent valuation techniques. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 18:1 (1990), 78–85.
61. Loomis, J.B., Keske, C.M., Mountain substitutability and peak load pricing of high alpine peaks as a management tool to reduce environmental damage: a contingent valuation study. J. Environ. Manage. 90 (2009), 1751–1760.
62. Lu, J.L., Shon, Z.Y., Exploring airline passengers’ willingness to pay for carbon offsets. Transp. Res. D Trans. Environ. 17 (2012), 124–128.
63. Mansfield, E.R., Helms, B.P., Detecting multicollinearity. Am. Stat. 36 (1982), 158–160.
64. Marta-Pedroso, C., Freitas, H., Domingos, T., Testing for the survey mode effect on contingent valuation data quality: a case study of web based versus in-person interviews. Ecol. Econ. 62 (2007), 388–398.
65. Marteinsson, G., Skógrækt og skyld störf á Heiðmörk. 1975, Ársrit Skógræktarfélag.
66. Maxwell, S., Valuation of rural environmental improvements using contingent valuation methodology: a case study of the Marston vale community forest project. J. Environ. Manage. 41 (1994), 385–399.
67. McConnell, V., Walls, M.A., The Value of Open Space: Evidence from Studies of Nonmarket Benefits. 2005, Resources for the Future, Washington, DC, 78.
68. Mitchell, R.C., Carson, R.T., Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: the Contingent Valuation Method. 1989, Resources for the Future, Washington DC.
69. Morrison, M.D., Blamey, R.K., Bennett, J.W., Minimising payment vehicle bias in contingent valuation studies. Environ. Resour. Econ. 16 (2000), 407–422.
70. Nahuelhual-Muñoz, L., Loureiro, M., Loomis, J., Addressing heterogeneous preferences using parametric extended spike models. Environ. Resour. Econ. 27 (2004), 297–311.
71. Nielsen, J.S., Use of the Internet for willingness-to-pay surveys: a comparison of face-to-face and web-based interviews. Resour. Energy Econ. 33 (2011), 119–129.
72. Nielsen, J.S., Kjær, T., Does question order influence sensitivity to scope? Empirical findings from a web-based contingent valuation study. Environ. Plan. Manage. 54 (2011), 369–381.
73. Nunes, P.A., van den Bergh, J.C., Economic valuation of biodiversity: sense or nonsense?. Ecol. Econ. 39 (2001), 203–222.
74. OECD, OECD Environmental Performance Reviews: Iceland 1993. 1993, OECD Publishing, Paris.
75. OECD, OECD Environmental Performance Reviews: Iceland 2001. 2001, OECD Publishing, Paris.
76. OECD, OECD Environmental Performance Reviews: Iceland 2014. 2014, OECD Publishing, Paris.
77. Olsen, J.A., Donaldson, C., Helicopters, hearts and hips: using willingness to pay to set priorities for public sector health care programmes. Soc. Sci. Med. 46:1 (1998), 1–12.
78. Pearce, D., Valuing Biological Diversity: Issues and Overview. OECD: Valuation of Biodiversity Benefits; Selected Studies, 2001, OECD, Paris, 27–44.
79. Pearce, D.W., Moran, D., (eds.) The Economic Value of Biodiversity, 1994, Earthscan, London.
80. Pearce, D.W., Seccombe-Hett, T., Economic valuation and environmental decision-making in Europe. Environ. Sci. Technol. 34 (2000), 1419–1425.
81. Rollins, K., Lyke, A., The case for diminishing marginal existence values. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 36:3 (1998), 324–344.
82. Rowe, R.D., Schulze, W.D., Hurd, D., A Survey of Colorado Residents’ Attitudes about Cleaning up Hazardous Waste-site Problems in Colorado, Report for the Colorado Attorney General's Office., 1986 Denver, USA.
83. Ruhl, J.B., Making nuisance ecological. Case W. Res. L. Rev., 58, 2007, 753.
84. Simpson, R.D., Sedjo, R.A., Reid, J.W., Valuing biodiversity for use in pharmaceutical research. J. Polit. Econ., 1996, 163–185.
85. Splash, C.L., Hanley, N., Preferences, information and biodiversity preservation. Ecol. Econ. 12 (1995), 191–208.
86. Statistics Iceland, Information technology – percentage of individuals using computer and internet, 2003 to 2013. Retrieved from: http://www.statice.is/?PageID=1241src=, 2013 https://rannsokn.hagstofa.is/pxen/Dialog/varval.asp?ma=SAM07102e%26ti=Percentage+of+individuals+using+computer+and+Internet+2003-2013%26path=./Database/ferdamal/UTlykiltolur/%26lang=1%26units=PERC. (Accessed 3 December 2014)
87. Statistics Iceland, Icelandic Census 2011. 2014 Retrieved from: http://www.statice.is/?pageid=452itemid=54d38595-9177-4b35-bb40-276e9618a98b. (Accessed 28 November 2014)
88. Statistics Iceland, Urban Nuclei and Zip Codes. 2014 Retrieved from: http://www.statice.is/Statistics/Population/Urban-nuclei-and-zip-codes. (Accessed 28 November 2014)
89. Statistics Iceland, Gross Domestic Product. 2017 Retrieved from: http://www.statice.is/statistics/economy/national-accounts/gross-domestic-product/. (Accessed 11 May 2017)
90. Stenger, A., Willinger, M., Preservation value for groundwater quality in a large aquifer: a contingent-valuation study of the Alsatian aquifer. J. Environ. Manage. 53:2 (1998), 177–193.
91. Thordarson, T., Hoskuldsson, A., Classic Geology in Europe 3 – Iceland. 2002, Terra Publishing, Harpenden, UK.
92. Van Minh, H., Nguyen-Viet, H., Thanh, N.H., Yang, J.C., Assessing willingness to pay for improved sanitation in rural Vietnam. Environ. Health Prev. Med. 18 (2013), 275–284.
93. Veisten, K., Hoen, H.F., Navrud, S., Strand, J., Scope insensitivity in contingent valuation of complex environmental amenities. J. Environ. Manag. 73:4 (2004), 317–331.
94. Veronesi, M., Alberini, A., Cooper, J.C., Implications of bid design and willingness-to-pay distribution for starting point bias in double-bounded dichotomous choice contingent valuation surveys. Environ. Resour. Econ. 49 (2011), 199–215.
95. Weisbrod, B.A., External Benefits of Public Education: an Economic Analysis (No. 105). 1964, Industrial Relations Section, Department of Economics, Princeton University, USA.
96. Whitehead, J.C., Groothuis, P.A., Blomquist, G.C., Testing for non-response and sample selection bias in contingent valuation: analysis of a combination phone/mail survey. Econ. Lett. 41 (1993), 215–220.