Advanced Search
MyIDEAS: Login to save this article or follow this journal

Contingent Valuation of the Public Benefits of Agricultural Wildlife Management: The Case of Dutch Peat Meadow Land

Contents:

Author Info

  • Brouwer, Roy
  • Slangen, Louis H G
Registered author(s):

    Abstract

    The public benefits of agricultural wildlife management are estimated by means of the contingent valuation method. Households are asked for their willingness to pay for wildlife preservation measures taken by farmers. Corresponding with the survey's three-stage budgeting structure, a non-linear recursive model is used to test the study's construct validity. Since the method is not undisputed and rapidly evolving, the outcomes of the study are accompanied by an extensive discussion of the way the method is applied. A rough cost-benefit analysis indicates that current policy towards management agreements is justified based on the neo-Paretian welfare criterion. Copyright 1998 by Oxford University Press.

    Download Info

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below under "Related research" whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    Bibliographic Info

    Article provided by Foundation for the European Review of Agricultural Economics in its journal European Review of Agricultural Economics.

    Volume (Year): 25 (1998)
    Issue (Month): 1 ()
    Pages: 53-72

    as in new window
    Handle: RePEc:oup:erevae:v:25:y:1998:i:1:p:53-72

    Contact details of provider:
    Postal: Oxford University Press, Great Clarendon Street, Oxford OX2 6DP, UK
    Fax: 01865 267 985
    Email:
    Web page: http://www.erae.oupjournals.org/
    More information through EDIRC

    Order Information:
    Web: http://www.oup.co.uk/journals

    Related research

    Keywords:

    References

    No references listed on IDEAS
    You can help add them by filling out this form.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as in new window

    Cited by:
    1. Aliza Fleischer & Daniel Felsenstein, 2002. "Cost-Benefit Analysis Using Economic Surpluses: A Case Study of a Televised Event," Journal of Cultural Economics, Springer, vol. 26(2), pages 139-156, May.
    2. Ingo Bräuer & Rainer Marggraf, 2004. "Valuation of Ecosystem Services Provided by Biodiversity Conservation: An Integrated Hydrological and Economic Model to Value the Enhanced Nitrogen Retention in Renaturated Streams," Working Papers 2004.54, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
    3. Ojea, Elena & Loureiro, Maria L., 2011. "Identifying the scope effect on a meta-analysis of biodiversity valuation studies," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 706-724, September.
    4. Katrin Oltmer & Peter Nijkamp & Raymond Florax & Floor Brouwer, 2000. "A Meta-Analysis of Environmental Impacts of Agri-Environmental Policies in the European Union," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 00-083/3, Tinbergen Institute.
    5. Katrin Oltmer & Peter Nijkamp & Raymond Florax & Floor Brouwer, 2000. "A Meta-Analysis of Environmental Impacts of Agri-Environmental Policies in the European Union," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 00-083/3, Tinbergen Institute.
    6. Nico Polman & Arianne de Blaeij & Stijn Reinhard & Louis Slangen, 2011. "Landscape and the commercial benefits of recreation," ERSA conference papers ersa10p910, European Regional Science Association.
    7. Weber, Gerald, 2003. "Internationaler Handel und multifunktionale Landwirtschaft : Ein Agrarsektormodell zur Analyse Politischer Optionen und Entscheidungsunterstutzung," Working Paper Series 18824, Humboldt University Berlin, Department Agricultural Economics.
    8. Cho, Seong-Hoon & Yen, Steven T. & Bowker, James Michael & Newman, David H., 2008. "Modeling Willingness to Pay for Land Conservation Easements: Treatment of Zero and Protest Bids and Application and Policy Implications," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 40(01), April.
    9. Brouwer, Roy & Martín-Ortega, Julia, 2012. "Modeling self-censoring of polluter pays protest votes in stated preference research to support resource damage estimations in environmental liability," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(1), pages 151-166.
    10. Moon, Wanki & Griffith, Jacob Wayne, 2011. "Assessing holistic economic value for multifunctional agriculture in the US," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(4), pages 455-465, August.

    Lists

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:erevae:v:25:y:1998:i:1:p:53-72. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Oxford University Press) or (Christopher F. Baum).

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.