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

Vertically Summing Public Good Demand Curves: An Empirical Comparison of Economic versus Political Jurisdictions

Contents:

Author Info

  • John B. Loomis

Abstract

Fiscal equivalence for efficient provision of a public good requires perfect correspondence between political and economic jurisdictions. However, the spatial extent of the economic jurisdiction is an empirical question. Drawing on four survey-based valuation studies, we measure the "relative public good benefit gradient" as a function of residential location from six natural resource public goods. The results indicate commonly used state political jurisdictions reflect an average of 13% of total benefits in the economic jurisdiction, although with a logarithmic form for distance the upper confidence interval of state benefits can include 100% for some species.

Download Info

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
File URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/3147231
Download Restriction: A subscripton is required to access pdf files. Pay per article is available.

As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

Bibliographic Info

Article provided by University of Wisconsin Press in its journal Land Economics.

Volume (Year): 76 (2000)
Issue (Month): 2 ()
Pages: 312-321

as in new window
Handle: RePEc:uwp:landec:v:76:y:2000:i:2:p:312-321

Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://le.uwpress.org/

Related research

Keywords:

Find related papers by JEL classification:

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. Luke Brander & Andrea Ghermandi & Onno Kuik & Anil Markandya & Paulo A.L.D. Nunes & Marije Schaafsma & Alfred Wagtendonk, 2010. "Scaling up Ecosystem Services Values: Methodology, Applicability and a Case Study," Working Papers, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei 2010.41, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
  2. Zafonte, Matthew & Hampton, Steve, 2007. "Exploring welfare implications of resource equivalency analysis in natural resource damage assessments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, Elsevier, vol. 61(1), pages 134-145, February.
  3. Richardson, Leslie & Loomis, John, 2009. "The total economic value of threatened, endangered and rare species: An updated meta-analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, Elsevier, vol. 68(5), pages 1535-1548, March.
  4. John Cullinan & Stephen Hynes & Cathal O’Donoghue, 2008. "Aggregating Consumer Surplus Values in Travel Cost Modelling Using Spatial Microsimulation and GIS Techniques," Working Papers, Rural Economy and Development Programme,Teagasc 0807, Rural Economy and Development Programme,Teagasc.
  5. Ando, Amy W. & Shah, Payal, 2010. "Demand-side factors in optimal land conservation choice," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, Elsevier, vol. 32(2), pages 203-221, April.
  6. Shalini P. Vajjhala & Anna Mische John & David A. Evans, 2008. "Determining the Extent of Market and Extent of Resource for Stated Preference Survey Design Using Mapping Methods," NCEE Working Paper Series, National Center for Environmental Economics, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 200809, National Center for Environmental Economics, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, revised Oct 2008.
  7. Deacon, Robert T & Schläpfer, Felix, 2007. "The spatial range of public goods revealed through referendum voting," University of California at Santa Barbara, Economics Working Paper Series qt1pf1369j, Department of Economics, UC Santa Barbara.
  8. Mazzanti, Massimiliano, 2003. "Valuing cultural heritage in a multi-attribute framework microeconomic perspectives and policy implications," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, Elsevier, vol. 32(5), pages 549-569, November.
  9. Catherine Chambers & John Whitehead, 2003. "A Contingent Valuation Estimate of the Benefits of Wolves in Minnesota," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 26(2), pages 249-267, October.
  10. Bateman, Ian J. & Day, Brett H. & Georgiou, Stavros & Lake, Iain, 2006. "The aggregation of environmental benefit values: Welfare measures, distance decay and total WTP," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, Elsevier, vol. 60(2), pages 450-460, December.
  11. Jørgensen, Sisse Liv & Olsen, Søren Bøye & Ladenburg, Jacob & Martinsen, Louise & Svenningsen, Stig Roar & Hasler, Berit, 2013. "Spatially induced disparities in users' and non-users' WTP for water quality improvements—Testing the effect of multiple substitutes and distance decay," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 58-66.
  12. De Valck, Jeremy & Vlaeminck, Pieter & Liekens, Inge & Aertsens, Joris & Chen, Wendy & Vranken, Liesbet, 2012. "The sources of preference heterogeneity for nature restoration scenarios," Working Papers, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Centre for Agricultural and Food Economics 146522, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Centre for Agricultural and Food Economics.
  13. Choi, Andy S., 2013. "Nonmarket values of major resources in the Korean DMZ areas: A test of distance decay," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 97-107.
  14. John Cullinan, 2011. "A Spatial Microsimulation Approach to Estimating the Total Number and Economic Value of Site Visits in Travel Cost Modelling," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 50(1), pages 27-47, September.
  15. Schlapfer, Felix, 2006. "Survey protocol and income effects in the contingent valuation of public goods: A meta-analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, Elsevier, vol. 57(3), pages 415-429, May.

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:uwp:landec:v:76:y:2000:i:2:p:312-321. 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: ().

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.