This file is part of IDEAS, which uses RePEc data


[ Papers | Articles | Software | Books | Chapters | Authors | Institutions | JEL Classification | NEP reports | Search | New papers by email | Author registration | Rankings | Volunteers | FAQ | Blog | Help! ]

Assessing management options for weed control with demanders and non-demanders in a choice experiment

Author info | Abstract | Publisher info | Download info | Related research | Statistics
Author Info
Carlsson, Fredrik () (Department of Economics, School of Business, Economics and Law, Göteborg University)
Kataria, Mitesh () (Department of Economics, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences)

Additional information is available for the following registered author(s):

Abstract

The yellow floating heart is a water weed causing nuisance problems in Swedish watercourses. An economic analysis of this is required where various management options are considered. The benefits of a management program are to a large extent recreational. Using a choice experiment we estimate the benefits of a weed management program and perform a cost-benefit analysis of different management programs. In order to be able to distinguish between those who have a demand for a program from those who do not, we introduce a way to distinguish demanders from non-demanders in the choice experiments. The advantage of our suggested approach is that we can more clearly distinguish between conditional and unconditional willingness to pay. In the empirical study we find that a share of the respondents are non-demanders. The demander willingness to pay still justifies cutting the weed in certain places in the lake, given that we use a simple cost-benefit rule.

Download Info
To download:

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. Information about this may be contained in the File-Format links below. 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://hdl.handle.net/2077/2708
File Format: text/html
File Function:
Download Restriction: no

Publisher Info
Paper provided by Göteborg University, Department of Economics in its series Working Papers in Economics with number 208.

Download reference. The following formats are available: HTML (with abstract), plain text (with abstract), BibTeX, RIS (EndNote, RefMan, ProCite), ReDIF
Length: 17 pages
Date of creation: 30 May 2006
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:hhs:gunwpe:0208

Contact details of provider:
Postal: Department of Economics, School of Business, Economics and Law, Göteborg University Box 640, SE 405 30 GÖTEBORG, Sweden
Phone: 031-773 10 00
Web page: http://www.handels.gu.se/econ/
More information through EDIRC

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its listing, contact: (Jens Anmark).

Related research
Keywords: Choice experiments; invasive species; non-demanders; bivariate probit;

Other versions of this item:

Find related papers by JEL classification:
Q25 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation - - - Water
Q26 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation - - - Recreational Aspects of Natural Resources
Q51 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Valuation of Environmental Effects

This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
  1. Carlsson, Fredrik & Frykblom, Peter & Lagerkvist, Carl-Johan, 2004. "Using Cheap-Talk as a Test of Validity in Choice Experiments," Working Papers in Economics 128, Göteborg University, Department of Economics. [Downloadable!]
    Other versions:
  2. Clinch, J Peter & Murphy, Anthony, 2001. "Modelling Winners and Losers in Contingent Valuation of Public Goods: Appropriate Welfare Measures and Econometric Analysis," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 111(470), pages 420-43, April. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  3. Carlsson, Fredrik & Frykblom, Peter & Liljenstolpe, Carolina, 2003. "Valuing wetland attributes: an application of choice experiments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 47(1), pages 95-103, November. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  4. Alpizar, Francisco & Carlsson, Fredrik & Martinsson, Peter, 2001. "Using Choice Experiments for Non-Market Valuation," Working Papers in Economics 52, Göteborg University, Department of Economics. [Downloadable!]
  5. Timothy Haab, 1999. "Nonparticipation or Misspecification? The Impacts of Nonparticipation on Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 14(4), pages 443-461, December. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  6. David F. Layton & Gardner Brown, 2000. "Heterogeneous Preferences Regarding Global Climate Change," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 82(4), pages 616-624, November. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  7. Ronald G. Cummings & Laura O. Taylor, 1999. "Unbiased Value Estimates for Environmental Goods: A Cheap Talk Design for the Contingent Valuation Method," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 89(3), pages 649-665, June. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  8. Paulo Nunes & Jeroen van den Bergh, 2004. "Can People Value Protection against Invasive Marine Species? Evidence from a Joint TC–CV Survey in the Netherlands," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 28(4), pages 517-532, August. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
Full references

Statistics
Access and download statistics

Did you know? RePEc and its associated services are free for contributors and users, and do not accept any advertising.

This page was last updated on 2009-11-19.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Department of Economics, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, University of Connecticut using RePEc data on a server sponsored by the Society for Economic Dynamics.