IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/defpea/v18y2007i3p223-244.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

'People Or Prairie Chickens' Revisited: Stated Preferences With Explicit Non-Market Trade-Offs

Author

Listed:
  • Jeffrey S. Smith
  • Michael McKee

Abstract

Urban sprawl has led to increasing prevalence of endangered species on military training facilities throughout the United States. Provisions of the Endangered Species Act imply encroachment interrupts military training activities and may affect military readiness. Endangered species protection and military training are competing non-market goods. This paper reports the estimates of public valuation of military training activities incorporating explicit trade-offs associated with endangered species protection. Our results suggest the public is willing to pay to alleviate conflicts between endangered species and the military. The public values for continued survival of endangered species approximately equal those for military readiness.

Suggested Citation

  • Jeffrey S. Smith & Michael McKee, 2007. "'People Or Prairie Chickens' Revisited: Stated Preferences With Explicit Non-Market Trade-Offs," Defence and Peace Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 18(3), pages 223-244.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:defpea:v:18:y:2007:i:3:p:223-244
    DOI: 10.1080/10242690600924661
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10242690600924661
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/10242690600924661?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jeff Bennett & Russell Blamey (ed.), 2001. "The Choice Modelling Approach to Environmental Valuation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2028, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Katherine Silz Carson & Susan M. Chilton & W. George Hutchinson & Riccardo Scarpa, 2020. "Public resource allocation, strategic behavior, and status quo bias in choice experiments," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 185(1), pages 1-19, October.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Divine Ikenwilo & Sebastian Heidenreich & Mandy Ryan & Colette Mankowski & Jameel Nazir & Verity Watson, 2018. "The Best of Both Worlds: An Example Mixed Methods Approach to Understand Men’s Preferences for the Treatment of Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 11(1), pages 55-67, February.
    2. Khan, Md. Tajuddin & Kishore, Avinash & Joshi, Pramod Kumar, 2016. "Gender dimensions on farmers’ preferences for direct-seeded rice with drum seeder in India:," IFPRI discussion papers 1550, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    3. Kallas, Z. & Gómez-Limón, J.A., 2007. "Valoración De La Multifuncionalidad Agraria: Una Aplicación A Través Del Método De Los Experimentos De Elección/Agricultural Multifunctionality Valuation: A Case Study Using The Choice Experiment," Estudios de Economia Aplicada, Estudios de Economia Aplicada, vol. 25, pages 107-144, Abril.
    4. Concu, Giovanni B., 2007. "Investigating distance effects on environmental values: a choice modelling approach," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 51(2), pages 1-20.
    5. Campbell, Robert M. & Venn, Tyron J. & Anderson, Nathaniel M., 2016. "Social preferences toward energy generation with woody biomass from public forests in Montana, USA," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 58-67.
    6. Rolfe, John & Windle, Jill, 2008. "Testing for differences in benefit transfer values between state and regional frameworks," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 52(2), pages 1-20.
    7. Domínguez-Torreiro, Marcos & Soliño, Mario, 2011. "Provided and perceived status quo in choice experiments: Implications for valuing the outputs of multifunctional rural areas," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(12), pages 2523-2531.
    8. Nguyen, Thanh Cong & Le, Hoa Thu & Nguyen, Hang Dieu & Ngo, Mai Thanh & Nguyen, Hong Quang, 2021. "Examining ordering effects and strategic behaviour in a discrete choice experiment," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 394-413.
    9. Kingwell, Ross S., 2002. "Issues for Farm Management in the 21st Century: A view from the West," 2002 Conference (46th), February 13-15, 2002, Canberra, Australia 173982, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    10. Rogers, Abbie A. & Cleland, Jonelle, 2010. "Comparing Scientist and Public Preferences for Conserving Environmental Systems: A Case of the Kimberley’s Tropical Waterways and Wetlands," Research Reports 107579, Australian National University, Environmental Economics Research Hub.
    11. van der Kroon, Bianca & Brouwer, Roy & van Beukering, Pieter J.H., 2014. "The impact of the household decision environment on fuel choice behavior," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 236-247.
    12. Iqbal, Md. Hafiz & Aziz, Ahsan, 2022. "Crop selection as climate change adaptation: A study on Koyra Upazila of Bangladesh," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 199(C).
    13. Tisdell, Clement A. & Wilson, Clevo, 2003. "Economics of Wildlife Tourism," Economics, Ecology and Environment Working Papers 48969, University of Queensland, School of Economics.
    14. Rambonilaza, Mbolatiana, 2004. "Évaluation de la demande de paysage : état de l’art et réflexions sur la méthode du transfert des benefices," Cahiers d'Economie et de Sociologie Rurales (CESR), Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA), vol. 70.
    15. Jonelle Cleland & Abbie McCartney, 2010. "Putting the Spotlight on Attribute Definition: Divergence Between Experts and the Public," Environmental Economics Research Hub Research Reports 1077, Environmental Economics Research Hub, Crawford School of Public Policy, The Australian National University.
    16. repec:ags:aare05:139324 is not listed on IDEAS
    17. Rulleau, Bénédicte & Dehez, Jeoffrey & Point, Patrick, 2011. "The tourist recreational demand for coastal forests: Do forests really matter?," Review of Agricultural and Environmental Studies - Revue d'Etudes en Agriculture et Environnement (RAEStud), Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA), vol. 92(3).
    18. Marit E. Kragt & Jeff Bennett, 2008. "Developing a Questionnaire for Valuing Changes in Natural Resource Management in the George Catchment, Tasmania," Environmental Economics Research Hub Research Reports 0808, Environmental Economics Research Hub, Crawford School of Public Policy, The Australian National University.
    19. Giovanni B Concu, 2009. "Measuring Environmental Externality Spillovers through Choice Modelling," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 41(1), pages 199-212, January.
    20. Racevskis, Laila A. & Lupi, Frank, 2008. "Incentive Compatibility in an Attribute-Based Referendum Model," 2008 Annual Meeting, July 27-29, 2008, Orlando, Florida 6477, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    21. Johane Dikgang & Edwin Muchapondwa, 2017. "Local communities’ valuation of environmental amenities around the Kgalagadi Transfrontier Park in Southern Africa," Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 6(2), pages 168-182, April.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:defpea:v:18:y:2007:i:3:p:223-244. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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 CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc 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 RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/GDPE20 .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.