Using Direct Questioning To Value The Existence Benefits Of Preserved Natural Areas
A major limitation to the effectiveness of benefit-cost analyses of proposals involving natural ecosystems is the assertion of existence demand. Not only has confusion arisen regarding its exact definition but little has been done to establish its magnitude. Existence benefits are defined and an empirical study of the value a sample of Canberra residents places on the continued provision of the existence benefits of a particular ecosystem, Nadgee Nature Reserve, is outlined. It is concluded that while the measurement technique employed, the direct questioning of respondents, may be subject to a problem of response bias, it is capable of providing a reasonable estimate of these existence benefits. The average existence value per Canberra adult is at least $20, that is $2 per annum in perpetuity given a 10 per cent real interest rate.
Volume (Year): 28 (1984)
Issue (Month): 02-03 ()
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: |
Phone: 0409 032 338
Web page: http://www.aares.info/
More information through EDIRC
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.:
- Philip A. Meyer, 1979. "Publicly Vested Values for Fish and Wildlife: Criteria in Economic Welfare and Interface with the Law," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 54(2), pages 223-235.
- Randall, Alan & Ives, Berry & Eastman, Clyde, 1974. "Bidding games for valuation of aesthetic environmental improvements," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 1(2), pages 132-149, August.
- Rowe, Robert D. & D'Arge, Ralph C. & Brookshire, David S., 1980. "An experiment on the economic value of visibility," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 7(1), pages 1-19, March.
- Brookshire, David S. & Ives, Berry C. & Schulze, William D., 1976. "The valuation of aesthetic preferences," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 3(4), pages 325-346, December.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:ajaeau:22438. 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: (AgEcon Search)
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.