IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/ajaeau/22438.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Using Direct Questioning To Value The Existence Benefits Of Preserved Natural Areas

Author

Listed:
  • Bennett, Jeffrey W.

Abstract

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Bennett, Jeffrey W., 1984. "Using Direct Questioning To Value The Existence Benefits Of Preserved Natural Areas," Australian Journal of Agricultural Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 28(2-3), pages 1-17, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:ajaeau:22438
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.22438
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/22438/files/28020136.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.22438?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
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Randall, Alan & Brookshire, David S., 1978. "Public Policy, Public Goods, And Contingent Valuation Mechanisms," Staff Papers 292748, University of Kentucky, Department of Agricultural Economics.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    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. Mikhail Miklyaev & Glenn P. Jenkins & Precious P. Adeshina, 2022. "Ex-Post Evaluation of The Algerian SWRO Desalination PPP Program," Development Discussion Papers 2022-14, JDI Executive Programs.
    2. Young, Ralph & Carter, Marc, 1990. "The Economic Evaluation of Environmental Research: A Case Study of the South-East Forests," 1990 Conference (34th), February 13-15, 1990, Brisbane, Australia 145486, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    3. Rodgers Makwinja & Ishmael Bobby Mphangwe Kosamu & Chikumbusko Chiziwa Kaonga, 2019. "Determinants and Values of Willingness to Pay for Water Quality Improvement: Insights from Chia Lagoon, Malawi," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(17), pages 1-26, August.
    4. W. George Hutchinson & Susan M. Chilton & John Davis, 1995. "Measuring Non‐Use Value Of Environmental Goods Using The Contingent Valuation Method: Problems Of Information And Cognition And The Application Of Cognitive Questionnaire Design Methods," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 46(1), pages 97-112, January.
    5. Kosz, Michael, 1996. "Valuing riverside wetlands: the case of the "Donau-Auen" national park," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 16(2), pages 109-127, February.
    6. Young, Ralph, 1991. "The Economic Significance of Environmental Resources: A Review of the Evidence," Review of Marketing and Agricultural Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 59(03), pages 1-26, December.
    7. Tran Huu Tuan & Henrik Lindhjem, 2008. "Meta-analysis of nature conservation values in Asia & Oceania: Data heterogeneity and benefit transfer issues," EEPSEA Research Report rr2008072, Economy and Environment Program for Southeast Asia (EEPSEA), revised Jul 2008.
    8. Jette Jacobsen & Nick Hanley, 2009. "Are There Income Effects on Global Willingness to Pay for Biodiversity Conservation?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 43(2), pages 137-160, June.
    9. Nunes, P.A.L.D. & Nijkamp, P., 2011. "Biodiversity: Economic perspectives," Serie Research Memoranda 0002, VU University Amsterdam, Faculty of Economics, Business Administration and Econometrics.
    10. Jeff Bennett, 1996. "The Contingent Valuation Method: A Post-Kakadu Assessment," Agenda - A Journal of Policy Analysis and Reform, Australian National University, College of Business and Economics, School of Economics, vol. 3(2), pages 185-194.
    11. Koichi Yamaura & Shin Sakaue & Toyoaki Washida, 2017. "An assessment of global warming and biodiversity: CGE EMEDA analyses," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 19(2), pages 405-426, April.
    12. Jeff Bennett, 2005. "Australasian environmental economics: contributions, conflicts and ‘cop‐outs’," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 49(3), pages 243-261, September.
    13. Paulo A.L.D. Nunes & Jeroen C.J.M. van den Bergh & Peter Nijkamp, 2000. "Ecological-Economic Analysis and Valuation of Biodiversity," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 00-100/3, Tinbergen Institute.
    14. Boyd D. Blackwell & John Asafu-Adjaye, 2020. "Adding Jewels To The Crown: The Marginal Recreational Value Of Noosa National Park And Implications For User Fees," Discussion Papers Series 622, School of Economics, University of Queensland, Australia.
    15. M. Common & I. Reid & R. Blamey, 1997. "Do existence values for cost benefit analysis exist?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 9(2), pages 225-238, March.
    16. Nunes, Paulo A. L. D. & van den Bergh, Jeroen C. J. M., 2001. "Economic valuation of biodiversity: sense or nonsense?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 39(2), pages 203-222, November.
    17. Tumaneng-Diete, Tessie & Page, Ashley & Binney, Jim, 2005. "Assessing the economic values of exotic invasive plants on areas of conservation significance in Queensland," 2005 Conference (49th), February 9-11, 2005, Coff's Harbour, Australia 139287, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.

    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. Bergstrom, John C. & Dillman, B.L. & Stoll, John R., 1985. "Public Environmental Amenity Benefits Of Private Land: The Case Of Prime Agricultural Land," Southern Journal of Agricultural Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 17(1), pages 1-11, July.
    2. Richard T. Carson, 2011. "Contingent Valuation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2489.
    3. Brookshire, David S, et al, 1982. "Valuing Public Goods: A Comparison of Survey and Hedonic Approaches," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 72(1), pages 165-177, March.
    4. Smith, V. Kerry, 2000. "JEEM and Non-market Valuation: 1974-1998," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 39(3), pages 351-374, May.
    5. John H. Cumberland & Leon Taylor, 1994. "The Economics Of Eyesores," The Review of Regional Studies, Southern Regional Science Association, vol. 24(2), pages 161-176, Fall.
    6. François Bonnieux & Philippe Le Goffe & Dominique Vermersch, 1995. "La méthode d'évaluation contingente : application à la qualité des eaux littorales," Économie et Prévision, Programme National Persée, vol. 117(1), pages 89-106.
    7. Kosz, Michael, 1996. "Valuing riverside wetlands: the case of the "Donau-Auen" national park," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 16(2), pages 109-127, February.
    8. K.G. Willis, 2002. "Research Note: Iterative Bid Design in Contingent Valuation and the Estimation of the Revenue Maximising Price for a Cultural Good," Journal of Cultural Economics, Springer;The Association for Cultural Economics International, vol. 26(4), pages 307-324, November.
    9. Bowker, J. M. & MacDonald, H. F., 1992. "An Economic Analysis of Localized Pollution: Rendering Emissions in a Residential Setting," 1992 Annual Meeting, August 9-12, Baltimore, Maryland 271381, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    10. Samples, Karl C., 1985. "A Note On The Existence Of Starting Point Bias In Iterative Bidding Games," Western Journal of Agricultural Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 10(1), pages 1-9, July.
    11. Hoehn, John P. & Randall, Alan, 1985. "Demand Based And Contingent Valuation: An Empirical Comparison," 1985 Annual Meeting, August 4-7, Ames, Iowa 278557, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    12. Cropper, Maureen L & Oates, Wallace E, 1992. "Environmental Economics: A Survey," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 30(2), pages 675-740, June.
    13. Banzhaf, H. Spencer, 2016. "Constructing markets: environmental economics and the contingent valuation controversy," MPRA Paper 78814, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    14. Green, Donald & Jacowitz, Karen E. & Kahneman, Daniel & McFadden, Daniel, 1998. "Referendum contingent valuation, anchoring, and willingness to pay for public goods," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 20(2), pages 85-116, June.
    15. Randall, Alan, 1982. "Economic Surplus Concepts and Their Use in Benefit Cost Analysis," Review of Marketing and Agricultural Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 50(02), pages 1-29, August.
    16. Kevin J. Boyle & Richard C. Bishop & Michael P. Welsh, 1985. "Starting Point Bias in Contingent Valuation Bidding Games," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 62(2), pages 188-194.
    17. Nick Hanley & Mikołaj Czajkowski, 2017. "Stated Preference valuation methods: an evolving tool for understanding choices and informing policy," Working Papers 2017-01, Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw.
    18. George H. Lentz & Ko Wang, 1998. "Residential Appraisal and the Lending Process: A Survey of Issues," Journal of Real Estate Research, American Real Estate Society, vol. 15(1), pages 11-40.
    19. Bender, Ruth Larson, 1984. "Habitat characteristics and pheasant hunting participation: a household production function application," ISU General Staff Papers 1984010108000017521, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    20. Niklas Zethraeus, 1998. "Willingness to pay for hormone replacement therapy," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 7(1), pages 31-38, February.

    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:ags:ajaeau:22438. 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: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aaresea.html .

    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.