Exploring nonmarket values for the social impacts of environmental policy change
Although the majority of contingent valuation studies have been for environmental goods, the method can be applied to public goods in general. Further, a specific environmental policy may generate both positive and negative nonmarket values. This exploratory study investigates the presence of nonmarket values for maintaining the status quo land use and avoiding social impacts from an environmental policy change. The test case, grazing reform on federal lands in New Mexico, was chosen because of the complexity of the public debate. By switching the traditional perspective, we demonstrate the need to accommodate multi-dimensionality in nonmarket research into controversial policies.
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.
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.
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.:
- Donald H. Rosenthal & Robert H. Nelson, 1992. "Why existence value should not be used in cost-benefit analysis," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 11(1), pages 116-122.
- Whittlesey, Norman K. & Huffaker, Ray G. & Butcher, Walter R., 1993. "Grazing Policy on Public Lands," Choices, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 8(3).
- Richard C. Bishop & Michael P. Welsh, 1992. "Existence Values in Benefit-Cost Analysis and Damage Assessment," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 68(4), pages 405-417.
- Raymond J. Kopp, 1992. "Why existence value should be used in cost-benefit analysis," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 11(1), pages 123-130.
- Paul R. Portney, 1994. "The Contingent Valuation Debate: Why Economists Should Care," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 8(4), pages 3-17, Fall.
- Buhr, Brian L. & Hayes, Dermot J. & Shogren, Jason F. & Kliebenstein, James B., 1993.
"Valuing Ambiguity: The Case Of Genetically Engineered Growth Enhancers,"
Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics,
Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 18(02), December.
- Buhr, Brian L. & Hayes, Dermot J. & Shogren, Jason F. & Kliebenstein, James B., 1993. "Valuing Ambiguity: The Case of Genetically Engineered Growth Enhancers," ISU General Staff Papers 199312010800001010, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
- Buhr, Brian L. & Hayes, Dermot J. & Shogren, Jason F. & Kliebenstein, James, 1993. "Valuing Ambiguity: The Case of Genetically Engineered Growth Enhancers," Staff General Research Papers Archive 675, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
- Lockwood, Michael & Loomis, John & De Lacy, Terry, 1994. "The relative unimportance of a nonmarket willingness to pay for timber harvesting," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 9(2), pages 145-152, February.
- Kahneman, Daniel & Ritov, Ilana, 1994. "Determinants of Stated Willingness to Pay for Public Goods: A Study in the Headline Method," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 9(1), pages 5-38, July.
- Peter A. Diamond & Jerry A. Hausman, 1994. "Contingent Valuation: Is Some Number Better than No Number?," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 8(4), pages 45-64, Fall.
- Thomas H. Stevens & homas A. More & Ronald J. Glass, 1994. "Interpretation and Temporal Stability of CV Bids for Wildlife Existence: A Panel Study," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 70(3), pages 355-363.
- Hanemann, W Michael, 1991. "Willingness to Pay and Willingness to Accept: How Much Can They Differ?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 81(3), pages 635-647, June. Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:resene:v:20:y:1998:i:2:p:117-137. 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: (Dana Niculescu)
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.