A Contingent Valuation Estimate of the Benefits of Wolves in Minnesota
In this paper we estimate the willingness topay for a wolf management plan and a wolfdamage plan in Minnesota using the contingentvaluation method. The theoretical definition ofwillingness to pay for wolf protection iscomposed of use and non-use values. Weincorporate a don't know response option in thedichotomous choice valuation questions. A largenumber of respondents answered don't know. Themultinomial logit model is used todifferentiate between don't know and noresponses. Non-use motives are importantfactors that explain willingness to pay. We usethese benefit estimates in combination with twoalternative cost estimates to consider theefficiency of the wolf management and damageplans. Both plans have estimated benefitsgreater than costs. Copyright Kluwer Academic Publishers 2003
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.
Volume (Year): 26 (2003)
Issue (Month): 2 (October)
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://www.springer.com|
Postal:c/o EAERE Secretariat - Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei - Isola di San Giorgio Maggiore 8, I-30124 Venice, Italy
Web page: http://www.eaere.org/
More information through EDIRC
|Order Information:||Web: http://www.springer.com/economics/environmental/journal/10640/PS2|
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.:
- Richard C. Ready & Dayuan Hu, 1995. "Statistical Approaches to the Fat Tail Problem for Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 71(4), pages 491-499.
- Loomis, John & Ekstrand, Earl, 1998. "Alternative approaches for incorporating respondent uncertainty when estimating willingness to pay: the case of the Mexican spotted owl," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 27(1), pages 29-41, October.
- Kotchen, Matthew J. & Reiling, Stephen D., 2000. "Environmental attitudes, motivations, and contingent valuation of nonuse values: a case study involving endangered species," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 93-107, January.
- Dixie Reaves & Randall Kramer & Thomas Holmes, 1999. "Does Question Format Matter? Valuing an Endangered Species," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 14(3), pages 365-383, October.
- Trudy Ann Cameron, 1991. "Interval Estimates of Non-Market Resource Values from Referendum Contingent Valuation Surveys," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 67(4), pages 413-421.
- Wang, Hua, 1997. "Treatment of "Don't-Know" Responses in Contingent Valuation Surveys: A Random Valuation Model," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 32(2), pages 219-232, February.
- Richard T. Carson & W. Michael Hanemann & Raymond J. Kopp & Jon A. Krosnick & Robert Cameron Mitchell & Stanley Presser, 1998.
"Referendum Design and Contingent Valuation: The NOAA Panel's No-Vote Recommendation,"
The Review of Economics and Statistics,
MIT Press, vol. 80(2), pages 335-338, May.
- Richard T. Carson & W. Michael Hanemann & Raymond J. Kopp & Jon A. Krosnick & Robert Cameron Mitchell & Stanley Presser, 1998. "Referendum Design And Contingent Valuation: The Noaa Panel'S No-Vote Recommendation," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 80(3), pages 484-487, August.
- Richard T. Carson & W. Michael Hanemann & Raymond J. Kopp & Jon A. Krosnick & Robert C. Mitchell & Stanley Presser & Paul A. Ruud & Smith, V. Kerry, 1995. "Referendum Design and Contingent Valuation: TheNOAA Panel's No-Vote Recommendation," Working Papers 95-17, Duke University, Department of Economics.
- Kopp, Raymond & Smith, V. Kerry & Mitchell, Robert & Presser, Stanley & Ruud, Paul & Hanemann, W. Michael & Krosnick, Jon & Carson, Richard, 1995. "Referendum Design and Contingent Valuation: The NOAA Panel's No-Vote Recommendation," Discussion Papers dp-96-05, Resources For the Future.
- Richard T. Carson, 2011.
Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2489, June.
- Loomis, John B. & White, Douglas S., 1996. "Economic benefits of rare and endangered species: summary and meta-analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(3), pages 197-206, September.
- Cameron, Trudy Ann, 1988. "A new paradigm for valuing non-market goods using referendum data: Maximum likelihood estimation by censored logistic regression," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 15(3), pages 355-379, September.
- McConnell, K. E., 1997. "Does Altruism Undermine Existence Value?," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 22-37, January.
- John B. Loomis, 2000. "Vertically Summing Public Good Demand Curves: An Empirical Comparison of Economic versus Political Jurisdictions," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 76(2), pages 312-321.
- Haener, Michel K. & Adamowicz, Wiktor L., 1998. "Analysis Of "Don'T Know" Response To Referendum Contingent Valuation Questions," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 27(2), pages -, October.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:kap:enreec:v:26:y:2003:i:2:p:249-267. 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: (Sonal Shukla)or (Rebekah McClure)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.