IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ula/econom/v43y2018i45p73-103.html

Market failure, perception and logic of the commons. Case: Sierra Nevada National Park, Venezuela

Author

Listed:
  • José Miguel Sánchez

    (Doctor en Economía de los Recursos Naturales y el Desarrollo Sostenible de la Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. Profesor del Instituto de Investigaciones Económicas y Sociales, Universidad de Los Andes, Mérida, Venezuela. Teléfono: +58-274-2401081.)

Abstract

Garrett Hardin’s approach, Tragedy of the Commons, has led to the generalization and oblivion of the conditions and assumptions under which open access resources tend to be degraded as a result of their logic or dilemma. This paper aims to reinterpret many of the causes that, according to hardinian and post-hardinian literature, lead to the degradation of natural resources. Economic theory provides the analytical tools needed to propose policies and programs for the management of natural areas such as the Sierra Nevada National Park.

Suggested Citation

  • José Miguel Sánchez, 2018. "Market failure, perception and logic of the commons. Case: Sierra Nevada National Park, Venezuela," Economía, Instituto de Investigaciones Económicas y Sociales (IIES). Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y Sociales. Universidad de Los Andes. Mérida, Venezuela, vol. 43(45), pages 73-103, January-J.
    • Handle: RePEc:ula:econom:v:43:y:2018:i:45:p:73-103
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: ftp://iies.faces.ula.ve/Pdf/Revista45/Rev45Sanchez.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Nick Hanley & Douglas MacMillan & Robert E. Wright & Craig Bullock & Ian Simpson & Dave Parsisson & Bob Crabtree, 1998. "Contingent Valuation Versus Choice Experiments: Estimating the Benefits of Environmentally Sensitive Areas in Scotland," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 49(1), pages 1-15, March.
    2. Mike Christie & Christopher D. Azevedo, 2009. "Testing the Consistency Between Standard Contingent Valuation, Repeated Contingent Valuation and Choice Experiments," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 60(1), pages 154-170, February.
    3. Mogas, Joan & Riera, Pere & Bennett, Jeff, 2006. "A comparison of contingent valuation and choice modelling with second-order interactions," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 12(1), pages 5-30, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Oviedo, José L. & Caparrós, Alejandro, 2015. "Information and visual attention in contingent valuation and choice modeling: field and eye-tracking experiments applied to reforestations in Spain," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(4), pages 185-204.
    2. Patrick Lloyd-Smith & Ewa Zawojska & Wiktor Adamowicz, 2020. "Moving beyond the Contingent Valuation versus Choice Experiment Debate: Presentation Effects in Stated Preference," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 96(1), pages 1-24.
    3. José Miguel Sánchez U., 2013. "Contingent valuation and choice experiments applied to the Sierra Nevada National Park in Venezuela," Economía, Instituto de Investigaciones Económicas y Sociales (IIES). Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y Sociales. Universidad de Los Andes. Mérida, Venezuela, vol. 38(35), pages 57-100, January-J.
    4. Niroomand, Naghmeh & Jenkins, Glenn P., 2018. "A comparison of stated preference methods for the valuation of improvement in road safety," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 138-149.
    5. Jin, Jianjun & He, Rui & Wang, Wenyu & Gong, Haozhou, 2018. "Valuing cultivated land protection: A contingent valuation and choice experiment study in China," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 214-219.
    6. Choi, Andy S., 2013. "Nonmarket values of major resources in the Korean DMZ areas: A test of distance decay," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 97-107.
    7. José L. Oviedo & Alejandro Caparrós, 2014. "Comparing contingent valuation and choice modeling using field and eye-tracking lab data," Working Papers 1401, Instituto de Políticas y Bienes Públicos (IPP), CSIC.
    8. Vecchiato, D. & Tempesta, T., 2013. "Valuing the benefits of an afforestation project in a peri-urban area with choice experiments," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(C), pages 111-120.
    9. Naresh Nepal & Eric Steltzer & Alok K. Bohara & Kelly Cullen, 2018. "Public values on offshore wind farm," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 20(1), pages 225-240, January.
    10. Robert J. Johnston & Kevin J. Boyle & Wiktor (Vic) Adamowicz & Jeff Bennett & Roy Brouwer & Trudy Ann Cameron & W. Michael Hanemann & Nick Hanley & Mandy Ryan & Riccardo Scarpa & Roger Tourangeau & Ch, 2017. "Contemporary Guidance for Stated Preference Studies," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 4(2), pages 319-405.
    11. Pierre-Alexandre Mahieu & Henrik Andersson & Olivier Beaumais & Romain Crastes dit Sourd & Stephane Hess & François-Charles Wolf, 2017. "Stated preferences: a unique database composed of 1657recent published articles in journals relatedto agriculture, environment, or health," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, INRA Department of Economics, vol. 98(3), pages 201-220.
    12. Adam Finn & Stuart McFadyen & Colin Hoskins, 2003. "Valuing the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation," Journal of Cultural Economics, Springer;The Association for Cultural Economics International, vol. 27(3), pages 177-192, November.
    13. Caroline Roussy & Aude Ridier & Karim Chaïb, 2014. "Adoption d’innovations par les agriculteurs : rôle des perceptions et des préférences," Post-Print hal-01123427, HAL.
    14. Adamowicz, Wiktor L. & Lloyd-Smith, Patrick & Zawojska, Ewa, "undated". "Is there really a difference between “contingent valuation” and “choice experiments”? Evidence from an induced-value experiment," 2018 Annual Meeting, August 5-7, Washington, D.C. 274015, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    15. Pretty, J. N. & Brett, C. & Gee, D. & Hine, R. E. & Mason, C. F. & Morison, J. I. L. & Raven, H. & Rayment, M. D. & van der Bijl, G., 2000. "An assessment of the total external costs of UK agriculture," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 65(2), pages 113-136, August.
    16. Gómez-Limón, José A. & Granado-Díaz, Rubén, 2023. "Assessing the demand for hydrological drought insurance in irrigated agriculture," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 276(C).
    17. Riccardo Scarpa, 2000. "Contingent Valuation Versus Choice Experiments: Estimating the Benefits of Environmentally Sensitive Areas in Scotland: Comment," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 51(1), pages 122-128, January.
    18. del Saz Salazar, Salvador & Hernandez Sancho, Francesc & Sala Garrido, Ramon, 2009. "Estimación del valor económico de la calidad del agua de un río mediante una doble aproximación: una aplicación de los principios económicos de la Directiva Marco del Agua," Economia Agraria y Recursos Naturales, Spanish Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 9(01), pages 1-27.
    19. 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.
    20. Veisten, Knut, 2007. "Contingent valuation controversies: Philosophic debates about economic theory," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 204-232, April.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • Q21 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation - - - Demand and Supply; Prices

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:ula:econom:v:43:y:2018:i:45:p:73-103. 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: Alexis Vásquez The email address of this maintainer does not seem to be valid anymore. Please ask Alexis Vásquez to update the entry or send us the correct address (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/iiulave.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.