IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Login to save this article or follow this journal

Assessing Management Options for Weed Control with Demanders and Non-Demanders in a Choice Experiment

  • Fredrik Carlsson
  • Mitesh Kataria

The yellow floating heart is a water weed causing nuisance problems in Swedish watercourses. An economic analysis where various management options are considered is required. Using a choice experiment, we estimate the benefits of a weed-management program and perform a cost-benefit analysis. In order to be able to distinguish between those who have a demand for a program from those who do not, we introduce a way to distinguish demanders from non-demanders in the choice experiments. Using a simple cost-benefit rule, we find that cutting the weed in certain places in the lake can be justified.

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.

File URL: http://le.uwpress.org/cgi/reprint/84/3/517
Download Restriction: A subscription is required to access pdf files. Pay per article is available.

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.

Article provided by University of Wisconsin Press in its journal Land Economics.

Volume (Year): 84 (2008)
Issue (Month): 3 ()
Pages: 517-528

as
in new window

Handle: RePEc:uwp:landec:v:84:y:2008:i:3:p:517-528
Contact details of provider: Web page: http://le.uwpress.org/

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.:

as in new window
  1. Peter Martinsson, 2002. "Using Choice Experiments for Non-Market Valuation," EEPSEA Special and Technical Paper sp200205t2, Economy and Environment Program for Southeast Asia (EEPSEA), revised May 2002.
  2. J. A. Hausman & D. A. Wise, 1976. "A Conditional Profit Model for Qualitative Choice: Discrete Decisions Recognizing Interdependence and Heterogeneous Preferences," Working papers 173, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Department of Economics.
  3. Van de Ven, Wynand P. M. M. & Van Praag, Bernard M. S., 1981. "The demand for deductibles in private health insurance : A probit model with sample selection," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 17(2), pages 229-252, November.
  4. David F. Layton & Gardner Brown, 2000. "Heterogeneous Preferences Regarding Global Climate Change," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 82(4), pages 616-624, November.
  5. Bengt Kristr�m, 1997. "Spike Models in Contingent Valuation," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 79(3), pages 1013-1023.
  6. Carlsson, Fredrik & Frykblom, Peter & Lagerkvist, Carl-Johan, 2004. "Using Cheap-Talk as a Test of Validity in Choice Experiments," Working Papers in Economics 128, University of Gothenburg, Department of Economics.
  7. Timothy Haab, 1999. "Nonparticipation or Misspecification? The Impacts of Nonparticipation on Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 14(4), pages 443-461, December.
  8. Paulo Nunes & Jeroen van den Bergh, 2004. "Can People Value Protection against Invasive Marine Species? Evidence from a Joint TC–CV Survey in the Netherlands," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 28(4), pages 517-532, August.
  9. Kenneth Train, 2003. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Online economics textbooks, SUNY-Oswego, Department of Economics, number emetr2, March.
  10. repec:cup:cbooks:9780521788304 is not listed on IDEAS
  11. Carlsson, Fredrik & Frykblom, Peter & Liljenstolpe, Carolina, 2003. "Valuing wetland attributes: an application of choice experiments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 47(1), pages 95-103, November.
  12. Clinch, J Peter & Murphy, Anthony, 2001. "Modelling Winners and Losers in Contingent Valuation of Public Goods: Appropriate Welfare Measures and Econometric Analysis," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 111(470), pages 420-43, April.
  13. Laura O. Taylor & Ronald G. Cummings, 1999. "Unbiased Value Estimates for Environmental Goods: A Cheap Talk Design for the Contingent Valuation Method," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 89(3), pages 649-665, June.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:uwp:landec:v:84:y:2008:i:3:p:517-528. 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: ()

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.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.