IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/aaea85/278634.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Information Disclosure And Endangered Species Valuation

Author

Listed:
  • Samples, Karl C.
  • Dixon, John A.
  • Gowen, Marcia M.

Abstract

A conceptual household production model is proposed which illuminates how information disclosed to respondents can influence reported willingness to pay(WTP) to preserve unique resources such as endangered animal species. The model indicates that information disclosure can influence reported WTP both by altering respondents' marginal rate of substitution of income for the resource being valued, and by changing the perceived efficiency of money investment in specific preservation activities. Results of a controlled experiment are described to empirically evaluate the link between reported WTP to preserve humpback whales and information disclosed about their physical and behavioral characteristics, and endangered status. Significant differences (at the 0.20 level) in mean reported WTP were observed between experimental and control groups exposed to differing levels of descriptive information concerning humpback whales. Additional empirical results show that information pertaining to physical characteristics and endangered status • significantly influenced respondents' allocations of fixed budget amounts among animal preservation funds.

Suggested Citation

  • Samples, Karl C. & Dixon, John A. & Gowen, Marcia M., 1985. "Information Disclosure And Endangered Species Valuation," 1985 Annual Meeting, August 4-7, Ames, Iowa 278634, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:aaea85:278634
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.278634
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/278634/files/aaea-1985-077.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.278634?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. William D. Schulze & Ralph C. d'Arge & David S. Brookshire, 1981. "Valuing Environmental Commodities: Some Recent Experiments," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 57(2), pages 151-172.
    2. 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. Berostrom, John C., 1987. "Natural Resources . Working Paper Series," 1987 Annual Meeting, August 2-5, East Lansing, Michigan 269935, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    2. Bergstrom, John C. & Stoll, John R., 1986. "Structure, Conduct, And Performance In Contingent Markets," 1986 Annual Meeting, July 27-30, Reno, Nevada 278158, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).

    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. Hoehn, John P., 1992. "Natural Resource Damage Assessment and Contingent Valuation: Issues and Research Needs," Staff Paper Series 201153, Michigan State University, Department of Agricultural, Food, and Resource Economics.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    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. 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.
    7. Berostrom, John C., 1987. "Natural Resources . Working Paper Series," 1987 Annual Meeting, August 2-5, East Lansing, Michigan 269935, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    8. Bergstrom, John C. & Stoll, John R., 1986. "Structure, Conduct, And Performance In Contingent Markets," 1986 Annual Meeting, July 27-30, Reno, Nevada 278158, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    9. K.G. Willis & G.D. Garrod, 1998. "Biodiversity values for alternative management regimes in remote UK coniferous forests: an iterative bidding polychotomous choice approach," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 18(3), pages 157-166, September.
    10. Don Coursey & William Schulze, 1986. "The application of laboratory experimental economics to the contingent valuation of public goods," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 49(1), pages 47-68, January.
    11. Stoll, John R., 1983. "Recreational Activities And Nonmarket Valuation: The Conceptualization Issue," Southern Journal of Agricultural Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 15(2), pages 1-7, December.
    12. Lazo, Jeffrey K & McClain, Katherine T, 1996. "Community perceptions, environmental impacts, and energy policy : Rail shipment of coal," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 24(6), pages 531-540, June.
    13. Bergstrom, John C. & Stoll, John R., 1989. "Application Of Experimentatal Economics Concepts And Precepts To Cvm Field Survey Procedures," Western Journal of Agricultural Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 14(1), pages 1-12, July.
    14. W. Michael Hanemann, 1994. "Valuing the Environment through Contingent Valuation," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 8(4), pages 19-43, Fall.
    15. Patricia Champ & Richard Bishop, 2001. "Donation Payment Mechanisms and Contingent Valuation: An Empirical Study of Hypothetical Bias," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 19(4), pages 383-402, August.
    16. Richard T. Carson & Miko_aj Czajkowski, 2014. "The discrete choice experiment approach to environmental contingent valuation," Chapters, in: Stephane Hess & Andrew Daly (ed.), Handbook of Choice Modelling, chapter 9, pages 202-235, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    17. Daniel McFadden, 2009. "The human side of mechanism design: a tribute to Leo Hurwicz and Jean-Jacque Laffont," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 13(1), pages 77-100, April.
    18. repec:zib:zbseps:v:2:y:2022:2:1:p:44-52 is not listed on IDEAS
    19. Catherine L. Kling & Daniel J. Phaneuf & Jinhua Zhao, 2012. "From Exxon to BP: Has Some Number Become Better Than No Number?," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 26(4), pages 3-26, Fall.
    20. Ambrey, Christopher L. & Fleming, Christopher M., 2011. "Valuing scenic amenity using life satisfaction data," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 106-115.
    21. Kenneth G. Willis & Stephen Malpezzi & A. Graham Tipple, 1990. "An Econometric and Cultural Analysis of Rent Control in Kumasi, Ghana," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 27(2), pages 241-257, April.

    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:aaea85:278634. 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: http://www.aaea.org .

    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.