IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/cem/doctra/432.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Cambios potenciales en los usos recreativos de la costa del río Uruguay ante la instalación de la planta de celulosa Fray Bentos: un ejercicio de valoración contingente

Author

Listed:
  • Mariana Conte Grand
  • Martina Chidiak

Abstract

Se presenta una valuación del impacto que podría producir la planta de celulosa de Fray Bentos sobre el turismo recreativo en el río Uruguay por cambios en el paisaje y en la calidad de las aguas. Los datos provienen de una encuesta realizada en diciembre 2006 y la metodología es de valoración de comportamiento contingente. Surge del trabajo que los visitantes de Gualeguaychú estarían dispuestos a desplazarse (con el consiguiente costo que ello implicaría) para evitar el daño que podría causar la papelera.

Suggested Citation

  • Mariana Conte Grand & Martina Chidiak, 2010. "Cambios potenciales en los usos recreativos de la costa del río Uruguay ante la instalación de la planta de celulosa Fray Bentos: un ejercicio de valoración contingente," CEMA Working Papers: Serie Documentos de Trabajo. 432, Universidad del CEMA.
    • Handle: RePEc:cem:doctra:432
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.ucema.edu.ar/publicaciones/download/documentos/432.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hilary Sigman, 2002. "International Spillovers and Water Quality in Rivers: Do Countries Free Ride?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 92(4), pages 1152-1159, September.
    2. Haab, Timothy C. & McConnell, Kenneth E., 1997. "Referendum Models and Negative Willingness to Pay: Alternative Solutions," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 32(2), pages 251-270, February.
    3. Bengt Kristrom, 1990. "A Non-Parametric Approach to the Estimation of Welfare Measures in Discrete Response Valuation Studies," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 66(2), pages 135-139.
    4. Carson Richard T. & Mitchell Robert Cameron, 1995. "Sequencing and Nesting in Contingent Valuation Surveys," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 28(2), pages 155-173, March.
    5. 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.
    6. W. Michael Hanemann, 1984. "Welfare Evaluations in Contingent Valuation Experiments with Discrete Responses," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 66(3), pages 332-341.
    7. Kahneman, Daniel & Knetsch, Jack L., 1992. "Valuing public goods: The purchase of moral satisfaction," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 22(1), pages 57-70, January.
    8. Daniel McFadden, 1994. "Contingent Valuation and Social Choice," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 76(4), pages 689-708.
    9. Loomis John & Lockwood Michael & DeLacy Terry, 1993. "Some Empirical Evidence on Embedding Effects in Contingent Valuation of Forest Protection," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 25(1), pages 45-55, July.
    10. Maria Loureiro & John Loomis & Maria Vázquez, 2009. "Economic Valuation of Environmental Damages due to the Prestige Oil Spill in Spain," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 44(4), pages 537-553, December.
    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. Richard T. Carson, 2011. "Contingent Valuation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2489.
    2. John C. Whitehead & Timothy C. Haab & Ju‐Chin Huang, 1998. "Part‐Whole Bias in Contingent Valuation: Will Scope Effects Be Detected with Inexpensive Survey Methods?," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 65(1), pages 160-168, July.
    3. 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.
    4. Ana Faria Lopes & Gorm Kipperberg, 2020. "Diagnosing Insensitivity to Scope in Contingent Valuation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 77(1), pages 191-216, September.
    5. Sund, Björn, 2009. "Sensitivity to scope in contingent valuation – introducing a flexible community analogy to communicate mortality risk reductions," Working Papers 2009:2, Örebro University, School of Business.
    6. Kristin Jakobsson & Andrew Dragun, 2001. "The Worth of a Possum: Valuing Species with the Contingent Valuation Method," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 19(3), pages 211-227, July.
    7. Kerr, Geoffrey N., 2000. "Dichotomous choice contingent valuation probability distributions," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 44(2), pages 1-20.
    8. Richard Bennett & Douglas Larson, 1996. "Contingent Valuation Of The Perceived Benefits Of Farm Animal Welfare Legislation: An Exploratory Survey," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 47(1‐4), pages 224-235, January.
    9. Timothy Haab, 1999. "Nonparticipation or Misspecification? The Impacts of Nonparticipation on Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 14(4), pages 443-461, December.
    10. Edwin Muchapondwa & Fredrik Carlsson & Gunmar Köhlin, 2006. "Can local communities in Zimbabwe be trusted with wildlife management?: Evidence from contingent valuation of elephants," Working Papers 052, Economic Research Southern Africa.
    11. Timothy C. Haab, "undated". "Indifference or Misspecification? The Distributional Impact of Indifference on Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation," Working Papers 9714, East Carolina University, Department of Economics.
    12. Cai, Beilei & Cameron, Trudy Ann & Gerdes, Geoffrey R., 2011. "Distal order effects in stated preference surveys," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(6), pages 1101-1108, April.
    13. Torero, Maximo & Chowdhury, Shyamal K. & Galdo, Virgilio, 2003. "Willingness to pay for the rural telephone service in Bangladesh and Peru," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 15(3), pages 327-361, September.
    14. Massimo FLORIO & Francesco GIFFONI, 2017. "Willingness-to-Pay for Science as a Public Good: A Contingent Valuation Experiment," Departmental Working Papers 2017-17, Department of Economics, Management and Quantitative Methods at Università degli Studi di Milano.
    15. Sælensminde, Kjartan, 2003. "Embedding effects in valuation of non-market goods," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 10(1), pages 59-72, January.
    16. Bateman, Ian J. & Brouwer, Roy, 2006. "Consistency and construction in stated WTP for health risk reductions: A novel scope-sensitivity test," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 28(3), pages 199-214, August.
    17. Brouwer, Roy, 2006. "Do stated preference methods stand the test of time? A test of the stability of contingent values and models for health risks when facing an extreme event," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(2), pages 399-406, December.
    18. Pouta, Eija, 2005. "Sensitivity to scope of environmental regulation in contingent valuation of forest cutting practices in Finland," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 7(4), pages 539-550, May.
    19. Pere Riera & Raúl Brey & Guillermo Gándara, 2008. "Bid design for non-parametric contingent valuation with a single bounded dichotomous choice format," Hacienda Pública Española / Review of Public Economics, IEF, vol. 186(3), pages 43-60, October.
    20. Powe, N. A. & Bateman, I. J., 2003. "Ordering effects in nested 'top-down' and 'bottom-up' contingent valuation designs," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 45(2), pages 255-270, June.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Valuación; Impacto Ambiental; Planta de celulosa; Uruguay; Argentina;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • Q5 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics

    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:cem:doctra:432. 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: Valeria Dowding (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cemaaar.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.