Valuing environmental improvements in the Great Barrier Reef: Ecological and preference heterogeneity in local area case studies
The focus of this report is to test if protection values at a particular GBR site may be easily transferred to other case studies of interest in the region. The research involved valuing three local case studies in the GBR and testing how values were consistent across site and population characteristics. The sites were chosen to reflect substantial heterogeneity in extent, ecological composition and condition, while values were assessed for both local and distant populations. The results are encouraging, indicating that although significant heterogeneity was identified with the mixed logit models, values were robust to various site and population differences. No significant difference in protection values between the three local case studies could be identified, and there was no significant difference in values between the local population and the Brisbane population. However, some evidence for distance effects was identified for the Brisbane population, with closer sites valued more highly. As well, potential losses were valued more highly (in absolute terms) than potential gains. The implication of these results is that protection values are likely to be higher for closer reef areas with risks of losses than these with opportunities for improvements
|Date of creation:||Jul 2010|
|Date of revision:|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: |
Phone: +61 2 6125 4705
Fax: +61 2 6125 5448
Web page: https://crawford.anu.edu.au/research_units/eerh/
More information through EDIRC
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.:
- Roger H. von Haefen & D. Matthew Massey & Wiktor L. Adamowicz, 2005. "Serial Nonparticipation in Repeated Discrete Choice Models," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 87(4), pages 1061-1076.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:een:eenhrr:1066. 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: (Crawford Webmaster)
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.