IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/gri/epaper/economics201203.html

Valuing Australia's protected areas: A life satisfaction approach

Author

Listed:
  • Christopher L Ambrey
  • Christopher M Fleming

Abstract

This paper uses the life satisfaction approach to value Australia's protected areas, grouped by International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) categories. We find significant positive life satisfaction effects of living in close proximity to protected areas in three of the seven categories. These life satisfaction effects correspond to implicit willingness-to-pays, in terms of annual household income, ranging from AUD$2950 to AUD$9650 for a 1% increase in the extent of that category of protected area within an individual's local area. This study therefore provides insights for policy makers in estimating the benefits of non-market goods provision.
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)

Suggested Citation

  • Christopher L Ambrey & Christopher M Fleming, 2012. "Valuing Australia's protected areas: A life satisfaction approach," Discussion Papers in Economics economics:201203, Griffith University, Department of Accounting, Finance and Economics.
    • Handle: RePEc:gri:epaper:economics:201203
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://research-repository.griffith.edu.au/bitstream/handle/10072/390472/2012-03-valuing-australias-protected-areas-a-life-satisfaction-approach.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Christopher L. Ambrey & Peter Daniels, 2017. "Happiness and footprints: assessing the relationship between individual well-being and carbon footprints," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 19(3), pages 895-920, June.
    2. Krekel, Christian & Kolbe, Jens & Wüstemann, Henry, 2016. "The greener, the happier? The effect of urban land use on residential well-being," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 121(C), pages 117-127.
    3. Kubiszewski, Ida & Zakariyya, Nabeeh & Costanza, Robert, 2018. "Objective and Subjective Indicators of Life Satisfaction in Australia: How Well Do People Perceive What Supports a Good Life?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 154(C), pages 361-372.
    4. Bertram, Christine & Rehdanz, Katrin, 2015. "The role of urban green space for human well-being," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 139-152.
    5. Ambrey, Christopher L. & Chan, Andrew Yiu-Chung & Fleming, Christopher M., 2013. "Estimating the cost of air pollution in South East Queensland: An application of the life satisfaction non-market valuation approach," 2013 Conference (57th), February 5-8, 2013, Sydney, Australia 152133, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    6. Sealy Phelan, Aisling & Grilli, Gianluca & Pisani, Elena & Secco, Laura, 2025. "Using the life satisfaction approach to economically value the health and wellbeing benefits of forest and green space visits in Italy," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 181(C).
    7. Yuan, Liang & Shin, Kongjoo & Managi, Shunsuke, 2018. "Subjective Well-being and Environmental Quality: The Impact of Air Pollution and Green Coverage in China," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 153(C), pages 124-138.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • Q51 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Valuation of Environmental Effects
    • C21 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Single Equation Models; Single Variables - - - Cross-Sectional Models; Spatial Models; Treatment Effect Models
    • R20 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - Household Analysis - - - General

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:gri:epaper:economics:201203. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Professor Tom Nguyen The email address of this maintainer does not seem to be valid anymore. Please ask Professor Tom Nguyen to update the entry or send us the correct address (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/segriau.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.