IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/rep/wpaper/2003-07.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Resolving Range Conflict in Nevada? The Potential for Compensation via Monetary Payouts and Grazing Alternatives

Author

Listed:
  • Thomas Hobby
  • G. Cornelis van Kooten

Abstract

In response to environmental pressure, public land agencies in Nevada have reduced animal unit months (AUMs) of grazing on public lands. This has resulted in economic losses to ranchers, increased conflict between ranchers and the public land agencies, and general unrest in the ranch community. One approach to resolving the problems might be to compensate ranchers for lost grazing privileges. In this study, we employ the results of the Nevada Ranch Survey to examine ranchers’ willingness to accept a one-time payment to retire grazing rights, as well as three other means of “compensating” ranchers that enable them to earn a living from the public lands despite reduced access to public forage. The results suggest that ranchers are not keen on being compensated in any form, expressing a desire to continue ranching. However, those most amenable to compensation and a reworking of the social contract are those who have the best relationship with the public land manager and view the public agencies in a positive light.

Suggested Citation

  • Thomas Hobby & G. Cornelis van Kooten, 2003. "Resolving Range Conflict in Nevada? The Potential for Compensation via Monetary Payouts and Grazing Alternatives," Working Papers 2003-07, University of Victoria, Department of Economics, Resource Economics and Policy Analysis Research Group.
    • Handle: RePEc:rep:wpaper:2003-07
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://web.uvic.ca/~repa/publications/REPA%20working%20papers/WorkingPaper2003-07.pdf
    File Function: Final version, 2003
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    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. G. Cornelis van Kooten & Roy Thomsen & Thomas Hobby & Alison Eagle, 2003. "Social Dilemmas and Public Range Management: Results from the Nevada Ranch Survey," Working Papers 2003-08, University of Victoria, Department of Economics, Resource Economics and Policy Analysis Research Group.

    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. Cooper, Joseph C., 2002. "Flexible Functional Form Estimation of Willingness to Pay Using Dichotomous Choice Data," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 43(2), pages 267-279, March.
    2. Chaikaew, Pasicha & Hodges, Alan W. & Grunwald, Sabine, 2017. "Estimating the value of ecosystem services in a mixed-use watershed: A choice experiment approach," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 23(C), pages 228-237.
    3. Franz Hackl & Gerald J. Pruckner, 2005. "Warm glow, free‐riding and vehicle neutrality in a health‐related contingent valuation study," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(3), pages 293-306, March.
    4. Nayga, Rodolfo M., Jr. & Aiew, Wipon & Woodward, Richard T., 2004. "Willingness to Pay for Irradiated Food: A Non Hypothetical Market Experiment," 84th Seminar, February 8-11, 2004, Zeist, The Netherlands 24995, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    5. Rodríguez, Elsa Mirta M. & Lacaze, María Victoria & Lupín, Beatriz, 2007. "Willingness to pay for organic food in Argentina: evidence from a consumer survey," Nülan. Deposited Documents 1300, Universidad Nacional de Mar del Plata, Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y Sociales, Centro de Documentación.
    6. Olga Lucía Cadena Durán & Andrés Mauricio Gómez Sánchez, 2014. "Racionalidades y prácticas campesinas cafeteras en el departamento del Huila, Colombia," Revista Economía y Región, Universidad Tecnológica de Bolívar, vol. 8(2), pages 157-184, December.
    7. Clarke, Philip M., 1998. "Cost-benefit analysis and mammographic screening: a travel cost approach," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 17(6), pages 767-787, December.
    8. Philippe Polome & Anne van der Veen & Peter Geurts, 2006. "Is Referendum the Same as Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation?," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 82(2), pages 174-188.
    9. Yoonae Jo, 2001. "Does college education nourish egoism?," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 4(2), pages 115-128, September.
    10. 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.
    11. Sabina Shaikh & Pavel Suchánek & Lili Sun & G. Cornelis van Kooten, 2003. "Does Inclusion of Landowners’ Non-Market Values Lower Costs of Creating Carbon Forest Sinks?," Working Papers 2003-03, University of Victoria, Department of Economics, Resource Economics and Policy Analysis Research Group.
    12. Kerstin K Zander & Gillian B Ainsworth & Jürgen Meyerhoff & Stephen T Garnett, 2014. "Threatened Bird Valuation in Australia," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(6), pages 1-9, June.
    13. Seck, Abdoulaye & Thiam, Djiby Racine, 2022. "Understanding consumer attitudes to and valuation of organic food in Sub-Saharan Africa: A double-bound contingent method applied in Dakar, Senegal," African Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, African Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 17(1), March.
    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. Adam Finn & Stuart McFadyen & Colin Hoskins, 2003. "Valuing the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation," Journal of Cultural Economics, Springer;The Association for Cultural Economics International, vol. 27(3), pages 177-192, November.
    16. Christman, Laine & Kimberly, Rollins & Micheal, Taylor & Sohan, Agbonlahor, 2014. "Willingness to Pay to Reduce Wild Fire Risk in Wild land-Urban Interface: A Comparative Analysis of Public Programs and Private Actions," 2014 Annual Meeting, July 27-29, 2014, Minneapolis, Minnesota 170703, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    17. Smith, V. Kerry & Mansfield, Carol, 1998. "Buying Time: Real and Hypothetical Offers," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 36(3), pages 209-224, November.
    18. Kwak, So-Yoon & Yoo, Seung-Hoon, 2015. "The public’s value for developing ocean energy technology in the Republic of Korea: A contingent valuation study," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 432-439.
    19. Abay Asfaw & Joachim Braun, 2005. "Innovations in Health Care Financing: New Evidence on the Prospect of Community Health Insurance Schemes in the Rural Areas of Ethiopia," International Journal of Health Economics and Management, Springer, vol. 5(3), pages 241-253, September.
    20. Lee, Juyong & Cho, Youngsang, 2020. "Estimation of the usage fee for peer-to-peer electricity trading platform: The case of South Korea," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 136(C).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    range economics; environmental services from public land; compensation for grazing rights; social capital and trust;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • O17 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Economic Development - - - Formal and Informal Sectors; Shadow Economy; Institutional Arrangements
    • O52 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Economywide Country Studies - - - Europe

    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:rep:wpaper:2003-07. 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: G.C. van Kooten (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/devicca.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.