IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/stl/stlewp/91-11.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Wilderness Development Decisions and the Krutilla-Fisher Model: The Case of Scotland's 'Flow Country'

Author

Listed:
  • Nick Hanley
  • Stephen Craig

Abstract

No abstract is available for this item.

Suggested Citation

  • Nick Hanley & Stephen Craig, 1991. "Wilderness Development Decisions and the Krutilla-Fisher Model: The Case of Scotland's 'Flow Country'," Working Papers Series 91/11, University of Stirling, Division of Economics.
  • Handle: RePEc:stl:stlewp:91/11
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    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. Nick Hanley & Clive Spash & Lorna Walker, 1995. "Problems in valuing the benefits of biodiversity protection," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 5(3), pages 249-272, April.
    2. Gunawardena, U.A.D. Prasanthi, 2010. "Inequalities and externalities of power sector: A case of Broadlands hydropower project in Sri Lanka," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(2), pages 726-734, February.
    3. repec:eee:soceco:v:69:y:2017:i:c:p:61-70 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. repec:eee:ecoser:v:9:y:2014:i:c:p:44-53 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. Choi, Andy Sungnok & Bennett, Jeffrey W., 2006. "A Critique of Conventional Non-market Valuation: Attitudes and Action," 2006 Conference (50th), February 8-10, 2006, Sydney, Australia 174461, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    6. Ian J. Bateman & Andrew P. Jones, 2003. "Contrasting Conventional with Multi-Level Modeling Approaches to Meta-Analysis: Expectation Consistency in U.K. Woodland Recreation Values," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 79(2), pages 235-258.
    7. Kosz, Michael, 1996. "Valuing riverside wetlands: the case of the "Donau-Auen" national park," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 16(2), pages 109-127, February.
    8. repec:wsi:cjuesx:v:04:y:2016:i:04:n:s2345748116500305 is not listed on IDEAS
    9. Halkos, George & Matsiori, Steriani, 2017. "Environmental attitude, motivations and values for marine biodiversity protection," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 61-70.
    10. repec:eee:touman:v:32:y:2011:i:3:p:511-519 is not listed on IDEAS
    11. Kotchen, Matthew J. & Reiling, Stephen D., 2000. "Environmental attitudes, motivations, and contingent valuation of nonuse values: a case study involving endangered species," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 93-107, January.
    12. Aline Chiabai & Ibon Galarraga & Anil Markandya & Unai Pascual, 2013. "The Equivalency Principle for Discounting the Value of Natural Assets: An Application to an Investment Project in the Basque Coast," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 56(4), pages 535-550, December.
    13. Heimlich, Ralph E. & Wiebe, Keith D. & Claassen, Roger & Gadsby, Dwight M. & House, Robert M., 1998. "Wetlands and Agriculture: Private Interests and Public Benefits," Agricultural Economics Reports 34043, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    14. Michael Spanbauer & Lindsay Johnson & Patrick Button, 2017. "How Valuable are National Parks? Evidence from a Proposed National Park Expansion in Alaska," Working Papers 1707, Tulane University, Department of Economics, revised Mar 2018.
    15. Brouwer, Roy & van Beukering, Pieter & Sultanian, Elena, 2008. "The impact of the bird flu on public willingness to pay for the protection of migratory birds," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(3), pages 575-585, January.
    16. Nick Hanley, 1992. "Are there environmental limits to cost benefit analysis?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 2(1), pages 33-59, January.
    17. N. D. Hanley & R. J. Ruffell, 1993. "The Contingent Valuation Of Forest Characteristics: Two Experiments," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 44(2), pages 218-229.
    18. Vivien Foster & Ian J. Bateman & David Harley, 1997. "Real And Hypothetical Willingness To Pay For Environmental Preservation: A Non-Experimental Comparison," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 48(1-3), pages 123-137.
    19. Turner, R. Kerry & van den Bergh, Jeroen C. J. M. & Soderqvist, Tore & Barendregt, Aat & van der Straaten, Jan & Maltby, Edward & van Ierland, Ekko C., 2000. "Ecological-economic analysis of wetlands: scientific integration for management and policy," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 35(1), pages 7-23, October.
    20. Halkos, George & Matsiori, Steriani, 2017. "Estimating recreational values of coastal zones," MPRA Paper 80911, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    21. Christie, Mike & Hanley, Nick & Warren, John & Murphy, Kevin & Wright, Robert & Hyde, Tony, 2006. "Valuing the diversity of biodiversity," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(2), pages 304-317, June.
    22. R.K. Turner & J.C.J.M. van den Bergh & A. Barendregt & E. Maltby, 1998. "Ecological-Economic Analysis of Wetlands," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 98-050/3, Tinbergen Institute.
    23. García-Valiñas, María A. & Macintyre, Alison & Torgler, Benno, 2012. "Volunteering, pro-environmental attitudes and norms," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 41(4), pages 455-467.
    24. Choi, Andy S. & Fielding, Kelly S., 2013. "Environmental attitudes as WTP predictors: A case study involving endangered species," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 24-32.

    More about this item

    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:stl:stlewp:91/11. 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: (Liam Delaney). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/destiuk.html .

    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 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.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.