Port expansion and negative externalities: a willingness to accept approach

References

• Anderson, J., D. Vadnjal, and H. Uhlin. 2000. “Moral Dimensions of the WTA–WTP Disparity: An Experimental Examination.” Ecological Economics 32: 153–162. doi:10.1016/S0921-8009(99)00074-9.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arrow, K., R. Solow, P. P. Portney, E. E. Leamer, R. Radner, and H. Schuman. 1993. “Report of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Panel on Contingent Valuation.” Federal Register 58: 4602–4614.
   Google Scholar
• Baird, A. J. 2004. “Public Goods and the Public Financing of Major European Seaports.” Maritime Policy & Management 31: 375–391. doi:10.1080/0308883042000304890.
   Google Scholar
• Balcombe, K., and I. Fraser. 2009. “Dichotomous-Choice Contingent Valuation with ‘Don’t Know’ Responses and Misreporting.” Journal of Applied Econometrics 24: 1137–1152. doi:10.1002/jae.1109.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bateman, I., R. T. Carson, B. Day, M. Hanemann, N. Hanley, T. Hett, M. Jones-Lee, et al. 2002. Economic Valuation with Stated Preference Techniques: A Manual. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
   Google Scholar
• Bateman, I. J., B. H. Day, S. Georgiou, and I. Lake. 2006. “The Aggregation of Environmental Benefit Values: Welfare Measures, Distance Decay and Total WTP.” Ecological Economics 60: 450–460. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.04.003.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bateman, I. J., I. H. Langford, R. K. Turner, K. G. Willis, and G. D. Garrod. 1995. “Elicitation and Truncation Effects in Contingent Valuation Studies.” Ecological Economics 12: 161–179. doi:10.1016/0921-8009(94)00044-V.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bengochea-Morancho, A., A. M. Fuertes-Eugenio, and S. del Saz-Salazar. 2005. “A Comparison of Empirical Models Used to Infer the Willingness to Pay in Contingent Valuation.” Empirical Economics 30: 235–244. doi:10.1007/s00181-005-0236-x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beria, P., I. Maltese, and I. Mariotti. 2012. “Multicriteria versus Cost Benefit Analysis: A Comparative Perspective in the Assessment of Sustainable Mobility.” European Transport Research Review 4: 137–152. doi:10.1007/s12544-012-0074-9.
   Google Scholar
• Beukers, E., L. Bertolini, and M. Te Brömmelstroet. 2012. “Why Cost Benefit Analysis Is Perceived as A Problematic Tool for Assessment of Transport Plans: A Process Perspective.” Transportation Research A 46: 68–78.
   Google Scholar
• Boyce, R. B., T. C. Brown, G. H. McClelland, G. L. Peterson, and W. D. Schulze. 1992. “An Experimental Examination of Intrinsic Values as a Source of the WTA–WTP Disparity.” American Economic Review 82: 1366–1373.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cameron, T. A. 1988. “A New Paradigm for Valuing Non-Market Goods Using Referendum Data-Maximum-Likelihood Estimation by Censored Logistic-Regression.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 15: 355–379. doi:10.1016/0095-0696(88)90008-3.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cameron, T. A. 1991. “Interval Estimates of Non-Market Resource Values from Referendum Contingent Valuation Surveys.” Land Economics 67: 413–421.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carson, R. T. 1997. “Contingent Valuation: Theoretical Advances and Empirical Tests since the NOAA Panel.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 79: 1501–1507.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carson, R. T. 2000. “Contingent Valuation: A User’s Guide.” Environmental Science and Technology 34: 1413–1418. doi:10.1021/es990728j.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carson, R. T. 2011. Contingent Valuation: A Comprehensive Bibliography and History. Northampton: Edward Elgar.
   Google Scholar
• Carson, R. T. 2012. “Contingent Valuation: A Practical Alternative When Prices Aren’t Available.” Journal of Economic Perspectives 26: 27–42. doi:10.1257/jep.26.4.27.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carson, R. T., N. E. Flores, and N. F. Meade. 2001. “Contingent Valuation: Controversies and Evidence.” Environmental and Resource Economics 19: 173–210. doi:10.1023/A:1011128332243.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Caudill, S. B., and P. A. Groothuis. 2005. “Modeling Hidden Alternatives in Random Utility Models: An Application to “Don’t Know” Responses in Contingent Valuation.” Land Economics 81: 445–454.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chilton, S. M., and W. G. Hutchinson. 1999. “Do Focus Groups Contribute Anything to the Contingent Valuation Process?” Journal of Economic Psychology 20: 465–483.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Coeck, C., and E. Haezendonck. 2007. “Conclusion: Evolution Towards Integrated Project Appraisal.” In Transport Project Evaluation. Extending the Social Cost-Benefit Approach, edited by E. Haezendonck, 217–220. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
   Google Scholar
• Cooper, J. C. 1993. “Optimal Bid Selection for Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation Surveys.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 24: 25–40. doi:10.1006/jeem.1993.1002.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Brucker, K., C. Macharis, and A. Verbeke. 2013. “Multi-Criteria Analysis and the Resolution of Sustainable Development Dilemmas: A Stakeholder Management Approach.” European Journal of Operational Research 224: 122–131. doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2012.02.021.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• del Saz-Salazar, S., and L. García-Menéndez. 2003. “The Nonmarket Benefits of Redeveloping Dockland Areas for Recreational Purposes: The Case of Castellón, Spain.” Environment and Planning A 35: 2115–2129. doi:10.1068/a364.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• del Saz-Salazar, S., and L. García-Menéndez. 2007. “Estimating the Non-Market Benefits of an Urban Park: Does Proximity Matter?” Land Use Policy 24: 296–305. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2005.05.011.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• del Saz-Salazar, S., and I. Guaita-Pradas. 2013. “On the Value of Drovers’ Routes as Environmental Assets: A Contingent Valuation Approach.” Land Use Policy 32: 78–88. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2012.10.006.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Diamond, P. A. 1996. “Testing the Internal Consistency of Contingent Valuation Surveys.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 30: 337–347. doi:10.1006/jeem.1996.0023.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Diamond, P. A., and J. A. Hasuman. 1993. “On Contingent Valuation Measurement of Non Use Values.” In Contingent Valuation: A Critical Assessment, edited by J. A. Hausman, 3–38. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
   Google Scholar
• Diekmann, A., and P. Preisendörfer. 2003. “Green and Greenback: The Behavioral Effects of Environmental Attitudes in Low-Cost and High-Cost Situations.” Rationality and Society 15: 441–472. doi:10.1177/1043463103154002.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dooms, M., A. Verbeke, and E. Haezendonck. 2013. “Stakeholder Management and Path Dependence in Large-Scale Transport Infrastructure Development: The Port of Antwerp Case (1960–2010).” Journal of Transport Geography 27: 14–25. doi:10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2012.06.002.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ESPO. 2011. Annual Report 2010–2011. Bruxelles: European Sea Ports Organization.
   Google Scholar
• EUROSTAT. 2009. Panorama of Transport, 1990–2006. Luxembourg: Eurostat, European Commission.
   Google Scholar
• Ferreira, S., and L. Gallagher. 2010. “Protest Responses and Community Attitudes toward Accepting Compensation to Host Waste Disposal Infrastructure.” Land Use Policy 27: 638–652. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2009.08.020.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Flachaire, E., and G. Hollard. 2007. “Starting Point Bias and Respondent Uncertainty in Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation Surveys.” Resource and Energy Economics 29: 183–194. doi:10.1016/j.reseneeco.2007.05.003.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gollier, C., P. Koundouri, and T. Pantelidis. 2008. “Declining Discount Rates: Economic Justifications and Implications for the Long-Run Policy.” Economic Policy 56: 758–795.
   Google Scholar
• Goss, R. O. 2004. “Economic Policies and Seaports 3: Are Port Authorities Necessary?” Maritime Policy and Management 17: 257–271. doi:10.1080/03088839000000032.
   Google Scholar
• Grobar, L. M. 2008. “The Economic Status of Areas Surrounding Major U.S. Container Ports: Evidence and Policy Issues.” Growth and Change 39: 497–516. doi:10.1111/grow.2008.39.issue-3.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Groothuis, P. A., G. Van Houtven, and J. C. Whitehead. 1998. “Using Contingent Valuation to Measure the Compensation Required to Gain Community Acceptance of a Lulu: The Case of a Hazardous Waste Disposal Facility.” Public Finance Review 26: 231–249. doi:10.1177/109114219802600303.
   Google Scholar
• Haezendonck, E., ed. 2007a. Transport Project Evaluation. Extending the Social Cost-Benefit Approach. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
   Google Scholar
• Haezendonck, E. 2007b. “Introduction.” In Transport Project Evaluation. Extending the Social Cost-Benefit Approach, edited by E. Haezendonck, 1–8. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
   Google Scholar
• Hall, P. V., and W. Jacobs. 2012. “Why are Maritime Ports (Still) Urban, and Why Should Policy-Makers Care?” Maritime Policy & Management 39: 189–206. doi:10.1080/03088839.2011.650721.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hanemann, W. M. 1984. “Welfare Evaluation in Contingent Evaluation Experiments with Discrete Responses.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 66: 332–341.
   Google Scholar
• Hanemann, W. M. 1991. “Willingness to Pay and Willingness to Accept: How Much Can They Differ?” American Economic Review 81: 635–647.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hanemann, W. M. 1999. “The Economic Theory of WTP and WTA.” In Valuing Environmental Preferences: Theory and Practice of the Contingent Valuation Method in the US, EU and Developing Countries, edited by I. J. Bateman and K. G. Willis, 42–96. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hausman, J. 2012. “Contingent Valuation: From Dubious to Hopeless.” Journal of Economic Perspectives 26: 43–56. doi:10.1257/jep.26.4.43.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Horowitz, J. K., and K. E. McConnell. 2003. “Willingness to Accept, Willingness to Pay and the Income Effect.” Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 51: 537–545. doi:10.1016/S0167-2681(02)00216-0.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hoyle, B. 1999. “Scale and Sustainability: The Role of Community Groups in Canadian Port-City Waterfront Change.” Journal of Transport Geography 7: 65–78. doi:10.1016/S0966-6923(98)00030-1.
   Google Scholar
• Huang, W.-C., C.-H. Chen, S.-K. Kao, and K.-Y. Chen. 2011. “The Concept of Diverse Developments in Port Cities.” Ocean & Coastal Management 54: 381–390. doi:10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2010.11.004.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jakobsson, K. K., and A. K. Dragun. 1996. Contingent Valuation and Endangered Species: Methodological Issues and Applications. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
   Google Scholar
• Johansson, P.-O. 1993. Cost-Benefit Analysis of Environmental Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Johnson, B. K., and J. C. Whitehead. 2000. “Value of Public Goods from Sports Stadiums: The CVM Approach.” Contemporary Economic Policy 18: 48–58. doi:10.1111/j.1465-7287.2000.tb00005.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kahneman, D., and A. Tversky. 1979. “Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk.” Econometrica 47: 263–291.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kerr, G. N. 2000. “Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation Probability Distributions.” The Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 44: 233–252. doi:10.1111/ajar.2000.44.issue-2.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Knetsch, J. L. 2010. “Values of Gains and Losses: Reference States and Choice of Measure.” Environmental and Resource Economics 46: 179–188. doi:10.1007/s10640-010-9355-8.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lienhoop, N., and D. Macmillan. 2007. “Valuing Wilderness in Iceland: Estimation of WTA and WTP Using the Market Stall Approach to Contingent Valuation.” Land Use Policy 24: 289–295. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2005.07.001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lindsey, G. 1994. “Market Models, Protest Bids, and Outliers in Contingent Valuation.” Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management 120: 121–129. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9496(1994)120:1(121).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Loureiro, M. L., and J. Lotade. 2005. “Interviewer Effects on the Valuation of Goods with Ethical and Environmental Attributes.” Environmental & Resource Economics 30: 49–72. doi:10.1007/s10640-004-1149-4.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Macharis, C. 2004. “The Importance of Stakeholder Analysis in Freight Transport: The MAMCA Methodology.” European Transport/Transporti Europei 25: 114–120.
   Google Scholar
• Macharis, C. 2007. “Multi-Criteria Analysis as a Tool to Include Stakeholders in Project Evaluation: The MAMCA Method.” In Transport Project Evaluation. Extending the Social Cost-Benefit Approach, edited by E. Haezendonck, 115–131. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
   Google Scholar
• Macharis, C., A. De Witte, and L. Turcksin. 2010. “The Multi-Actor Multi-Criteria Analysis (MAMCA) Application in the Flemish Long-Term Decision Making Process on Mobility and Logistics.” Transport Policy 17: 303–311. doi:10.1016/j.tranpol.2010.02.004.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maguire, K. B. 2009. “Does Mode Matter? A Comparison of Telephone, Mail, and In-Person Treatments in Contingent Valuation Surveys.” Journal of Environmental Management 90: 3528–3533. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2009.06.005.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mitchell, R. C. 2002. “On Designing Constructed Markets in Valuation Surveys.” Environmental and Resource Economics 22: 297–321. doi:10.1023/A:1015571100238.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mitchell, R. C., and R. T. Carson. 1986. “Property Rights, Protest and the Sitting of Hazardous Waste Facilities.” American Economic Review 26: 285–290.
   Google Scholar
• Mitchell, R. C., and R. T. Carson. 1989. Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Method. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.
   Google Scholar
• Mitchell, R. C., and R. T. Carson. 1995. “Current Issues in the Design, Administration, and Analysis of Contingent Valuation Survey.” In Current Issues in Environmental Economics, edited by P.-O. Johansson, B. Kriström, and K. G. Mäller, 2–34. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Morgan, D. 1988. Focus Groups as Qualitative Research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• O’Hare, M. 1977. “Not on My Block, You Don’t: Facility Sitting and the Strategic Importance of Compensation.” Public Policy 25: 407–458.
   Google Scholar
• Olivier, D., and B. Slack. 2006. “Rethinking the Port.” Environment and Planning A 38: 1409–1427. doi:10.1068/a37421.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pearce, D. 1998. “Cost-Benefit Analysis and Environmental Policy.” Oxford Review of Economic Policy 14: 84–100. doi:10.1093/oxrep/14.4.84.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Phillips, R. 2003. “Stakeholder Legitimacy.” Business Ethics Quarterly 13: 25–41. doi:10.5840/beq20031312.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Poe, G. L., and C. A. Vossler. 2011. “Consequentiality and Contingent Values: An Emerging Paradigm.” In The International Handbook on Non-Market Environmental Valuation, edited by J. Bennett. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
   Google Scholar
• Pommerehne, W. W., A. Hart, and F. Schneider. 1997. “Tragic Choices and Collective Decision-Making: An Empirical Study of Voter Preferences for Alternative Collective Decision-Making Mechanisms.” The Economic Journal 107: 618–635. doi:10.1111/ecoj.1997.107.issue-442.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Prest, A. R., and R. Turvey. 1965. “Cost-Benefit Analysis: A Survey.” The Economic Journal 75: 683–735.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reed, M. S. 2008. “Stakeholder Participation for Environmental Management: A Literature Review.” Biological Conservation 141: 2417–2431. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2008.07.014.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Saengsupavanicha, C., U. Seenprachawongb, W. G. Gallardoa, and G. P. Shivakotia. 2008. “Port-Induced Erosion Prediction and Valuation of a Local Recreational Beach.” Ecological Economics 67: 93–103. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.11.018.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schively, C. 2007. “Understanding the NIMBY and LULU Phenomena: Reassessing Our Knowledge Base and Informing Future Research.” Journal of Planning Literature 21: 255–266. doi:10.1177/0885412206295845.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sen, A. 2000. “The Discipline of Cost-Benefit Analysis.” The Journal of Legal Studies 29: 931–952. doi:10.1086/jls.2000.29.issue-s2.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith, V. K. 1993. “Nonmarket Valuation of Environmental Resources: An Interpretive Appraisal.” Land Economics 69: 1–26.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Soriani, S. 2004. “Port Development and Implementation Challenges In: Environmental Management.” In Shipping and Ports in the Twenty-first Century, edited by D. Pinder and B. Slack, 212–232. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Van Hoydoonk, E. 2002. “Legal Aspects of Port Competition.” In Port Competiveness: An Economic and Legal Analysis of the Factors Determining the Competitiveness of Seaports, edited by M. Huybrechts, E. Meersman, E. Van De Voorde, E. Van Hoydoonk, A. Verbeke, and W. Winkelmans, 89–131. Antwerp, Belgium: De Boeck.
   Google Scholar
• Veall, M. R., and K. F. Zimmermann. 1992. “Pseudo-R2’s in the Ordinal Probit Model.” The Journal of Mathematical Sociology 16: 333–342. doi:10.1080/0022250X.1992.9990094.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Walker, W. E. 2000. “Policy Analysis: A Systematic Approach to Supporting Policymaking in the Public Sector.” Journal of Multicriteria Decision Analysis 9: 11–27. doi:10.1002/(ISSN)1099-1360.
   Google Scholar
• Whittington, D. 2002. “Improving the Performance of Contingent Valuation Studies in Developing Countries.” Environmental and Resource Economics 22: 323–367. doi:10.1023/A:1015575517927.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wiegmans, B. W., and E. Louw. 2011. “Changing Port–City Relations at Amsterdam: A New Phase at the Interface?” Journal of Transport Geography 19: 575–583. doi:10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2010.06.007.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wiser, R. H. 2007. “Using Contingent Valuation to Explore Willingness to Pay for Renewable Energy: A Comparison of Collective and Voluntary Payment Vehicles.” Ecological Economics 62: 419–432. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.07.003.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar