Geographical scoping and willingness-to-pay for nature protection

References

• Arrow KJ, Solow R, Leamer E, Portney P, Radner R, Schuman H. 1993. Report of the NOAA panel on contingent valuation. Fed Reg. 58:4601–4614.
   Google Scholar
• Batavia C, Nelson MP. 2017. For goodness sake! What is intrinsic value and why should we care? Biol Conserv. 209:366–376.10.1016/j.biocon.2017.03.003
   Google Scholar
• Bateman IJ, Day BH, Georgiou S, Lake I. 2006. The aggregation of environmental benefit values: welfare measures, distance decay and total WTP. Ecol Econ. 60:450–460.10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.04.003
   Google Scholar
• Botzen WJW, van den Bergh JCJM. 2012a. Risk attitudes to low-probability climate change risks: WTP for flood insurance. J Econ Behav Organ. 82(1):151–166.10.1016/j.jebo.2012.01.005
   Google Scholar
• Botzen WJW, van den Bergh JCJM. 2012b. Monetary valuation of insurance against flood risk under climate change. Int Econ Rev. 53(3):1005–1025.10.1111/iere.2012.53.issue-3
   Google Scholar
• Botzen WJW, de Boer J, Terpstra T. 2013. Framing of risk and preferences for annual and multi-year flood insurance. J Econ Psychol. 39:357–375.10.1016/j.joep.2013.05.007
   Google Scholar
• Carson RT, Flores N, Meade NF. 2001. Contingent valuation: controversies and evidence. Environ Resour Econ. 19:173–210.10.1023/A:1011128332243
   Google Scholar
• Carson RT, Mitchell RC. 1995. Sequencing and nesting in contingent valuation studies. J Environ Econ Manage. 28:155–173.10.1006/jeem.1995.1011
   Google Scholar
• Diamond PA, Hausman J, Leonard GK, Denning MA. 1993. Does contingent valuation measure preferences? Experimental evidence. In: Hausman JA, editor. Contingent valuation: a critical assessment. New York (NY): North-Holland; p. 41–89.
   Google Scholar
• Dijksma SAM. 2013. Besluit van de Staatssecretaris van Economische Zaken van 11 September 2013, Artikel 14: Bijzondere uitkering natuur. nr. 13030742. Den Haag.
   Google Scholar
• Elliot R. 1992. Intrinsic value, environmental obligation and naturalness. The Monist. 75:138–160.10.5840/monist199275212
   Google Scholar
• Ferrini S, Scarpa R. 2007. Designs with a priori information for nonmarket valuation with choice experiments: a Monte Carlo study. J Environ Econ Manage. 53:342–363.10.1016/j.jeem.2006.10.007
   Google Scholar
• Foster V, Mourato S. 2003. Elicitation format and sensitivity to scope. Environ Resour Econ. 24:141–160.10.1023/A:1022856329552
   Google Scholar
• Goldberg I, Roosen J. 2007. Scope insensitivity in health reduction studies: a comparison of choice experiments and the contingent valuation method for valuing safer food. J Risk Uncertainty. 34:123–144.10.1007/s11166-007-9006-9
   Google Scholar
• Haneman M. 1994. Valuation the environment through contingent valuation. J Econ Perspect. 8(4):19–43.10.1257/jep.8.4.19
   Google Scholar
• Hanley N, Schläpfer F, Spurgeon J. 2003. Aggregating the benefits of environmental improvements: distance-decay functions for use and non-use values. J Environ Manage. 68:297–304.10.1016/S0301-4797(03)00084-7
   Google Scholar
• Heberlein TA, Wilson MA, Bishop RC, Schaeffer NC. 2005. Rethinking the scope test as a criterion for validity in contingent valuation. J Environ Econ Manage. 50:1–22.10.1016/j.jeem.2004.09.005
   Google Scholar
• Hess S, Rose JM. 2009. Should reference alternatives in pivot design SC surveys be treated differently? Environ Resour Econ. 42:297–317.10.1007/s10640-008-9244-6
   Google Scholar
• Hoevenagel R. 1996. The validity of the contingent valuation method: perfect and regular embedding. Environ Resour Econ. 7:57–78.10.1007/BF00420427
   Google Scholar
• Hoyos D. 2010. The state of the art of environmental valuation with discrete choice experiments. Ecol Econ. 69:1595–1603.10.1016/j.ecolecon.2010.04.011
   Google Scholar
• Jorgensen SL, Olsen SB, Ladenburg J, Martinsen L, Svenningsen SR, Hasler B. 2013. Spatially induced disparities in users’ and non-users’ WTP for water quality improvements: testing the effect of multiple substitutes and distance decay. Ecol Econ. 92:58–66.10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.07.015
   Google Scholar
• Kahneman D, Knetsch JL. 1992. Valuing public goods: the purchase of moral satisfaction. J Environ Econ Manage. 22:57–70.10.1016/0095-0696(92)90019-S
   Google Scholar
• Kahneman D, Tversky A. 1984. Choices, values, and frames. Am Psychol. 39:341–350.10.1037/0003-066X.39.4.341
   Google Scholar
• Louviere JJ, Hensher DA, Swait JD. 2000. Stated choice methods: analysis and application. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511753831
   Google Scholar
• Madden P. 1991. A generalization of Hicksian q substitutes and complements with application to demand rationing. Econometrica. 59:1497–1508.10.2307/2938377
   Google Scholar
• McFadden D. 2001. Economic choices. Am Econ Rev. 91(3):351–378.10.1257/aer.91.3.351
   Google Scholar
• Nunes PALD, Schokkaert E. 2003. Identifying the warm glow effect in contingent valuation. J Environ Econ Manage. 45:231–245.10.1016/S0095-0696(02)00051-7
   Google Scholar
• Piccolo JJ. 2017. Intrinsic values in nature: objective good or simply half of an unhelpful dichotomy? J Nat Conserv. 37:8–11. 1617-1381.
   Google Scholar
• van Praag BMS, Frijters P, Ferrer-i-Carbonell A. 2003. The anatomy of subjective well-being. J Econ Behav Organ. 51(1):29–49.10.1016/S0167-2681(02)00140-3
   Google Scholar
• Randall A, Hoehn JP. 1996. Embedding in market demand systems. J Environ Econ Manage. 30:369–380.10.1006/jeem.1996.0025
   Google Scholar
• Rollins K, Lyke A. 1998. The case for diminishing marginal existence values. J Environ Econ Manage. 36:324–344.10.1006/jeem.1998.1045
   Google Scholar
• Sandler R. 2012. Intrinsic value, ecology, and conservation. Nat Educ Knowledge. 3(10):4.
   Google Scholar
• Sarkar S. 2005. Biodiversity and environmental philosophy: an introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511498558
   Google Scholar
• Schaafsma M, Brouwer R. 2013. Testing geographical framing and substitution effects in spatial choice experiments. J Choice Model. 8:32–48.10.1016/j.jocm.2013.04.007
   Google Scholar
• Schaafsma M, Brouwer R, Gilbert A, Van den Bergh JCJM, Wagtendonk A. 2013. Advancing the estimation of distance-decay functions to account for substitution and spatial heterogeneity in stated preference research. Land Econ. 89(3):514–537.10.3368/le.89.3.514
   Google Scholar
• Scarpa R, Willis KG, Acutt M. 2007. Valuing externalities from water supply: status quo, choice complexity and individual random effects in panel kernel logit analysis of choice experiments. J Environ Plan Manage. 50:449–466.10.1080/09640560701401861
   Google Scholar
• Schkade DA, Payne JW. 1994. How people respond to contingent valuation questions: a verbal protocol analysis of willingness to pay for an environmental regulation. J Environ Econ Manage. 26:88–109.10.1006/jeem.1994.1006
   Google Scholar
• Smith VK, Osborne LL. 1996. Do contingent valuation estimates pass a “scope” test? A meta-analysis. J Environ Econ Manage. 31(3):287–301.10.1006/jeem.1996.0045
   Google Scholar
• Soulé ME. 1985. What is conservation biology? Bioscience. 35:727–734.
   Google Scholar
• Terza JV. 1987. Estimating linear models with ordinal qualitative regressors. J Econom. 34(3):275–291.10.1016/0304-4076(87)90013-3
   Google Scholar
• Thaler RH. 1999. Mental accounting matters. J Behav Decis Mak. 12:183–206.10.1002/(ISSN)1099-0771
   Google Scholar
• Train KE. 2003. Discrete choice models with simulation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511753930
   Google Scholar
• Veisten K, Hoen HF, Navrud S, Strand J. 2004. Scope insensitivity in contingent valuation of complex environmental amenities. J Environ Manage. 73:317–331.10.1016/j.jenvman.2004.07.008
   Google Scholar
• Walsh RG, Johnson DM, McKean JR. 1992. Benefits transfer of out-door recreation demand studies: 1968–1988. Water Resour Res. 28:707–713.10.1029/91WR02597
   Google Scholar