4.7 Article

The contingent valuation study of Hei(sic)mork, Iceland-Willingness to pay for its preservation

期刊

JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
卷 209, 期 -, 页码 126-138

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2017.12.045

关键词

Contingent valuation method; Urban open space; Payment vehicle duration; Willingness to pay; Iceland; Decision-making

资金

  1. Icelandic Research Council
  2. City of Reykjavik
  3. municipality of Gardabaer
  4. Reykjavik Energy
  5. University of Iceland

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The decision-making and policy formation context in Iceland has been largely devoid of total economic valuations in cost-benefit assessments. Using an internet survey and applying the double bounded dichotomous choice methodology, this contingent valuation study sets out an estimate of the total economic value pertaining to Heiomork, a popular recreational area of urban open space located on the fringes of Reykjavik, Gar(sic)ab ae r and Kopavogur. In so doing, this case study advances the practice of using non-market valuation techniques in the country. The welfare estimates provide evidence that Icelanders consider Hei(sic)mork to possess considerable total economic value, with taxpayers willing to pay a mean lump-sum tax in the range 17,039 to 24,790 ISK per payment to secure its preservation, equating to an estimated total economic value of between 5.87 and 35.47 billion ISK. In the light of possible competitive land management demands among Hei(sic)mork's three owners and many recreational users in the future, the establishment of these values and their potential use in cost-benefit assessments informs the debate concerning whether the area should be preserved or further developed to satisfy economic objectives. Additionally, a body of experimental evidence is formed suggesting that the increased duration of a fixed payment vehicle is associated with much higher total economic valuations compared to a one-year payment period. (C) 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据