Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T17:34:26.858Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Change and Conflict in Land and Water Use: Resource Valuation in Conflict Resolution among Competing Users

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 April 2015

L. U. Hatch  and
T. R. Hanson
L. U. Hatch
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, Auburn University, Auburn, Alabama
T. R. Hanson
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics, Mississippi State University, Mississippi
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Conflicts among competing resource users have become more frequent in the Southeast. Political and legal processes and economic values will play major roles in negotiations to resolve competing resource uses. Resource economists can contribute to resource conflict resolution in several ways, such as facilitating negotiation, asserting importance of institutional mechanisms, analyzing incentives, and evaluating resources.

Type
Invited Paper Sessions
Information
Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics , Volume 33 , Issue 2 , August 2001 , pp. 297 - 306
Copyright
Copyright © Southern Agricultural Economics Association 2001

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Allen, D.S., Jackson, R.S., and Perr, A. Alabama-Coosa-Tallapoosa and Apalachicola-Chattahoo-chee-Flint Comprehensive Study, Recreational Demand Element. Draft Report, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicks-burg, MS, 1996.Google Scholar
Bergstrom, J.C., Teasley, R.J., Cordell, H.K., Souter, R., and English, D.B.K. “Effects of Reservoir Aquatic Plant Management on Recreational Expenditures and Regional Economic Activity.” Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 28(1996):409–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bishop, R. and Heberlein, T. “The Contingent Valuation Method” in Johnson, R.L. and Johnson, G.V. (eds) Economic Valuation of Natural Resource: Issues, Theory, and Applications. Boulder, CO, pp. 81–104, Westview Press, 1990.Google Scholar
Bishop, R.B., Champ, P.A., and Mullarkey, D.J. “Contingent Valuation” in Bromley, D.W. (ed) The Handbook of Environmental Economics. Oxford, UK: Blackwell, pp. 629–654, 1995.Google Scholar
Bowes, M. and Loomis, J. “A Note on the Use of Travel Cost Models with Unequal Zonal Populations.” Land Economics 56(1980):465–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cameron, T. “Non-user Resource Values.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 74(1992):1133–1137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cameron, T. and Huppert, D. “Referendum Contingent Valuation Estimates: Sensitivity to the Assignment of Offered Values.” Journal of the American Statistical Association 86(1991):910–918.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clawson, M. and Knetsch, J.Economics of Outdoor Recreation. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1996.Google Scholar
Cordell, H.K. and Bergstrom, J.C. “Comparison of Recreation Use Values Among Alternative Reservoir Water Level Management Scenarios.” Water Resources Research 29(2)(1993):247–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diamond, P. and Hausman, J. “Contingent Valuation: Is Some Number Better Than No Number?” Journal of Economic Perspectives 8(1994):45–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dillman, D.A.Mail and Telephone Surveys: The Total Design Method. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1978.Google Scholar
FIMS (Fishery Information Management Systems). “Potential Impacts of Water Diversion on Recreational Use and Economic Values Associated with Six Alabama Reservoir Systems.” Final report submitted to the Alabama Department of Economics and Community Affairs, Contract No. ADECA-OWR-97-07, 1997.Google Scholar
Freeman, A.M. III, The Measurement of Environmental and Resource Values—Theory and Methods. Washington, D.C.: Resources for the Future, 1993.Google Scholar
Freund, R.J. and Littell, R.C.SAS System for Regression: Second Edition, Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc., 1991Google Scholar
Hanemann, W. “Valuing the Environment Through Contingent Valuation.” Journal of Economic Perspectives 8(1994):19–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanson, T.R. “Economic Impact of Environmental Characteristics on Recreational Demand.” Ph.D. diss. Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, Auburn University, AL, 1998.Google Scholar
Harrison, G. and J. Lesley. “Must Contingent Valuation Surveys Cost So Much?” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 31(1996):79–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, R.L. and Johnson, G.V. Economic Valuation of Natural Resources. Boulder, CO: West-view Press, 1990.Google Scholar
Jordan, J.L. and Elnagheeb, A.H. “Differences in Contingent Valuation Estimates from Referendum and Checklist Questions.” Journal of Agricultural Research Economics 19(1994a):115–128.Google Scholar
Jordan, J.L. and Elnagheeb, A.H. “Consequences of Using Different Question Formats in Contingent Valuation: A Monte Carlo Study.” Land Economics 70(1)(1994b):97–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krutilla, J. “Conservation Reconsidered.” American Economic Review 57(1967):777–786.Google Scholar
Krutilla, J. and Fisher, A.The Economics of Natural Environments: Studies in the Valuation of Commodity and Amenity Resources. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press for Resources for the Future, 1975.Google Scholar
Lansford, N.H. Jr., and Jones, L.L. “Effects of LCRA Lakes On Riparian Property Values: Recreational and Aesthetic Components of Lake Side Housing in the Colorado River Basin.” Texas Water Resources Institute. Technical Report No. 170, Texas A&M University System, College Station, Texas, September 1995.Google Scholar
Lazo, J.K., Schulze, W.D., McClelland, G.H., and Doyle, J.K. “Can Contingent Valuation Measure Nonuse Values?” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 74(1992):1126–1132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loomis, J.B. “Comparative Reliability of the Dichotomous Choice and Open-Ended Contingent Valuation Techniques.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 18(1990):78–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Messonier, M.L., Bergstrom, J.C., Cornwell, C.M. and Teasley, R.J. “Accounting for Unit and Item Survey Non-response Bias in Contingent Valuation Estimates of Aquatic Plant Management Benefits.” Faculty Series 95-12, Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics, The University of Georgia, College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, 1995.Google Scholar
Mitchell, R.C. and Carson, R.T.Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Method. Washington, D.C.: Resources for the Future, 1989.Google Scholar
Portney, P. “The Contingent Valuation Debate: Why Economists Should Care.” Journal of Economic Perspectives 8(1994):3–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, V.K. and Koop, R.J. “The Spatial Limits of the Travel Cost Recreation Demand Model.” Land Economics 56(1980):64–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stynes, D.J. “A Note on Population distributions and the Travel Cost Method.” in Johnson, R.L. and Johnson, G.V. (eds) Economic Valuation of Natural Resource. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, pp. 139–149, 1990.Google Scholar
Sutherland, R.J. “The Sensitivity of Travel Cost Estimates of Recreation Demand to the Functional Form and Definition of Origin Zones.” Western Journal of Agricultural Economics 7(1982):87–98.Google Scholar