Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-9q27g Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-18T05:02:37.956Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Contingent Valuation of a Public Program to Control Black Flies

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 May 2017

Stephen D. Reiling ,
Kevin J. Boyle ,
Hsiang-tai Cheng  and
Marcia L. Phillips
Stephen D. Reiling
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of Maine
Kevin J. Boyle
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of Maine
Hsiang-tai Cheng
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of Maine
Marcia L. Phillips
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of Maine
Get access

Abstract

Contingent valuation is used to measure the benefits of a proposed public program to control black flies. Respondents’ reported values are analyzed from three perspectives: data outliers, consistency between respondents’ reported values and their perceptions of black flies, and the temporal reliability of the values expressed by respondents. The results suggest that the estimated contingent values are plausible even though a majority of respondents expressed a value of zero dollars for the black fly control program.

Type
Articles
Information
Northeastern Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics , Volume 18 , Issue 2 , October 1989 , pp. 126 - 134
Copyright
Copyright © 1989 Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association 

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.)

Footnotes

This research was supported by the Maine Department of Environmental Protection and the Maine Agricultural Experiment Station. Maine Agricultural Experiment Station Publication No. 1376.

References

Bauer, L. S. and Granett, J. 1979. The Black Flies of Maine. Technical Bulletin 95, Maine Life Sciences and Agriculture Experiment Station, University of Maine at Orono, (May), 18 pp.Google Scholar
Boyle, K. J. and Bishop, R. C. 1988. “Welfare Measurements Using Contingent Valuation: A Comparison of Techniques.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 70:20–28.Google Scholar
Cummings, R. G., Brookshire, D. S., and Schulze, W. D. 1986. Valuing Environmental Goods: An Assessment of the Contingent Valuation Method. Totowa, NJ: Rowman and Allenheld, 270 pp.Google Scholar
Desvousges, W. H., Smith, V. K., and Fisher, A. 1987. “Option Price Estimates of Water Quality Improvements: A Contingent Valuation Study for the Monongahela River.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 14 (Sept.):248–67.Google Scholar
Desvousges, W. H., Smith, V. K., and McGivney, M. P. 1983. “A Comparison of Alternative Approaches for Estimating Recreation and Related Benefits of Water Quality Improvement.” Research Triangle Institute, Report to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA-230-05-83-001, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
Gibbs, K. E. et al. 1986. Experimental Applications of Bti for Larval Black Fly Control: Persistence and Downstream Carry, Efficacy, Impact on Nontarget Invertebrates and Fish Feeding. Technical Bulletin 123, Maine Agricultural Experiment Station, University of Maine, Orono, October, 25 pp.Google Scholar
John, K. H., Stoll, J. R., and Olson, J. K. 1987. “An Economic Assessment of the Benefits of Mosquito Abatement in an Organized Mosquito Control District.” Journal of the American Mosquito Control Association 3(March):8–14.Google Scholar
Kealy, M. J., Dovidio, J. F., and Rockel, M. L. 1988. “Accuracy in Valuation is a Matter of Degree.” Land Economics 64(May):158–71.Google Scholar
Loomis, J. B. 1989. “Test-Retest Reliability of the Contingent Valuation Method: A Comparison of General Population and Visitor Responses.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 71(February):76–84.Google Scholar
Maddala, G. S. 1983. Limited-Dependent and Qualitative Variables in Econometrics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mitchell, R. C. and Carson, R. 1989. Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The Contingent-Valuation Method. Washington, D.C.: Resources for the Future, Inc.Google Scholar
Ofiara, D. D. and Allison, J. R. 1985. “The Use of Present Value Criterion Applications in Making Mosquito Control Decisions.” Journal of the American Mosquito Control Association. 1(September):284–294.Google Scholar
Reiling, S. D., Boyle, K. J., Phillips, M. L., Trefts, V. A., and Anderson, M. A. 1988. “The Economic Benefits of Late-Season Black Fly Control.” Bulletin 822, Maine Agricultural Experiment Station, University of Maine, Orono.Google Scholar
Reiling, S. D., Boyle, K. J., Phillips, M. L., and Anderson, M. A. 1989. “Temporal Reliability of Contingent Values.” Land Economics (under review).Google Scholar
Voorhees, S. C. 1980. The Valuation of Aesthetic Benefits from Gypsy Moth Control Using the Iterative Bidding Technique. Unpublished . University of Rhode Island.Google Scholar