Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T09:42:05.528Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Empirical Evaluation of Environmental Preferences: A Case Study

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 May 2017

Dilip Pendse  and
J. B. Wyckoff
Dilip Pendse
Affiliation:
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
J. B. Wyckoff
Affiliation:
Oregon State University
Get access

Extract

In the eyes of environmentally concerned citizens, Oregon has set a splendid example. Their “bottle bill” was instrumental in reducing can and bottle litter on beaches, highways, and recreational and camping sites by 49 percent. A field burning ban becomes effective in 1975 to protect air quality. Legislation enacted in 1972 will remove billboards from its highways and interstate roads by 1975. A regulation to protect 820,000 acres of wilderness area from development was also adopted in 1972. Last year (1973) senators Robert Packwood and Mark Hatfield of Oregon and senators Frank Church and James McClure of Idaho jointly introduced a bill in the U.S. Senate to create a unique Hells Canyon National Recreation Area.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of the Northeastern Agricultural Economics Council , Volume 3 , Issue 2 , October 1974 , pp. 186 - 204
Copyright
Copyright © 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

1/

The research upon which this paper is based was supported by the Office of Water Resources Research, Department of the Interior, as authorized under the Water Resources Act of 1964 (PL-88-379).

References

1 Gauger, Stephen E., and Wyckoff, J. B., “Aesthetic Preference for Water Resource Projects–An Application of Q Methodology,” Water Resources Bulletin, AWRA, Vol. 9, No. 3, June 1973.Google Scholar
2 Hoinville, G., “Evaluating Community Preferences,” Environment and Planning, Vol. 3, pp. 33–50, 1971.Google Scholar
3 Hoinville, G., and Berthoud, R., “Value of Time: Development Project, Report on Stage 3,” Social and Community Planning Research, London, March, 1970.Google Scholar
4 Hoinville, G., and Berthoud, R., “Identifying and Evaluating Trade-Off Preferences - An Analysis of Environmental/Accessability Priorities,” Social and Community Planning Research, London, April, 1970.Google Scholar
5 Kadera, Jim, “Environment Unit Approves Wilderness Use Standards,” The Oregonian, Portland, Oregon: 1, January 25, 1971.Google Scholar
6 Pendse, Dilip, and Wyckoff, J. B., “Measurement of Environmental Goods: A Suggested Approach,” Paper presented to annual meeting of the American Agricultural Economics Association at Gainesville, Florida, August, 1972.Google Scholar
7 Pendse, Dilip, and Wyckoff, J. B., “Scope for Valuation of Environmental Goods,” Land Economics, Vol. L., No. 1, pp. 89–92, February, 1974.Google Scholar
8 Pendse, Dilip, and Wyckoff, J. B., “Environmental Goods: Determination of Preferences and Trade-Off Values,” Journal of Leisure Research, Vol. 6, No. l, pp. 64–76, 1974.Google Scholar
9 Pendse, Dilip, and Wyckoff, J. B., “A Systematic Evaluation of Environmental Perceptions, Optimum Preferences, and Trade-Off Values: In Water Resource Analysis,” Department of Agricultural Economics, Oregon State University, 1974 (forthcoming).Google Scholar
10 Quigg, Phillip W., “World Environment Newsletter,” Saturday Review World, April 4, 1974, p. 4.Google Scholar
11 Schmid, Allan A., “Nonmarket Values and Efficiency of Public Investments in Water Resources,” American Economic Review, LVII, pp. 158–168, May, 1967.Google Scholar
12 Sinden, J. A., Utility Analysis in the Valuation of Extra-Market Benefits with Particular Reference to Water-Based Recreation, Water Resources Research Institute, Oregon State University, 1973.Google Scholar