IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/rff/dpaper/dp-08-11.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

An Update on the Science of Acidification in the Adirondack Park

Author

Listed:
  • Mische John, Anna
  • Burtraw, Dallas
  • Evans, David
  • Banzhaf, H. Spencer
  • Krupnick, Alan
  • Siikamäki, Juha

Abstract

This paper provides a review of the science pertaining to all aspects of acidification in the Adirondack Park, updating an earlier review of the science (Cook et al. 2002). The review supports an ongoing social science investigation into the willingness to pay for ecological improvements that would result from reduced acid deposition. This paper builds a bridge between the physical science and social science by providing the background that will allow researchers to accurately summarize the crucial elements of ecological status and improvement in a stated preference survey.

Suggested Citation

  • Mische John, Anna & Burtraw, Dallas & Evans, David & Banzhaf, H. Spencer & Krupnick, Alan & Siikamäki, Juha, 2008. "An Update on the Science of Acidification in the Adirondack Park," RFF Working Paper Series dp-08-11, Resources for the Future.
    • Handle: RePEc:rff:dpaper:dp-08-11
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.rff.org/RFF/documents/RFF-DP-08-11.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. H. Spencer Banzhaf & Dallas Burtraw & David Evans & Alan Krupnick, 2006. "Valuation of Natural Resource Improvements in the Adirondacks," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 82(3), pages 445-464.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Shalini P. Vajjhala & Anna Mische John & David A. Evans, 2008. "Determining the Extent of Market and Extent of Resource for Stated Preference Survey Design Using Mapping Methods," NCEE Working Paper Series 200809, National Center for Environmental Economics, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, revised Oct 2008.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Kevin J. Boyle & Mark Morrison & Darla Hatton MacDonald & Roderick Duncan & John Rose, 2016. "Investigating Internet and Mail Implementation of Stated-Preference Surveys While Controlling for Differences in Sample Frames," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 64(3), pages 401-419, July.
    2. John C. Whitehead, 2024. "Review of Contingent Valuation of Environmental Goods: A Comprehensive Critique. Edited by Daniel McFadden and Kenneth Train (2017): An Update," Working Papers 24-17, Department of Economics, Appalachian State University.
    3. Jared C. Carbone & V. Kerry Smith, 2010. "Valuing ecosystem services in general equilibrium," NBER Working Papers 15844, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    4. Richard Schmalensee & Robert N. Stavins, 2017. "Lessons Learned from Three Decades of Experience with Cap and Trade," Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 11(1), pages 59-79.
    5. Tuttle, Carrie M. & Heintzelman, Martin D., 2015. "A loon on every lake: A hedonic analysis of lake water quality in the Adirondacks," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 1-15.
    6. Kiriaki M. Keramitsoglou & Katja Lozar Manfreda & Charalampia Anastasiou & Knut Kalgraff Skjak & Konstantinos P. Tsagarakis, 2018. "Mode comparison study on willingness to buy and willingness to pay for organic foods: paper-and-pencil versus computerized questionnaire," Electronic Commerce Research, Springer, vol. 18(3), pages 587-603, September.
    7. Lindhjem, Henrik & Navrud, Ståle, 2008. "Asking for Individual or Household Willingness to Pay for Environmental Goods? Implication for aggregate welfare measures," MPRA Paper 11469, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    8. Siikamaki, Juha & Layton, David F., 2007. "Discrete choice survey experiments: A comparison using flexible methods," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 53(1), pages 122-139, January.
    9. John C. Whitehead & Andrew Ropicki & John Loomis & Sherry Larkin & Tim Haab & Sergio Alvarez, 2023. "Estimating the benefits to Florida households from avoiding another Gulf oil spill using the contingent valuation method: Internal validity tests with probability‐based and opt‐in samples," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 45(2), pages 705-720, June.
    10. Lindhjem, Henrik & Navrud, Ståle, 2008. "Internet CV surveys – a cheap, fast way to get large samples of biased values?," MPRA Paper 11471, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    11. Whitehead, John C., 2016. "Plausible responsiveness to scope in contingent valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 17-22.
    12. Stowe, Robert C & Stavins, Robert Norman & Chan, Gabriel Angelo & Sweeney, Richard Leonard, 2012. "The SO2 Allowance Trading System and the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990: Reflections on Twenty Years of Policy Innovation," Scholarly Articles 8160721, Harvard Kennedy School of Government.
    13. Robert J. Johnston & Elena Y. Besedin & Ryan Stapler, 2017. "Enhanced Geospatial Validity for Meta-analysis and Environmental Benefit Transfer: An Application to Water Quality Improvements," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 68(2), pages 343-375, October.
    14. Pedersen, Line Bjørnskov & Hess, Stephane & Kjær, Trine, 2016. "Asymmetric information and user orientation in general practice: Exploring the agency relationship in a best–worst scaling study," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 115-130.
    15. Richard Schmalensee & Robert N. Stavins, 2013. "The SO 2 Allowance Trading System: The Ironic History of a Grand Policy Experiment," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 27(1), pages 103-122, Winter.
    16. Carbone, Jared C. & Kerry Smith, V., 2013. "Valuing nature in a general equilibrium," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 66(1), pages 72-89.
    17. Tuttle, Carrie M. & Heintzelman, Martin D., 2013. "The Value of Forever Wild: An Economic Analysis of Land Use in the Adirondacks," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 42(1), pages 119-138, April.
    18. Burtraw, Dallas & Palmer, Karen & Shih, Jhih-Shyang, 2005. "Reducing Emissions from the Electricity Sector: The Costs and Benefits Nationwide and for the Empire State," RFF Working Paper Series dp-05-23, Resources for the Future.
    19. Ian Bateman & Georgina Mace & Carlo Fezzi & Giles Atkinson & Kerry Turner, 2011. "Economic Analysis for Ecosystem Service Assessments," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 48(2), pages 177-218, February.
    20. Lindhjem, Henrik & Navrud, Ståle, 2010. "Can cheap panel-based internet surveys substitute costly in-person interviews in CV surveys?," MPRA Paper 24069, University Library of Munich, Germany.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    acid rain; acidification; stated preference; willingness to pay; benefit estimation;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • Q51 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Valuation of Environmental Effects
    • Q53 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Air Pollution; Water Pollution; Noise; Hazardous Waste; Solid Waste; Recycling
    • Q57 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Ecological Economics

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:rff:dpaper:dp-08-11. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Resources for the Future (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/rffffus.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.