Show simple item record

dc.creatorIsrael, Brian D.
dc.creatorMartin, Jean
dc.creatorSmith Fayne, Kelly
dc.creatorDaniel, Lauren
dc.date.accessioned2020-11-06T14:33:54Z
dc.date.available2020-11-06T14:33:54Z
dc.date.created2017
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12010/15494
dc.description.abstractContingent valuation surveys, and other stated preference methods, are sometimes used by economists to solicit opinions from the public regarding the monetary value respondents place on the existence of natural resources, independent of the use of those resources. For example, economists may attempt to use surveys to measure how much the respondent values a particular natural resource, such as a bird species or habitat, even if he or she never uses or sees that resource. For decades, economists, government officials, and others have debated whether such survey methods can accurately measure non-use values in natural resource damage (“NRD”) cases. A central premise of this debate is the oft-repeated notion that contingent valuation and other similar methods are allowed by the NRD regulations and accepted by the courts.2 As we demonstrate below, this premise is inaccurate for several reasons.spa
dc.format.extent15 páginasspa
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdfspa
dc.language.isoengspa
dc.publisherElgarspa
dc.subjectLegal obstaclesspa
dc.subjectEnvironmental litigationspa
dc.titleLegal obstacles for contingent valuation methods in environmental litigationspa
dc.subject.lembAnálisis del impacto ambientalspa
dc.subject.lembProtección del medio ambientespa
dc.subject.lembDerecho ambientalspa
dc.rights.accessrightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessspa
dc.rights.localAbierto (Texto Completo)spa
dc.type.coarhttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_3248spa


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record