Knowl. Manag. Aquat. Ecosyst.
Number 423, 2022
Ecosystem services and economics
Article Number 22
Number of page(s) 9
Published online 23 August 2022
  • Aguilar FX, Obeng EA, Cai Z. 2018. Water quality improvements elicit consistent willingness-to-pay for the enhancement of forested watershed ecosystem services. Ecosyst Serv 30: 158–171. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Amirnejad H, Khalilian S, Assareh MH, Ahmadian M. 2006. Estimating the existence value of north forests of Iran by using a contingent valuation method. Ecol Econ 58: 665–675. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Bateman IJ, Day BH, Georgiou S, Lake I. 2006. The aggregation of environmental benefit values: welfare measures, distance decay and total WTP. Ecol Econ 60: 450–460. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Bateman IJ, Langford IH, Turner RK, Willis KG, Garrod GD. (1995). Elicitation and truncation effects in contingent valuation studies. Ecol Econ 12: 161–179. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Bhandari P, Mohan KC, Shrestha S, Aryal A, Shrestha UB. 2016. Assessments of ecosystem service indicators and stakeholder's willingness to pay for selected ecosystem services in the Chure region of Nepal. Appl Geogr 69: 25–34. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Brouwer R, Langford IH, Bateman IJ, Turner RK. 1999. A meta-analysis of wetland contingent valuation studies. Regl Environ Change 1: 47–57. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Carson RT. (2012). Contingent valuation: a practical alternative when prices aren't available. J Econ Perspect 26: 27–42. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Carson RT, Mitchell RC. 1993. The value of clean water: the public's willingness to pay for boatable, fishable, and swimmable quality water. Water Resour Res 29: 2445–2454. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Cooper JC. 1993. Optimal bid selection for dichotomous choice contingent valuation surveys. J Environ Econ Manag 24: 25–40. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Costanza R, d'Arge R, De Groot R, Farber S, Grasso M, Hannon B, Limburg K, Naeem S, O'Neill RV, Paruelo J, Raskin RG, Sutton P, Van Den Belt F M. 1997. The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387: 253–260. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Costanza R, De Groot R, Sutton P, Van der Ploeg F S, Anderson SJ, Kubiszewski I, Farber S, Turner RK. 2014. Changes in the global value of ecosystem services. Glob Environ Change 26: 152–158. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Davidson NC, Van Dam AA, Finlayson CM, McInnes RJ. 2019. Worth of wetlands: revised global monetary values of coastal and inland wetland ecosystem services. Mar Freshw Res 70: 1189–1194. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • De Groot RS, Fisher B, Christie M, Aronson J, Braat L, Haines-Young R, Ring I. 2010. Integrating the ecological and economic dimensions in biodiversity and ecosystem service valuation. In: Costanza R., The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity (TEEB): ecological and economic foundations. Routledge: Earthscan, pp. 9–40. [Google Scholar]
  • Douglas I. 2018. The challenge of urban poverty for the use of green infrastructure on floodplains and wetlands to reduce flood impacts in intertropical Africa. Lands Urban Plan 180: 262–272. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Fisher B, Turner RK, Morling P. 2009. Defining and classifying ecosystem services for decision making. Ecol Econ 68: 643–653. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Fogarassy C, Neubauer É, Mansur H, Tangl A, Oláh J, Popp J. 2018. The main transition management issues and the effects of environmental accounting on financial performance-with focus on cement industry. Administratie si Manag Public 31: 52–66. [Google Scholar]
  • Guffey D. 2012. Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test: translations to the Cox Proportional Hazards Model (MSc thesis), University of Washington, Washington. [Google Scholar]
  • Gujarati D. 1999. Essentials of econometrics. Boston, USA: SAGE Publications. [Google Scholar]
  • Halkos G, Matsiori S. 2014. Exploring social attitude and willingness to pay for water resources conservation. J Behav Exp Econ 49: 54–62. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Hamilton SE, Gallo SM, Krach N, Nyamweya CS, Okechi JK, Aura CM, Ogari Z, Roberts MP, Kaufman L. 2020. The use of unmanned aircraft systems and high-resolution satellite imagery to monitor tilapia fish-cage aquaculture expansion in Lake Victoria, Kenya. Bull Mar Sci 96: 71–93. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Hanemann WM. 1994. Valuing the environment through contingent valuation. J Econ Perspect 8: 19–43. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Harris JM, Roach B. 2017. Environmental and natural resource economics: A contemporary approach (4th edn.) New York: Routledge. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Hausman JA. (2012). Contingent valuation: A critical assessment. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier. [Google Scholar]
  • Hosmer D, Lemeshow S. 1989. Applied logistic regression. New York: Wiley Sons. [Google Scholar]
  • Johnston RJ, Boyle KJ, Adamowicz W, Bennett J, Brouwer R, Cameron TA, Hanermann WM, Hanley N, Ryan M, Scarpa R, Tourangeau R, Vossler CA. 2017. Contemporary guidance for stated preference studies. J Assoc Environ Resource Econ 4: 319–405. [Google Scholar]
  • Kaffashi S, Shamsudin MN, Radam A, Rahim KA, Yacob MR. 2013. We are willing to pay to support wetland conservation: local users' perspective. Int J Sustain Dev World Ecol 20: 325–335. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Kagombe JK, Cheboiwo JK, Gichu A, Handa C, Wamboi J. 2018. Payment for environmental services: status and opportunities in Kenya. J Resour Dev Manag J 40: 1–13. [Google Scholar]
  • Kumar P, Esen SE, Yashiro M. 2013. Linking ecosystem services to strategic environmental assessment in development policies. Environ Impact Assess Rev 40: 75–81. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Lamsal P, Pant KP, Kumar L, Atreya K. 2015. Sustainable livelihoods through conservation of wetland resources: a case of economic benefits from Ghodaghodi Lake, western Nepal. Ecol Soc 20: 11. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • List JA, Gallet CA. 2001. What experimental protocol influence disparities between actual and hypothetical stated values? Environ Resour Econ 20: 241–254. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Maithya J, Ming'ate F, Letema S. 2020. A review on ecosystem services and their threats in the conservation of Nyando Wetland, Kisumu County, Kenya. Tanzania J Sci 46: 711–722. [Google Scholar]
  • Pascual U, Brander M, Brander L, Gómez-Baggethun E, Martín-López B, Verma M, Armsworth P, Christie M, Cornelissen H, Eppink F, Farley J, Loomis J, Pearson L, Perrings C, Polasky S. 2010. The economics of valuing ecosystem services and biodiversity. In Kumar Pushpam, The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: Ecological and Economic Foundations, pp. 183–256. [Google Scholar]
  • Paudyal K, Baral H, Burkhard B, Bhandari SP, Keenan RJ. 2015. Participatory assessment and mapping of ecosystem services in a data-poor region: case study of community-managed forests in central Nepal. Ecosyst Serv 13: 81–92. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Pearce DW. 2001. The economic value of forest ecosystems. Ecosyst Health 7: 284–296. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Schuyt K, Brander L. 2004. The economic values of the world's wetlands (Environmental Science), WWF, Amsterdam. [Google Scholar]
  • Shackleton CM, Shackleton SE. 2000. Direct use values of secondary resources harvested from communal savannas in the Bushbuckridge lowveld, South Africa. J Trop Forest Prod 6: 28–47. [Google Scholar]
  • Sibanda BM, Omwega AK. 1996. Some reflections on conservation, sustainable development and equitable sharing of benefits from wildlife in Africa: the case of Kenya and Zimbabwe. South Afr J Wildlife Res 26: 175–181. [Google Scholar]
  • Sturges JE, Hanrahan KJ. 2004. Comparing telephone and face-to-face qualitative interviewing: a research note. Qual Res 4: 107–118. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Wang Y, Li X, Sun M, Yu H. 2018. Managing urban ecological land as properties: Conceptual model, public perceptions, and willingness to pay. Resour Conserv Recycl 133: 21–29. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Yang W, Chang J, Xu B, Peng C, Ge Y. 2008. Ecosystem service value assessment for constructed wetlands: A case study in Hangzhou, China. Ecol Econ 68: 116–125. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.