Knowl. Manag. Aquat. Ecosyst.
Number 424, 2023
Ecosystem services and economics
Article Number 11
Number of page(s) 9
Published online 17 April 2023
  • Acquah H, Abunyuwah I. 2011. Logit analysis of socio-economic factors influencing people to become fishermen in the Central Region of Ghana. J Agric Sci 56: 55–64. [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]
  • Baral N, Stern MJ, Bhattarai R. 2008. Contingent valuation of ecotourism in Annapurna conservation area, Nepal: Implications for sustainable park finance and local development. Ecol Econ 66: 218–227. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Barbier EB, Acreman M, Knowler D. 1997. Economic valuation of wetlands: A guide for policy makers and planners. Ramsar Convention Bureau, Gland, Switzerland. 116 p. [Google Scholar]
  • Bateman I, Langford IH, Nishikawa N, Lake I. 2000. The axford debate revisited: a case study illustrating different approaches to the aggregation of benefit data. J Environ Plan Manag 43: 291–302. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Botelho A, Lourenço-Gomes L, Pinto LM, Sousa S, Valente M. 2018. Discrete-choice experiments valuing local environmental impacts of renewables: Two approaches to a case study in Portugal. Environ Dev Sustain 20: 145–162. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Brennan D, Tapsuwan S, Ingram G. 2007. The welfare costs of urban outdoor water restrictions. Aust J Agric Resource Econ 51: 243–261. [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]
  • Choi AS, Fielding KS. 2013. Environmental attitudes as WTP predictors: A case study involving endangered species. Ecol Econ 89: 24–32. [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 M. 1997. The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387: 253–260. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • De Groot RS, Wilson MA, Boumans RM. 2002. A typology for the classification, description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services. Ecol Econ 41: 393–408. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Fogarassy C, Kerpely K, Horváth B, Bakosné Böröcz M. 2016. Analysing the attributes of ecological evaluation on local and regional levels via willingness to pay (WTP). Appl Ecol Environ Res 3: 129–145. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Gujarati D. 1999. Essentials of econometrics. Boston, USA: Irwin/McGraw-Hill, 534p. [Google Scholar]
  • Hultman M, Kazeminia A, Ghasemi V. 2015. Intention to visit and willingness to pay premium for ecotourism: The impact of attitude, materialism, and motivation. J Bus Res 68: 1854–1861. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Johnson E, Moran D, Vinten AJA. 2008. A framework for valuing the health benefits of improved bathing water quality in the River Irvine catchment. J Environ Manag 87: 633–638. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Karami O, Yazdani S, Saleh I, Rafiee H, Riahi A. 2020. A comparison of Zayandehrood River water values for agriculture and the environment. River Res Appl 36: 1279–1285. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • KNBS. 2019. Kenya Population and Housing Census Volume I: Population by county and sub-county. Kenya National Bureau of Statistics. Nairobi, Kenya. Available at [Google Scholar]
  • Kotchen MJ, Reiling SD. 2000. Environmental attitudes, motivations, and contingent valuation of nonuse values: a case study involving endangered species. Ecol Econ 32: 93–107. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Kyle GT, Graefe AR, Absher JD. 2002. Determining appropriate prices for recreation on public lands. J Park Recreat Administr 20: 69–89. [Google Scholar]
  • Larsen MC. 2017. Contemporary human uses of tropical forested watersheds and riparian corridors: Ecosystem services and hazard mitigation, with examples from Panama, Puerto Rico, and Venezuela. Quat Int 448: 190–200. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Leeworthy V, Bowker J. 1997. Non-market economic user values of the Florida. Key West, Florida, 41p. [Google Scholar]
  • Loomis JB, White DS. 1996. Economic benefits of rare and endangered species: summary and meta-analysis. Ecol Econ 18: 197–206. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Masifwa WF, Twongo, T, Denny P. 2001. The impact of water hyacinth, Eichhornia crassipes (Mart) Solms on the abundance and diversity of aquatic macroinvertebrates along the shores of northern Lake Victoria, Uganda. Hydrobiologia 452: 79–88. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Mamboleo M, Adem A. 2022. Estimating willingness to pay for the conservation of wetland ecosystems, Lake Victoria as a case study. Knowl Manag Aquat Ecosyst 423: 22. [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [Google Scholar]
  • Mamboleo M. 2021. Evaluation and use of existing economic valuation methodologies in the management of Lake Victoria's water resources. RUDN J Ecol Life Saf 29: 341–354. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Martin-Lopez BE, Montes C, Benayas J. 2008. Economic valuation of biodiversity conservation: the meaning of numbers. Conserv Biol 22: 624–635. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005. Ecosystems And Human Well-Being: Wetlands and Water. World Resources Institute, Washington, DC. [Google Scholar]
  • More T, Stevens T. 2000. Do user fees exclude low-income people from resource-based recreation? J Leisure Res 32: 341–357. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Pearce D, Moran D. 1994. The economic value of biodiversity. London, UK: Routledge. 172p. [Google Scholar]
  • Ramajo-Hernández J, del Saz-Salazar S. 2012. Estimating the non-market benefits of water quality improvement for a case study in Spain: A contingent valuation approach. Environ Sci Policy 22: 47–59. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Reynisdottir M, Song H, Agrusa J. 2008. Willingness to pay entrance fees to natural attractions: An Icelandic case study. Tourism Manag 29: 1076–1083. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Rosenberger RS, Needham MD, Morzillo AT, Moehrke C. 2012. Attitudes, willingness to pay, and stated values for recreation use fees at an urban proximate forest. J For Econ 18: 271–281. [Google Scholar]
  • Ryan M, Watson V. 2009. Comparing welfare estimates from payment card contingent valuation and discrete choice experiments. Health Econ 18: 389–401. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Siew MK, Yacob MR, Radam A, Adamu A, Alias EF. 2015. Estimating willingness to pay for wetland conservation: a contingent valuation study of Paya Indah Wetland, Selangor Malaysia. Procedia Environ Sci 30: 268–272. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Twesigye CK, Onywere SM, Getenga ZM, Mwakalila SS, Nakiranda JK. 2011. The impact of land use activities on vegetation cover and water quality in the Lake Victoria watershed. Open Environ Eng J 4: 66–77. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Wunder S, Engel S, Pagiola S. 2008. Taking stock: A comparative analysis of payments for environmental services programs in developed and developing countries. Ecol Econ 65: 834–852. [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.