References in periodicals archive ?
The major and minor impact scenarios differ primarily in their depiction of possible impacts outside the KCZ. The major impact scenario included a picture of the wetlands 90 km.
At the most general level we sought to avoid respondents placing an artificial importance on preserving the KCZ due to the simple fact they were being interviewed on this issue.
However, previous mining in the KCZ and the history of creating KNP cloud the picture.
To obtain a conservative benefit estimate and to maximize the legitimacy of the valuation exercise to the respondent, a WTP question rather than a WTA question was used to estimate the change in preservation value from not mining the KCZ. Respondents were told that in order to secure the preservation benefits of the KCZ, the public would be expected to pay to replace lost government revenue and park management costs.
The discrete choice nature of the question provides respondents with a straightforward option: pay A$X and add the KCZ to KNP or pay nothing and have the KCZ mined.
These amounts were used, to a large extent, in order to facilitate comparison to the likely range of possible benefit estimates from mining the KCZ.
The KCZ survey instrument contained a number of open-ended and closed-ended questions which elicited attitudinal, behavioral, and demographic information from respondents.
The KCZ survey instrument was extensively pre-tested using experienced interviewers.
In contrast to other areas of Australia, many NT respondents are likely to perceive direct benefits from mining in the KCZ. Thus, the lower values for the NT sample were not unexpected.
VKAK will be a good predictor if past visits to Kakadu are good predictor of future visits to Kakadu,(16) or if a visit to Kakadu increases concern about mining the KCZ. VPARKS may be a good predictor of general concern for parks and incorporates a recent activity dimension that the two Kakadu specific variables do not.
The seven consistency checks performed tended to reduce estimated median willingness to pay for the KCZ by about 30% and shrink estimated confidence intervals.(19) Checks 1, 2, and 3 drop a small number of observations (just over 1% of the sample) whose WTP responses are completely inconsistent with the key attitudinal variables.
Take a respondent assigned to the minor impact scenario who had a set of covariate values which should indicate a low willingness to pay for the KCZ (RECPARKS = 2, JOBS = 5, LOWRISK = 5, ABORIGINAL = 2, FINBEN = 5, MINE-PARKS = 2, Q18 = 2, ENVCON = 0, VPARKS = 0, Age = 65, and INCOME = 20).
Acronyms browser ?
Full browser ?
- KD HAP
- Kd lang
- kd rgds
- KD Surovine in Energija
- kD, kDa
- kD, kDa
- kd, kDa, kdal