The Economic Value of Wildlife in Alberta: A Database and Analysis of Benefit and Expenditure Estimates
The \"Wildlife Valuation Database\" is composed of 53 individual studies, providing 181 wildlife and reacreation benefit estimates. The database can be run on an IBM computer with Microsoft Windows 3.1. The format of the database is in the following form; (a) ID number, (b) focus of study...
| Main Authors: | , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Report |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
1996
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://era.library.ualberta.ca/items/794109e0-2d62-4ebf-9778-03920bab0a5d https://doi.org/10.7939/R3RF5KF3C |
| Summary: | The \"Wildlife Valuation Database\" is composed of 53 individual studies, providing 181 wildlife and reacreation benefit estimates. The database can be run on an IBM computer with Microsoft Windows 3.1. The format of the database is in the following form; (a) ID number, (b) focus of study (for example, hunting and fishing), (c) author(s), (d) date published, (e) species (for example, moose and wolf), (f) geography (for example, is the study representative of a region or province), (g) sample size, (h) data year, (i) valuation technique (such as travel cost models and contingent valuation methods), (j) beneficiaries (for example, are the beneficiaries Canadians or Non-Canadians), (k) benefit value in 1994 dollar terms, (m) denominations (such as benefit values per year or per day), (n) survey characteristics (inclusive: demographics, expenditures, trips made, distance traveled, duration, party size, substitute site, family income, value of time and survey used), (o) license fees, (p) variable costs (food, lodging and travel costs), (q) capital costs, and (r) total expenditures. The majority of the entries in the database are from Alberta studies (47%). The composition of the rest of the database is as follows; other Canadian provinces (British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Ontario, Quebec, and Newfoundland) represent 23% of the data; Canadian wide and United States studies represent 6% and 24% of the data respectively. Most of the studies were consumptive in nature, such as hunting and fishing, followed by non-consumptive activities, such as hiking. Identified gaps within the database literature are (a) very few bequest and existence valuation studies, (b) few studies that analyze quality changes (with respective changes to benefit estimates and expenditures) due to positive/negative environmental impacts, (c) the exclusion of expenditures from many studies, and (d) the issue of successfully deriving capital costs per unit studied. The majority of the wildlife valuation reports were completed between the late 1960s ... |
|---|