Skip Nav Destination
Close Modal
Update search
NARROW
Format
Journal
TocHeadingTitle
Date
Availability
1-3 of 3
W. Michael Hanemann
Close
Follow your search
Access your saved searches in your account
Would you like to receive an alert when new items match your search?
Sort by
Journal Articles
Publisher: Journals Gateway
The Review of Economics and Statistics (2006) 88 (1): 113–125.
Published: 01 February 2006
Abstract
View articletitled, The Impact of Global Warming on U.S. Agriculture: An Econometric Analysis of Optimal Growing Conditions
View
PDF
for article titled, The Impact of Global Warming on U.S. Agriculture: An Econometric Analysis of Optimal Growing Conditions
We link farmland values to climatic, soil, and socioeconomic variables for U.S. counties east of the 100th meridian, the historical boundary of agriculture not primarily dependent on irrigation. Degree days, a nonlinear transformation of the climatic variables suggested by agronomic experiments as more relevant to crop yield, gives an improved fit and increased robustness. Estimated coefficients are consistent with the experimental results. The model is employed to estimate the potential impacts on farmland values for a range of recent warming scenarios. The predictions are very robust, and more than 75% of the counties in our sample show a statistically significant effect, ranging from moderate gains to large losses, with losses in the aggregate that can become quite large under scenarios involving sustained heavy use of fossil fuels.
Journal Articles
Richard T. Carson, W. Michael Hanemann, Raymond J. Kopp, Jon A. Krosnick, Robert Cameron Mitchell ...
Publisher: Journals Gateway
The Review of Economics and Statistics (1998) 80 (3): 484–487.
Published: 01 August 1998
Abstract
View articletitled, Referendum Design and Contingent Valuation: The NOAA Panel's No-vote Recommendation
View
PDF
for article titled, Referendum Design and Contingent Valuation: The NOAA Panel's No-vote Recommendation
This paper considers the effects for offering a “would-not-vote” option in contingent valuation (CV) questions framed using the referendum format. This approach arises from a suggestion made by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) panel on contingent valuation. The NOAA panel was asked to evaluate the use of this method for estimating the economic value of nonmarketed environmental resources in the context of natural resource damage assessments. This test used the CV questionnaire developed for the study of the Exxon Valdez oil spill conducted by the State of Alaska with in-person interviews. The findings suggest that when those selecting the “would-not-vote” response are treated as having voted “against” the program (a conservative coding), offering this option does not alter (1) the distribution of “for” and “against” responses (2) the estimates of willingness to pay derived from these choices, or (3) the construct validity of the results.
Journal Articles
Richard T. Carson, W. Michael Hanemann, Raymond J. Kopp, Jon A. Krosnick, Robert Cameron Mitchell ...
Publisher: Journals Gateway
The Review of Economics and Statistics (1998) 80 (2): 335–338.
Published: 01 May 1998
Abstract
View articletitled, Referendum Design and Contingent Valuation: The NOAA Panel's No-Vote Recommendation
View
PDF
for article titled, Referendum Design and Contingent Valuation: The NOAA Panel's No-Vote Recommendation
This paper considers the effects for offering a “would-not-vote” option in contingent valuation (CV) questions framed using the referendum format. This approach arises from a suggestion made by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) panel on contingent valuation. The NOAA panel was asked to evaluate the use of this method for estimating the economic value of nonmarketed environmental resources in the context of natural resource damage assessments. This test used the CV questionnaire developed for the study of the Exxon Valdez oil spill conducted by the State of Alaska with in-person interviews. The findings suggest that when those selecting the “would-not-vote” response are treated as having voted “against” the program (a conservative coding), offering this option does not alter (1) the distribution of “for” and “against” responses (2) the estimates of willingness to pay derived from these choices, or (3) the construct validity of the results.