Combining revealed and stated preference methods for valuing environmental amenities

Journal of Environmental Economics and Management

Volumn 26, Issue 3, 1994, Pages 271-292

  Adamowicz, W ^a   Louviere, J ^b   Williams, M ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITY OF UTAH   (United States)

^c Intelligent Marketing Systems   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0028056788     PISSN: 00950696     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1006/jeem.1994.1017     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Alberta Environment, “Little Bow River Project/Highwood River Diversion Plan: Impacts on Recreation, Planning Division, Alberta Environment, Edmonton, Alberta (1992).
2. R. R. Batsell and J. J. Louviere, Experimental choice analysis, Marketing Lett. 2, 199-214 (1992).
3. D. A. Belsley, K. Kuh, and R. E. Welsch, “Regression Diagnostics: Identifying Influential Data and Sources of Colinearity, ” Wiley, New York (1980).
4. M. Ben-Akiva and T. Morikawa, Estimation of switching models from revealed preferences and stated intentions, Transportation Res. A 24, 485-495 (1990).
5. M. Ben-Akiva and S. Lerman, “Discrete Choice Analysis: Theory and Application to Travel Demand, ” MIT Press, Cambridge, MA (1985).
6. N. E. Bockstael, W. M. Hanemann, and C. L. Kling, Estimating the value of water quality improvements in a recreational demand framework, Water Resources Res. 23, 951-960 (1987).
7. D. S. Bunch, M. Bradley, T. F. Golob, R. Kitamura, and G. Occhuiuzzo, “Demand for Clean-Fuel Vehicles in California: A Discrete Choice Stated Preference Survey, ” Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California, Irvine, CA (1991).
8. D. S. Bunch, J. J. Louviere, and D. A. Anderson, A comparison of experimental design strategies for multinomial logit models: The case of generic attributes, unpublished working paper, Graduate School of Management, University of California, Davis, CA (1992).
9. T. A. Cameron, Combining contingent valuation and travel cost data for the valuation of nonmarket goods, Land Econom. 68, 302-317 (1992).
10. R. G. Cummings, D. S. Brookshire, and W. D. Schulze (Eds.), “Valuing Environmental Goods: A State of the Arts Assessment of the Contingent Method, ” Rowman and Allanheld, Totowa, NJ (1986).
11. M. Dickie, A. Fisher, and S. Gerking, Market transactions and hypothetical demand data: A comparative study, J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 82, 69-75 (1987).
12. A. M. Freeman, Factorial survey methods and willingness to pay for housing characteristics: Comment, J. Emiron. Econom. Management 20, 92-96 (1991).
13. A. C. Goodman, Identifying willingness-to-pay for heterogeneous goods with factorial survey methods, J. Environ. Econom. Management 16, 58-79 (1989).
14. W. M. Hanemann, Applied welfare analysis with qualitative response models, Working Paper 241, University of California, Berkeley, CA (1984).
15. D. A. Hensher, The use of discrete choice models in the determination of community choices in public issue areas impacting on business decision making, J. Bus. Res. 23, 299-309 (1991).
16. T. J. Lareau and D. A. Rae, Valuing WTP for diesel odor reductions: An application of contingent ranking technique. Southern Econom. J. 728-742 (1986).
17. J. J. Louviere and D. A. Hensher, On the design and analysis of simulated travel choice or allocation experiments in travel choice modeling, Transportation Res. Record 890, 11-17 (1982).
18. J. J. Louviere and D. A. Hensher, Using discrete choice models with experimental design data to forecast consumer demand for a unique cultural event, J. Consumer Res. 10, 348-361 (1983).
19. J. J. Louviere and G. G. Woodworth, Design and analysis of simulated consumer choice or allocation experiments: An approach based on aggregate data. J. Marketing Res. 20, 350-367 (1983).
20. J. J. Louviere, “Analyzing Decision Making: Metric Conjoint Analysis, ” Sage University Papers Series No. 67, Sage Publications, Inc., Newbury Park, CA (1988).
21. J. J. Louviere, Conjoint analysis modeling of stated preferences: A review of theory, methods, recent developments and external validity, J. Transport, Econom. Policy 10, 93-119 (1988).
22. J. J. Louviere, Experimental choice analysis: Introduction and overview. J. Bus. Res. 24(2), 89-96 (1992).
23. J. Mackenzie, A comparison of contingent preference models, Paper presented at the American Agricultural Economics Association Annual Meetings, Baltimore, MD, Aug. 9-12 (1992).
24. J. Mackenzie, Evaluating recreation trip attributes and travel time via conjoint analysis, J. Leisure Sci. 24, 171-184 (1992).
25. D. McFadden, The choice theory approach to market research. Marketing Sci. 5, 275-297 (1986).
26. D. McFadden, Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior, in “Frontiers in Econometrics” (P. Zarembka, Ed.), pp. 105-142, Academic Press, New York (1974).
27. D. McFadden, On independence, structure and simultaneity in transportation demand analysis, Working Paper 7511, Urban Travel Demand Forecasting Project, Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California, Berkeley (1975).
28. D. McFadden, K. Train, and W. B. Tye, An application of diagnostic tests for the independence from irrelevant alternatives property of the multinomial logit model, Transportation Res. Record 637, 39-46 (1977).
29. R. C. Mitchell and R. T. Carson, “Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Method, ” Johns Hopkins Univ. Press for Resources for the Future, Baltimore, MD (1989).
30. H. Oppewal and H. Timmermans, Context effects and decompositional choice modeling, Pap. Regional Sci. 70(2), 113-131 (1991).
31. D. A. Rae, The value to visitors of improving visibility at Mesa Verde and Great Smokey national parks, in “Managing Air Quality and Scenic Resources at National Parks and Wilderness Areas” (R. D. Rowe and L. G. Chestnut, Eds.), Westview Press, Boulder, CO (1983).
32. V. K. Smith, Taking stock of progress with travel cost recreation demand models: Theory and implementation, Marine Resource Econom. 6, 279-310 (1989).
33. V. K. Smith and W. H. Desvousges, “Measuring Water Quality Benefits, ” Kluwer-Nijhoff, Boston (1986).
34. J. Swait and J. J. Louviere, The role of the scale parameter in the estimation and comparison of multinomial logit models, J. Marketing Res. 30, 305-314 (1993).