Estimating stated preferences with rated-pair data: Environmental, health, and employment effects of energy programs

Journal of Environmental Economics and Management

Volumn 34, Issue 1, 1997, Pages 79-99

  Johnson, F Reed ^a   Desvousges, William H ^a  

^a Triangle Economic Research   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ELECTRICITY GENERATION; EMPOLYMENT IMPACT; WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

EID: 0031239294     PISSN: 00950696     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1006/jeem.1997.1002     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. Adamowicz W. Alternative valuation techniques: A comparison and movement to a synthesis. Environmental Valuation: New Perspectives. 1995;CAB International, Oxon.
2. Adamowicz W., Louviere J., Williams W. Combining revealed and stated preference methods for valuing environmental amenities. J. Environ. Econom. Management. 26:1994;271-292.
3. Agarwal M. K., Green P. E. Adaptive conjoint analysis versus self-explicated models: Some empirical results. Internat. J. Marketing. 8:1991;141-146.
4. Beggs S., Cardell S., Hausman J. Assessing the potential demand for electric cars. J. Econometrics. 16:1981;1-19.
5. Belsley D. A., Kuh E., Welsch R. E. Regression Diagnostics. 1980;Wiley, New York.
6. Bishop R. C., Heberlein T. A. Measuring values of extra-market goods. Amer. Agr. Econom. 61:1979;925-930.
7. Brookshire D. S., Ives B., Schulze W. D. The valuation of aesthetic preferences. J. Environ. Econom. Management. 3:1976;325-346.
8. Camerer C. F. Recent tests of generalizations of expected utility theory. Edwards Ward. Utility Theories: Measurements and Applications. 1992;Kluwer Academic, Boston.
9. T. A. Cameron, J. Englin, Welfare effects of changes in environmental quality under individual uncertainty about use, RAND J. Econom.
10. Carson R. T., Louviere J. J., Anderson D. A., Arabie P., Bunch D. S., Hensher D. A., Johnson R. M., Kuhfeld W. F., Steinberg D., Swait J., Timmermans H., Wiley J. B. Experimental analysis of choice. Marketing Lett. 5:1994;351-368.
11. Cattin P., Wittink D. Commercial use of conjoint analysis: A survey. J. Marketing. 46:1982;44-53.
12. Cropper M. L. Measuring the benefits from reduced morbidity. AEA Pap. Proc. 1981.
13. R. W. Dunford, K. E. Mathews, E. E. Fries, F. R. Johnson, W. H. Desvousges, 1995, Nonuse Values for Nonenvironmental Commodities: Preliminary Conjoint Survey Results.
14. J. Englin, T. A. Cameron, 1995, Comparing observed and multiple-scenario contingent behavior: A panel analysis utilizing Poisson regression techniques.
15. Gan C., Luzar E. J. A conjoint analysis of waterfowl hunting in Louisiana. J. Agr. Appl. Econom. 25:1993;36-45.
16. Green P. E., Srinivasan V. Conjoint analysis in marketing: New developments with implications for research and practice. J. Marketing. 54:1990;3-19.
17. Green P. E., Krieger A. M., Agarwal M. K. Adaptive conjoint analysis: Some caveats and suggestions. J. Marketing Res. 28:1991;215-222.
18. F. R. Johnson, M. C. Ruby, W. H. Desvousges, 1996, Valuing Stated Preferences for Health Benefits of Improved Air Quality: Results of a Pilot Study.
19. Johnson R. M. Comment on "Adaptive conjoint analysis: Some caveats and suggestions" J. Marketing Res. 28:1991;223-225.
20. Keeny R. L., Raiffa H. Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Tradeoffs. 1978;Wiley, New York.
21. Krupnick A., Cropper M. L. The effects of information on health risk valuations. J. Risk Uncertainty. 5:1992;29-48.
22. Louviere J. Conjoint analysis of stated preferences. J. Transport Econom. Policy. 22:1988;93-119.
23. Mackenzie J. A comparison of contingent preference models. Amer. J. Agr. Econom. 75:1993;593-603.
24. Rae D. A. The value to visitors of improving visibility at Mesa Verde and Great Smoky Mountain national parks. Rowe R. D., Chestnut L. G. Managing Air Quality and Scenic Resources at National Parks and Wilderness Areas. 1983;Westview Press, Boulder.
25. Roe B., Boyle K. J., Teisl M. F. Using conjoint analysis to derive estimates of compensating variation. J. Environ. Econom. Management. 31:1996;145-159.
26. Schoemaker P. J. H. Determinants of risk-taking: Behavioral and economic views. J. Risk Uncertainty. 6:1993;9-73.
27. Smith V. K. Some issues in discrete response contingent valuation studies. Northeast. J. Agricultural Resour. Econom. 14:1985;1-4.
28. Smith V. K., Desvousges W. H. An empirical analysis of the economic value of risk changes. J. Polit. Econom. 95:1987;89-114.
29. Smith V. K., Desvousges W. H. Measuring Water Quality Benefits. 1986;Kluwer-Nijhoff, Norwell.
30. Smith V. L. Experiments with a decentralized mechanism for public goods decisions. Amer. Econom. Rev. 70:1980;584-599.
31. J. Swait, W. Adamowicz, 1996, The effect of choice complexity on random utility models: An application to combined stated and revealed preference models.
32. Thompson M. S. Willingness to pay and accept risks to cure chronic disease. Amer. J. Public Health. 76:1986;392-396.
33. Tversky A., Kahneman D. The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science. 211:1981;453-458.
34. Viscusi W. K. The value of risks to life and health. J. Econom. Lit. 31:1993;1912-1946.
35. Viscusi W. K., Magat W. A., Huber J. Pricing environmental health risks: Survey assessments of risk-risk and risk-dollar trade-offs for chronic bronchitis. J. Environ. Econom. Management. 21:1991;32-51.
36. Wittink D. R., Cattin P. Commercial use of conjoint analysis: An update. J. Marketing. 53:1989;91-96.