Contingent valuation versus choice experiments: Estimating the benefits of environmentally sensitive areas in Scotland

Journal of Agricultural Economics

Volumn 49, Issue 1, 1998, Pages 1-15

  Hanley, Nick ^a   MacMillan, Douglas ^d   Wright, Robert E ^b   Bullock, Craig ^d   Simpson, Ian ^b   Parsisson, Dave ^c   Crabtree, Bob ^d  

^a UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF STIRLING   (United Kingdom)

^c YORK UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^d SCOTTISH CROP RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CHOICE EXPERIMENT; CONTINGENT VALUATION; ECONOMIC VALUE; ENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMICS; ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREA; METHODOLOGY;

EID: 0031777644     PISSN: 0021857X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1477-9552.1998.tb01248.x     Document Type: Article

References (38)

1. Adamowicz, W., Louviere,J. and Williams, M. (1994). Combining Revealed and Stated Preference Methods for Valuing Environmental Amenities, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 26(3), 271-292.
2. Adamowicz, W. (1995). Alternative Valuation Techniques: A Comparison and a Movement Towards a Synthesis, in Willis, K. and Corkindale, J. (eds.), Environmental Valuation: New Perspectives. CAB International, Wallingford.
3. Alvarez-Farizo, B., Hanley, N, and Wright, R. E. (1990). Sample Selection Bias and the Estimation of Bid Curves in Open-Ended Contingent Valuation Studies. Discussion Papers in Ecological Economics 96/5, University of Stirling.
4. Arrow, K., Solow, R., Learner, E., Radner, R. and Schuman, H, (1993). Report of the NOAA panel on Contingent Valuation, Federal Register, January 15, 58(10), 4601-4614.
5. Bateman, I., Willis, K. and Garrod, G. (1994). Consistency Between Contingent Valuation Estimates: a Comparison of Two Studies of UK National Parks, Regional Studies, 28, 457-474.
6. Ben-Akiva, M. and Lerman, S. (1985). Discrete Choice Analysis: Theory and Application to Travel Demand. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
7. Bergland, O., Magnussen, K, and Navrud, S. (1995). Benefits Transfer: Testing for Accuracy and Reliability. Discussion Paper 95-03, Department of Economics, Agricultural University of Norway.
8. Boxall, P., Adamowicz, W., Swait, J., Williams, M. and Louviere, J. (1996). A Comparison of Stated Preference Methods for Environmental Valuation, Ecological Economics, 18, 243-253.
9. Boyle, K. and Bergstrom, J. (1992). Benefits Transfer Studies: Myths, Pragmatism and Idealism, Water Resources Research, 28, 657-663.
10. Boyle, K., Johnson, F., McCollum, D., Desvouges, W., Dunford, R. and Hudson, S. (1996). Valuing Public Goods: Discrete Versus Continuous Contingent Valuation Responses, Land Economics, 72(3), 381-396.
11. Buckland, S., MacMillan, D., Duff, B. and Hanley, N. (1996). Estimating Mean WTP from Dichotomous-Choice Contingent Valuation Studies. Mimeo, Department of Mathematics and Statistics, University of St. Andrews.
12. Bullock, C. and Kay, J. (1996). Preservation and Change in the Upland Agricultural Landscape: Valuing the Benefits of Grazing Extensification. Mimeo, MLURI, Aberdeen.
13. Carson, R. T. and Mitchell, R. C. (1995). Sequencing and Nesting in Contingent Valuation Surveys, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 28(2), 155-173.
14. Desvouges, W., Naughton, M. and Parsons, G. (1992). Benefit Transfer: Conceptual Problems in Estimating Water Quality Benefits from Existing Studies, Water Resources Research, 28, 675-683.
15. Diamond, P. and Hausman, J. (1994). Contingent Valuation: Is Some Number Better Than No Number? Journal of Economic Perspectives, 8(4), 45-64.
16. Foundation for Water Research (1996). Manual of Benefit Assessment. FWR, Marlow.
17. Gourlay, D. (1996). Loch Lomond and Stewartry ESAs: A Study of Public Perceptions of Policy. Unpublished PhD, School of Agriculture, University of Aberdeen.
18. Green, P. E. and Srinivasan, V. (1990). Conjoint Analysis in Marketing: New Developments with Implications for Research and Practice, Journal of Marketing, 54, 3-19.
19. Greene, W. H. (1990). Econometric Analysis. MacMillan, Basingstoke.
20. Hanemann, M. (1984). Discrete Choice Models of Consumer Demand, Econometrica, 52, 541-561.
21. Hanley, N. and Spash, C. (1994). Cost-Benefit Analysis and the Environment, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.
22. Hanley, N., Kirkpatrick, H., Oglethorpe, D. and Simpson, I. (1996a). The Provision of Public Goods from Agriculture: Modelling the 'Provider Gets Principle' for Moorland Conservation in Scotland. University of Stirling Discussion Papers in Ecological Economics 96/4. Land Economics, forthcoming.
23. Hanley, N., Parsisson, D., Simpson, I., Crabtree, R., MacMillan, D. and Bullock, C. (1996b). Valuation of the Conservation Benefits of Environmentally Sensitive Areas. MLURI and EERG, Aberdeen.
24. Hoehn, J. and Randall, A. (1987). A Satisfactory Benefit-Cost Indicator from Contingent Valuation, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 14, 226-247.
25. Kahneman, D. and Knetsch,J. (1992). Valuing Public Goods: The Purchase of Moral Satisfaction, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 22(1), 57-70.
26. Luce, R. and Suppes, P. (1905). Preference, Utility and Subjective Probability, in Luce R., Bush R. and Galanter, E. (eds.), Handbook of Mathematical Psychology (Volume 3). Wiley, New York.
27. Luken, R., Johnson, F. and Kibler, V, (1992). Benefits and Costs of Pulp and Paper Effluent Controls Under the Clean Water Act, Water Resources Research, 28, 665-674.
28. MacMillan, D., Hanley, N. and Buckland, S. (1996). Valuing Biodiversity Losses Due to Acid Deposition, Scottish Journal of Political Economy, 43(5), 519-533.
29. Maddala, G. S. (1983). Limited Dependent and Qualitative Variables, in Frontiers in Econometrics, Cambridge University Press, New York.
30. Manski, C. (1977). The Structure of Random Utility Models, Theory and Decision, 8, 229-254.
31. McFadden, D. (1974). Conditional Logit Analysis of Qualitative Choice Behaviour in Zareembka, P. (ed.), Frontiers in Econometrics. New York: Academic Press.
32. Mitchell, R. and Carson, R. (1989). Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Method. Resources for the Future, Washington DC.
33. Morey, E., Rowe, R. and Watson, M. (1993). A Repeated Nested-Logit Model of Atlantic Salmon Fishing, American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 75, 578-592.
34. Namid, S. (1992). Pricing the European Environment. Oxford University Press, New York
35. Simpson, I., Parsisson, D., Hanley, N. and Bullock, C. (1997). Envisioning Future Landscapes in the Environmentally Sensitive Areas of Scotland, Transactions of the Society of British Geographers, 22, 307-320.
36. Turner, R., Bateman, I. and Pearce, D. (1992). Valuing Environmental Preferences: The United Kingdom Experience, CSERGE Working Paper GEC 92-04.
37. Willis, K., Garrod, G. and Saunders, C. (1993). Valuation of the South Downs and Somerset levels Environmentally Sensitive Areas, Centre for Rural Economy, University of Newcastle upon Tyne.
38. Willis, K. and Garrod, G. (1995). Transferability of Benefits Estimates, in Willis, K. and Corkindale, J. (eds.), Environmental Valuation: New Perspectives. CAB International, Wallingford.