Embedding effects in valuation of non-market goods

Transport Policy

Volumn 10, Issue 1, 2003, Pages 59-72

  Sælensminde, Kjartan ^a  

^a INSTITUTE OF TRANSPORT ECONOMICS   (Norway)

Author keywords

Cost benefit analysis; Embedding effects; Environmental impacts; Interaction effects; Traffic safety; Travel time; Valuation

Indexed keywords

COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT; PLANNING METHOD; TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT; TRANSPORTATION PLANNING;

NORWAY;

EID: 0037282991     PISSN: 0967070X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0967-070X(02)00032-X     Document Type: Article

References (82)

1. Adamowicz, W.L., 1995. Alternative valuation techniques: a comparison and movement towards a synthesis. In: Willis, K., Corkindale, J. (Eds.), Environmental Valuation: New Perspectives, CAB International, Oxford.
2. Adamowics, W.L., Swait, J., Boxall, P., Louviere, J., Williams, M., 1997. Perceptions versus objective measures of environmental quality in combined revealed and stated preference models of environmental valuation. Journal of Environmental Economics and Environment 32, 65-84.
3. Adamowicz, W.L., Boxall, P., Williams, M., Louviere, J., 1998. Stated preference approaches to measuring passive use values: choice experiments and contingent valuation. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 80 (1), 64-75.
4. Adamowicz, W.L., Bhardwaj, V., Macnab, B., 1993. Experiments on the difference between willingness to pay and willingness to accept. Land Economics 69 (4), 416-427.
5. Arrow, K., Solow, R., Portney, P.R., Leamer, E.E., Radner, R., Schuman, H., 1993. Report of the NOAA panel on contingent valuation. Federal Register 58 (10), 4601-4614.
6. Baron, J., Greene, J., 1996. Determinants of insensitivity to quantity in valuation of public goods: contribution, warm glow, budget constraints, availability, and prominence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied 2 (2), 107-125.
7. Barro, S.C., Manfredo, M.J., Brown, T.C., Peterson, G.L., 1996. Examination of the predictive validity of CVM using an attitudebehavior framework. Society and Natural Resources 9, 111-124.
8. Bateman, I., Munro, A., Rhodes, B., Starmer, C., Sugden, R., 1997. Does part-whole bias exist? An experimental investigation. The Economic Journal 107, 322-332.
9. Bonsall, P.W., 1983. Transfer price data: its use and abuse. Proceedings of the 11th PTRC Summer Annual Meeting, University of Sussex.
10. Boxall, P.C., Adamowicz, W.L., Swait, J., Williams, M., Louviere, J., 1996. A comparison of stated preference methods for environmental valuation. Ecological Economics 18 (3), 243-253.
11. Boyle, K.J., Johnson, F.R., McCollum, D.W., Desvousges, W.H., Dunford, R.W., Hudson, S.P., 1996. Valuing public goods: discrete versus continuous contingent-valuation responses. Land Economics 72 (3), 381-396.
12. Boyle, K.J., MacDonald, H.F., Cheng, H., McCollum, D.W., 1998. Bid design and yea saying in single-bounded, dichotomous-choice questions. Land Economics 74 (1), 49-64.
13. Brown, T.C., Barro, S.C., Manfredo, M.J., Peterson, G.L., 1995. Does better information about the good avoid the embedding effect? Journal of Environmental Management 44, 1-10.
14. Carson, R.T., Mitchell, R.C., 1995. Sequencing and nesting in contingent valuation surveys. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 28, 155-173.
15. Carson, R.T., Flores, N.E., Martin, K.M., Wright, J.L., 1996a. Contingent valuation and revealed preference methodologies: comparing the estimates for quasi-public goods. Land Economics 72 (1), 80-99.
16. Carson, R.T., Flores, N.E., Meade, N.F., 1996b. Contingent valuation: controversies and evidence. Discussion Paper, 96-36, Department of Economics, University of California, San Diego, November.
17. Cummings, R.G., Ganderton, P.T., McGockin, T., 1994. Substitution effects in CVM values. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 76, 205-214.
18. Diamond, P.A., Hausman, J.A., 1994. Contingent valuation: is some number better than no number? Journal of Economic Perspectives 8 (4), 45-64.
19. Dubourg, W.R., Jones-Lee, M.W., Loomes, G., 1997. Imprecise preferences and survey design in contingent valuation. Economica 64, 681-702.
20. Elvik, R., 1993. Økonomisk verdsetting av velferdstap ved trafikkulykker-Dokumentasjonsrapport (Economic Valuation of Reduced Risk of Traffic Accidents). Report no. 203/1993. Institute of Transport Economics, Oslo (in Norwegian, with English summary).
21. Foster, V., Mourato, S., 1998. Elicitation format and part-whole bias: do dichotomous choice contingent valuation surveys and stated preference experiments give the same results? Paper Presented at the First World Congress on Environmental and Resource Economics, Venice, 25-27 June.
22. Frykblom, P., 1997. Hypothetical question modes and real willingness to pay. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 34 (3), 275-287.
23. Green, D., Jacowitz, K.E., Kahneman, D., McFadden, D., 1998. Referendum contingent valuation, anchoring, and willingness to pay for public goods. Resource and Energy Economics 20 (2), 85-116.
24. Greene, W.H., 1993. Econometric analysis, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs.
25. Gregory, R., Lichtenstein, S., Slovic, P., 1993. Valuing environmental resources: a constructive approach. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 7, 177-197.
26. Halvorsen, B., Sælensminde, K., 1998. Differences between willingness-topay estimates from open-ended and discrete choice contingent valuation method: the effect of heteroscedasticity. Land Economics 74 (2), 262-282.
27. Hanemann, W.M., 1991. Willingness to pay and willingness to accept: how much can they differ? American Economic Review 81, 636-647.
28. Hanemann, W.M., 1994. Valuing the environment through contingent valuation. Journal of Economic Perspectives 8 (4), 19-43.
29. Hanley, N., Wright, R.E., Adamowicz, V., 1998. Using choice experiments to value the environment. Environmental end Resource Economics 11 (3-4), 413-428.
30. Hausman, J.A. (Ed.), 1993. Contingent Valuation: Acritical Assessment, Contributions to Economic Analysis, vol. 220. North-Holland, Amsterdam.
31. Hoehn, J.P., 1991. Valuing the multidimensional impacts of environmental policy: theory and methods. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 73 (2), 289-299.
32. Hoehn, J.P., Loomis, J.B., 1993. Substitution effects in the valuation of multiple environmental programs. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 25, 56-75.
33. Hoehn, J.P., Randall, A., 1989. Too many proposals pass the benefit cost test. American Economic Review 79 (3), 544-551.
34. Hoevenagel, R., van der Linden, J.W., 1993. Effects of different descriptions of the ecological good on willingness to pay values. Ecological Economics 7, 223-238.
35. Hutchinson, W.G., Chilton, S.M., Davis, J., 1995. Measuring non-use value of environmental goods using the contingent valuation method: problems of information and cognitive questionnaire design methods. Journal of Agricultural Economics 46 (1), 97-112.
36. Johansen, K.W., 1994. Verdsetting av spart reisetid-gjennomgang av kjørekostanadshåndbokas enhetspriser for reisetid på veg. Arbeidsdokument TP/0679/94, Transportøkonomisk institutt, Oslo.
37. Jones, P., 1997. Addressing the packaging problems in stated preference studies. Paper presented at the 25th European Transport Forum Annual Meeting, 1-5 September 1997.
38. Kahn, J.R., 1995. Square pegs and round holes: can the economic paradigm be used to value the wilderness? Growth and Change 26, 591-610.
39. Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J.L., 1992. Valuing public goods: the purchase of moral satisfaction. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 22, 57-70.
40. Kotchen, M.J., Reiling, S.D., 1999. Do reminders of substitutes and budget constraints influence contingent valuation estimates? Another comment. Land Economics 75 (3), 478-482.
41. Layard, R., Glaister, S., 1994. Cost-Benefit Analysis, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
42. Loomis, J., Gonzales-Caban, A., Gregory, R., 1994. Do reminders of substitutes and budget constraints influence contingent valuation estimates? Land Economic 70 (4), 499-506.
43. Loomis, J., Gonzales-Caban, A., Gregory, R., 1995. Do reminders of substitutes and budget constraints influence contingent valuation estimates? Reply. Land Economics 71 (4), 544-545.
44. Loomis, J., Lockwood, M., DeLacy, T., 1993. Some empirical evidence on embedding effects in contingent valuation of forest protection. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 24, 45-55.
45. Loomis, J., Brown, T., Lucero, B., Peterson, G., 1996. Improving validity experiments of contingent valuation methods: results of efforts to reduce the disparity of hypothetical and actual willingness to pay. Land Economics 72 (4), 450-461.
46. Macdonald, H., McKenney, D., 1996. Varying levels of information and the embedding problem in contingent valuation: the case of Canadian wilderness. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 26 (7), 1295-1303.
47. Madden, P., 1991. A generalization of Hicksian-q substitutes and complements with application to demand rationing. Econometric 59 (5), 1497-1508.
48. Magnussen, K., 1992. Valuation of reduced water pollution using the contingent valuation method-testing for mental accounts and amenity misspecification. In: Navrud, S., (Ed.), Pricing the European Environment, Oxford University Press, Chapter 10.
49. McFadden, D., 1994. Contingent valuation and social choice. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 76, 689-708.
50. Mitchell, R.C., Carson, R.T., 1989. Using surveys to value public goods: the contingent valuation method, Resources for the Future, The John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD.
51. Neill, H.R., 1995. The context for substitutes in CVM studies: some empirical observations. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 29, 393-397.
52. Neill, H.R., Cummings, R.G., Ganderton, P.T., Harrison, G.W., McGuckin, T., 1994. Hypothetical surveys and real economic commitments. Land Economics 70 (2), 145-154.
53. Nelson, P.S., Towriss, J.G., 1999. The monetary valuation of the environmental of road transport: a stated preference approach. Paper presented at European Transport Conference, PTRC, September 1999, Cambridge.
54. Noether, G.E., 1967. Elements of Nonparametric Statistics, The SIAM Series of Applied Mathematics, Wiley, New York.
55. Penin, R., Riera, P., 1999. Integrated computation of time, morbidity and mortality values from revealed preference data. Paper presented at European Transport Conference, PTRC, September 1999, Cambridge.
56. Poe, G.L., Welsh, M.P., Champ, P.A., 1997. Measuring the difference in mean willingness to pay when dichotomous choice contingent valuation responses are not independent. Land Economics 73 (2), 255-267.
57. Portney, P.R., 1994. The contingent valuation debate: why economists should care. Journal of Economic Perspectives 8 (4), 3-18.
58. PRA, 1995. Håndbok 140. Konsekvensanalyser. Del IIb. Metodikk for beregning av prissatte konsekvenser-Brukerveiledning for EFFEKT 5, Statens vegvsen, Vegdirektoratet, Oslo.
59. Ramjerdi, F., L. Rand, Sætermo, I.A.F., Sælensminde, K., 1997. The Norwegian value of time study. Report 379/1997, Institute of Transport Economics, Oslo.
60. Randall, A., 1997. The NOAA panel report: a beginning or the end of an era? American Journal of Agricultural Economics 79 (5), 1489-1494.
61. Randall, A., 1998. Beyond the crucial experiment: mapping the performance characteristics of contingent valuation. Resources and Energy Economics 20, 197-206.
62. Randall, A., Hoehn, J.P., 1996. Embedding in market demand systems. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 30, 369-380.
63. Randall, A., Hoehn, J.P., Tolley, G.S., 1981 The structure of contingent markets: some experimental results. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Economic Association, Washington, DC, December.
64. Rizzi, L.I., Ortúzar, J.de.D., 2002. Stated preference in the valuation of interurban road safety. Accident Analysis and Prevention in press.
65. Roe, B., Boyle, K.J., Teisl, M.F., 1996. Using conjoint analysis to derive estimates of compensating variation. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 31 (2), 145-159.
66. Samples, K.C., Hollyer, J.R., 1990. Contingent valuation of wildlife resources in the presence of substitutes and complements. In: Johnson, R.L., Johnson, G.V. (Eds.), Economic Valuation of Natural Resources: Issues, Theory and Applications, Westview Press, Boulder, CO.
67. Schkade, D.A., Payne, J.W., 1994. How people respond to contingent valuation questions: a verbal protocol analysis of willingness to pay for an environmental regulation. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 26, 88-109.
68. Smith, V.K., 1993. Nonmarket valuation of environmental resources: an interpretive appraisal. Land Economics 69 (1), 1-26.
69. Sælensminde, K., 1995. Verdsetting av reisetid. Resultater fra andre runde av hovedundersokelsen, september-oktober 1995. (The value of travel time. Results from the second wave in the main study, September-October 1995). Working paper TP/0931/1995, Institute of Transport Economics, Oslo (in Norwegian).
70. Sælensminde, K., 1999. Stated choice valuation of urban traffic air pollution ad noise. Transportation Research D 4, 13-27.
71. Sælensminde, K., 2001. Inconsistent choices in stated choice data. Use of the logit scaling approach to handle resulting variance increases. Transportation 28 (3), 269-296.
72. Sælensminde, K., 2002. The impact of choice inconsistencies in stated choice studies. Environmental and Resource Economics in press.
73. Sælensminde, K., Hammer, F., 1993. Samvalganalyse som metode for verdsetting av miljogoder (Conjoint Analysis as a method of assessing environmental benefits). Report no. 184/1993, Institute of Transport Economics, Oslo (in Norwegian, with English summary.).
74. Sælensminde, K., Hammer, F., 1994. Verdsetting av miljogoder ved bruk av samvalganalyse (Assessing environmental benefits by means of Conjoint Analysis). Report no. 251/1994, Institute of Transport Economics, Oslo (in Norwegian, with English summary).
75. Wardman, M., 1988. A comparison of revealed preference and stated preference models of travel behaviour. Journal of Transport Economics and Policy January, 71-91.
76. Wardman, M., 1998. The value of travel time. A review of British evidence. Journal of Transport Economics and Policy 32 (3), 285-316.
77. Welsh, M.P., Poe, G.L., 1998. Elicitation effects in contingent valuation: comparisons to a multiple bounded discrete choice approach. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 36, 170-185.
78. Wenstøp, F., Carlsen, A.J., Bergland, O., Magnus, P., 1994. Valuation of environmental goods with expert panels. Research Report 1994/1, BI Research Center, Oslo.
79. Whitehead, J.C., Blomquist, G.C., 1991. A link between behavior, information and existence value. Leisure Sciences 13, 97-109.
80. Whitehead, J.C., Blomquist, G.C., 1995. Do reminders of substitutes and budget constraints influence contingent valuation estimates? Comment. Land Economics 71 (4), 541-543.
81. Whitehead, J.C., Blomquist, G.C., 1999. Do reminders of substitutes and budget constraints influence contingent valuation estimates? Reply to another comment. Land Economics 75 (3), 483-484.
82. Yoo, K.E., Ashford, N., 1998. An application of a comparative analysis of revealed preference and stated preference methods to the air transport choice problem. Transport Planning and Technology 21, 287-307.