Analysing the social benefits of soil conservation measures using stated preference methods

Ecological Economics

Volumn 58, Issue 4, 2006, Pages 850-861

  Colombo, Sergio ^a   Calatrava Requena, Javier ^a   Hanley, Nick ^b  

^a IFAPA CENTRO EL TORUÑO   (Spain)

^b UNIVERSITY OF STIRLING   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Choice experiments; Contingent valuation; Convergent validity test; Soil erosion

Indexed keywords

CONTINGENT VALUATION; ENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMICS; EXPERIMENT; SOCIAL IMPACT; SOCIAL POLICY; SOIL CONSERVATION; SOIL EROSION; WATERSHED;

ANDALUCIA; EURASIA; EUROPE; SOUTHERN EUROPE; SPAIN;

EID: 33744525816     PISSN: 09218009     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2005.09.010     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. Adamowicz W., Boxall P., Williams M., and Louviere J. Stated preference approaches for measuring passive use values. Choice experiments and contingent valuation. Am. J. Agri. Econ. 80 (1998) 64-75
2. Almansa M.C., and Calatrava-Requena J. Valuing erosion control actions in south-eastern Spain: contingent valuation and local awareness analysis. 7th Biennial Conference of the International Society for Ecological Economics, Tunes (2002)
3. Bateman I., Carson R., Day B., Hanemann M., Hanley N., Hett T., Jones-Lee M., Loomes G., Mourato S., Ozdemiroglu E., Pearce D., Sugden R., and Swanson J. Economic Valuation with Stated Preference Techniques, A Manual. Edward Elgar (2002), Cheltenhan, UK/Northampton, Ma, USA
4. Boxall P.C., Adamowicz W., Williams M., Swait J., and Louviere J. A comparison of stated preference methods for environmental valuation. Ecol. Econ. 18 (1996) 243-253
5. Christie M., and Azevedo C. Testing the consistency in benefit estimates across contingent valuation and choice experiments: a multiple policy option application. Paper presented at the 2nd World Congress of Environmental and Resource Economists, Monterrey, California, June (2002)
6. Clark E.H., Haverkamp J.A., and Chapman W. Eroding Soils: The off-farm Impacts (1985), The Conservation Foundation, Washington, DC
7. Colombo S., and Calatrava-Requena J. Towards the economic evaluation of the intangible effects of soil erosion. Paper presented to the Xth congress of the European Association of Agricultural Economists, EAAE, Zaragoza, Spain (2002)
8. Colombo S., Calatrava-Requena J., and Hanley N. The economic benefits of soil erosion control: an application of the contingent valuation method in the Alto Genil basin of southern Spain. J. Soil Water Conserv. 58 (2003) 367-371
9. Feather, P., Hellerstein, D., Hansen L., 1999. Economic Valuation of Environmental Benefits and the Targeting of Conservation Program: The case of the CRP. AER-778. United States Dept. of Agr., Economic Research Service.
10. Hanley N., and Spash C. Cost-Benefit Analysis and the Environment (1994), Edwarg Elgar
11. Hanley N., Wright R., and Adamowicz W. Using choice experiment to value the environment. Environ. Resour. Econ. 11 3-4 (1998) 413-428
12. Hansen L.T., Breneman V.E., Davison C., and Dicken W. The cost of soil erosion to downstream navigation. J. Soil Water Conserv. 57 4 (2002) 205-212
13. Hausman J.A., and McFadden D. Specification tests for the multinomial logit model. Econometrica 52 (1984) 1219-1240
14. ICONA. "Paisajes erosivos en el Sureste español: ensayo de metodologías para el estudio de su cualificación y cuantificación" (1982), Ministerio de Agricultura Pesca y Alimentación, Monografía, Madrid
15. Lancaster K. A new approach to consumer theory. J. Polit. Econ. 74 (1966) 132-157
16. Lehtonen E., Kuuluvainen J., Pouta E., Rekola M., and Li Chuan-Zhong. Non-market benefits of forest conservation in southern Finland. Environ. Sci. Policy 6 (2003) 195-204
17. López A. La comarcas olivareras andaluzas (1992), Publicación del Instituto Nacional de Investigación Agraria
18. Louviere J.J. Analysing Decision Making: Metric Conjoint Analysis, No 67, Quantitative Applications in the Social Science Series (1988), Sage Publications, Newburg Park, CA
19. Louviere J.J., Hensher D.A., and Swait J. Stated Choice Methods, Analysis and Application (2000), Cambridge University Press
20. MAPA, 2000. Hechos y cifras del sector alimentario español, 2000. V Edición revisada y actualizada, Secretaria Técnica, available at http://www.mapya.es.
21. McFadden D. Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behaviour. In: Zarembka P. (Ed). Frontiers in econometrics (1973), Academic Press, New York 105-142
22. Mitchell R.C., and Carson R.T. Using Survey to Value Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Method. Resources for The Future, Washington, DC (1989)
23. Pastor, M., Castro, J., Saavedra, M., Humanes, M., Pajarón,M., Civantos, M., Alvarado, M., Caballero J., 1999. Cultivo del olivar en zonas de especial protección ambiental. Información técnica, 65/99, Consejería de Agricultura y Pesca, Junta de Andalucía.
24. Poe G., Welsh M., and Champ P. Measuring the difference in mean willingness to pay when dichotomous choice contingent valuation responses are not independent. J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 73 (1997) 255-267
25. Train K. Recreation demand models with taste differences over people. Land Econ. 74 2 (1998) 230-240