Improving environmental valuation estimates through consistent use of revealed and stated preference information

Journal of Environmental Economics and Management

Volumn 52, Issue 1, 2006, Pages 501-516

  Eom, Young Sook ^a,b   Larson, Douglas M ^a,b  

^a Chonbuk National University   (South Korea)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Environmental valuation; Nonuse value; Revealed preference; Stated preference; Weak complementarity

Indexed keywords

CONSERVATION; DATA REDUCTION; DATABASE SYSTEMS; INFORMATION DISSEMINATION; MATHEMATICAL MODELS; QUALITY CONTROL; STATISTICAL METHODS;

ENVIRONMENTAL VALUATION; NONUSE VALUE; REVEALED PREFERENCE; STATED PREFERENCE; WEAK COMPLEMENTARITY;

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT;

COMPLEMENTARITY; ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY; INFORMATION; MODEL VALIDATION; PREFERENCE BEHAVIOR;

EID: 33745592156     PISSN: 00950696     EISSN: 10960449     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jeem.2005.11.001     Document Type: Article

References (43)

1. Adamowicz W., Louviere J., and Williams M. Combining revealed and stated preference methods for valuing environmental amenities. J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 26 (1994) 271-292
2. Alberini A., Kanninen B., and Carson R.T. Modeling response incentive effects in dichotomous choice contingent valuation data. Land Econ. 73 (1997) 309-324
3. K. Arrow, R. Solow, P. Portney, E. Leamer, R. Radner, H. Shuman, Report of the NOAA panel on contingent valuation, Federal Register, US Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, FR, vol. 58, 1993, pp. 4601-4614.
4. Azevedo C., Herriges J., and Kling C. Combining revealed and stated preferences: consistency tests and their interpretations. Amer. J. Agr. Econ. 85 (2003) 525-537
5. Bockstael N.E., and McConnell K.E. Public goods as characteristics of nonmarket commodities. Econ. J. 103 (1993) 1244-1257
6. Cameron T.A. Combining contingent valuation and travel cost data for the valuation of nonmarket goods. Land Econ. 68 (1992) 302-317
7. Cameron T.A., and Quiggin J. Estimation using contingent valuation data from a 'dichotomous choice with follow-up' questionnaire. J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 27 (1994) 218-234
8. Carlton D.W. The location and employment choices of new firms: an econometric model with discrete and continuous endogenous variables. Rev. Econ. Statist. 65 (1983) 440-449
9. Caulkins P., Bishop R., and Bouwes N. The travel cost model for lake recreation: a comparison of two methods for incorporation site quality and substitution effects. Amer. J. Agr. Econ. 68 (1986) 291-297
10. Cesario F.J. Value of time in recreation benefit studies. Land Econ. 52 (1976) 32-41
11. Deaton A., and Muellbauer J.J. An almost ideal demand system. Amer. Econ. Rev. 70 (1980) 312-326
12. Diamond P.A., and Hausman J.A. Contingent valuation: is some number better than no number?. J. Econ. Perspect. 8 (1994) 45-64
13. Dickie M., Fisher A., and Gerking S. Market transactions and hypothetical demand data: a comparative study. J. Amer. Statistical Assoc. 82 (1987) 69-75
14. Dubin J.A., and McFadden D.L. An econometric analysis of residential electric appliance holdings and consumption. Econometrica 52 (1984) 345-362
15. Duncan G.M. Formulation and statistical analysis of the mixed continuous/discrete dependent variable model in classical production theory. Econometrica 48 (1980) 839-852
16. Earnhart D. Combining revealed and stated preference methods to value environmental amenities at residential locations. Land Econ. 77 (2001) 12-29
17. Ebert U. Evaluation of nonmarket goods: recovering unconditional preferences. Amer. J. Agr. Econ. 80 (1998) 241-254
18. Y.S. Eom, V.K. Smith, Calibrated nonmarket valuation, Discussion Paper 94-21, Resources for the Future, Washington, DC, 1994.
19. A.M. Freeman, The measurement of environmental and resource values: theory and methods, Resources for the Future, Washington, DC, 2003.
20. Haener M.K., Boxall P.C., and Adamowicz W.L. Modeling recreation site choice: do hypothetical choices reflect actual behavior?. Amer. J. Agr. Econ. 83 (2001) 629-642
21. Hanemann W.M. Measuring the worth of natural resource facilities: comment. Land Econ. 56 (1980) 482-486
22. Hausman J. Exact consumer's surplus and dead weight loss. Amer. Econ. Rev. 71 (1981) 662-676
23. Herriges J., Kling C., and Phaneuf D. What's the use? Welfare estimates from revealed preference models when weak complementarity does not hold. J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 47 (2004) 55-70
24. Huang J.C., Haab T.C., and Whitehead J.C. Willingness to pay for quality improvement: should revealed and stated preference data be combined?. J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 34 (1997) 240-255
25. King M.A. An econometric model of tenure choice and demand for housing as a joint decision. J. Public Econ. 14 (1980) 137-159
26. Kling C. The gains from combining travel cost and contingent valuation data to value nonmarket goods. Land Econ. 73 (1997) 428-439
27. Krinsky I., and Robb A. On approximating the statistical properties of elasticities. Rev. Econ. Statist. 68 (1986) 715-719
28. Krutilla J.V. Conservation reconsidered. Amer. Econ. Rev. 57 (1967) 777-789
29. LaFrance J.T. Incomplete demand systems and semilogrithmic demand models. Australian J. Agr. Econ. 34 (1990) 118-131
30. LaFrance J.T., and Hanemann W.M. The dual structure of incomplete demand systems. Amer. J. Agr. Econ. 71 (1989) 262-274
31. Larson D.M. Recovering weakly complementary preferences. J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 21 (1991) 97-108
32. Mäler K.-G. Environmental Economics: A Theoretical Inquiry (1974), Johns Hopkins Press for Resources for the Future, Baltimore
33. McConnell K.E. Existence and bequest value. In: Rowe R.D., and Chestnut L.G. (Eds). Managing Air Quality and Scenic Resources at National Parks and Wilderness Areas (1983), Westview, Boulder, CO
34. McConnell K.E. The economics of outdoor recreation. In: Kneese A., and Sweezy J. (Eds). Handbook of Natural Resources and Energy Economics (1985), Elsevier Science Publishers, New York
35. McFadden D. Contingent valuation and social choice. Amer. J. Agr. Econ. 76 (1994) 689-708
36. Ministry of Environment, Annual Environmental Report, Seoul, South Korea, 2001.
37. Ministry of Labor, Statistical Report for Wage Structure, Seoul, South Korea, 2001.
38. Niklitschek M., and Leon J. Combining intended demand and yes/no responses in the estimation of contingent valuation models. J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 31 (1996) 387-402
39. Randall A. A difficulty with the travel cost method. Land Econ. 70 (1994) 88-96
40. Smith V.K. Non-use values in benefit-cost analysis. Southern Econ. J. 54 (1987) 19-26
41. Strong E.J. A note on the functional form of travel cost models with zones of unequal populations. Land Econ. 59 (1983) 342-349
42. von Haefen R.H. A complete characterization of the linear, log-linear, and semi-log incomplete demand system models. J. Agr. Resource Econ. 27 (2002) 281-319
43. Ziemer R.F., Musser W.N., and Hill R.C. Recreation demand equations: functional form and consumer surplus. Amer. J. Agr. Econ. 62 (1980) 136-141