Land-use planning and public preferences: What can we learn from choice experiment method?

Landscape and Urban Planning

Volumn 83, Issue 4, 2007, Pages 318-326

  Rambonilaza, Mbolatiana ^a   Dachary Bernard, Jeanne ^a  

^a CEMAGREF   (France)

Author keywords

Economic valuation; Landscape values; Rural land use conflict; Stated choice method

Indexed keywords

CONSERVATION; ECONOMIC ANALYSIS; ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL EFFECTS; LAND USE;

LAND-USE PLANNING; LANDSCAPE VALUES; RURAL LAND-USE CONFLICTS; STATED CHOICE METHODS;

URBAN PLANNING;

AGRICULTURAL LAND; CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT; ENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMICS; EXPERIMENTAL STUDY; LAND USE PLANNING; SOCIOECONOMIC CONDITIONS; TOURIST ATTRACTION; WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

ARREE MOUNTAINS; BRETAGNE; EURASIA; EUROPE; FINISTERE; FRANCE; WESTERN EUROPE;

EID: 36148966987     PISSN: 01692046     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2007.05.013     Document Type: Article

References (32)

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. Agric. Econ. 80 1 (1998) 64-75
2. 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
3. Arriaza M., Canas-Ortega J.F., Canas-Madueno J.A., and Ruiz-Aviles P. Assessing the visual quality of rural landscapes. Landsc. Urban Plan. 69 1 (2004) 115-125
4. Bech M., and Gyrd-Hansen D. Effects coding in discrete choice experiments. Health Econ. 14 10 (2005) 1079-1083
5. Bennett J., and Blamey R. The Choice Modelling Approach to Environmental Valuation (2001), Edward Edgar Publishing, Inc.
6. Boxall P., Adamowicz W., Swait J., Williams M., and Louviere J. A comparison of stated preference methods for environmental valuation. Ecol. Econ. 18 (1996) 243-253
7. Bullock C.H., and Kay J. Preservation and change in the upland landscape: the public benefits of grazing management. J. Environ. Plan. Manage. 40 (1997) 321-333
8. Campbell, D., Hutchinson, W.G., Scarpa, R., 2006. Lexicographic preferences in discrete choice experiments: consequences on individual-specific willingness to pay estimates. Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei, Milan, Working Paper, 22 p.
9. Cavailhès, J., Brossard, T., Foltête, J.-C., Hilal, M., Joly, D., Tourneux, F.-P., Tritz, C., Wavresky, P., 2006. Seeing and being seen: a GIS-based hedonic price valuation of landscape. Working Paper, 27 p.
10. Dachary-Bernard, J., 2004. Approche multi-attributs pour une évaluation économique du paysage. Thèse de Sciences économiques et socials, Université Montesquieu-Bordeaux IV, sous la direction de P. Point, p. 290.
11. Daniel T.C. Whither scenic beauty? Visual landscape quality assessment in the 21st century. Landsc. Urban Plan. 25 (2001) 267-281
12. Daniel T.C., and Vining J. Methodological issues in the assessment of landscape quality. In: Altman I., and Wohwill J.F. (Eds). Behaviour and the Natural Environment (1983), Plenum Press, New York 39-83
13. Gonzalez M., and Leon C.J. Consumption process and multiple valuation of landscape attributes. Ecol. Econ. 45 2 (2003) 159-169
14. Hanley N., MacMillan D., Wright R.E., Bullock C., Simpson I., Parsisson D., and Crabtree B. Contingent valuation versus choice experiments: estimating the benefits of environmentally sensitive areas in Scotland. J. Agric. Econ. 49 1 (1998) 1-15
15. Hanley N., Mourato S., and Wright R.E. Choice modelling approaches: a superior alternative for environmental valuation?. J. Econ. Surveys 15 3 (2001) 435-462
16. Hanley N., Wright R.E., and Adamowicz W. Using choice experiments to value the environment. Design issues, current experience and future prospects. Environ. Resour. Econ. 11 3/4 (1998) 413-428
17. Hanley, N., Wright, R.E., Koop, G., 2000. Modelling Recreation demand using choice experiments: climbing in Scotland, Economics Department, University of Glasgow, Discussion Paper, 28 pp.
18. Hensher D.A., Rose J.M., and Greene W.H. Applied Choice Analysis. A Primer (2005), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
19. Le Floch, S., 2000. Multifor program: final report on the qualitative survey. French case-study, area 1, Monts d'Arrée (Brittany region). Cemagref, Bordeaux, European Research Program Final Report, 66 pp.
20. Louviere J. Conjoint analysis modeling of stated preferences: a review of theory, methods, recent developments and external validity. J. Transport Econ. Policy 10 (1988) 93-119
21. Louviere J. Experimental choice analysis: introduction and overview. J. Business Res. 24 (1992) 89-96
22. Louviere J., and Woodworth G. Design and analysis of simulated consumer choice or allocation experiments: an approach based on aggregate data. J. Market. Res. 20 (1983) 350-367
23. Luttik J. The value of trees, water and open space as reflected by house prices in the Netherlands. Landsc. Urban Plan. 48 3/4 (2000) 161-167
24. Mcfadden D. Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behaviour. In: Zarembaka P. (Ed). Frontiers in Econometrics (1974), Academic Press, New York 105-142
25. Nielsen A.B., Olsen S.B., and Lundhede T. An economic valuation of the recreational benefits associated with nature-based forest management practices. Landsc. Urban Plan 80 1-2 (2007) 63-71
26. Santos J.M.L. The economic valuation of landscape change. New Horizons in Environmental Economics (1998), Edward Elgar
27. Swait J., and Louviere J. The role of the scale parameter in the estimation and comparison of multinomial logit models. J. Market. Res. 30 (1993) 305-314
28. Thurstone L. A law of comparative judgement. Psychol. Rev. 4 (1927) 273-286
29. Whitehead J.C. Willingness to pay for quality improvements: comparative statistics and interpretation of contingent valuation results. Land Econ. 71 2 (1995) 207-215
30. Willis K.G., and Garrod G.D. Valuing landscape: a contingent valuation approach. J. Environ. Manage. 37 (1993) 1-22
31. Wolfgang H., and Len H. Visual aesthetic quality of Northern Ontario's forested shorelines. Environ. Manage. V29 3 (2002) 324-334
32. Zwerina, K., Huber, J., Kuhfeld, W.F., 1996. A General Method for Constructing Efficient Choice Designs, SAS Institute Inc., SAS Technical Support Documents-Statistical & Marketing Research No. TS-650D.