Combining contingent valuation and choice experiments. A forestry application in Spain

Environmental and Resource Economics

Volumn 43, Issue 4, 2009, Pages 535-551

  Mogas, Joan ^a   Riera, Pere ^b   Brey, Raul ^c  

^a UNIVERSITAT ROVIRA I VIRGILI   (Spain)

^b UNIVERSITAT AUTÒNOMA DE BARCELONA   (Spain)

^c UNIVERSIDAD PABLO DE OLAVIDE   (Spain)

Author keywords

Choice experiments; Choice modeling; Contingent valuation; Forest externalities; Forest valuation

Indexed keywords

APPLICATION PROGRAMS; FORESTRY; REFORESTATION;

CHOICE EXPERIMENTS; CHOICE MODEL; CONTINGENT VALUATIONS; FOREST EXTERNALITIES; FOREST VALUATIONS;

ECONOMICS;

AFFORESTATION; CONTINGENT VALUATION; ECONOMIC ANALYSIS; ENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMICS; FOREST MANAGEMENT; SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT;

AGRICULTURE; ECONOMICS; FOREST MANAGEMENT; FORESTRY; REFORESTATION; SIMULATION; SPAIN;

EURASIA; EUROPE; SOUTHERN EUROPE; SPAIN;

EID: 70349687414     PISSN: 09246460     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10640-008-9248-2     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. Adamowicz WL, Boxall PC, Williams M, Louviere JJ (1998) Stated preference approaches for measuring passive use values: Choice experiments and contingent valuation. Am J Agric Econ 80(1): 64-75. doi:10.2307/3180269.
2. Alpizar F, Carlsson F, Martinsson P (2003) Using choice experiments for non-market valuation. Econ Issues 8(1): 83-110.
3. Bateman IJ, Carson RT, Day B, Hanemann WM, Hett T, Hanley N, Jones-Lee M, Loomes G, Mourato S, Ozdemiroglu E, Pearce DW, Sugden R, Swanson J (2002) Economic valuation with stated preference techniques: A manual. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.
4. Ben-Akiva M, Lerman S (1985) Discrete choice analysis: Theory and application to travel demand. MIT Press, Cambridge.
5. Bennett J, Blamey R (2001) The choice modelling approach to environmental valuation. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham.
6. Boxall P, Adamowicz WL, Williams M, Swait J, Louviere JJ (1996) A comparison of stated preference approaches to the measurement of environmental values. Ecol Econ 18(3): 243-253. doi:10.1016/0921-8009(96)00039-0.
7. Centre de Recerca Ecológica i Aplicacions Forestals, CREAF (2005) Mapa de cobertes del Sòl de Catalunya, 2000-2003. Center for ecological research and forestry applications. http://www.creaf.uab.es/mcsc/.
8. Christie M, Azevedo C (2002) Testing the consistency in benefit estimates across contingent valuation and choice experiments: A multiple policy option application. In: Paper presented at the 2nd world congress of environmental and resource economists, Monterrey, California.
9. Cooper JC (1993) Optimal bid selection for dichotomous choice contingent valuation surveys. J Environ Econ Manag 24(1): 25-40. doi:10.1006/jeem.1993.1002.
10. d'Agricultura D Pesca i Ramaderia, DARP (1994) Pla General de Política Forestal. Generalitat de Catalunya, Barcelona.
11. Foster V, Mourato S (1999) Elicitation format and part-whole bias: Do contingent valuation and contingent ranking give the same result? CSERGE working paper, GEC 99-17.
12. Gracia C (1997) Estimació de les Macromaginituds Agràries de les Comarques de Catalunya, 1993. Serveis de Publicacions, Universitat de Lleida, Lleida.
13. Greene WH (2000) Econometric analysis. Prentice Hall, New Jersey.
14. Hanemann WM (1982) Applied welfare analysis with qualitative response models. CUDARE working papers, n° 241, University of California, Berkeley.
15. Hanemann WM (1984) Welfare evaluations in contingent valuation experiments with discrete responses. Am J Agric Econ 66(3): 332-341. doi:10.2307/1240800.
16. Hanemann WM, Kanninen B (1999) The statistical analysis of discrete-response CV data. In: Bateman I, Willis K (eds) Valuing environmental preferences: Theory and practice of the contingent valuation method in the US, EC, and developing countries. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
17. Hanley N, Wright RE, Adamowicz V (1998a) Using choice experiments to value the environment. Design issues, current experience and future prospects. Environ Resour Econ 11(3-4): 413-428. doi:10.1023/A:1008287310583.
18. Hanley N, MacMillan D, Wright RE, Bullock C, Simpson I, Parsisson D, Crabtree B (1998b) Contingent valuation versus choice experiments: Estimating the benefits of environmentally sensitive areas in Scotland. J Agric Econ 49(1): 1-15.
19. Hanley N, Mourato S, Wright R (2001) Choice modelling approaches: A superior alternative for environmental valuation?. J Econ Surv 15(3): 433-460. doi:10.1111/1467-6419.00145.
20. Hausman JA, McFadden D (1984) Specification tests for the multinomial logit model. Econometrica 52(5): 1219-1240. doi:10.2307/1910997.
21. Holmes T, Adamowicz WL (2003) Attribute-based methods. In: Champ PA, Boyle KJ, Brown TC (eds) A primer on nonmarket valuation. Kluwer Academic Publishing, Dordrecht.
22. Huber J, Zwerina K (1996) The importance of utility balance in efficient choice designs. J Mark Res 33(3): 307-317. doi:10.2307/3152127.
23. Krinsky I, Robb LA (1986) On approximating the statistical properties of elasticities. Rev Econ Stat 68(4): 715-719. doi:10.2307/1924536.
24. Louviere JJ (1988) Analysing individual decision making: Metric conjoint analysis. Sage university series on quantitative applications in the social sciences, n° 67. Sage, Newbury Park.
25. Louviere JJ, Hensher DA, Swait J (2000) Stated choice methods: Analysis and applications. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
26. Mazzanti M (2001) Discrete choice models and valuation experiments. Cultural heritage. In: Paper presented at XIII Riunione scientifica SIEP, Pavia, Italy.
27. McFadden D (1974) Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behaviour. In: Zarembka P (eds) Frontiers in econometrics. Academic Press, New York.
28. Merlo M, Rojas E (1999) Policy instruments for promoting positive externalities of Mediterranean forests. European Forest Institute, Annual Conference, Chartreuse, Ittingen.
29. Mitchell RC, Carson RT (1989) Using surveys to value public goods. The contingent valuation method. Resources for the Future, Washington, DC.
30. Poe G, Welsh M, Champ P (1997) Measuring the difference in mean willingness to pay when dichotomous choice contingent valuation responses are not independent. Land Econ 73(2): 255-267. doi:10.2307/3147286.
31. Rolfe J, Bennett J, Louviere J (2002) Stated values and reminders of substitute goods: Testing for framing effects with choice modelling. Aust J Agric Resour Econ 46: 1-20. doi:10.1111/1467-8489.00164.
32. Swait J, Louviere J (1993) The role of the scale parameter in the estimation and comparison of multinomial logit models. J Mark Res 30(3): 305-314. doi:10.2307/3172883.
33. Terradas J, Piñol J (1996) Els grans incendis: Condicions meteorológiques i de vegetació per al seu desenvolupament. In: Terradas J (eds) Ecologia del Foc. Proa, Barcelona.
34. Thurstone L (1927) A law of comparative judgment. Psychol Rev 34: 273-286. doi:10.1037/h0070288.
35. Trabaud L (1994) Post-fire plant community dynamics in theMediterranean Basin. Moreno JM, Oechel WC (eds) The role of fire in Mediterranean-type ecosystems. Springer-Verlag, New York.
36. Veall MR, Zimmermann KF (1996) Pseudo-R2 measures for some common limited dependent variable models. J Econ Surveys 10: 241-259.