Using labels to investigate scope effects in stated preference methods

Environmental and Resource Economics

Volumn 44, Issue 4, 2009, Pages 521-535

  Czajkowski, Mikołaj ^a   Hanley, Nick ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WARSAW   (Poland)

^b UNIVERSITY OF STIRLING   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Biodiversity valuation; Choice experiment; Contingent valuation; Embedding; Label effect; National park; Scope test; Warm glow

Indexed keywords

BIODIVERSITY; ECONOMICS; RESOURCE VALUATION;

CHOICE EXPERIMENTS; CONTINGENT VALUATIONS; EMBEDDING; NATIONAL PARKS; WARM GLOW;

SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS;

BIODIVERSITY; CONTINGENT VALUATION; EXPERIMENTAL STUDY; NATIONAL PARK; WARM FRONT; WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

EID: 72249123145     PISSN: 09246460     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10640-009-9299-z     Document Type: Article

References (47)

1. Adamowicz WL, Boxall PC, Louviere JJ, Swait JD (1999) Stated preference methods for valuing environmental amenities. In: Bateman IJ, Willis KG (eds) Valuing environmental preferences: theory and practice of the contingent valuation method in the USA, EC, and developing countries. Oxford University Press, New York.
2. Andreoni J (1989) Giving with impure altruism: applications to charity and Ricardian equivalence. J Political Econ 97(6): 1447-1458.
3. Arrow K, Leamer EE (1997) Comment no. 87, submitted to NOAA in response to advanced notice of proposed rulemaking (59 FR 1062, January 7, 1994).
4. Bartczak A, Lindhjem H, Navrud S, Zandersen M, Żylicz T (2008) Valuing forest recreation on the national level in a transition economy: the case of Poland. For Policy Econ 10(7-8): 467-472.
5. Becker G (1974) A theory of social interactions. J Political Econ 82: 1095-1117.
6. Bhat CR (1997) Covariance heterogeneity in nested logit models: econometric structure and application to intercity travel. Transp Res Part B Methodol 31(1): 11-21.
7. Birol E, Karousakisb K, Koundouric P (2006) Using a choice experiment to account for preference heterogeneity in Wetland attributes: the case of cheimaditida Wetland in Greece. Ecol Econ 60: 145-156.
8. Blamey RK, Bennett JW, Louviere JJ, Morrison MD, Rolfe J (2000) A test of policy labels in environmental choice modelling studies. Ecol Econ 32(2): 269-286.
9. Brouwer R, Langford IH, Bateman IJ, Turner RK (1999) A meta-analysis of Wetland contingent valuation studies. Reg Environ Change 1: 47-57.
10. Carson RT (1997) Contingent valuation and tests of insensitivity to scope. In: Kopp R, Pommerhene W, Schwartz N (eds) Determining the value of non-marketed goods: economic, psychological, and policy relevant aspects of contingent valuation methods. Kluwer, Amsterdam.
11. Carson RT, Mitchell RC (1995) Sequencing and nesting in contingent valuation surveys. J Environ Econ Manag 28: 155-173.
12. Carson RT, Hanemann WM (2005) Contingent valuation. In: Mäler KG, Vincent JR(eds) Handbook of environmental economics. Elsevier, Amsterdam.
13. Chilton SM, Hutchinson WG (1999) Some further implications of incorporating the warm glow of giving into welfare measures: a comment on the use of donation mechanisms by Champ et al. J Environ Econ Manag 37(2): 202-209.
14. Cooper P, Poe GL, Bateman IJ (2004) The structure of motivation for contingent values: a case study of lake water quality improvement. Ecol Econ 50(1-2): 69-82.
15. Diamond PA, Hausman JA (1994) Contingent valuation: is some number better than no number. J Econ Perspect 8(4): 45-64.
16. Goldberg I, Roosen J (2007) Scope insensitivity in health risk reduction studies: A comparison of choice experiments and the contingent valuation method for valuing safer food. J Risk Uncertain 34(2): 123-144.
17. Gunn AS (1980) Why should we care about rare species. Environ Ethics 2: 17-37.
18. Hanemann MW (1982) Applied welfare analysis with qualitative response models. University of California, Berkeley.
19. Hanley N, Wright R, Adamowicz V (1998) Using choice experiments to value the environment. Environ Resour Econ 11(3): 413-428.
20. Hanley N, MacMillan D, Patterson I, Wright RE (2003) Economics and the design of nature conservation policy: a case study of wild goose conservation in Scotland using choice experiments. Anim Conserv 6(02): 123-129.
21. Heberlein TA, Wilson MA, Bishop RC, Schaeffer NC (2005) Rethinking the scope test as a criterion for validity in contingent valuation. J Environ Econ Manag 50(1): 1-22.
22. Hensher DA, Greene WH (2002) Specification and estimation of the nested logit model: alternative normalisations. Transp Res Part B Methodol 36(1): 1-17.
23. Horne P, Boxall PC, Adamowicz WL (2005) Multiple-use management of forest recreation sites: a spatially explicit choice experiment. For Ecol Manag 207(1-2): 189-199.
24. Jacobsen JB, Thorsen BJ (2008) Where to put a national park and what to put in it? An a priori study of the willingness-to-pay for coming national parks. University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen.
25. Jacobsen JB, Boiesen JH, Thorsen BJ, Strange N (2008) What's in a name? The use of quantitative measures versus 'Iconised' species when valuing biodiversity. Environ Resour Econ 39(3): 247-263.
26. Johansson-Stenman O (1998) The importance of ethics in environmental economics with a focus on existence values. Environ Resour Econ 11(3-4): 429-442.
27. Kahneman D, Knetsch JL (1992) Valuing public goods: the purchase of moral satisfaction. J Environ Econ Manag 22: 57-70.
28. Kahneman D, Tversky A (2000) Choices, values, and frames. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
29. Krinsky I, Robb AL (1986) On approximating the statistical properties of elasticities. Rev Econ Stat 68(4): 715-719.
30. Lancaster K (1966) A new approach to consumer theory. J Political Econ 84: 132-157.
31. Lehtonen E, Kuuluvainen J, Pouta E, Rekola M, Li C-Z (2003) Non-market benefits of forest conservation in southern Finland. Environ Sci Policy 6(3): 195-204.
32. Louviere JJ, Hensher DA, Swait JD (2006) Stated choice methods: analysis and applications. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
33. McClure SM, Li J, Tomlin D, Cypert KS, Montague LM, Montague PR (2004) Neural correlates of behavioral preference for culturally familiar drinks. Neuron 44: 379-387.
34. McFadden D (1974) Conditional logit analysis of qualititative choice behaviour. In: Zarembka P(eds) Frontiers in econometrics. Academic Press, New York.
35. Nielsen AB, Olsen SB, Lundhede T (2007) An Economic Valuation of the Recreational Benefits Associated with Nature-Based Forest Management Practices. Landsc Urban Plan 80: 63-71.
36. Olson M (1965) The logic of collective action. Harvard University Press, Harvard.
37. Park T, Loomis JB, Creel M (1991) Confidence intervals for evaluating benefits estimates from dichotomous choice contingent valuation studies. Land Econ 67(1): 64.
38. Poe GL, Giraud KL, Loomis JB (2005) Computational methods for measuring the difference of empirical distributions. Am J Agric Econ 87(2): 353-365.
39. Rescher N (1980) Unpopular essays on technological progress. University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh.
40. Ritov I, Kahneman D (1997) How people value the environment. In: Bazerman M, Messick D, Tenbrunsel A, Wade-Benzoni K (eds) Environment, ethics, and behavior. New Lexington Press, San Franciso.
41. Roe B, Haab T (2007) Using biomedical technologies to inform economic modeling: challenges and opportunities for improving analysis of environmental policies. Paper presented at the Frontiers in Environmental Economics Conference. Washington, DC.
42. Rolston H (1988) Environmental ethics: duties to and values in the natural world. Temple University Press, Philadelphia.
43. Rossiter JR, Percy L (1997) Advertising communications and promotion management. McGraw Hill, Sydney.
44. Russow LM (1981) Why do species matter?. Environ Ethics 3: 101-112.
45. Scarpa R, Rose JM (2008) Design efficiency for non-market valuation with choice modelling: how to measure it, what to report and why. Aust J Agric Resour Econ 52(3): 253-282.
46. Smith VK, Osborne LL (1996) Do contingent valuation estimates pass a "Scope" test? A meta-analysis. J Environ Econ Manag 31(3): 287-301.
47. Street DJ, Burgess L, Louviere JJ (2005) Quick and easy choice sets: constructing optimal and nearly optimal stated choice experiments. Int J Res Mark 22(4): 459-470.