Testing different types of benefit transfer in valuation of ecosystem services: New Zealand winegrowing case studies

Ecological Economics

Volumn 69, Issue 5, 2010, Pages 1010-1022

  Baskaran, Ramesh ^a   Cullen, Ross ^b   Colombo, Sergio ^b  

^a LINCOLN UNIVERSITY   (New Zealand)

^b IFAPA CENTRO EL TORUÑO   (Spain)

Author keywords

Benefit transfer; Choice modeling; Ecosystem services; New Zealand winegrowing

Indexed keywords

COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; ECOSYSTEM SERVICE; ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT; ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE; NUMERICAL MODEL; POLICY MAKING; RESOURCE MANAGEMENT; SERVICE PROVISION; TESTING METHOD; VALUATION; VINE; WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

NEW ZEALAND;

EID: 77649273838     PISSN: 09218009     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2010.01.008     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Bech M., and Gyrd-Hansen D. Effects coding in discrete choice experiments. Health Econ. 14 (2005) 1079-1083
2. Bennett J. Choice modelling and the transfer of environmental values. In: Rolfe J., and Bennett J. (Eds). Choice Modelling and the Transfer of Environmental Values (2006), Edward Elgar, USA 1-9
3. Colombo S., Calatrava-Requena J., and Hanley N. Testing choice experiment for benefit transfer with preference heterogeneity. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 89 1 (2007) 135-151
4. Desvousges W., Naughton M., and Parsons G. Benefit transfer: conceptual problems in estimating water quality benefits using existing studies. Water Resour. Res. 28 3 (1992) 675-683
5. Domencich T., and McFadden D.L. Urban Travel Demand: A Behavioral Analysis (1975), North-Holland Publishing Company
6. Hanemann W.M. Welfare evaluations in contingent valuation experiments with discrete responses. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 66 3 (1984) 332-341
7. Hanley N., Colombo S., Tinch D., Black A., and Aftab A. Estimating the benefits of water quality improvements under the Water Framework Directive: are benefits transferable?. European Review of Agricultural Economics 33 3 (2006) 391-413
8. Hensher D.A., Rose J.M., and Greene W.H. Applied Choice Analysis: A Primer (2005), Cambridge University Press, United Kingdom
9. Hu W., Veeman M., and Adamowicz W. Labelling genetically modified food: heterogeneous consumer preferences and the value of information. Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics 53 1 (2005) 79-99
10. Johnston R.J., and Duke J.M. Benefit transfer equivalence tests with non-normal distributions. Environmental and Resource Economics 41 (2008) 1-23
11. Kristofferson D., and Navrud S. Validity tests of benefit transfer: are we performing the wrong tests?. Environmental and Resource Economics 30 3 (2005) 279-286
12. Louviere J.J., Hensher D.A., and Swait J.D. Stated Choice Methods: Analysis and Application (2000), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom
13. Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (MAF). Implementing Ultra Low Residue Wine Grape Production (GrapeSafe), Sustainable Farming Fund (Grant No.: 07/123) (2009) Retrieved at http://www.maf.govt.nz/sff/about-projects/search/07-123/index.htm#update
14. Ministry of Health (MOH), NewZealand. Public Health Risk Management Plans (2005) Retrieved at http://www.moh.govt.nz
15. Morrison M., and Bergland O. Prospects for the use of choice modelling for benefit transfer. Ecological Economics 60 (2006) 420-428
16. Meyerhoff J., and Liebe U. Do protest responses to a contingent valuation question and a choice experiment differ?. Environmental and Resource Economics 39 (2008) 433-446
17. Navrud S., and Ready R. Lessons learned for environmental value transfer. In: Ready, and Navrud (Eds). Environmental Value Transfer: Issues and Methods (2007), Springer, The Netherlands 283-290
18. Navrud S., and Brouwer R. Good practice guidelines in benefit transfer of forest externalities. COST Action E45, European Forest Externalities (EUROFOREX) (2007) Retrieved at http://www.medforex.net/E45/Guidelines/BT%20guidelines%20281107.pdf
19. Ruud P. Simulation of the multinomial probit model: an analysis of covariance matrix estimation. Working Paper (1996), Department of Economics, University of California
20. Poe G.L., Giraud K.L., and Loomis J.B. Computational methods for measuring the difference of empirical distributions. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 89 2 (2005) 353-365
21. Street D.J., Burgess L., and Louviere J.J. Quick and easy choice sets: constructing optimal and nearly optimal stated choice experiments. International Journal of Research in Marketing 22 (2005) 459-470
22. Street D.J., and Burgess L. The construction of optimal stated choice experiments, theory and methods (2007), Wiley Interscience, New Jersey, USA
23. Swait J., and Louviere J. The role of the scale parameter in the estimation and comparison of multinomial logit models. Journal of Marketing Research 30 (1993) 305-314
24. Swait J. Advance choice models. In: Kanninen B.J. (Ed). Valuing Environmental Amenities Using Stated Choice Studies (2007), Springer, The Netherlands 229-293
25. Swinton S.M., Lupi F., Robertson G.P., and Hamilton S.K. Ecosystem services and agriculture: cultivating agricultural ecosystems for diverse benefits. Ecological Economics 64 (2007) 245-252
26. Train K.E. Recreation demand models with taste differences over people. Land Economics 74 (1998) 230-239
27. Train K. Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation (2003), Cambridge University Press, United Kingdom
28. van Bueren M., and Bennett J. Generalising environmental values: the case of the national land and water resources audit in Australia. In: Bennett J., and Rolfe J. (Eds). Choice Modelling and the Transfer of Environmental Values (2006), Edward Elgar, USA 191-215