Dealing with ignored attributes in choice experiments on valuation of Sweden's environmental quality objectives

Environmental and Resource Economics

Volumn 47, Issue 1, 2010, Pages 65-89

  Carlsson, Fredrik ^a   Kataria, Mitesh ^b   Lampi, Elina ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GOTHENBURG   (Sweden)

^b MAX PLANCK INSTITUTE FOR THE SCIENCE OF HUMAN HISTORY   (Germany)

Author keywords

Choice experiment; Environmental quality objectives; Follow up question; Ignoring attributes; WTP

Indexed keywords

CHOICE EXPERIMENTS; ENVIRONMENTAL OBJECTIVES; ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY; FOLLOW UP; IGNORING ATTRIBUTES; MODEL ESTIMATION; SWEDISHS;

ECONOMICS;

COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; ENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMICS; EXPERIMENTAL STUDY; NUMERICAL MODEL; VALUATION; WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

SWEDEN;

EID: 77955848704     PISSN: 09246460     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10640-010-9365-6     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. Alpizar F, Carlsson F, Martinsson P (2003) Using choice experiments for non-market valuation. Econ Issues 8: 83-110.
2. Bunch D, Louviere J, Andersson D (1996) A comparison of experimental design strategies for choice-based conjoint analysis with generic attribute multinomial logit models, Working Paper, Graduate School of Management, University of California, Davis.
3. Campbell D, Hutchinson G, Scarpa R (2006) Lexicographic preferences in discrete choice experiments: consequences on individual-specific willingness to pay estimates, Working Paper Fondazione Eni Enrico Matei.
4. Campbell D, Hutchinson G, Scarpa R (2008) Incorporating discontinuous preferences into the analysis of discrete choice experiments. Environ Resour Econ 41(3): 101-117.
5. Carlsson F, Frykblom P, Lagerkvist CJ (2005) Using cheap-talk as a test of validity in choice experiments. Econ Lett 89: 147-152.
6. Carlsson F, Frykblom P, Lagerkvist CJ (2007) Preferences with and without prices-does the price attribute affect behavior in stated preference surveys?. Environ Resour Econ 38: 155-164.
7. Carlsson F, Kataria M (2008) Assessing management options for weed control with demanders and non-demanders in a choice experiment. Land Econ 84: 517-528.
8. Carlsson F, Martinsson P (2003) Design techniques for stated preference methods in health economics. Health Econ 12: 281-294.
9. Clinch J, Murphy P (2001) Modelling winners and losers in contingent valuation of public goods: Appropriate welfare measures and econometric analysis. Econ J 111: 420-443.
10. Cummings RG, Taylor LO (1999) Unbiased value estimates for environmental goods: a cheap talk design for the contingent valuation method. Am Econ Rev 89(3): 649-665.
11. DeShazo JR, Fermo G (2002) Designing choice sets for stated preference methods: the effects of complexity on choice consistency. J Environ Econ Manag 44: 123-143.
12. DeShazo JR, Fermo G (2004) Implications of rationally-adaptive pre-choice behavior for the design and estimation of choice models, Working paper, School of Public Policy and Social Research, UCLA.
13. Efron B, Tibshirani RJ (1998) An introduction to the bootstrap. Chapman & Hall/CRC, New York.
14. Greene W (2003) Econometric analysis. Prentice-Hall, London.
15. Haab T (1999) Nonparticipation or misspecification? The impacts of nonparticipation on dichotomous choice contingent valuation. Environ Resour Econ 14: 443-461.
16. Hensher D, Rose J, Greene W (2005) The implications on willingness to pay of respondents ignoring specific attributes. Transportation 32: 203-222.
17. Jonson FR, Desvousges WH (1997) Estimating stated preferences with rated-pair data: environmental, health, and employment effects of energy programs. J Environ Econ Manag 34: 79-99.
18. Kataria M, Lampi E (2008) Betalningsvilja för miljökvalitetsmålen, Swedish EPA Report 5822, June 2008 (In Swedish).
19. Kriström B (1997) Spike models in contingent valuation. Am J Agric Econ 79: 1013-1023.
20. List J, Sinha P, Taylor M (2006) Using choice experiments to value non-market goods and services: Evidence from field experiments. Adv Econ Anal Policy 6: 1-37.
21. Louviere JJ, Hensher DA, Swait JUD (2000) Stated choice methods: analysis and applications. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
22. McFadden DL, Bemmaor AC, Caro FG, Dominitz J, Jun BH, Lewbel A, Matzkin RL, Molinari F, Schwardz N, Willis RJ, Winter JK (2005) Statistical analysis of choice experiments and surveys. Mark Lett 16: 183-196.
23. Mitchell RC, Carson RT (1989) Using surveys to value public goods: the contingent valuation method. Resources for the Future, Washington, D. C.
24. O'Hagan JW (1995) National museums: to charge or not to charge?. J Cult Econ 19: 33-47.
25. Pearce D, Mourato S, Navrud S, Ready RC (2002) Valuing cultural heritage: applying environmental techniques to historic buildings. In: Navrud S, Ready RC (eds) Monuments and artifacts. Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd., UK.
26. Person U, Norinder A, Hjalte K, Gralén K (2001) The value of statistical life in transport: findings from a new contingent valuation study in Sweden. J Risk Uncertain 23: 121-134.
27. Puckett S, Hensher D (2009) Revealing the Extent of Process Heterogeneity in Choice Analysis: An Empirical Assessment. Transport Res A 43: 117-126.
28. Rizzi LI, de Dios Ortúzar J (2003) Stated preference in the valuation of interurban road safety. Accid Anal Prev 35: 9-22.
29. Rosenberger RS, Peterson GL, Clarke A, Brown TC (2003) Measuring disposition for lexicographic preferences of environmental goods: integrating economics psychology and ethics. Ecol Econ 44: 63-76.
30. SEPA (2006) Sweden's 16 environmental objectives. Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, Sweden.
31. Sælensminde K (2001) Inconsistent choices in stated choice data. Transportation 28: 269-296.
32. Sælensminde K (2002) The impact of choice inconsistencies in stated choice studies. Environ Resour Econ 23: 403-420.
33. Scarpa R, Thiene M, Hensher D (2010) Monitoring choice task attribute attendance in non-market valuation of multiple park management services: does it matter? Land Econ 86(4).
34. Statistics Sweden (2008) The Swedish population, 1 January 2007, Homepage: http://www. scb. se (accessed February 2008).
35. Stevens TH, Echeverria J, Glass RJ, Hager T, More TA (1991) Measuring the existence of wildlife: what do CVM estimates really show?. Land Econ 67(4): 390-400.
36. Train K (2003) Discrete choice methods with simulation. Cambridge University Press, New York.