Using local knowledge to model asymmetric preference formation in willingness to pay for environmental services

Journal of Environmental Management

Volumn 92, Issue 3, 2011, Pages 531-541

  Glenk, Klaus ^a  

^a SCOTTISH CROP RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Asymmetric preferences; Choice experiments; Environmental services; Indonesia; Referencing; Stated preference methods; Valuation; Willingness to pay

Indexed keywords

BIODIVERSITY; CONSERVATION; ECONOMICS;

ASYMMETRIC PREFERENCE; CHOICE EXPERIMENTS; ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES; INDONESIA; LOCAL KNOWLEDGE; REFERENCING; STATED PREFERENCE METHOD; STATUS QUO; VALUATION; WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

REGIONAL PLANNING;

WATER;

ASYMMETRIC INFORMATION; BIODIVERSITY; CONSERVATION PLANNING; DISCRETE CHOICE ANALYSIS; ECOSYSTEM SERVICE; ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGE; ENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMICS; HETEROGENEITY; NATIONAL PARK; RURAL DEVELOPMENT; TRADITIONAL KNOWLEDGE; WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

ARTICLE; BIODIVERSITY; CACAO; ECONOMIC ASPECT; ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGE; ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT; INDONESIA; NATIONAL PARK; POPULATION; WATER AVAILABILITY;

INDONESIA;

EID: 78650520096     PISSN: 03014797     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2010.09.003     Document Type: Article

References (54)

1. Adamowicz W., Swait J., Boxall B., Louviere J., Williams M. Perceptions versus objective measures of environmental quality in combined revealed and stated preference models of environmental valuation. J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 1997, 32:65-84.
2. Balmford A., Bruner A., Cooper P., Constanza R., Faber S., Green R., Jenkins M., Jefferiss P., Jessamy V., Madden J., Munro K., Myers N., Naeem S., Paavola J., Rayment M., Rosendo S., Roughgarden J., Trumper K., Turner R. Economic reasons for conserving wild nature. Science 2002, 297:950-953.
3. Baranzini A., Schaerer C., Ramirez J.V., Thalmann P. Feel It or Measure It. Perceived vs. Measured Noise in Hedonic Models 2006, Genève: Haute École de Gestion de Genève, Cahier de recherche HES-SO/HEG-GE/C-06/7/1-CH. Available at SSRN:, (accessed 12.10.2009.). http://ssrn.com/abstract%3D937259.
4. Barkmann J., Glenk K., Keil A., Leemhuis C., Dietrich N., Gerold G., Marggraf R. Confronting unfamiliarity with ecosystem functions: the case for an ecosystem service approach to environmental valuation with stated preference methods. Ecol. Econ. 2008, 65:48-62.
5. Barrios E., Trejo M.T. Implications of local soil knowledge for integrated soil management in Latin America. Geoderma 2003, 111:217-231.
6. Bateman I., Carson R., Day B., Hanemann M., Hanley N., Hett T., Jones-Lee M., Loomes G., Monrato S., Ozdemiroglu E., Pearce D., Sugden R., Swanson J. Economic Valuation with Stated Preference Techniques - A Manual 2002, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK.
7. Bateman I.J., Day B.H., Jones A.P., Jude S. Reducing gain-loss asymmetry: a virtual reality choice experiment valuing land use change. J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 2009, 58:106-118.
8. Bawa K.S., Kress W.J., Nadkarni N.M., Lele S., Raven P.H., Janzen D.H., Lugo A.E., Ashton P.S., Lovejoy T.E. Tropical ecosystems into the 21st Century. Science 2004, 306:227-228.
9. Belsky J., Siebert F. Cultivating Cocoa: implications of sun-grown cocoa on local food security and environmental sustainability. Agric. Human Values 2003, 20:277-285.
10. Bennun L., Matiku P., Mulwa R., Mwangi S., Buckley P. Monitoring important bird areas in Africa: towards a sustainable and scaleable system. Biodivers. Conserv 2005, 14:2575-2590.
11. Birol E., Karousakis K., Koundouri P. Using choice experiment to account for preference heterogeneity in wetland attributes: the case of Cheimaditita wetland in Greece. Ecol. Econ. 2006, 60:145-156.
12. Boxall P.C., Adamowicz W.L. Understanding heterogeneous preferences in random utility models: a latent class approach. Environ. Resource Econ. 2002, 23:421-446.
13. Byg A., Salick J. Local perspectives on a global phenomenon - climate change in Eastern Tibetan villages. Glob. Environ. Change 2009, 19:156-166.
14. Calheiros D.F., Seidl A.F., Ferreira C.J.A. Participatory research methods in environmental science: local and scientific knowledge of a limnological phenomenon in the Pantanal wetland of Brazil. J. Appl. Ecol. 2000, 37:684-696.
15. Cantillo V., Ortúzar J.D. A Semi-compensatory discrete choice model with explicit attribute thresholds of perception. Transport. Res. B-Meth. 2005, 39:641-657.
16. Charnley S., Fisher A.P., Jones E.T. Integrating traditional and local ecological knowledge into forest biodiversity conservation in the Pacific Northwest. For. Ecol. Manage. 2007, 246:14-28.
17. Close C.H., Hall G.B. A GIS-based protocol for the collection and use of local knowledge in fisheries management planning. J. Environ. Manage. 2006, 78:341-352.
18. Colombo S., Hanley N., Calatrava-Requena J. Designing policy for reducing the off-farm effects of soil erosion using choice experiments. J. Agr. Econ. 2005, 56:81-95.
19. Colombo S., Hanley N., Louviere J. Modelling preference heterogeneity in stated choice data: an analysis for public goods generated by agriculture. Agr. Econ. 2009, 40:307-322.
20. Danielsen F., Burgess N.D., Balmford A. Monitoring matters: examining the potential of locally-based approaches. Biodivers. Conserv. 2005, 14:2507-2542.
21. Fisher B., Christopher T. Poverty and biodiversity: measuring the overlap of human poverty and the biodiversity hotspots. Ecol. Econ. 2007, 62:93-101.
22. Glenk K., Barkmann J., Marggraf R. The value of ecosystem services and agrobiodiversity in Central Sulawesi. Agrobiodiversity, Conservation and Economic Development. Routledge Explorations in Environmental Economics 2008, 368-391. Routledge, London. A. Kontoleon, U. Pascual, M. Smale (Eds.).
23. Glenk K., Barkmann J., Marggraf R. Unveiling regional preferences for biological diversity in Central Sulawesi: a choice experiment approach. Southeast Asian Modernities 2008, vol. 10. Lit, Münster, pp. 391-436. G. Burkard, M. Fremerey (Eds.).
24. Glenk, K., Colombo, S., Designing policies to mitigate the agricultural contribution to climate change: an assessment of soil based carbon sequestration and its ancillary effects. Clim. Change. DOI: 10.1007/s10584-010-9885-7, in press.
25. Greene W.H. Econometric Analysis 2003, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey.
26. Hanley N., Wright R.E., Alvarez-Farizo B. Estimating the economic value of improvements in river ecology using choice experiments: an application to the water framework directive. J. Environ. Manage. 2006, 78:183-193.
27. Hanley N., Colombo S., Kristrom B., Watson F. Accounting for negative, zero and positive willingness to pay for landscape change. J. Agr. Econ. 2009, 60:1-16.
28. Hensher D.A. Joint estimation of process and outcome in choice experiments and implications for willingness to pay. J. Transp. Econ. Pol. 2008, 42:297-322.
29. Hensher D.A., Greene W.H. The mixed logit model: the state of practice. Transportation 2003, 30:133-176.
30. Hensher D.A., Rose J.M. Development of commuter and non-commuter mode choice models for the assessment of new public transport infrastructure projects: a case study. Transport Res. A-Pol. 2007, 41:428-443.
31. Hess S., Rose J.M., Hensher D.A. Asymmetric preference formation in willingness to pay estimates in discrete choice models. Transport. Res. E 2008, 44:847-863.
32. Hess S., Rose J.M. Should reference alternatives in pivot design SC surveys be treated differently?. Environ. Resource Econ. 2009, 42:297-317.
33. Kahneman D., Tversky A. Prospect theory: an analysis of decisions under risk. Econometrica 1979, 47:263-291.
34. Keil, A., 2004. The Socio-Economic Impact of ENSO-Related Drought on Farm Households in Central Sulawesi, Indonesia. Institute of Rural Development, University of Goettingen, Ph.D. thesis.
35. Krinsky I., Robb A. On approximating the statistical properties of elasticities. Rev. Econ. Statist. 1986, 68:715-719.
36. Louviere J.J. Analyzing Decision Making: Metric Conjoint Analysis. Sage University Paper Series on Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences, 07-67 1988, Sage, Beverly Hills.
37. Manski C. The structure of random utility models. Theory Decis. 1977, 8:229-254.
38. McFadden D. Conditional logit analysis of qualitative variables in econometrics. Frontiers in Eonometrics 1974, 105-142. Academic Press, New York. P. Zarembka (Ed.).
39. McFadden D., Train K. Mixed MNL models for discrete response. J. Appl. Econometrics 2000, 15:447-470.
40. Myers N., Russel A., Mittermeier R., Mittermeier C., da Fonseca G., Kent J. Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature 2000, 403:853-858.
41. Nahuelhual-Muñoz L., Loureiro M., Loomis J. Addressing heterogeneous preferences using extended spike models. Environ. Resource Econ. 2004, 27:297-311.
42. Olson D.M., Dinerstein E. The global 200: a representation approach to conserving the earth's most biologically valuable ecoregions. Conserv. Biol. 1998, 12:502-515.
43. Pattanayak K., Kramer R. Pricing ecological services: willingness to pay for drought mitigation from watershed protection in eastern Indonesia. Water Resour. Res. 2001, 37:771-778.
44. Scarpa R., Thiene M. Destination choice models for rock-climbing in the North-East Alps: a latent-class approach investigating intensity of preferences. Land Econ. 2005, 81:426-444.
45. Siebert S. From shade to sun-grown perennial crops in Sulawesi, Indonesia: implications for biodiversity conservation and soil fertility. Biodivers. Conserv. 2002, 11:1889-1902.
46. Steffan-Dewenter I., Kessler M., Barkmann J., Bos M., Buchori D., Erasmi S., Faust H., Gerold G., Glenk K., Gradstein S.R., Guhardja E., Harteveld M., Hertel D., Höhn P., Kappas M., Köhler S., Leuschner C., Maertens M., Marggraf R., Migge-Kleian S., Mogea J., Pitopang R., Schaefer M., Schwarze S., Sporn S.G., Steingrebe A., Tjitrosoedirdjo S.S., Tjitrosoemito S., Twele A., Weber R., Woltmann L., Zeller M., Tscharntke T. Tradeoffs between income, biodiversity, and ecosystem functioning during tropical rainforest conversion and agroforestry intensification. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2007, 104:4973-4978.
47. Swait J. A structural equation model of latent segmentation and product choice for cross-sectional revealed preference choice data. J. Retailing Consum. Serv. 1994, 1:77-89.
48. Swait J. A non-compensatory choice model incorporating attribute cut-offs. Transport. Res. B-Meth. 2001, 35:903-928.
49. Tversky A., Kahneman D. The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science 1981, 21:453-458.
50. Um M., Kwak S., Kim T. Estimating willingness to pay for improved drinking water quality using averting behavior method with perception measure. Environ. Resource Econ. 2002, 21:287-302.
51. Waltert M., Mardiastuti A., Mühlenberg M. Effects of land use on bird species richness in Sulawesi, Indonesia. Conserv. Biol. 2004, 18:1339-1346.
52. Wielgus J., Gerber L.R., Sala E., Bennett J. Including risk in stated-preference economic valuations: experiments on choices for marine recreation. J. Environ. Manage. 2009, 90:3401-3409.
53. Wunder S. The efficiency of payments for environmental services in tropical conservation. Conserv. Biol. 2007, 21:48-58.
54. Zeller M., Schwarze S., van Rheenen T. Statistical Sampling Frame and Methods Used for the Selection of Villages and Households in the Scope of the Research Programme on Stability of Rainforest Margins in Indonesia (STORMA). STORMA Discussion Paper Series No 1 2002, Universities of Göttingen and Kassel, Germany and the Institut Pertanian Bogor and Universitas Tadulako, Indonesia, Bogor, Indonesia.