Embedding effects in choice experiment valuations of environmental preservation projects

Ecological Economics

Volumn 70, Issue 6, 2011, Pages 1170-1177

  Jacobsen, Jette Bredahl ^a   Lundhede, Thomas Hedemark ^a   Martinsen, Louise ^b   Hasler, Berit ^b   Thorsen, Bo Jellesmark ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF COPENHAGEN   (Denmark)

^b NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (Denmark)

Author keywords

Archaeological preservation; Biodiversity; Recreational access; Substitution effects

Indexed keywords

ARCHAEOLOGY; BIODIVERSITY; ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT; RECREATIONAL MANAGEMENT; VALUATION;

EID: 79953759043     PISSN: 09218009     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.01.013     Document Type: Article

References (52)

1. Amiran E.Y., Hagen D.A. The scope trials: Variation in sensitivity to scope and WTO with directionally bounded utility functions. J. Env. Econ. Man. 2010, 59:293-301.
2. Andreoni J. Impure altruism and donations to public goods: A theory of warm-glow of giving. Econ. J. 1990, 100:464-477.
3. Arrow K., Solow R., Portney P.R., Leamer E.E., Roy R., Schuman H. Report of the NOAA Panel on Contingent Valuation http://www.darp.noaa.gov.
4. Bateman I.J., Munro A., Rhodes B., Starmer C., Sugden R. Does part-whole bias exist? An experimental investigation. Econ. J. 1997, 107:322-332.
5. Bateman I.J., Cole M., Cooper P., Georgiou S., Hadley D., Poe G.L. On visible choice sets and scope sensitivity. J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 2004, 47:71-93.
6. Bierlaire M. BIOGEME: A free package for the estimation of discrete choice models. Proceedings of the 3rd Swiss Transportation Research Conference, Ascona, Switzerland 2003.
7. Boxall P., Adamowicz W.L., Moon A. Complexity in choice experiments: choice of the status quo alternative and implications for welfare measurement. Aust. J. Agric. Resour. Econ 2009, 53(4):503-551.
8. Campbell D. Willingness to Pay for Rural Landscape Improvements: Combining Mixed Logit and Random-Effects Models. J. Agric. Econ. 2007, 58:467-483.
9. Carson R.T., Mitchell R.C. Sequencing and Nesting in Contingent Valuation Surveys. J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 1995, 28:155-173.
10. Carson R., Flores N.E., Meade N.F. Contingent Valuation: Controversies and Evidence. Environ. Res. Econ. 2001, 19:173-210.
11. Clark J., Friesen L. The causes or order effects in contingent valuation surveys: An experimental investigation. J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 2008, 56:195-206.
12. Cummings R.G., Ganderton P.T., McGuckin T. Substitution effects in CVM values. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 1994, 76:205-214.
13. Czajkowski M., Hanley N. Using Labels to Investigate Scope Effects in Stated Preference Methods. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2009, 44:521-535.
14. Diamond P.A. Testing the Internal Consistency of Contingent Valuation Surveys. J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 1996, 30:337-347.
15. Dupont D.P. CVM Embedding Effects When There Are Active Potentially Active and Passive Users of Environmental Goods, Environ. Resour. Econ. 2003, 25:319-341.
16. Fiebig D.G., Keane M.P., Louviere J., Wasi N. The generalized multinomial logit model: accounting for scale and coefficient heterogeneity. Market. Sci. 2010, 29:393-421.
17. Foster V., Mourato S. Elicitation Format and Sensitivity to Scope. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2003, 24:141-160.
18. Giraud K.L., Loomis J.B., Johnson R.L. Internal and external scope in willingness-to-pay estimates for threatened and endangered wildlife. J. Environ. Manage. 1999, 56:221-229.
19. Hailu A., Adamowicz W.L., Boxall P.C. Complements, Substitutes, and Budget Constraints and Valuation: Application of a Multi-Program Environmental Valuation Method. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2000, 16:51-68.
20. Hanemann W.M. Valuing the Environment Through Contingent Valuation. J. Econ. Perspect. 1994, 8:19-43.
21. Heberlein T.A., Wilson M.A., Bishop R.C., Schaeffer N.C. Rethinking the scope test as a criterion for validity in contingent valuation. J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 2005, 50:1-22.
22. Jacobsen J.B., Boiesen J.H., Thorsen B.J., Strange N. What's in a Name? The use of Quantitative Measures vs. 'Iconised' Species when Valuing Biodiversity. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2008, 39:249-263.
23. Jacobsen J.B., Thorsen B.J., Boiesen J.H., Anthon S., Tranberg J. Værdisætning af syv mulige nationalparker i Danmark [Valuation of seven potential national parks in Denmark], Arbejdsrapport 28 2006, Skov og Landskab, KVL, Frederiksberg, 63pp.
24. Jacobsen J.B., Thorsen B.J. Preferences for site and environmental functions when selecting forthcoming national parks. Ecol. Econ. 2010, 69:1532-1544.
25. Jorgensen B.S., Wilson M.A., Heberlein T.A. Fairness in the contingent valuation of environmental public goods: attitude toward paying for environmental improvements at two levels of scope. Ecol. Econ. 2001, 36:133-148.
26. Kahnemann D., Knetsch J.L. Valuing Public Goods: The Purchase of Moral Satisfaction. J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 1992, 22:57-70.
27. Kotchen M.J., Reiling S.D. Do reminders of substitutes and budget constraints influence contingent valuation estimates? Another comment (1999). Land Econ. 1999, 75:478-482.
28. Kuhfeld W.F. Marketing Research Methods in SAS. Experimental Design, Choice, Conjoint, and Graphical Techniques, SAS 9.1. Edition, TS-694 2004, SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA, 782pp.
29. Larsen F.W., Petersen A.H., Strange N., Lund M.P., Rahbek C. A quantitative analysis of biodiversity and the recreational value of potential national parks in Denmark. Environ. Manage. 2008, 41:685-695.
30. Loomis J.B., Gonzalez-Caban A., Gregory R. Do Reminders of Substitutes and Budget Constraints Influence Contingent Valuation Estimates?. Land Econ. 1994, 70:499-506.
31. Loureiro M.L., Ojea E. Valuing local endangered species: The role of intra-species substitutes. Ecol. Econ. 2008, 68:362-369.
32. Lundhede T.H., Olsen S.B., Jacobsen J.B., Thorsen B.J. Handling respondent uncertainty in Choice Experiments: Evaluating recoding approaches against explicit modelling of uncertainty. J. Choice Model. 2009, 2:1-30.
33. McDaniels T.L., Gregory R., Arvai J., Chuenpagdee R. Decision structuring to alleviate embedding in environmental valuation. Ecol. Econ. 2003, 46:33-46.
34. Neill H.R. The Context for Substitutes in CVM Studies: Some Empirical Observations. J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 1995, 29:393-397.
35. Ojea E., Loureiro M.L. Valuation of wildlife: Revising some additional considerations for scope tests. Contemp. Econ. Policy 2009, 27:236-250.
36. Powe N., Bateman I.J. Ordering effects in nested top-down and bottom-up contingent valuation designs. Ecol. Econ. 2003, 45:255-270.
37. Powe N., Bateman I.J. Investigating insensitivity to scope: a split-sample test of perceived scheme realism. Land Econ. 2004, 80:258-271.
38. Randall A., Hoehn J.P. Embedding in Market Demand Systems. J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 1996, 30:369-380.
39. Revelt D., Train K. Mixed logit with repeated choices: Households' choices of appliance efficiency level. Rev. Econ. Stat. 1998, 80:647-657.
40. Rollins K., Lyke A. The Case for Diminishing Marginal Existence Values. J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 1998, 36:324-344.
41. Rolfe J., Bennett J., Louviere J. Stated values and reminders of substitute goods: Testing for framing effects with choice modelling. Aust. J. Agric. Resour. Econ. 2002, 46:1-20.
42. Scarpa R., Rose J.M. Designs efficiency for nonmarket valuation with choice modelling: how to measure it, what to report and why. Aust. J. Agric. Res. Econ. 2008, 52:253-282.
43. Scarpa R., Thiene M., Train K. Utility in willingness to pays pace: a tool to address confounding random scale effects in destination choice to the Alps. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 2008, 90:994-1010.
44. Smith V.K. Arbitrary Values, Good Causes, and Premature Verdicts. J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 1992, 22:71-89.
45. Sælensminde K. Embedding effects in valuation of non-market goods. Transp. Pol. 2003, 10:59-72.
46. Thiene M., Scarpa R. Deriving and Testing Efficient Estimates of WTP Distributions in Destination Choice Models. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2009, 44:379-395.
47. Train K., Weeks M. Discrete choice models in preference space and willingness-to-pay space. Applications of simulation methods in environmental and resource economics 2005, 1-16. Springer Publisher, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, Chapter 1,. R. Scarpa, A. Alberini (Eds.).
48. Veisten K., Hoen H.F., Navrud S., Strand J. Scope insensitivity in contingent valuation of complex environmental amenities. J. Environ. Manage. 2004, 73:317-331.
49. Verbic M., Slabe-Erker R. An econometric analysis of willingness-to-pay for sustainable development: A case study of the Volcji Potok landscape area. Ecol. Econ. 2009, 68:1316-1328.
50. Von Haefen R.H., Massey D.M., Adamowicz W.I. Serial Nonparticipation in Repeated Discrete Choice Models. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 2005, 87(4):1061-1076.
51. Whitehead J.C., Blomquist G.C. Do Reminders of Substitutes and Budget Constraints Influence Contingent Valuation Estimates? Comment. Land Econ. 1995, 71:541-543.
52. Wilhjelmudvalget En rig natur i et rigt samfund [A rich nature in a rich society]. Wilhjelmudvalget, Skov & Naturstyrelsen [Danish Forest and Nature Agency], Copenhagen, Denmark 2001, 121 pp.