Valuing water level changes in reservoirs using two stated preference approaches: An exploration of validity

Ecological Economics

Volumn 70, Issue 7, 2011, Pages 1250-1258

  Lienhoop, Nele ^a   Ansmann, Till ^a  

^a HELMHOLTZ CENTRE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH UFZ   (Germany)

Author keywords

Contingent behaviour; Contingent valuation; Count data model; Travel cost method; Validity; Water levels changes

Indexed keywords

CONTINGENT VALUATION; ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY; MODEL VALIDATION; RECREATIONAL MANAGEMENT; RESEARCH WORK; RESERVOIR; TRAVEL BEHAVIOR; WATER LEVEL;

EID: 79955082309     PISSN: 09218009     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.02.014     Document Type: Short Survey

References (46)

1. Adamowicz W.L., Louviere J., Williams M. Combining stated and revealed preference methods for valuing environmental amenities. J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 1994, 26:271-296.
2. Adamovicz W.L., Swait J., Boxall P., Louviere J. Perceptions versusu objective measures of environmental qualitz in combined revealed and stated preference models of environmental valuation. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 2007, 32:65-84.
3. Azevedo C.D., Herriges J.A., Kling C.L. Combining revealed and stated preferences: consistency tests and their interpretations. Am. J. Agr. Econ. 2003, 85:525-537.
4. Bateman I., Langford I.H. Budget-constraint, temporal, and question-ordering effects in contingent valuation studies. Environ. Plann. A. 1996, 28:1215-1228.
5. Bockstael N., Strand I., Hanemann W.M. Measuring the Benefits of Water Quality Improvements Using Recreation Demand Models: Part I, EPA-230-10-89-069 1989.
6. Boxall P.C., Englin J., Adamovicz W.L. Valuing aboriginal artifacts: a combined revealed-stated preference approach. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 2003, 45:213-230.
7. Bromley D.W. Property rights and natural resource damage assessment. Ecol. Econ. 1995, 14:129-135.
8. Chakraborty K., Keith J. Estimating the recreation demand and economic value of mountain biking in Moab, Utah: an application of count data models. J. Environ. Plann. Manage. 2000, 43(4):461-469.
9. Clark J., Fiesen L. The causes of order effects in contingent valuation surveys: an experimental investigation. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 2008, 56:195-206.
10. Creel M., Loomis J.B. Theoretical and empirical advantages of truncated count data estimators for analysis of deer hunting in California. Am. J. Agr. Econ. 1990, 72:434-441.
11. Dillman D.A. Mail and telephone surveys. The Total Design Method 1978, John Wiley, and Sons, New York.
12. Eiswerth M.E., Englin J., Fadali E., Shaw W.D. The value of water levels in water-based recreation: a pooled revealed preference/contingent behavior model. Water Resour. Res. 2000, 36(4):1079-1086.
13. Englin J., Cameron T. Augmenting travel cost models with contingent behaviour data. Environ. Resour. Econ. 1996, 7(2):133-147.
14. Englin J., Shonkwiler J.S. Estimating social welfare using count data models: an application to long-run recreation demand under conditions of endogenous stratification and truncation. Rev. Econ. Stat. 1995, 77(1):104-112.
15. Garrod G.D., Willis K.G. Economic Valuation of the Environment 1999, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.
16. Gillig D., Woodward R., Ozuna T., Griffin W.L. Joint estimation of revealed and stated preference data: an application to recreational red snapper valuation. Agr. Resour. Econ. Rev. 2003, 32(2):209-221.
17. Gonzalez J.M., Loomis J.B., Gonzalez-Caban A. A joint estimation method to combine dichotomous choice CVM models with count data TCM Models corrected for truncation and endogenous stratification. J. Agr. Appl. Econ. 2008, 40(2):681-695.
18. Grijalva T.C., Berrens R.P., Bohara A.K., Shaw W.D. Testing the validity of contingent behaviour trip responses. Am. J. Agr. Econ. 2002, 84(2):401-414.
19. Grossmann M. Impacts of boating trip limitations on the recreational value of the Spreewald wetland: a pooled revealed/contingent behaviour application of the travel cost method. J. Environ. Plann. Manage. 2010, 53(8):1-16.
20. Halstead J.M., Huang J.C., Stevens T.H., Harper W. Tinkering with valuation estimates: is there a future for willingness to accept measures? 2002.
21. Hanley N., Bell D., Alvarez-Farizo B. Valuing the benefits of coastal water quality improvements using contingent and real behaviour. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2003, 24:273-285.
22. Harris C.C., Driver B.L., McLaughlin W.J. Improving the contingent valuation method: a psychological perspective. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 1989, 17:213-229.
23. Hensher D., Louviere J., Swait J. Combining sources of preference data. J. Econometrics. 1999, 89:197-221.
24. Herath G.A., Kennedy J. Estimating the economic value of Mount Buffalo National Park with the travel cost and contingent valuation models. Tourism Econ. 2004, 10(1):63-78.
25. Huang J., Haab T.C., Whitehead J.C. Willingness to pay for quality improvements: should revealed and stated preference data be combined?. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 1997, 34:240-255.
26. Jeon Y., Herriges J.A. Convergent validity of contingent behavior responses in models of recreation demand. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2010, 45(2):223-250.
27. Kahneman D., Slovic P., Tversky A. Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases 1982, Cambridge University Press, New York.
28. Kundzewicz Z.W., Mata L.J., Arnell N.W., Döll P., Kabat P., Jiménez B., Miller K.A., Oki T., Sen Z., Shiklomanov I.A. Freshwater resources and their management. Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2007, 173-210. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. M.L. Parry, O.F. Canziani, J.P. Palutikof, P.J. van der Linden, C.E. Hanson (Eds.).
29. Liston-Heyes C., Heyes A. Recreational benefits from the Dartmoor National Park. J. Environ. Manage. 1999, 55(2):69-80.
30. Loomis J.B. Panel estimators to combine revealed and stated preference dichotomous choice data. J. Agr. Econ. 1997, 75:604-611.
31. Loomis J.B. Travel cost demand model based river recreation benefit estimates with on-site and household surveys: comparative results and a correction procedure. Water Resour. Res. 2003, 39(4):1-4.
32. Loomis J.B., Gonzalez-Caban A. How certain are visitors of their economic values of river recreation: an evaluation using repeated questioning and revealed preference. Water Resour. Res. 1997, 33(5):1187-1193.
33. Martínez-Espiñeira R., Amoako-Tuffour J. Multi-destination and multi-purpose trip effects in the analysis of the demand for trips to a remote recreational site. EERI Research Paper Series No 19/2008 2008.
34. Mitchell R.C., Carson R.T. Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Method 1989, Washington, Resources for the Future.
35. NOAA Natural resource damage assessment: proposed rules. Fed. Regist. 1993, 59(5):1062-1191.
36. Payne J.W., Bettman J.R., Schkade D.A. Measuring constructed preferences: towards a building code. J. Risk Uncertainty 1999, 19:243-270.
37. Prayaga P., Rolfe J., Stoeckl N. The value of recreational fishing in the Great Barrier Reef, Australia: a pooled revealed preference and contingent behaviour model. Mar. Policy. 2010, 34(2):244-251.
38. Shaw D. On-site Samples' Regression: Problems of Non-negative Integers, Truncation, and Endogenous Stratification. J. Econometrics 1988, 37:211-223.
39. Shaw W.D., Feather P. Possibilities for including the opportunity costs of time in recreation demand systems. Land Econ. 1999, 75:592-602.
40. Shechter M., Kim M. Valuation of pollution abatement benefits: direct and indirect measurement. J. Urban Econ. 1991, 30:133-151.
41. Sieber H.U. Talsperren als multifunktionale Anlagen. WWT 2003, 12:17-21.
42. Spash C.L., Hanley N. Preferences, information and biodiversity preservation. Ecol. Econ. 1995, 12:191-208.
43. StataCorp Stata Statistical Software 2005, Release 9 - Reference Manual, Stata Multivariate Statistics. College Station, Texas.
44. StataCorp Stata Statistical Software 2005, Software, Release 9 - Reference Manual, Reference R-Z. College Station, Texas.
45. Whitehead J.C., Haab T.C., Huang J.C. Measuring recreation benefits of quality improvements with revealed and stated behaviour data. Resour. Energy Econ. 2000, 22:339-354.
46. Yen S.T., Adamowicz W.L. Statistical properties of welfare measures from count data models of recreation demand. Rev. Agric. Econ. 1993, 15(2):203-215.