Scenario realism and welfare estimates in choice experiments - A non-market valuation study on the European water framework directive

Journal of Environmental Management

Volumn 94, Issue 1, 2012, Pages 25-33

  Kataria, M ^a,e   Bateman, I ^b   Christensen, T ^c   Dubgaard, A ^c   Hasler, B ^a   Hime, S ^b,f   Ladenburg, J ^d   Levin, G ^a   Martinsen, L ^a   Nissen, C ^c,g  

^a NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (Denmark)

^b UNIVERSITY OF EAST ANGLIA   (United Kingdom)

^c UNIVERSITY OF COPENHAGEN   (Denmark)

^d DANISH INSTITUTE OF GOVERNMENTAL RESEARCH   (Denmark)

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

^f Eftec   (United Kingdom)

^g Danish Plant Directorate   (Denmark)

Author keywords

Choice experiment; Follow up question; WFD; WTP

Indexed keywords

ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS;

CHOICE EXPERIMENTS; ECONOMIC VALUATION; EUROPEAN WATER FRAMEWORK DIRECTIVE; EXPERIMENT DATA; FOLLOW UP; FOLLOW-UP QUESTION; NON-MARKET VALUATION; WATERBODIES; WFD; WTP;

WATER CONSERVATION;

WATER;

ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS; EXPERIMENTAL STUDY; PUBLIC ATTITUDE; REGULATORY FRAMEWORK; THEORETICAL STUDY; VALUATION; WATER MANAGEMENT; WELFARE ECONOMICS;

ADULT; ARTICLE; DESCRIPTIVE RESEARCH; ECONOMIC EVALUATION; ENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMICS; ENVIRONMENTAL PARAMETERS; FEMALE; HEALTH SURVEY; HUMAN; INFORMATION PROCESSING; MALE; SOCIAL BELIEF; STATISTICAL MODEL; WATER QUALITY; WELFARE ESTIMATE;

EUROPE;

EID: 81455141359     PISSN: 03014797     EISSN: 10958630     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2011.08.010     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. Adamowicz W., Swait J., Boxall P., Louviere J., Williams M. Perceptions versus objective measures of environmental quality in combined Revealed and Stated Preference models of environmental valuation. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 1997, 32(1):65-84.
2. Burghart D.R., Cameron T.A., Gerdes G.R. Valuing publicly sponsored research projects: risks, scenario adjustments, and inattention. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 2007, 35:77-105.
3. Blomquist G.C., Whitehead J.C. Resource quality information and validity of willingness to pay in contingent valuation. Resource and Energy Economics 1998, 20:179-196.
4. Boyle K.J., Bergström J.C. Doubt, doubts, and doubters: the genesis of a new research agenda?. Valuing Environmental Preferences: Theory and Practice of the Contingent Valuation method in the US, EU and Developing Countries 1999, 183-207. Oxford University Press. I. Bateman, K. Willis (Eds.).
5. Cameron T.A., DeShazo J.R., Johnson E.H. Scenario adjustment in stated preference research 2007, Working Paper, Department of Economics, University of Oregon.
6. Crocker T.D., Shogren J.F., Turner P.R. Incomplete beliefs and nonmarket valuation. Resource and Energy Economics 1998, 20:139-162.
7. DeShazo J.R., Cameron T.A. The effect of health status on willingness to pay for morbidity and mortality risk reductions 2005, Working Paper, Department of Economics, University of Oregon.
8. Festinger L. A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance 1957, Stanford University Press, Stanford.
9. Fischhoff B., Welch N., Frederick S. Construal processes in preference assessment. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 1999, 19:139-164.
10. Groothuis P.A., Whitehead J.C. The provision point mechanism and scenario rejection in contingent valuation. Agricultural and Resource Economic Review 2009, 38(22):271-280.
11. Hanley N., Wright R.E., Alvarez-Farizo B. Estimating the economic value of improvements in river ecology using choice experiments: an application to water framework directive. Journal of Environmental Management 2006, 78:183-193.
12. Hime S., Bateman I.J. A transferable water quality ladder for conveying use and ecological information within public surveys 2008, CSERGE, University of East Anglia.
13. Kataria M. Willingness to pay for environmental improvements in hydropower regulated rivers. Energy Economics 2009, 31:69-76.
14. Kuhfeld W. Multinomial Logit, Discrete Choice Modeling: An Introduction to Designing Choice Experiment and Collecting, Processing and Analyzing Choice Data with SAS 2001, SAS Institute, TS-643.
15. Louviere J.J. Analyzing Decision Making: Metric Conjoint Analysis 1988, Sage, Newbury Park.
16. Manski C. Analysis of choice expectations in incomplete scenarios. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 1999, 19:49-66.
17. Munroe A., Hanley N.D. The impacts of information, uncertainty, and contingent valuation. Valuing Environmental Preferences: Theory and Practice of the Contingent Valuation method in the US, EU and Developing Countries 1999, 258-280. Oxford University Press. I. Bateman, K. Willis (Eds.).
18. Sagoff M. Some problems with environmental economics. Environmental Ethics 1988, 10:55-74.
19. Thompson V.A. Reasoning from false premises: the role of soundness in making logical deductions. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology 1996, 50(3):315-319.
20. Train K. Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation 2003, Cambridge University Press, New York.
21. Viscusi W.K., Huber J.C. Hyperbolic discounting of public goods 2006, NBER Working Paper No. W11935. Available at:. http://ssrn.com/abstract=876038.