Choice experiment, multiple programmes contingent valuation and landscape preferences: How can we support the land use decision making process?

Land Use Policy

Volumn 29, Issue 4, 2012, Pages 846-854

  Dachary Bernard, Jeanne ^a   Rambonilaza, Tina ^a  

^a CEMAGREF   (France)

Author keywords

Additivity bias; Benefit cost analysis; Environmental valuation; Land use management; Rural landscape demand

Indexed keywords

AGRICULTURAL LAND; CONTINGENT VALUATION; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DECISION MAKING; ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY; LAND USE PLANNING; LANDSCAPE PLANNING; RURAL LANDSCAPE; WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

EID: 84857802149     PISSN: 02648377     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2012.01.002     Document Type: Article

References (49)

1. Abler D. Multifunctionality, land use and agricultural policy. Land Use Problems and Conflicts 2005, Routledge, New York, NY. S. Goetz, J. Shortle, J. Bergstrom (Eds.).
2. Adamowicz W., Louviere J., Williams M. Combining revealed and stated preference methods for valuing environmental amenities. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 1994, 26:271-292.
3. Adamowicz W., Boxall P., Williams M., Louviere J. Stated preference approaches for measuring passive use values: choice experiments and contingent valuation. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 1998, 80:64-75.
4. Arrow K., Cropper M., Eads G., Hahn R., Lave L., Noll R., Portney P., Russell M., Schmalensee R., Smith K., Stavins R. Is there a role for benefit-cost analysis in environmental, health, and safety regulation?. Science 1996, 272:221-222.
5. Bateman I.J., Cole M., Cooper P., Georgiou S., Hadley D., Poe G.L. On visible choice sets and scope sensitivity. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 2004, 47:71-93.
6. Bateman I.J., Day B.H., Jones A.P., Jude S. Reducing gain-loss asymmetry: a virtual reality choice experiment valuing land use change. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 2009, 58:106-118.
7. Bech M., Gyrd-Hansen D. Effects coding in discrete choice experiments. Health Economics 2005, 14:1079-1083.
8. Bennett J., Blamey R. The Choice Modelling Approach to Environmental Valuation 2001, Edward Edgar Publishing, Cheltenham, UK, p. 261.
9. Bergstrom J., Ready R. What have we learned from over 20 years of farmland amenity valuation research in North America?. Review of Agricultural Economics 2009, 31:21-49.
10. Cameron T.A. A new paradigm for valuing non-market goods using referendum data: maximum likelihood estimation by censored logistic regression. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 1988, 15:355-379.
11. Cameron T.A. Cameron's censored logistic regression model: reply. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 1991, 20:303-304.
12. Campbell, D., Hutchinson, W.G., Scarpa, R., 2006. Lexicographic preferences in discrete choice experiments: consequences on individual-specific willingness to pay estimates. Working paper no. 128, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei, Milan.
13. Carson R.T., Mitchell R.M. Sequencing and nesting in contingent valuation surveys. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 1995, 28:155-173.
14. Carson R.T., Groves T. Incentive and informational properties of preference questions. Environmental and Resource Economics 2007, 37:181-210.
15. Caussade S., De Dios Ortúzar J., Rizzi L.I., Hensher D.A. Assessing the influence of design dimensions on stated choice experiments estimates. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological 2005, 39:621-640.
16. Christie M. A comparison of alternative contingent valuation elicitation treatments for the evaluation of complex environmental policy. Journal of Environmental Management 2001, 62:255-269.
17. Christie M., Azevedo C. Testing the consistency between standard contingent valuation, repeated contingent valuation and choice experiments. Journal of Agricultural Economics 2009, 60:154-170.
18. Colombo S., Calatrava-Requena J., Hanley N. Analysing the social benefits of soil conservation measures using stated preference methods. Ecological Economics 2006, 58:850-861.
19. Colombo S., Hanley N., Louviere J. Modeling preference heterogeneity in stated choice data: an analysis for public goods generated by agriculture. Agricultural Economics 2009, 40:307-322.
20. Cooper J.C. Optimal bid selection for dichotomous choice contingent valuation surveys. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 1993, 24:25-40.
21. Duke J., Johnston J. Multifunctionality and land use policy: an application of nonmarket valuation to urban fringe farm and forest preservation. New Perspectives on Agri-Environmental Policies; A Multidisciplinary and Transatlantic Approach 2009, Taylor & Francis Group, UK, Routledge. S. Goetz, F. Brouwer (Eds.).
22. European Commission, 2011. The future of rural development policy. Agricultural Policy Brief, vol. 4, p. 7.
23. European Commission, 2005. Agri-environment measures, overview on general principles, types of measures, and application. Available online: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/publi/reports/.
24. Foster V., Mourato S. Elicitation format and sensitivity to scope. Environmental and Resource Economics 2003, 24:141-160.
25. Hanemann W.M. Welfare evaluations in contingent valuation experiments with discrete responses. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 1984, 66:332-341.
26. Hanemann, W.M., Kanninen, B., 1998. The statistical analysis of discrete-response CV data. Working paper no. 798, California Agricultural Experiment Station, Giannini Foundation of Agricultural Economics, University of Berkeley, Berkeley, California.
27. Hanley N., Barbier E. Pricing Nature, Cost-Benefit Analysis and Environmental Policy 2010, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK, p. 360.
28. Hanley N., Ready R., Colombo S., Watson F., Stewart M., Bergmann E.A. The impacts of knowledge of the past on preferences for future landscape change. Journal of Environmental Management 2009, 90:1404-1412.
29. Hanley N., Macmillan D., Wright R.E., Bullock C., Simpson I., Parsisson D., Crabtree B. Contingent valuation versus choice experiments: estimating the benefits of environmentally sensitive areas in Scotland. Journal of Agricultural Economics 1998, 49:1-15.
30. Hoehn J. Valuing the multidimensional impacts of environmental policy: theory and methods. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 1991, 73:289-299.
31. Hynes S., Campbell D., Howley P. A holistic vs. an attribute-based approach to agri-environmental policy valuation: do welfare estimates differ?. Journal of Agricultural Economics 2011, 62:305-329.
32. Jin J., Wang Z., Ran S. Comparison of contingent valuation and choice experiment in solid waste management programs in Macao. Ecological Economics 2006, 57:430-441.
33. Krinsky I., Robb L.A. On approximating in statistical properties of elasticities. Review of economics and statistics 1981, 68:715-719.
34. Kuhfeld, W.F., 2005. Experimental design and choice modelling macros. SAS technical support document, SAS website: http://support.sas.com/.
35. Louviere J., Woodworth G. Design and analysis of simulated consumer choice or allocation experiments: an approach based on aggregate data. Journal of Marketing Research 1983, 20:350-367.
36. Louviere J. Conjoint analysis. Advances in Marketing Research 1994, Blackwell publishers, Cambridge, MA. R. Bagozzi (Ed.).
37. Mogas J., Riera P., Bennett J. A comparison of contingent valuation and choice modelling with second order interactions. Journal of Forest Economics 2006, 12:5-30.
38. Morrison M., Bennett J., Blamey R. Valuing improved wetland quality using choice modelling. Water Resources Research 1999, 35:2805-2814.
39. OECD, 2001. Environmental Impacts of Agriculture, Paris.
40. OECD, 1999. Cultivating Rural Amenities: An Economic Development Perspective, Paris.
41. Pearce D. Environmental appraisal and environmental policy in the European Union. Environmental and Resource Economics 1998, 11:489-501.
42. Poe G.L, Severance-Lossin E.K., Welsh M.P. Measuring the difference (X-Y) of simulated distributions: a convolutions approach. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 1994, 76:904-915.
43. Powe N.A., Bateman I.J. Ordering effects in nested 'top-down' and 'bottom-up' contingent valuation designs. Ecological Economics 2003, 45:255-270.
44. Prato T. Multiple attribute evaluation of landscape management. Journal of Environmental Management 2000, 60:325-337.
45. Santos J.M.L. The Economic Valuation of Landscape Change 1998, Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, UK, p. 284.
46. Sayadi S., González-Roa M.C., Calatrava-Requena J. Public preferences for landscape features: the case of agricultural landscape in mountainous Mediterranean areas. Land Use Policy 2009, 26(2):334-344.
47. Turner R.K. Limits to CBA in UK and European environmental policy: retrospects and future prospects. Environmental and Resource Economics 2007, 37:253-269.
48. Waltert F., Schulz T., Schläpfer F. The role of landscape amenities in regional development: evidence from Swiss municipality data. Land Use Policy 2011, 28:748-776.
49. Zwerina, K., Huber, J., Kuhfeld, W.F. 1996. A general method for constructing efficient choice designs. SAS Technical Support Documents - Statistical & Marketing Research no. TS-650D, SAS Institute Inc.