Do respondents' perceptions of the status quo matter in non-market valuation with choice experiments? An application to New Zealand freshwater streams

Sustainability

Volumn 3, Issue 9, 2011, Pages 1593-1615

  Marsh, Dan ^a   Mkwara, Lena ^a   Scarpa, Riccardo ^a,b,c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WAIKATO   (New Zealand)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY SYDNEY   (Australia)

^c UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA   (Australia)

Author keywords

Choice experiments; Fixed status quo; Peoples perceived status quo; Status quo effect; Willingness to pay

Indexed keywords

EID: 84859782767     PISSN: 20711050     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3390/su3091593     Document Type: Article

References (63)

1. Gravitas Research and Strategy Ltd. Environmental Awareness, Attitudes and Actions, 2006: A Survey of Residents of the Waikato Region; Environment Waikato: Hamilton, ON, Canada, 2007.
2. Ministry for the Environment. Environment New Zealand 2007; Ministry for the Environment: Wellington, New Zealand, 2008.
3. Environment Waikato. Best Management Practices. Improving Nutrient Efficiency; Environment Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand, 27 August 2009.
4. Louviere, J.; Hensher, D.A. Design and analysis of simulated choice or allocation experiments in travel choice modeling. Transp. Res. Rec. 1982, 890, 11-17.
5. Louviere, J.; Woodworth, G. Design and analysis of simulated consumer choice or allocation experiments: An approach based on aggregate data. J. Mark. Res. 1983, 20, 350-367.
6. Boxall, P.; Adamowicz, W.; Swait, J.; Williams, M.; Louviere, J. A comparison of stated preference methods for environmental valuation. Ecol. Econ. 1996, 18, 243-253.
7. Adamowicz, W.; Boxall, P.; Williams, M.; Louviere, J. Stated preference approaches for measuring passive use values: Choice experiments and contingent valuation. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 1998, 80, 64-75.
8. Brazell, J.D.; Diener, C.G.; Karniouchina, E.; Moore, W.L.; Séverin, V.; Uldry, P. The no-choice option and dual response choice designs. Mark. Lett. 2006, 17, 255-268.
9. 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, 503-519.
10. Breffle, W.S.; Rowe, R.D. Comparing choice question formats for evaluating natural resource tradeoffs. Land Econ. 2002, 78, 298-314.
11. Dhar, R.; Simonson, I. The effect of forced choice on choice. J. Mark. Res. 2003, 40, 146-160.
12. Scarpa, R.; Ferrini, S.; Willis, K. Performance of Error Component Models for Status-Quo Effects in Choice Experiments. In Applications of Simulation Methods in Environmental and Resource Economics; Scarpa, R., Alberini, A., Eds.; Kluwer Acadenic Publishers: London, UK, 2005.
13. Hess, S.; Rose, J.M. Should reference alternatives in pivot design SC surveys be treated differently? Environ. Resour. Econ. 2009, 42, 297-317.
14. Rose, J.M.; Bliemer, M.C.J.; Hensher, D.A.; Collins, A.T. Designing efficient stated choice experiments in the presence of reference alternatives. Transp. Res. Part B 2008, 42, 395-406.
15. Campbell, D.; Hutchinson, W.G.; Scarpa, R. Incorporating discontinuous preferences into the analysis of discrete choice experiments. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2008, 41, 401-417.16.
16. Rose, J.M.; Scarpa, R. Design efficiency for nonmarket valuation with choice modelling: How to measure it, What to report and why. Aust. J. Agric. Resour. Econ. 2008, 52, 253-282.
17. Morrison, M.; Bennett, J. Valuing New South Wales rivers for use in benefit transfer. Aust. J. Agric. Resour. Econ. 2004, 48, 591-611.
18. Kragt, M.E.; Bennett, J.W. Using Choice Experiments to Value River and Estuary Health in Tasmania with Individual Preference Heterogeneity. In Proceedings of the 53rd Annual Conference-Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, Cairns, Australia, 10-13 February 2009.
19. Adamowicz, W.; Louviere, J.; Swait, J. Introduction to Attribute-Based Stated Choice Methods. Final report. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA): Washington, DC, USA, 1998.
20. 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. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 1997, 32, 65-84.
21. Barton, D.N.; Navrud, S.; Lande, N.; Mills, A.B. Assessing Economic Benefits of Good Ecological Status in Lakes under the EU Water Framework Directive. NIVA Report 5732-2009. Norwegian Institute for Water Research (NIVA), Norwegian University of Life Sciences (UMB): Oslo, Norway, 2009.
22. Kataria, M.; Ellingson, L.; Hasler, B.; Nissen, C.; Christensen, T.; Martinsen, L.; Ladenburg, J.; Levin, G.; Dubgaard, A.; Bateman, I.; Hime, S. Scenario Realism and Welfare Estimates in Choice Experiments: Evidence from a Study on Implementation of the European Water Framework Directive in Denmark. In Proceedings of the 17th Annual Conference of the European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 24-27 June 2009.
23. Glenk, K. Using local knowledge to model asymmetric preference formation in willingness to pay for environmental services. J. Environ. Manag. 2011, 92, 531-541.
24. Ortúzar, J.D.; Willumsen, L.G. Modelling Transport; 3rd ed.; John Wiley and Sons: Chichester, UK, 2001.
25. Starmer, C. Developments in non-expected utility theory: The hunt for a descriptive theory of choice under risk. J. Econ. Lit. 2000, 38, 332-382.
26. Kahneman, D.; Tversky, A. Prospect Theory: An analysis of decisions under risk. Econometrica 1979, 47, 263-291.
27. Gilboa, I.; Schmeidler, D.; Wakker, P.P. Utility in case-based decision theory. J. Econ. Theory 2002, 105, 483-502.
28. Adamowicz, V.; Boxall, P. Future Directions of Stated Choice Methods for Environment Valuation. Paper Prepared for: Choice Experiments: A New Approach to Environmental Valuation, London, UK, 2001.
29. Hensher, D.A.; Jones, S.; Greene, W.H. An error component logit analysis of corporate bankruptcy and insolvency risk in Australia. Econ. Rec. 2007, 83, 86-103.
30. Kahneman, D.; Knetsch, J.L.; Thaler, R.H. Anolmalies: The endownment effect, loss aversion and status quo bias. J. Econ. Perspect. 1991, 5, 193-206.31.
31. Samuelson, W.; Zeckhauser, R. Status quo bias in decision making. J. Risk Uncertain. 1988, 1, 7-59.
32. Bateman, I.; Munro, A.; Rhodes, B.; Starmer, C.; Sugden, R. A test of the theory of reference-dependent preferences. Q. J. Econ. 1997, 112, 479-505.
33. Kahneman, D.; Tversky, A. Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 1979, 47, 263-292.
34. Adamowicz, W.; Dupont, D.; Krupnick, A.; Zhang, J. Valuation of cancer and microbial disease risk reductions in municipal drinking water: An analysis of risk context using multiple valuation methods. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 2011, 61, 213-226.
35. Meyerhoff, J.; Liebe, U. Status quo effect in choice experiments: Empirical evidence on attitudes and choice task complexity. Land Econ. 2009, 85, 515-528.
36. Boxall, P.; Adamowicz, W.L.V.; Moon, A. Complexity in choice experiments: Choice of the status quo alternative and implications for welfare measurement. Aust. J. Agric. Resour. Econ. 2009, 53, 503-519.
37. Lehtonen, E.; Kuuluvainen, J.; Pouta, E.; Rekola, M.; Li, C.-Z. Non-market benefits of forest conservation in southern Finland. Environ. Sci. Policy 2003, 6, 195-204.
38. Li, C.-Z.; Kuuluvainen, J.; Pouta, E.; Rekola, M.; Tahvonen, O. Using choice experiments to value the natura 2000 nature conservation programs in Finland. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2004, 29, 361-374.
39. Scarpa, R.; Campbell, D.; Hutchinson, W.G. Benefit estimates for land improvements: Sequential bayesian design amd respondents' rationality in a choice experiment. Land Econ. 2007b, 83, 617-634.
40. Scarpa, R.; Willis, K.G.; Acutt, M. Valuing externalities from water supply: Status quo, choice complexity and individual random effects in panel kernel logit analysis of choice experiments. J. Envrion. Plan. Manag. 2007a, 50, 449-466.
41. Scarpa, R.; Thiene, M.; Marangon, F. Using flexible taste distributions to value collective reputation for environmentally friendly production methods. Can. J. Agric. Econ. 2008, 56, 145-162.
42. Ferrini, S.; Scarpa, R. Designs with a priori information for nonmarket valuation with choice experiments: A monte carlo study. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 2007, 53, 342-363.
43. Hu, W.; Boehle, K.; Cox, L.; Pan, M. Economic values of Dolphin Excursion in Hawaii: A stated analysis. Mar. Resour. Econ. 2009, 24, 61-76.
44. Scarpa, R.; Ferrini, S.; Willis, K. Performance of Error Component Models for Status-Quo Effects in Choice Experiments. In Applications of Simulation Methods in Environmental and Resource Economics; Springer Netherlands: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2005; Volume 6, pp 247-273.
45. Train, K. Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2003.
46. Banzhaf, M.R.; Johnson, F.R.; Mathews, K.E. Opt-Out Alternatives and Anglers' Stated Preferences. In The Choice Modelling Approach to Environmental Valuation, Bennett, J., Blamey, R., Eds.; Edward Elgar: London, UK, 2001; pp 157-177.
47. Revelt, D.; Train, K. Mixed logit with repeated choices: Households' choices of appliance efficiency level. Rev. Econ. Stat. 1998, 80, 647-657.48.
48. Train, K.E. Recreation demand models with taste differences over people. Land Econ. 1998, 74, 230-239.
49. Herriges, J.A.; Phaneuf, D.J. Inducing patterns of correlation and substitution in repeated logit models of recreation demand. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 2002, 84, 1076-1090.
50. Brownstone, D.; Train, K. Forecasting new product penetration with flexible substitution patterns. J. Econ. 1999, 89, 109-129.
51. Ben-Akiva, M.; Bolduc, D.; Walker, J. Specification, identification and estimation of the logit kernel (or continuous mixed logit) model. February 2001, unpublished.
52. Hensher, D.A.; Rose, J.M.; Greene, W.H. Applied Choice Analysis; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2005.
53. Hensher, D.; Greene, W. The Mixed logit model: The state of practice. Transportation 2003, 30, 133-176.
54. Thiene, M.; Scarpa, R. Deriving and testing efficient estimates of WTP distributions in destination choice models. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2009, 44, 379-395.
55. Chambers, J.; William, C.; Beat, K.; Paul, T. Graphical Methods for Data Analysis; Wadsworth Publishing: Stamford, CT, USA, 1983.
56. Krueger, R.A. Focus Groups. A Practical Guide for Applied Research; SAGE: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 1994.
57. Bell, B.; Yap, M. The Rotorua Lakes. Evaluation of Less Tangible Values; Nimmo-Bell & Company: Wellington, New Zealand, 2004.
58. Kerr, G.N.; Swaffield, S.R. Amenity Values of Spring Fed Streams and Rivers in Canterbury, New Zealand: A Methodological Exploration. Research report, No. 298. Lincoln University, Agribusiness and Economics Research Unit: Canterbury, New Zealand, November 2007.
59. Environment Waikato Stream and River Life. Available online: http://www.ew.govt.nz/Environmental-information/Rivers-lakes-and-wetlands/healthyrivers/Stream-and-river-life/ (accessed on 7 September 2011).
60. Joy, M. A Predictive Model of Fish Distribution and Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) for Wadeable Streams in the Waikato Region; Environment Waikato: Hamilton, ON, Canada, 2005.
61. Loomes, G.; Sugden, R. Regret theory: An alternative theory of rational choice under uncertainty. Econ. J. 1982, 92, 805-824.
62. Poe, G.L.; Severance-Lossin, E.K.; Welsh, M.P. Measuring the difference (X-Y) of simulated distributions: A convolutions approach. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 1994, 76, 904-915.
63. Tukey, J. Exploratory Data Analysis; Addison-Wesley: Boston, MA, USA, 1977.