An introduction to choice modeling for non-market valuation

Handbook on Contingent Valuation

Volumn , Issue , 2006, Pages 153-176

  Stewart, Steven ^a   Kahn, James R ^b,c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA   (United States)

^b WASHINGTON AND LEE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c FEDERAL UNIVERSITY OF AMAZONAS   (Brazil)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84881689315     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: None     Document Type: Chapter

References (42)

1. Adamowicz, W., J. Louviere and M. Williams (1994), 'Combining revealed and stated preference methods for valuing environmental amenities', Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 26, 271-92.
2. Adamowicz, W., J. Swait, P. Boxall, J. Louviere and M. Williams (1997), 'Perceptions versus objective measures of environmental quality in combined revealed and stated preference models of environmental valuation', Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 32(1), 65-84.
3. Alberini, A. (1995), 'Optimal designs for discrete choice contingent valuation surveys: singlebound, double-bound, and bivariate models', Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 28, 287-306.
4. Alwin, Duane F. and Jon A. Krosnick (1985), 'The measurement of values in surveys: a comparison of ratings and rankings', Public Opinion Quarterly, 49, 535-52.
5. Ben-Akiva, M. and S.R. Lerman (1985), Discrete Choice Analysis: Theory and Application to Travel Demand, Boston, MA: MIT Press.
6. Ben-Akiva, Moshe, Takayuki Morikawa and Fumiaki Shiroishi (1991), 'Analysis of the reliability of preference ranking data', Journal of Business Research, 24, 149-64.
7. Bjornstad, David J. and James R. Kahn (1996), The Contingent Valuation of Environmental Resources: Methodological Issues and Research Needs, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
8. Bockstael, Nancy and Kenneth McConnell (2002), 'The behavioral basis of non-market valuation', in Joseph Herriges and Catherine Kling (eds), Valuing Recreation and the Environment, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
9. Boyle, K. (1990), 'Dichotomous choice contingent valuation questions: functional form is important', Northeastern Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 19, 125-31.
10. Boxall, Peter C., Wiktor L. Adamowicz, Joffre Swait, Michael Williams and Jordan Louviere (1996), 'A comparison of stated preference methods for environmental valuation', Ecological Economics, 18, 243-53.
11. Cameron, T. (1988), 'A new paradigm for valuing non-market goods using referendum data: maximum likelihood estimation by censored logistic regression', Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 15(3), 355-79.
12. Casey, James, James R. Kahn and Alexandre Rivas (2005) (unpublished), 'Is environmental preservation a luxury good? Evidence from the Ribeirinho Communities of Amazonas', Brazil.
13. Cooper, J.C. (1993), 'Optimal bid selection for dichotomous contingent valuation surveys', Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 24, 25-40.
14. Deaton, Angus (1997), The Analysis of Household Surveys, Johns Hopkins for the World Bank.
15. Dillman, Don A. (2000), Mail and Internet Surveys: The Tailored Design Method, New York: Wiley.
16. Elrod, Terry, Jordan J. Louviere and Krishnakumar S. Davey (1992), 'An empirical comparison of ratings-based and choice-based conjoint models', Journal of Marketing Research, 29 (August), 368-77.
17. Feather, N.T. (1973), 'The measurement of values', Journal of Psychology, 5, 221-31.
18. Freeman, A. Myrick (1993), The Measurement of Environmental and Resource Values, Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.
19. Hannemann M. and B.J. Kanninen (1998), 'The statistical analysis of discrete response contingent valuation data', in I.J. Bateman and K.G. Willis (eds), Contingent Valuation of Environmental Practices: Assessing Theory and Practice in the USA, Europe, and Developing Countries, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
20. Huber, Joel (1987), 'Conjoint analysis: how we got here and where we are', in Sawtooth Software Conference Proceedings.
21. Johnson, F.R., D.J. MacNair and E.E. Fries (1997), 'Ill-considered values: contingent valuation in light of evidence from multiple-response stated-preference surveys', in Britt-Marie Drottz Sjoberg (ed.), Proceedings of the 1997 Annual Meeting of the Society for RiskAnalysis, Stockholm: Society for Risk Analysis.
22. Kalish, Shlomo and Paul Nelson (1991), 'A comparison of rating, ranking and reservation price measurement in conjoint analysis', Marketing Letters, 2(4), 327-35.
23. Kanninen, B.J. (1993), 'Design of sequential experiments for contingent valuation studies', Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 25, S-1-S-11.
24. Krosnick, Jon A. and Duane F. Alwin (1988), 'A test of the form-resistant correlation hypothesis', Public Opinion Quarterly, 52, 526-38.
25. Kuffeld, Warren F. (2004), 'Marketing research methods in SAS: experimental design, choice, conjoint, and graphical techniques', available on the web at: http://support.sas.com/techsup/technote/ts694.pdf.
26. Lancaster, Kelvin J. (1966), 'A new approach to consumer theory', Journal of Political Economy, 74, 132-56.
27. Lancaster, K. (1971), Consumer Demand: A New Approach, New York: Columbia University Press.
28. Loomis, J. and M. Haefele (2001), 'Improving statistical efficiency and testing robustness of conjoint marginal valuations', American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 83(5), 1321-7.
29. Louviere, J., D. Henscher and J. Swait (2000), Stated Choice Methods-Analysis and Application, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
30. Louviere, J., M. Fox and W. Moore (1993), 'Cross-task validity comparisons of stated preference choice models', Marketing Letters, 4(3), 205-13.
31. Louviere, J. and Gary J. Gaeth (1988), 'A comparison of rating and choice responses in conjoint tasks', Proceedings of the Sawtooth Software Conference on Perceptual Mapping, Conjoint Analysis and Computer Interviewing, 59-73.
32. Mackenzie, John (1993), 'A comparison of contingent preference models', American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 75 (August), 593-603.
33. McFadden, Daniel (1974), 'Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior', in P. Zarembka (ed.), Frontiers in Econometrics, New York: Academic Press, pp. 105-42.
34. Matthews, Kristy, F. Reed Johnson, Richard W. Dunford and William Desvousges (1998), 'The potential role of conjoint analysis in natural resource damage assessments', Triangle Economic Research working paper.
35. Morrison, Mark (2002), 'Choice modeling and tests of benefit transfer', American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 84(1), 161-70.
36. Roe, Brian, Kevin J. Boyle and Mario F. Teisl (1996), 'Using conjoint analysis to derive estimates of compensating variation', Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 31(2), 145-159.
37. Stevens, T.H., Christopher Barret and Cleve Willis (1997), 'Conjoint analysis of groundwater protection programs', Agriculture and Resource Economics Review, October, 229-36.
38. Stevens, T.H., R. Belkner, D. Dennis, D. Kittredge and C. Willis (2000), 'Comparison of contingent valuation and conjoint analysis for ecosystem management', Ecological Economics, 32(1), 63-74.
39. Stewart, Steven, James R. Kahn, Amy Wolf, Robert V. O'Neill, Victor B. Serviss, Randall Bruins and Matthew Heberling (2005), 'Valuing biodiversity in a rural valley: Clinch and Powell River Watershed', in R. Bruins and M. Heberling, Economics and Ecological Risk Assessment: Applications to Watershed Management, New York: CRC Press, pp. 253-90.
40. Swallow, Stephen K., James J. Opaluch and Thomas F. Weaver (1992), 'Siting noxious facilities: an approach that integrates technical, economic, and political considerations', Land Economics, 68(3), 283-301.
41. Taylor, Laura, Kevin Boyle and Mark Morrison (2004), unpublished manuscript, Georgia State University.
42. Thurstone, Louis (1927), 'A law of comparative judgment', Psychological Review, 34, 273-86.