Temporal stability of preferences and willingness to pay for natural areas in choice experiments: A test-retest

Resource and Energy Economics

Volumn 38, Issue , 2014, Pages 243-260

  Schaafsma, Marije ^a   Brouwer, Roy ^b   Liekens, Inge ^c   de Nocker, Leo ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF EAST ANGLIA   (United Kingdom)

^b VU UNIVERSITY AMSTERDAM   (Netherlands)

^c FLEMISH INSTITUTE FOR TECHNOLOGICAL RESEARCH VITO   (Belgium)

Author keywords

Choice experiment; Preference stability; Temporal reliability; Test retest

Indexed keywords

CHOICE EXPERIMENTS; NATURAL AREAS; TEMPORAL RELIABILITY; TEMPORAL STABILITY; TEST-RETEST; WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; EXPERIMENTAL STUDY; MODEL TEST; PLANNING METHOD; POLICY APPROACH; PREFERENCE BEHAVIOR; WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

EID: 84907983105     PISSN: 09287655     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.reseneeco.2014.09.001     Document Type: Article

References (54)

1. Adamowicz W., Swait J., Louviere J. Combining revealed and stated preference methods for valuing environmental amenities. J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 1994, 26(3):271-292.
2. Arrow K., Solow R., Portney P.R., Leamer E.E., Radner R., Schuman H. Report of the NOAA Panel on contingent valuation. Federal Register 1993, 58(10):4601-4614.
3. Bateman I.J., Day B.H., Georgiou S., Lake I. The aggregation of environmental benefit values: welfare measures, distance decay and total WTP. Ecol. Econ. 2006, 60(2):450-460.
4. Bateman I.J., Brouwer R., Ferrini S., Schaafsma M., Barton D.N., Dubgaard A., Hasler B., Hime S., Liekens I., Navrud S., De Nocker L., Sceponaviciute R., Semeniene D. Making benefit transfers work: deriving and testing principles for value transfers for similar and dissimilar sites using a case study of the non-market benefits of water quality improvements across Europe. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2011, 50(3):365-387.
5. Berrens R.P., Bohara A.K., Silva C.L., Brookshire D., McKee M. Contingent values for New Mexico instream flows: with tests of scope, group-size reminder and temporal reliability. J. Environ. Manage. 2000, 58:73-90.
6. Bliem M., Getzner M., Rodiga-Laßnig P. Temporal stability of individual preferences for river restoration in Austria using a choice experiment. J. Environ. Manage. 2012, 103:65-73.
7. Brouwer R. Environmental value transfer: state of the art and future prospects. Ecol. Econ. 2000, 32(1):137-152.
8. Brouwer R., Bateman I.J. Benefits transfer of willingness to pay estimates and functions for health-risk reductions: a cross-country study. J. Health Econ. 2005, 24:591-611.
9. Brouwer R. Do stated preference methods stand the test of time? A test of the stability of contingent values and models for health risks when facing an extreme event. Ecol. Econ. 2006, 60:399-406.
10. Brouwer R. The role of stated preference methods in the Water Framework Directive to assess disproportionate costs. J. Environ. Plan. Manage. 2008, 51(5):597-614.
11. Brouwer R., van Beukering P., Sultanian E. The impact of the bird flu on public willingness to pay for the protection of migratory birds. Ecol. Econ. 2008, 64(3):575-585.
12. Brouwer R., Dekker T., Rolfe J., Windle J. Choice certainty and consistency in repeated choice experiments. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2010, 46(1):93-109.
13. Brouwer R. Constructed preference stability: a test-retest. J. Environ. Econ. Policy 2012, 1(1):70-84.
14. Bryan S., Gold L., Sheldon R., Buxton M. Preference measurement using conjoint methods: an empirical investigation of reliability. Health Econ. 2000, 9(5):385-395.
15. Campbell D., Hutchinson W.G., Scarpa R. Using choice experiments to explore the spatial distribution of willingness to pay for rural landscape improvements. Environ. Plan. A 2009, 41:97-111.
16. Carson R.T., Mitchell R.C. The value of clean water: the public's willingness to pay for boatable, fishable, and swimmable quality water. Water Resour. Res. 1993, 29(7):2445-2454.
17. Colombo S., Calatrava-Requena J., Hanley N. Testing choice experiment for benefit transfer with preference heterogeneity. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 2007, 89(1):135-151.
18. Colombo S., Hanley N. How can we reduce the errors from benefits transfer? An investigation using the choice experiment method. Land Econ. 2008, 84(1):128-147.
19. Day B., Bateman I.J., Carson R.T., Dupont D., Louviere J.J., Morimoto S., Scarpa R., Wang P. Ordering effects and choice set awareness in repeat-response stated preference studies. J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 2012, 63(1):73-91.
20. De Saeger S., Ameeuw G., Berten B., Bosch H., Brichau I., De Knijf G., Demolder H., Erens G., Guelinckx R., Oosterlynck P., Rombouts K., Scheldeman K., T'jollyn F., Van Hove M., Van Ormelingen J., Vriens L., Zwaenepoel A., Van Dam G., Verheirstraeten M., Wils C., Paelinckx D. Biologische Waarderingskaart versie 2.2. Rapporten van het Instituut voor Natuur- en Bosonderzoek 2010, 36. Instituut voor Natuur- en Bosonderzoek, Brussel, (in Dutch).
21. Fetene G.M., Olsen S.B., Bonnichsen O. Disentangling the pure time effect from site and preference heterogeneity effects in benefit transfer: an empirical investigation of transferability. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2014, 1-29.
22. Foster V., Mourato S. Elicitation format and sensitivity to scope. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2003, 24:141-160.
23. Hanley N., Schlapfer F., Spurgeon J. Aggregating the benefits of environmental improvements: distance-decay functions for use and non-use values. J. Environ. Manage. 2003, 68(3):297-304.
24. Hole A.R. Modelling heterogeneity in patients' preferences for the attributes of a general practitioner appointment. J. Health Econ. 2008, 27(4):1078-1094.
25. Holmes T.P., Boyle K.J. Dynamic learning and context-dependence in sequential, attribute-based, stated-preference valuation questions. Land Econ. 2005, 81(1):114-126.
26. Jiang Y., Swallow S.K., McGonagle M. Context-sensitive benefit transfer using stated choice models: specification and convergent validity for policy analysis. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2005, 31:477-499.
27. Jin J., Wang Z., Ran S. Comparison of contingent valuation and choice experiment in solid waste management programs in Macao. Ecol. Econ. 2006, 57(3):430-441.
28. Johnston R.J., Opaluch J.J., Grigalunas T.A., Mazzota M.J. Estimating amenity benefits from coastal farmland. Growth Change 2001, 32(3):305-325.
29. Johnston R.J. Choice experiments, site similarity and benefits transfer. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2007, 38:331-351.
30. Johnston R.J., Duke J.M. Socioeconomic adjustments and choice experiment benefit function transfer: evaluating the common wisdom. Resour. Energy Econ. 2010, 32:421-438.
31. Johnston R.J., Rosenberger R. Methods, trends and controversy in contemporary benefit transfer. J. Econ. Surv. 2010, 24(3):479-510.
32. Krinsky I., Robb A.L. On approximating the statistical properties of elasticities. Rev. Econ. Stat. 1986, 68(4):715-719.
33. Liebe U., Meyerhoff J., Hartje V. Test-retest reliability of choice experiments in environmental valuation. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2012, 10.1007/s10640-012-9567-1.
34. Liekens I., Schaafsma M., De Nocker L., Broekx S., Staes J., Aerts J., Brouwer R. Developing a value function for nature development in Flanders, Belgium. Land Use Policy 2013, 30:549-559.
35. Liu S., Portela R., Rao N., Ghermandi A., Wang X. 12.04 - Environmental benefit transfers of ecosystem service valuation. Treatise on Estuarine and Coastal Science 2011, 55-77. Academic Press, Waltham. E. Wolanski, D. McLusky (Eds.).
36. Louviere J.J., Hensher D.A., Swait J.F. Stated Choice Methods: Analysis and Applications 2000, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
37. Luisetti T., Bateman I.J., Turner R.K. Testing the fundamental assumption of choice experiments: are values absolute or relative?. Land Econ. 2011, 87(2):284-296.
38. Mallawaarachchi T., Morrison M.D., Blamey R.K. Choice modelling to determine the significance of environmental amenity and production alternatives in the community value of peri-urban land: Sunshine Coast, Australia. Land Use Policy 2006, 23:323-332.
39. McConnell K.E., Strand I.E., Valdeãs S. Testing temporal reliability and carryover effect: the role of correlated responses in test-retest reliability studies. Environ. Resour. Econ. 1998, 12:357-374.
40. McFadden D. Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behaviour. Frontiers in Econometrics 1974, 105-142. Academic Press, New York, USA. P. Zarembka (Ed.).
41. Morrison M., Bennett J., Blamey R., Louviere J. Choice modelling and tests of benefit transfer. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 2002, 84:161-170.
42. Morrison M., Bennett J. Valuing New South Wales rivers for use in benefits transfer. Aust. J. Agric. Resour. Econ. 2004, 48(4):591-611.
43. Navrud S., Ready R. Lessons learned for environmental value transfer. Enviromental Value Transfer: Issues and Methods 2007, 283-290. Springer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands. S. Navrud, R. Ready (Eds.).
44. Poe G.L., Giraud K.L., Loomis J.B. Computational methods for measuring the difference of empirical distributions. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 2005, 87(2):353-365.
45. Ryan M., Netten A., Skatun D., Smith P. Using discrete choice experiments to estimate a preference-based measure of outcome-an application to social care for older people. J. Health Econ. 2006, 25(5):927-944.
46. Ryan M., Watson V. Comparing welfare estimates from payment card contingent valuation and discrete choice experiments. Health Econ. 2009, 18(4):389-401.
47. Scarpa R. Contingent valuation versus choice experiments: estimating the benefits of environmentally sensitive areas in Scotland: Comment. J. Agric. Econ. 2000, 51(1):122-128.
48. Scarpa R., Ferrini S., Willis K. Performance of error component models for status-quo effects in choice experiments. Applications of Simulation Methods in Environmental and Resource Economics 2005, 247-273. Springer, Dordrecht, the Netherlands. R. Scarpa, A. Alberini (Eds.).
49. Schaafsma M., Brouwer R., Rose J. Directional heterogeneity in WTP models for environmental valuation. Ecol. Econ. 2012, 79:21-31.
50. Sevenant M., Antrop M. Cognitive attributes and aesthetic preferences in assessment and differentiation of landscapes. J. Environ. Manage. 2009, 90(9):2889-2899.
51. Skjoldborg U.S., Lauridsen J., Junker P. Reliability of the discrete choice experiment at the input and output level in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Value Health 2009, 12(1):153-158.
52. Swait J., Louviere J.J. The role of the scale parameter in the estimation and comparison of multinational logit models. J. Marketing Res. 1993, 30(3):305-314.
53. Vossler C.A., Doyon M., Rondeau D. Truth in consequentiality: theory and field evidence on discrete choice experiments. Am. Econ. J.: Microecon. 2012, 4(4):145-171.
54. Whitehead J.C., Hoban T.J. Testing for temporal reliability in contingent valuation with time for changes in factors affecting demand. Land Econ. 1999, 75(3):453-465.