Dealing with Uncertainty in Public Preferences for Rural Development Policies: A Contingent Valuation Survey

Regional Studies

Volumn 49, Issue 4, 2015, Pages 555-567

  Domínguez Torreiro, Marcos ^a   Soliño, Mario ^b  

^a Cantabrian Agricultural Research Centre   (Spain)

^b Instituto Nacional de Investigación y Tecnología Agraria y Alimentaria   (Spain)

Author keywords

Contingent valuation; Regional rural development; Rural amenities; Uncertainty

Indexed keywords

EID: 84923553960     PISSN: 00343404     EISSN: 13600591     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/00343404.2013.783694     Document Type: Article

References (43)

1. Abler, D. (2004) Multifunctionality, agricultural policy, and environmental policy, Agricultural and Resource Economics Review 33(1), 8–17.
2. Alberini, A., Boyle, K. and Welsh, M. (2003) Analysis of contingent valuation data with multiple bids and response options allowing respondents to express uncertainty, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 45(1), 40–62. doi: 10.1016/S0095-0696(02)00010-4
3. Álvarez-Farizo, B., Hanley, N., Wright, R.E. and Macmillan, D. (1999) Estimating the benefits of agri-environmental policy: econometric issues in open-ended contingent valuation studies, Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 42(1), 23–43. doi: 10.1080/09640569911280
4. Bateman, I.J., Carson, R.T., Day, B., Hanemann, M., Hanley, N., Hett, T., Jones-Lee, M., Loomes, G., Mourato, S., Özdemiroglu, E., Pearce, D.W., Sugden, R. and Swanson, J. (2002) Economic Valuation with Stated Preference Techniques: A Manual. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.
5. Broberg, T. and Brännlund, R. (2008) An alternative interpretation of multiple bounded WTP data – certainty dependent payment card intervals, Resource and Energy Economics 30, 555–567. doi: 10.1016/j.reseneeco.2008.09.001
6. Bromley, D.W. and Hodge, I. (1990) Private property rights and presumptive policy entitlements: reconsidering the premises of rural policy, European Review of Agricultural Economics 17, 197–214. doi: 10.1093/erae/17.2.197
7. Cameron, T.A. and Huppert, D.D. (1989) OLS versus ML estimation of non-market resource values with payment card interval data, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 17, 230–246. doi: 10.1016/0095-0696(89)90018-1
8. Cameron, T.A., Poe, G.L., Ethier, R.G. and Schulze, W.D. (2002) Alternative nonmarket value-elicitation methods: are revealed and stated preferences the same?, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 44(3), 391–425. doi: 10.1006/jeem.2001.1210
9. Champ, P.A. and Bishop, R.C. (2006) Is willingness to pay for a public good sensitive to the elicitation format?, Land Economics 82(2), 162–173.
10. Daugbjerg, C. and Swinbank, A. (2007) The politics of CAP reform: trade negotiation, institutional settings and blame avoidance, Journal of Common Market Studies 45(1), 1–22. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-5965.2007.00700.x
11. Domínguez-Torreiro M., Durán-Medraño R. and Soliño M. (2013) Social legitimacy issues in the provision of non-commodity outputs from rural development programs, Land Use Policy34, 42–52.
12. Domínguez-Torreiro, M. and Soliño, M. (2011) Provided and perceived status quo in choice experiments: implications for valuing the outputs of multifunctional rural areas, Ecological Economics 70, 2523–2531. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.08.021
13. European Commission (2008) Fact Sheet – EU Rural Development Policy 2007–2013. European Commission Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development, European Communities, Luxembourg.
14. Evans, M.F., Flores, N.E. and Boyle, K.J. (2003) Multiple bounded uncertainty choice data as probabilistic intentions, Land Economics 79(4), 549–560. doi: 10.2307/3147299
15. Garcia, S., Harou, P., Montagné, C. and Stenger, A. (2009) Models for sample selection bias in contingent valuation: application to forest biodiversity, Journal of Forest Economics 1–2, 59–78. doi: 10.1016/j.jfe.2008.03.008
16. Halstead, J.M., Luloff, A.E. and Stevens, T.H. (1992) Protest bidders in contingent valuation, Northeastern Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 21(2), 160–169.
17. Hanemann, W.M. and Kanninen, B. (1999) The statistical analysis of discrete response CV data, in Bateman I. and Willis K. (Eds) Valuing Environmental Preferences. Theory and Practice of the Contingent Valuation Method in the US, EU and Developing Countries, 302–442.Oxford University Press, Oxford.
18. Hanemann, W.M., Kristrom, B. and Li, C.Z. (1996) Nonmarket Valuation Under Preference Uncertainty: Econometric Models and Estimation. Working Paper Number 794. Department of Agriculture and Resource Economics, University of California – Berkeley.
19. Hanemann, W.M., Loomis, J. and Kanninen, B. (1991) Statistical efficiency of double-bounded dichotomous choice contingent valuation, American Journal of Agricultural Economics 72, 1255–1263. doi: 10.2307/1242453
20. Harpman, D.A., Welsh, M.P. and Sparling, E.W. (2004) Unit non-response bias in the interval data model, Land Economics 80(3), 448–462. doi: 10.2307/3654731
21. Heckman, J. (1979) Sample selection bias as a specification error, Econometrica 47(1), 153–161. doi: 10.2307/1912352
22. Hodge, I. (2001) Beyond agri-environmental policy: towards an alternative model of rural environmental governance, Land Use Policy 18, 99–111. doi: 10.1016/S0264-8377(01)00002-3
23. Hurley, S.P., Miller, D.J. and Kliebenstein, J.B. (2006) Estimating willingness to pay using a polychotomous choice function: an application to pork products with environmental attributes, Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 31(2), 301–317.
24. Jorgensen, B.S. and Syme, G.J. (1995) Market models, protest bids, and outliers in contingent valuation, Journal of Water Resources and Planning Management 121, 400–401. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9496(1995)121:5(400.2)
25. Jorgensen, B.S., Syme, G.J., Bishop, B.J. and Nancarrow, B.E. (1999) Protest responses in contingent valuation, Environmental and Resource Economics 14, 131–150. doi: 10.1023/A:1008372522243
26. Krinsky, I. and Robb, A.L. (1986) On approximating the statistical properties of elasticities, Review of Economics and Statistics 68, 715–719. doi: 10.2307/1924536
27. Latacz-Lohmann, U. and Hodge, I. (2003) European agri-environmental policy for the 21st century, Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 47(1), 123–139. doi: 10.1111/1467-8489.00206
28. Loomis, J. and Ekstrand, E. (1997) Economic benefits of critical habitat for the Mexican spotted owl: a scope test using a multiple-bounded contingent valuation survey, Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 22(2), 356–366.
29. McGuirk, A.M., Stephenson, K. and Taylor, D.B. (1989) The Use of Tobit Analysis in the Valuation of Non Market Resources. Department of Agricultural Economics SP 89-23. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA.
30. McVittie, A., Moran, D. and Elston, D. (2010) Public preferences for rural policy reform: evidence from Scottish surveys, Regional Studies 44(5), 609–626. doi: 10.1080/00343400902926359
31. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (2000) Valuing Rural Amenities. OECD Publ, Paris.
32. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (2001) Multifunctionality: Towards an Analytical Framework. OECD Publ, Paris.
33. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (2003) Multifunctionality: The Policy Implications. OECD Publ, Paris.
34. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (2007) The Implementation Costs of Agricultural Policies. OECD Publ, Paris.
35. Ready, R.C., Whitehead, J.C. and Blomquist, G.C. (1995) Contingent valuation when respondents are ambivalent, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 29, 219–232. doi: 10.1006/jeem.1995.1040
36. Rowe, R.D., Schulze, W.D. and Breffle, W.S. (1996) A test for payment card biases, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 31(2), 178–185. doi: 10.1006/jeem.1996.0039
37. Soliño, M., Prada, A. and Vázquez, M.X. (2010) Designing a forest-energetic policy to reduce forest fires in Galicia (Spain): a contingent valuation application, Journal of Forest Economics 16(3), 217–233. doi: 10.1016/j.jfe.2009.11.006
38. Strazzera, E., Genius, M., Scarpa, R. and Hutchinson, G. (2003) The effect of protest votes on the estimates of WTP for use values of recreational sites, Environmental and Resource Economics 25, 461–476. doi: 10.1023/A:1025098431440
39. Sydorovych, O. and Wossink, A. (2008) The meaning of agricultural sustainability: evidence from a conjoint choice survey, Agricultural Systems 98, 10–20. doi: 10.1016/j.agsy.2008.03.001
40. Vossler, C.A. and McKee, M. (2006) Induced-value tests of contingent valuation elicitation mechanisms, Environmental and Resource Economics 35, 137–168. doi: 10.1007/s10640-006-9011-5
41. Vossler, C.A. and Poe, G.L. (2005) Analysis of contingent valuation data with multiple bids and response options allowing respondents to express uncertainty: a comment, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 49, 197–200. doi: 10.1016/j.jeem.2004.05.001
42. Vossler, C.A., Poe, G.L., Welsh, M.P. and Ethier, R.G. (2004) Bid design effects in multiple bounded discrete choice contingent valuation, Environmental and Resource Economics 29, 401–418. doi: 10.1007/s10640-004-9457-2
43. Welsh, M.P. and Poe, G.L. (1998) Elicitation effects in contingent valuation: comparisons to a multiple bounded discrete choice approach, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 36, 170–185. doi: 10.1006/jeem.1998.1043