Modelling asymmetric preferences for water quality in choice experiments with individual-specific status quo alternatives

Water Resources and Economics

Volumn 12, Issue , 2015, Pages 1-13

  Ahtiainen, Heini ^a   Pouta, Eija ^a   Artell, Janne ^a  

^a FINNISH FOREST RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (Finland)

Author keywords

Asymmetric preferences; Choice experiment; Nonlinearity; Perceptions; Status quo alternative; Water quality

Indexed keywords

ASSESSMENT METHOD; ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS; EUTROPHICATION; HETEROGENEITY; NONLINEARITY; NUMERICAL MODEL; PERCEPTION; POLICY MAKING; WATER MANAGEMENT; WATER QUALITY; WATER RESOURCE;

ALGAE;

EID: 84947552024     PISSN: 22124284     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.wre.2015.10.003     Document Type: Article

References (51)

1. Abeler J., Falk A., Goette L., Huffman D. Reference points and effort provision. Am. Econ. Rev. 2011, 101(2):470-492.
2. Adamowicz W., Swait J., Boxall P., Louviere J., Williams M. Perceptions versus objective measures of environmental quality in combined revealed and stated preference models in environmental valuation. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 1997, 32:65-84.
3. Ahtiainen H. Veden tilan parantamisen hyödyt. Esimerkkinä Hiidenvesi. (Benefits of water quality improvement. A case study of Lake Hiidenvesi.) In Finnish, English summary. The Finnish Environment 47/2008 2008, Finnish Environment Institute, Helsinki, Finland.
4. Artell J. Recreation value and quality of Finnish surface waters. Revealed preferences, individual perceptions and spatial issues. Doctoral Dissertation. MTT Sci. 2013, 23. (MTT Agrifood Research Finland).
5. Artell J., Ahtiainen H., Pouta E. Subjective vs. objective measure in the valuation of water quality. J. Environ. Manag. 2013, 130:288-296.
6. Banzhaf M.R., Johnson F.R., Mathews K.E. Opt-out alternatives and anglers' stated preferences. The Choice Modelling Approach to Environmental Valuation 2001, 157-177. Edward Elgar, London. J. Bennett, R. Blamey (Eds.).
7. Baranzini A., Schaerer C., Thalmann P. Using measured instead of perceived noise in hedonic models. Transp. Res.: D 2010, 15:473482.
8. Barton D., Bergland O. Valuing irrigation water using a choice experiment: an 'individual status quo' modelling of farm specific water scarcity. Environ. Dev. Econ. 2010, 15(3):321-340.
9. Bateman I.J., Carson R.T., Day B., Hanemann M., Hanley N., Hett T., Jones-Lee M., Loomes G., Mourato S., Ozdemiroglu E., Pearce D., Sugden R., Swanson J. Economic Valuation with Stated Preference Techniques a Manual 2002, Edward Elgar Publishing, UK.
10. Batsell R.R., Louviere J.J. Experimental analysis of choice. Mark. Lett. 1991, 2(3):199-214.
11. Bertram C., Rehdanz K. On the environmental effectiveness of the EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive. Mar. Policy 2013, 38:25-40.
12. Birol E., Villalba E.R., Smale M. Farmer preferences for milpa diversity and genetically modified maize in Mexico: a latent class approach. Environ. Dev. Econ. 2009, 14(4):521-540.
13. Brownstone D., Train K.E. Forecasting new product penetration with flexible substitution patterns. J. Econ. 1999, 89:109-129.
14. Carson R.T., Louviere J.J., Anderson D.A., Arabie P., Bucnh D.S., Hensher D.A., Johnson R.M., Kuhfeld W.F., Steinberg D., Swait J., Timmermans H., Wiley J.B. Experimental analysis of choice. Mark. Lett. 1994, 5(4):351-368.
15. Dhar R., Simonson I. The effect of forced choice on choice. J. Mark. Res. 2003, 40(2):146-160.
16. Domínguez-Torreiro M., Soliño M. Provided and perceived status quo in choice experiments: implications for valuing the outputs of multifunctional rural areas. Ecol. Econ. 2011, 70(12):2523-2531.
17. Daly A., Hess S., Train K. Assuring finite moments for willingness to pay in random coefficient models. Transportation 2012, 39:19-31.
18. European Parliament, Directive 2000/60/EC (The EU Water Framework Directive), Official Journal (OJ L 327), 2000 December 22.
19. European Parliament, Directive 2008/56/EC (The EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive), Official Journal (OJ L 164), 2008 June 25.
20. Ericson K.M.M., Fuster A. Expectations as endowments: evidence on reference-dependent preferences from exchange and valuation experiments. Q. J. Econ. 2011, 126(4):1879-1907.
21. Finnish Environment Institute 2005, Water quality in lakes, rivers and sea areas in Finland in 2000-2003. Available at: http://www.syke.fi/en-US/Publications/Brochures/Water_quality_of_lakes_rivers_and_sea_ar%283082%29.
22. Glenk K. Using local knowledge to model asymmetric preference formulation in willingness to pay for environmental services. J. Environ. Manag. 2011, 92(3):531-541.
23. Hanley N., Wright R.E., Alvarez-Farizo B. Estimating the economic value of improvements in river ecology using choice experiments: an application to the water framework directive. J. Environ. Manag. 2006, 78(2):183-193.
24. HELCOM 2009. Eutrophication in the Baltic Sea - An integrated thematic assessment of the effects of nutrient enrichment and eutrophication in the Baltic Sea region. Environment Proceedings No. 115B. Helsinki Commission.
25. Hensher D., Greene W. The mixed logit model: the state of practice. Transportation 2003, 30(2):133-176.
26. Hensher D.A., Rose J.M., Greene W.H. Applied Choice Analysis 2005, A Primer. Cambridge University Press, New York.
27. Hess S., Rose J.M., Hensher D.A. Asymmetric preference formation in willingness to pay estimates is discrete choice models. Transp. Res.: E 2008, 44(5):847-863.
28. Jeon Y., Herriges J.A., Kling C.L., Downing J. The Role of Water Quality Perceptions in Modeling Lake Recreation Demand. Department of Economics Working 2005, 05032. Iowa State University.
29. Kahneman D., Tversky A. Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 1979, 47(2):263-291.
30. Kataria M., Bateman I., Christensen T., Dubgaard A., Hasler B., Hime S., Ladenburg J., Levin G., Martinsen L., Nissen C. Scenario realism and welfare estimates in choice experiments - A non-market valuation study on the European water framework directive. J. Environ. Manag. 2012, 94(1):25-33.
31. Kontoleon A., Yabe M. Assessing the impacts of alternative 'opt-out' formats in choice experiment studies: consumer preferences for genetically modified content and production information in food. J. Agric. Policy Resour. 2003, 5:1-43.
32. Kosenius A.-K. Heterogeneous preferences for water quality attributes: the case of eutrophication in the Gulf of Finland, the Baltic Sea. Ecol. Econ. 2010, 69(3):528-538.
33. Koszegi B., Rabin M. A model of reference-dependent preferences. Q. J. Econ. 2006, 121(4):1133-1165.
34. Krinsky I., Robb A.L. On approximating the statistical properties of elasticities. Rev. Econ. Stat. 1986, 68(4):715-719.
35. Krinsky I., Robb A.L. On approximating the statistical properties of elasticities: a correction. Rev. Econ. Stat. 1990, 72(1):189-190.
36. Lanz B., Allan Provins A., Bateman I.J., Scarpa R., Willis K., Ozdemiroglu E. Investigating willingness to pay-willingness to accept asymmetry in choice experiments. Choice Modelling: the state-of-the-art and the state-of-practice-of Proceedings from the inaugural International Choice Modelling Conference 2010, 517-542. Emerald Group Publishing Limited, Bingley, UK. S. Hess, A. Daly (Eds.).
37. Marsh D., Mkawa L., Scarpa R. Do respondents' perceptions of the status quo matter in non-market valuation with choice experiments? An application to new Zealand freshwater streams. Sustainability 2011, 3:1593-1615.
38. Masiero L., Hensher D.A. Analyzing loss aversion and diminishing sensitivity in a freight transport stated choice experiment. Transp. Res.: A 2010, 44(5):349-358.
39. McFadden D., Train K. Mixed MNL models for discrete response. J. Appl. Econ. 2000, 15(5):447-470.
40. M. Nieminen, Kesämökkibarometri 2009 (Summer house barometer 2009), Alueellisia julkaisuja 12. Finnish Ministry of Employment and the Economy, 2009, In Finnish.
41. Rose J.M., Bliemer M.C., Hensher D.A., Collins A.T. Designing efficient stated choice experiments in the presence of reference alternatives. Transp. Res.: B 2008, 42(4):395-406.
42. 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.).
43. 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. Environ. Plan. Manag. 2007, 50:449-466.
44. Scarpa R., Rose J.M. Design efficiency and non-market valuation with choice modelling: how to measure it, what to report and why. Aust. J. Agric. Resour. Econ. 2008, 52:253-282.
45. Sievänen T., Neuvonen M. Luonnon virkistyskäytön kysyntä 2010 ja kysynnän muutos. In Luonnon virkistyskäyttö 2010 2011, 212. Working Papers of the Finnish Forest Research Institute, (In Finnish). T. Sievänen, M. Neuvonen (Eds.).
46. Sievänen T., Pouta E., Neuvonen M. Recreational home users - potential clients for countryside tourism?. Scand. J. Hosp. Tour. 2007, 7(3):223-242.
47. Statistics Finland 2009a. URL:. Accessed 30.01.14. https://www.tilastokeskus.fi/index_en.html.
48. Statistics Finland 2009b. Free-time residences 2009. Official Statistics of Finland, Helsinki. Accessed 20.08.15. URL:. http://www.stat.fi/til/rakke/2009/rakke_2009_2010-05-28_kat_001_en.html.
49. Train K. Recreation demand models with taste differences over people. Land Econ. 1998, 74(2):230-239.
50. Train K.E. Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation 2003, Cambridge University Press, New York.
51. Tversky A., Kahneman D. Loss aversion in riskless choice: a reference-dependent model. Q. J. Econ. 1991, 106(4):1039-1061.