Respondent Uncertainty and Ordering Effect on Willingness to Pay for Salt Marsh Conservation in the Brest Roadstead (France)

Ecological Economics

Volumn 137, Issue , 2017, Pages 47-55

  Voltaire, Louinord ^a   Donfouet, Hermann Pythagore Pierre ^b   Pirrone, Claudio ^c   Larzillière, Agathe ^d  

^a UNIVERSITÉ DU LITTORAL CÔTE D OPALE   (France)

^b AFRICAN POPULATION AND HEALTH RESEARCH CENTER   (Kenya)

^c UNIVERSITÉ DE BRETAGNE OCCIDENTALE   (France)

^d Parc Naturel Régional d'Armorique   (France)

Author keywords

Contingent valuation; Ordering effect; Payment card format; Preference uncertainty; Salt marsh conservation

Indexed keywords

AQUATIC PLANT; CONSERVATION STATUS; CONTINGENT VALUATION; ECOLOGICAL ECONOMICS; ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY; SALTMARSH; UNCERTAINTY ANALYSIS; WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

FRANCE;

EID: 85014847847     PISSN: 09218009     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.02.029     Document Type: Article

References (60)

1. Akter, S., Bennett, J., Akhter, S., Preference uncertainty in contingent valuation. Ecol. Econ. 67 (2008), 345–351.
2. Alberini, A., Boyle, K., Welsh, M., Analysis of contingent valuation data with multiple bids and response options allowing respondents to express uncertainty. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 45 (2003), 40–62.
3. Andersen, S., Harrison, G.W., Lau, M.I., Rutström, E.E., Elicitation using multiple price list formats. Exp. Econ. 9 (2006), 383–405.
4. Arrow, K., Risk perception in psychology and economics. Econ. Inq. 20 (1982), 1–9.
5. Arrow, K., Solow, R., Portney, P.R., Leamer, E.E., Radner, R., Schuman, H., Report of the NOAA panel on contingent valuation. Fed. Regist. 58 (1993), 4601–4614.
6. Bateman, I.J., Langford, I.H., Turner, R.K., Willis, K.G., Garrod, G.D., Elicitation and truncation effects in contingent valuation studies. Ecol. Econ. 12 (1995), 161–179.
7. Bateman, I.J., Carson, R.T., Day, B., Hanemann, M., Hanley, N., Hett, T., Jones-Lee, M., Loomes, G., Mourato, S., Özdemiroglu, E., Economic valuation with stated preference techniques: a manual. Economic Valuation With Stated Preference Techniques: A Manual, 2002.
8. Bauer, D., Cyr, N.E., Swallow, S.K., Public preferences for compensatory mitigation of salt marsh losses: a contingent choice of alternatives. Conserv. Biol. 18 (2004), 401–411.
9. Bennett, P., Brennan, M., Kearns, Z., Psychological aspects of price: an empirical test of order and range effects. Mark. Bull. 14 (2003), 1–8.
10. Boyle, K.J., Contingent valuation in practice. Champ, P.A., Boyle, K.J., Brown, T.C., (eds.) A Primer on Nonmarket Valuation, 2003, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrech.
11. Cameron, T.A., Huppert, D.D., OLS versus ML estimation of non-market resource values with payment card interval data. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 17 (1989), 230–246.
12. Carlsson, F., Kataria, M., Krupnick, A., Lampi, E., Löfgren, Å., Qin, P., Chung, S., Sterner, T., Paying for mitigation: a multiple country study. Land Econ. 88 (2012), 326–340.
13. Champ, P., Bishop, R., Donation payment mechanisms and contingent valuation: an empirical study of hypothetical bias. Environ. Resour. Econ. 19 (2001), 383–402.
14. Champ, P.A., Bishop, R.C., Is willingness to pay for a public good sensitive to the elicitation format?. Land Econ. 82 (2006), 162–173.
15. Champ, P.A., Bishop, R.C., Brown, T.C., McCollum, D.W., Using donation mechanisms to value nonuse benefits from public goods. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 33 (1997), 151–162.
16. Chanel, O., Makhloufi, K., Abu-Zaineh, M., Can a Circular Payment Card Format Effectively Elicit Preferences? Evidence From a Survey on a Mandatory Health Insurance Scheme in Tunisia. Appl. Health Econ. Health Policy, 2016, 1–14.
17. Choi, A.S., Nonmarket values of major resources in the Korean DMZ areas: a test of distance decay. Ecol. Econ. 88 (2013), 97–107.
18. Cook, J., Jeuland, M., Maskery, B., Whittington, D., Giving stated preference respondents “time to think”: results from four countries. Environ. Resour. Econ. 51 (2012), 473–496.
19. Covey, J., Loomes, G., Bateman, I.J., Valuing risk reductions: testing for range biases in payment card and random card sorting methods. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 50 (2007), 467–482.
20. Della Bitta, A.J., Monroe, K.B., The influence of adaptation levels on subjective price perceptions. Ward, Scott, Wright, Peter, (eds.) Advances in Consumer Research, 1, 1974, Association for Consumer Research, Urbana, Illinois, 359–369.
21. DeShazo, J.R., Designing transactions without framing effects in iterative question formats. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 43 (2002), 360–385.
22. Fischhoff, B., Furby, L., Measuring values: a conceptual framework for interpreting transactions with special reference to contingent valuation of visibility. J. Risk Uncertain. 1 (1988), 147–184.
23. Fishkin, J.S., Deliberative Polling: Executive Summary. 1988, Center for Deliberative Democracy at Stanford University.
24. Fleischer, A., Shafir, S., Mandelik, Y., A proactive approach for assessing alternative management programs for an invasive alien pollinator species. Ecol. Econ. 88 (2013), 126–132.
25. Géhu, J.-M., Les spartines des cotes de France et d'Europe: phytogéographie et socioécologie. Les plantes envahissantes du littoral atlantique: les cas de la spartine anglaise (Spartina anglica). Aestuaria, 2008.
26. Gross, M., Klemas, V., Levasseur, J., Biomass and structure of a Spartina alterniflora Loisel.-dominated salt marsh in France. Bull. Torrey. Bot. Club, 1986, 125–130.
27. Håkansson, C., A new valuation question: analysis of and insights from interval open-ended data in contingent valuation. Environ. Resour. Econ. 39 (2008), 175–188.
28. Hanemann, W.M., Kristrom, B., Li, C.Z., Nonmarket Valuation Under Preference Uncertainty: Econometric Models and Estimation. 1996.
29. Hanley, N., Kriström, B., Shogren, J.F., Coherent arbitrariness: on value uncertainty for environmental goods. Land Econ. 85 (2009), 41–50.
30. Hedge, P., Kriwoken, L.K., Evidence for effects of Spartina anglica invasion on benthic macrofauna in Little Swanport estuary, Tasmania. Austral Ecology 25 (2000), 150–159.
31. Helson, H., Adaptation-level theory. 1964, Harper & Row, New York.
32. Herriges, J.A., Shogren, J.F., Starting point bias in dichotomous choice valuation with follow-up questioning. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 30 (1996), 112–131.
33. Hoffmann, S., Qin, P., Krupnick, A., Badrakh, B., Batbaatar, S., Altangerel, E., Sereeter, L., The willingness to pay for mortality risk reductions in Mongolia. Resour. Energy Econ. 34 (2012), 493–513.
34. Huang, J.-C., Shaw, D., Chien, Y.-L., Zhao, M.Q., Valuing Environmental Resources through Demand for Related Commodities. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 2015, aav053.
35. Jobstvogt, N., Watson, V., Kenter, J.O., Looking below the surface: the cultural ecosystem service values of UK marine protected areas (MPAs). Ecosystem Services 10 (2014), 97–110.
36. Kahneman, D., Sugden, R., Experienced utility as a standard of policy evaluation. Environ. Resour. Econ. 32 (2005), 161–181.
37. Kahneman, D., Tversky, A., Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 1979, 263–291.
38. Lefeuvre, J.-C., Laffaille, P., Feunteun, E., Bouchard, V., Radureau, A., Biodiversity in salt marshes: from patrimonial value to ecosystem functioning. The case study of the Mont-Saint-Michel bay. C. R. Biol. 326 (2003), 125–131.
39. Lindhjem, H., Navrud, S., Are Internet surveys an alternative to face-to-face interviews in contingent valuation?. Ecol. Econ. 70 (2011), 1628–1637.
40. Lo, A.Y., Jim, C., Protest response and willingness to pay for culturally significant urban trees: implications for Contingent Valuation Method. Ecol. Econ. 114 (2015), 58–66.
41. Luchini, S., Watson, V., Uncertainty and framing in a valuation task. J. Econ. Psychol. 39 (2013), 204–214.
42. Mitchell, R.C., Carson, R.T., Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Method. 1989, Resources for the Future, Washington DC.
43. Monroe, K.B., Price: Making Profitable Decisions. 1990 (New York McGraw-Hill).
44. Morse-Jones, S., Bateman, I.J., Kontoleon, A., Ferrini, S., Burgess, N.D., Turner, R.K., Stated preferences for tropical wildlife conservation amongst distant beneficiaries: charisma, endemism, scope and substitution effects. Ecol. Econ. 78 (2012), 9–18.
45. Neira, C., Grosholz, E.D., Levin, L.A., Blake, R., Mechanisms generating modification of benthos following tidal flat invasion by a Spartina hybrid. Ecol. Appl. 16 (2006), 1391–1404.
46. Pindyck, R., Rubinfeld, D., Microeconomics. sixth ed., 2005, Pearson Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
47. Radureau, A., Lot 8 Les marais salés de la Baie du Mont Saint Michel: synthèse des connaissances disponibles. Etude des effets du changement climatique sur les écosystèmes côtiers et estuariens en Basse-Normandie. Université de Rennes 1, ERT 52: Biodiversité Fonctionnelle et Gestion des Territoires. 2005, Conservatoire du Littoral, 1–39.
48. Radureau, A., Loison, N., Pratiques anthropiques dans la zone Natura 2000 Baie du Mont-Saint-Michel. Centre régional d'études biologiques et sociales, 2005, Bretagne et DIREN Basse-Normandie, DIREN.
49. Sagoff, M., Environmental economics and the conflation of value and benefit. Environ. Sci. Technol., 2000, 1426–1432.
50. Smith, R.D., It's not just what you do, it's the way that you do it: the effect of different payment card formats and survey administration on willingness to pay for health gain. Health Econ. 15 (2006), 281–293.
51. Soy-Massoni, E., Langemeyer, J., Varga, D., Sáez, M., Pintó, J., The importance of ecosystem services in coastal agricultural landscapes: case study from the Costa Brava, Catalonia. Ecosystem Services 17 (2016), 43–52.
52. Spash, C.L., Deliberative monetary valuation and the evidence for a new value theory. Land Econ. 84 (2008), 469–488.
53. Stenzel, L., Hickey, C., Kjelmyr, J., Page, G., Abundance and distribution of shorebirds in the San Francisco Bay area. Western Birds, 33, 2002, 69–98.
54. Udziela, M.K., Bennett, L.L., Contingent valuation of an urban salt marsh restoration. 1997, Restoration of an Urban Salt Marsh, An Interdisciplinary Approach, 41–61.
55. Voltaire, L., Pirrone, C., Bailly, D., Dealing with preference uncertainty in contingent willingness to pay for a nature protection program: a new approach. Ecol. Econ. 88 (2013), 76–85.
56. Wang, H., He, J., Kim, Y., Kamata, T., Willingness-to-pay for water quality improvements in Chinese rivers: an empirical test on the ordering effects of multiple-bounded discrete choices. J. Environ. Manag. 131 (2013), 256–269.
57. Welsh, M.P., Poe, G.L., Elicitation effects in contingent valuation: comparisons to a multiple bounded discrete choice approach. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 36 (1998), 170–185.
58. Whitehead, J.C., Groothuis, P.A., Southwick, R., Foster-Turley, P., Economic Values of Saginaw Bay Coastal Marshes. 2006 (Working Paper).
59. Whitehead, J.C., Pattanayak, S.K., Van Houtven, G.L., Gelso, B.R., Combining revealed and stated preference data to estimate the nonmarket value of ecological services: an assessment of the state of the science. J. Econ. Surv. 22 (2008), 872–908.
60. Yang, J., Zou, L., Lin, T., Wu, Y., Wang, H., Public willingness to pay for CO2 mitigation and the determinants under climate change: a case study of Suzhou, China. J. Environ. Manag. 146 (2014), 1–8.