- -

Inferring Attribute Non-attendance from Discrete Choice Experiments: Implications for Benefit Transfer

RiuNet: Institutional repository of the Polithecnic University of Valencia

Share/Send to

Cited by

Statistics

Inferring Attribute Non-attendance from Discrete Choice Experiments: Implications for Benefit Transfer

Show full item record

Glenk, K.; Martin-Ortega, J.; Pulido-Velazquez, M.; Potts, J. (2014). Inferring Attribute Non-attendance from Discrete Choice Experiments: Implications for Benefit Transfer. Environmental and Resource Economics. 60(4):497-520. doi:10.1007/s10640-014-9777-9

Por favor, use este identificador para citar o enlazar este ítem: http://hdl.handle.net/10251/50785

Files in this item

Item Metadata

Title: Inferring Attribute Non-attendance from Discrete Choice Experiments: Implications for Benefit Transfer
Author: Glenk, K. Martin-Ortega, J. Pulido-Velazquez, M. Potts, J.
UPV Unit: Universitat Politècnica de València. Departamento de Ingeniería Hidráulica y Medio Ambiente - Departament d'Enginyeria Hidràulica i Medi Ambient
Issued date:
Abstract:
Typical convergent validity tests of benefit transfer based on stated preference data assume that willingness to pay (WTP) estimates have been accurately measured, and that differences in WTP arise from differences in ...[+]
Subjects: Benefit function transfer , Convergent validity , Discrete choice modelling , Willingness to pay space , Attribute non-attendance , Water Framework Directive
Copyrigths: Reserva de todos los derechos
Source:
Environmental and Resource Economics. (issn: 0924-6460 )
DOI: 10.1007/s10640-014-9777-9
Publisher:
Springer Verlag (Germany)
Publisher version: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10640-014-9777-9
Project ID:
info:eu-repo/grantAgreement/EC/FP6/22723/EU/Development and Testing of Practical Guidelines for the Assessment of Environmental and Resource Costs and Benefits in the WFD/AQUAMONEY/
Description: “The final publication is available at Springer via http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10640-014-9777-9”.
Thanks:
This research was partially funded by the Scottish Government Rural Affairs and the Environment Portfolio Strategic Research Programme 2011-2016, Theme 1 (Environmental Change: Ecosystem Services and Biodiversity). The ...[+]
Type: Artículo

References

Alemu MH, Mørkbak MR, Olsen SB, Jensen CL (2013) Attending to the reasons for attribute non-attendance in choice experiments. Environ Resour Econ 54(3):333–359

Baskaran R, Cullen R, Colombo S (2010) Testing different types of benefit transfer in valuation of ecosystem services: New Zealand Winegrowing case studies. Ecol Econ 69(5):1010–1022

Bateman IJ, Brouwer R, Ferrini S et al (2011) 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 50(3):365–387 [+]
Alemu MH, Mørkbak MR, Olsen SB, Jensen CL (2013) Attending to the reasons for attribute non-attendance in choice experiments. Environ Resour Econ 54(3):333–359

Baskaran R, Cullen R, Colombo S (2010) Testing different types of benefit transfer in valuation of ecosystem services: New Zealand Winegrowing case studies. Ecol Econ 69(5):1010–1022

Bateman IJ, Brouwer R, Ferrini S et al (2011) 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 50(3):365–387

Ben-Akiva ME, Swait JD (1986) The Akaike likelihood ratio index. Transp Sci 20:133–136

Boyle KJ, Kuminoff NV, Parmeter CF, Pope JC (2010) The benefit-transfer challenges. Annu Rev Resour Econ 2(1):161–182

Brouwer R (2008) The role of stated preference methods in the Water Framework Directive to assess disproportionate costs. J Environ Plan Manag 51:597–614

Cameron TA, DeShazo JR (2010) Differential attention to attributes in utility-theoretic choice models. J Choice Model 3(3):73–115

Campbell D, Hutchinson WG, Scarpa R (2008) Incorporating discontinuous preferences into the analysis of discrete choice experiments. Environ Resour Econ 41:401–417

Campbell D, Hensher DA, Scarpa R (2011) Non-attendance to attributes in environmental choice analysis: a latent class specification. J Environ Plan Manag 54:1061–1076

Campbell D, Hensher DA, Scarpa R (2012) Cost thresholds, cut-offs and sensitivities in stated choice analysis: identification and implications. Resour Energy Econ 34:396–411

Carson RT (1997) Contingent valuation and tests of insensitivity to scope in determining the value of non-marketed goods. In: Kopp RJ, Pommerhene W, Schwartz N (eds) Economic, psychological, and policy relevant aspects of contingent valuation methods. Kluwer, Boston

CHG (2007) Plan Especial de actuación en situaciones de alerta y eventual sequía de la Cuenca Hidrográfica del Guadalquivir. Confederación Hidrográfica del Guadalquivir, Ministerio de Medio Ambiente, España

CHJ (2007) Plan Especial de actuación en situaciones de alerta y eventual sequía de la Cuenca Hidrográfica del Júcar. Confederación Hidrográfica del Júcar, Ministerio de Medio Ambiente, España

Colombo S, Calatrava-Requena J, Hanley N (2007) Testing choice experiment for benefit transfer with preference heterogeneity. Am J Agric Econ 89:135–151

Colombo S, Hanley N (2008) How can we reduce the errors from benefits transfer? An investigation using the choice experiment method. Land Econ 84:128–147

Dziegielewska D, Mendelsohn R (2007) Does no mean no? A protester methodology. Environ Resour Econ 38:71–87

Hanemann WM (2000) Adaptation and its measurement. Clim Change 45:571–581

Hanley N, Colombo S, Tinch D et al (2006) Estimating the benefits of water quality improvements under the Water Framework Directive: are benefits transferable? Eur Rev Agric Econ 33:391–413

Hensher DA, Rose JM, Greene WH (2005) The implications of willingness to pay of respondents ignoring specific attributes. Transportation 32:203–222

Hensher DA, Greene W (2010) Non-attendance and dual processing of common-metric attributes in choice analysis: a latent class specification. Empir Econ 39:413–426

Hensher DA, Rose J, Greene W (2012) Inferring attribute non-attendance from stated choice data: implications for willingness to pay estimates and a warning for stated choice experiment design. Transportation 39:235–245

Hess S, Stathopoulos A, Campbell D et al (2013) It’s not that I don’t care, I just don’t care very much: confounding between attribute non-attendance and taste heterogeneity. Transportation 40(3):583–607

Iglesias A, Estrela T, Gallart F (2005) Impactos sobre los recursos hídricos. In: Moreno J (ed) Evaluacion preliminar de los impactos en España por el efecto del cambio climático. Ministerio de Medio Ambiente, Madrid, pp 303–352

Johnston RJ, Besedin EY, Ranson MH (2006) Characterizing the effects of valuation methodology in function-based benefits transfer. Ecol Econ 60:407–419

Johnston RJ, Duke JM (2009) Willingness to pay for land preservation across states and jurisdictional scale: implications for benefit transfer. Land Econ 85:217–237

Johnston RJ, Duke JM (2010) Socioeconomic adjustments and choice experiment benefit function transfer: evaluating the common wisdom. Resour Energy Econ 32:421–438

Kaul S, Boyle KJ, Kuminoff NV, Parmeter CF, Pope JC (2013) What can we learn from benefit transfer errors? Evidence from 20 years of research on convergent validity. J Environ Econ Manag 66:90–104

Kragt ME (2013) Stated and inferred attribute attendance models: a comparison with environmental choice experiments. J Agric Econ 64:719–736

Krinsky I, Robb A (1986) On approximating the statistical properties of elasticities. Rev Econ Stat 68:715–719

Loomis JB, Roach B, Ward F, Ready R (1995) Testing the transferability of recreation demand models across regions: a study of corps of engineers reservoirs. Water Resour Res 31:721–730

Martin-Ortega J (2012) Economic prescriptions and policy applications in the implementation of the European Water Framework Directive. Environ Sci Policy 24:83–91

Martin-Ortega J, Giannocaro G, Berbel J (2011) Environmental and resource costs under water scarcity conditions: an estimation in the context of the European Water Framework Directive. Water Resour Manag 25:1615–1633

Martin-Ortega J, Brouwer R, Ojea E, Berbel J (2012) Benefit transfer of water quality improvements and spatial heterogeneity of preferences. J Environ Manag 106:22–29

Meyerhoff J, Liebe U (2009) Status quo effect in choice experiments: empirical evidence on attitudes and choice task complexity. Land Econ 85:515–528

Moeltner K, Boyle KJ, Paterson RW (2007) Meta-analysis and benefit transfer for resource valuation-addressing classical challenges with Bayesian modeling. J Environ Econ Manag 53:250–269

Morrison M, Bennett J (2000) Choice modelling, non-use values and benefit transfers. Econ Anal Pol 30:13–32

Morrison M, Bennett J, Blamey R, Louviere J (2002) Choice modeling and tests of benefit transfer. Am J Agric Econ 84(1):161–170

Morrison M, Bennett J (2004) Valuing New South Wales rivers for use in benefit transfer. Aust J Agric Resour Econ 48:591–612

Navrud S, Ready R (2007) Review of methods for value transfer. In: Navrud S, Ready R (eds) Environmental value transfer: issues and methods. Springer, Dordrecht

Norton D, Hynes S, Hanley N (2012) Accounting for cultural dimensions in estimating the value of coastal zone ecosystem services using international benefit transfer. In: Paper presented at the 19th annual conference of the European association of environmental and resource economists, Charles University, Prague, 27–30 June

Poe G, Severance-Lossin E, Welsh M (2005) Simple computational methods for measuring the difference of empirical distributions. Am J Agric Econ 87:353–365

Puckett SM, Hensher DA (2008) The role of attribute processing strategies in estimating the preferences of road freight stakeholders. Transp Res Part E Logist Transp Rev 44:379–395

Rosenberger RS, Stanley TD (2006) Measurement, generalization, and publication: sources of error in benefit transfers and their management. Ecol Econ 60:372–378

Scarpa R, Thiene M, Train K (2008) Utility willingness to pay space: a tool to address confounding random scale effects in destination choice to the Alps. Am J Agric Econ 90(4):994–1010

Scarpa R, Gillbride TJ, Campbell D, Hensher DA (2009) Modelling attribute non-attendance in choice experiments for rural landscape valuation. Eur Rev Agric Econ 36:151–174

Scarpa R, Thiene M, Hensher DA (2010) Monitoring choice task attribute attendance in nonmarket valuation of multiple park management services: does it matter? Land Econ 86:817–839

Scarpa R, Zanoli R, Bruschi V, Naspetti S (2013) Inferred and stated attribute non-attendance in food choice experiments. Am J Agric Econ 95:165–180

Train K (2003) Discrete choice methods with simulation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

Train KE, Weeks M (2005) Discrete choice models in preference space and willingness-to-pay space. In: Scarpa R, Alberini A (eds) Applications of simulation methods in environmental and resource economics. Springer, Dordrecht

Van den Berg TP, Poe GL, Powell JR (2001) Assessing the accuracy of benefits transfers: evidence from a multi-site contingent valuation study of groundwater quality. In: Bergstrom JC, Boyle KJ, Poe GL (eds) The economic value of water quality. Edward Elgar, Massachusetts

Vinten AJA, Martin-Ortega J, Glenk K et al (2012) Application of the WFD cost proportionality principle to diffuse pollution mitigation: a case study for Scottish Lochs. J Environ Manag 97:28–37

Wilson MA, Hoehn JB (2006) Valuing environmental goods and services using benefit transfer: state-of-the art and science. Ecol Econ 60:335–342

[-]

recommendations

 

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show full item record