- -

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

RiuNet: Repositorio Institucional de la Universidad Politécnica de Valencia

Compartir/Enviar a

Citas

Estadísticas

  • Estadisticas de Uso

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

Mostrar el registro sencillo del ítem

Ficheros en el ítem

Thumbnail
Nombre: Glenk_etAl_ERE_20 ...
Tamaño: 770.9Kb
Formato: PDF
Descripción: Versión del Autor.
Abrir
[Cerrado]
Nombre: Glenk_etAl_ERE_20 ...
Tamaño: 445.1Kb
Formato: PDF
Descripción: Versión editorial
Solicitar una copia al autor
dc.contributor.author Glenk, K. es_ES
dc.contributor.author Martin-Ortega, J. es_ES
dc.contributor.author Pulido-Velazquez, M. es_ES
dc.contributor.author Potts, J. es_ES
dc.date.accessioned 2015-05-26T12:30:27Z
dc.date.available 2015-05-26T12:30:27Z
dc.date.issued 2014
dc.identifier.issn 0924-6460
dc.identifier.uri http://hdl.handle.net/10251/50785
dc.description “The final publication is available at Springer via http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10640-014-9777-9”. es_ES
dc.description.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 observable and unobservable characteristics between the study and the policy sites. In this paper, we conduct a convergent validity test assuming equality of underlying preferences, but allow for the possibility that transfer errors arise from differences in the way that respondents process information in the preference elicitation tasks. Using data from an identical survey instrument applied to the population of two river basins in Spain, we obtain marginal and total WTP estimates for ecological improvements of water bodies and the corresponding transfer errors across sites. Results of equality constrained latent class (ECLC) models that infer attribute non-attendance (ANA) are compared to results from mixed logit (MXL) models in WTP space. We find large absolute and relative differences in marginal and total WTP between sites for the MXL models, and significantly reduced transfer errors for the ECLC models. This paper therefore provides further evidence that AN-A can significantly affect environmental values derived from attribute-based stated preference methods and is the first to investigate the implications for benefit transfer. es_ES
dc.description.sponsorship 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 data used in this article were collected as part of the Collaboration Agreement between the University of Cordoba (Spain) and the Spanish Ministry of the Environment for the Development of Water Demand Analysis and Assessment of Environmental and Resource Benefits of the Water Framework Directive, and the AquaMoney project of the EU VI Framework Programme (SSPI-022723, Development and Testing of Guidelines for the Assessment of Environmental and Resource Costs and Benefits of the Water Framework Directive, www.aquamoney.org). en_EN
dc.language Inglés es_ES
dc.publisher Springer Verlag (Germany) es_ES
dc.relation.ispartof Environmental and Resource Economics es_ES
dc.rights Reserva de todos los derechos es_ES
dc.subject Benefit function transfer es_ES
dc.subject Convergent validity es_ES
dc.subject Discrete choice modelling es_ES
dc.subject Willingness to pay space es_ES
dc.subject Attribute non-attendance es_ES
dc.subject Water Framework Directive es_ES
dc.subject.classification INGENIERIA HIDRAULICA es_ES
dc.title Inferring Attribute Non-attendance from Discrete Choice Experiments: Implications for Benefit Transfer es_ES
dc.type Artículo es_ES
dc.identifier.doi 10.1007/s10640-014-9777-9
dc.relation.projectID 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/ es_ES
dc.rights.accessRights Abierto es_ES
dc.contributor.affiliation Universitat Politècnica de València. Departamento de Ingeniería Hidráulica y Medio Ambiente - Departament d'Enginyeria Hidràulica i Medi Ambient es_ES
dc.description.bibliographicCitation 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 es_ES
dc.description.accrualMethod S es_ES
dc.relation.publisherversion http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10640-014-9777-9 es_ES
dc.description.upvformatpinicio 497 es_ES
dc.description.upvformatpfin 520 es_ES
dc.type.version info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion es_ES
dc.description.volume 60 es_ES
dc.description.issue 4 es_ES
dc.relation.senia 275866
dc.contributor.funder Scottish Government
dc.contributor.funder European Commission
dc.description.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 es_ES
dc.description.references 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 es_ES
dc.description.references 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 es_ES
dc.description.references Ben-Akiva ME, Swait JD (1986) The Akaike likelihood ratio index. Transp Sci 20:133–136 es_ES
dc.description.references Boyle KJ, Kuminoff NV, Parmeter CF, Pope JC (2010) The benefit-transfer challenges. Annu Rev Resour Econ 2(1):161–182 es_ES
dc.description.references 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 es_ES
dc.description.references Cameron TA, DeShazo JR (2010) Differential attention to attributes in utility-theoretic choice models. J Choice Model 3(3):73–115 es_ES
dc.description.references Campbell D, Hutchinson WG, Scarpa R (2008) Incorporating discontinuous preferences into the analysis of discrete choice experiments. Environ Resour Econ 41:401–417 es_ES
dc.description.references 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 es_ES
dc.description.references 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 es_ES
dc.description.references 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 es_ES
dc.description.references 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 es_ES
dc.description.references 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 es_ES
dc.description.references Colombo S, Calatrava-Requena J, Hanley N (2007) Testing choice experiment for benefit transfer with preference heterogeneity. Am J Agric Econ 89:135–151 es_ES
dc.description.references 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 es_ES
dc.description.references Dziegielewska D, Mendelsohn R (2007) Does no mean no? A protester methodology. Environ Resour Econ 38:71–87 es_ES
dc.description.references Hanemann WM (2000) Adaptation and its measurement. Clim Change 45:571–581 es_ES
dc.description.references 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 es_ES
dc.description.references Hensher DA, Rose JM, Greene WH (2005) The implications of willingness to pay of respondents ignoring specific attributes. Transportation 32:203–222 es_ES
dc.description.references 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 es_ES
dc.description.references 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 es_ES
dc.description.references 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 es_ES
dc.description.references 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 es_ES
dc.description.references Johnston RJ, Besedin EY, Ranson MH (2006) Characterizing the effects of valuation methodology in function-based benefits transfer. Ecol Econ 60:407–419 es_ES
dc.description.references 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 es_ES
dc.description.references Johnston RJ, Duke JM (2010) Socioeconomic adjustments and choice experiment benefit function transfer: evaluating the common wisdom. Resour Energy Econ 32:421–438 es_ES
dc.description.references 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 es_ES
dc.description.references Kragt ME (2013) Stated and inferred attribute attendance models: a comparison with environmental choice experiments. J Agric Econ 64:719–736 es_ES
dc.description.references Krinsky I, Robb A (1986) On approximating the statistical properties of elasticities. Rev Econ Stat 68:715–719 es_ES
dc.description.references 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 es_ES
dc.description.references Martin-Ortega J (2012) Economic prescriptions and policy applications in the implementation of the European Water Framework Directive. Environ Sci Policy 24:83–91 es_ES
dc.description.references 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 es_ES
dc.description.references 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 es_ES
dc.description.references Meyerhoff J, Liebe U (2009) Status quo effect in choice experiments: empirical evidence on attitudes and choice task complexity. Land Econ 85:515–528 es_ES
dc.description.references 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 es_ES
dc.description.references Morrison M, Bennett J (2000) Choice modelling, non-use values and benefit transfers. Econ Anal Pol 30:13–32 es_ES
dc.description.references Morrison M, Bennett J, Blamey R, Louviere J (2002) Choice modeling and tests of benefit transfer. Am J Agric Econ 84(1):161–170 es_ES
dc.description.references Morrison M, Bennett J (2004) Valuing New South Wales rivers for use in benefit transfer. Aust J Agric Resour Econ 48:591–612 es_ES
dc.description.references 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 es_ES
dc.description.references 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 es_ES
dc.description.references 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 es_ES
dc.description.references 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 es_ES
dc.description.references Rosenberger RS, Stanley TD (2006) Measurement, generalization, and publication: sources of error in benefit transfers and their management. Ecol Econ 60:372–378 es_ES
dc.description.references 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 es_ES
dc.description.references 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 es_ES
dc.description.references 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 es_ES
dc.description.references 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 es_ES
dc.description.references Train K (2003) Discrete choice methods with simulation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge es_ES
dc.description.references 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 es_ES
dc.description.references 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 es_ES
dc.description.references 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 es_ES
dc.description.references Wilson MA, Hoehn JB (2006) Valuing environmental goods and services using benefit transfer: state-of-the art and science. Ecol Econ 60:335–342 es_ES


Este ítem aparece en la(s) siguiente(s) colección(ones)

Mostrar el registro sencillo del ítem