Accounting for afforestation externalities: a comparison of contingent valuation and choice modelling
2005; Wiley; Volume: 15; Issue: 1 Linguagem: Inglês
10.1002/eet.372
ISSN1099-0976
AutoresJoan Mogas, Pere Riera, Jeff Bennett,
Tópico(s)Climate Change Policy and Economics
ResumoEuropean EnvironmentVolume 15, Issue 1 p. 44-58 Research Article Accounting for afforestation externalities: a comparison of contingent valuation and choice modelling Joan Mogas, Corresponding Author Joan Mogas [email protected] Departament d'Economia, Universitat Rovira i Virgili, SpainDepartment d'Economia, Universitat Rovira i Virgili, 43204 Reus, Spain.Search for more papers by this authorPere Riera, Pere Riera Departament d'Economia Aplicada, Universitat Autonòma de Barcelona, SpainSearch for more papers by this authorJeff Bennett, Jeff Bennett Asia Pacific School of Economics and Government, The Australian National UniversitySearch for more papers by this author Joan Mogas, Corresponding Author Joan Mogas [email protected] Departament d'Economia, Universitat Rovira i Virgili, SpainDepartment d'Economia, Universitat Rovira i Virgili, 43204 Reus, Spain.Search for more papers by this authorPere Riera, Pere Riera Departament d'Economia Aplicada, Universitat Autonòma de Barcelona, SpainSearch for more papers by this authorJeff Bennett, Jeff Bennett Asia Pacific School of Economics and Government, The Australian National UniversitySearch for more papers by this author First published: 04 February 2005 https://doi.org/10.1002/eet.372Citations: 19AboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onEmailFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat Abstract One issue faced by those using social cost–benefit analysis to make decisions on forestation is how to account for environmental externalities. This paper compares two different valuation techniques, contingent valuation and choice modelling. Both approaches were applied to an afforestation programme in the northeast of Spain, and were found to yield similar estimates of welfare change when the utility function was fully specified. However, when elements of the utility function were omitted, significant differences were detected in the welfare estimates derived from the two techniques. Choice modelling is the method recommended for use in policy evaluation contexts, such as cost–benefit analysis applications, because of the additional valuation information it provides. Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment. REFERENCES Adamowicz W, Boxall P. 2001. Future directions of stated choice methods for environmental valuation. Paper presented to the conference Choice Experiments: a New Approach to Environmental Valuation, London, 2001. Google Scholar Adamowicz W, Boxall P, Williams, M, Louviere J. 1998. Stated preference approaches for measuring passive use values: choice experiments and contingent valuation. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 80: 65–75. 10.2307/3180269 Web of Science®Google Scholar Alberini A, Cooper J. 1995. Sensitivity of Multiple-Bound CV Estimates to the Specification of the Underlying Utility, W-133, Eighth Interim Report. Google Scholar Ben-Akiva M, Lerman S. 1985. Discrete Choice Analysis: Theory and Application to Travel Demand. MIT Press: Cambridge. Google Scholar Bennett J. 1996. The contingent valuation method; a post-Kakadu assessment. Agenda 5(2): 185–194. Google Scholar Bennett J, Blamey R. 2001. The Choice Modelling Approach to Environmental Valuation. Elgar: Cheltenham. 10.4337/9781781956601 Google Scholar Boxall P, Adamowicz W, Williams M, Swait J, Louviere J. 1996. A comparison of stated preference approaches to the measurement of environmental values. Ecological Economics 18: 243–253. 10.1016/0921-8009(96)00039-0 Web of Science®Google Scholar Champ PA, Kevin J, Brown TC. 2003. A Primer Nonmarket Valuation. Kluwer: Dordrecht. 10.1007/978-94-007-0826-6 Google Scholar Christie M, Azevedo C. 2002. Testing the consistency in benefit estimates across contingent valuation and choice experiments: a multiple policy option application. Paper presented at the 2nd World Congress of Environmental and Resource Economists, Monterrey, CA, 2002. Google Scholar Council Regulation (EEC). 1992. Instituting a Community aid scheme for forestry measures in agriculture. OJ L215 N° 2080/92. Available from internet: URL: http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/JOIndex.do?ihmlang=en Google Scholar Departament d'Agricultura, Ramaderia i Pesca (DARP). 1994. Pla General de Política Forestal. Generalitat de Catalunya. Google Scholar Diamond P, Hausman J. 1994. Contingent valuation: is some number better than no number? Journal of Economic Perspectives 8: 45–64. 10.1257/jep.8.4.45 PubMedGoogle Scholar García C. 1997. Estimació de les Macromaginituds Agràries de les Comarques de Catalunya, 1993. Serveis de Publicacions, Universitat de Lleida. Google Scholar Haab TC, McConnel K.E. 2002. Valuing environmental and natural resources. In The Econometrics of Non-Market Valuation. Edward Elgar Publishers; chapter 8. Cheltenham; Northampton. Google Scholar Hanemann WM. 1984. Welfare evaluations in contingent valuation experiments with discrete responses. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 66: 332–341. 10.2307/1240800 Web of Science®Google Scholar Hanemann WM, Kanninen BK. 1999. The statistical analysis of discrete-response CV data. In Valuing Environmental Preferences: Theory and Practice of the Contingent Valuation Method in the US, EC, and Developing Countries, IJ Bateman, KG Willis (eds). Oxford University Press: Oxford; chapter 11. Google Scholar Hanley N, MacMillan D, Wright R, Bullock C, Simpson I, Parsisson D, Crabtree B. 1998a. Contingent valuation versus choice experiments: estimating the benefits of environmentally sensitive areas in Scotland. Journal of Agricultural Economics 49: 1–15. 10.1111/j.1477-9552.1998.tb01248.x Web of Science®Google Scholar Hanley N, Spash C. 1993. Cost Benefit Analysis and the Environment. Edward Elgar Publishers, Aldershot. Google Scholar Hanley N, Wright RE, Adamowicz W. 1998b. Using choice experiments to value the environment. Environmental and Resource Economics 11: 413–428. 10.1023/A:1008287310583 Web of Science®Google Scholar Hensher D, Johnson L. 1981. Applied Discrete Choice Modelling. Wiley: New York. Google Scholar Hotelling H. 1949. The economics of public recreation. In The Prewitt Report. Prewitt, Washington, DC, Department of the Interior (letter dated 1947). Google Scholar Kling C, Thomson C. 1996. The implications of model specification for welfare estimation in nested logit models. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 78: 103–114. 10.2307/1243782 Web of Science®Google Scholar Kramer R, Holmes T, Haefele M. 2003. Contingent valuation estimation of forest ecosystem protection. In Forests in a Market Economy, E Sills, K Abt (eds). Kluwer: Dordrecht. Chapter 17. 10.1007/978-94-017-0219-5_17 Google Scholar Krinsky I, Robb LA. 1986. On approximating the statistical properties of elasticities. The Review of Economics and Statistics 68: 715–719. 10.2307/1924536 Web of Science®Google Scholar Lockwood M, Carberry D. 1998. Stated Preference Surveys of Remnant Native Vegetation Conservation, third report of the project Economics of Remnant Native Vegetation Conservation on Private Property, Johnstone Centre, Charles Sturt University, Albury. Google Scholar Louviere J. 1988. Analysing Individual Decision Making: Metric Conjoint Analysis, Sage University Series on Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences, No. 67. Sage: Newbury Park, CA. Web of Science®Google Scholar Louviere J, Hensher D. 1982. On the design and analysis of simulated choice or allocation experiments in travel choice modelling. Transportation Research Record 890: 11–17. Google Scholar Louviere JJ, Hensher DA, Swait J. 2000. Stated Choice Methods: Analysis and Applications. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge. 10.1017/CBO9780511753831 Google Scholar Louviere J, Woodworth G. 1983. Design and analysis of simulated consumer choice or allocation experiments: an approach based on aggregate data. Journal of Marketing Research 20: 350–367. 10.1177/002224378302000403 Web of Science®Google Scholar Merlo M, Rojas E. 1999. Policy Instruments for Promoting Positive Externalities of Mediterranean Forests, European Forest Institute Annual Conference, Chartreuse, Ittingen. Google Scholar Mitchell R, Carson R. 1989. Using Surveys to Value Public Goods. The Contingent Valuation Method. Resources For the Future: Washington, DC. Google Scholar Morrison M, Bennett J. 2000. Choice modelling, non-use values and benefit transfer. Economics Analysis and Policy 30: 13–32. 10.1016/S0313-5926(00)50002-2 Web of Science®Google Scholar Opaluch J, Swallow S, Weaver T, Wessells W, Wichelns D. 1993. Evaluating impacts from noxious facilities: including public preferences in current siting mechanisms. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 24: 41–59. 10.1006/jeem.1993.1003 Web of Science®Google Scholar Poe G, Welsh M, Champ P. 1997. Measuring the difference in mean willingness to pay when dichotomous choice contingent valuation responses are not independent. Land Economics 73: 255–267. 10.2307/3147286 Web of Science®Google Scholar Rolfe J, Bennett J. 1996. Valuing international rainforests: a choice modelling approach, Paper presented at the 40th Annual Conference of the Australian Society of Agricultural Economics, Melbourne. Google Scholar Rosen S. 1974. Hedonic prices and implicit markets: product differentiation in pure competition. Journal of Political Economy 82: 34–55. 10.1086/260169 Web of Science®Google Scholar Royal Decree. 152/1996. State Bulletin No. 45 of 21.02.1996, p. 6334. Google Scholar Schwabe K, Schuhmann P, Boyd R, Doorodian K. 2001. The value of changes in deer season length: an application of the nested multinomial logit model. Environmental and Resource Economics 19: 131–147. 10.1023/A:1011121503549 Web of Science®Google Scholar Spanish Ministry of the Environment. 2002. Environment-related cross-sector policies under the jurisdiction of other ministries and public administrations. Actuaciones Públicas en Materia de Medio Ambiente. http://www.mma.es/info_amb/act_pub/. Google Scholar Swait J, Adamowicz W. 2001. The influence of task complexity on consumer choice: a latent class model of decision strategy switching. Journal of Consumer Research 28: 135–148. 10.1086/321952 Web of Science®Google Scholar Citing Literature Volume15, Issue1January/February 2005Pages 44-58 ReferencesRelatedInformation
Referência(s)