Advanced Search
MyIDEAS: Login

Conjoint Analysis Of Groundwater Protection Programs

Contents:

Author Info

  • Stevens, Thomas H.
  • Barrett, Christopher B.
  • Willis, Cleve E.
Registered author(s):

    Abstract

    Three conjoint models-a traditional ratings model, a ratings difference specification, and a binary response model-were used to value groundwater protection program alternatives. The last, which is virtually identical to a dichotomous choice contingent valuation specification, produced the smallest value estimates. This suggests that the conjoint model is very sensitive to model specifications and that traditional conjoint models may overestimate economic value because many respondents are not in the market for the commodity being valued.

    Download Info

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
    File URL: http://purl.umn.edu/31562
    Download Restriction: no

    Bibliographic Info

    Article provided by Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association in its journal Agricultural and Resource Economics Review.

    Volume (Year): 26 (1997)
    Issue (Month): 2 (October)
    Pages:

    as in new window
    Handle: RePEc:ags:arerjl:31562

    Contact details of provider:
    Web page: http://www.narea.org/
    More information through EDIRC

    Related research

    Keywords: Resource /Energy Economics and Policy;

    References

    References listed on IDEAS
    Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
    as in new window
    1. MacKenzie, John, 1990. "Conjoint Analysis Of Deer Hunting," Northeastern Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 19(2), October.
    2. F Reed Johnson & William H. Desvousges & Lisa L. Wood & Erin E. Fries, . "Conjoint Analysis of Individual and Aggregate Environmental Preferences," Working Papers 9502, Triangle Economic Research.
    3. Edwards, Steven F., 1988. "Option prices for groundwater protection," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 15(4), pages 475-487, December.
    4. Kalle Seip & Jon Strand, 1992. "Willingness to pay for environmental goods in Norway: A contingent valuation study with real payment," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 2(1), pages 91-106, January.
    5. Roe, Brian & Boyle, Kevin J. & Teisl, Mario F., 1996. "Using Conjoint Analysis to Derive Estimates of Compensating Variation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 31(2), pages 145-159, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as in new window

    Cited by:
    1. Mathews, Leah Greden & Kask, Susan B. & Stewart, Steve, 2004. "The Value Of The View: Valuing Scenic Quality Using Choice And Contingent Valuation Models," 2004 Annual meeting, August 1-4, Denver, CO 20049, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    2. Harrison, R. Wes & Gillespie, Jeffrey M. & Fields, Deacue, 2005. "Analysis of Cardinal and Ordinal Assumptions in Conjoint Analysis," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 34(2), October.
    3. repec:ebl:ecbull:v:17:y:2005:i:7:p:1-15 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. Edward Morey & Kathleen Greer Rossmann, 2003. "Using Stated-Preference Questions to Investigate Variations in Willingness to Pay for Preserving Marble Monuments: Classic Heterogeneity, Random Parameters, and Mixture Models," Journal of Cultural Economics, Springer, vol. 27(3), pages 215-229, November.
    5. Cameron, Trudy Ann & Poe, Gregory L. & Ethier, Robert G. & Schulze, William D., 2002. "Alternative Non-market Value-Elicitation Methods: Are the Underlying Preferences the Same?," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 44(3), pages 391-425, November.
    6. Casey, James F. & Kahn, James R. & Rivas, Alexandre A.F., 2008. "Willingness to accept compensation for the environmental risks of oil transport on the Amazon: A choice modeling experiment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 67(4), pages 552-559, November.
    7. Paul M. Patterson & Timothy J. Burkink & Rozlyn S. Lipsey & Jason Lipsey & Richard W. Roth & Mary Kay Martin, 2003. "Targeting tourists with state branding programs," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 19(4), pages 525-538.
    8. Oliver Froer, 2003. "Using Stated Preference Methods for Biodiversity Valuation. A critical analysis," Diskussionspapiere aus dem Institut für Volkswirtschaftslehre der Universität Hohenheim 217/2003, Department of Economics, University of Hohenheim, Germany.
    9. Swallow, Stephen K. & Opaluch, James J. & Weaver, Thomas F., 2001. "Strength-of-Preference Indicators and an Ordered-Response Model for Ordinarily Dichotomous, Discrete Choice Data," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 41(1), pages 70-93, January.
    10. Harrison, R. Wes & Gillespie, Jeffrey M. & Fields, Deacue, 2001. "Theoretical And Empirical Considerations Of Eliciting Preferences And Model Estimation In Conjoint Analysis," 2001 Annual meeting, August 5-8, Chicago, IL 20680, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    11. Haefele, Michelle A. & Loomis, John B., 1999. "A Comparison Of Conjoint Ratings And Rankings: An Application For Passive Use Values Of Forest Health," 1999 Annual Meeting, July 11-14, 1999, Fargo, ND 35729, Western Agricultural Economics Association.

    Lists

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:arerjl:31562. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (AgEcon Search).

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.