Advanced Search
MyIDEAS: Login

Assessing information provision and respondent involvement effects on preferences

Contents:

Author Info

  • Shapansky, Bradford
  • Adamowicz, Wiktor L.
  • Boxall, Peter C.

Abstract

We develop a test of the effect of information and respondent involvement on preferences for passive-use values using three treatments. Individuals from a rural community participated in one of three groups, each with a different level of involvement in the valuation assessment. The first group was highly involved, attending three meetings which allowed for information acquisition and preference construction. The second group was involved in a single meeting, and the third group was minimally involved through telephone contact and the completion of a mail administered survey. The hypothesis examined was that the degree of involvement in the exercise would affect the magnitude and consistency of preferences across the groups. The hypothesis that the preferences differ was not accepted. Furthermore, the hypothesis that variances in preferences would be higher in less involved groups was also rejected. While the analysis is based on relatively small samples the findings suggest caution in claiming that increasing degrees of respondent involvement improve economic measures of trade-offs.

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://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6VDY-4PS5F9T-2/1/8c4b993efdc2b5ee977661249b29ac18
Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

Bibliographic Info

Article provided by Elsevier in its journal Ecological Economics.

Volume (Year): 65 (2008)
Issue (Month): 3 (April)
Pages: 626-635

as in new window
Handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:65:y:2008:i:3:p:626-635

Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolecon

Related research

Keywords:

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. Ralph L. Keeney & Detlof von Winterfeldt & Thomas Eppel, 1990. "Eliciting Public Values for Complex Policy Decisions," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 36(9), pages 1011-1030, September.
  2. Samuel Bowles, 1998. "Endogenous Preferences: The Cultural Consequences of Markets and Other Economic Institutions," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 36(1), pages 75-111, March.
  3. Wiktor Adamowicz & Peter Boxall & Michael Williams & Jordan Louviere, 1998. "Stated Preference Approaches for Measuring Passive Use Values: Choice Experiments and Contingent Valuation," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 80(1), pages 64-75.
  4. Robin Gregory & Sarah Lichtenstein & Thomas C. Brown & George L. Peterson & Paul Slovic, 1995. "How Precise Are Monetary Representations of Environmental Improvements?," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 71(4), pages 462-473.
  5. Schkade David A. & Payne John W., 1994. "How People Respond to Contingent Valuation Questions: A Verbal Protocol Analysis of Willingness to Pay for an Environmental Regulation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 26(1), pages 88-109, January.
  6. Joseph Cook & Dale Whittington & Do Gia Canh & F. Reed Johnson & Andrew Nyamete, 2007. "Reliability Of Stated Preferences For Cholera And Typhoid Vaccines With Time To Think In Hue, Vietnam," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 45(1), pages 100-114, 01.
  7. Macmillan, Douglas C. & Philip, Lorna & Hanley, Nick & Alvarez-Farizo, Begona, 2002. "Valuing the non-market benefits of wild goose conservation: a comparison of interview and group based approaches," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 43(1), pages 49-59, November.
  8. McDaniels, Timothy L. & Roessler, Craig, 1998. "Multiattribute elicitation of wilderness preservation benefits: a constructive approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 27(3), pages 299-312, December.
  9. Adamowicz, Wiktor & Swait, Joffre & Boxall, Peter & Louviere, Jordan & Williams, Michael, 1997. "Perceptions versus Objective Measures of Environmental Quality in Combined Revealed and Stated Preference Models of Environmental Valuation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 65-84, January.
  10. Wellstead, Adam M. & Stedman, Richard C. & Parkins, John R., 2003. "Understanding the concept of representation within the context of local forest management decision making," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 5(1), pages 1-11, January.
  11. Begoña Álvarez-Farizo & Nick Hanley, 2006. "Improving the Process of Valuing Non-Market Benefits: Combining Citizens’ Juries with Choice Modelling," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 82(3), pages 465-478.
  12. Richard B. Howarth & Matthew A. Wilson, 2006. "A Theoretical Approach to Deliberative Valuation: Aggregation by Mutual Consent," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 82(1), pages 1-16.
  13. Payne, John W & Bettman, James R & Schkade, David A, 1999. "Measuring Constructed Preferences: Towards a Building Code," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 19(1-3), pages 243-70, December.
  14. MacMillan, Douglas & Hanley, Nick & Lienhoop, Nele, 2006. "Contingent valuation: Environmental polling or preference engine?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(1), pages 299-307, November.
  15. Robin Gregory & Ralph L. Keeney, 1994. "Creating Policy Alternatives Using Stakeholder Values," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 40(8), pages 1035-1048, August.
  16. W. Michael Hanemann, 1994. "Valuing the Environment through Contingent Valuation," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 8(4), pages 19-43, Fall.
  17. Joseph Cook, 2007. "Reliability Of Stated Preferences For Cholera And Typhoid Vaccines With Time To Think In Hue, Vietnam," EEPSEA Special and Technical Paper sp200701s1, Economy and Environment Program for Southeast Asia (EEPSEA), revised Jan 2007.
  18. Whittington, Dale & Smith, V. Kerry & Okorafor, Apia & Okore, Augustine & Liu, Jin Long & McPhail, Alexander, 1992. "Giving respondents time to think in contingent valuation studies: A developing country application," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 22(3), pages 205-225, May.
  19. Norton, Bryan & Costanza, Robert & Bishop, Richard C., 1998. "The evolution of preferences: Why 'sovereign' preferences may not lead to sustainable policies and what to do about it," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 24(2-3), pages 193-211, February.
  20. Gregory, Robin & Slovic, Paul, 1997. "A constructive approach to environmental valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(3), pages 175-181, June.
  21. Shapansky, Bradford & Adamowicz, Wiktor L. & Boxall, Peter C., 2002. "Measuring Forest Resource Values: An Assessment Of Choice Experiments And Preference Construction Methods As Public Involvement Tools," Project Report Series 24036, University of Alberta, Department of Resource Economics and Environmental Sociology.
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. Marit Kragt & Jeffrey Bennett, 2012. "Attribute Framing in Choice Experiments: How Do Attribute Level Descriptions Affect Value Estimates?," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 51(1), pages 43-59, January.
  2. Taro Ohdoko & Kentaro Yoshida, 2012. "Public preferences for forest ecosystem management in Japan with emphasis on species diversity," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 14(2), pages 147-169, April.
  3. Martin J. Osborne & Matthew A. Turner, 2010. "Cost Benefit Analyses versus Referenda," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 118(1), pages 156-187, 02.

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:eee:ecolec:v:65:y:2008:i:3:p:626-635. 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: (Zhang, Lei).

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.