Advanced Search
MyIDEAS: Login

Preference Structures, Property Rights, and Paired Comparisons

Contents:

Author Info

  • Michael Lockwood
Registered author(s):

    Abstract

    The method of paired comparisons was used to determine the structure of survey participants' value expressions for Australian native forests. The same participants were also surveyed using the contingent valuation method (CVM). Data from the paired comparisons were used to construct preference maps which enabled identification of participants whose value expressions were structurally incompatible with economic welfare theory – in particular, those participants who expressed their values according to lexicographic preferences. For some of these participants, CVM results did not provide appropriate measures of WTP. The surveys also demonstrated the importance of allowing participants' own views on property rights to dictate the valuation context offered. Copyright Kluwer Academic Publishers 1999

    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://hdl.handle.net/10.1023/A:1008239616998
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    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 European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists in its journal Environmental and Resource Economics.

    Volume (Year): 13 (1999)
    Issue (Month): 1 (January)
    Pages: 107-122

    as in new window
    Handle: RePEc:kap:enreec:v:13:y:1999:i:1:p:107-122

    Contact details of provider:
    Web page: http://www.springerlink.com/link.asp?id=100263

    Related research

    Keywords: contingent valuation; lexicographic preferences; nonmarket valuation; property rights;

    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. Thomas H. Stevens & Jaime Echeverria & Ronald J. Glass & Tim Hager & Thomas A. More, 1991. "Measuring the Existence Value of Wildlife: What Do CVM Estimates Really Show?," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 67(4), pages 390-400.
    2. Moldau Juan Hersztajn, 1993. "A Model of Choice Where Choice Is Determined by an Ordered Set of Irreducible Criteria," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 60(2), pages 354-377, August.
    3. Adamowicz W. & Louviere J. & Williams M., 1994. "Combining Revealed and Stated Preference Methods for Valuing Environmental Amenities," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 271-292, May.
    4. Nick Hanley & Clive L Spash, 1993. "Preferences, Information and Biodiversity Preservation," Working Papers Series 93/12, University of Stirling, Division of Economics.
    5. Lockwood, Michael, 1998. "Integrated value assessment using paired comparisons," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(1), pages 73-87, April.
    6. Lockwood, Michael, 1997. "Integrated value theory for natural areas," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 20(1), pages 83-93, January.
    7. 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.
    8. Loomis John & Lockwood Michael & DeLacy Terry, 1993. "Some Empirical Evidence on Embedding Effects in Contingent Valuation of Forest Protection," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 25(1), pages 45-55, July.
    9. Lockwood, Michael & Loomis, John & De Lacy, Terry, 1994. "The relative unimportance of a nonmarket willingness to pay for timber harvesting," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 9(2), pages 145-152, February.
    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. Lockwood, Michael, 1997. "Integrated value theory for natural areas," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 20(1), pages 83-93, January.
    2. Hougaard, Jens Leth & Tvede, Mich, 2001. "The existence of maximal elements: generalized lexicographic relations," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 111-115, November.
    3. Schlapfer, Felix, 2006. "Survey protocol and income effects in the contingent valuation of public goods: A meta-analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(3), pages 415-429, May.
    4. Tuan, Tran Hu & Lindhjem, Henrik, 2008. "Meta-analysis of nature conservation values in Asia & Oceania: Data heterogeneity and benefit transfer issues," MPRA Paper 11470, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    5. Saelensminde, Kjartan, 2006. "Causes and consequences of lexicographic choices in stated choice studies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 59(3), pages 331-340, September.
    6. Mazzanti, Massimiliano, 2001. "The role of economics in global management of whales: re-forming or re-founding IWC?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 205-221, February.
    7. Danny Campbell & W. George Hutchinson & Riccardo Scarpa, 2007. "Incorporating Discontinuous Preferences into the Analysis of Discrete Choice Experiments," Working Papers in Economics 07/18, University of Waikato, Department of Economics.
    8. Veisten, Knut, 2007. "Contingent valuation controversies: Philosophic debates about economic theory," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 204-232, April.
    9. Sell, Joachim & Koellner, Thomas & Weber, Olaf & Proctor, Wendy & Pedroni, Lucio & Scholz, Roland W., 2007. "Ecosystem services from tropical forestry projects - The choice of international market actors," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 9(5), pages 496-515, January.
    10. Kosenius, Anna-Kaisa, 2013. "Preference discontinuity in choice experiment: Determinants and implications," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 138-145.
    11. Lockwood, Michael, 1998. "Integrated value assessment using paired comparisons," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(1), pages 73-87, April.

    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:kap:enreec:v:13:y:1999:i:1:p:107-122. 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: (Guenther Eichhorn) or (Christopher F. Baum).

    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.