This file is part of IDEAS, which uses RePEc data


[ Papers | Articles | Software | Books | Chapters | Authors | Institutions | JEL Classification | NEP reports | Search | New papers by email | Author registration | Rankings | Volunteers | FAQ | Blog | Help! ]

Attribute Causality in Environmental Choice Modelling

Author info | Abstract | Publisher info | Download info | Related research | Statistics
Author Info
R.K. Blamey
J.W. Bennett ()
J.J. Louviere
M.D. Morrison
J.C. Rolfe

Additional information is available for the following registered author(s):

Abstract

When selecting attributes in environmentalChoice Modelling studies, preference should begiven to those attributes that aredemand-relevant, policy-relevant, andmeasurable. The use of these criteria willoften result in a short list of environmentalattributes of which some are causally related. The inclusion of attributes that have a``cause-effect'' relationship may stimulate somerespondents to seek to understand the causalrelations among attributes in order to assigngreater meaning to the alternatives, andpotentially, simplify the decision makingprocess. This may have implications for theweights they assign to each of the attributeswhen identifying the preferred alternatives,and subsequently for the implicit prices and/orwelfare estimates. A test of the impact ofincluding an attribute that causesimpacts on ecosystem health as well as anattribute relating to ecosystem health effectson parameter estimates, implicitprices and welfare estimates is conducted. Twoquestionnaires are developed, one with the`causal' attribute included and one without. Acomparison of results indicates that when the`causal' attribute is included in the vector ofchoice attributes, the implicit value of asingle endangered species falls by 34 per centwhilst no significant difference is detected inthe parameter estimates. Importantly, however,estimates of compensating surplus for a givenpolicy package do not differsignificantly across the two treatments. Thisimplies that to the extent that the inclusionof a `causal' attribute reduces the implicitprices for one or more of the `effect'attributes, the associated loss in utility isapproximately offset by the utility nowassociated with the new attribute. Copyright Kluwer Academic Publishers 2002

Download Info
To download:

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. Information about this may be contained in the File-Format links below. 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:1021202425295
File Format: text/html
File Function:
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.

Publisher Info
Article provided by European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists in its journal Environmental and Resource Economics.

Volume (Year): 23 (2002)
Issue (Month): 2 (October)
Pages: 167-186
Download reference. The following formats are available: HTML (with abstract), plain text (with abstract), BibTeX, RIS (EndNote, RefMan, ProCite), ReDIF
Handle: RePEc:kap:enreec:v:23:y:2002:i:2:p:167-186

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

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its listing, contact: (Christopher F. Baum).

Related research
Keywords: attributes; choice modelling; valuation; vegetation;

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.:

  1. Boxall, Peter C. & Adamowicz, Wiktor L. & Swait, Joffre & Williams, Michael & Louviere, Jordan, 1996. "A comparison of stated preference methods for environmental valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(3), pages 243-253, September. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  2. Kling, Catherine L. & Thomson, Cynthia J., 1999. "Implications of Model Specification for Welfare Estimation in Nested Logit Models (The)," Staff General Research Papers 1599, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
  3. Herriges, Joseph A. & Kling, Catherine L., 1999. "Performance of Nested Logit Models when Welfare Estimation Is the Goal (The)," Staff General Research Papers 1480, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
  4. Nick Hanley & Robert Wright & Vic Adamowicz, 1998. "Using Choice Experiments to Value the Environment," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 11(3), pages 413-428, April. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  5. Kenneth E. Train, 1998. "Recreation Demand Models with Taste Differences over People," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 74(2), pages 230-239. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  6. Kenneth E. Train & Daniel L. McFadden & Moshe Ben-Akiva, 1987. "The Demand for Local Telephone Service: A Fully Discrete Model of Residential Calling Patterns and Service Choices," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 18(1), pages 109-123, Spring. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  7. Choi, Ki-Hong & Moon, Choon-Geol, 1997. "Generalized extreme value model and additively separable generator function," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 76(1-2), pages 129-140. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  8. Hausman, Jerry & McFadden, Daniel, 1984. "Specification Tests for the Multinomial Logit Model," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 52(5), pages 1219-40, September. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
    Other versions:
  9. Daniel McFadden, 1977. "Modelling the Choice of Residential Location," Cowles Foundation Discussion Papers 477, Cowles Foundation, Yale University. [Downloadable!]
  10. Gregory L. Poe & Michael P. Welsh & Patricia A. Champ, 1997. "Measuring the Difference in Mean Willingness to Pay When Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation Responses Are Not Independent," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 73(2), pages 255-267. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
Full references

Cited by:
(explanations, 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.)

  1. Danny Campbell & W. Hutchinson & Riccardo Scarpa, 2008. "Incorporating Discontinuous Preferences into the Analysis of Discrete Choice Experiments," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 41(3), pages 401-417, November. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
    Other versions:
  2. Silvia Ferrini & Riccardo Scarpa, 2005. "Experimental Designs for Environmental Valuation with Choice-Experiments: A Monte-Carlo Investigation," Working Papers in Economics 05/08, University of Waikato, Department of Economics. [Downloadable!]
  3. Danny Campbell & W. George Hutchinson & Riccardo Scarpa, 2006. "Lexicographic Preferences in Discrete Choice Experiments: Consequences on Individual-Specific Willingness to Pay Estimates," Working Papers 2006.128, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei. [Downloadable!]
  4. Stefan Hajkowicz (Ed) & Mike Young (Ed), 2002. "Value of Returns to Land and Water and Costs of Degradation Vol 1 of 2," Natural Resource Management Economics 02_002, Policy and Economic Research Unit, CSIRO Land and Water, Adelaide, Australia. [Downloadable!]
    Other versions:
  5. Eggert, Håkan & Olsson, Björn, 2004. "Heterogeneous preferences for marine amenities: A choice experiment applied to water quality," Working Papers in Economics 126, Göteborg University, Department of Economics. [Downloadable!]
Statistics
Access and download statistics

Did you know? RePEc and its associated services are free for contributors and users, and do not accept any advertising.

This page was last updated on 2009-12-4.


This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Department of Economics, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, University of Connecticut using RePEc data on a server sponsored by the Society for Economic Dynamics.