Advanced Search
MyIDEAS: Login to save this article or follow this journal

Improving the Process of Valuing Non-Market Benefits: Combining Citizens’ Juries with Choice Modelling

Contents:

Author Info

  • Begoña Álvarez-Farizo
  • Nick Hanley

Abstract

We attempt a first combination of the participatory technique known as the "citizens’ jury" with choice modelling, a stated-preference technique increasingly favored by environmental economists. Our application is conducted in the context of water quality improvements under the Water Framework Directive, the most significant reform in water legislation in the European Union for many years. We compare results with those of a conventional choice experiment. We find that the choice experiment format can be successfully implemented in a "jury" setting, and that moving from an individual to a collective choice setting produces a change in both values and preferences.

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://le.uwpress.org/cgi/reprint/82/3/465
Download Restriction: A subscripton is required to access pdf files. Pay per article is available.

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 University of Wisconsin Press in its journal Land Economics.

Volume (Year): 82 (2006)
Issue (Month): 3 ()
Pages: 465-478

as in new window
Handle: RePEc:uwp:landec:v:82:y:2006:i:3:p:465-478

Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://le.uwpress.org/

Related research

Keywords:

Find related papers by JEL classification:

References

No references listed on IDEAS
You can help add them by filling out this form.

Citations

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

Cited by:
  1. Christie, Michael & Colombo, Sergio & Hanley, Nicholas, 2011. "What are the consequences of ignoring attributes in choice experiments? An application to ecosystem service values," Stirling Economics Discussion Papers 2011-20, University of Stirling, Division of Economics.
  2. Schlapfer, Felix, 2008. "Contingent valuation: A new perspective," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(4), pages 729-740, February.
  3. Christos Zografos & Richard B. Howarth, 2010. "Deliberative Ecological Economics for Sustainability Governance," Sustainability, MDPI, Open Access Journal, vol. 2(11), pages 3399-3417, October.
  4. Michael Ahlheim & Benchaphun Ekasingh & Oliver Frör & Jirawan Kitchaincharoen & Andreas Neef & Chapika Sangkapitux & Nopasom Sinphurmsukskul, 2007. "Using Citizen Expert Groups in Environmental Valuation - Lessons from a CVM study in Northern Thailand," Diskussionspapiere aus dem Institut für Volkswirtschaftslehre der Universität Hohenheim 283/2007, Department of Economics, University of Hohenheim, Germany.
  5. Hearnshaw, Edward J.S. & Cullen, Ross, 2010. "The Sustainability and Cost-Effectiveness of Water Storage Projects on Canterbury Rivers: The Opihi River Case," 2010 Conference, August 26-27, 2010, Nelson, New Zealand 97265, New Zealand Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
  6. Tompkins, Jean-Marie & Hearnshaw, Edward J.S. & Cullen, Ross, 2011. "Evaluating the sustainability of impounded river systems and the cost-effectiveness of dam projects: An ecosystem services approach," 2011 Conference (55th), February 8-11, 2011, Melbourne, Australia 100720, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
  7. Hertzler, Greg, 2008. "Dynamic Contingent Valuation and Choice Modelling for Ecosystem Services," 2008 Conference (52nd), February 5-8, 2008, Canberra, Australia 6024, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
  8. Colombo, Sergio & Hanley, Nicholas & Tinch, Dugald, 2010. "Differences between Decision and Experienced Utility: An Investigation using the Choice Experiment method," Stirling Economics Discussion Papers 2010-13, University of Stirling, Division of Economics.
  9. Joseph Cook & Marc Jeuland & Brian Maskery & Dale Whittington, 2012. "Giving Stated Preference Respondents “Time to Think”: Results From Four Countries," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 51(4), pages 473-496, April.
  10. Nobuyuki Ito & Kenji Takeuchi & Koichi Kuriyama & Yasushi Shoji & Takahiro Tsuge & Yohei Mitani, 2008. "The influence of decision-making rules on individual preference for ecological restoration: Evidence from an experimental survey," Discussion Papers 0820, Graduate School of Economics, Kobe University.
  11. Michael Ahlheim & Benchaphun Ekasingh & Oliver Frör & Jirawan Kitchaicharoen & Andreas Neef & Chapika Sangkapitux & Nopasom Sinphurmsukskul, 2008. "Better than their reputation - A case for mail surveys in contingent valuation," Diskussionspapiere aus dem Institut für Volkswirtschaftslehre der Universität Hohenheim 297/2008, Department of Economics, University of Hohenheim, Germany.
  12. Shapansky, Bradford & Adamowicz, Wiktor L. & Boxall, Peter C., 2008. "Assessing information provision and respondent involvement effects on preferences," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(3), pages 626-635, April.
  13. Colombo, Sergio & Christie, Michael & Hanley, Nick, 2013. "What are the consequences of ignoring attributes in choice experiments? Implications for ecosystem service valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 25-35.
  14. Stephen Hynes & Daniel Norton & Nick Hanley, 2013. "Adjusting for Cultural Differences in International Benefit Transfer," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 56(4), pages 499-519, December.
  15. Álvarez-Farizo, Begoña & Gil, José M. & Howard, B.J., 2009. "Impacts from restoration strategies: Assessment through valuation workshops," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(3), pages 787-797, January.
  16. Kenyon, Wendy, 2007. "Evaluating flood risk management options in Scotland: A participant-led multi-criteria approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(1), pages 70-81, October.
  17. Cavalcanti, Carina & Schläpfer, Felix & Schmid, Bernhard, 2008. "Public participation and willingness to cooperate in common-pool resource management: a field experiment with fishing communities in Brazil," Proceedings of the German Development Economics Conference, Zurich 2008 5, Verein für Socialpolitik, Research Committee Development Economics.
  18. Jean-Michel Salles, 2011. "Valuing biodiversity and ecosystem services: why linking economic values with Nature?," Working Papers 11-24, LAMETA, Universtiy of Montpellier, revised Dec 2011.
  19. Hynes, Stephen & Norton, Daniel & Hanley, Nick, 2012. "Accounting for Cultural Dimensions in Estimating the Value of Coastal Zone Ecosystem Services using International Benefit Transfer," Working Papers 148828, Socio-Economic Marine Research Unit, National University of Ireland, Galway.
  20. Schläpfer, Felix & Schmitt, Marcel & Roschewitz, Anna, 2008. "Competitive politics, simplified heuristics, and preferences for public goods," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(3), pages 574-589, April.
  21. Colombo, S. & Angus, A. & Morris, J. & Parsons, D.J. & Brawn, M. & Stacey, K. & Hanley, N., 2009. "A comparison of citizen and "expert" preferences using an attribute-based approach to choice," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(11), pages 2834-2841, September.

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:uwp:landec:v:82:y:2006:i:3:p:465-478. 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: ().

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.