IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/uwp/landec/v84y2008i3p517-528.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Assessing Management Options for Weed Control with Demanders and Non-Demanders in a Choice Experiment

Author

Listed:
  • Fredrik Carlsson
  • Mitesh Kataria

Abstract

The yellow floating heart is a water weed causing nuisance problems in Swedish watercourses. An economic analysis where various management options are considered is required. Using a choice experiment, we estimate the benefits of a weed-management program and perform a cost-benefit analysis. In order to be able to distinguish between those who have a demand for a program from those who do not, we introduce a way to distinguish demanders from non-demanders in the choice experiments. Using a simple cost-benefit rule, we find that cutting the weed in certain places in the lake can be justified.

Suggested Citation

  • Fredrik Carlsson & Mitesh Kataria, 2008. "Assessing Management Options for Weed Control with Demanders and Non-Demanders in a Choice Experiment," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 84(3), pages 517-528.
    • Handle: RePEc:uwp:landec:v:84:y:2008:i:3:p:517-528
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://le.uwpress.org/cgi/reprint/84/3/517
    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 below or search for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Clinch, J Peter & Murphy, Anthony, 2001. "Modelling Winners and Losers in Contingent Valuation of Public Goods: Appropriate Welfare Measures and Econometric Analysis," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 111(470), pages 420-443, April.
    2. Paulo Nunes & Jeroen van den Bergh, 2004. "Can People Value Protection against Invasive Marine Species? Evidence from a Joint TC–CV Survey in the Netherlands," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 28(4), pages 517-532, August.
    3. David Hensher & William Greene, 2003. "The Mixed Logit model: The state of practice," Transportation, Springer, vol. 30(2), pages 133-176, May.
    4. Hausman, Jerry A & Wise, David A, 1978. "A Conditional Probit Model for Qualitative Choice: Discrete Decisions Recognizing Interdependence and Heterogeneous Preferences," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 46(2), pages 403-426, March.
    5. Timothy Haab, 1999. "Nonparticipation or Misspecification? The Impacts of Nonparticipation on Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 14(4), pages 443-461, December.
    6. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521766555, January.
    7. W. Michael Hanemann, 1984. "Welfare Evaluations in Contingent Valuation Experiments with Discrete Responses," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 66(3), pages 332-341.
    8. David F. Layton & Gardner Brown, 2000. "Heterogeneous Preferences Regarding Global Climate Change," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 82(4), pages 616-624, November.
    9. F Alpizar & F Carlsson & P Martinsson, 2003. "Using Choice Experiments for Non-Market Valuation," Economic Issues Journal Articles, Economic Issues, vol. 8(1), pages 83-110, March.
    10. Bengt Kriström, 1997. "Spike Models in Contingent Valuation," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 79(3), pages 1013-1023.
    11. Laura O. Taylor & Ronald G. Cummings, 1999. "Unbiased Value Estimates for Environmental Goods: A Cheap Talk Design for the Contingent Valuation Method," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 89(3), pages 649-665, June.
    12. Carlsson, Fredrik & Frykblom, Peter & Johan Lagerkvist, Carl, 2005. "Using cheap talk as a test of validity in choice experiments," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 89(2), pages 147-152, November.
    13. Louviere,Jordan J. & Hensher,David A. & Swait,Joffre D. With contributions by-Name:Adamowicz,Wiktor, 2000. "Stated Choice Methods," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521788304.
    14. Van de Ven, Wynand P. M. M. & Van Praag, Bernard M. S., 1981. "The demand for deductibles in private health insurance : A probit model with sample selection," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 17(2), pages 229-252, November.
    15. Carlsson, Fredrik & Frykblom, Peter & Liljenstolpe, Carolina, 2003. "Valuing wetland attributes: an application of choice experiments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 47(1), pages 95-103, November.
    16. Jeff Bennett & Russell Blamey (ed.), 2001. "The Choice Modelling Approach to Environmental Valuation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2028.
    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


    Cited by:

    1. George Marbuah & Ing-Marie Gren & Kristina Tattersdill & Brendan G. McKie, 2019. "Management of an Aquatic Invasive Weed with Uncertain Benefits and Damage Costs: The Case of Elodea Canadensis in Sweden," Water Economics and Policy (WEP), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 5(03), pages 1-26, July.
    2. Fredrik Carlsson & Mitesh Kataria & Elina Lampi, 2010. "Dealing with Ignored Attributes in Choice Experiments on Valuation of Sweden’s Environmental Quality Objectives," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 47(1), pages 65-89, September.
    3. Espinosa-Goded, Maria & Barreiro-Hurlé, Jesús & Ruto, Eric, 2009. "Modeling Farmers Prefences For Agrienvironmental Scheme Design: A Spanish Case Study," 2009 Conference, August 16-22, 2009, Beijing, China 50328, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    4. Jacobsen, Jette Bredahl & Thorsen, Bo Jellesmark, 2010. "Preferences for site and environmental functions when selecting forthcoming national parks," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(7), pages 1532-1544, May.
    5. Dikgang, Johane & Muchapondwa, Edwin, "undated". "The Economic Valuation of Dryland Ecosystem Services in the South African Kgalagadi by the Local Communities," RFF Working Paper Series dp-13-15-efd, Resources for the Future.
    6. Beville, Stephen T. & Kerr, Geoffrey N. & Hughey, Kenneth F.D., 2012. "Valuing impacts of the invasive alga Didymosphenia geminata on recreational angling," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 1-10.
    7. Markowski-Lindsay, Marla & Stevens, Thomas & Kittredge, David B. & Butler, Brett J. & Catanzaro, Paul & Dickinson, Brenton J., 2011. "Barriers to Massachusetts forest landowner participation in carbon markets," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 180-190.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Fredrik Carlsson & Mitesh Kataria & Elina Lampi, 2010. "Dealing with Ignored Attributes in Choice Experiments on Valuation of Sweden’s Environmental Quality Objectives," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 47(1), pages 65-89, September.
    2. Rai, Rajesh Kumar & Scarborough, Helen, 2012. "Estimating the public benefits of mitigating damages caused by invasive plant species in a subsistence economy," 2012 Conference (56th), February 7-10, 2012, Fremantle, Australia 124421, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    3. Kragt, Marit Ellen & Bennett, Jeffrey W., 2011. "Using choice experiments to value catchment and estuary health in Tasmania with individual preference heterogeneity," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 55(2), pages 1-21.
    4. Imran Khan & Hongdou Lei & Gaffar Ali & Shahid Ali & Minjuan Zhao, 2019. "Public Attitudes, Preferences and Willingness to Pay for River Ecosystem Services," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(19), pages 1-17, October.
    5. Ladenburg, Jacob & Olsen, Søren Bøye, 2014. "Augmenting short Cheap Talk scripts with a repeated Opt-Out Reminder in Choice Experiment surveys," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 39-63.
    6. Eggert, Håkan & Olsson, Björn, 2004. "Heterogeneous preferences for marine amenities: A choice experiment applied to water quality," Working Papers in Economics 126, University of Gothenburg, Department of Economics.
    7. Kataria, Mitesh, 2009. "Willingness to pay for environmental improvements in hydropower regulated rivers," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 69-76, January.
    8. Fredrik Carlsson & Jorge García & Åsa Löfgren, 2010. "Conformity and the Demand for Environmental Goods," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 47(3), pages 407-421, November.
    9. Richard T. Carson, 2011. "Contingent Valuation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2489.
    10. De Ayala Bilbao, Amaya & Hoyos Ramos, David & Mariel Chladkova, Petr, 2012. "Landscape valuation through discrete choice experiments: Current practice and future research reflections," BILTOKI 1134-8984, Universidad del País Vasco - Departamento de Economía Aplicada III (Econometría y Estadística).
    11. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Hensher, David A., 2021. "The landscape of econometric discrete choice modelling research," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 40(C).
    12. Halkos, George & Galani, Georgia, 2016. "Assessing willingness to pay for marine and coastal ecosystems: A Case Study in Greece," MPRA Paper 68767, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    13. Mohammed H. Alemu & Søren B. Olsen, 2017. "Can a Repeated Opt-Out Reminder remove hypothetical bias in discrete choice experiments? An application to consumer valuation of novel food products," IFRO Working Paper 2017/05, University of Copenhagen, Department of Food and Resource Economics.
    14. Susaeta, Andres & Lal, Pankaj & Alavalapati, Janaki & Mercer, Evan, 2011. "Random preferences towards bioenergy environmental externalities: A case study of woody biomass based electricity in the Southern United States," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(6), pages 1111-1118.
    15. Carlsson, Fredrik & Grykblom, Peter & Lagerkvist, Carl Johan, 2007. "Farm Animal Welfare - Testing for Market Failure," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 39(1), pages 1-13, April.
    16. Ladenburg, Jacob & Hevia-Koch, Pablo & Petrović, Stefan & Knapp, Lauren, 2020. "The offshore-onshore conundrum: Preferences for wind energy considering spatial data in Denmark," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 121(C).
    17. Carlsson, Fredrik & Lampi, Elina & Martinsson, Peter, 2004. "Measuring marginal values of noise disturbance from air traffic: Does the time of the day matter?," Working Papers in Economics 125, University of Gothenburg, Department of Economics.
    18. Marit Kragt & Jeffrey Bennett, 2012. "Attribute Framing in Choice Experiments: How Do Attribute Level Descriptions Affect Value Estimates?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 51(1), pages 43-59, January.
    19. Dissanayake,Sahan T. M. & Jha,Prakash & Adhikari,Bhim & Bista,Rajesh & Bluffstone,Randall & uintel,Harisharan & Martinsson,Peter & Paudel,Naya Sharma & Somanathan,E. & Toman,Michael A., 2015. "Community managed forest groups and preferences for REDD contract attributes: a choice experiment survey of communities in Nepal," Policy Research Working Paper Series 7326, The World Bank.
    20. Zhao, Xiaoli & Cai, Qiong & Ma, Chunbo & Hu, Yanan & Luo, Kaiyan & Li, William, 2017. "Economic evaluation of environmental externalities in China’s coal-fired power generation," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 307-317.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • Q25 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation - - - Water
    • Q26 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation - - - Recreational Aspects of Natural Resources
    • Q51 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Valuation of Environmental Effects

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:uwp:landec:v:84:y:2008:i:3:p:517-528. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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 CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc 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 RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://le.uwpress.org/ .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.