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! ]

Using Choice Modeling to Investigate Equity Preferences

Author info | Abstract | Publisher info | Download info | Related research | Statistics
Author Info
Helen Scarborough () (Deakin University)
Jeff Bennett () (The Australian National University)
Rodney Carr () (Deakin University)

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

Abstract

Benefit cost analysis (BCA) is a widely used method of assessing environmental policies. One of the limitations of BCA is the incorporation of equity considerations into an analysis. While this is theoretically possible through the application of distributional weights, this practice has not been generally adopted due to difficulties in determining appropriate weights. This paper suggests that one way of addressing the equity issue is through the application of a stated preference technique to the estimation of equity preferences. It is demonstrated that using choice modelling enables respondents’ equity preferences to be elicited and distributional weights suitable for application in BCA to be estimated.

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://www.deakin.edu.au/buslaw/aef/workingpapers/papers/swp2004_03.pdf
File Format: application/pdf
File Function:
Download Restriction: no

Publisher Info
Paper provided by Deakin University, Faculty of Business and Law, School of Accounting, Economics and Finance in its series Economics Series with number 2004_03.

Download reference. The following formats are available: HTML (with abstract), plain text (with abstract), BibTeX, RIS (EndNote, RefMan, ProCite), ReDIF
Length: 24 pages
Date of creation: 24 Nov 2004
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:dkn:econwp:eco_2004_03

Contact details of provider:
Postal: 221 Burwood Highway, Burwood 3125
Phone: 61 3 9244 3815
Web page: http://www.deakin.edu.au/buslaw/aef/index.php

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its listing, contact: (Dr Xueli Tang).

Related research
Keywords: Distributional weights; Benefit cost analysis; Choice modelling;

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. Sen, Amartya, 2000. "Social justice and the distribution of income," Handbook of Income Distribution, in: A.B. Atkinson & F. Bourguignon (ed.), Handbook of Income Distribution, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 1, pages 59-85 Elsevier. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  2. Roberts, Kevin W S, 1980. "Possibility Theorems with Interpersonally Comparable Welfare Levels," Review of Economic Studies, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 47(2), pages 409-20, January. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  3. Giles Atkinson & Fernando Machado & Susana Mourato, 2000. "Balancing competing principles of environmental equity," Environment and Planning A, Pion Ltd, London, vol. 32(10), pages 1791-1806, October. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  4. Kelvin J. Lancaster, 1966. "A New Approach to Consumer Theory," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 74, pages 132. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  5. Medin, Hege & Nyborg, Karine & Bateman, Ian, 2001. "The assumption of equal marginal utility of income: how much does it matter?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 36(3), pages 397-411, March. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
    Other versions:
  6. Blamey, R. & Common, M. & Quiggin, J., 1995. "Respondents To Contingent Valuation Surveys: Consumers Or Citizens?," Australian Journal of Agricultural Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 39(03), December. [Downloadable!]
  7. 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. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  8. Kjell Brekke & Hilde Lurå & Karine Nyborg, 1996. "Allowing disagreement in evaluations of social welfare," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 63(3), pages 303-324, October. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  9. Nash, Christopher A & Pearce, David W & Stanley, John K, 1975. "An Evaluation of Cost-Benefit Analysis Criteria," Scottish Journal of Political Economy, Scottish Economic Society, vol. 22(2), pages 121-34, June.
  10. Nyborg, Karine, 2000. "Homo Economicus and Homo Politicus: interpretation and aggregation of environmental values," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 42(3), pages 305-322, July. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  11. Roe, Brian & Boyle, Kevin J. & Teisl, Mario F., 1996. "Using Conjoint Analysis to Derive Estimates of Compensating Variation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 31(2), pages 145-159, September. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  12. Harberger, Arnold C, 1978. "On the Use of Distributional Weights in Social Cost-Benefit Analysis," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 86(2), pages S87-120, April. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
Full references

Statistics
Access and download statistics

Did you know? A tutorial is available.

This page was last updated on 2009-11-12.


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.