IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/fem/femwpa/2005.64.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Modeling ‘No-choice’ Responses in Attribute Based Valuation Surveys

Author

Listed:
  • Arianne T. de Blaeij

    (Centre Utrecht (URU), Utrecht University)

  • Paulo A.L.D. Nunes

    (Free University)

  • Jeroen C.J.M. van den Bergh

    (Free University)

Abstract

We examine the impact of providing a ‘no-choice’ option in an attribute based valuation experiment. The aim of the experiment was to assess monetary values of cockle fishery management practices in the Dutch Wadden Sea for different stakeholder groups, namely Dutch citizens, local residents, and tourists. The current policy debate about the management of the Wadden Sea stresses the fact that individual preferences with respect to cockle-fishery differ. The aim of this paper is to analyze the individual preferences in an objective way. Special attention is given to the influence of including a ‘no-choice option’, which is analyzed using a nested logit model. We test whether the full set of policy options can be considered as close substitutes. The estimation results show that the influence of including the no choice option differs among the stakeholders considered.

Suggested Citation

  • Arianne T. de Blaeij & Paulo A.L.D. Nunes & Jeroen C.J.M. van den Bergh, 2005. "Modeling ‘No-choice’ Responses in Attribute Based Valuation Surveys," Working Papers 2005.64, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
    • Handle: RePEc:fem:femwpa:2005.64
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://feem-media.s3.eu-central-1.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/NDL2005-064.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    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. Zander, Kerstin K. & Drucker, Adam G., 2008. "Conserving what's important: Using choice model scenarios to value local cattle breeds in East Africa," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(1-2), pages 34-45, December.

    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. Zhifeng Gao & Ted C. Schroeder, 2009. "Consumer responses to new food quality information: are some consumers more sensitive than others?," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 40(3), pages 339-346, May.
    2. Tin Cheuk Leung, 2013. "What Is the True Loss Due to Piracy? Evidence from Microsoft Office in Hong Kong," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 95(3), pages 1018-1029, July.
    3. Ortega, David L. & Wang, H. Holly & Wu, Laping & Hong, Soo Jeong, 2015. "Retail channel and consumer demand for food quality in China," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 359-366.
    4. Doherty, Edel & Campbell, Danny, 2011. "Demand for improved food safety and quality: a cross-regional comparison," 85th Annual Conference, April 18-20, 2011, Warwick University, Coventry, UK 108791, Agricultural Economics Society.
    5. Koo, Tay T.R. & Wu, Cheng-Lung (Richard) & Dwyer, Larry, 2010. "Ground travel mode choices of air arrivals at regional destinations: The significance of tourism attributes and destination contexts," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(1), pages 44-53.
    6. Melanie Lefevre, 2011. "Willingness-to-pay for Local Milk-based Dairy Product in Senegal," CREPP Working Papers 1108, Centre de Recherche en Economie Publique et de la Population (CREPP) (Research Center on Public and Population Economics) HEC-Management School, University of Liège.
    7. Kesternich, Iris & Heiss, Florian & McFadden, Daniel & Winter, Joachim, 2013. "Suit the action to the word, the word to the action: Hypothetical choices and real decisions in Medicare Part D," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(6), pages 1313-1324.
    8. David Hensher & John Rose & Zheng Li, 2012. "Does the choice model method and/or the data matter?," Transportation, Springer, vol. 39(2), pages 351-385, March.
    9. M. Martin Boyer & Philippe De Donder & Claude Denys Fluet & Marie-Louise Leroux & Pierre-Carl Michaud, 2018. "A Canadian Parlor Room-Type Approach to the Long-Term Care Insurance Puzzle," CIRANO Working Papers 2018s-13, CIRANO.
    10. Mahieu, Pierre-Alexandre & Andersson, Henrik & Beaumais, Olivier & Crastes dit Sourd, Romain & Hess, François-Charles & Wolff, François-Charles, 2017. "Stated preferences: a unique database composed of 1657 recent published articles in journals related to agriculture, environment, or health," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA), vol. 98(3), November.
    11. Concepcion Roman & Juan Carlos Martin & Raquel Espino, 2011. "Using Stated Preferences (Sp) To Analyze The Service Quality Of Public Transport," ERSA conference papers ersa11p86, European Regional Science Association.
    12. Toşa, Cristian & Sato, Hitomi & Morikawa, Takayuki & Miwa, Tomio, 2018. "Commuting behavior in emerging urban areas: Findings of a revealed-preferences and stated-intentions survey in Cluj-Napoca, Romania," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 78-93.
    13. Qin, Pin & Carlsson, Fredrik & Xu, Jintao, 2009. "Forestland Reform in China: What do the Farmers Want? A Choice Experiment on Farmers’ Property Rights Preferences," Working Papers in Economics 370, University of Gothenburg, Department of Economics.
    14. Schipmann, Christin & Qaim, Matin, 2011. "Supply chain differentiation, contract agriculture, and farmers’ marketing preferences: The case of sweet pepper in Thailand," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(5), pages 667-677.
    15. Han-Shen Chen & Chu-Wei Chen, 2019. "Economic Valuation of Green Island, Taiwan: A Choice Experiment Method," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-17, January.
    16. Ping Qin & Fredrik Carlsson & Jintao Xu, 2011. "Forest Tenure Reform in China: A Choice Experiment on Farmers’ Property Rights Preferences," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 87(3), pages 473-487.
    17. Joachim Marti, 2012. "Assessing preferences for improved smoking cessation medications: a discrete choice experiment," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 13(5), pages 533-548, October.
    18. Bhat, Chandra R. & Sardesai, Rupali, 2006. "The impact of stop-making and travel time reliability on commute mode choice," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 40(9), pages 709-730, November.
    19. Dugstad, Anders & Grimsrud, Kristine & Kipperberg, Gorm & Lindhjem, Henrik & Navrud, Ståle, 2020. "Acceptance of wind power development and exposure – Not-in-anybody's-backyard," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 147(C).
    20. Kallas, Z. & Gómez-Limón, J.A., 2007. "Valoración De La Multifuncionalidad Agraria: Una Aplicación A Través Del Método De Los Experimentos De Elección/Agricultural Multifunctionality Valuation: A Case Study Using The Choice Experiment," Estudios de Economia Aplicada, Estudios de Economia Aplicada, vol. 25, pages 107-144, Abril.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Stakeholder valuation; Stated choice method; Multinomial logit model; Binary logit model;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C25 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Single Equation Models; Single Variables - - - Discrete Regression and Qualitative Choice Models; Discrete Regressors; Proportions; Probabilities
    • C29 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Single Equation Models; Single Variables - - - Other
    • Q22 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation - - - Fishery
    • Q25 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation - - - Water
    • Q51 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Valuation of Environmental Effects

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:fem:femwpa:2005.64. 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: Alberto Prina Cerai (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/feemmit.html .

    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.