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! ]

Defining environmental attributes as external costs in choice experiments: A discussion

Author info | Abstract | Publisher info | Download info | Related research | Statistics
Author Info
Catalina M. Torres Figuerola () (Centre de Recerca Econòmica (UIB · Sa Nostra))
Antoni Riera Font () (Centre de Recerca Econòmica (UIB · Sa Nostra))

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

Abstract

After doing a CE literature review to examine the dominant trends around the definition of environmental attributes in terms of their identification as external benefits or costs, their description through qualitative or quantitative attribute level labels, their number of levels and their assumed relationship with utility (i.e. linear vs non-linear), three main conclusions have been drawn. First, definition of environmental attributes as external costs has been uncommon. Second, only one single parameter has been estimated for most of them, in which cases the number of quantitative and qualitative attributes has been similar. Third, nonlinear effects have been mainly depicted through use of qualitative attributes. In this context, this paper examines the policy relevance of defining the environmental attributes as external costs when the assessment of welfare losses induced by potential impacts from polluting activities is the issue. It shows how a cost-based attribute definition allows identifying the environmental attributes through impact pathway analyses not only enabling links between welfare estimates and actual impact magnitudes but also promoting the description of attribute levels in quantitative terms.

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.cre.uib.es/internet/cre.nsf/pernomcurt/adjunts09/$FILE/dt2009_1.pdf
File Format: application/pdf
File Function:
Download Restriction: no

Publisher Info
Paper provided by Centre de Recerca Econòmica (UIB ·"Sa Nostra") in its series CRE Working Papers (Documents de treball del CRE) with number 2009/1.

Download reference. The following formats are available: HTML (with abstract), plain text (with abstract), BibTeX, RIS (EndNote, RefMan, ProCite), ReDIF
Length: 29 pages
Date of creation: 2009
Date of revision:
Publication status: Published in 'Documents de Treball CRE', 2009, pages 1-29
Handle: RePEc:pdm:wpaper:2009/1

Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://www.cre.sanostra.es

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its listing, contact: (Centre de Recerca Econòmica (UIB ·"Sa Nostra")).

Related research
Keywords: Choice experiments; environmental attributes; utility specification; external costs; impact pathway; eutrophication;

This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

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. Robert J. Johnston & Joshua M. Duke, 2007. "Willingness to Pay for Agricultural Land Preservation and Policy Process Attributes: Does the Method Matter?," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, American Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 89(4), pages 1098-1115, November. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  2. Nick Hanley & Douglas MacMillan & Robert E. Wright & Craig Bullock & Ian Simpson & Dave Parsisson & Bob Crabtree, 1998. "Contingent Valuation Versus Choice Experiments: Estimating the Benefits of Environmentally Sensitive Areas in Scotland," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 49(1), pages 1-15. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  3. Colombo, Sergio & Calatrava-Requena, Javier & Hanley, Nick, 2006. "Analysing the social benefits of soil conservation measures using stated preference methods," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(4), pages 850-861, July. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  4. Rolfe, John & Bennett, Jeff, 2009. "The impact of offering two versus three alternatives in choice modelling experiments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(4), pages 1140-1148, February. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  5. Limburg, Karin E. & O'Neill, Robert V. & Costanza, Robert & Farber, Stephen, 2002. "Complex systems and valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(3), pages 409-420, June. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  6. Alvarez-Farizo, Begona & Hanley, Nick & Barberan, Ramon & Lazaro, Angelina, 2007. "Choice modeling at the "market stall": Individual versus collective interest in environmental valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(4), pages 743-751, February. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  7. Moran, Dominic & McVittie, Alistair & Allcroft, David J. & Elston, David A., 2007. "Quantifying public preferences for agri-environmental policy in Scotland: A comparison of methods," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(1), pages 42-53, June. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  8. 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)
  9. Michael P. McGonagle & Stephen K. Swallow, 2005. "Open Space and Public Access: A Contingent Choice Application to Coastal Preservation," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 81(4). [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  10. 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. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  11. Sergio Colombo & Nick Hanley, 2008. "How Can We Reduce the Errors from Benefits Transfer? An Investigation Using the Choice Experiment Method," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 84(1), pages 128-147. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  12. Kelvin J. Lancaster, 1966. "A New Approach to Consumer Theory," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 74, pages 132. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  13. Muradian, Roldan, 2001. "Ecological thresholds: a survey," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 38(1), pages 7-24, July. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  14. Jin, Jianjun & Wang, Zhishi & Ran, Shenghong, 2006. "Comparison of contingent valuation and choice experiment in solid waste management programs in Macao," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(3), pages 430-441, May. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  15. Alejandro Caparrós & José L. Oviedo & Pablo Campos, 2008. "Would You Choose Your Preferred Option? Comparing Choice and Recoded Ranking Experiments," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, American Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 90(3), pages 843-855, 08. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  16. Christie, Mike & Hanley, Nick & Warren, John & Murphy, Kevin & Wright, Robert & Hyde, Tony, 2006. "Valuing the diversity of biodiversity," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(2), pages 304-317, June. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  17. 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)
  18. Nick Hanley & Robert Wright & Gary Koop, 2002. "Modelling Recreation Demand Using Choice Experiments: Climbing in Scotland," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 22(3), pages 449-466, July. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  19. Sandström, Mikael, 1996. "Recreational Benefits from Improved Water Quality: A Random Utility Model of Swedish Seaside Recreation," Working Paper Series in Economics and Finance 121, Stockholm School of Economics. [Downloadable!]
  20. Heiner, Ronald A, 1983. "The Origin of Predictable Behavior," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 73(4), pages 560-95, September. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  21. Adamowicz, Wiktor & Swait, Joffre & Boxall, Peter & Louviere, Jordan & Williams, Michael, 1997. "Perceptions versus Objective Measures of Environmental Quality in Combined Revealed and Stated Preference Models of Environmental Valuation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 65-84, January. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  22. Roberts, David C. & Boyer, Tracy A. & Lusk, Jayson L., 2008. "Preferences for environmental quality under uncertainty," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 66(4), pages 584-593, July. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  23. Carol Mansfield & Daniel J. Phaneuf & F. Reed Johnson & Jui-Chen Yang & Robert Beach, 2008. "Preferences for Public Lands Management under Competing Uses: The Case of Yellowstone National Park," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 84(2), pages 282-305. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
Full references

Statistics
Access and download statistics

Did you know? A few items listed on IDEAS are over 2000 years old!

This page was last updated on 2009-11-28.

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.