IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/ajaeau/22394.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Non-Compensatory Preference Structures In Non-Market Valuation Of Natural Area Policy

Author

Listed:
  • Lockwood, Michael

Abstract

Non-compensatory preferences may form a significant component of individuals' values for non-market goods such as natural areas, especially in the context of a reduction in environmental quality. The widespread neglect of such preferences can result in erroneous estimates of changes in economic welfare. Non-market valuation using techniques such as contingent valuation therefore need to take into account the possibility that some individuals hold noncompensatory preferences. The formal structure of the lexicographic noncompensatory ordering is described, and the theoretical implications of an individual holding such preferences over some region of goods space is examined. A method for the empirical identification of non-compensatory preference orderings is outlined.

Suggested Citation

  • Lockwood, Michael, 1996. "Non-Compensatory Preference Structures In Non-Market Valuation Of Natural Area Policy," Australian Journal of Agricultural Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 40(02), August.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:ajaeau:22394
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://purl.umn.edu/22394
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Spash, Clive L. & Hanley, Nick, 1995. "Preferences, information and biodiversity preservation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, pages 191-208.
    2. Irwin, Julie R & Slovic, Paul & Lichtenstein, Sarah & McClelland, Gary H., 1993. "Preference Reversals and the Measurement of Environmental Values," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 6(1), pages 5-18, January.
    3. Thomas H. Stevens & Jaime Echeverria & Ronald J. Glass & Tim Hager & Thomas A. More, 1991. "Measuring the Existence Value of Wildlife: What Do CVM Estimates Really Show?," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 67(4), pages 390-400.
    4. John C. Hershey & Howard C. Kunreuther & Paul J. H. Schoemaker, 1982. "Sources of Bias in Assessment Procedures for Utility Functions," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 28(8), pages 936-954, August.
    5. Hanemann, W Michael, 1991. "Willingness to Pay and Willingness to Accept: How Much Can They Differ?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 81(3), pages 635-647, June.
    6. P. A. Findlater & J. A. Sinden, 1982. "Estimation of Recreation Benefits from Measured Utility Functions," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 64(1), pages 102-109.
    7. Ford, J. Kevin & Schmitt, Neal & Schechtman, Susan L. & Hults, Brian M. & Doherty, Mary L., 1989. "Process tracing methods: Contributions, problems, and neglected research questions," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 43(1), pages 75-117, February.
    8. Edwards, Steven F., 1986. "Ethical Preferences And The Assessment Of Existence Values: Does The Neoclassical Model Fit?," Northeastern Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 15(2), October.
    9. Fischhoff, Baruch & Furby, Lita, 1988. "Measuring Values: A Conceptual Framework for Interpreting Transactions with Special Reference to Contingent Valuation of Visibility," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 1(2), pages 147-184, June.
    10. Moldau Juan Hersztajn, 1993. "A Model of Choice Where Choice Is Determined by an Ordered Set of Irreducible Criteria," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 60(2), pages 354-377, August.
    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. David Hensher, 2014. "Attribute processing as a behavioural strategy in choice making," Chapters,in: Handbook of Choice Modelling, chapter 12, pages 268-289 Edward Elgar Publishing.
    2. repec:ipg:wpaper:2013-015 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Vanschoenwinkel, Janka & Lizin, Sebastien & Swinnen, Gilbert & Azadi, Hossein & Van Passel, Steven, 2014. "Solar cooking in Senegalese villages: An application of best–worst scaling," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 447-458.
    4. Danny Campbell & W. Hutchinson & Riccardo Scarpa, 2008. "Incorporating Discontinuous Preferences into the Analysis of Discrete Choice Experiments," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, pages 401-417.
    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. Gracia, Azucena & Barreiro-Hurlé, Jesús & Pérez y Pérez, Luis, 2012. "Can renewable energy be financed with higher electricity prices? Evidence from a Spanish region," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 784-794.
    7. Rosenberger, Randall S. & Peterson, George L. & Clarke, Andrea & Brown, Thomas C., 2003. "Measuring dispositions for lexicographic preferences of environmental goods: integrating economics, psychology and ethics," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 44(1), pages 63-76, February.
    8. Holstein, Fredrik, 2006. "The Landscape of landscape values," Department of Economics publications 1100, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Department of Economics.
    9. Lockwood, Michael, 1998. "Integrated value assessment using paired comparisons," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(1), pages 73-87, April.
    10. Schumacher, Ingmar & Zou, Benteng, 2015. "Threshold preferences and the environment," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 17-27.
    11. Schumacher, Ingmar, 2015. "The endogenous formation of an environmental culture," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 200-221.
    12. Spash, Clive L., 2000. "Ecosystems, contingent valuation and ethics: the case of wetland re-creation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(2), pages 195-215, August.
    13. Scott, Anthony, 2002. "Identifying and analysing dominant preferences in discrete choice experiments: An application in health care," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 23(3), pages 383-398, June.
    14. Marit E. Kragt, 2013. "Stated and Inferred Attribute Attendance Models: A Comparison with Environmental Choice Experiments," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 64(3), pages 719-736, September.
    15. Ariane Kehlbacher & Kelvin Balcombe & Richard Bennett, 2013. "Stated Attribute Non-attendance in Successive Choice Experiments," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 64(3), pages 693-706, September.
    16. Peter Howie & Sean M. Murphy & John Wicks, 2010. "An Application of a Stated Preference Method to Value Urban Amenities," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 47(2), pages 235-256, February.
    17. Danny Campbell & W. George Hutchinson & Riccardo Scarpa, 2006. "Lexicographic Preferences in Discrete Choice Experiments: Consequences on Individual-Specific Willingness to Pay Estimates," Working Papers 2006.128, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
    18. Tuan, Tran Hu & Lindhjem, Henrik, 2008. "Meta-analysis of nature conservation values in Asia & Oceania: Data heterogeneity and benefit transfer issues," MPRA Paper 11470, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    19. Veisten, Knut, 2007. "Contingent valuation controversies: Philosophic debates about economic theory," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 204-232, April.
    20. repec:ipg:wpaper:15 is not listed on IDEAS
    21. repec:ipg:wpaper:2013-013 is not listed on IDEAS
    22. Schaafsma, Marije & Brouwer, Roy & Rose, John, 2012. "Directional heterogeneity in WTP models for environmental valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 21-31.

    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:ags:ajaeau:22394. 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: (AgEcon Search). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/aaresea.html .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.