IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/jageco/v51y2000i1p1-21.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Valuing the Multiple Impacts of Pesticide Use in the UK: A Contingent Ranking Approach

Author

Listed:
  • Vivien Foster
  • Susana Mourato

Abstract

The contingent ranking method was used to estimate the value of the human health and biodiversity impacts associated with pesticide applications, using a “green” consumer product as a payment vehicle. Specification testing showed that the standard conditional logit model provides a representation of these data preferable to the rank‐ordered logit variant. The resulting estimates ‐ which perform well in terms of standard validity tests ‐ show that, on average, consumers are only willing to tolerate between six and eight cases of human illness to save an entire species of farmland birds.

Suggested Citation

  • Vivien Foster & Susana Mourato, 2000. "Valuing the Multiple Impacts of Pesticide Use in the UK: A Contingent Ranking Approach," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 51(1), pages 1-21, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:jageco:v:51:y:2000:i:1:p:1-21
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1477-9552.2000.tb01206.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1477-9552.2000.tb01206.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1477-9552.2000.tb01206.x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Weisten, K. & Hoen, H.F. & Navrud, S. & Strand, J., 1993. "Valuing Biodiversity in Norwegian Forests: A Contingent Valuation Study with Multiple Bias Testing," Memorandum 1993_007, Oslo University, Department of Economics.
    2. Boyle Kevin J. & Desvousges William H. & Johnson F. Reed & Dunford Richard W. & Hudson Sara P., 1994. "An Investigation of Part-Whole Biases in Contingent-Valuation Studies," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 27(1), pages 64-83, July.
    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. Nick Hanley & Robert Wright & Vic Adamowicz, 1998. "Using Choice Experiments to Value the Environment," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 11(3), pages 413-428, April.
    5. Hausman, Jerry A. & Ruud, Paul A., 1987. "Specifying and testing econometric models for rank-ordered data," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 34(1-2), pages 83-104.
    6. Weaver, Robert D., 1994. "Pesticide Use And Consumer Demand For Produce Quality: A Survey Of Evidence," Pesticide Use and Produce Quality: Proceedings of a Workshop 260051, Food and Agricultural Marketing Consortium (FAMC).
    7. Johnson, F. Reed & Desvousges, William H., 1997. "Estimating Stated Preferences with Rated-Pair Data: Environmental, Health, and Employment Effects of Energy Programs," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 34(1), pages 79-99, September.
    8. Ravenswaay, Eileen O. van & Hoehn, John P., 1991. "Consumer Perspectives on Food Safety Issues: The Case of Pesticide Residues in Fresh Produce," Staff Paper Series 201045, Michigan State University, Department of Agricultural, Food, and Resource Economics.
    9. Young Sook Eom, 1994. "Pesticide Residue Risk and Food Safety Valuation: A Random Utility Approach," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 76(4), pages 760-771.
    10. Ben-Akiva, Moshe & Morikawa, Takayuki & Shiroishi, Fumiaki, 1991. "Analysis of the reliability of preference ranking data," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 23(3), pages 253-268, November.
    11. Ravenswaay, Eileen O. van & Hoehn, John P., 1991. "Consumer Willingness to Pay for Reducing Pesticide Residues in Food: Results of a Nationwide Survey," Staff Paper Series 201044, Michigan State University, Department of Agricultural, Food, and Resource Economics.
    12. Beggs, S. & Cardell, S. & Hausman, J., 1981. "Assessing the potential demand for electric cars," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 17(1), pages 1-19, September.
    13. 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, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 49(1), pages 1-15, March.
    14. Ravenswaay, Eileen O. van & Hoehn, John P., 1991. "Contingent Valuation and Food Safety: The Case of Pesticide Residues in Food," Staff Paper Series 201042, Michigan State University, Department of Agricultural, Food, and Resource Economics.
    15. 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.
    16. Boyle Kevin J. & Welsh Michael P. & Bishop Richard C., 1993. "The Role of Question Order and Respondent Experience in Contingent-Valuation Studies," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 25(1), pages 80-99, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Foster, Vivien & Mourato, Susana, 2002. "Testing for Consistency in Contingent Ranking Experiments," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 44(2), pages 309-328, September.
    2. Powe, N.A. & Garrod, G.D. & McMahon, P.L., 2005. "Mixing methods within stated preference environmental valuation: choice experiments and post-questionnaire qualitative analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 52(4), pages 513-526, March.
    3. Richard T. Carson, 2011. "Contingent Valuation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2489.
    4. Saelensminde, Kjartan, 2006. "Causes and consequences of lexicographic choices in stated choice studies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 59(3), pages 331-340, September.
    5. Siikamaki, Juha & Layton, David F., 2007. "Discrete choice survey experiments: A comparison using flexible methods," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 53(1), pages 122-139, January.
    6. Hanley, Nick & Mourato, Susana & Wright, Robert E, 2001. "Choice Modelling Approaches: A Superior Alternative for Environmental Valuation?," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 15(3), pages 435-462, July.
    7. Chiara M. Travisi & Peter Nijkamp, 2004. "Willingness to Pay for Agricultural Environmental Safety: Evidence from a Survey of Milan, Italy, Residents," Working Papers 2004.100, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
    8. Kjartan Sælensminde, 2002. "The Impact of Choice Inconsistencies in Stated Choice Studies," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 23(4), pages 403-420, December.
    9. Chiara M. Travisi & Peter Nijkamp, 2004. "Willingness to pay for Agricultural Environmental Safety," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 04-070/3, Tinbergen Institute.
    10. Siikamaki, Juha & Layton, David F., 2006. "Discrete Choice Survey Experiments: A Comparison Using Flexible Models," RFF Working Paper Series dp-05-60, Resources for the Future.
    11. Bart Neuts & Peter Nijkamp & Eveline Van Leeuwen, 2012. "Crowding Externalities from Tourist Use of Urban Space," Tourism Economics, , vol. 18(3), pages 649-670, June.
    12. 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.
    13. del Saz Salazar, Salvador & Hernandez Sancho, Francesc & Sala Garrido, Ramon, 2009. "Estimación del valor económico de la calidad del agua de un río mediante una doble aproximación: una aplicación de los principios económicos de la Directiva Marco del Agua," Economia Agraria y Recursos Naturales, Spanish Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 9(01), pages 1-27.
    14. Layton, David F., 2000. "Random Coefficient Models for Stated Preference Surveys," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 40(1), pages 21-36, July.
    15. Wan Norhidayah W Mohamad & Ken Willis & Neil Powe, 2019. "The Status Quo In Discrete Choice Experiments: Is It Relevant?," The Singapore Economic Review (SER), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 65(02), pages 507-532, March.
    16. Catalina M. Torres Figuerola & Antoni Riera Font, 2009. "Defining environmental attributes as external costs in choice experiments: A discussion," CRE Working Papers (Documents de treball del CRE) 2009/1, Centre de Recerca Econòmica (UIB ·"Sa Nostra").
    17. Travisi, Chiara M. & Nijkamp, Peter, 2004. "Are Italians Willing to Pay for Agricultural Environmental Safety? A Stated Choice Approach," 84th Seminar, February 8-11, 2004, Zeist, The Netherlands 24988, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    18. Haitao Yin, 2013. "Insurance Approach for Financing Extreme Climate Event Losses in China: A Status Analysis," EEPSEA Research Report rr2013035, Economy and Environment Program for Southeast Asia (EEPSEA), revised Mar 2013.
    19. Vivien Foster & Susana Mourato, 2003. "Elicitation Format and Sensitivity to Scope," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 24(2), pages 141-160, February.
    20. Oviedo, José L. & Caparrós, Alejandro, 2015. "Information and visual attention in contingent valuation and choice modeling: field and eye-tracking experiments applied to reforestations in Spain," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(4), pages 185-204.

    More about this item

    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:bla:jageco:v:51:y:2000:i:1:p:1-21. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0021-857X .

    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.