IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/agrerw/v26y1997i02p229-236_00.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Conjoint Analysis of Groundwater Protection Programs

Author

Listed:
  • Stevens, Thomas H.
  • Barrett, Christopher
  • Willis, Cleve E.

Abstract

Three conjoint models—a traditional ratings model, a ratings difference specification, and a binary response model—were used to value groundwater protection program alternatives. The last, which is virtually identical to a dichotomous choice contingent valuation specification, produced the smallest value estimates. This suggests that the conjoint model is very sensitive to model specification and that traditional conjoint models may overestimate economic value because many respondents are not in the market for the commodity being valued.

Suggested Citation

  • Stevens, Thomas H. & Barrett, Christopher & Willis, Cleve E., 1997. "Conjoint Analysis of Groundwater Protection Programs," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 26(2), pages 229-236, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:agrerw:v:26:y:1997:i:02:p:229-236_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1068280500002690/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Milena Pavlova & Wim Groot & Godefridus Merode, 2005. "An Application of Rating Conjoint Analysis to Study the Importance of Quality-, Access- and Price-attributes to Health Care Consumers," Economic Change and Restructuring, Springer, vol. 37(3), pages 267-286, September.
    2. José L. Oviedo & Alejandro Caparrós, 2014. "Comparing contingent valuation and choice modeling using field and eye-tracking lab data," Working Papers 1401, Instituto de Políticas y Bienes Públicos (IPP), CSIC.
    3. Schläpfer, Felix & Erickson, Jon D., 2001. "A Biotic Control Perspective on Nitrate Contamination of Groundwater from Agricultural Production," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 30(2), pages 113-126, October.
    4. Casey, James F. & Kahn, James R. & Rivas, Alexandre A.F., 2008. "Willingness to accept compensation for the environmental risks of oil transport on the Amazon: A choice modeling experiment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 67(4), pages 552-559, November.
    5. Mathews, Leah Greden & Kask, Susan B. & Stewart, Steve, 2004. "The Value Of The View: Valuing Scenic Quality Using Choice And Contingent Valuation Models," 2004 Annual meeting, August 1-4, Denver, CO 20049, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    6. Zhang, Fan & Fogarty, James, 2015. "Nonmarket Valuation of Water Sensitive Cities: Current Knowledge and Issues," Working Papers 207694, University of Western Australia, School of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
    7. Chunhua Wang & Changdong Zhang & Yong Wang, 2020. "Environmental satisfaction among residents in Chinese cities," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 59(5), pages 2283-2301, November.
    8. Oliver Froer, 2003. "Using Stated Preference Methods for Biodiversity Valuation. A critical analysis," Diskussionspapiere aus dem Institut für Volkswirtschaftslehre der Universität Hohenheim 217/2003, Department of Economics, University of Hohenheim, Germany.
    9. Swallow, Stephen K. & Opaluch, James J. & Weaver, Thomas F., 2001. "Strength-of-Preference Indicators and an Ordered-Response Model for Ordinarily Dichotomous, Discrete Choice Data," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 41(1), pages 70-93, January.
    10. 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.
    11. repec:ebl:ecbull:v:17:y:2005:i:7:p:1-15 is not listed on IDEAS
    12. Harrison, R. Wes & Gillespie, Jeffrey M. & Fields, Deacue, 2005. "Analysis of Cardinal and Ordinal Assumptions in Conjoint Analysis," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 34(2), pages 1-15, October.
    13. Harrison, R. Wes & Gillespie, Jeffrey M. & Fields, Deacue, 2001. "Theoretical And Empirical Considerations Of Eliciting Preferences And Model Estimation In Conjoint Analysis," 2001 Annual meeting, August 5-8, Chicago, IL 20680, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    14. Cameron, Trudy Ann & Poe, Gregory L. & Ethier, Robert G. & Schulze, William D., 2002. "Alternative Non-market Value-Elicitation Methods: Are the Underlying Preferences the Same?," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 44(3), pages 391-425, November.
    15. Collins, Alan R. & Rosenberger, Randall S. & Fletcher, Jerald J., 2004. "Total Economic Valuation Of Stream Restoration Using Internet And Mail Surveys," 2004 Annual meeting, August 1-4, Denver, CO 20402, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    16. Haefele, Michelle A. & Loomis, John B., 1999. "A Comparison Of Conjoint Ratings And Rankings: An Application For Passive Use Values Of Forest Health," 1999 Annual Meeting, July 11-14, 1999, Fargo, ND 35729, Western Agricultural Economics Association.
    17. Paul M. Patterson & Timothy J. Burkink & Rozlyn S. Lipsey & Jason Lipsey & Richard W. Roth & Mary Kay Martin, 2003. "Targeting tourists with state branding programs," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 19(4), pages 525-538.
    18. John C. Whitehead & George Van Houtven, "undated". "Methods for Valuing the Benefits of the Safe Drinking Water Act: Review and Assessment," Working Papers 9705, East Carolina University, Department of Economics.
    19. Edward Morey & Kathleen Greer Rossmann, 2003. "Using Stated-Preference Questions to Investigate Variations in Willingness to Pay for Preserving Marble Monuments: Classic Heterogeneity, Random Parameters, and Mixture Models," Journal of Cultural Economics, Springer;The Association for Cultural Economics International, vol. 27(3), pages 215-229, November.

    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:cup:agrerw:v:26:y:1997:i:02:p:229-236_00. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/age .

    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.