IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/agrerw/v42y2013i01p98-118_00.html

Stated Preferences for Intermediate versus Final Ecosystem Services: Disentangling Willingness to Pay for Omitted Outcomes

Author

Listed:
  • Johnston, Robert J.
  • Schultz, Eric T.
  • Segerson, Kathleen
  • Besedin, Elena Y.
  • Ramachandran, Mahesh

Abstract

Stated preference scenarios often provide information on intermediate biophysical processes but omit information on the resulting final services that provide utility. This may cause respondents to speculate about the effects of intermediate outcomes on their welfare, leading to biased welfare estimates. This work clarifies distinctions between intermediate and final ecosystem services within stated preference valuation and develops a structural model by which to infer respondents’ speculations when a final ecosystem service is omitted. The model also derives implications for welfare estimates. Methods and results are illustrated using an application of choice experiments to fish restoration in Rhode Island's Pawtuxet watershed.

Suggested Citation

  • Johnston, Robert J. & Schultz, Eric T. & Segerson, Kathleen & Besedin, Elena Y. & Ramachandran, Mahesh, 2013. "Stated Preferences for Intermediate versus Final Ecosystem Services: Disentangling Willingness to Pay for Omitted Outcomes," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 42(1), pages 98-118, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:agrerw:v:42:y:2013:i:01:p:98-118_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1068280500007644/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Cordier, Mateo & Pérez Agúndez, José A. & Hecq, Walter & Hamaide, Bertrand, 2014. "A guiding framework for ecosystem services monetization in ecological–economic modeling," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 8(C), pages 86-96.
    2. Bauer, Dana Marie & Johnston, Robert J., 2013. "Foreword: The Economics of Rural and Agricultural Ecosystem Services: Purism versus Practicality," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 42(01), pages 1-13, April.
    3. Holland, Benedict M. & Johnston, Robert J., 2014. "Spatially-Referenced Choice Experiments: Tests of Individualized Geocoding in Stated Preference Questionnaires," 2014 Annual Meeting, July 27-29, 2014, Minneapolis, Minnesota 170191, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    4. Brown, Christina E. & Bhat, Mahadev, "undated". "A Game-Theoretic Model of Crop Flood Indemnity in South Florida," 2018 Annual Meeting, August 5-7, Washington, D.C. 274470, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    5. Gregori, M. & Nassivera, F., 2014. "Health and Green consciousness in consumer behavior: a case study on Eco-labelled food products," Politica Agricola Internazionale - International Agricultural Policy, Edizioni L'Informatore Agrario, vol. 2014(3).
    6. Wainger, L. & Loomis, J. & Johnston, R. & Hansen, L. & Carlisle, D. & Lawrence, D. & Gollehon, N. & Duriancik, L. & Schwartz, G. & Ribaudo, M. & Gala, C., "undated". "Ecosystem Service Benefits Generated by Improved Water Quality from Conservation Practices," C-FARE Reports 260679, Council on Food, Agricultural, and Resource Economics (C-FARE).
    7. Moore, Chris & Guignet, Dennis & Maguire, Kelly & Dockins, Chris & Simon, Nathalie, 2015. "A Stated Preference Study of the Chesapeake Bay and Watershed Lakes," National Center for Environmental Economics-NCEE Working Papers 280929, United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
    8. Swallow, Stephen K., 2013. "Demand-side Value for Ecosystem Services and Implications for Innovative Markets: Experimental Perspectives on the Possibility of Private Markets for Public Goods," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 42(1), pages 33-56, April.
    9. Olander, Lydia & Polasky, Stephen & Kagan, James S. & Johnston, Robert J. & Wainger, Lisa & Saah, David & Maguire, Lynn & Boyd, James & Yoskowitz, David, 2017. "So you want your research to be relevant? Building the bridge between ecosystem services research and practice," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 26(PA), pages 170-182.
    10. Miller, Sini & Tait, Peter & Saunders, Caroline, 2015. "Estimating indigenous cultural values of freshwater: A choice experiment approach to Māori values in New Zealand," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 207-214.
    11. Wainger, Lisa A. & Helcoski, Ryan & Farge, Kevin W. & Espinola, Brandy A. & Green, Gary T., 2018. "Evidence of a Shared Value for Nature," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 154(C), pages 107-116.
    12. Riccardo Scarpa & Cristiano Franceschinis & Mara Thiene, 2017. "A Monte Carlo Evaluation of the Logit-Mixed Logit under Asymmetry and Multimodality," Working Papers in Economics 17/23, University of Waikato.
    13. Erlend Dancke Sandorf & Margrethe Aanesen & Jannike Falk-Andersson & Ingvild Skumlien Furuseth & Nick Hanley & Brooks A. Kaiser & Melina Kourantidou & Ståle Navrud & Godwin Kofi Vondolia & Bui Bich Xu, 2025. "Exploring Information and Embedding Effects on Willingness-to-Pay to Control the Invasive Red King Crab in Norway," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 88(9), pages 2529-2556, September.
    14. Rosenberg, Andrew B. & Newburn, David & Towe, Charles A., "undated". "Household Willingness to Pay for Stream Restoration on Private and Public Lands: Evidence from the Baltimore Metropolitan Region," 2018 Annual Meeting, August 5-7, Washington, D.C. 274031, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    15. Johnston, Robert J. & Börger, Tobias & Hanley, Nick & Meginnis, Keila & Ndebele, Tom & Siyal, Ghamz E. Ali & Beaumont, Nicola & de Vries, Frans P., 2024. "Consequences of omitting non-lethal wildlife impacts from stated preference scenarios," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 126(C).
    16. Finisdore, John & Rhodes, Charles & Haines-Young, Roy & Maynard, Simone & Wielgus, Jeffrey & Dvarskas, Anthony & Houdet, Joel & Quétier, Fabien & Lamothe, Karl A. & Ding, Helen & Soulard, François & V, 2020. "The 18 benefits of using ecosystem services classification systems," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 45(C).
    17. Jensen, Anne Kejser, 2019. "A Structured Approach to Attribute Selection in Economic Valuation Studies: Using Q-methodology," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 166(C), pages 1-1.
    18. Holland, Benedict M. & Johnston, Robert J., 2015. "Capturing More Relevant Measures of Spatial Heterogeneity in Stated Preference Willingness to Pay: Using an Iterative Grid Search Algorithm to Quantify Proximate Environmental Impacts," 2015 AAEA & WAEA Joint Annual Meeting, July 26-28, San Francisco, California 205450, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.

    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:42:y:2013:i:01:p:98-118_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.