IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecolec/v70y2011i12p2523-2531.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Provided and perceived status quo in choice experiments: Implications for valuing the outputs of multifunctional rural areas

Author

Listed:
  • Domínguez-Torreiro, Marcos
  • Soliño, Mario

Abstract

This article presents a choice experiment analyzing multifunctional rural development policies targeting conservation and recovery of environmental, social and cultural assets. In choice experiments a base alternative is usually included in order to estimate the welfare change associated to policy proposals. This study is concerned with the much neglected issue of the impact on policy analysis of the definition of a ‘status quo’ alternative either as an objective assessment by experts, or as a self-reported perception by respondents. Convergent validity analysis and prospective policy scenarios show a significant impact of different status quo specifications on individuals' preferences and related welfare measures when complex and unfamiliar biophysical systems are involved in policy analysis and evaluation.

Suggested Citation

  • Domínguez-Torreiro, Marcos & Soliño, Mario, 2011. "Provided and perceived status quo in choice experiments: Implications for valuing the outputs of multifunctional rural areas," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(12), pages 2523-2531.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:70:y:2011:i:12:p:2523-2531
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.08.021
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800911003545
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.08.021?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Marsh, Dan & Mkwara, Lena Asimenye, 2009. "Comparing Welfare Estimates from Fixed Status Quo Attributes vs People’s Perceived Attributes of Water Quality," 2009 Conference, August 27-28, 2009, Nelson, New Zealand 97155, New Zealand Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    2. Alan Randall, 2002. "Valuing the outputs of multifunctional agriculture," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 29(3), pages 289-307, July.
    3. 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.
    4. Schenker N. & Gentleman J. F., 2001. "On Judging the Significance of Differences by Examining the Overlap Between Confidence Intervals," The American Statistician, American Statistical Association, vol. 55, pages 182-186, August.
    5. Manski, Charles F, 1999. "Analysis of Choice Expectations in Incomplete Scenarios," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 19(1-3), pages 49-66, December.
    6. Dhar, Ravi, 1997. "Consumer Preference for a No-Choice Option," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 24(2), pages 215-231, September.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. Nick Hanley & Susana Mourato & Robert E. Wright, 2001. "Choice Modelling Approaches: A Superior Alternative for Environmental Valuatioin?," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 15(3), pages 435-462, July.
    10. repec:bla:jecsur:v:15:y:2001:i:3:p:435-62 is not listed on IDEAS
    11. Louviere,Jordan J. & Hensher,David A. & Swait,Joffre D. With contributions by-Name:Adamowicz,Wiktor, 2000. "Stated Choice Methods," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521788304.
    12. Jayson L. Lusk & Jutta Roosen & John A. Fox, 2003. "Demand for Beef from Cattle Administered Growth Hormones or Fed Genetically Modified Corn: A Comparison of Consumers in France, Germany, the United Kingdom, and the United States," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 85(1), pages 16-29.
    13. Sergio Colombo & Nick Hanley & Jordan Louviere, 2009. "Modeling preference heterogeneity in stated choice data: an analysis for public goods generated by agriculture," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 40(3), pages 307-322, May.
    14. Dan Marsh & Lena Mkwara & Riccardo Scarpa, 2010. "Does Respondent Perception of the Status Quo Matter in Non-Market Valuation with Choice Experiments? An Application to New Zealand Freshwater Streams," Working Papers in Economics 10/04, University of Waikato.
    15. Barkmann, J. & Glenk, K. & Keil, A. & Leemhuis, C. & Dietrich, N. & Gerold, G. & Marggraf, R., 2008. "Confronting unfamiliarity with ecosystem functions: The case for an ecosystem service approach to environmental valuation with stated preference methods," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(1), pages 48-62, March.
    16. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521766555.
    17. Uwe Latacz‐Lohmann & Ian Hodge, 2003. "European agri‐environmental policy for the 21st century," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 47(1), pages 123-139, March.
    18. Catherine L. Kling & Kathleen Segerson & Jason F. Shogren, 2010. "Environmental Economics: How Agricultural Economists Helped Advance the Field," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 92(2), pages 487-505.
    19. Wiktor Adamowicz & Peter Boxall & Michael Williams & Jordan Louviere, 1998. "Stated Preference Approaches for Measuring Passive Use Values: Choice Experiments and Contingent Valuation," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 80(1), pages 64-75.
    20. Paavola, Jouni, 2007. "Institutions and environmental governance: A reconceptualization," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(1), pages 93-103, June.
    21. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521747387.
    22. W. Michael Hanemann, 1984. "Welfare Evaluations in Contingent Valuation Experiments with Discrete Responses," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 66(3), pages 332-341.
    23. Kelvin J. Lancaster, 1966. "A New Approach to Consumer Theory," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 74(2), pages 132-132.
    24. Stephane Hess & John Rose, 2009. "Should Reference Alternatives in Pivot Design SC Surveys be Treated Differently?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 42(3), pages 297-317, March.
    25. Nick Hanley & Sergio Colombo & Pamela Mason & Helen Johns, 2007. "The Reform of Support Mechanisms for Upland Farming: Paying for Public Goods in the Severely Disadvantaged Areas of England," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 58(3), pages 433-453, September.
    26. Krinsky, Itzhak & Robb, A Leslie, 1986. "On Approximating the Statistical Properties of Elasticities," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 68(4), pages 715-719, November.
    27. Abler, David, 2004. "Multifunctionality, Agricultural Policy, and Environmental Policy," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 33(1), pages 8-17, April.
    28. Heng Z. Chen & Stephen R. Cosslett, 1998. "Environmental Quality Preference and Benefit Estimation in Multinomial Probit Models: A Simulation Approach," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 80(3), pages 512-520.
    29. Ian J. Bateman & Richard T. Carson & Brett Day & Michael Hanemann & Nick Hanley & Tannis Hett & Michael Jones-Lee & Graham Loomes, 2002. "Economic Valuation with Stated Preference Techniques," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2639.
    30. Jeff Bennett & Russell Blamey (ed.), 2001. "The Choice Modelling Approach to Environmental Valuation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2028.
    31. Kenneth Train, 2003. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Online economics textbooks, SUNY-Oswego, Department of Economics, number emetr2.
    32. Dan Rigby & Mike Burton, 2006. "Modeling Disinterest and Dislike: A Bounded Bayesian Mixed Logit Model of the UK Market for GM Food," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 33(4), pages 485-509, April.
    33. Fischhoff, Baruch & Welch, Ned & Fredrick, Shane, 1999. "Construal Processes in Preference Assessment," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 19(1-3), pages 139-164, December.
    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. de Ayala, Amaia & Hoyos, David & Mariel, Petr, 2015. "Suitability of discrete choice experiments for landscape management under the European Landscape Convention," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(2), pages 79-96.
    2. Wen Lin & David L Ortega & Vincenzina Caputo, 2023. "Experimental quantity, mental budgeting and food choice: a discrete choice experiment application," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 50(2), pages 457-496.
    3. Varela, Elsa & Jacobsen, Jette Bredahl & Soliño, Mario, 2014. "Understanding the heterogeneity of social preferences for fire prevention management," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 91-104.
    4. Hasan-Basri, Bakti & Rawi, Shamsul Bahrain & Omar, Hamimi, 2018. "Does Status Quo Interpretation Affect Welfare Estimates?," Jurnal Ekonomi Malaysia, Faculty of Economics and Business, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, vol. 52(3), pages 115-128.
    5. Mullen, Jeffrey D. & Calhoun, Kayla & Colson, Gregory & Kriesel, Warren, 2015. "Effects of Uncertainty on Support for Water Quality Improvement Programs," 2015 AAEA & WAEA Joint Annual Meeting, July 26-28, San Francisco, California 205419, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    6. 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.
    7. Kragt, Marit Ellen, 2013. "Evidence-based Research in Environmental Choice Experiments," Working Papers 153335, University of Western Australia, School of Agricultural and Resource Economics.

    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. de Ayala, Amaia & Hoyos, David & Mariel, Petr, 2015. "Suitability of discrete choice experiments for landscape management under the European Landscape Convention," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(2), pages 79-96.
    2. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Hensher, David A., 2021. "The landscape of econometric discrete choice modelling research," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 40(C).
    3. Sergio Colombo & Nick Hanley & Jordan Louviere, 2009. "Modeling preference heterogeneity in stated choice data: an analysis for public goods generated by agriculture," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 40(3), pages 307-322, May.
    4. Novikova, Anastasija & Rocchi, Lucia & Vitunskienė, Vlada, 2017. "Assessing the benefit of the agroecosystem services: Lithuanian preferences using a latent class approach," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 277-286.
    5. Choi, Andy S., 2013. "Nonmarket values of major resources in the Korean DMZ areas: A test of distance decay," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 97-107.
    6. Choi, Andy S. & Ritchie, Brent W. & Papandrea, Franco & Bennett, Jeff, 2010. "Economic valuation of cultural heritage sites: A choice modeling approach," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 31(2), pages 213-220.
    7. 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.
    8. Helen Scarborough & Jeff Bennett, 2012. "Cost–Benefit Analysis and Distributional Preferences," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 14376.
    9. 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.
    10. Rinaldo Brau, 2008. "Demand-Driven Sustainable Tourism? A Choice Modelling Analysis," Tourism Economics, , vol. 14(4), pages 691-708, December.
    11. Rombach, Meike & Widmar, Nicole Olynk & Byrd, Elizabeth & Bitsch, Vera, 2018. "Do all roses smell equally sweet? Willingness to pay for flower attributes in specialized retail settings by German consumers," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 40(C), pages 91-99.
    12. Rai, Rajesh Kumar & Scarborough, Helen, 2012. "Estimating the public benefits of mitigating damages caused by invasive plant species in a subsistence economy," 2012 Conference (56th), February 7-10, 2012, Fremantle, Australia 124421, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    13. Choi, Andy S., 2011. "Implicit prices for longer temporary exhibitions in a heritage site and a test of preference heterogeneity: A segmentation-based approach," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 32(3), pages 511-519.
    14. Hoyos, David, 2010. "The state of the art of environmental valuation with discrete choice experiments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(8), pages 1595-1603, June.
    15. De Ayala Bilbao, Amaya & Hoyos Ramos, David & Mariel Chladkova, Petr, 2012. "Landscape valuation through discrete choice experiments: Current practice and future research reflections," BILTOKI 1134-8984, Universidad del País Vasco - Departamento de Economía Aplicada III (Econometría y Estadística).
    16. Tavárez, Héctor & Álamo, Carmen & Cortés,Mildred, 2020. "Differentiated coffees and their potential markets in Puerto Rico: An economic valuation approach," Economia Agraria y Recursos Naturales, Spanish Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 20(02), December.
    17. Ulf Liebe & Veronika A. Andorfer & Patricia A. Gwartney & Jürgen Meyerhoff, 2014. "Ethical Consumption and Social Context: Experimental Evidence from Germany and the United States," University of Bern Social Sciences Working Papers 7, University of Bern, Department of Social Sciences.
    18. Tafesse Estifanos & Maksym Polyakov & Ram Pandit & Atakelty Hailu & Michael Burton, 2021. "What are tourists willing to pay for securing the survival of a flagship species? The case of protection of the Ethiopian wolf," Tourism Economics, , vol. 27(1), pages 45-69, February.
    19. Eggert, Håkan & Olsson, Björn, 2004. "Heterogeneous preferences for marine amenities: A choice experiment applied to water quality," Working Papers in Economics 126, University of Gothenburg, Department of Economics.
    20. Andrew M. Johnson & Tahirou Abdoulaye & Bamikole Ayedun & Joan R. Fulton & Nicole J. Olynk Widmar & Akande Adebowale & Ranajit Bandyopadhyay & Victor Manyong, 2020. "Willingness to pay of Nigerian poultry producers and feed millers for aflatoxin‐safe maize," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 36(2), pages 299-317, April.

    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:eee:ecolec:v:70:y:2011:i:12:p:2523-2531. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolecon .

    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.