IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Login to save this article or follow this journal

Valuing water level changes in reservoirs using two stated preference approaches: An exploration of validity

  • Lienhoop, Nele
  • Ansmann, Till
Registered author(s):

    The combination of travel cost (TCM) and contingent behaviour (CB) methods is a relatively new research avenue in the recreational valuation community. Contrary to simple TCM applications, TCM-CB facilitates the ex ante valuation of marginal welfare effects resulting from environmental quality or quantity changes, similar to the contingent valuation method (CV). Even though TCM-CB is highly policy relevant, i.e. to inform changes in management regimes at recreational sites, the validity of estimates has hardly received any attention and little is known about the performance of TCM-CB compared to CV. In this paper, TCM-CB and CV are explored with respect to several validity tests in a case study on the recreational effects of water level changes in a reservoir. Overall, the findings reveal that TCM-CB and CV perform equally well in terms of theoretical validity, but that the marginal recreational value varies significantly between the two methods. We also observe that both methods face similar internal difficulties with respect to the stability of values when the order of a set of valuation questions is changed.

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6VDY-52H66V5-3/2/e7d021ac01dc98d7d09692f86dca95a2
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

    Article provided by Elsevier in its journal Ecological Economics.

    Volume (Year): 70 (2011)
    Issue (Month): 7 (May)
    Pages: 1250-1258

    as
    in new window

    Handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:70:y:2011:i:7:p:1250-1258
    Contact details of provider: Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolecon

    References listed on IDEAS
    Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

    as in new window
    1. John C. Whitehead & Timothy C. Haab & Ju-Chin Huang, 1999. "Measuring Recreation Benefits of Quality Improvements with Revealed and Stated Behavior Data," Working Papers 9902, East Carolina University, Department of Economics.
    2. Yongsik Jeon & Joseph Herriges, 2010. "Convergent Validity of Contingent Behavior Responses in Models of Recreation Demand," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 45(2), pages 223-250, February.
    3. Nick Hanley & Begona Alvarez-Farizo, . "Valuing the Benefits of Coastal Water Quality Improvements using Contingent and Real Behaviour," Working Papers 2002_9, Business School - Economics, University of Glasgow, revised Sep 2002.
    4. Halstead, John M. & Huang, Ju-Chin & Stevens, Thomas H. & Harper, Wendy, 2002. "Tinkering With Valuation Estimates: Is There A Future For Willingness To Accept Measures?," 2002 Annual meeting, July 28-31, Long Beach, CA 19724, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    5. Huang, Ju-Chin & Haab, Timothy C. & Whitehead, John C., 1997. "Willingness to Pay for Quality Improvements: Should Revealed and Stated Preference Data Be Combined?," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 34(3), pages 240-255, November.
    6. Payne, John W & Bettman, James R & Schkade, David A, 1999. "Measuring Constructed Preferences: Towards a Building Code," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 19(1-3), pages 243-70, December.
    7. Spash, Clive L. & Hanley, Nick, 1995. "Preferences, information and biodiversity preservation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 12(3), pages 191-208, March.
    8. Gillig, Dhazn & Woodward, Richard T. & Ozuna, Teofilo, Jr. & Griffin, Wade L., 2003. "Joint Estimation of Revealed and Stated Preference Data: An Application to Recreational Red Snapper Valuation," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 32(2), October.
    9. Shechter, M. & Kim, M., 1991. "Valuation of pollution abatement benefits: Direct and indirect measurement," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(2), pages 133-151, September.
    10. Gonzalez, Juan Marcos & Loomis, John B. & Gonzalez-Caban, Armando, 2008. "A Joint Estimation Method to Combine Dichotomous Choice CVM Models with Count Data TCM Models Corrected for Truncation and Endogenous Stratification," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 40(02), August.
    11. Bromley, Daniel W., 1995. "Property rights and natural resource damage assessments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 14(2), pages 129-135, August.
    12. Kalyan Chakraborty & John Keith, 2000. "Estimating the Recreation Demand and Economic Value of Mountain Biking in Moab, Utah: An Application of Count Data Models," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 43(4), pages 461-469.
    13. Boxall, Peter C. & Englin, Jeffrey & Adamowicz, Wiktor L., 2003. "Valuing aboriginal artifacts: a combined revealed-stated preference approach," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 45(2), pages 213-230, March.
    14. Clark, Jeremy & Friesen, Lana, 2008. "The causes of order effects in contingent valuation surveys: An experimental investigation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 56(2), pages 195-206, September.
    15. Shaw, Daigee, 1988. "On-site samples' regression : Problems of non-negative integers, truncation, and endogenous stratification," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 37(2), pages 211-223, February.
    16. W. Douglass Shaw & Peter Feather, 1999. "Possibilities for Including the Opportunity Cost of Time in Recreation Demand Systems," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 75(4), pages 592-602.
    17. W. Douglass Shaw, 2002. "Testing the Validity of Contingent Behavior Trip Responses," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 84(2), pages 401-414.
    18. Roberto Martinez-Espineira & Joe Amoako-Tuffour, 2008. "Multi-destination and multi-purpose trip effects in the analysis of the demand for trips to a remote recreational site," EERI Research Paper Series EERI_RP_2008_19, Economics and Econometrics Research Institute (EERI), Brussels.
    19. Adamowicz, Wiktor & Swait, Joffre & Boxall, Peter & Louviere, Jordan & Williams, Michael, 1997. "Perceptions versus Objective Measures of Environmental Quality in Combined Revealed and Stated Preference Models of Environmental Valuation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 65-84, January.
    20. Harris, Charles C. & Driver, B. L. & McLaughlin, William J., 1989. "Improving the contingent valuation method: A psychological perspective," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 17(3), pages 213-229, November.
    21. Christopher D. Azevedo & Joseph A. Herriges & Catherine L. Kling, 2003. "Combining Revealed and Stated Preferences: Consistency Tests and Their Interpretations," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 85(3), pages 525-537.
    22. 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.
    23. Loomis, John B., 1997. "Panel Estimators To Combine Revealed And Stated Preference Dichotomous Choice Data," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 22(02), December.
    24. Hensher, David & Louviere, Jordan & Swait, Joffre, 1998. "Combining sources of preference data," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 89(1-2), pages 197-221, November.
    25. Englin, Jeffrey & Shonkwiler, J S, 1995. "Estimating Social Welfare Using Count Data Models: An Application to Long-Run Recreation Demand under Conditions of Endogenous Stratification and Truncation," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 77(1), pages 104-12, February.
    26. Prayaga, Prabha & Rolfe, John & Stoeckl, Natalie, 2010. "The value of recreational fishing in the Great Barrier Reef, Australia: A pooled revealed preference and contingent behaviour model," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(2), pages 244-251, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:70:y:2011:i:7:p:1250-1258. 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: (Zhang, Lei)

    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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 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.

    This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.