IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/forpol/v105y2019icp28-39.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Willingness to pay for forest conservation in Ecuador: Results from a nationwide contingent valuation survey in a combined “referendum” – “Consequential open-ended” design

Author

Listed:
  • Gordillo, Fernando
  • Elsasser, Peter
  • Günter, Sven

Abstract

Deforestation is a threatening pan-tropical problem. Net deforestation in Ecuador amounts to approximately 500 km2 per year for 2008–2014. It represents not only an environmental problem but also a threat to social welfare. As social welfare depends on individual preferences, we examined households´ preferences and willingness-to-pay (WTP) for a proposed forest conservation program aiming to avoid deforestation in Ecuador. Our study presents results from a nationwide contingent valuation survey conducted in a geographically stratified random sample of 976 households across the three main geographical regions of Ecuador as well as urban and rural areas. About 98% of surveyed households consider the proposed program worth supporting. For forest conservation, the monthly mean WTP per household lies between $6.28 (dichotomous choice) - $3.17 (open-ended) depending on the method of analysis indicating a solid potential for supporting incentive-based conservation programs. Households also expressed their preferences by regions and types of forests but our results are inconclusive in this regard. Methodologically, our study sheds some new light on the causes for the well-known discrepancy between dichotomous-choice and open-ended WTP estimates. Our results may help improving social welfare by incorporating households´ preferences into the design of forest conservation programs (e.g., like Ecuador's Socio Bosque program). Currently realized payments for the Socio Bosque program are based on sound social support which opens doors to discuss amplifying the financial scope of the program by examining the role that households could play in funding forest conservation programs. Our WTP estimates provide aggregate information that could support the design of forest policy instruments.

Suggested Citation

  • Gordillo, Fernando & Elsasser, Peter & Günter, Sven, 2019. "Willingness to pay for forest conservation in Ecuador: Results from a nationwide contingent valuation survey in a combined “referendum” – “Consequential open-ended” design," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 28-39.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:forpol:v:105:y:2019:i:c:p:28-39
    DOI: 10.1016/j.forpol.2019.05.002
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1389934118304416
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.forpol.2019.05.002?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. W. Michael Hanemann, 1989. "Welfare Evaluations in Contingent Valuation Experiments with Discrete Response Data: Reply," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 71(4), pages 1057-1061.
    2. Ian Langford* & Areti Kontogianni & Mihalis Skourtos & Stavros Georgiou & Ian Bateman, 1998. "Multivariate Mixed Models for Open-Ended Contingent Valuation Data: Willingness To Pay For Conservation of Monk Seals," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 12(4), pages 443-456, December.
    3. Kanninen Barbara J., 1995. "Bias in Discrete Response Contingent Valuation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 28(1), pages 114-125, January.
    4. Christian A. Vossler & Maurice Doyon & Daniel Rondeau, 2012. "Truth in Consequentiality: Theory and Field Evidence on Discrete Choice Experiments," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 4(4), pages 145-171, November.
    5. Kevin J. Boyle & Hugh F. MacDonald & Hsiang-tai Cheng & Daniel W. McCollum, 1998. "Bid Design and Yea Saying in Single-Bounded, Dichotomous-Choice Questions," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 74(1), pages 49-64.
    6. Liam Delaney & Francis O’Toole, 2004. "Irish Public Service Broadcasting - A Contingent Valuation Analysis," The Economic and Social Review, Economic and Social Studies, vol. 35(3), pages 321-350.
    7. Green, Donald & Jacowitz, Karen E. & Kahneman, Daniel & McFadden, Daniel, 1998. "Referendum contingent valuation, anchoring, and willingness to pay for public goods," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 20(2), pages 85-116, June.
    8. Bente Halvorsen & Kjartan Sœlensminde, 1998. "Differences between Willingness-to-Pay Estimates from Open-Ended and Discrete-Choice Contingent Valuation Methods: The Effects of Heteroscedasticity," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 74(2), pages 262-282.
    9. Kelley Myers & George Parsons & Kenneth Train, 2017. "Inadequate response to frequency of payments in contingent valuation of environmental goods," Chapters, in: Daniel McFadden & Kenneth Train (ed.), Contingent Valuation of Environmental Goods, chapter 3, pages 43-57, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    10. Halstead, John M. & Luloff, A.E. & Stevens, Thomas H., 1992. "Protest Bidders In Contingent Valuation," Northeastern Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 21(2), pages 1-10, October.
    11. Catherine L. Kling & Daniel J. Phaneuf & Jinhua Zhao, 2012. "From Exxon to BP: Has Some Number Become Better Than No Number?," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 26(4), pages 3-26, Fall.
    12. Arne Risa Hole, 2007. "A comparison of approaches to estimating confidence intervals for willingness to pay measures," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 16(8), pages 827-840, August.
    13. Dale Whittington & Stefano Pagiola, 2012. "Using Contingent Valuation in the Design of Payments for Environmental Services Mechanisms: A Review and Assessment," The World Bank Research Observer, World Bank, vol. 27(2), pages 261-287, August.
    14. Peter Groothuis & John Whitehead, 2002. "Does don't know mean no? Analysis of 'don't know' responses in dichotomous choice contingent valuation questions," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 34(15), pages 1935-1940.
    15. Timothy Park & John B. Loomis & Michael Creel, 1991. "Confidence Intervals for Evaluating Benefits Estimates from Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation Studies," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 67(1), pages 64-73.
    16. Meyerhoff, Jurgen & Liebe, Ulf, 2006. "Protest beliefs in contingent valuation: Explaining their motivation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(4), pages 583-594, June.
    17. Patricia A. Champ & Richard C. Bishop, 2006. "Is Willingness to Pay for a Public Good Sensitive to the Elicitation Format?," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 82(2), pages 162-173.
    18. Riera, Pere & Signorello, Giovanni & Thiene, Mara & Mahieu, Pierre-Alexandre & Navrud, Ståle & Kaval, Pamela & Rulleau, Benedicte & Mavsar, Robert & Madureira, Lívia & Meyerhoff, Jürgen & Elsasser, Pe, 2012. "Non-market valuation of forest goods and services: Good practice guidelines," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(4), pages 259-270.
    19. Daniel McFadden & Kenneth Train (ed.), 2017. "Contingent Valuation of Environmental Goods," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 17527, March.
    20. Richard Carson & Theodore Groves, 2007. "Incentive and informational properties of preference questions," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 37(1), pages 181-210, May.
    21. Raymond Y. T. Yeung & Richard D. Smith & Lai‐Ming Ho & Janice M. Johnston & Gabriel M. Leung, 2006. "Empirical implications of response acquiescence in discrete‐choice contingent valuation," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(10), pages 1077-1089, October.
    22. P. Wilner Jeanty, 2007. "Constructing Krinsky and Robb Confidence Interval for Mean and Median WTP Using Stata," North American Stata Users' Group Meetings 2007 8, Stata Users Group, revised 30 Aug 2007.
    23. Kelly Giraud & John Loomis & Joseph Cooper, 2001. "A Comparison of Willingness to Pay Estimation Techniques From Referendum Questions," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 20(4), pages 331-346, December.
    24. Bengt Kriström, 1993. "Comparing continuous and discrete contingent valuation questions," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 3(1), pages 63-71, February.
    25. Söderqvist, Tore & Soutukorva, Åsa, 2009. "On how to assess the quality of environmental valuation studies," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 15(1-2), pages 15-36, January.
    26. Mohebalian, Phillip M. & Aguilar, Francisco X., 2016. "Additionality and design of forest conservation programs: Insights from Ecuador's Socio Bosque Program," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 103-114.
    27. Ewa Zawojska & Mikołaj Czajkowski, 2017. "Re-examining empirical evidence on stated preferences: importance of incentive compatibility," Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 6(4), pages 374-403, October.
    28. Richard T. Carson & Theodore Groves & John A. List, 2014. "Consequentiality: A Theoretical and Experimental Exploration of a Single Binary Choice," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 1(1), pages 171-207.
    29. Cameron, Trudy Ann & James, Michelle D, 1987. "Efficient Estimation Methods for "Closed-ended' Contingent Valuation Surveys," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 69(2), pages 269-276, May.
    30. Thomas C. Brown & Patricia A. Champ & Richard C. Bishop & Daniel W. McCollum, 1996. "Which Response Format Reveals the Truth about Donations to a Public Good?," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 72(2), pages 152-166.
    31. Robert J. Johnston & Kevin J. Boyle & Wiktor (Vic) Adamowicz & Jeff Bennett & Roy Brouwer & Trudy Ann Cameron & W. Michael Hanemann & Nick Hanley & Mandy Ryan & Riccardo Scarpa & Roger Tourangeau & Ch, 2017. "Contemporary Guidance for Stated Preference Studies," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 4(2), pages 319-405.
    32. Lopez-Feldman, Alejandro, 2012. "Introduction to contingent valuation using Stata," MPRA Paper 41018, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    33. Vossler, Christian A. & Holladay, J. Scott, 2018. "Alternative value elicitation formats in contingent valuation: Mechanism design and convergent validity," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 165(C), pages 133-145.
    34. V. Kerry Smith, 1993. "Nonmarket Valuation of Environmental Resources: An Interpretive Appraisal," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 69(1), pages 1-26.
    35. Liam Delaney & Francis O’Toole, 2006. "Willingness to pay: individual or household?," Journal of Cultural Economics, Springer;The Association for Cultural Economics International, vol. 30(4), pages 305-309, December.
    36. Vasco, Cristian & Torres, Bolier & Pacheco, Pablo & Griess, Verena, 2017. "The socioeconomic determinants of legal and illegal smallholder logging: Evidence from the Ecuadorian Amazon," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 133-140.
    37. Timothy C. Haab & Kenneth E. McConnell, 2002. "Valuing Environmental and Natural Resources," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2427, March.
    38. Steven B. Caudill & Peter A. Groothuis, 2005. "Modeling Hidden Alternatives in Random Utility Models: An Application to "Don’t Know" Responses in Contingent Valuation," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 81(3).
    39. Vossler, Christian A. & Watson, Sharon B., 2013. "Understanding the consequences of consequentiality: Testing the validity of stated preferences in the field," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 137-147.
    40. Mark Morrison, 2000. "Aggregation Biases in Stated Preference Studies," Australian Economic Papers, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 39(2), pages 215-230, June.
    41. Gregory Poe & Jeremy Clark & Daniel Rondeau & William Schulze, 2002. "Provision Point Mechanisms and Field Validity Tests of Contingent Valuation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 23(1), pages 105-131, September.
    42. Richard C. Ready & Jean C. Buzby & Dayuan Hu, 1996. "Differences between Continuous and Discrete Contingent Value Estimates," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 72(3), pages 397-411.
    43. repec:bla:ausecp:v:39:y:2000:i:2:p:215-30 is not listed on IDEAS
    44. 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.
    45. Moreno-Sanchez, Rocio & Maldonado, Jorge Higinio & Wunder, Sven & Borda-Almanza, Carlos, 2012. "Heterogeneous users and willingness to pay in an ongoing payment for watershed protection initiative in the Colombian Andes," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 126-134.
    46. Henrik Lindhjem & Ståle Navrud, 2009. "Asking for Individual or Household Willingness to Pay for Environmental Goods?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 43(1), pages 11-29, May.
    47. Cameron, Trudy Ann & Huppert, Daniel D., 1989. "OLS versus ML estimation of non-market resource values with payment card interval data," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 17(3), pages 230-246, November.
    48. Uehleke, Reinhard, 2016. "The role of question format for the support for national climate change mitigation policies in Germany and the determinants of WTP," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 148-156.
    49. Ståle Navrud & Jon Strand, 2018. "Valuing Global Ecosystem Services: What Do European Experts Say? Applying the Delphi Method to Contingent Valuation of the Amazon Rainforest," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 70(1), pages 249-269, May.
    50. Walsh, Richard G. & Johnson, Donn M. & McKean, John R., 1989. "Issues In Nonmarket Valuation And Policy Application: A Retrospective Glance," Western Journal of Agricultural Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 14(01), pages 1-11, July.
    51. Strand, Jon & Carson, Richard T. & Navrud, Stale & Ortiz-Bobea, Ariel & Vincent, Jeffrey R., 2017. "Using the Delphi method to value protection of the Amazon rainforest," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 475-484.
    52. Clark, Judy & Burgess, Jacquelin & Harrison, Carolyn M., 2000. ""I struggled with this money business": respondents' perspectives on contingent valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 45-62, April.
    53. Jerry Hausman, 2012. "Contingent Valuation: From Dubious to Hopeless," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 26(4), pages 43-56, Fall.
    54. Vincent, Jeffrey R & Carson, Richard T & DeShazo, JR & Schwabe, Kurt A & Ahmad, Ismariah & Chong, Siew Kook & Chang, Yii Tan & Potts, Matthew D, 2014. "Tropical countries may be willing to pay more to protect their forests," University of California at San Diego, Economics Working Paper Series qt3w77c50q, Department of Economics, UC San Diego.
    55. Adams, Cristina & Seroa da Motta, Ronaldo & Ortiz, Ramón Arigoni & Reid, John & Ebersbach Aznar, Cristina & de Almeida Sinisgalli, Paulo Antonio, 2008. "The use of contingent valuation for evaluating protected areas in the developing world: Economic valuation of Morro do Diabo State Park, Atlantic Rainforest, São Paulo State (Brazil)," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 66(2-3), pages 359-370, June.
    56. Stephen O'Neill & Lava Prakash Yadav, 2016. "Willingness to pay towards a public good: how does a refund option affect stated values?," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 59(2), pages 342-359, February.
    57. Bhat, Chandra R., 1994. "Imputing a continuous income variable from grouped and missing income observations," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 46(4), pages 311-319, December.
    58. Aurelia Bengochea-Morancho & Ana Fuertes-Eugenio & Salvador Saz-Salazar, 2005. "A comparison of empirical models used to infer the willingness to pay in contingent valuation," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 30(1), pages 235-244, January.
    59. 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, March.
    60. Carson, Richard T., 1998. "Valuation of tropical rainforests: philosophical and practical issues in the use of contingent valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 24(1), pages 15-29, January.
    61. Randall A. Kramer & D. Evan Mercer, 1997. "Valuing a Global Environmental Good: U.S. Residents' Willingness to Pay to Protect Tropical Rain Forests," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 73(2), pages 196-210.
    62. Brancalion, Pedro H.S. & Lamb, David & Ceccon, Eliane & Boucher, Doug & Herbohn, John & Strassburg, Bernardo & Edwards, David P., 2017. "Using markets to leverage investment in forest and landscape restoration in the tropics," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 85(P1), pages 103-113.
    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. Vilela, Thais & Malky Harb, Alfonso & Mendizábal Vergara, Carla, 2022. "Chileans' willingness to pay for protected areas," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 201(C).
    2. Diriba Abdeta, 2022. "Households' willingness to pay for forest conservation in Ethiopia: A review," Journal of Forest Science, Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 68(11), pages 437-451.
    3. Etchart, Nicolle & Freire, José Luis & Holland, Margaret B. & Jones, Kelly W. & Naughton-Treves, Lisa, 2020. "What happens when the money runs out? Forest outcomes and equity concerns following Ecuador’s suspension of conservation payments," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 136(C).
    4. Halkos, George & Leonti, Aikaterini & Sardianou, Eleni, 2022. "Determinants of willingness to pay for entrance to urban parks: A quantile regression analysis," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 421-431.
    5. Albert Boaitey, 2024. "Farm animal welfare regulatory preferences and food choice: survey evidence from the US," Agricultural and Food Economics, Springer;Italian Society of Agricultural Economics (SIDEA), vol. 12(1), pages 1-23, December.
    6. Wan-Yu Liu & Yen-Yu Lin & Han-Shen Chen & Chi-Ming Hsieh, 2019. "Assessing the Amenity Value of Forest Ecosystem Services: Perspectives from the Use of Sustainable Green Spaces," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(16), pages 1-23, August.
    7. Tadesse, Tewodros & Teklay, Gebreegziabher & Mulatu, Dawit W. & Rannestad, Meley Mekonen & Meresa, Tigabu Molla & Woldelibanos, Dawit, 2022. "Forest benefits and willingness to pay for sustainable forest management," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 138(C).
    8. Luigi La Riccia & Vanessa Assumma & Marta Carla Bottero & Federico Dell’Anna & Angioletta Voghera, 2023. "A Contingent Valuation-Based Method to Valuate Ecosystem Services for a Proactive Planning and Management of Cork Oak Forests in Sardinia (Italy)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(10), pages 1-28, May.

    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. Robert J. Johnston & Kevin J. Boyle & Wiktor (Vic) Adamowicz & Jeff Bennett & Roy Brouwer & Trudy Ann Cameron & W. Michael Hanemann & Nick Hanley & Mandy Ryan & Riccardo Scarpa & Roger Tourangeau & Ch, 2017. "Contemporary Guidance for Stated Preference Studies," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 4(2), pages 319-405.
    2. Paul Mwebaze & Jeff Bennett & Nigel W. Beebe & Gregor J. Devine & Paul Barro, 2018. "Economic Valuation of the Threat Posed by the Establishment of the Asian Tiger Mosquito in Australia," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 71(2), pages 357-379, October.
    3. Zawojska, Ewa & Bartczak, Anna & Czajkowski, Mikołaj, 2019. "Disentangling the effects of policy and payment consequentiality and risk attitudes on stated preferences," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 63-84.
    4. Christian A. Vossler & Stéphane Bergeron & Maurice Doyon & Daniel Rondeau, 2023. "Revisiting the Gap between the Willingness to Pay and Willingness to Accept for Public Goods," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 10(2), pages 413-445.
    5. Christian A. Vossler & Ewa Zawojska, 2018. "Toward a better understanding of elicitation effects in stated preference studies," Working Papers 2018-01, University of Tennessee, Department of Economics.
    6. Mark A. Andor & Manuel Frondel & Marco Horvath, 2021. "Consequentiality, Elicitation Formats, and the Willingness to Pay for Green Electricity: Evidence from Germany," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 97(3), pages 626-640.
    7. Daniel Rondeau & Christian A. Vossler, 2024. "Incentive compatibility and respondent beliefs: Consequentiality and game form," Working Papers 2024-02, University of Tennessee, Department of Economics.
    8. Czajkowski, Mikołaj & Zawojska, Ewa & Meade, Norman & da Motta, Ronaldo Seroa & Welsh, Mike & Ortiz, Ramon Arigoni, 2024. "On the inference about a willingness-to-pay distribution using contingent valuation data," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 222(C).
    9. Schläpfer, Felix & Getzner, Michael, 2020. "Beyond Current Guidelines: A Proposal for Bringing Behavioral Economics to the Design and Analysis of Stated Preference Surveys," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 176(C).
    10. Peter A. Groothuis & Tanga M. Mohr & John C. Whitehead & Kristan Cockerill, 2015. "Payment and Policy Consequentiality in Contingent Valuation," Working Papers 15-04, Department of Economics, Appalachian State University.
    11. Vossler, Christian A. & Holladay, J. Scott, 2018. "Alternative value elicitation formats in contingent valuation: Mechanism design and convergent validity," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 165(C), pages 133-145.
    12. Giles Atkinson & Sian Morse-Jones & Susana Mourato & Allan Provins, 2012. "‘When to Take “No” for an Answer’? Using Entreaties to Reduce Protests in Contingent Valuation Studies," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 51(4), pages 497-523, April.
    13. Tuan, Tran Huu & Navrud, Stale, 2009. "Applying the dissonance-minimising format to value cultural heritage in developing countries," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 53(3), pages 1-17.
    14. Waranan Tantiwat & Christopher Gan & Wei Yang, 2021. "The Estimation of the Willingness to Pay for Air-Quality Improvement in Thailand," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-23, November.
    15. West, Grant H. & Snell, Heather & Kovacs, Kent & Nayga, Rodolfo M., 2020. "Estimation of the preferences for the intertemporal services from groundwater," 2020 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, Kansas City, Missouri 304220, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    16. Richard C. Bishop & Kevin J. Boyle, 2019. "Reliability and Validity in Nonmarket Valuation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 72(2), pages 559-582, February.
    17. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Rose, John M. & Oppewal, Harmen & Lancsar, Emily, 2021. "Hypothetical bias in stated choice experiments: Part II. Conceptualisation of external validity, sources and explanations of bias and effectiveness of mitigation methods," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).
    18. Halkos, George, 2012. "The use of contingent valuation in assessing marine and coastal ecosystems’ water quality: A review," MPRA Paper 42183, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    19. Alix-Garcia, Jennifer M. & Sims, Katharine R.E. & Phaneuf, Daniel J., 2019. "Using referenda to improve targeting and decrease costs of conditional cash transfers," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 176(C), pages 179-194.
    20. George Parsons & Kelley Myers, 2017. "Fat tails and truncated bids in contingent valuation: an application to an endangered shorebird species," Chapters, in: Daniel McFadden & Kenneth Train (ed.), Contingent Valuation of Environmental Goods, chapter 2, pages 17-42, Edward Elgar Publishing.

    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:forpol:v:105:y:2019:i:c:p:28-39. 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/forpol .

    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.