IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/resene/v32y2010i3p421-438.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Socioeconomic adjustments and choice experiment benefit function transfer: Evaluating the common wisdom

Author

Listed:
  • Johnston, Robert J.
  • Duke, Joshua M.

Abstract

It is often argued that attribute adjustments made possible within choice experiments have the potential to improve benefit transfer accuracy. These transfers, however, often omit socioeconomic adjustments; this reflects a limited presence of socioeconomic covariates in broader choice experiments. The lack of correspondence between common guidance that socioeconomic adjustments should be applied and simultaneous arguments for the advantages of choice experiment transfers leads to ambiguity for transfer practice. This paper contrasts the change in transfer performance resulting from an ability to adjust for policy attributes with that resulting from an ability to adjust for socioeconomic attributes. Results are illustrated for the case of agricultural land preservation. The goal is to provide evidence regarding the tradeoff faced by practitioners who seek to use choice experiments for benefit transfer but lack the ability to adjust for socioeconomic attributes.

Suggested Citation

  • Johnston, Robert J. & Duke, Joshua M., 2010. "Socioeconomic adjustments and choice experiment benefit function transfer: Evaluating the common wisdom," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(3), pages 421-438, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:resene:v:32:y:2010:i:3:p:421-438
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0928-7655(09)00055-4
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    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. Randall S. Rosenberger & Robert J. Johnston, 2009. "Selection Effects in Meta-Analysis and Benefit Transfer: Avoiding Unintended Consequences," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 85(3), pages 410-428.
    2. Yong Jiang & Stephen Swallow & Michael Mcgonagle, 2005. "Context-Sensitive Benefit Transfer Using Stated Choice Models: Specification and Convergent Validity for Policy Analysis," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 31(4), pages 477-499, August.
    3. Morrison, Mark & Bergland, Olvar, 2006. "Prospects for the use of choice modelling for benefit transfer," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(2), pages 420-428, December.
    4. Rosenberger, Randall S. & Stanley, Tom D., 2006. "Measurement, generalization, and publication: Sources of error in benefit transfers and their management," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(2), pages 372-378, December.
    5. Richard Ready & Ståle Navrud & Brett Day & Richard Dubourg & Fernando Machado & Susana Mourato & Frank Spanninks & Maria Rodriquez, 2004. "Benefit Transfer in Europe: How Reliable Are Transfers between Countries?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 29(1), pages 67-82, September.
    6. Brouwer, Roy & Bateman, Ian J., 2005. "Benefits transfer of willingness to pay estimates and functions for health-risk reductions: a cross-country study," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 24(3), pages 591-611, May.
    7. Robert J. Johnston & Joshua M. Duke, 2007. "Willingness to Pay for Agricultural Land Preservation and Policy Process Attributes: Does the Method Matter?," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 89(4), pages 1098-1115.
    8. Sudip Chattopadhyay, 2003. "A Repeated Sampling Technique in Assessing the Validity of Benefit Transfer in Valuing Non-Market Goods," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 79(4), pages 576-596.
    9. Mark Morrison & Jeff Bennett & Russell Blamey & Jordan Louviere, 2002. "Choice Modeling and Tests of Benefit Transfer," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 84(1), pages 161-170.
    10. Kline, Jeffrey & Wichelns, Dennis, 1998. "Measuring heterogeneous preferences for preserving farmland and open space," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(2), pages 211-224, August.
    11. David Hensher & William Greene, 2003. "The Mixed Logit model: The state of practice," Transportation, Springer, vol. 30(2), pages 133-176, May.
    12. Robert Johnston & Joshua Duke, 2008. "Benefit Transfer Equivalence Tests with Non-normal Distributions," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 41(1), pages 1-23, September.
    13. Sergio Colombo & Javier Calatrava-Requena & Nick Hanley, 2007. "Testing Choice Experiment for Benefit Transfer with Preference Heterogeneity," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 89(1), pages 135-151.
    14. Sergio Colombo & Nick Hanley, 2008. "How Can We Reduce the Errors from Benefits Transfer? An Investigation Using the Choice Experiment Method," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 84(1), pages 128-147.
    15. Robert Johnston, 2007. "Choice experiments, site similarity and benefits transfer," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 38(3), pages 331-351, November.
    16. Mark Morrison & Jeff Bennett, 2004. "Valuing New South Wales rivers for use in benefit transfer," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 48(4), pages 591-611, December.
    17. Spash, Clive L. & Vatn, Arild, 2006. "Transferring environmental value estimates: Issues and alternatives," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(2), pages 379-388, December.
    18. 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.
    19. Boxall, Peter C. & Adamowicz, Wiktor L. & Swait, Joffre & Williams, Michael & Louviere, Jordan, 1996. "A comparison of stated preference methods for environmental valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(3), pages 243-253, September.
    20. Johnston, Robert J. & Swallow, Stephen K. & Bauer, Dana Marie & Anderson, Christopher M., 2003. "Preferences for Residential Development Attributes and Support for the Policy Process: Implications for Management and Conservation of Rural Landscapes," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 32(01), pages 65-82, April.
    21. V. Kerry Smith & George Van Houtven & Subhrendu K. Pattanayak, 2002. "Benefit Transfer via Preference Calibration: "Prudential Algebra" for Policy," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 78(1), pages 132-152.
    22. Brouwer, Roy, 2000. "Environmental value transfer: state of the art and future prospects," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 137-152, January.
    23. Nick Hanley & Sergio Colombo & Dugald Tinch & Andrew Black & Ashar Aftab, 2006. "Estimating the benefits of water quality improvements under the Water Framework Directive: are benefits transferable?," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Foundation for the European Review of Agricultural Economics, vol. 33(3), pages 391-413, September.
    24. Barton, David N., 2002. "The transferability of benefit transfer: contingent valuation of water quality improvements in Costa Rica," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 42(1-2), pages 147-164, August.
    25. Robert J. Johnston & Joshua M. Duke, 2009. "Willingness to Pay for Land Preservation across States and Jurisdictional Scale: Implications for Benefit Transfer," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 85(2), pages 217-237.
    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. Duke, Joshua M. & Dundas, Steven J. & Johnston, Robert J. & Messer, Kent D., 2014. "Prioritizing payment for environmental services: Using nonmarket benefits and costs for optimal selection," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 319-329.
    2. Taro Ohdoko & Satoru Komatsu & Shinji Kaneko, 2013. "Residential preferences for stable electricity supply and a reduction in air pollution risk: a benefit transfer study using choice modeling in China," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 15(3), pages 309-328, July.
    3. repec:kap:enreec:v:69:y:2018:i:2:d:10.1007_s10640-016-0078-3 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. Heather Klemick & Charles Griffiths & Dennis Guignet & Patrick Walsh, 2015. "Explaining Variation in the Value of Chesapeake Bay Water Quality Using Internal Meta-analysis," NCEE Working Paper Series 201504, National Center for Environmental Economics, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, revised Nov 2015.
    5. Czajkowski, Mikołaj & Ahtiainen, Heini & Artell, Janne & Meyerhoff, Jürgen, 2017. "Choosing a Functional Form for an International Benefit Transfer: Evidence from a Nine-country Valuation Experiment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 134(C), pages 104-113.
    6. Schaafsma, Marije & Brouwer, Roy & Liekens, Inge & De Nocker, Leo, 2014. "Temporal stability of preferences and willingness to pay for natural areas in choice experiments: A test–retest," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 243-260.
    7. repec:eee:ecolec:v:144:y:2018:i:c:p:171-185 is not listed on IDEAS

    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:resene:v:32:y:2010:i:3:p:421-438. 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: (Dana Niculescu). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/inca/505569 .

    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 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.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.