Preference Structures, Property Rights, and Paired Comparisons
The method of paired comparisons was used to determine the structure of survey participants' value expressions for Australian native forests. The same participants were also surveyed using the contingent valuation method (CVM). Data from the paired comparisons were used to construct preference maps which enabled identification of participants whose value expressions were structurally incompatible with economic welfare theory – in particular, those participants who expressed their values according to lexicographic preferences. For some of these participants, CVM results did not provide appropriate measures of WTP. The surveys also demonstrated the importance of allowing participants' own views on property rights to dictate the valuation context offered. Copyright Kluwer Academic Publishers 1999
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.
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.
Volume (Year): 13 (1999)
Issue (Month): 1 (January)
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://www.springerlink.com/link.asp?id=100263|
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.:
- Lockwood, Michael, 1997. "Integrated value theory for natural areas," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 20(1), pages 83-93, January.
- 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.
- Lockwood, Michael & Loomis, John & De Lacy, Terry, 1994. "The relative unimportance of a nonmarket willingness to pay for timber harvesting," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 9(2), pages 145-152, February.
- Spash, Clive L. & Hanley, N, 1994.
"Preferences, information and biodiversity preservation,"
38351, University Library of Munich, Germany.
- Spash, Clive L. & Hanley, Nick, 1995. "Preferences, information and biodiversity preservation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 12(3), pages 191-208, March.
- Nick Hanley & Clive L Spash, 1993. "Preferences, Information and Biodiversity Preservation," Working Papers Series 93/12, University of Stirling, Division of Economics.
- Adamowicz, Wiktor L. & Louviere, J. & Willians, M., 1992.
"Combining Revealed and Stated Preference Methods for Valuing Environmental Amenities,"
Staff Paper Series
232531, University of Alberta, Department of Resource Economics and Environmental Sociology.
- 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.
- Thomas H. Stevens & Jaime Echeverria & Ronald J. Glass & Tim Hager & Thomas A. More, 1991. "Measuring the Existence Value of Wildlife: What Do CVM Estimates Really Show?," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 67(4), pages 390-400.
- Loomis John & Lockwood Michael & DeLacy Terry, 1993. "Some Empirical Evidence on Embedding Effects in Contingent Valuation of Forest Protection," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 25(1), pages 45-55, July.
- Lockwood, Michael, 1998. "Integrated value assessment using paired comparisons," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(1), pages 73-87, April.
- Moldau Juan Hersztajn, 1993. "A Model of Choice Where Choice Is Determined by an Ordered Set of Irreducible Criteria," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 60(2), pages 354-377, August.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:kap:enreec:v:13:y:1999:i:1:p:107-122. 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: (Sonal Shukla)or (Rebekah McClure)
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.