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

Stated environmental preferences in a Romanian rural community

  • Luiza Toma
  • Erik Mathijs

This article uses random utility theory to analyse the economic and environmental trade-offs at farm level in a Romanian rural area confronting water pollution on the basis of survey data. To underline the impact of socio-economic variables in the decision-making process at farm level as regards environmental choices, a binary logit model is estimated that includes socio-economic variables in addition to the attributes in the choice set. The study shows that heterogeneity in tastes is partially captured by the inclusion of socio-economic variables such as age, education, access to agri-environmental information, number of children, land ownership and investment behaviour.

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.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/1463137042000223895
Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

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 Taylor & Francis Journals in its journal Post-Communist Economies.

Volume (Year): 16 (2004)
Issue (Month): 2 ()
Pages: 215-227

as
in new window

Handle: RePEc:taf:pocoec:v:16:y:2004:i:2:p:215-227
Contact details of provider: Web page: http://www.tandfonline.com/CPCE20

Order Information: Web: http://www.tandfonline.com/pricing/journal/CPCE20

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. McFadden, Daniel, 1987. "Regression-based specification tests for the multinomial logit model," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 34(1-2), pages 63-82.
  2. Carson, Richard T. & Hanemann, W. Michael, 2006. "Contingent Valuation," Handbook of Environmental Economics, in: K. G. Mäler & J. R. Vincent (ed.), Handbook of Environmental Economics, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 17, pages 821-936 Elsevier.
  3. Michael A. Toman, 1994. "Economics and "Sustainability": Balancing Trade-Offs and Imperatives," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 70(4), pages 399-413.
  4. Timothy C. Haab & Ju-Chin Huang & John C. Whitehead, 1999. "Are Hypothetical Referenda Incentive Compatible? A Comment," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 107(1), pages 186-196, February.
  5. Boyle Kevin J. & Desvousges William H. & Johnson F. Reed & Dunford Richard W. & Hudson Sara P., 1994. "An Investigation of Part-Whole Biases in Contingent-Valuation Studies," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 27(1), pages 64-83, July.
  6. Blamey, Russell K., 1998. "Decisiveness, attitude expression and symbolic responses in contingent valuation surveys," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 34(4), pages 577-601, March.
  7. Cummings, Ronald G & Harrison, Glenn W & Rutstrom, E Elisabet, 1995. "Homegrown Values and Hypothetical Surveys: Is the Dichotomous Choice Approach Incentive-Compatible?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 85(1), pages 260-66, March.
  8. Daniel McFadden & Kenneth Train, 2000. "Mixed MNL models for discrete response," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(5), pages 447-470.
  9. Kosz, Michael, 1996. "Valuing riverside wetlands: the case of the "Donau-Auen" national park," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 16(2), pages 109-127, February.
  10. Peter Boxall & Wiktor Adamowicz, 2002. "Understanding Heterogeneous Preferences in Random Utility Models: A Latent Class Approach," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 23(4), pages 421-446, December.
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:taf:pocoec:v:16:y:2004:i:2:p:215-227. 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: (Michael McNulty)

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.