IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/uwp/landec/v76y2000i2p151-173.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Valuing Environmental Policy Options: A Case Study Comparison of Multiattribute and Contingent Valuation Survey Methods

Author

Listed:
  • Robin S. Gregory

Abstract

This paper describes a promising new evaluation approach, called a "value integration survey," that uses the objectives and tradeoffs expressed by participants to value environmental policy options. This constructive technique, which builds on the interactive elicitation process of decision analysts, assists stakeholders in clarifying their values and in agreeing on a policy alternative. The paper compares this multi attribute valuation method to contingent valuation surveys, describes the sequence of respondents' tasks, and presents results from a case study comparison of contingent valuation and value-integration survey methods in the context of valuing options for fire control in Oregon's oldgrowth forests.

Suggested Citation

  • Robin S. Gregory, 2000. "Valuing Environmental Policy Options: A Case Study Comparison of Multiattribute and Contingent Valuation Survey Methods," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 76(2), pages 151-173.
  • Handle: RePEc:uwp:landec:v:76:y:2000:i:2:p:151-173
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/3147222
    Download Restriction: A subscripton is required to access pdf files. Pay per article is available.

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Eric Thompson & Mark Berger & Glenn Blomquist & Steven Allen, 2002. "Valuing the Arts: A Contingent Valuation Approach," Journal of Cultural Economics, Springer;The Association for Cultural Economics International, vol. 26(2), pages 87-113, May.
    2. Lo, Alex Y. & Spash, Clive L., 2011. "Articulation of Plural Values in Deliberative Monetary Valuation: Beyond Preference Economisation and Moralisation," MPRA Paper 30002, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    3. Collentine, Dennis, 2003. "Policies and tools for catchment management of water resources : field management, tradable permits and stakeholder participation," Department of Economics publications 400, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Department of Economics.
    4. Barrio, Melina & Loureiro, Maria L., 2010. "A meta-analysis of contingent valuation forest studies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(5), pages 1023-1030, March.
    5. Gregory, Robin & Wellman, Katharine, 2001. "Bringing stakeholder values into environmental policy choices: a community-based estuary case study," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 37-52, October.
    6. Schlapfer, Felix, 2006. "Survey protocol and income effects in the contingent valuation of public goods: A meta-analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(3), pages 415-429, May.
    7. Ojea, Elena & Loureiro, Maria L., 2011. "Identifying the scope effect on a meta-analysis of biodiversity valuation studies," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 706-724, September.
    8. Ananda, Jayanath & Herath, Gamini, 2003. "Incorporating stakeholder values into regional forest planning: a value function approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 45(1), pages 75-90, April.
    9. repec:eee:ecoser:v:22:y:2016:i:pb:p:238-249 is not listed on IDEAS
    10. repec:eee:ecoser:v:14:y:2015:i:c:p:88-97 is not listed on IDEAS
    11. Ananda, Jayanath & Herath, Gamini, 2008. "Multi-attribute preference modelling and regional land-use planning," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(2), pages 325-335, April.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • Q26 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation - - - Recreational Aspects of Natural Resources

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:uwp:landec:v:76:y:2000:i:2:p:151-173. 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: (). General contact details of provider: http://le.uwpress.org/ .

    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.

    We have no references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.