IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Login to save this article or follow this journal

Improving the Process of Valuing Non-Market Benefits: Combining Citizens’ Juries with Choice Modelling

  • Begoña Álvarez-Farizo
  • Nick Hanley

We attempt a first combination of the participatory technique known as the "citizens’ jury" with choice modelling, a stated-preference technique increasingly favored by environmental economists. Our application is conducted in the context of water quality improvements under the Water Framework Directive, the most significant reform in water legislation in the European Union for many years. We compare results with those of a conventional choice experiment. We find that the choice experiment format can be successfully implemented in a "jury" setting, and that moving from an individual to a collective choice setting produces a change in both values and preferences.

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:
Download Restriction: A subscription is required to access pdf files. Pay per article is available.

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 University of Wisconsin Press in its journal Land Economics.

Volume (Year): 82 (2006)
Issue (Month): 3 ()
Pages: 465-478

in new window

Handle: RePEc:uwp:landec:v:82:y:2006:i:3:p:465-478
Contact details of provider: Web page:

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. McDaniels, Timothy L. & Gregory, Robin & Arvai, Joseph & Chuenpagdee, Ratana, 2003. "Decision structuring to alleviate embedding in environmental valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 46(1), pages 33-46, August.
  2. D. McFadden & J. Hausman, 1981. "Specification Tests for the Multinominal Logit Model," Working papers 292, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Department of Economics.
  3. Payne, John W & Bettman, James R & Schkade, David A, 1999. "Measuring Constructed Preferences: Towards a Building Code," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 19(1-3), pages 243-70, December.
  4. Wendy Kenyon & Nick Hanley & Ceara Nevin, 2001. "Citizens' juries: an aid to environmental valuation?," Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, Pion Ltd, London, vol. 19(4), pages 557-566, August.
  5. Jacquelin Burgess & Judy Clark & Carolyn Harrison, 2000. "Culture, communication, and the information problem in contingent valuation surveys: a case study of a Wildlife Enhancement Scheme," Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, Pion Ltd, London, vol. 18(5), pages 505-524, October.
  6. Hanley, Nick & Mourato, Susana & Wright, Robert E, 2001. " Choice Modelling Approaches: A Superior Alternative for Environmental Valuation?," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 15(3), pages 435-62, July.
  7. Robin Gregory & James Flynn & Stephen M. Johnson & Theresa A. Satterfield & Paul Slovic & Robert Wagner, 1997. "Decision-Pathway Surveys: A Tool for Resource Managers," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 73(2), pages 240-254.
  8. Kenneth Train, 2003. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Online economics textbooks, SUNY-Oswego, Department of Economics, number emetr2.
  9. repec:cup:cbooks:9780521788304 is not listed on IDEAS
  10. Aldred, Jonathan & Jacobs, Michael, 2000. "Citizens and wetlands: evaluating the Ely citizens' jury," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(2), pages 217-232, August.
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:uwp:landec:v:82:y:2006:i:3:p:465-478. 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: ()

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.