IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/saeaso/35315.html

Running to Stand Still: Challenges Economists Face with Imperfect Data

Author

Listed:
  • Kemper, Nathan
  • Popp, Jennie S. Hughes
  • Miller, Wayne P.
  • Goodwin, Harold L., Jr.

Abstract

Some suggest that land application of phosphorus rich poultry litter has negatively affected area waters' recreational value. However, key data are unavailable to conduct thorough economic analysis to aid in policy development. This paper examines the challenges associated with using limited economic analyses to construct policy to address this situation.

Suggested Citation

  • Kemper, Nathan & Popp, Jennie S. Hughes & Miller, Wayne P. & Goodwin, Harold L., Jr., 2006. "Running to Stand Still: Challenges Economists Face with Imperfect Data," 2006 Annual Meeting, February 5-8, 2006, Orlando, Florida 35315, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:saeaso:35315
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.35315
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/35315/files/sp06ke03.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.35315?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. William H. Miernyk, 1965. "The Elements of Input-Output Analysis," Wholbk, Regional Research Institute, West Virginia University, number 04, Fall.
    2. repec:rri:bkchap:04 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Nick Hanley & Susana Mourato & Robert E. Wright, 2001. "Choice Modelling Approaches: A Superior Alternative for Environmental Valuatioin?," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 15(3), pages 435-462, July.
    4. repec:bla:jecsur:v:15:y:2001:i:3:p:435-62 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. Kelvin J. Lancaster, 1966. "A New Approach to Consumer Theory," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 74(2), pages 132-132.
    6. Pereira, Alfredo M. & Shoven, John B., 1988. "Survey of dynamic computational general equilibrium models for tax policy evaluation," Journal of Policy Modeling, Elsevier, vol. 10(3), pages 401-436.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Abdullah, Sabah & Mariel, Petr, 2010. "Choice experiment study on the willingness to pay to improve electricity services," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(8), pages 4570-4581, August.
    2. Anabela Botelho & Lina Lourenço-Gomes & Lígia M. Costa Pinto & Sara Sousa & Marieta Valente, 2018. "Discrete-choice experiments valuing local environmental impacts of renewables: two approaches to a case study in Portugal," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 20(1), pages 145-162, December.
    3. Anabela Botelho & Lina Sofia Lourenço-Gomes & Lígia Costa Pinto & Sara Sousa & Marieta Valente, 2016. "Accounting for local impacts of photovoltaic farms: two stated preferences approaches," NIMA Working Papers 64, Núcleo de Investigação em Microeconomia Aplicada (NIMA), Universidade do Minho.
    4. Aude Ridier & Caroline Roussy & Karim Chaib, 2021. "Adoption of crop diversification by specialized grain farmers in south-western France: evidence from a choice-modelling experiment," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, Springer, vol. 102(3), pages 265-283, September.
    5. Kanchanaroek, Yingluk & Termansen, Mette & Quinn, Claire, 2013. "Property rights regimes in complex fishery management systems: A choice experiment application," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 363-373.
    6. Victor Virimai Mugobo & Herbert Ntuli, 2022. "Consumer Preference for Attributes of Single-Use and Multi-Use Plastic Shopping Bags in Cape Town: A Choice Experiment Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(17), pages 1-25, August.
    7. Richard T. Carson & Miko_aj Czajkowski, 2014. "The discrete choice experiment approach to environmental contingent valuation," Chapters, in: Stephane Hess & Andrew Daly (ed.), Handbook of Choice Modelling, chapter 9, pages 202-235, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    8. H. Holly Wang & Lu Liu & David L. Ortega & Yu Jiang & Qiujie Zheng, 2020. "Are smallholder farmers willing to pay for different types of crop insurance? An application of labelled choice experiments to Chinese corn growers," The Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance - Issues and Practice, Palgrave Macmillan;The Geneva Association, vol. 45(1), pages 86-110, January.
    9. Domínguez-Torreiro, Marcos & Soliño, Mario, 2011. "Provided and perceived status quo in choice experiments: Implications for valuing the outputs of multifunctional rural areas," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(12), pages 2523-2531.
    10. Novikova, Anastasija & Rocchi, Lucia & Vitunskienė, Vlada, 2017. "Assessing the benefit of the agroecosystem services: Lithuanian preferences using a latent class approach," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 277-286.
    11. Caroline Roussy & Aude Ridier & Karim Chaïb, 2014. "Adoption d’innovations par les agriculteurs : rôle des perceptions et des préférences," Post-Print hal-01123427, HAL.
    12. Bart Neuts & Peter Nijkamp & Eveline Van Leeuwen, 2012. "Crowding Externalities from Tourist Use of Urban Space," Tourism Economics, , vol. 18(3), pages 649-670, June.
    13. Uttam Khanal & Clevo Wilson & Shunsuke Managi & Boon Lee & Viet-Ngu Hoang & Robert Gifford, 2018. "Psychological influence on survey incentives: valuing climate change adaptation benefits in agriculture," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 20(2), pages 305-324, April.
    14. Koistinen, Laura & Pouta, Eija & Heikkila, Jaakko & Forsman-Hugg, Sari & Kotro, Jaana & Makela, Jarmo & Niva, M., "undated". "Impact of meat type, methods of production, fat content, price and carbon footprint information on meat choice," 2011 International Congress, August 30-September 2, 2011, Zurich, Switzerland 114710, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    15. Espinosa-Goded, Maria & Barreiro-Hurlé, Jesús & Ruto, Eric, 2009. "Modeling Farmers Prefences For Agrienvironmental Scheme Design: A Spanish Case Study," 2009 Conference, August 16-22, 2009, Beijing, China 50328, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    16. Anabela Botelho & Lina Lourenço-Gomes & Lígia Pinto & Sara Sousa & Marieta Valente, 2016. "Using stated preference methods to assess environmental impacts of forest biomass power plants in Portugal," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 18(5), pages 1323-1337, October.
    17. Rose Fiamohe & Tebila Nakelse & Aliou Diagne & Papa A. Seck, 2015. "Assessing the Effect of Consumer Purchasing Criteria for Types of Rice in Togo: A Choice Modeling Approach," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 31(3), pages 433-452, June.
    18. del Saz Salazar, Salvador & Hernandez Sancho, Francesc & Sala Garrido, Ramon, 2009. "Estimación del valor económico de la calidad del agua de un río mediante una doble aproximación: una aplicación de los principios económicos de la Directiva Marco del Agua," Economia Agraria y Recursos Naturales, Spanish Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 9(01), pages 1-27.
    19. Alemu I, Jahson Berhane & Schuhmann, Peter & Agard, John, 2019. "Mixed preferences for lionfish encounters on reefs in Tobago: Results from a choice experiment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 164(C), pages 1-1.
    20. Hasan-Basri, Bakti & Mohd Mustafa, Muzafarshah & Bakar, Normizan, 2019. "Are Malaysian Consumers Willing to Pay for Hybrid Cars’ Attributes?," Jurnal Ekonomi Malaysia, Faculty of Economics and Business, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, vol. 53(1), pages 121-134.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;

    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:ags:saeaso:35315. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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 bibliographic 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.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/saeaaea.html .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.