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

Using Expert Judgment to Assess Adaptive Capacity to Climate Change: Evidence From a Conjoint Choice Survey

  • Anna Alberini

    (University of Maryland)

  • Aline Chiabai

    (Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei)

  • Lucija Muehlenbachs

    (AREC, University of Maryland)

We use conjoint choice questions to ask public health and climate change experts, contacted at professional meetings in 2003 and 2004, which of two hypothetical countries, A or B, they deem to have the higher adaptive capacity to certain effects of climate change on human health. These hypothetical countries are described by a vector of seven attributes, including per capita income, inequality in the distribution of income, measures of the health status of the population, the health care system, and access to information. Probit models indicate that our respondents regard per capita income, inequality in the distribution of income, universal health care coverage, and high access to information as important determinants of adaptive capacity. A universal-coverage health care system and a high level of access to information are judged to be equivalent to $12,000-$14,000 in per capita income. We use the estimated coefficients and country sociodemographics to construct an index of adaptive capacity for several countries. In panel-data regressions, this index is a good predictor of mortality in climatic disasters, even after controlling for other determinants of sensitivity and exposure, and for per capita income. We conclude that our conjoint choice questions provide a novel and promising approach to eliciting expert judgments in the climate change arena.

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.feem.it/userfiles/attach/Publication/NDL2005/NDL2005-106.pdf
Download Restriction: no

Paper provided by Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei in its series Working Papers with number 2005.106.

as
in new window

Length:
Date of creation: Sep 2005
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:fem:femwpa:2005.106
Contact details of provider: Postal: Corso Magenta, 63 - 20123 Milan
Phone: 0039-2-52036934
Fax: 0039-2-52036946
Web page: http://www.feem.it/
Email:


More information through EDIRC

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. 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.
  2. Anna Alberini & Alberto Longo & Stefania Tonin & Francesco Trombetta & Margherita Turvani, 2003. "The Role of Liability, Regulation and Economic Incentives in Brownfield Remediation and Redevelopment: Evidence from Surveys of Developers," Working Papers 2003.7, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
  3. Herriges, Joseph A. & Kling, Catherine L., 1999. "Valuing Recreation and the Environment: Revealed Preference Methods in Theory and Practice, New Horizons in Environmental Economics," Staff General Research Papers 12330, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
  4. Boxall, Peter C. & Adamowicz, Wiktor L. & Swait, Joffre & Williams, Michael & Louviere, Jordan, 1996. "A comparison of stated preference methods for environmental valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(3), pages 243-253, September.
  5. Harry Oshima & Andrew Mason, 1999. "Population and Inequality in East Asia," Working Papers 199903, University of Hawaii at Manoa, Department of Economics.
  6. Gary Yohe & Michael Schlesinger, 2002. "The economic geography of the impacts of climate change," Journal of Economic Geography, Oxford University Press, vol. 2(3), pages 311-341, July.
  7. 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.
  8. Mark Skidmore & Hideki Toya, 2002. "Do Natural Disasters Promote Long-Run Growth?," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 40(4), pages 664-687, October.
  9. Sadrieh, Abdolkarim & Verbon, Harrie A.A., 2006. "Inequality, cooperation, and growth: An experimental study," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 50(5), pages 1197-1222, July.
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:fem:femwpa:2005.106. 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: (barbara racah)

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.