Determining the Extent of Market and Extent of Resource for Stated Preference Survey Design Using Mapping Methods
Determining the appropriate survey population and the commodity to be valued are among the most fundamental design decisions for stated preference (SP) surveys. However, often little information is available about who in the population holds measurable value for the resource (the extent of the market) and their perceptions regarding the scope of the resource to be valued (the extent of the resource). In this paper, we present a novel approach using cognitive mapping interview techniques to shed light on these design questions. The method also provides ancillary information that assists in the interpretation of information collected during focus groups and through SP survey administration. The approach was developed and tested as part of an ongoing study on environmental degradation associated with acidification in the Southern Appalachian Mountain region. Although damage from acidification in the study region is broad, it is not clear whether residents of this region care, in both a use and nonuse sense, about resources in their states of residence, in neighboring states, on public lands, or more broadly across the region. From a pilot study, we found that participants show a significant home-state preference in the number and size of natural areas that they value within the larger Southern Appalachian Mountain region. However, this preference is not strong enough to suggest that the market for improving these resources is solely constrained to residents of the state in which the resource is located.
|Date of creation:||Oct 2008|
|Date of revision:||Oct 2008|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: |
Web page: http://yosemite.epa.gov/ee/epa/eed.nsf/webpages/homepage
More information through EDIRC
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.:
- repec:cup:cbooks:9780521802239 is not listed on IDEAS
- Edella Schlager & Elinor Ostrom, 1992. "Property-Rights Regimes and Natural Resources: A Conceptual Analysis," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 68(3), pages 249-262.
- John B. Loomis, 2000. "Vertically Summing Public Good Demand Curves: An Empirical Comparison of Economic versus Political Jurisdictions," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 76(2), pages 312-321.
- repec:cup:cbooks:9780521002561 is not listed on IDEAS
- Smith, V. Kerry & Osborne, Laura L., 1996. "Do Contingent Valuation Estimates Pass a "Scope" Test? A Meta-analysis," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 287-301, November.
- Chambers, Robert, 1994. "The origins and practice of participatory rural appraisal," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 22(7), pages 953-969, July.
- V. Kerry Smith, 1993. "Welfare Effects, Omitted Variables, and the Extent of the Market," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 69(2), pages 121-131.
- Whinston, Michael D., 2007. "Antitrust Policy toward Horizontal Mergers," Handbook of Industrial Organization, Elsevier.
- V. Kerry Smith, 1993. "Nonmarket Valuation of Environmental Resources: An Interpretive Appraisal," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 69(1), pages 1-26.
- Bateman, Ian J. & Day, Brett H. & Georgiou, Stavros & Lake, Iain, 2006. "The aggregation of environmental benefit values: Welfare measures, distance decay and total WTP," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(2), pages 450-460, December.
- Fischhoff, Baruch, et al, 1993. " Embedding Effects: Stimulus Representation and Response Mode," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 6(3), pages 211-34, June.
- 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.
- George R. Parsons & A. Brett Hauber, 1998. "Spatial Boundaries and Choice Set Definition in a Random Utility Model of Recreation Demand," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 74(1), pages 32-48.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:nev:wpaper:wp200809. 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: (Cynthia Morgan)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.