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

The Landscape of landscape values

  • Holstein, Fredrik
Registered author(s):

    The overall aim of this thesis is to clarify relations between the value perspective of economics and other value perspectives and its significance for the interpretation of normative statements and of anomalies found in stated preference (SP) surveys. The thesis contains two papers. The main objective of the first paper is to analyse and clarify the conceptual relations between different value-related terms. It is concluded that economic values has a clear meaning whereas other terms, often used to describe, and to motivate the preservation of, pastoral landscapes, have unclear normative implications. The economic concept of values is, in a sense, complete. Once the perspective is adopted it embraces, conceptually, all values of the pastoral landscape. With a specific interpretation of e.g. biological values these are conceptually included in the economic values. Other interpretations of biological values imply, on the other hand, perspectives of values that make economic values redundant. In the second paper the value perspective of economics is accepted as a normative assumption for economic analyses. Instead, the theoretical analysis in the paper focuses on the possible diverging value perspectives among respondents in SP-surveys. The aim of the paper is to suggest a framework for interpretation of people’s value expressions and to analyse if this framework can explain some of the anomalies found in stated preference surveys. It is suggested that people may hold values that can be interpreted as opinions about how initial rights should be distributed and that such opinions cannot be interpreted as ordinary preferences. If a stated preference survey implies a right that is incompatible with the right asserted by a respondent this may very well hinder the formation and expression of preferences. It is concluded that this incompatibility between implied and asserted rights, in many cases, can explain anomalies. This conclusion emphasizes e.g. the importance of the choice between WTP- and WTA-measures in stated preference surveys.

    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://pub.epsilon.slu.se/1100/
    Download Restriction: no

    Paper provided by Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Department of Economics in its series Department of Economics publications with number 1100.

    as
    in new window

    Length:
    Date of creation: Apr 2006
    Date of revision:
    Handle: RePEc:sua:ekonwp:1100
    Contact details of provider: Postal: Box 7013, 750 07 UPPSALA
    Phone: 018-67 1724
    Fax: 018-67 3502
    Web page: http://www.slu.se/ekonomi

    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. Jacinto Braga & Chris Starmer, 2005. "Preference Anomalies, Preference Elicitation and the Discovered Preference Hypothesis," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 32(1), pages 55-89, 09.
    2. Lockwood, Michael, 1996. "Non-Compensatory Preference Structures In Non-Market Valuation Of Natural Area Policy," Australian Journal of Agricultural Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 40(02), August.
    3. Bromley, Daniel W., 1995. "Property rights and natural resource damage assessments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 14(2), pages 129-135, August.
    4. Jorgensen, Bradley S. & Syme, Geoffrey J., 2000. "Protest responses and willingness to pay: attitude toward paying for stormwater pollution abatement," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 251-265, May.
    5. Shogren, Jason F., 2002. "A behavioral mindset on environment policy," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 31(4), pages 355-369.
    6. Gregory, Robin & Slovic, Paul, 1997. "A constructive approach to environmental valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(3), pages 175-181, June.
    7. R.K. Blamey & Mick S. Common & John C. Quiggin, 1995. "Respondents To Contingent Valuation Surveys: Consumers Or Citizens?," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 39(3), pages 263-288, December.
    8. Nick Hanley & Jennifer Milne, . "Ethical Beliefs and Behaviour in Contingent Valuation," Working Papers Series e96/1, University of Stirling, Division of Economics.
    9. Clark, Judy & Burgess, Jacquelin & Harrison, Carolyn M., 2000. ""I struggled with this money business": respondents' perspectives on contingent valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 45-62, April.
    10. Nick Hanley & Clive L Spash, 1993. "Preferences, Information and Biodiversity Preservation," Working Papers Series 93/12, University of Stirling, Division of Economics.
    11. Curtis, John A., 2001. "The Use Of Follow-Up Questions To No Responses In Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation Surveys," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 30(2), October.
    12. Robert Sugden, 2005. "Anomalies and Stated Preference Techniques: A Framework for a Discussion of Coping Strategies," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 32(1), pages 1-12, 09.
    13. Peter A. Diamond & Jerry A. Hausman, 1994. "Contingent Valuation: Is Some Number Better than No Number?," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 8(4), pages 45-64, Fall.
    14. Elisabetta Strazzera & Margarita Genius & Riccardo Scarpa & George Hutchinson, 2003. "The Effect of Protest Votes on the Estimates of WTP for Use Values of Recreational Sites," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 25(4), pages 461-476, August.
    15. Arild Vatn, 2000. "The Environment as a Commodity," Environmental Values, White Horse Press, vol. 9(4), pages 493-509, November.
    16. Arild Vatn, 2004. "Environmental Valuation and Rationality," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 80(1), pages 1-18.
    17. Daniel Kahneman & Jack L. Knetsch & Richard H. Thaler, 1991. "Anomalies: The Endowment Effect, Loss Aversion, and Status Quo Bias," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 5(1), pages 193-206, Winter.
    18. Theresa Satterfield, 2001. "In Search of Value Literacy: Suggestions for the Elicitation of Environmental Values," Environmental Values, White Horse Press, vol. 10(3), pages 331-359, August.
    19. Nick Hanley & Jason Shogren, 2005. "Is Cost–Benefit Analysis Anomaly-Proof?," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 32(1), pages 13-24, 09.
    20. Jack Knetsch, 2005. "Gains, Losses, and the US-EPA Economic Analyses Guidelines: A Hazardous Product?," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 32(1), pages 91-112, 09.
    21. Dan Vadnjal & Martin O'Connor, 1994. "What is the Value of Rangitoto Island?," Environmental Values, White Horse Press, vol. 3(4), pages 369-380, November.
    22. Lockwood, Michael, 1998. "Integrated value assessment using paired comparisons," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(1), pages 73-87, April.
    23. Gregory, Robin & Lichtenstein, Sarah & Slovic, Paul, 1993. " Valuing Environmental Resources: A Constructive Approach," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 7(2), pages 177-97, October.
    24. Thomas H. Stevens & Jaime Echeverria & Ronald J. Glass & Tim Hager & Thomas A. More, 1991. "Measuring the Existence Value of Wildlife: What Do CVM Estimates Really Show?," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 67(4), pages 390-400.
    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:sua:ekonwp:1100. 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: (Alejandro Engelmann)

    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.