IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/wpa/wuwpot/0404006.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The Valuation of the IJmeer Nature Reserve using Conjoint Analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Barbara E. Baarsma

    (barbarab@seo.fee.uva.nl)

Abstract

This paper describes an application of conjoint analysis. The subject of the valuation study is the IJmeer nature reserve, which will be partly destroyed when the new residential area IJburg is built. This paper addresses the following question: ‘What is the extent of the loss of green and recreational values?’. In this study, the conjoint analysis consists of three different analyses based on a three-piece valuation question. The respondents are asked to subsequently rank, mark and indicate the acceptability of a set of six cards.

Suggested Citation

  • Barbara E. Baarsma, 2004. "The Valuation of the IJmeer Nature Reserve using Conjoint Analysis," Others 0404006, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    • Handle: RePEc:wpa:wuwpot:0404006
    Note: Type of Document - pdf; pages: 14
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://econwpa.ub.uni-muenchen.de/econ-wp/othr/papers/0404/0404006.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. John B. Loomis, 1987. "Expanding Contingent Value Sample Estimates to Aggregate Benefit Estimates: Current Practices and Proposed Solutions," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 63(4), pages 396-402.
    2. David J. Bjornstad & James R. Kahn (ed.), 1996. "The Contingent Valuation of Environmental Resources," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 731.
    3. Green, Paul E & Srinivasan, V, 1978. "Conjoint Analysis in Consumer Research: Issues and Outlook," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 5(2), pages 103-123, Se.
    4. Hausman, Jerry A. & Ruud, Paul A., 1987. "Specifying and testing econometric models for rank-ordered data," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 34(1-2), pages 83-104.
    5. 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.
    6. Kelvin J. Lancaster, 1966. "A New Approach to Consumer Theory," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 74, pages 132-132.
    7. Kevin J. Boyle & Thomas P. Holmes & Mario F. Teisl & Brian Roe, 2001. "A Comparison of Conjoint Analysis Response Formats," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 83(2), pages 441-454.
    8. Beggs, S. & Cardell, S. & Hausman, J., 1981. "Assessing the potential demand for electric cars," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 17(1), pages 1-19, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Turner, Robert & Willmarth, Blake, 2014. "Valuation of Cultural and Natural Resources in North Cascades National Park: Results from a Tournament-Style Contingent Choice Survey," Working Papers 2014-01, Department of Economics, Colgate University, revised 23 Jan 2014.
    2. Vermeulen, Bart & Goos, Peter & Vandebroek, Martina, 2010. "Obtaining more information from conjoint experiments by best-worst choices," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 54(6), pages 1426-1433, June.
    3. Lee, Joo-Suk & Yoo, Seung-Hoon, 2009. "Measuring the environmental costs of tidal power plant construction: A choice experiment study," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(12), pages 5069-5074, December.
    4. Ken Belcher & Andrea Germann & Josef Schmutz, 2007. "Beef with environmental and quality attributes: Preferences of environmental group and general population consumers in Saskatchewan, Canada," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 24(3), pages 333-342, September.
    5. van der Star, Sanne M. & van den Berg, Bernard, 2011. "Individual responsibility and health-risk behaviour: A contingent valuation study from the ex ante societal perspective," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 101(3), pages 300-311, August.
    6. van der Heide, C.M. & Brouwer, Floor M. & Bellon, Stephane & Bockstaller, Christian & Garrod, Guy & Geniaux, Ghislain & Oliveira, Rosario & Smith, Peter & Stapleton, Lee & Weinzaepflen, Emmanuelle & Z, 2007. "Review of approaches to establish reference levels to interpret indicators," Reports 57466, Wageningen University, SEAMLESS: System for Environmental and Agricultural Modelling; Linking European Science and Society.
    7. repec:ebl:ecbull:v:17:y:2005:i:7:p:1-15 is not listed on IDEAS
    8. Robert W. Turner & Laura Noddin & Alita Giuda, 2005. "Estimating nonuse values using conjoint analysis," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 17(7), pages 1-15.
    9. van den Berg, Bernard & Hassink, Wolter H.J., 2008. "Cash benefits in long-term home care," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 88(2-3), pages 209-221, December.
    10. Marchini, Andrea & Diotallevi, Francesco, 2010. "Methods and instruments for value perceptions. The conjoint analysis applied to the wine packaging," MPRA Paper 40637, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    11. Willmarth, Blake & Turner, Robert, 2010. "Respondent Consistency in a Tournament-Style Contingent Choice Survey," Working Papers 2010-05, Department of Economics, Colgate University.
    12. Joseph Kim & Hyo-Jin Kim & Seung-Hoon Yoo, 2018. "Public Value of Marine Biodiesel Technology Development in South Korea," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-12, November.
    13. Bernard van den Berg & Wolter Hassink, 2006. "Moral hazard and cash benefits in long-term home care, CHERE Working Paper 2006/12," Working Papers 2006/12, CHERE, University of Technology, Sydney.
    14. Robert W. Turner & Blake Willmarth, 2014. "Valuation of Cultural and Natural Resources in North Cascades National Park," SAGE Open, , vol. 4(2), pages 21582440145, April.
    15. Asgary, Ali & Rezvani, Mohammad Reza & Mehregan, Nader, 2011. "Local Residents’ Preferences for Second Home Tourism Development Policies: A Choice Experiment nalysis," MPRA Paper 29703, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    16. Hee-Jong Yang & Seul-Ye Lim & Seung-Hoon Yoo, 2017. "The Environmental Costs of Photovoltaic Power Plants in South Korea: A Choice Experiment Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(10), pages 1-13, September.
    17. Kwak, So-Yoon & Yoo, Seung-Hoon & Kwak, Seung-Jun, 2010. "Valuing energy-saving measures in residential buildings: A choice experiment study," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(1), pages 673-677, January.
    18. Ju-Hee Kim & Hyo-Jin Kim & Seung-Hoon Yoo, 2018. "Economic Value of Building a Firefighter Training Academy for Urban Disaster Management in Seoul, South Korea," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-11, December.
    19. van den Berg, Bernard & Van Dommelen, Paula & Stam, Piet & Laske-Aldershof, Trea & Buchmueller, Tom & Schut, Frederik T., 2008. "Preferences and choices for care and health insurance," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 66(12), pages 2448-2459, June.
    20. Mousumi Roy & Lassi Linnanen & Sankha Chakrabortty & Parimal Pal, 2019. "Developing a Closed-Loop Water Conservation System at Micro Level Through Circular Economy Approach," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 33(12), pages 4157-4170, September.

    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. Powe, N.A. & Garrod, G.D. & McMahon, P.L., 2005. "Mixing methods within stated preference environmental valuation: choice experiments and post-questionnaire qualitative analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 52(4), pages 513-526, March.
    2. Siikamaki, Juha & Layton, David F., 2007. "Discrete choice survey experiments: A comparison using flexible methods," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 53(1), pages 122-139, January.
    3. 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 435-462, July.
    4. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Hensher, David A., 2021. "The landscape of econometric discrete choice modelling research," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 40(C).
    5. Hanemann, W. Michael & Kanninen, Barbara, 1996. "The Statistical Analysis Of Discrete-Response Cv Data," CUDARE Working Papers 25022, University of California, Berkeley, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
    6. Siikamaki, Juha & Layton, David F., 2006. "Discrete Choice Survey Experiments: A Comparison Using Flexible Models," RFF Working Paper Series dp-05-60, Resources for the Future.
    7. Robert J. Johnston & Kevin J. Boyle & Wiktor (Vic) Adamowicz & Jeff Bennett & Roy Brouwer & Trudy Ann Cameron & W. Michael Hanemann & Nick Hanley & Mandy Ryan & Riccardo Scarpa & Roger Tourangeau & Ch, 2017. "Contemporary Guidance for Stated Preference Studies," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 4(2), pages 319-405.
    8. 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.
    9. Aguilar, Francisco X., 2009. "Investment preferences for wood-based energy initiatives in the US," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(6), pages 2292-2299, June.
    10. Hunt, Priscillia E & Smart, Rosanna, 2020. "Investigation of Employers' Preferences for the Design of Staffing Agency Incentives to Hire Ex-Felons," IZA Discussion Papers 13520, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    11. van Beek, Krijn W. H. & Koopmans, Carl C. & van Praag, Bernard M. S., 1997. "Shopping at the labour market: A real tale of fiction," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 41(2), pages 295-317, February.
    12. Veisten, Knut, 2007. "Willingness to pay for eco-labelled wood furniture: Choice-based conjoint analysis versus open-ended contingent valuation," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 13(1), pages 29-48, May.
    13. Siikamaki, Juha & Layton, David F., 2001. "Logit Models For Pooled Contingent Valuation And Contingent Rating And Ranking Data: Valuing Benefits From Forest Biodiversity Conservation," 2001 Annual meeting, August 5-8, Chicago, IL 20616, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    14. Zheng, Qiujie & Wang, H. Holly, 2016. "Chinese preferences for sustainable attributes for food away from home: A rank-ordered model," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 148-158.
    15. van den Berg, Bernard & Al, Maiwenn & Brouwer, Werner & van Exel, Job & Koopmanschap, Marc, 2005. "Economic valuation of informal care: The conjoint measurement method applied to informal caregiving," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 61(6), pages 1342-1355, September.
    16. Robert W. Turner & Blake Willmarth, 2014. "Valuation of Cultural and Natural Resources in North Cascades National Park," SAGE Open, , vol. 4(2), pages 21582440145, April.
    17. Caplan, Arthur J. & Grijalva, Therese C. & Jakus, Paul M., 2002. "Waste not or want not? A contingent ranking analysis of curbside waste disposal options," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 43(2-3), pages 185-197, December.
    18. Anna Merino, 2003. "Eliciting consumers preferences using stated preference discrete choice models: Contingent ranking versus choice experiment," Working Papers, Research Center on Health and Economics 705, Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra.
    19. Turner, Robert & Willmarth, Blake, 2014. "Valuation of Cultural and Natural Resources in North Cascades National Park: Results from a Tournament-Style Contingent Choice Survey," Working Papers 2014-01, Department of Economics, Colgate University, revised 23 Jan 2014.
    20. Bairagi, Subir K. & Mohanty, Samarendu & Ynion, Jhoanne & Demont, Matty, 2017. "Determinants of Consumer Preferences for Rice Attributes: Evidence from South and Southeast Asia," 2017 Annual Meeting, July 30-August 1, Chicago, Illinois 258384, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    environmental economics; conjoint analysis;

    JEL classification:

    • C35 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Multiple or Simultaneous Equation Models; Multiple Variables - - - Discrete Regression and Qualitative Choice Models; Discrete Regressors; Proportions
    • D60 - Microeconomics - - Welfare Economics - - - General
    • Q20 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation - - - General
    • Q26 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation - - - Recreational Aspects of Natural Resources
    • Q30 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Nonrenewable Resources and Conservation - - - General

    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:wpa:wuwpot:0404006. 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: EconWPA (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://econwpa.ub.uni-muenchen.de .

    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.