IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/r/uwp/landec/v78y2002i2p298-314.html

Comparing Choice Question Formats for Evaluating Natural Resource Tradeoffs

Citations

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


Cited by:

  1. William Breffle & Edward Morey & Jennifer Thacher, 2011. "A Joint Latent-Class Model: Combining Likert-Scale Preference Statements With Choice Data to Harvest Preference Heterogeneity," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 50(1), pages 83-110, September.
  2. Ulf Liebe & Jürgen Meyerhoff & Volkmar Hartje, 2012. "Test–Retest Reliability of Choice Experiments in Environmental Valuation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 53(3), pages 389-407, November.
  3. Marit Kragt & Jeffrey Bennett, 2012. "Attribute Framing in Choice Experiments: How Do Attribute Level Descriptions Affect Value Estimates?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 51(1), pages 43-59, January.
  4. Mikołaj Czajkowski & Nick Hanley & Jacob LaRiviere, 2016. "Controlling for the Effects of Information in a Public Goods Discrete Choice Model," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 63(3), pages 523-544, March.
  5. José L. Oviedo & Alejandro Caparrós, 2014. "Comparing contingent valuation and choice modeling using field and eye-tracking lab data," Working Papers 1401, Instituto de Políticas y Bienes Públicos (IPP), CSIC.
  6. Riccardo Scarpa & John M. Rose, 2008. "Design efficiency for non-market valuation with choice modelling: how to measure it, what to report and why ," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 52(3), pages 253-282, September.
  7. Kraeusel, Jonas & Möst, Dominik, 2012. "Carbon Capture and Storage on its way to large-scale deployment: Social acceptance and willingness to pay in Germany," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 642-651.
  8. Cole, Scott, 2012. "Equity over Efficiency: A Problem of Credibility in Scaling Resource-Based Compensatory?," CERE Working Papers 2012:12, CERE - the Center for Environmental and Resource Economics.
  9. Susaeta, Andres & Lal, Pankaj & Alavalapati, Janaki & Mercer, Evan, 2011. "Random preferences towards bioenergy environmental externalities: A case study of woody biomass based electricity in the Southern United States," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(6), pages 1111-1118.
  10. 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.
  11. Scarpa, Riccardo & Willis, Ken, 2010. "Willingness-to-pay for renewable energy: Primary and discretionary choice of British households' for micro-generation technologies," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 129-136, January.
  12. Broberg, Thomas & Daniel, Aemiro Melkamu & Persson, Lars, 2021. "Household preferences for load restrictions: Is there an effect of pro-environmental framing?," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 97(C).
  13. Willis, Ken & Scarpa, Riccardo & Gilroy, Rose & Hamza, Neveen, 2011. "Renewable energy adoption in an ageing population: Heterogeneity in preferences for micro-generation technology adoption," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(10), pages 6021-6029, October.
  14. Schlapfer, Felix, 2006. "Survey protocol and income effects in the contingent valuation of public goods: A meta-analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(3), pages 415-429, May.
  15. Cole, Scott & Hasselström, Linus & Jönsson, K. Ingemar & Lindblom, Erik & Söderqvist, Tore, 2022. "Expert guidance for environmental compensation is consistent with public preferences – Evidence from a choice experiment in Sweden," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 118(C).
  16. Danny Campbell & W. Hutchinson & Riccardo Scarpa, 2008. "Incorporating Discontinuous Preferences into the Analysis of Discrete Choice Experiments," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 41(3), pages 401-417, November.
  17. Caplan, Arthur & Grijalva, Therese & Jackson-Smith, Douglas, 2007. "Using choice question formats to determine compensable values: The case of a landfill-siting process," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(4), pages 834-846, February.
  18. repec:sss:wpaper:201404 is not listed on IDEAS
  19. Dale Whittington & Vic Adamowicz, 2010. "The Use of Hypothetical Baselines in Stated Preference Surveys," EEPSEA Special and Technical Paper sp201009s1, Economy and Environment Program for Southeast Asia (EEPSEA), revised Sep 2010.
  20. Weng, Weizhe & Morrison, Mark & Boyle, Kevin & Boxall, Peter, 2017. "The effect of the number of alternatives in a choice experiment with an application to the Macquarie Marshes, AU," 2017 Annual Meeting, February 4-7, 2017, Mobile, Alabama 252836, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
  21. Jones, Carol Adaire & DiPinto, Lisa, 2018. "The role of ecosystem services in USA natural resource liability litigation," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 29(PB), pages 333-351.
  22. Cai, Zhen & Aguilar, Francisco X., 2013. "Consumer stated purchasing preferences and corporate social responsibility in the wood products industry: A conjoint analysis in the U.S. and China," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 118-127.
  23. Dan Marsh & Lena Mkwara & Riccardo Scarpa, 2011. "Do Respondents’ Perceptions of the Status Quo Matter in Non-Market Valuation with Choice Experiments? An Application to New Zealand Freshwater Streams," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 3(9), pages 1-23, September.
  24. Jose L. Oviedo & Pablo Campos & Alejandro Caparrós, 2010. "Simulated Exchange Value Method: Applying Green National Accounting to Forest Public Recreation," Working Papers 1016, Instituto de Políticas y Bienes Públicos (IPP), CSIC.
  25. Yang, Yingkui & Solgaard, Hans Stubbe & Haider, Wolfgang, 2016. "Wind, hydro or mixed renewable energy source: Preference for electricity products when the share of renewable energy increases," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 521-531.
  26. Duffield, John & Neher, Chris & Patterson, David, 2021. "Estimating compensation ratios for tribal resources within a habitat equivalency framework," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 179(C).
  27. Krah, Kwabena & Michelson, Hope & Perge, Emilie & Jindal, Rohit, 2019. "Constraints to adopting soil fertility management practices in Malawi: A choice experiment approach," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 1-1.
  28. Wan Norhidayah W Mohamad & Ken Willis & Neil Powe, 2019. "The Status Quo In Discrete Choice Experiments: Is It Relevant?," The Singapore Economic Review (SER), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 65(02), pages 507-532, March.
  29. Gorm Kipperberg & Douglas Larson, 2012. "Heterogeneous Preferences for Community Recycling Programs," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 53(4), pages 577-604, December.
  30. Christian A. Oberst & Reinhard Madlener, 2015. "Prosumer Preferences Regarding the Adoption of Micro†Generation Technologies: Empirical Evidence for German Homeowners," Working Papers 2015.07, International Network for Economic Research - INFER.
  31. Weng, Weizhe & Morrison, Mark & Boyle, Kevin J. & Boxall, Peter C., "undated". "The effect of the number of alternatives in choice experiment questions," 2017 Annual Meeting, July 30-August 1, Chicago, Illinois 259179, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
  32. Shi, Wei & Halstead, John M. & Huang, Ju-Chin, "undated". "Market Experience Matters: Status Quo Effect in the Economic Valuation of Consumer Preferences for Local Produce," 2017 Annual Meeting, July 30-August 1, Chicago, Illinois 258290, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
  33. Zhang, Jingyuan & Melo, Grace, 2025. "Recognizing Non-Pecuniary Labor Benefits in Technology Adoption: Evidence from Automatic Milking Systems in U.S. Dairy Farming," 2025 AAEA & WAEA Joint Annual Meeting, July 27-29, 2025, Denver, CO 360617, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
  34. Hassan, Suziana & Olsen, Søren Bøye & Thorsen, Bo Jellesmark, 2019. "Urban-rural divides in preferences for wetland conservation in Malaysia," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 226-237.
  35. Valatin, Gregory & Moseley, Darren & Dandy, Norman, 2016. "Insights from behavioural economics for forest economics and environmental policy: Potential nudges to encourage woodland creation for climate change mitigation and adaptation?," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 27-36.
  36. Shepherd, Dean A. & Kuskova, Valya & Patzelt, Holger, 2009. "Measuring the values that underlie sustainable development: The development of a valid scale," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 30(2), pages 246-256, April.
  37. José Grisolía & Kenneth Willis, 2012. "A latent class model of theatre demand," Journal of Cultural Economics, Springer;The Association for Cultural Economics International, vol. 36(2), pages 113-139, May.
  38. Christian Oberst & Reinhard Madlener, 2015. "Prosumer Preferences Regarding the Adoption of Micro‐Generation Technologies: Empirical Evidence for German Homeowners," FCN Working Papers 22/2014, E.ON Energy Research Center, Future Energy Consumer Needs and Behavior (FCN).
  39. Riccardo Scarpa & Danny Campbell & W. George Hutchinson, 2007. "Benefit Estimates for Landscape Improvements: Sequential Bayesian Design and Respondents’ Rationality in a Choice Experiment," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 83(4), pages 617-634.
  40. Yang, Yingkui, 2014. "Understanding household switching behavior in the retail electricity market," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 406-414.
IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.