Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Choice experiments, site similarity and benefits transfer

  • Published:
Environmental and Resource Economics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Choice experiments are designed to account for variations in environmental resources and site characteristics, as well as potential implications of these variations for willingness to pay. As a result, choice experiment results may be well suited for benefits transfer. It is unclear, however, whether the flexibility of choice experiments renders the similarity of study and transfer sites less critical for transfer validity. Drawing from identical choice experiments conducted in different Rhode Island communities, this model assesses the extent to which error in function-based benefits transfer is related to the similarity of communities across a variety of observable dimensions. Results suggest that site similarity, at least across some dimensions, influences the validity of choice experiment benefits transfers. However, the use of some measures of similarity as indicators of transfer error may provide misleading results.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Adamowicz W, Boxall P, Williams M, Louviere J (1998) Stated preference approaches for measuring passive use values: choice experiments and contingent valuation. Am J Agr Econ 80(1):64–75

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Adamowicz W, DeShazo JR (2006) Frontiers in stated preferences methods: an introduction. Environ Resour Econ 34(1):1–6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allison PD (1999) Comparing logit and probit coefficients across groups. Sociolo Method Res 28(2):186–208

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barton DN (2002) The transferability of benefit transfer: contingent valuation of water quality improvements in Costa Rica. Ecol Econ 42(1–2):147–164

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bergstrom JC, De Civita P (1999) Status of benefits transfer in the United States and Canada: a review. Can J Agr Econ 47(1):79–87

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boxall PC, Adamowicz WL, Swait J, Williams M, Louviere J (1996) A comparison of stated preference methods for environmental valuation. Ecol Econ 18(3):243–253

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boyle KJ, Bergstrom JC (1992) Benefit transfer studies: myths, pragmatism, and idealism. Water Resour Res 28(3):657–663

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Desvousges WH, Naughton MC, Parsons GR (1992) Benefit transfer: conceptual problems in estimating water quality benefits using existing studies. Water Resour Res 28(3):675–683

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dillman DA (2000) Mail and internet surveys: the tailored design method. John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY

    Google Scholar 

  • Efron B, Tibshirani R (1993) An Introduction to the Bootstrap. Chapman and Hall, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Greene WH (2003) Econometric Analysis, 5th ed. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanemann WM (1984) Welfare evaluations in contingent valuation experiments with discrete responses. Am J Agr Econ 66(3):332–341

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hanley N, Colombo S, Tinch D, Black A, Aftab A (2006a) Estimating the benefits of water quality improvements under the water framework directive: are benefits transferable? Eur Rev Agr Econ 33(3):391–413

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hanley N, Wright RE, Alvarez-Farizo B (2006b) Estimating the economic value of improvements in river ecology using choice experiments: an application to the water framework directive. J Environ Manage 78(2):183–193

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jiang Y, Swallow SK, McGonagle M (2005) Context-sensitive benefit transfer using stated choice models: specification and convergent validity for policy analysis. Environ Resour Econ 31(4):477–499

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnston RJ, Swallow SK, Bauer DM (2002) Spatial factors and stated preference values for public goods: considerations for rural land development. Land Econ 78(4):481–500

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnston RJ, Besedin EY, Iovanna R, Miller C, Wardwell R, Ranson M (2005) Systematic variation in willingness to pay for aquatic resource improvements and implications for benefit transfer: a meta-analysis. Can J Agr Econ 53(2–3):221–248

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnston RJ, Swallow SK, Marie Bauer D, Anderson CM (2003a) Preferences for residential development attributes and support for the policy process: implications for management and conservation of rural landscapes. Agr Resour Econ Rev 32(1):65–82

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnston RJ, Swallow SK, Tyrrell TJ, Bauer DM (2003b) Rural amenity values and length of residency. Am J Agr Econ 85(4):1009–1024

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnston RJ, Weaver TF, Smith LA, Swallow SK (1995) Contingent valuation focus groups: insights from ethnographic interview techniques. Agr Resour Econ Rev 24(1):56–69

    Google Scholar 

  • Kask SB, Shogren JF (1994) Benefit transfer protocol for long-term health risk valuation: a case of surface water contamination. Water Resourc Res 30(10):2813–2823

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kline J, Wichelns D (1998) Measuring heterogeneous preferences for preserving farmland and open space. Ecol Econ 26(2):211–224

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krinsky I, Robb AL (1986) On approximating the statistical properties of elasticities. Rev Econ Stat 68(4):715–719

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kristofersson D, Navrud S (2005) Validity tests of benefit transfer—are we performing the wrong tests? Environ Res Econ 30(3):279–286

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loomis JB (1992) The evolution of a more rigorous approach to benefit transfer: benefit function transfer. Water Resourc Res 28(3):701–705

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maddala GS (1983) Limited dependent and qualitative variables in econometrics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • McConnell KE (1990) Models for referendum data: the structure of discrete choice models for contingent valuation. J Environ Econ Manage 19(1):19–34

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morrison M, Bennett J (2004) Valuing new south wales rivers for use in benefit transfer. The Aust J Agr Resour Econ 48(4):591–611

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morrison M, Bennett J, Blamey R, Louviere J (2002) Choice modeling and tests of benefit transfer. Am J Agr Econ 84(1):161–170

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morrison M, Bergland O (2006) Prospects for the use of choice modelling for benefit transfer. Ecol Econ 60(2):420–428

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muthke T, Holm-Mueller K (2004) National and international benefit transfer testing with a rigorous test procedure. Envir Resour Econ 29(3):323–336

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Piper S, Martin WE (2001) Evaluating the accuracy of the benefit transfer method: a rural water supply application in the USA. J Environ Manage 63(3):223–235

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Poe GL, Giraud KL, Loomis JB (2005) Computational methods for measuring the difference in empirical distributions. Am J Agr Econ 87(2):353–365

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rhode Island Geographic Information System (RIGIS) (2000) 1995 Land use by Rhode Island community. Providence, RI: Rhode Island geographic information system and the Rhode Island board of governors for higher education

  • Rhode Island Economic Development Corporation (2006) State and community profiles. http://www.riedc.com/riedc/ri_databank/31/. Providence, RI: Rhode Island Economic Development Corporation

  • Rosenberger RS, Loomis JB (2001) Benefit transfer of outdoor recreation use values: a technical document supporting the forest service strategic plan (2000 Revisions). General technical report RMRS-GTR-72. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of agriculture, forest service, rocky mountain research station. 59p. (www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs/rmrs_gtr72.html)

  • Rosenberger RS, Loomis JB (2003) Benefit transfer. In: Champ PA, Boyle KJ, Brown TC (eds) A Primer on non-market valuation. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, pp 445–482

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenberger RS, Stanley TD (2006) Measurement, generalization and publication: sources of error in benefit transfers and their management. Ecol Econ 60(2):372–378

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schuirmann DJ (1987) A comparison of the two one-sided procedure and the power approach for assessing equivalence of average bioavailability. J Pharmacokinet Biop 15(6):657–680

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shrestha RK, Loomis JB (2003) Meta-analytic benefit transfer of outdoor recreation economic values: testing out-of-sample convergent validity. Environ Resour Econ 25:79–100

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stegner BL, Bostrom AG, Greenfield TK (1996) Equivalence testing for use in psychosocial and services research: an introduction with examples. Eval Program Plann 19(3):193–198

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swait J, Louviere JJ (1993) The role of the scale parameter in the estimation and comparison of multinomial logit models. J Market Res 30(3):305–314

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tiebout C (1956) A pure theory of local expenditures. The J Polit Econ 64(5):416–424

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Bueren M, Bennett J (2004) Towards the development of a transferable set of value estimates for environmental attributes. Aust J Agr Resour Econ 48(1):1–32

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • VandenBerg TP, Poe GL, Powell JR (2001) Assessing the accuracy of benefits transfers: evidence from a multi-site contingent valuation study of groundwater quality. In: Bergstrom JC, Boyle KJ, Poe GL (eds) The economic value of water quality. Edward Elgar, Northampton, MA

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Connecticut Sea Grant Office, University of Connecticut at Avery Point, 1080 Shennecossett Rd, Groton, CT, 06340-6048, USA

    Robert J. Johnston

Authors
  1. Robert J. Johnston
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Robert J. Johnston.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Johnston, R.J. Choice experiments, site similarity and benefits transfer. Environ Resource Econ 38, 331–351 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-006-9073-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-006-9073-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation