Abstract
When many good variants are to be valued, like in several forest management programs which differ in the attribute levels, the Contingent Valuation Method may not be a practical option, given the cost and time involved to value each variant separately. There are at least three alternative procedures in such situations. One (i) is to apply an attribute based valuation method like a Choice Experiment (CE); another (ii) is to conduct a CVM and a CE exercise and estimate a joint model; a third one (iii) is to use the CVM estimates to value a base scenario, and then use the CE results to adjust the CVM estimates for any new different scenario. A numerical simulation and an empirical application to an afforestation program in Spain show that the latter is the procedure that yields closer values to the CVM estimations, followed by (ii).
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Adamowicz WL, Boxall PC, Williams M, Louviere JJ (1998) Stated preference approaches for measuring passive use values: choice experiments and contingent valuation. Am J Agric Econ 80(1): 64–75. doi:10.2307/3180269
Alpizar F, Carlsson F, Martinsson P (2003) Using choice experiments for non-market valuation. Econ Issues 8(1): 83–110
Bateman IJ, Carson RT, Day B, Hanemann WM, Hett T, Hanley N, Jones-Lee M, Loomes G, Mourato S, Ozdemiroglu E, Pearce DW, Sugden R, Swanson J (2002) Economic valuation with stated preference techniques: a manual. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham
Ben-Akiva M, Lerman S (1985) Discrete choice analysis: theory and application to travel demand. MIT Press, Cambridge
Bennett J, Blamey R (2001) The choice modelling approach to environmental valuation. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham
Boxall P, Adamowicz WL, Williams M, Swait J, Louviere JJ (1996) A comparison of stated preference approaches to the measurement of environmental values. Ecol Econ 18(3): 243–253. doi:10.1016/0921-8009(96)00039-0
Centre de Recerca Ecológica i Aplicacions Forestals, CREAF (2005) Mapa de cobertes del Sòl de Catalunya, 2000–2003. Center for ecological research and forestry applications. http://www.creaf.uab.es/mcsc/
Christie M, Azevedo C (2002) Testing the consistency in benefit estimates across contingent valuation and choice experiments: a multiple policy option application. In: Paper presented at the 2nd world congress of environmental and resource economists, Monterrey, California
Cooper JC (1993) Optimal bid selection for dichotomous choice contingent valuation surveys. J Environ Econ Manag 24(1): 25–40. doi:10.1006/jeem.1993.1002
d’Agricultura D Pesca i Ramaderia, DARP (1994) Pla General de Política Forestal. Generalitat de Catalunya, Barcelona
Foster V, Mourato S (1999) Elicitation format and part-whole bias: do contingent valuation and contingent ranking give the same result? CSERGE working paper, GEC 99-17
Gracia C (1997) Estimació de les Macromaginituds Agràries de les Comarques de Catalunya, 1993. Serveis de Publicacions, Universitat de Lleida, Lleida
Greene WH (2000) Econometric analysis. Prentice Hall, New Jersey
Hanemann WM (1982) Applied welfare analysis with qualitative response models. CUDARE working papers, n° 241, University of California, Berkeley
Hanemann WM (1984) Welfare evaluations in contingent valuation experiments with discrete responses. Am J Agric Econ 66(3): 332–341. doi:10.2307/1240800
Hanemann WM, Kanninen B (1999) The statistical analysis of discrete-response CV data. In: Bateman I, Willis K (eds) Valuing environmental preferences: theory and practice of the contingent valuation method in the US, EC, and developing countries. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Hanley N, Wright RE, Adamowicz V (1998a) Using choice experiments to value the environment. Design issues, current experience and future prospects. Environ Resour Econ 11(3–4): 413–428. doi:10.1023/A:1008287310583
Hanley N, MacMillan D, Wright RE, Bullock C, Simpson I, Parsisson D, Crabtree B (1998b) Contingent valuation versus choice experiments: estimating the benefits of environmentally sensitive areas in Scotland. J Agric Econ 49(1): 1–15
Hanley N, Mourato S, Wright R (2001) Choice modelling approaches: a superior alternative for environmental valuation?. J Econ Surv 15(3): 433–460. doi:10.1111/1467-6419.00145
Hausman JA, McFadden D (1984) Specification tests for the multinomial logit model. Econometrica 52(5): 1219–1240. doi:10.2307/1910997
Holmes T, Adamowicz WL (2003) Attribute-based methods. In: Champ PA, Boyle KJ, Brown TC (eds) A primer on nonmarket valuation. Kluwer Academic Publishing, Dordrecht
Huber J, Zwerina K (1996) The importance of utility balance in efficient choice designs. J Mark Res 33(3): 307–317. doi:10.2307/3152127
Krinsky I, Robb LA (1986) On approximating the statistical properties of elasticities. Rev Econ Stat 68(4): 715–719. doi:10.2307/1924536
Louviere JJ (1988) Analysing individual decision making: metric conjoint analysis. Sage university series on quantitative applications in the social sciences, n° 67. Sage, Newbury Park
Louviere JJ, Hensher DA, Swait J (2000) Stated choice methods: analysis and applications. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Mazzanti M (2001) Discrete choice models and valuation experiments. Cultural heritage. In: Paper presented at XIII Riunione scientifica SIEP, Pavia, Italy
McFadden D (1974) Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behaviour. In: Zarembka P (eds) Frontiers in econometrics. Academic Press, New York
Merlo M, Rojas E (1999) Policy instruments for promoting positive externalities of Mediterranean forests. European Forest Institute, Annual Conference, Chartreuse, Ittingen
Mitchell RC, Carson RT (1989) Using surveys to value public goods. The contingent valuation method. Resources for the Future, Washington, DC
Poe G, Welsh M, Champ P (1997) Measuring the difference in mean willingness to pay when dichotomous choice contingent valuation responses are not independent. Land Econ 73(2): 255–267. doi:10.2307/3147286
Rolfe J, Bennett J, Louviere J (2002) Stated values and reminders of substitute goods: testing for framing effects with choice modelling. Aust J Agric Resour Econ 46: 1–20. doi:10.1111/1467-8489.00164
Swait J, Louviere J (1993) The role of the scale parameter in the estimation and comparison of multinomial logit models. J Mark Res 30(3): 305–314. doi:10.2307/3172883
Terradas J, Piñol J (1996) Els grans incendis: condicions meteorológiques i de vegetació per al seu desenvolupament. In: Terradas J (eds) Ecologia del Foc. Proa, Barcelona
Thurstone L (1927) A law of comparative judgment. Psychol Rev 34: 273–286. doi:10.1037/h0070288
Trabaud L (1994) Post-fire plant community dynamics in theMediterranean Basin. Moreno JM, Oechel WC (eds) The role of fire in Mediterranean-type ecosystems. Springer-Verlag, New York
Veall MR, Zimmermann KF (1996) Pseudo-R2 measures for some common limited dependent variable models. J Econ Surveys 10: 241–259
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Mogas, J., Riera, P. & Brey, R. Combining Contingent Valuation and Choice Experiments. A Forestry Application in Spain. Environ Resource Econ 43, 535–551 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-008-9248-2
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-008-9248-2