Choosing not to chooseA meta-analysis of status quo effects in environmental valuations using choice experiments

  1. Barreiro-Hurle, Jesus
  2. Espinosa-Goded, Maria
  3. Martinez-Paz, Jose Miguel
  4. Perni, Angel
Revista:
Economía agraria y recursos naturales

ISSN: 1578-0732,  2174-7350

Ano de publicación: 2018

Volume: 18

Número: 1

Páxinas: 79-109

Tipo: Artigo

DOI: 10.7201/EARN.2018.01.04 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openDialnet editor

Outras publicacións en: Economía agraria y recursos naturales

Obxectivos de Desenvolvemento Sustentable

Resumo

Los experimentos de elección suelen incluir en sus opciones de elección un status quo (i.e. situación actual sin cambios, SQ). En la literatura se ha identificado el efecto SQ como una preferencia sistemática por el SQ sobre las demás alternativas más allá de las capturadas por la variación de los niveles de los atributos. En este artículo se presenta un meta-análisis de experimentos de elección aplicados a política ambiental para identificar las causas potenciales del efecto SQ. Los resultados muestran que la incorporación de la heterogeneidad en el análisis econométrico, la exclusión de respuestas protesta y la disminución del esfuerzo cognitivo asociado a la elección reducen la presencia del efecto SQ.

Referencias bibliográficas

  • Adamowicz, W.L., Boxall, P. & Williams, M. (1998). “Stated preference approaches for measuring passive use values: Choice experiments and contingent valuation”. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 80(1), 64-75. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3180269.
  • Bonnichsen, O. & Ladenburg, J. (2015). “Reducing Status Quo Bias in Choice Experiments”. Nordic Journal of Health Economics, 1(1), 283-303. http://dx.doi.org/10.5617/njhe.645.
  • Boxall, P., Adamowic, V. & Moon, A. (2009). “Complexity in choice experiments: choice of the status quo alternative and implications for welfare measurement”. Australian Journal of Agricultural and Research Economics, 53(4), 503-519.
  • http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8489.2009.00469.x.
  • Boyle, K.J. (2003). “Contingent valuation in practice”. In Champ, P.A., Boyle, K.J. & Brown, T.C. (Eds.): A Primer on Nonmarket Valuation (pp. 111-69). The Netherlands: Springer.
  • Börger, T., Hattam, C., Burdon, D., Atkins, J.P. & Austen, M.C. (2014). “Valuing conservation benefits of an offshore marine protected area”. Ecological Economics, 108, 229-241. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.10.006.
  • Brouwer, R. & Martín-Ortega, J. (2012). “Modeling self-censoring of polluter pays protest votes in stated preference research to support resource damage estimations in environmental liability”. Resource and Energy Economics, 34(1), 151-166.
  • http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.reseneeco.2011.05.001.
  • Christie, M., Remoundou, K., Siwicka, E. & Wainwright, W. (2015). “Valuing marine and coastal ecosystem service benefits: Case study of St Vincent and the Grenadines’ proposed marine protected areas”. Ecosystem Services, 11, 115-127.
  • http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.10.002.
  • Espinosa-Goded, M., Barreiro-Hurle, J. & Ruto, E. (2010). “What Do Farmers Want from Agri-Environmental Scheme Design? A Choice Experiment Approach”. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 61(2), 259-273. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1477-9552.2010.00244.x.
  • Glass G.V. (1976). “Primary, secondary, and meta-analysis of research”. Educational Research, 5(10), 3-8. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1174772.
  • Glenk, K., Lago, M. & Moran, D. (2011). “Public preferences for water quality improvements: Implications for the implementation of the EC Water Framework Directive in Scotland”. Water Policy, 13(5), 645-662. http://dx.doi.org/10.2166/wp.2011.060.
  • Greene, W.H. (2011). Econometric analysis. Prentice Hall (7th ed.). Boston, M.A.:Pearson.
  • Hope, R., Borgoyary, M. & Agarwal, C. (2008). “Smallholder preferences for Agrienvironmental change at the Bhoj Wetland, India”. Development Policy Review, 26(5), 585-602. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7679.2008.00424.x.
  • Hoyos, D. (2010). “The state of the art of environmental valuation with discrete choice experiments”. Ecological Economics, 69(8), 1595-1603. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2010.04.011.
  • Hynes, S., Hanley, N. & Scarpa, R. (2008). “Effects on welfare measures of alternative means of accounting for preference heterogeneity in recreational demand models”. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 90(4), 1011-1027. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8276.2008.01148.x.
  • Just, D.R. (2017). “The Behavioral Welfare Paradox: Practical, Ethical and Welfare Implications of Nudging”. Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, 46(1), 1-20. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/age.2017.2.
  • Kahneman, D. & Knetsch, J. (1992). “Valuing Public Goods: The Purchase of Moral Satisfaction”. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 22(1), 57-70. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0095-0696(92)90019-S.
  • Kanchanaroek, Y., Termansen, M. & Quinn, C. (2013). “Property rights regimes in complex fishery management systems: A choice experiment application”. Ecological Economics, 93, 363-373. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2013.05.014.
  • Marsh, D., Mkwara, L. & Scarpa, R. (2011). “Do Respondents’ Perceptions of the Status Quo Matter in Non-Market Valuation with Choice Experiments? An Application to New Zealand Freshwater Streams”. Sustainability, 3(9), 1593-1615. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su3091593.
  • Masatlioglu, Y. & Ok, E. (2005). “Rational choice with status quo bias”. Journal of Economic Theory, 121(1), 1-29. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jet.2004.03.007.
  • Meyerhoff, J., Bartczak, A. & Liebe, U. (2012). “Protester or non-protester: A binary state? On the use (and non-use) of latent class models to analyse protesting in economic evaluation”. Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics,
  • (3), 438-454. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8489.2012.00582.x.
  • Meyerhoff, J. & Liebe, U. (2009). “Status quo effect in choice experiments: Empirical evidence on attitudes and choice task complexity”. Land Economics, 85(3), 515-528. http://dx.doi.org/10.3368/le.85.3.515.
  • Meyerhoff, J. & Liebe, U. (2010). “Determinants of protest responses in environmental valuation: A meta-study”. Ecological Economics, 70(2), 366-374. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/J.ECOLECON.2010.09.008.
  • Meyerhoff, J., Morkbak, M.R. & Olsen, S.B. (2014). “A meta-study investigating the sources of protest behaviour in stated preference surveys”. Environmental and Resource Economics, 58(1), 35-57. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10640-013-9688-1.
  • Nelson, J.P. & Kennedy, P.E. (2009). “The Use (and Abuse) of Meta-Analysis in Environmental and Natural Resource Economics: An Assessment”. Environmental and Resource Economics, 42(3), 345-377. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10640-008-9253-5.
  • Oehlmann, M., Meyerhoff, J., Mariel, P. & Weller, P. (2017). “Uncovering context- induced status quo effects in choice experiments”. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 81, 59-73. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jeem.2016.09.002.
  • Perni, A. & Martínez-Paz, J.M. (2017). “Measuring conflicts in the management of anthropized ecosystems: Evidence from a choice experiment in a human-created Mediterranean wetland”. Journal of Environmental Management, 203(1), 40-50.
  • http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2017.07.049.
  • Pigott, T. (2012). Advances in Meta-Analysis. The Netherlands: Springer.
  • Rakotonarivo, O.S., Schaafsma, M. & Hockley, N. (2016). “A systematic review of the reliability and validity of discrete choice experiments in valuing non-market environmental goods”. Journal of Environmental Management, 183(1), 98-109.
  • http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.08.032.
  • Rodríguez-Entrena, M., Espinosa-Goded, M. & Barreiro-Hurle, J. (2014). “Identifying preference heterogeneity for soil carbon sequestration in Andalusian olive groves: The role of ancillary benefits”. Ecological Economics, 99, 63-73. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.01.006.
  • Samuelsson, W. & Zeckhauser, R. (1988). “Status quo bias in decision making”. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 1(1), 7-9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00055564.
  • Scarpa, R., Ferrini, S. & Willis, K.G. (2005). “Performance of error component models for status-quo affects in choice experiments”. In Scarpa, R. & Alberini, A. (Eds.): Applications of Simulation Methods in Environmental and Resource Economics
  • (pp. 247-273). The Netherlands: Springer.
  • Scarpa, R., Willis, K.G. & Acutt, M. (2007). “Valuing externalities from water supply: Status quo, choice complexity and individual random effects in panel kernel logit analysis of choice experiments”. Journal of Environmental Planning and
  • Management, 50(4), 449-466. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09640560701401861.
  • Stanley, T.D., Doucouliagos, H., Giles, M., Heckemeyer, J.H., Johnston, R.J., Laroche, P., Nelson, J.P., Paldam, M., Poot, J., Pugh, G., Rosenberger, R.S. & Rost, K. (2013). “Meta-Analysis of Economics Research Reporting Guidelines”. Journal of Economic Surveys, 27(2), 390-394. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/joes.12008.
  • Tempesta, T., Vecchiato, D. & Girardi, P. (2014). “The landscape benefits of the burial of high voltage power lines: A study in rural areas of Italy”. Landscape and Urban Planning, 126, 53-64. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.03.003.
  • Valentine, J.C., Pigott, T.D. & Rothstein, H.R. (2010). “How many studies do you need? A primer on statistical power in meta-analysis”. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 35(2), 215-247. http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/1076998609346961.
  • Villanueva, A.J., Glenk, K. & Rodríguez-Entrena, M. (2017). “Protest responses and willingness to accept: Ecosystem services providers’ preferences towards incentive-based schemes”. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 68(3), 801-821. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1477-9552.12211.
  • Annex I – List of papers included in the review
  • Adamowicz, W., Boxall, P., Williams, M. & Louviere, J. (1998). “Stated Preference Approaches for Measuring Passive Use Values: Choice Experiments and Contingent Valuation”. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 80(1), 64-75. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3180269.
  • Agimass, F. & Mekonnen, A. (2011). “Low-income fishermen’s willingness-to-pay for fisheries and watershed management: An application of choice experiment to Lake Tana, Ethiopia”. Ecological Economics, 71(1), 162-170. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.08.025.
  • Akter, S., Bennett, J. & Ward, M.B. (2012). “Climate change scepticism and public support for mitigation: Evidence from an Australian choice experiment”. Global Environmental Change, 22(3), 736-745. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2012.05.004.
  • Alcon, F., Tapsuwan, S., Brouwer, R. & de Miguel, M.D. (2014). “Adoption of irrigation water policies to guarantee water supply: A choice experiment”. Environmental Science and Policy, 44, 226-236. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2014.08.012.
  • Allen, K.E. & Moore, R. (2016). “Moving beyond the exchange value in the nonmarket valuation of ecosystem services”. Ecosystem Services, 18, 78-86. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.02.002.
  • Andreopoulos, D., Damigos, D., Comiti, F. & Fischer, C. (2015). “Estimating the non-market benefits of climate change adaptation of river ecosystem services: A choice experiment application in the Aoos basin, Greece”. Environmental Science and Policy, 45, 92-103. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2014.10.003.
  • Andreopoulos, D., Damigos, D., Comiti, F. & Fischer, C. (2016). “Monetizing the impacts of climate change on river uses towards effective adaptation strategies”. Desalination and Water Treatment, 57(5), 2268-2278. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19443994.2014.984928.
  • Austin, Z., Smart, J.C.R., Yearley, S., Irvine, R.J. & White, P.C.L. (2010). “Identifying conflicts and opportunities for collaboration in the management of a wildlife resource: A mixed-methods approach”. Wildlife Research, 37(8), 647-657. http://dx.doi.org/10.1071/WR10057.
  • Beharry-Borg, N., Smart, J.C.R., Termansen, M. & Hubacek, K. (2013). “Evaluating farmers’ likely participation in a payment programme for water quality protection in the UK uplands”. Regional Environmental Change, 13(3), 633-647. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10113-012-0282-9.
  • Birol, E., Karousakis, K. & Koundouri, P. (2006). “Using a choice experiment to account for preference heterogeneity in wetland attributes: The case of Cheimaditida wetland in Greece”. Ecological Economics, 60(1), 145-156. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleco.n.2006.06.002.
  • Birol, E., Smale, M. & Gyovai, Á. (2006). “Using a choice experiment to estimate farmers’ valuation of agrobiodiversity on Hungarian small farms”. Environmental and Resource Economics, 34(4), 439-469. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10640-006-0009-9.
  • Bliem, M., Getzner, M. & Rodiga-Laßnig, P. (2012). “Temporal stability of individual preferences for river restoration in Austria using a choice experiment”. Journal of Environmental Management, 103, 65-73. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.02.029.
  • Bonnieux, F. & Carpentier, A. (2007). “Préférence pour le statu quo dans la méthode des programmes : Illustration à partir d’un problème de gestion forestière”. Revue D’économie Politique, 117(5), 699. http://dx.doi.org/10.3917/redp.175.0699.
  • Börger, T. (2016). “Are Fast Responses More Random? Testing the Effect of Response Time on Scale in an Online Choice Experiment”. Environmental and Resource Economics, 65(2), 389-413. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10640-015-9905-1.
  • Börger, T., Hattam, C., Burdon, D., Atkins, J.P. & Austen, M.C. (2014). “Valuing conservation benefits of an offshore marine protected area”. Ecological Economics, 108, 229-241. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.10.006.
  • Brouwer, R., Lienhoop, N. & Oosterhuis, F. (2015). “Incentivizing afforestation agreements: Institutional-economic conditions and motivational drivers”. Journal of Forest Economics, 21(4), 205-222. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jfe.2015.09.003.
  • Brouwer, R., Martin-Ortega, J., Dekker, T., Sardonini, L., Andreu, J., Kontogianni, A., Skourtos, M., Raggi, M., Viaggi, D., Pulido-Velázquez, M., Rolfe. J. & Windle, J. (2015). “Improving value transfer through socio-economic adjustments in a multicountry choice experiment of water conservation alternatives”. Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 59(3), 458-478. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-8489.12099.
  • Burton, M., Rogers, A. & Richert, C. (2017). “Community acceptance of biodiversity offsets: Evidence from a choice experiment”. Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 61(1), 95-114. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-8489.12151.
  • Can, Ö. & Alp, E. (2012). “Valuation of environmental improvements in a specially protected marine area: A choice experiment approach in Göcek Bay, Turkey”. Science of the Total Environment, 439, 291-298. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.002.
  • Cerdá, C. (2011). “Una aplicación de experimentos de elección para identificar preferencias locales por opciones de conservación y desarrollo en el extremo sur de Chile”. Bosque (Valdivia), 32(3), 297-307. http://dx.doi.org/10.4067/S0717-92002011000300011.
  • Cerdá, C. (2013). “Valuing biodiversity attributes and water supply using choice experiments: A case study of la Campana Peñuelas Biosphere Reserve, Chile”. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 185(1), 253-266. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10661-012-2549-5.
  • Christie, M., Remoundou, K., Siwicka, E. & Wainwright, W. (2015). “Valuing marine and coastal ecosystem service benefits: Case study of St Vincent and the Grenadines’ proposed marine protected areas”. Ecosystem Services, 11, 115-127. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.10.002.
  • Colombo, S., Calatrava-Requena, J. & Hanley, N.D. (2005). “Designing policy for reducing the off-farm effects of soil erosion using Choice Experiments BT”. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 56(1), 81-95. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111j.1477-9552.2005.tb00123.x.
  • Cooper, B., Rose, J. & Crase, L. (2012). “Does anybody like water restrictions? Some observations in Australian urban communities”. Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 56(1), 61-81. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-00573.x.
  • Crastes, R., Beaumais, O., Arkoun, O., Laroutis, D., Mahieu, P.A., Rulleau, B., Hassani-Taibi, S., Stefan Barbu, V. & Gaillard, D. (2014). “Erosive runoff events in the European Union: Using discrete choice experiment to assess the benefits of integrated management policies when preferences are heterogeneous”. Ecological Economics, 102, 105-112. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.04.002.
  • Dauda, S.A., Yacob, M.R. & Radam, A. (2015). “Household’s willingness to pay for heterogeneous attributes of drinking water quality and services improvement: An application of choice experiment”. Applied Water Science, 5(3), 253-259. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13201-014-0186-6.
  • De Ayala, A., Hoyos, D. & Mariel, P. (2015). “Suitability of discrete choice experiments for landscape management under the European Landscape Convention”. Journal of Forest Economics, 21(2), 79-96. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jfe.2015.01.002.
  • De Valck, J., Vlaeminck, P., Broekx, S., Liekens, I., Aertsens, J., Chen, W. & Vranken, L. (2014). “Benefits of clearing forest plantations to restore nature? Evidence from a discrete choice experiment in Flanders, Belgium”. Landscape and Urban Planning, 125, 65-75. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.02.006.
  • Dias, V. & Belcher, K. (2015). “Value and provision of ecosystem services from prairie wetlands: A choice experiment approach”. Ecosystem Services, 15, 35-44. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2015.07.004.
  • Emmanouilides, C.J. & Sgouromalli, T. (2013). “Renewable Energy Sources in Crete: Economic Valuation Results from a Stated Choice Experiment”. Procedia Technology, 8, 406-415. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.protcy.2013.11.053.
  • Espinosa-Goded, M., Barreiro-Hurle, J. & Ruto, E. (2010). “What Do Farmers Want From Agri-Environmental Scheme Design? A Choice Experiment Approach”. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 61(2), 259-273. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1477-9552.2010.00244.x.
  • Glenk, K., Lago, M. & Moran, D. (2011). “Public preferences for water quality improvements: Implications for the implementation of the EC Water Framework Directive in Scotland”. Water Policy, 13(5). Retrieved from http://wp.iwaponline.com/content/13/5/645.
  • Gracia, A., Barreiro-Hurle, J. & Pérez y Pérez, L. (2012). “Can renewable energy be financed with higher electricity prices? Evidence from a Spanish region”. Energy Policy, 50, 784-794. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2012.08.028.
  • Grammatikopoulou, I., Pouta, E., Salmiovirta, M. & Soini, K. (2012). “Heterogeneous preferences for agricultural landscape improvements in southern Finland”. Landscape and Urban Planning, 107(2), 181-191. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2012.06.001.
  • Håkansson, C., Östberg, K. & Bostedt, G. (2016). “Estimating distributional effects of environmental policy in Swedish coastal environments - a walk along different dimensions”. Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy, 5(1), 49-78. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21606544.2015.1025856.
  • Han, S.Y., Lee, C.K., Mjelde, J.W. & Kim, T.K. (2010). “Choice-experiment valuation of management alternatives for reintroduction of the endangered mountain goral in woraksan national park, South Korea”. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, 25(6), 534-543. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02827581.2010.512874.
  • Hanley, N., Adamowicz, W. & Wright, R.E. (2005). “Price vector effects in choice experiments: An empirical test”. Resource and Energy Economics, 27(3), 227–234. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.reseneeco.2004.11.001.
  • Hope, R., Borgoyary, M. & Agarwal, C. (2008). “Smallholder preferences for Agrienvironmental change at the Bhoj Wetland, India”. Development Policy Review, 26(5), 585-602. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7679.2008.00424.x.
  • Horne, P. (2006). “Forest owners’ acceptance of incentive based policy instruments in forest biodiversity conservation - a choice experiment based approach”. Silva Fennica, 40(1), 169-178. http://dx.doi.org/10.14214/sf.359.
  • Jacobsen, J.B. & Thorsen, B.J. (2010). “Preferences for site and environmental functions when selecting forthcoming national parks”. Ecological Economics, 69(7), 1532-1544. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2010.02.013.
  • Jaung, W., Putzel, L., Bull, G.Q., Guariguata, M.R. & Sumaila, U.R. (2016). “Estimating demand for certification of forest ecosystem services: A choice experiment with Forest Stewardship Council certificate holders”. Ecosystem Services, 22(Part A), 193-201. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.10.016.
  • Jianjun, J., Chong, J., Thuy, T.D. & Lun, L. (2013). “Public preferences for cultivated land protection in Wenling City, China: A choice experiment study”. Land Use Policy, 30(1), 337-343. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2012.04.003.
  • Juutinen, A., Kosenius, A.K., Ovaskainen, V., Tolvanen, A. & Tyrväinen, L. (2017). “Heterogeneous preferences for recreation-oriented management in commercial forests: The role of citizens’ socioeconomic characteristics and recreational profiles”. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 60(3), 399-418. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2016.1159546.
  • Kaczan, D., Swallow, B.M. & Adamowicz, W.L.V. (2013). “Designing a payments for ecosystem services (PES) program to reduce deforestation in Tanzania: An assessment of payment approaches”. Ecological Economics, 95, 20-30. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2013.07.011.
  • Kallas, Z., Gómez-Limón, J.A. & Arriaza, M. (2007). “Are citizens willing to pay for agricultural multifunctionality?” Agricultural Economics, 36(3), 405-419. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1574-0862.2007.00216.x.
  • Kanchanaroek, Y., Termansen, M. & Quinn, C. (2013). “Property rights regimes in complex fishery management systems: A choice experiment application”. Ecological Economics, 93, 363-373. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2013.05.014.
  • Kermagoret, C., Levrel, H., Carlier, A. & Dachary-Bernard, J. (2016). “Individual preferences regarding environmental offset and welfare compensation: A choice experiment application to an offshore wind farm project”. Ecological Economics, 129, 230-240. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2016.05.017.
  • Kosenius, A.K. & Markku, O. (2015). “Ecosystem benefits from coastal habitats- A three-country choice experiment”. Marine Policy, 58, 15-27. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2015.03.032.
  • Kuhfuss, L., Préget, R., Thoyer, S. & Hanley, N. (2016). “Nudging farmers to enrol land into agri-environmental schemes: The role of a collective bonus”. European Review of Agricultural Economics, 43(4), 609-636. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/erae/jbv031.
  • Lee, J.S. & Yoo, S.H. (2009). “Measuring the environmental costs of tidal power plant construction: A choice experiment study”. Energy Policy, 37(12), 5069-5074. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2009.07.015.
  • Lehtonen, E., Kuuluvainen, J., Pouta, E., Rekola, M. & Li, C.Z. (2003). “Non-market benefits of forest conservation in southern Finland”. Environmental Science and Policy, 6(3), 195-204. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1462-9011(03)00035-2.
  • Lienhoop, N. & Brouwer, R. (2015). “Agri-environmental policy valuation: Farmers’ contract design preferences for afforestation schemes”. Land Use Policy, 42, 568-577. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2014.09.017.
  • Lim, S.Y., Lim, K.M. & Yoo, S.H. (2014). “External benefits of waste-to-energy in Korea: A choice experiment study”. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 34, 588-595. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.03.045.
  • Martin-Ortega, J. & Berbel, J. (2010). “Using multi-criteria analysis to explore nonmarket monetary values of water quality changes in the context of the Water Framework Directive”. Science of the Total Environment, 408(19), 3990-3997. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2010.03.048.
  • Martin-Ortega, J., Brouwer, R., Ojea, E. & Berbel, J. (2012). “Benefit transfer and spatial heterogeneity of preferences for water quality improvements”. Journal of Environmental Management, 106, 22-29. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.03.031.
  • Martin-Ortega, J., Giannoccaro, G. & Berbel, J. (2011). “Environmental and Resource Costs Under Water Scarcity Conditions: An Estimation in the Context of the European Water Framework Directive”. Water Resources Management, 25(6), 1615-1633. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11269-010-9764-z.
  • Mejía, C.V. & Brandt, S. (2017). “Utilizing environmental information and pricing strategies to reduce externalities of tourism: The case of invasive species in the Galapagos”. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 25(6), 763-778. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2016.1247847.
  • Ndunda, E.N. & Mungatana, E.D. (2013). “Evaluating the welfare effects of improved wastewater treatment using a discrete choice experiment. Journal of Environmental Management, 123, 49-57. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2013.02.053.
  • Norton, D. & Hynes, S. (2014). “Valuing the non-market benefits arising from the implementation of the EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive”. Ecosystem Services, 10, 84-96. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.09.009.
  • Oleson, K.L.L., Barnes, M., Brander, L.M., Oliver, T.A., Van Beek, I., Zafindrasilivonona, B. & Van Beukering, P. (2015). “Cultural bequest values for ecosystem service flows among indigenous fishers: A discrete choice experiment validated with mixed methods”. Ecological Economics, 114, 104-116. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016j.ecolecon.2015.02.028.
  • Olsen, S.B. (2009). “Choosing Between Internet and Mail Survey Modes for Choice Experiment Surveys Considering Non-Market Goods”. Environmental and Resource Economics, 44(4), 591-610. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10640-009-9303-7.
  • Pan, D. (2016). “The Design of Policy Instruments towards Sustainable Livestock Production in China: An Application of the Choice Experiment Method”. Sustainability, 8(7), 611. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su8070611.
  • Pan, D., Zhou, G., Zhang, N. & Zhang, L. (2016). “Farmers’ preferences for livestock pollution control policy in China: A choice experiment method”. Journal of Cleaner Production, 131, 572-5582. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.04.133.
  • Pek, C.K. & Jamal, O. (2011). “A choice experiment analysis for solid waste disposal option: A case study in Malaysia”. Journal of Environmental Management, 92(11), 2993-3001. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2011.07.013.
  • Price, J.I., Janmaat, J., Sugden, F. & Bharati, L. (2016). “Water storage systems and preference heterogeneity in water-scarce environments: A choice experiment in Nepal’s Koshi River Basin”. Water Resources and Economics, 13, 6-18. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wre.2015.09.003.
  • Rajmis, S., Barkmann, J. & Marggraf, R. (2009). “User community preferences for climate change mitigation and adaptation measures around Hainich National Park, Germany”. Climate Research, 40(1), 61-73. http://dx.doi.org/10.3354/cr00803.
  • Remoundou, K., Diaz-Simal, P., Koundouri, P. & Rulleau, B. (2015). “Valuing climate change mitigation: A choice experiment on a coastal and marine ecosystem. Ecosystem Services”, 11, 87-94. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.11.003.
  • Remoundou, K., Kountouris, Y. & Koundouri, P. (2012). “Is the value of an environmental public good sensitive to the providing institution?” Resource and Energy Economics, 34(3), 381-395. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.reseneeco.2012.03.002.
  • Rogers, A.A., Cleland, J.A. & Burton, M.P. (2013). “The inclusion of non-market values in systematic conservation planning to enhance policy relevance”. Biological Conservation, 162, 65-75. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2013.03.006.
  • Rossi, F.J., Carter, D.R., Alavalapati, J.R.R. & Nowak, J.T. (2011). “Assessing landowner preferences for forest management practices to prevent the southern pine beetle: An attribute-based choice experiment approach”. Forest Policy and Economics, 13(4), 234-241. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2011.01.001.
  • Rulleau, B., Dumax, N. & Rozan, A. (2017). “Eliciting preferences for wetland services: A way to manage conflicting land uses”. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 60(2), 309-327. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2016.1155976.
  • Ryffel, A.N., Rid, W. & Grêt-Regamey, A. (2014). “Land use trade-offs for flood rotection: A choice experiment with visualizations”. Ecosystem Services, 10, 111-123. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.09.008.
  • Sardaro, R., Girone, S., Acciani, C., Bozzo, F., Petrontino, A. & Fucilli, V. (2016). “Agro-biodiversity of Mediterranean crops: farmers’ preferences in support of a conservation programme for olive landraces”. Biological Conservation, 201, 210-219. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2016.06.033.
  • Sauthoff, S., Musshoff, O., Danne, M. & Anastassiadis, F. (2016). “Sugar beet as a biogas substrate? A discrete choice experiment for the design of substrate supply contracts for German farmers”. Biomass and Bioenergy, 90, 163-172. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2016.04.005.
  • Segerstedt, A. & Grote, U. (2015). “Protected Area Certificates: Gaining Ground for Better Ecosystem Protection?” Environmental Management, 55(6), 1418-1432. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00267-015-0476-2.
  • Shoyama, K., Managi, S. & Yamagata, Y. (2013). “Public preferences for biodiversity conservation and climate-change mitigation: A choice experiment using ecosystem services indicators”. Land Use Policy, 34, 282-293. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2013.04.003.
  • Susaeta, A., Lal, P., Alavalapati, J. & Mercer, E. (2011). “Random preferences towards bioenergy environmental externalities: A case study of woody biomass based electricity in the Southern United States”. Energy Economics, 33(6), 1111-1118. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2011.05.015.
  • Tempesta, T. & Vecchiato, D. (2013). “Riverscape and groundwater preservation: A choice experiment”. Environmental Management, 52(6), 1487-1502. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00267-013-0163-0.
  • Tempesta, T., Vecchiato, D. & Girardi, P. (2014). “The landscape benefits of the burial of high voltage power lines: A study in rural areas of Italy”. Landscape and Urban Planning, 126, 53-64. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.03.003.
  • Tesfaye, A. & Brouwer, R. (2012). “Testing participation constraints in contract design for sustainable soil conservation in Ethiopia”. Ecological Economics, 73, 168-178. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.10.017.
  • Tyrväinen, L., Mäntymaa, E. & Ovaskainen, V. (2014). “Demand for enhanced forest amenities in private lands: The case of the Ruka-Kuusamo tourism area, Finland”. Forest Policy and Economics, 47, 4-13. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2013.05.007.
  • Vázquez Rodríguez, M.X. & León, C.J. (2004). “Altruism and the Economic Values of Environmental and Social Policies”. Environmental and Resource Economics, 28(2), 233-249. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/B:EARE.0000029919.95464.0b.
  • Vedel, S.E., Jacobsen, J.B. & Thorsen, B.J. (2015). “Contracts for afforestation and the role of monitoring for landowners’ willingness to accept”. Forest Policy and Economics, 51, 29-37. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2014.11.007.
  • Villanueva, A.J., Rodríguez-Entrena, M., Arriaza, M. & Gómez-Limón, J.A. (2017). “Heterogeneity of farmers’ preferences towards agri-environmental schemes across different agricultural subsystems”. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 60(4), 684-707. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2016.1168289.
  • Vollmer, D., Ryffel, A.N., Djaja, K. & Grêt-Regamey, A. (2016). “Examining demand for urban river rehabilitation in Indonesia: Insights from a spatially explicit discrete choice experiment”. Land Use Policy, 57, 514-525. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016j.landusepol.2016.06.017.
  • Wang, E., Wei, J. & Lu, H. (2014). “Valuing natural and non-natural attributes for a national forest park using a choice experiment method”. Tourism Economics, 20(6), 1199-1213. http://dx.doi.org/10.5367/te.2013.0329.
  • Wang, H., & Swallow, B.M. (2016). “Optimizing expenditures for agricultural land conservation: Spatially-explicit estimation of benefits, budgets, costs and targets”. Land Use Policy, 59, 272-283. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.07.037.
  • Weber, M.A. & Stewart, S. (2009). “Public values for river restoration options on the Middle Rio Grande”. Restoration Ecology, 17(6), 762-771. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1526-100X.2008.00407.x.
  • Willis, K. G. (2009). Assessing visitor preferences in the management of archaeological and heritage attractions: A case study of Hadrian’s Roman Wall. International Journal of Tourism Research, 11, 487-505. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jtr.715.
  • Woldemariam, G., Seyoum, A. & Ketema, M. (2016). “Residents’ willingness to pay for improved liquid waste treatment in urban Ethiopia: Results of choice experiment in Addis Ababa”. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 59(1), 163-181. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2014.996284.
  • Yao, R.T., Scarpa, R., Turner, J.A., Barnard, T.D., Rose, J.M., Palma, J.H.N. & Harrison, D.R. (2014). “Valuing biodiversity enhancement in New Zealand’s planted forests: Socioeconomic and spatial determinants of willingness-to-pay”. Ecological Economics, 98, 90-101. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2013.12.009.
  • Yoo, S.H., Kwak, S.J. & Lee, J.S. (2008). “Using a choice experiment to measure the environmental costs of air pollution impacts in Seoul”. Journal of Environmental Management, 86(1), 308-318. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2006.12.008.
  • Zandersen, M., Jørgensen, S.L., Nainggolan, D., Gyldenkærne, S., Winding, A., Greve, M.H. & Termansen, M. (2016). “Potential and economic efficiency of using reduced tillage to mitigate climate effects in Danish agriculture”. Ecological Economics, 123, 14-22. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.12.002.
  • Zhai, G., Fukuzono, T. & Ikeda, S. (2007). “Multi-attribute evaluation of flood management in Japan: A choice experiment approach”. Water and Environment Journal, 21(4), 265-274. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-6593.2007.00072.x.
  • Zhai, G. & Suzuki, T. (2008). “Public willingness to pay for environmental management, risk reduction and economic development: Evidence from Tianjin, China”. China Economic Review, 19(4), 551-566. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chieco.2008.08.001.
Fonte de datos: Dialnet