La Valoración del Agua y la aplicación del método de las Preferencias Declaradas: Valoración Contingente vs. Experimentos de Elección
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.17561/at.15.4726Palabras clave:
Preferencias Declaradas, Preferencias Reveladas, Valoración Contingente, Experimentos de ElecciónResumen
En los métodos de Preferencias Declaradas (PD) se desarrollan preguntas a individuos para establecer sus preferencias sobre escenarios hipotéticos alternativos. Los métodos principales se basan en la Valoración Contingente (VC) y los Experimentos de Elección (EE). En los métodos de PD se desarrollan preguntas a individuos para establecer sus preferencias sobre escenarios hipotéticos que pueden ser diferentes (ya sean bienes o servicios). Cada alternativa es descrita mediante atributos diversos, y las respuestas son utilizadas para determinar las diferentes preferencias. Algunos métodos principales se fundamentan en la hipótesis de PD, así como en los métodos de VC y en los EE
Descargas
Referencias
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. https://doi.org/10.2307/3180269
Adamowicz, W.; Dickie, M.; Gerking, S.; Veronesi, M. & Zinner. D. 2014: “Household decision making and valuation of environmental health risks to parents and their children”, Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, 1, 481–519. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/679255
Adamowicz, W.; Swait, J.; Boxall, P; Louviere, J. & Williams, M. 1997: “Perceptions versus Objective Measures of Environmental Quality in Combined Revealed and Stated Preference Models of Environmental Valuation", Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 32(1), 65-84. https://doi.org/10.1006/jeem.1996.0957
Alberini, A. 1995: “Optimal designs for discrete choice contingent valuation surveys: Single-bound, double-bound, and bivariate models”, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 28(3), 287–306. https://doi.org/10.1006/jeem.1995.1019
Alemu, M. H.; Mørkbak, M. R.; Søren, B. O., & Carsten L. J. 2013: “Attending to the reasons for attribute non-attendance in choice experiments”, Environmental and Resource Economics, 54, 333–359. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-012-9597-8
Andreoni, J. 1989: “Giving with impure altruism: Applications to charity and Ricardian equivalence”, Journal of Political Economy, 97(6), 1447–1458. https://doi.org/10.1086/261662
Arentze, T.; Borgers, A.; Timmermans, H. & DelMistro, R. 2003: “Transport stated choice responses: Effects of task complexity, presentation format and literacy”, Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 39, 229–244. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1366-5545(02)00047-9
Arrow, K.; Solow, R.; Portney, P. R.; Leamer, E. E.; Radner, R. & Schuman, H. 1993: “Report of the NOAA panel on contingent valuation”. Federal Register, 58, 4601–14.
Balcombe, K., Burton, M. & Rigby, D. 2011: "Skew and attribute non-attendance within Bayesian mixed logit model", Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 62(3), 446-461. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeem.2011.04.004
Balcombe, K.; Fraser, I. & McSorley, E. 2015: "Visual Attention and Attribute Attendance in Multi‐Attribute Choice Experiments", Journal of Applied Econometrics, 30(3), 447-467. https://doi.org/10.1002/jae.2383
Balcombe, K.; y Fraser, I. 2011: “A general treatment of “don’t know” responses from choice experiments”, European Review of Agricultural Economics, 38, 171–191. https://doi.org/10.1093/erae/jbr010
Bateman, I. J.; Carson, R. T.; Day, B. H.; Hanemann, W. M.; Hanley, N.; Hett, T.; Jones-Lee, M.; Loomes, G.; Mourato, S.; Özdemiroglu, E. & Pearce, D. W. 2002: Economic valuation with stated preference techniques: A manual, Cheltenham (United Kingdom), Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781781009727
Bateman, I. J.; Munro, A. & Poe, G. 2008: “Decoy effects in choice experiments contingent valuation: Asymmetric dominance”, Land Economics, 84(1), 115–127. https://doi.org/10.3368/le.84.1.115
Bateman, I. J.; Munro, A.; Rhodes, B.; Starmer, C. & Sugden, R. 1997a: “Does partwhole bias exist? An experimental investigation”, Economic Journal, 107(441), 322–332. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0013-0133.1997.160.x
Bateman, I. J.; Munro, A; Rhodes, B; Starmer, C & Sudgen, R. 1997b: “A test of the theory of reference-dependent preferences”. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 112, 479–505. https://doi.org/10.1162/003355397555262
Bell, J.; Huber, J. & Viscusi, W. K. 2011: “Survey mode effects on valuation of environmental godos”, International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 8, 1222–1243. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph8041222
Bennett, J. & Blamey, R. (Eds.) 2001: The choice modelling approach to environmental valuation, Cheltenham (United Kingdom), Edward Elgar Publishing.
Bennett, J. 1996. “The contingent valuation: A post Kakadu assessment”, Agenda, A Journal of Policy Analysis and Reform, 3, 185–194. https://doi.org/10.22459/AG.03.02.1996.06
Blamey, R. K.; Bennett, J. W. & Morrison, M. D. 1999: “Yea-saying in contingent valuation surveys”, Land Economics, 75(1), 126–141. https://doi.org/10.2307/3146997
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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.02.029
Bliemer, M. C. J. & Rose, J. M. 2010: “Construction of experimental designs for mixed logit models allowing for correlation across choice observations”, Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, 44(6), 720–734. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trb.2009.12.004
Blumberg, S. J.; Luke, J. V.; Ganesh, N.; Davern, M. E. & Boudreaux, M. H. 2012: “Wireless substitution: State-level estimates from the National Health Interview Survey, 2010–2011”, National Health Statistics Reports, 61, Hyattsville (MD, United States), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Boeri, M.; Scarpa, R. & Chorus. C. 2014: "Stated choices and benefit estimates in the context of traffic calming schemes: Utility maximization, regret minimization, or both?" Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 61, 121-135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2014.01.003
Boxall, P. C., Adamowicz, W. L. & Moon, A. 2009: “Complexity in choice experiments: Choice of the status quo alternative and implications for welfare measurement”, Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 53(4), 503–519. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8489.2009.00469.x
Boyd, J. & Krupnick, A. 2009: “The definition and choice of environmental commodities for nonmarket valuation”, RFF Discussion Paper 09–35, Washington, DC (USA), Resources for the Future. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1479820
Boyd, J. & Krupnick, A. 2013: “Using ecological production theory to define and select environmental commodities for nonmarket valuation”, Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, 42(1), 1–32. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1068280500007590
Boyd, J.; Ringold, P.; Krupnick, A.; Johnston, R. J.; Weber, M. A. & Hall, K. 2016: “Ecosystem services indicators: Improving the linkage between biophysical and economic analyses”, International Review of Environmental and Resource Economics, 8, no.3-4, 359–443. https://doi.org/10.1561/101.00000073
Boyle, K. J. & Bishop, R. C. 1988: “Welfare measurements using contingent valuation: A comparison of techniques, American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 70, 20–28. https://doi.org/10.2307/1241972
Boyle, K.; Paterson, R.; Carson, R.; Leggett, C.; Kanninen, B.; Molenar, J. & Neumann, J. 2016: "Valuing shifts in the distribution of visibility in national parks and wilderness areas in the United States", Journal of environmental management, 173, 10–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.01.042
Brick, J. M., & Williams, D. 2013: “Explaining rising nonresponse rates in cross-sectional surveys”, Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 645(1), 36–59. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716212456834
Brown, T. C. & Gregory, R. 1999: “Why the WTA-WTP disparity matters”, Ecological Economics, 28(3), 323–335. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(98)00050-0
Burton, M., & Rigby, D. 2012: “The self selection of complexity in choice experiments”, American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 94(3), 786–800. https://doi.org/10.1093/ajae/aas015
Bush, G.; Hanley, N; Moro, M. & Rondeau, D. 2013: “Measuring the local costs of conservation: A provision point mechanism for eliciting willingness to accept compensation”, Land Economics, 89(3), 490–513. https://doi.org/10.3368/le.89.3.490
Cameron, T. A.; DeShazo, J. R. & Johnson. E. H. 2011: “Scenario adjustment in stated preference research”, Journal of Choice Modelling, 4(1), 9–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1755-5345(13)70017-4
Cameron, T. A; Poe, G. L.; Ethier, R. G. & Schulze, W. D. 2002: “Alternative nonmarket value-elicitation methods: Are the underlying preferences the same?”, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 44 (3), 391–425. https://doi.org/10.1006/jeem.2001.1210
Carson, D.; Gilmore, A.; Perry, C. y Grønhaug, K. 2001: Qualitative Market Research. London (United Kingdom), Sage Publications Ltd. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781849209625
Carson, R. 2012: “Contingent valuation: A practical alternative when prices aren’t available”, Journal of Economic Perspectives, 26, 27–42. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.26.4.27
Carson, R. T. & Louviere, J. L. 2011: “A common nomenclature for stated preference elicitation approaches”, Environmental and Resource Economics, 49, 539–559. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-010-9450-x
Carson, R. T.; Flores; N. F. & Meade, N. F. 2001: “Contingent valuation: Controversies and evidence”, Environmental and Resource Economics, 19, 173–210. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1011128332243
Carson, R. T.; Groves, T. & List, J. A. 2014: “Consequentiality: A theoretical and experimental exploration of a single binary choice”, Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, 1, 171–207. https://doi.org/10.1086/676450
Carson, R. T.; Mitchell, R. C.; Hanemann, M.; Kopp, R. J.; Presser, S. & Ruud, P. A. 2003: “Contingent valuation and lost passive use: Damages from the Exxon Valdez oil spill”, Environmental and Resource Economics, 25, 257–289. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024486702104
Caussade, S.; Ortúzara, J.; Rizzia, L. I. & Hensherb, D. A. 2005: "Assessing the influence of design dimensions on stated choice experiment estimates", Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, 39(7), 621-640. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trb.2004.07.006
Coast, J. & Horrocks, S. A. 2007: “Developing attributes and levels for discrete choice experiments using qualitative methods”, Journal of Health Services Research and Policy, 12(1), 25–30. https://doi.org/10.1258/135581907779497602
Coast, J. 1999: “The appropriate uses of qualitative methods in health economics”, Health Economics, 8(4), 345–353. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1050(199906)8:4<345::AID-HEC432>3.0.CO;2-Q
Coast, J.; Hareth A-J.; Sutton, E. J.; Horrocks, S. A.; Vosper, A. J.; Swancutt, D. R. & Flynn, T. 2012: “Using qualitative methods for attribute development for discrete choice experiments: Issues and recommendations”, Health Economics, 21, 730–741. https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.1739
Cooper, J. C. & Loomis, J. 1992: “Sensitivity of willingness-to-pay estimates to bid design in dichotomous choice contingent valuation models”, Land Economics, 68(2), 211–224. https://doi.org/10.2307/3146775
Cooper, J. C. 1993: “Optimal bid selection for dichotomous choice contingent valuation surveys”, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 24(1), 25–40. https://doi.org/10.1006/jeem.1993.1002
Costanza, R.; d'Arge, R.; de Groot, R.; Farber, S.; Grasso, M.; Hannon, B.; Limburg, K.; Naeem, S.; O'Neill, R. V.; Paruelo, J.; Raskin, R. G.; Sutton, P. & van den Belt, M. 1997: "The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital", Nature, 387, 253-260. https://doi.org/10.1038/387253a0
Curtin, R.; Presser, S.; & Singer, E. 2000: “The effects of response rate changes on the Index of Consumer Sentiment”, Public Opinion Quarterly, 64(4), 413–428. https://doi.org/10.1086/318638
Day, B.; Bateman, I. J.; Carson, R. T.; Dupont, D.; Louviere, J. J.; Morimoto, S.; Scarpa, R. & Wang P. 2012: “Ordering effects and choice set awareness in repeat-response stated preference studies”, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 63, 73-91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeem.2011.09.001
De Bekker-Grob, E.; Ryan, M & Gerard, K. 2012: “Discrete choice experiments in health economics: A review of the literatura”, Health Economics, 21, 145–172. https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.1697
Dellaert, B. G. C.; Donkers, B. & Van Soest, A. 2012: “Complexity effects in choice experimentbased models”, Journal of Marketing Research, 49(3), 424–434. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmr.09.0315
Dillman, D. A.; Smyth, J. A. & Christian, L. M. 2014: Internet, phone, mail and mixed-mode surveys: The tailored design method. 4th edition. Hoboken (NJ, United States), John Wiley & Sons.
Ericson, K. & Fuster, A. 2014: “The endowment effect”, Annual Review of Economics, 6, 555–579. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-economics-080213-041320
Ferrini, S. & Scarpa, R. 2007: “Designs with a priori information for nonmarket valuation with choice experiments: A Monte Carlo study”, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 53(3), 342–363. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeem.2006.10.007
Fiebig, D.; Keane, M. P.; Louviere, J. & Wasi, N. 2009: “The Generalized Multinomial Logit Model: Accounting for Scale and Coefficient Heterogeneity”, Marketing Science, 29(3), 393-421. https://doi.org/10.1287/mksc.1090.0508
Foster, V, & Mourato, S. 2003: “Elicitation format and sensitivity to scope”, Environmental and Resource Economics, 24, 141–160. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022856329552
Gigerenzer, G.; Todd, P. M. & the ABC Research Group. 1999: Simple heuristics that make us Smart, New York (United States), Oxford University Press.
Goldberg, I., & Roosen, J. 2007: “Scope insensitivity in health risk reduction studies: A comparison of choice experiments and the contingent valuation method for valuing safer food”, Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 34(2), 123–144. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11166-007-9006-9
Groves, R. M. 2006: “Nonresponse rates and nonresponse bias in household surveys”, Public Opinion Quarterly, 70(5), 646–675. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfl033
Groves, R. M., & Peytcheva, E. 2008: “The impact of nonresponse rates on nonresponse bias: A meta-analysis”, Public Opinion Quarterly, 72(2), 167–189. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfn011
Haab, T. C. & McConnell, K. 2002 “Valuing environmental and natural resources”, The econometrics of non-market valuation, Cheltenham (United Kingdom), Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781843765431
Hanemann, W. M. 1994. “Valuing the environment through contingent valuation”, Journal of Economic Perspectives, 8(4), 19–43. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.8.4.19
Hanley, N.; MacMillan, D.; Wright, R.E; Bullock, C.; Simpson, I.; Parsisson, D. & Crabtree. B. 1998: “Contingent valuation versus choice experiments: Estimating the benefits of environmentally sensitive areas in Scotland”, Journal of Agricultural Economics, 49(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1477-9552.1998.tb01248.x
Hanley, N.; Mourato, S. & Wright, R. E. 2001: “Choice modelling approaches: A superior alternative for environmental valuation?”, Journal of Economic Surveys, 15, 435–462. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6419.00145
Hensher, D. A. & Layton. D. 2010: “Parameter transfer of common-metric attributes in choice analysis: Implications for willingness to pay”, Transportation, 37(3), 473–490. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11116-010-9260-6
Hensher, D. A. & Rose, J. M. 2009: “Simplifying choice through attribute preservation or nonattendance: Implications for willingness to pay”, Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 45, 583–590. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2008.12.001
Hensher, D. A. 2006a: “How do respondents process stated choice experiments? Attribute consideration under varying information load”, Journal of Applied Econometrics, 21(6), 861–878. https://doi.org/10.1002/jae.877
Hensher, D. A. 2006b: “Revealing differences in willingness to pay due to the dimensionality of stated choice designs: An initial assessment”, Environmental and Resource Economics, 34(1), 7–44. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-005-3782-y
Hess, S. & Daly, A. (Eds.) 2013: Choice modelling: The state of the art and the state of practice, Cheltenham (United Kingdom), Edward Elgar Publishing.
Hess, S. & Daly, A. (Eds.) 2014: Handbook of choice modelling, Cheltenham (United Kingdom), Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781781003152
Hoehn, J. P., Lupi, F. & Kaplowitz, M- D. 2010: “Stated choice experiments with complex ecosystem changes: The effect of information formats on estimated variances and choice parameters”, Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 35(3), 568–590. https://www.jstor.org/stable/23243072
Horowitz, J., McConnell, K. & Murphy, J. 2013: “Behavioral foundations of environmental economics and valuation”, in Handbook on experimental economics and the environment, John A. List & Michael K. Price (Eds.), 115–156. Cheltenham (United Kingdom), Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781781009079
Islam, T.; Louviere J. & Burke, P. F. 2007: “Modeling the effects of including/excluding attributes in choice experiments on systematic and random components”, International Journal of Research in Marketing, 24(4), 289–300. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2007.04.002
Jin, J.; Wang; Z. & Ran, S. 2006: “Comparison of contingent valuation and choice experiment in solid waste management programs in Macao”, Ecological Economics, 57(3), 430–441. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2005.04.020
Johnson, F. R.; Kanninen, B.; Bingham, M. & Özdemir, S. 2006: Experimental design for stated choice studies, in Kanninen, B. J. (Eds.): Valuing environmental amenities using stated choice studies. New York (United States), Springer, 159-202. https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-5313-4_7
Johnson, F. R.; Lancsar, E.; Marshall, D; Kilambi, V.; Mühlbacher, A.; Regier, D. A.; Bresnahan, B. .; Kanninen, B. & Bridges, J. F. P. 2013: “Constructing experimental designs for discrete choice experiments: Report of the ISPOR conjoint analysis experimental design good research practices task forcé”, Value in Health, 16(1), 3–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2012.08.2223
Johnston, R. 2006: "Is hypothetical bias universal? Validating contingent valuation responses using a binding referendum", Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 52, 469-481. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeem.2005.12.003
Johnston, R.; Schultz, E. T.; Segerson, K.; Besedin, E. Y. & Ramachandran M. 2016: “Biophysical causality and environmental preference elicitation: Evaluating the validity of welfare analysis over intermediate outcomes”, American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 99(1), 163-185. https://doi.org/10.1093/ajae/aaw073
Johnston, R.; Swallow, S. & Weaver, T. 1999: "Estimating Willingness to Pay and Resource Tradeoffs with Different Payment Mechanisms: An Evaluation of a Funding Guarantee for Watershed Management", Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 38(1), 97-120. https://doi.org/10.1006/jeem.1999.1077
Kahneman D.; Slovic, P. & Tversky, A. (Eds.) 1982: Judgement under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Cambridge (United Kingdom), Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511809477
Kanninen, B. 1993a: “Design of sequential experiments for contingent valuation studies”, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 25(1), S1–S11. https://doi.org/10.1006/jeem.1993.1029
Kanninen, B. 1993b: “Optimal experimental design for double-bounded dichotomous choice contingent valuation”, Land Economics, 69(2), 138–146. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3146514
Kanninen, B. 1995: “Bias in discrete response contingent valuation”, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 28, 114–125. https://doi.org/10.1006/jeem.1995.1008
Keeter, S.; Kennedy, C; Dimock, M.; Best, J. & Craighill, P. 2006: “Gauging the impact of growing nonresponse on estimates from a national RDD telephone survey”, Public Opinion Quarterly, 70, 759–779. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfl035
Keeter, S.; Miller, C.; Kohut A.; Groves, R. M. & Presser, S. 2000: “Consequencs of reducing nonresponse in a national telephone survey”, Public Opinion Quarterly, 64(2), 125–148. https://doi.org/10.1086/317759
Kim, Y.; Kling, C. L. & Zhao, J. 2015: “Understanding behavioral explanations of the WTP-WTA divergence through a neoclassical lens: Implications for environmental policy”, Annual Review of Resource Economics, 7(1), 169–187. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev-resource-100913-012501
Kling, C. L.; Phaneuf, D. J. & Zhao. J. 2012: “From Exxon to BP: Has some number become better than no number?”, Journal of Economic Perspectives, 26(4), 3–26. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.26.4.3
Knetsch, J. L. 2007: “Biased valuations, damage assessments, and policy choices: The choice of measure matters”, Ecological Economics, 63(4), 684–689. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.02.012
Leggett, C. G.; Kleckner, N. S.; Boyle, K. J.; Dufield, J. W. & Mitchell, R. C. 2003: "Social Desirability Bias in Contingent Valuation Surveys Administered Through In-Person Interviews", Land Economics, 79(4), 561-575. https://doi.org/10.2307/3147300
Lewbel, A. 2000: “Semiparametric qualitative response model estimation with unknown heteroscedasticity or instrumental variables”, Journal of Econometrics, 97 (1), 145-177. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-4076(00)00015-4
Lewbel, A.; McFadden, D. & Linton, O. 2011. “Estimating features of a distribution from binomial data”, Journal of Econometrics, 162(2), 170-188. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeconom.2010.11.006
Lindhjem, H. & Navrud, S. 2011a: “Are internet surveys an alternative to face-to-face interviews in contingent valuation?”, Ecological Economics, 70(9), 1628–1637. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.04.002
Lindhjem, H. & Navrud, S. 2011b: “Using internet in stated preference surveys: a review and comparison of survey modes”, International Review of Environmental and Resource Economics, 5, 309-351. https://doi.org/10.1561/101.00000045
Link, M. W., Battaglia, M. P.; Frankel, M. R.; Osborn, L. & Mokdad, A. H. 2008: “A comparison of address-based sampling (ABS) versus random digit-dialing (RDD) for general population surveys”, Public Opinion Quarterly, 72(1), 6–27. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfn003
List, J. A. & Gallet, C. A. 2001: “What experimental protocol influence disparities between actual and hypothetical stated values? Evidence from a meta-analysis”, Environmental and Resource Economics, 20, 241–254. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1012791822804
Little, J. & Berrens, R. 2004: “Explaining disparities between actual and hypothetical stated values: Further investigation using meta-analysis”, Economics Bulletin, 3(6), 1–13.
Loomis, J. 1989: "Test–retest reliability of the contingent valuation method: a comparison of general population and visitor responses", American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 71(1), 76–84. https://doi.org/10.2307/1241776
Loomis, J. 1996: “How large is the extent of the market for public goods: Evidence from a nationwide contingent valuation survey”, Applied Economics, 28, 779–782. https://doi.org/10.1080/000368496328209
Lundquist, P. & Särndal, C-E. 2013: “Aspects of responsive design with applications to the Swedish living conditions survey”, Journal of Official Statistics, 29, 557–582. https://doi.org/10.2478/jos-2013-0040
Lusk, J. L. & Schroeder, T. C. 2004: “Are choice experiments incentive compatible? A test with quality differentiated beef steaks”, American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 86(2), 467–482. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0092-5853.2004.00592.x
Macmillan, D. C.; Philip, L.; Hanley, N. & Alvarez-Farizo, B. 2002: “Valuing the nonmarket benefits of wild goose conservation: A comparison of interview and group-based approaches”, Ecological Economics, 43, 49–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(02)00182-9
Madureira, L., Nunes, L. C.& Santos, J. M. L. 2005: “Valuing multi-attribute environmental changes: Contingent valuation and choice experiments”, Paper presented at 14th annual conference of the European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, Bremen, June 23–26.
Mazzotta, M. J. & Opaluch, J. J. 1995: “Decision making when choices are complex: A test of Heiner’s hypothesis”, Land Economics, 71(4), 500–515. https://doi.org/10.2307/3146714
McFadden, D. 2014: “The new science of pleasure: Consumer behavior and the measurement of well-being”, in Hess, S. & Daly, A. (Eds.): Handbook of choice modelling. Cheltenham (United Kingdom), Edward Elgar Publishing, 7–48. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781781003152.00007
Merkle, D. & Edelman, M. 2002: “Nonresponse in exit polls: A comprehensive analysis”, in Groves, R. M.; Dillman, D. A.; Eltinge, J. L. & Roderick, J.A. (Eds.): Survey nonresponse. New York (United States), Wiley, 243–258.
Meyerhoff, J.; Oehlmann, M. & Weller, P. 2015: “The influence of design dimensions on stated choices in an environmental context”, Environmental and Resource Economics, 61, 385–407. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-014-9797-5
Mitchell, R. C. & Carson, R. T. 1989: Using surveys to value public goods: The contingent valuation method, Washington, DC (United States), Resources for the Future.
Mogas, J.; Riera, P. & Bennett, J. 2006: “A comparison of contingent valuation and choice modelling with second-order interactions”, Journal of Forest Economics, 12(1), 5–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfe.2005.11.001
Mørkbak, M. R. & Olsen, S. 2015: “A within-sample investigation of test- retest reliability in choice experiment surveys with real economic incentives”, Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 59, 375–392. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8489.12067
Moser, R.; Raffaelli, R. & Notaro, S. 2013: “Testing hypothetical bias with a real choice experiment using respondents’ own money”, European Review of Agricultural Economics, 41(1), 25–46. https://doi.org/10.1093/erae/jbt016
Murphy, J. J.; Allen, P. G.; Stevens, T. H. & Weatherhead, D. 2005: “A Meta-analysis of Hypothetical Bias in Stated Preference Valuation”, Environmental and Resource Economics, 30, 313–325. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-004-3332-z
Olsen, S. B. & Meyerhoff, J. 2016: “Will the alphabet soup of design criteria affect discrete choice experiment results?”, European Review of Agricultural Economics, 44(2), 309–336. https://doi.org/10.1093/erae/jbw014
Peytchev, A. 2009: “Survey breakoff”, Public Opinion Quarterly, 73(1), 74–97. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfp014
Presser, S.; Couper, M. P.; Lessler, J. T.; Martin, E., Martin, J.; Rothgeb, J. M. & Singer, E. 2004: “Methods for Testing and Evaluating Survey Questions”, Public Opinion Quarterly, 68, 1, 109–130. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfh008
Promberger, M.; Dolan, P. & Marteau. 2012. “Pay them if it works: Discrete choice experiments on the acceptability of financial incentives to change health related behaviour”, Social Science and Medicine, 75(12), 2509–2514. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2012.09.033
Revelt, D. & Train, K. 1998: “Mixed Logit with Repeated Choices: Households' Choices of Appliance Efficiency Level”, The Review of Economics and Statistics, 80(4), 647-657. https://doi.org/10.1162/003465398557735
Riera, P.; Signorello, G.; Thiene, M.; Mahieu, P.-H.; Navrud, S.; Kaval, P.; Rulleau, B.; Mavsar, R.; Madureira, L.; Meyerhoff, J.; Elsasser, P.; Notaro, De Salvo, M.; Giergiczny, M. & Dragoi, S. 2012: “Non-market valuation of forest goods and services: Good practice guidelines”, Journal of Forest Economics, 18(4), 259–270. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfe.2012.07.001
Rose, J. M. & Bliemer, M. C. J. 2009: “Constructing efficient stated choice experimental designs”, Transport Reviews, 29(5), 587–617. https://doi.org/10.1080/01441640902827623
Rose, J. M. & Bliemer, M. C. J. 2014: “Stated choice experimental design theory: The who, the what and the why”, in Hess, S. & Daly, A. (Eds.): Handbook of choice modelling, Cheltenham (United Kingdom), Edward Elgar Publishing, 7, 152-177. https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:elg:eechap:14820_7
Rose, J. M.; Bliemer, M. C. J.; Hensher, D. A. & Collins, A. T. 2008: “Designing efficient stated choice experiments in the presence of reference alternatives”, Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, 42(4), 395–406. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trb.2007.09.002
Ryan, M. 2004: “A comparison of stated preference methods for estimating monetary values”, Health Economics, 13(3), 291–296. https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.818
Sandor, Z., & Wedel, M. 2002: “Profile construction in experimental choice designs for mixed logit models”, Marketing Science, 21, 455–475. https://doi.org/10.1287/mksc.21.4.455.131
Sandorf, E. D.; Aanesen, M. & Navrud, S. 2016: “Valuing unfamiliar and complex environmental goods: A comparison of valuation workshops and internet panel surveys with videos”, Ecological Economics, 129, 50–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2016.06.008
Sandorf, E. D.; Campbell, D. & Hanley, N. 2017: “Disentangling the influence of knowledge on attribute non-attendance”, Journal of Choice Modelling, 24, 36-50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jocm.2016.09.003
Sarkar, A.; Aronson, K.; Patil, S.; Hugar, L. & Vanloon, G. 2012: “Emerging health risks associated with modern agriculture practices: A comprehensive study in India”, Environmental research, 115, 37-50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2012.03.005
Sarkar, A.; Sensarma, S. R.; vanLoon, G. W. (Eds) 2019: Sustainable Solutions for Food Security. Dordrecht (Holland), Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-77878-5
Scarpa, R. & Alberini, A. (Eds.) 2005: Applications of simultaneous methods in environmental and resource economics, The Economics of Non-Market Goods and Resources. Dordrecht (Holland), Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-3684-1
Scarpa, R. & Rose, J. M. 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, 52, 253–282. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8489.2007.00436.x
Scarpa, R.; Gilbride, T. J.; Campbell, D. & Hensher, D. A. 2009: “Modelling attribute non-attendance in choice experiments for rural landscape valuation”, European Review of Agricultural Economics, 36(2), 151–174. https://doi.org/10.1093/erae/jbp012
Scarpa, R.; Thiene, M. & Marangon, F. 2008: “Using Flexible Taste Distributions to Value Collective Reputation for Environmentally Friendly Production Methods”, Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, 56(2), 145-162. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-7976.2008.00122.x
Šĉasný, M. & Alberini, A. 2012: “Valuation of mortality risk attributable to climate change: Investigating the effect of survey administration modes on a VSL”, International Journal Environmental Research and Public Health, 9, 4760–4781. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph9124760
Smith, V. K. 2006: “Judging quality”, in Kanninen, B. J. (Ed.): Valuing environmental amenities using stated choice studies: A common sense approach to theory and practice. Dordrecht (Holland), Springer, 297-333. https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-5313-4
Swait, J. & Adamowicz, W. 2001a: “Choice environment, market complexity, and consumer behavior: A theoretical and empirical approach for incorporating decision complexity into models of consumer choice”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86(2), 141–167. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.2000.2941
Swait, J. & Adamowicz, W. 2001b: “The influence of task complexity on consumer choice: A latent class model of decision strategy switching”, Journal of Consumer Research, 28(1), 135–148. https://doi.org/10.1086/321952
Teisl, M. F.; Boyle, K. J.; McCollum, D. W. & Reiling, S. D. 1995: “Test-retest reliability of contingent valuation with independent sample pretest and posttest control groups”, American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 77(3), 613–619. https://doi.org/10.2307/1243229
Tourangeau, R. & Plewes, T. J. (Eds.) 2013: Nonresponse in social science survey. Washington, DC (United States), The National Academies Press. https://researchsociety.com.au/documents/item/1496
Tourangeau, R., Conrad, F. G., & Couper, M. P. 2013: The science of web surveys, New York: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199747047.001.0001
Tourangeau, R.; Couper, M. P. & Conrad, F. 2004: “Spacing, position, and order: Interpretive heuristics for visual features of survey questions”, Public Opinion Quarterly, 68, 368–393. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfh035
Train, K. E. 2009: Discrete choice methods with simulation, New York (United States), Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511805271
Vermeulen, B.; Goos, P.; Scarpa, P. & Vandebroek, M. 2011: “Bayesian conjoint choice designs for measuring willingness to pay”, Environmental and Resource Economics, 48(1), 129–149. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-010-9401-6
Vossler, C. A. & Kerkvliet, J. 2003: “A criterion validity test of the contingent valuation method: Comparing hypothetical and actual voting behavior for a public referendum”, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 45, 631 - 649. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0095-0696(02)00017-7
Vossler, C. A. & Watson, S. B. 2013: “Understanding the consequences of consequentiality: Testing the validity of stated preferences in the field”, Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 86, 137–147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2012.12.007
Vossler, C. A.; Doyon, M. & Rondeau, D. 2012: “Truth in consequentiality: Theory and field evidence on discrete choice experiments”, American Economic Journal Microeconomics, 4(4), 145–171. https://doi.org/10.1257/mic.4.4.145
Watanabe, S. 2010: "Asymptotic equivalence of Bayes cross validation and widely applicable information criterion in singular learning theory", Journal of Machine Learning Research, 11, 3571–3594.
Windle, J. & Rolfe, J. 2011: “Comparing responses from internet and paper-based collection methods in more complex stated preference environmental valuation surveys”, Economic Analysis and Policy, 41(1), 83–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0313-5926(11)50006-2
Publicado
Número
Sección
Licencia
© Universidad de Jaén-Seminario Permanente Agua, territorio y medio ambiente-CSIC.
Los originales publicados en las ediciones impresa y electrónica de esta Revista son propiedad de la Universidad de Jaén y el Seminario Permanente Agua, territorio y medio ambiente (CSIC), así como de las Universidades que realicen la edición de monográficos específicos en América Latina o Europa, siendo necesario citar la procedencia en cualquier reproducción parcial o total.
Salvo indicación contraria, todos los contenidos de la edición electrónica se distribuyen bajo una licencia de uso y distribución “Creative Commons Reconocimiento 4.0 España” (CC-by). Puede consultar desde aquí la versión informativa y el texto legal de la licencia. Esta circunstancia ha de hacerse constar expresamente de esta forma cuando sea necesario.
