The choice modelling approach to environmental valuation

By Jeffrey Bennett, R. Blamey. 2001

876 citations recorded by the source corpus.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/7b199d7ee503c842f45f9c4cd1375637923acda0

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Citations in the corpus

Estimating Non-Market Environmental Benefits of the Conversion of Cropland to Forest and Grassland Program: a choice modeling approach (2007, background): “CM results also have the flexibility to allow for the benefit transfer process to proceed more readily (Bennett and Blamey 2001).”
The impact of offering two versus three alternatives in choice modelling experiments (2009, unknown): “Choice modelling 1 (CM) has been developed as a stated preference technique capable of estimating values for changes in resource use where data are not available from markets (Louviere et al., 2000; Bennett and Blamey, 2000).”
Heterogeneous preferences for water quality attributes: The Case of eutrophication in the Gulf of Finland, the Baltic Sea (2010, background): “(Bennett and Blamey, 2001) The upper part of table 8 presents the WTP estimates from MNL, RPL, and the latent 4-class model, for which the WTPs are the weighted sums of classspecific values presented in the lower part of the table 8.”
Environmental Cost-Benefit Analysis (2008, background): “Bennett J, Blamey R. 2001.”
Valuation of environmental and societal trade-offs of renewable energy sources (2013, methodology): “(Bennett and Blamey, 2001) There are several econometric models available for the analysis of the choice data.”
Environmental labeling and consumers' choice--an empirical analysis of the effect of the Nordic Swan (2004, unknown): “Methodologically the work of Bennett et al. (2001) – see also Blamey and Bennett (2001) – is the closest to the study presented in this article as they also use real market data in a discrete choice model. However, there are two important differences. First, Bennett et al. (2001) investigated the ef”
Choice Certainty and Consistency in Repeated Choice Experiments (2010, background): “Typically, practical applications are limited to 4–8 cards (Bennett and Blamey 2001).”
Farmer preferences for milpa diversity and genetically modified maize in Mexico: a latent class approach (2007, unknown): “Formally, in the LCM employed here, the utility that farmer i, who belongs to a particular segment s, derives from choosing milpa alternative 3 See Louviere et al. (2000), Bennett and Blamey (2001) and Hensher et al. (2005), for an introduction to the choice experiment method.”
Evaluating farmers’ likely participation in a payment programme for water quality protection in the UK uplands (2013, background): “All attributes were described in quantitative terms to maximise the valuation potential and also for ease of interpretation by farmers familiar with making concrete land management decisions in their day-to-day business (Bennett and Blamey 2001).”