Contingent Valuation Versus Choice Experiments: Estimating the Benefits of Environmentally Sensitive Areas in Scotland

By N. Hanley, D. Macmillan, Robert E. Wright, C. Bullock, I. Simpson, D. Parsisson, B. Crabtree. 2008

356 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Economics and Econometrics, Global and Planetary Change

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/a4056a2782f7b9a9fc1fb00531a5672a13b5c5bf

How researchers see this paper

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

In Economics and Econometrics

In Global and Planetary Change

Citations in the corpus

Are There Income Effects on Global Willingness to Pay for Biodiversity Conservation? (2009, methodology): “…in stated preference methods, differences are found between Contingent Valuation (CV) and choice experiments (Riera et al. 2008; Boxall et al. 1996; Hanley et al. 1998a,b; Lehtonen et al. 2003) and between the different formats in CV—for example, between dichotomous choice, open ended or payment…”
European agricultural landscapes, common agricultural policy and ecosystem services: a review (2013, methodology): “Single attribute contingent valuation measures consumer surpluses (willingness to pay) for management options for a landscape or ecosystem as a whole and the services it delivers (e.g., Willis and Garrod 1993; Drake 1999; Hanley et al. 1998).”
Land-use planning and public preferences: What can we learn from choice experiment method? (2007, methodology): “Recently, the choice experiment method has been applied to environmental concerns and more specifically to landscape issues (Hanley et al., 1998b) (Campbell et al., 2006) .”
Willingness to pay for eco-labelled wood furniture: Choice-based conjoint analysis versus open-ended contingent valuation (2007, background): “Thus, if the Adamowicz et al. (1998) results indicate that CAECV based on dichotomous choice, one would expect CA to provide higher estimates than open-ended CV, as indeed indicated by Hanley et al. (1998) and Magat et al. (1988).”
Contemporary Guidance for Stated Preference Studies (2017, background): “These events promoted extensive research to investigate SP validity.10 They also stimulated the emergence of CEs in environmental and health applications (Adamowicz, Louviere, and Williams 1994, 1998; Boxall et al. 1996; Hanley et al. 1998; Ryan 1999).”
Public preferences for biodiversity conservation and scenic beauty within a framework of environmental services payments (2006, background): “As reported by Hanley et al. (1998), CEs present several advantages over CVM for dealing with the valuation of the environmental services provided by forest protection.”
Spatial preference heterogeneity in forest recreation (2013, methodology): “It could be expected that preferences for different forest attributes may depend on the recreation activities of the respondent (Hanley et al., 1998; Christie et al., 2007).”
Valuing cultural heritage in developing countries: comparing and pooling contingent valuation and choice modelling estimates (2007, methodology): “A number of comparative studies of CV and CM can be found in the literature (Boxall et al. 1996; Adamowicz et al. 1998; Hanley et al. 1998a; Stevens et al. 2000; Lehtonen et al. 2003; Bateman et al. 2006).”