Heterogeneous Preferences Regarding Global Climate Change

By D. Layton, Gardner M. Brown. Review of Economics and Statistics, 2000

294 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Economics and Econometrics, General Decision Sciences

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/edafda6d1df10ee052d4620a6765524a66d08cf5

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 General Decision Sciences

Citations in the corpus

Valuing wetland attributes: an application of choice experiments (2003, background): “Both Carlsson and Martinsson (2001) and Layton and Brown (2000) perform similar tests and fail to reject the stability hypothesis. al Economics 47 (2003) 95–103 3.2.”
“A convenient truth”: air travel passengers’ willingness to pay to offset their CO2 emissions (2008, background): “There is currently very limited evidence about whether or not people perceive climate change as a threat worth avoiding (e.g. Cameron 2001, 2005; Layton and Brown, 2000; Layton and Levine, 2002).”
Using a choice experiment to account for preference heterogeneity in wetland attributes: The case of Cheimaditida wetland in Greece (2006, methodology): “Recent applications of the RPL model have shown that this model is superior to the CL model in terms of overall fit and welfare estimates (Breffle and Morey, 2000; Layton and Brown, 2000; Carlsson et al., 2003; Kontoleon, 2003; Lusk et al., 2003; Morey and Rossmann, 2003).”
The state of the art of environmental valuation with discrete choice experiments (2010, background): “It is not unusual to find applications of DCE using MXL models that have fixed the price coefficient, especially when the researcher aims to estimate the distribution of individuals' WTP for environmental attributes (see e.g. Revelt and Train, 1998; Layton and Brown, 2000).”
Utility in Willingness to Pay Space: A Tool to Address Confounding Random Scale Effects in Destination Choice to the Alps (2008, methodology): “One solution is to assume that the cost coefficient is constant and not random (e.g., Revelt and Train 1998; Goett, Train, and Hudson 2000; Layton and Brown 2000; Morey and Rossmann 2003).”
Individual Option Prices for Climate Change Mitigation (2005, background): “The present paper differs from Mendelsohn, et al. (1994), Layton and Brown (2000) and Layton and Levine (2002) in that demand for climate change mitigation is modeled as a derived demand for the control of future annual average temperatures in the respondent's region.”
Design of Stated Preference Surveys: Is There More to Learn from Behavioral Economics? (2010, background): “3 The evidence on stability of preferences is mixed; see, e.g., Johnson et al. (2000); Carlsson and Martinsson (2001), and Layton and Brown (2000).”
A choice experiment model for beef: What US consumer responses tell us about relative preferences for food safety, country-of-origin labeling and traceability (2007, background): “(2003), Loureiro and McCluskey (2000) and Winfree and McCluskey (2005) indicate that geographical labeling programs are only successful at creating market premiums if the collective reputation of the product is superior.”
What does the public want from agriculture and the countryside? A review of evidence and methods (2004, methodology): “Layton and Brown (2000) use a CE to evaluate preferences for greenhouse gas emission scenarios and resultant forest loss in Colorado over time horizons up to 150 years into the future.”