Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T06:20:11.319Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Conjoint Analysis of Groundwater Protection Programs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 September 2016

Thomas H. Stevens ,
Christopher Barrett  and
Cleve E. Willis
Thomas H. Stevens
Affiliation:
Resource Economics, University of Massachusetts, Amherst
Christopher Barrett
Affiliation:
Resource Economics, University of Massachusetts, Amherst
Cleve E. Willis
Affiliation:
Resource Economics, University of Massachusetts, Amherst
Get access

Abstract

Three conjoint models—a traditional ratings model, a ratings difference specification, and a binary response model—were used to value groundwater protection program alternatives. The last, which is virtually identical to a dichotomous choice contingent valuation specification, produced the smallest value estimates. This suggests that the conjoint model is very sensitive to model specification and that traditional conjoint models may overestimate economic value because many respondents are not in the market for the commodity being valued.

Type
Articles
Information
Agricultural and Resource Economics Review , Volume 26 , Issue 2 , October 1997 , pp. 229 - 236
Copyright
Copyright © 1997 Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Boxall, P.C., Adamowicz, U.L., Swait, J., Williams, M., Louviere, J. 1996. “A Comparison of Stated Preference Methods for Environmental Valuation.” Ecological Economics 18: 243–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boyle, K.J., Poe, G.L., and Bergstrom, J.C. 1994. “What Do We Know About Groundwater Values? Preliminary Implications from a Meta Analyses of Contingent-Valuation Studies.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 76: 1055–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Champ, P., Bishop, R.C., Brown, T.C., and McCollum, D.W. 1996. “The Relationship between Contingent and Actual Donations with Possible Implications for Bounding Willingness to Pay.” Paper presented at the American Agricultural Economics Association meetings, San Antonio, Texas.Google Scholar
Dillman, Don A. 1978. Mail and Telephone Surveys: The Total Design Method. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Duffield, J.W., and Patterson, D.A. 1991. “Field Testing Existence Values: Comparison of Hypothetical and Cash Transaction Values.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Economic Association, New Orleans.Google Scholar
Edwards, S.F. 1988. “Option Prices for Groundwater Protection.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 15: 475–87.Google Scholar
Hausman, J.A., ed. 1993. Contingent Valuation: A Critical Assessment. New York: North Holland.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, F. Read, Desvousges, William H., Fries, Erin E., and Wood, Lisa L. 1995. Conjoint Analysis of Individual and Aggregate Environmental Preferences. Technical Working Paper No. T-9502. Research Triangle, N.C.: Triangle Economic Research.Google Scholar
Mackenzie, John. 1990. “Conjoint Analysis of Deer Hunting.” Northeastern Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 19(2): 109–17.Google Scholar
Mackenzie, John. 1993. “A Comparison of Contingent Preference Models.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 75: 593–603.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Powell, J.R. 1991. “The Value of Groundwater Protection: Measurement of Willingness to Pay Information, and Its Utilization by Local Government Decision Makers.” Ph.D. diss., Department of Agricultural Economics, Cornell University.Google Scholar
Roe, Brian, Boyle, Kevin J., and Teisl, Mario. 1996. “Using Conjoint Analyses to Derive Estimates of Compensating Variation.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 31: 145–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seip, K., and Strand, J. 1992. “Willingness to Pay for Environmental Goods in Norway: A Contingent Valuation Study with Real Payment.” Environmental and Resource Economics 2: 91–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sparco, J. 1995. “A Conjoint Analysis of Willingness to Pay for Changes in Groundwater Quality.” Paper presented at Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association annual meetings, Burlington, Vt.Google Scholar