This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Adamowicz W, Louviere J, Williams M (1994) Combining stated and revealed preference methods for valuing environmental amenities. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 26:271–292
Allenby G, Ginter J, (1995) The effects of in-store displays and feature advertising on consideration sets. International Journal of Research in Marketing 12: 67–80
Alvarez-Farizo B, Hanley N, Wright RE, Macmillan D (1999) Estimating the benefits of agri-environmental policy: econometric issues in open-ended contingent valuation studies. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 42: 23–43
Barton D, (2002) The transferability of benefits transfer. Ecological Economics 42: 147–164
Bateman I, Carson R, Day B, Hanemann M, Hanley N, Hett T, Jones-Lee M, Loomes G, Mourato S, Ozdemiroglu E, Pearce DW, Sugden R, Swanson J (2002) Economic Valuation with Stated Preference Techniques: a Manual. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham
Bennett J, Blamey R (2001) The Choice Modelling Approach to Non-Market Valuation, Cheltenham UK and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar
Bergland O, Magnussen K, Navrud S (1995) Benefit Transfer: Testing for Accuracy and Reliability.DiscussionPaper#D-03/1995. Department of Economics and Social Sciences, The Agricultural University of Norway
Bergmann A, Hanley N, Wright R (2005) Valuing the attributes of renewable energy investments. Energy Policy forthcoming
Brouwer R (2000) Environmental value transfer: state of the art and future prospects. Ecological Economics 32 (1): 137–152
Burton M, Marsh S, Patterson J (2000) Community Attitudes towards Water Management in the Moore Catchment. Paper to Agricultural Economics Society conference, Manchester
Chow G (1960) Tests of equality between sets of coefficients in two tests of equality between sets of coefficients in two linear regressions. Econometrica 28: 591–605
Desvouges WH, Johnson FR, Banzhaf HS (1998) Environmental Policy Analysis with Limited Information. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham
DETR (1999) Prospective costs and benefits of implementing the proposed EU water resources framework directive. Report to DETR, London, prepared by WRc
Garrod G, Willis K (1996) Estimating the benefits of environmental enhancement: a case study of the River Darrent. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 39 (2): 189–203
Georgiou S, Bateman I, Cole M, Hadley D (2000) Contingent ranking and valuation of water quality improvements. CSERGE discussion paper 2000–18, University of East Anglia
Greene W (1997) Econometric Analysis, New York: Macmillan
Greene WH (2002) NLOGIT (Version 3), Econometric Software Inc. Plainview, New York
Greene WH (2003) Econometric Analysis, fifth ed. Prentice Hall, New York
Hanley N, Mourato S, Wright R (2001) Choice modelling approaches: A superior alternative for environmental valuation? Journal of Economic Surveys 15: 3
Hanley N, Wright RE, Koop G (2002) Modelling recreation demand using choice experiments: Rock climbing in Scotland. Environmental and Resource Economics 22: 449–466
Hanley N, Schlapfer F, Spurgeon J (2003) Aggregating the benefits of environmental improvements: Distance-decay functions for use and non-use values. Journal of Environmental Management 68: 297–304
Hausman J, Wise D (1978) A conditional probit model for qualitative choice: Discrete decisions recognizing interdependence and heterogeneous preferences. Econometrica 42: 403–426
Hausman J, McFadden D (1984) Specification tests for the multinomial logit model. Econometrica 52: 1219–1240
Heberling M, Fisher A, Shortle J (2000) How the Number of Choice Sets Affects Responses in Stated Choice Surveys. Cincinnati, USEPA, Cincinnati
Hokby S, Soderqvist T (2003) Elasticities of demand and willingness to pay for environmental services in Sweden. Environmental and Resource Economics 26 (3): 361–383
Kristrom B, Reira P (1996) Is the income elasticity of environmental improvements less than one? Environmental and Resource Economics 7: 45–55
Louviere J, Henscher D, Swait J (2000) Stated Choice Methods: Analysis and application. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Louviere J. (2001) Choice experiments: an overview of concepts and issues. In: Bennett, J., Blamey, R. (eds), The Choice Modelling Approach to Environmental Valuation. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham
Luce RD (1959) Individual Choice Behaviour: A Theoretical Analysis. Wiley, New York
McFadden D (1974) Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behaviour. In: Zarembka, P. (ed), Frontiers in Econometrics. Academic Press, New York
McFadden D, Train K (2000) Mixed MNL models for discrete response. Journal of Applied Econometrics 15: 447–470
Meijer E. Rouwendal J (2000) Measuring welfare effects in models with random coefficients, SOM-theme F: Interactions between Consumers and Firms. AKF, Copenhagen
Morrison M, Bennett J, Blamey R (2002) Choice modelling and tests of benefits transfer. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 84 (1): 161–170
Poe GL, Severance-Lossin EK, Welsh MP (1994) Measuring the difference (X - Y) of simulated distributions: A convolutions approach. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 76: 904–915
Poe GL, Welsh MP, Champ PA (1997) Measuring the difference in mean willingness to pay when dichotomous choice contingent valuation responses are not independent. Land Economics 73: 255–267
Ready R, Navrud S, Day B, Doubourg R, Machado F, Mourato S, Spanninks F, Rodriquez M (2001) Benefits Transfer: Are Values Consistent across Countries?. Department of Agricultural Economics, Penn State University
Revelt D, Train K (1998) Mixed logit with repeated choices: Households choices of appliance efficiency level. Review of Economics and Statistics 80: 647–657
Rozan A (2004) Benefit transfer: A comparison of WTP for air quality between France and Germany. Environmental and Resource Economics 29 (3): 295–306
Scottish Executive (2002) Costs and Benefits of Implementation of the EU Water Framework Directive (2000/60) in Scotland. Report to the Scottish executive, Edinburgh by WRc
Shrestha R, Loomis J (2001) Testing a meta analysis model for benefit transfer in international outdoor recreation. Ecological Economics 39 (1): 67–84
Train K (1998) Recreation demand models with taste differences over people. Land Economics 74: 230–239
Train K (2003) Discrete Choice Models with Simulation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Wald A (1939) Contributions to the theory of statistical estimation and testing hypothesis. Annals of Mathematical Statistics 10: 299–326
Wald A (1943) Tests of statistical hypotheses concerning several parameters when the number of observations is large. Transactions of the American Mathematical Society 54: 426–482
Wedel M, Kamakura W (2000) Market Segmentation: Conceptual and Methodological Foundations. Kluwer, Boston
WRc (1999) Potential Costs and Benefits of Implementing the Proposed Water Resources Framework Directive. Final report to DETR, London
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2007 Springer
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Hanley, N., Wright, R.E., Alvarez-Farizo, B. (2007). Estimating the Economic Value of Improvements in River Ecology Using Choice Experiments: An application to the water framework directive. In: Navrud, S., Ready, R. (eds) Environmental Value Transfer: Issues and Methods. The Economics of Non-Market Goods and Resources, vol 9. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-5405-X_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-5405-X_7
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-1-4020-4081-8
Online ISBN: 978-1-4020-5405-1
eBook Packages: Business and EconomicsEconomics and Finance (R0)