Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/ajagec/v84y2002i1p161-170.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Choice Modeling and Tests of Benefit Transfer

Author

Listed:
  • Mark Morrison
  • Jeff Bennett
  • Russell Blamey
  • Jordan Louviere
Abstract
Benefit transfer is increasingly being used by decision makers as a way of estimating environmental values suitable for use in benefit cost analysis. However, recent studies examining the validity of benefit transfer of passive use values estimated using contingent valuation have rejected the hypothesis of convergent validity. In this article, we demonstrate the usage of a form of conjoint analysis known as choice modeling for benefit transfer. Choice modeling has been touted as being particularly suitable for benefit transfer because it is possible to allow for differences in environmental quality and socioeconomic characteristics when transferring benefit estimates. We demonstrate that choice modeling is suitable for benefit transfer, particularly when the transfers involve implicit prices. Second, we examine the circumstances in which benefit transfer of choice modeling derived value estimates is likely to be most valid. Two split sample tests were undertaken to achieve this objective. The evidence from these tests indicates that transfers across different case study sites are likely to be subject to less error than those across different populations. Copyright 2002, Oxford University Press.

Suggested Citation

  • Mark Morrison & Jeff Bennett & Russell Blamey & Jordan Louviere, 2002. "Choice Modeling and Tests of Benefit Transfer," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 84(1), pages 161-170.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:ajagec:v:84:y:2002:i:1:p:161-170
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1111/1467-8276.00250
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:ajagec:v:84:y:2002:i:1:p:161-170. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aaeaaea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.