000 02280nam a22002537a 4500
003 ZW-GwMSU
005 20240427122326.0
008 240427b |||||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d
022 _a21606544
040 _aMSU
_bEnglish
_cMSU
_erda
050 0 0 _aHC79 JOU
100 1 _aKingsley, David C
_eauthor
245 1 0 _aEstimating willingness to accept using paired comparison choice experiments:
_btests of robustness/
_ccreated by David Kingsley and Thomas C. Brown
264 1 _aAbingdon:
_bTaylor and Francis
_c2013.
336 _2rdacontent
_atext
_btxt
337 _2rdamedia
_aunmediated
_bn
338 _2rdacarrier
_avolume
_bnc
440 _aJournal of environmental economics and policy
_vVolume 2, number 2
520 3 _aPaired comparison (PC) choice experiments offer researchers and policy-makers an alternative nonmarket valuation method particularly apt when a ranking of the public's priorities across policy alternatives is paramount. Similar to contingent valuation, PC choice experiments estimate the total value associated with a specific environmental good or service. Similar to choice experiments, the questions posed to respondents are choices between alternatives. In contrast to both methods, respondents in PC choice experiments make choices between pairs of dissimilar alternatives including private goods, public goods, and monetary amounts. The alternatives may include competing policy alternatives, thus providing a ranking of the public's priorities among those alternatives. We investigate the robustness of estimated welfare measures to econometric modelling and choice set composition across two PC choice experiments. Results suggest that accounting for repeated observations increases the efficiency of welfare estimates but also reveals, contrary to previous research, sensitivity to choice set composition. Thus, while PC choice experiments may be advantageous in certain situations the results presented here suggest that further research is needed to better understand the sensitivities of the resulting welfare estimates.
650 _aNonmarket valuation
_vWillingness to accept
_xPaired comparison choice experiments
700 1 _aBrown, Thomas C.
_eco author
856 _uhttps://doi.org/10.1080/21606544.2013.775602
942 _2lcc
_cJA
999 _c165126
_d165126