A systematic review of the reliability and validity of discrete choice experiments in valuing non-market environmental goods

Rakotonarivo, O. Sarobidy; Schaafsma, Marije; Hockley, Neal

doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.08.032

Cited by 144 publications

(77 citation statements)

References 71 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…They can be helpful in providing first rough estimates-but economics has to offer much more sophisticated valuation methods that are more informationally rich. While stated preference methods have been criticized because of validity and reliability problems (e.g., Hausman, 2012; Rakotonarivo, Schaafsma & Hockley, 2016), proper design following standard guidelines helps avoid many of the problems involved (Riera et al, 2012;Johnston et al, 2017;Bishop & Boyle, 2019).…”

Section: Economic Valuation For Sustainable Soil Management and Policymentioning

confidence: 99%

Potential of the economic valuation of soil-based ecosystem services to inform sustainable soil management and policy

Bartkowski

Bartke

Helming

et al. 2020

PeerJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The concept of ecosystem services, especially in combination with economic valuation, can illuminate trade-offs involved in soil management, policy and governance, and thus support decision making. In this paper, we investigate and highlight the potential and limitations of the economic valuation of soil-based ecosystem services to inform sustainable soil management and policy. We formulate a definition of soil-based ecosystem services as basis for conducting a review of existing soil valuation studies with a focus on the inclusion of ecosystem services and the choice of valuation methods. We find that, so far, the economic valuation of soil-based ecosystem services has covered only a small number of such services and most studies have employed cost-based methods rather than state-of-the-art preference-based valuation methods, even though the latter would better acknowledge the public good character of soil related services. Therefore, the relevance of existing valuation studies for political processes is low. Broadening the spectrum of analyzed ecosystem services as well as using preference-based methods would likely increase the informational quality and policy relevance of valuation results. We point out options for improvement based on recent advances in economic valuation theory and practice. We conclude by investigating the specific roles economic valuation results can play in different phases of the policy-making process, and the specific requirements for its usefulness in this context.

show abstract

Section: Economic Valuation For Sustainable Soil Management and Policymentioning

confidence: 99%

Potential of the economic valuation of soil-based ecosystem services to inform sustainable soil management and policy

Bartkowski

Bartke

Helming

et al. 2020

PeerJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Therefore, the econometric approach appropriate for a meta-analysis depends on the nature and quality of the data available for the analysis and on assumptions regarding the data collection. For instance, Rakotonarivo et al (2016) analyse the reliability and validity of choice experiments for the valuation of non-market environmental goods. The authors describe the state of evidence by highlighting the number of studies providing a yes or no answer to a set of questions of interest.…”

Section: Meta-analysis As a Research Toolmentioning

confidence: 99%

Choosing not to choose: A meta-analysis of status quo effects in environmental valuations using choice experiments

Barreiro‐Hurlé

Espinosa-Goded

Martínez‐Paz

et al. 2018

EARN

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

<p>Discrete choice experiments (DCE) normally include in their choice sets an option described as the status quo (i.e. no change to current situation; SQ). The literature has identified Status Quo Effect (SQE) as the systematic preference of the SQ over the alternatives that propose changes over and beyond what can be captured by the variation of attributes’ levels. In this paper, we conduct a meta-analysis of DCE applied in environmental policy to identify potential drivers of SQE. We find that accounting for heterogeneity in the econometric analysis, excluding protest responses and easing the choice’s cognitive burden reduce the presence of SQE.</p>

show abstract

“…Hanley et al, 1998;Louviere et al, 2011Louviere et al, , 2000. With careful design and rigorous field testing, choice experiments can be a useful method for elucidating opportunity costs of land use change or conservation restrictions even in rural areas with limited market integration and low literacy (Kenter et al, 2011;Kaczan, Swallow & Adamowicz, 2013;Nielsen, Jacobsen & Thorsen, 2014;Rakotonarivo, Schaafsma & Hockley, 2016). A particular advantage to using choice experiments for valuing sensitive activities such as illegal forest clearance is that policy impacts are inferred from the trade-offs that respondents make, meaning researchers can avoid asking direct questions about the policy being valued (Rakotonarivo, Schaafsma & Hockley, 2016;Nielsen, Jacobsen & Thorsen, 2014;Moros, Velez & Corbera, 2017).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Peer Review #3 of "Who bears the cost of forest conservation? (v0.1)"

Woodhouse¹

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background. While the importance of conserving ecosystems for sustainable development is widely recognized, it is increasingly evident that despite delivering global benefits, conservation often comes at local cost. Protected areas funded by multilateral lenders have explicit commitments to ensure that those negatively affected are adequately compensated. We make the first comparison of the magnitude and distribution of the local costs of a protected area with the magnitude and distribution of the compensation provided under the World Bank social safeguard policies (Performance Standard 5). Methods. In the Ankeniheny-Zahamena Corridor (a new protected area and REDD+ pilot project in eastern Madagascar), we used choice experiments to estimate local opportunity costs (n=453) which we annualized using a range of conservative assumptions concerning discount rates. Detailed surveys covering farm inputs and outputs as well as off-farm income (n=102) allowed us to explore these opportunity costs as a proportion of local incomes. Intensive review of publically available documents provided estimates of the number of households that received safeguard compensation and the amount spent per household. We carried out a contingent valuation exercise with beneficiaries of this compensation two years after the micro-development projects were implemented (n=62) to estimate their value as perceived by beneficiaries. Results. Conservation restrictions result in very significant costs to forest communities. The median net present value of the opportunity cost across households in all sites was US $2,375. When annualized, these costs represent 27-84% of total annual income for median-income households; significantly higher proportionally for poorer households. Although some households have received compensation, we conservatively estimate that more than 50% of eligible households (3,020 households) have not. Given the magnitude of compensation (based both on amount spent and valuation by recipients two years after the compensation was distributed) relative to costs, we argue that no one was fully compensated. Achieving full compensation will require an order of magnitude more than was spent but we suggest that

show abstract

A systematic review of the reliability and validity of discrete choice experiments in valuing non-market environmental goods

Cited by 144 publications

References 71 publications

Potential of the economic valuation of soil-based ecosystem services to inform sustainable soil management and policy

Potential of the economic valuation of soil-based ecosystem services to inform sustainable soil management and policy

Choosing not to choose: A meta-analysis of status quo effects in environmental valuations using choice experiments

Peer Review #3 of "Who bears the cost of forest conservation? (v0.1)"

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About