Reducing gain–loss asymmetry: A virtual reality choice experiment valuing land use change

Bateman, Ian J.; Day, Brett; Jones, Andrew; Jude, Simon

doi:10.1016/j.jeem.2008.05.003

Cited by 188 publications

(96 citation statements)

References 43 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This is in line with recent research on stated-preference surveys, which suggests that visual illustrations may increase the 'evaluability' of numeric questions (Bateman et al, 2006). Each of the three experiments contained a short introduction, which explained the questions in simple terms and listed some assumptions that respondents needed to make.…”

Section: The Experimentssupporting

confidence: 75%

Siblings, Not Triplets: Social Preferences for Risk, Inequality and Time in Discounting Climate Change

et al. 2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen:Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden.Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen.Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in AbstractArguments about the appropriate discount rate often start by assuming a Utilitarian social welfare function with isoelastic utility, in which the consumption discount rate is a function of the (constant) elasticity of marginal utility along with the (much discussed) utility discount rate. In this model, the elasticity of marginal utility simultaneously reflects preferences for intertemporal substitution, aversion to risk, and aversion to (spatial) inequality. While these three concepts are necessarily identical in the standard model, this need not be so: well-known models already enable risk to be separated from intertemporal substitution. Separating the three concepts might have important implications for the appropriate discount rate, and hence also for long-term policy. This paper investigates these issues in the context of climate-change economics, by surveying the attitudes of over 3000 people to risk, income inequality over space and income inequality over time. The results suggest that individuals do not see the three concepts as identical, and indeed that preferences over risk, inequality and time are only weakly correlated. As such, relying on empirical evidence of risk or inequality preferences may not necessarily be an appropriate guide to specifying the elasticity of intertemporal substitution. Paper submitted to the special issue "Discounting the Long-Run Future and Sustainable Development" JEL: D01, D63, C90, Q51

show abstract

Section: The Experimentssupporting

confidence: 75%

Siblings, Not Triplets: Social Preferences for Risk, Inequality and Time in Discounting Climate Change

et al. 2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Similarly, useful social science models will allow for explicit linkages to ecological structures and functions, both to determine ecological drivers of social behaviors and outcomes and to anticipate the impacts on ecosystems (22). Innovative techniques for simulation and visualization of dynamic ecological systems (39,90,122) can be coupled with qualitative (e.g., focus groups, participatory scenario planning) and quantitative (e.g., formal surveys, economic valuation techniques) social science research methods to forge more explicit links between social and ecological systems and to improve the integration of knowledge from scientists, policy makers, and stakeholders. Integrated socioecological models could also be used to identify the particular ecosystem components to be used as indicators (10) for the associated cultural services, being careful to distinguish properly between the biophysical features/indicators and the values that people attach to the outcomes they support (123).…”

Section: Assessing and Modeling Interdependentmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Visualizations can facilitate communication and improve reliability and validity of monetary valuations (122). GIS-based 3D representations of planned ecosystem changes have supported assessments of stakeholder preferences for different management strategies (133,134).…”

Section: Addressing Tradeoffs and Synergies Acrossmentioning

confidence: 99%

Contributions of cultural services to the ecosystem services agenda

Daniel

Muhar

Arnberger

et al. 2012

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

1,197

748

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cultural ecosystem services (ES) are consistently recognized but not yet adequately defined or integrated within the ES framework. A substantial body of models, methods, and data relevant to cultural services has been developed within the social and behavioral sciences before and outside of the ES approach. A selective review of work in landscape aesthetics, cultural heritage, outdoor recreation, and spiritual significance demonstrates opportunities for operationally defining cultural services in terms of socioecological models, consistent with the larger set of ES. Such models explicitly link ecological structures and functions with cultural values and benefits, facilitating communication between scientists and stakeholders and enabling economic, multicriterion, deliberative evaluation and other methods that can clarify tradeoffs and synergies involving cultural ES. Based on this approach, a common representation is offered that frames cultural services, along with all ES, by the relative contribution of relevant ecological structures and functions and by applicable social evaluation approaches. This perspective provides a foundation for merging ecological and social science epistemologies to define and integrate cultural services better within the broader ES framework.natural capital | scenic beauty | cultural landscapes | tourism | spiritual value

show abstract

“…There also is a growing number of choice experiment studies that aim to value natural areas and land use change (for recent contributions see, e.g. Bateman et al 2009;Colombo et al 2007;Colombo and Hanley 2008;Scarpa et al 2007;Schaafsma et al 2012Schaafsma et al , 2013Koetse and Brouwer 2015). A common feature of these studies is that they attempt to value changes to an existing natural area or ecosystem.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A generic marginal value function for natural areas

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We conduct a CV and a CE experiment using a generic rather than a situation-specific study design in order to obtain a generic marginal value function for different types of natural areas with different characteristics in the Netherlands. We develop a modelling approach in which we use CV and CE choice data in one model. The value function obtained shows that people attach value to the presence of natural areas, and that these values vary due to differences in the magnitude of areas, in distance to areas, and differences in accessibility and fragmentation of natural areas. We discuss how the value function can be used to incorporate potential substitution between natural areas. We also show that for approximately one-fifth of our sample there is no added value having any kind of natural area nearby and that people living in small municipalities tend to be indifferent between accessible and inaccessible areas. Our approach produces a generic marginal value function, which may be used to inform cost-benefit analyses and land use planning decisions that wish to incorpo- rate positive and negative welfare externalities related to changes in the provision of natural areas. However, we also show that applying this value function to the regional or local scale may produce biased value estimates.JEL Classification H40 · Q26 · Q51

show abstract

Reducing gain–loss asymmetry: A virtual reality choice experiment valuing land use change

Cited by 188 publications

References 43 publications

Siblings, Not Triplets: Social Preferences for Risk, Inequality and Time in Discounting Climate Change

Siblings, Not Triplets: Social Preferences for Risk, Inequality and Time in Discounting Climate Change

Contributions of cultural services to the ecosystem services agenda

A generic marginal value function for natural areas

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About