Dealing with Uncertainty in Public Preferences for Rural Development Policies: A Contingent Valuation Survey

REFERENCES

• Abler, D. (2004) Multifunctionality, agricultural policy, and environmental policy, Agricultural and Resource Economics Review 33(1), 8–17.
   Google Scholar
• Alberini, A., Boyle, K. and Welsh, M. (2003) Analysis of contingent valuation data with multiple bids and response options allowing respondents to express uncertainty, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 45(1), 40–62. doi: 10.1016/S0095-0696(02)00010-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Álvarez-Farizo, B., Hanley, N., Wright, R.E. and 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(1), 23–43. doi: 10.1080/09640569911280
   Google Scholar
• Bateman, I.J., Carson, R.T., Day, B., Hanemann, M., Hanley, N., Hett, T., Jones-Lee, M., Loomes, G., Mourato, S., Özdemiroglu, E., Pearce, D.W., Sugden, R. and Swanson, J. (2002) Economic Valuation with Stated Preference Techniques: A Manual. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.
   Google Scholar
• Broberg, T. and Brännlund, R. (2008) An alternative interpretation of multiple bounded WTP data – certainty dependent payment card intervals, Resource and Energy Economics 30, 555–567. doi: 10.1016/j.reseneeco.2008.09.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bromley, D.W. and Hodge, I. (1990) Private property rights and presumptive policy entitlements: reconsidering the premises of rural policy, European Review of Agricultural Economics 17, 197–214. doi: 10.1093/erae/17.2.197
   Google Scholar
• Cameron, T.A. and Huppert, D.D. (1989) OLS versus ML estimation of non-market resource values with payment card interval data, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 17, 230–246. doi: 10.1016/0095-0696(89)90018-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cameron, T.A., Poe, G.L., Ethier, R.G. and Schulze, W.D. (2002) Alternative nonmarket value-elicitation methods: are revealed and stated preferences the same?, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 44(3), 391–425. doi: 10.1006/jeem.2001.1210
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Champ, P.A. and Bishop, R.C. (2006) Is willingness to pay for a public good sensitive to the elicitation format?, Land Economics 82(2), 162–173.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Daugbjerg, C. and Swinbank, A. (2007) The politics of CAP reform: trade negotiation, institutional settings and blame avoidance, Journal of Common Market Studies 45(1), 1–22. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-5965.2007.00700.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Domínguez-Torreiro M., Durán-Medraño R. and Soliño M. (2013) Social legitimacy issues in the provision of non-commodity outputs from rural development programs, Land Use Policy 34, 42–52.
   Google Scholar
• Domínguez-Torreiro, M. and Soliño, M. (2011) Provided and perceived status quo in choice experiments: implications for valuing the outputs of multifunctional rural areas, Ecological Economics 70, 2523–2531. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.08.021
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• European Commission (2008) Fact Sheet – EU Rural Development Policy 2007–2013. European Commission Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development, European Communities, Luxembourg.
   Google Scholar
• Evans, M.F., Flores, N.E. and Boyle, K.J. (2003) Multiple bounded uncertainty choice data as probabilistic intentions, Land Economics 79(4), 549–560. doi: 10.2307/3147299
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Garcia, S., Harou, P., Montagné, C. and Stenger, A. (2009) Models for sample selection bias in contingent valuation: application to forest biodiversity, Journal of Forest Economics 1–2, 59–78. doi: 10.1016/j.jfe.2008.03.008
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Halstead, J.M., Luloff, A.E. and Stevens, T.H. (1992) Protest bidders in contingent valuation, Northeastern Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 21(2), 160–169.
   Google Scholar
• Hanemann, W.M. and Kanninen, B. (1999) The statistical analysis of discrete response CV data, in Bateman I. and Willis K. (Eds) Valuing Environmental Preferences. Theory and Practice of the Contingent Valuation Method in the US, EU and Developing Countries, 302–442.Oxford University Press, Oxford.
   Google Scholar
• Hanemann, W.M., Kristrom, B. and Li, C.Z. (1996) Nonmarket Valuation Under Preference Uncertainty: Econometric Models and Estimation. Working Paper Number 794. Department of Agriculture and Resource Economics, University of California – Berkeley.
   Google Scholar
• Hanemann, W.M., Loomis, J. and Kanninen, B. (1991) Statistical efficiency of double-bounded dichotomous choice contingent valuation, American Journal of Agricultural Economics 72, 1255–1263. doi: 10.2307/1242453
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harpman, D.A., Welsh, M.P. and Sparling, E.W. (2004) Unit non-response bias in the interval data model, Land Economics 80(3), 448–462. doi: 10.2307/3654731
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heckman, J. (1979) Sample selection bias as a specification error, Econometrica 47(1), 153–161. doi: 10.2307/1912352
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hodge, I. (2001) Beyond agri-environmental policy: towards an alternative model of rural environmental governance, Land Use Policy 18, 99–111. doi: 10.1016/S0264-8377(01)00002-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hurley, S.P., Miller, D.J. and Kliebenstein, J.B. (2006) Estimating willingness to pay using a polychotomous choice function: an application to pork products with environmental attributes, Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 31(2), 301–317.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jorgensen, B.S. and Syme, G.J. (1995) Market models, protest bids, and outliers in contingent valuation, Journal of Water Resources and Planning Management 121, 400–401. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9496(1995)121:5(400.2)
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jorgensen, B.S., Syme, G.J., Bishop, B.J. and Nancarrow, B.E. (1999) Protest responses in contingent valuation, Environmental and Resource Economics 14, 131–150. doi: 10.1023/A:1008372522243
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krinsky, I. and Robb, A.L. (1986) On approximating the statistical properties of elasticities, Review of Economics and Statistics 68, 715–719. doi: 10.2307/1924536
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Latacz-Lohmann, U. and Hodge, I. (2003) European agri-environmental policy for the 21st century, Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 47(1), 123–139. doi: 10.1111/1467-8489.00206
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Loomis, J. and Ekstrand, E. (1997) Economic benefits of critical habitat for the Mexican spotted owl: a scope test using a multiple-bounded contingent valuation survey, Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 22(2), 356–366.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McGuirk, A.M., Stephenson, K. and Taylor, D.B. (1989) The Use of Tobit Analysis in the Valuation of Non Market Resources. Department of Agricultural Economics SP 89-23. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA.
   Google Scholar
• McVittie, A., Moran, D. and Elston, D. (2010) Public preferences for rural policy reform: evidence from Scottish surveys, Regional Studies 44(5), 609–626. doi: 10.1080/00343400902926359
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (2000) Valuing Rural Amenities. OECD Publ, Paris.
   Google Scholar
• Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (2001) Multifunctionality: Towards an Analytical Framework. OECD Publ, Paris.
   Google Scholar
• Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (2003) Multifunctionality: The Policy Implications. OECD Publ, Paris.
   Google Scholar
• Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (2007) The Implementation Costs of Agricultural Policies. OECD Publ, Paris.
   Google Scholar
• Ready, R.C., Whitehead, J.C. and Blomquist, G.C. (1995) Contingent valuation when respondents are ambivalent, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 29, 219–232. doi: 10.1006/jeem.1995.1040
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rowe, R.D., Schulze, W.D. and Breffle, W.S. (1996) A test for payment card biases, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 31(2), 178–185. doi: 10.1006/jeem.1996.0039
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Soliño, M., Prada, A. and Vázquez, M.X. (2010) Designing a forest-energetic policy to reduce forest fires in Galicia (Spain): a contingent valuation application, Journal of Forest Economics 16(3), 217–233. doi: 10.1016/j.jfe.2009.11.006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Strazzera, E., Genius, M., Scarpa, R. and Hutchinson, G. (2003) The effect of protest votes on the estimates of WTP for use values of recreational sites, Environmental and Resource Economics 25, 461–476. doi: 10.1023/A:1025098431440
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sydorovych, O. and Wossink, A. (2008) The meaning of agricultural sustainability: evidence from a conjoint choice survey, Agricultural Systems 98, 10–20. doi: 10.1016/j.agsy.2008.03.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vossler, C.A. and McKee, M. (2006) Induced-value tests of contingent valuation elicitation mechanisms, Environmental and Resource Economics 35, 137–168. doi: 10.1007/s10640-006-9011-5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vossler, C.A. and Poe, G.L. (2005) Analysis of contingent valuation data with multiple bids and response options allowing respondents to express uncertainty: a comment, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 49, 197–200. doi: 10.1016/j.jeem.2004.05.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vossler, C.A., Poe, G.L., Welsh, M.P. and Ethier, R.G. (2004) Bid design effects in multiple bounded discrete choice contingent valuation, Environmental and Resource Economics 29, 401–418. doi: 10.1007/s10640-004-9457-2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Welsh, M.P. and Poe, G.L. (1998) Elicitation effects in contingent valuation: comparisons to a multiple bounded discrete choice approach, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 36, 170–185. doi: 10.1006/jeem.1998.1043
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar