Asking for Individual or Household Willingness to Pay for Environmental Goods?

Lindhjem, Henrik; Navrud, Ståle

doi:10.1007/s10640-009-9261-0

Cited by 49 publications

(25 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Efforts were also made to harmonize questionnaire design between modes as much as practically possible. A random withinhousehold sampling method was chosen for the three modes (the adult person with the ''last birthday'' was chosen), as this may also be a potential source of differences in stated values (Lindhjem and Navrud, 2009). To further isolate measurement effects the samples were weighted to a set of marginal distributions on common demographics (though, importantly, not income), using census benchmarks.…”

Section: Mail Telephone and Computer At Central Locationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A growing number of Internet-based SP studies of environmental goods (even high-budget ones such as Banzhaf et al (2006) that may be considered best practice along other dimensions) have already been published, or are in the pipeline (see, e.g., Tsuge and Washida, 2003;Berrens et al, 2004;Ladenburg and Olsen, 2008;Lindhjem and Navrud, 2009;Cai et al, 2010). While the mass exodus from traditional survey modes to the Internet in SP research is gathering pace, we think it is worth pausing to consider how this new mode may influence the derived SP and welfare measures for environmental goods.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Using Internet in Stated Preference Surveys: A Review and Comparison of Survey Modes

Lindhjem

Navrud

2011

IRERE

Self Cite

127

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Internet is quickly becoming the survey mode of choice for stated preference (SP) surveys in environmental economics. However, this choice is being made with relatively little consideration of its potential influence on survey results. This paper reviews the theory and emerging evidence of mode effects in the survey methodology and SP literatures, summarizes the findings, and points out implications for Internet SP practice and research. The SP studies that compare Internet with other modes do generally not find substantial difference. The majority of welfare estimates are equal; or somewhat lower for the Internet surveys. Further, there is no clear evidence of substantially lower quality or validity of Internet responses. However, the degree of experimental control is often low in comparative studies across survey modes, and they often confound measurement and sample composition effects. Internet offers a huge potential for experimentation and innovation in SP research, but when used to derive reliable welfare estimates for policy assessment, issues like representation and nonresponse bias for different Internet panels should receive more attention.

show abstract

Section: Mail Telephone and Computer At Central Locationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Using Internet in Stated Preference Surveys: A Review and Comparison of Survey Modes

Lindhjem

Navrud

2011

IRERE

Self Cite

127

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Lackman and Lanasa (1993) indicated that many purchasing decisions of families were not the outcome of an individual choice but influenced to a great extent by other family members. Lindhjem and Navrud (2009) documented that the two primary explanations for why Norwegian households favored environmental goods more than individuals were that incomes of both adults and the partner's opinion were taken into account. As the selection of heating system usually requires a large financial investment, and includes at least two adult members of a household, this decision is defined as a decision taken at a household level for the purpose of further discussion.…”

Section: Theoretical Backgroundmentioning

confidence: 99%

Norwegian households’ perception of wood pellet stove compared to air-to-air heat pump and electric heating

et al. 2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The two first columns in (Lindhjem 2007;Lindhjem and Navrud 2008a). It can also be expected that WTP given per month multiplied by 12 to convert to an annual amount is higher than WTP originally stated on an annual basis (a well-known bias).…”

Section: Meta-data From Nature Conservation Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Meta-Analysis of Nature Conservation Values in Asia & Oceania: Data Heterogeneity and Benefit Transfer Issues

Lindhjem

Tuan

2008

SSRN Journal

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We conduct a meta-analysis (MA) of around 100 studies valuing nature conservation in Asia and Oceania. Dividing our dataset into two levels of heterogeneity in terms of good characteristics (endangered species vs. nature conservation more generally) and valuation methods, we show that the degree of regularity and conformity with theory and empirical expectations is higher for the more homogenous dataset of contingent valuation of endangered species. For example, we find that willingness to pay (WTP) for preservation of mammals tends to be higher than other species and that WTP for species preservation increases with income. Increasing the degree of heterogeneity in the valuation data, however, preserves much of the regularity, and the explanatory power of some of our models is in the range of other MA studies of goods typically assumed to be more homogenous (such as water quality). Subjecting our best MA models to a simple test forecasting values for out-of-sample observations, shows median (mean) forecasting errors of 24 (46) percent for endangered species and 46 (89) percent for nature conservation more generally, approaching levels that may be acceptable in benefit transfer for policy use. We recommend that the most prudent MA practice is to control for heterogeneity in regressions and sensitivity analysis, rather than to limit datasets by non-transparent criteria to a level of heterogeneity deemed acceptable to the individual analyst. However, the trade-off will always be present and the issue of acceptable level of heterogeneity in MA is far from settled.

show abstract

Asking for Individual or Household Willingness to Pay for Environmental Goods?

Abstract: Contingent valuation, Household, Individual, WTP, Q51, H41,

Cited by 49 publications

References 30 publications

Using Internet in Stated Preference Surveys: A Review and Comparison of Survey Modes

Using Internet in Stated Preference Surveys: A Review and Comparison of Survey Modes

Norwegian households’ perception of wood pellet stove compared to air-to-air heat pump and electric heating

Meta-Analysis of Nature Conservation Values in Asia & Oceania: Data Heterogeneity and Benefit Transfer Issues

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About