Experimenting with multi-attribute utility survey methods in a multi-dimensional valuation problem

Russell, Clifford S.; Dale, Virginia H.; Lee, Junsoo; Jensen, Molly Hadley; Kane, Michael T.; Gregory, Robin

doi:10.1016/s0921-8009(00)00207-x

Cited by 23 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The MAUT has shortcomings. Russell et al (2001) found mixed empirical evidence about whether MAUT improved the internal consistency of preference surveys. MAUT also assumes that decision alternatives follow a known probability distribution.…”

Section: Multi-criteria Decision Analysis (Mcda)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Incorporating community objectives in improved wetland management: the use of the analytic hierarchy process

Herath

2004

Journal of Environmental Management

140

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Multi-criteria Decision Analysis (Mcda)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Incorporating community objectives in improved wetland management: the use of the analytic hierarchy process

Herath

2004

Journal of Environmental Management

140

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Nevertheless, to the best of our knowledge, applications of this approach published so far (i.e. Russell et al 2001;Kallas et al 2007) have not solved the problem of utility function functional form heterogeneity.…”

Section: Valuing Complex Environmental Goodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Carson and Groves (2007) also point out the impact of the scale factor in CE and suggest that this might be the reason for validity tests having been undertaken with marginal values and not absolute ones. Last, it should be mentioned that the methodology proposed uses the type of questions that Gregory and Slovic (1997) were probably trying to avoid (complex contingent valuation questions), but even in applications following their road-map more closely (Russell et al 2001) the need for such questions cannot be avoided.…”

Section: Estimation Of Individual Utility Functionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The selected attributes also needed to fulfil an additional requirement, namely, that interviewees must be able to see a direct relationship between the management of the protected area and the selected attributes. Therefore, the valuation scenarios presented in the CV exercise were designed to be plausible for the interviewees and, thus, to raise their awareness of the importance of their opinions during the preference elicitation process (Russell et al 2001). With these premises in mind, the components of the total economic value (attributes) selected are: (i) direct use value (development of economic activities in situ such as tourism); (ii) indirect use value (generation of positive landscape and environmental externalities) and (iii) non-use value (conservation).…”

Section: Selected Attributes and Their Relation To Use And Non-use Vamentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Reconsidering Heterogeneity and Aggregation Issues in Environmental Valuation: A Multi-attribute Approach

Barreiro‐Hurlé

Gómez‐Limón

2007

Environ Resource Econ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A primary part of further tests is a non-trivial challenge to develop a survey based on CLIs and valued aspects of the environment that is complete enough to represent the holistic nature of ecosystems (e.g., forest, desert, wetland, stream, landscape), yet concise enough to hold respondents' interest. Some members of our team have recently developed and tested an experimental approach to such a survey that evolved out of the work described here, focused on forest ecosystems (Russell et al 2001). …”

Section: Final Thoughtsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Communicating Ecological Indicators to Decision Makers and the Public

Schiller¹,

Hunsaker²,

Kane³

et al. 2001

120

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ecological assessments and monitoring programs often rely on indicators to evaluate environmental conditions. Such indicators are frequently developed by scientists, expressed in technical language, and target aspects of the environment that scientists consider useful. Yet setting environmental policy priorities and making environmental decisions requires both effective communication of environmental information to decision makers and consideration of what members of the public value about ecosystems. However, the complexity of ecological issues, and the ways in which they are often communicated, make it difficult for these parties to fully engage such a dialogue. This paper describes our efforts to develop a process for translating the indicators of regional ecological condition used by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency into common language for communication with public and decision-making audiences. A series of small-group sessions revealed that people did not want to know what these indicators measured, or how measurements were performed. Rather, respondents wanted to know what such measurements can tell them about environmental conditions. Most positively received were descriptions of the kinds of information that various combinations of indicators provide about broad ecological conditions. Descriptions that respondents found most appealing contained general reference to both the set of indicators from which the information was drawn and aspects of the environment valued by society to which the information could be applied. These findings can assist with future efforts to communicate scientific information to nontechnical audiences, and to represent societal values in ecological programs by improving scientist-public communication.

show abstract

Experimenting with multi-attribute utility survey methods in a multi-dimensional valuation problem

Cited by 23 publications

References 21 publications

Incorporating community objectives in improved wetland management: the use of the analytic hierarchy process

Incorporating community objectives in improved wetland management: the use of the analytic hierarchy process

Reconsidering Heterogeneity and Aggregation Issues in Environmental Valuation: A Multi-attribute Approach

Communicating Ecological Indicators to Decision Makers and the Public

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About