Analysing the social benefits of soil conservation measures using stated preference methods

被引:64
作者
Colombo, Sergio
Calatrava-Requena, Javier
Hanley, Nick
机构
[1] Andalucia Govt, Dept Agr Econ, Inst Andaluz Invest Agr, IFAPA, Granada 18004, Spain
[2] Univ Stirling, Dept Econ, Stirling FK9 4LA, Scotland
关键词
convergent validity test; choice experiments; contingent valuation; soil erosion;
D O I
10.1016/j.ecolecon.2005.09.010
中图分类号
Q14 [生态学(生物生态学)];
学科分类号
071012 ; 0713 ;
摘要
The paper estimates the benefits of programmes to mitigate the off-site impacts of soil erosion for a watershed in Andalusia, Spain. Two stated preference methods are used, namely choice experiments and contingent valuation, to obtain estimates of the social benefit from soil erosion reductions under two different methodologies. We emphasise the relative merits of the choice experiment method to provide useful inputs to policy design. However, employing both methods allows us to undertake a convergent validity test and thus to provide more defensible social benefit estimates. The attributes used in the choice experiment include water quality impacts (which we find to have the highest marginal values), impacts on wildlife and the area subject to a control programme. The contingent valuation design includes an attempt to reduce bias by reminding respondents about substitutes. Results are used to suggest upper limits on per hectare payments for soil conservation programmes. (c) 2005 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:850 / 861
页数:12
相关论文
共 25 条
[1]   Stated preference approaches for measuring passive use values: Choice experiments and contingent valuation [J].
Adamowicz, W ;
Boxall, P ;
Williams, M ;
Louviere, J .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS, 1998, 80 (01) :64-75
[2]  
ALMANSA MC, 2002, 7 BIENN C INT SOC EC
[3]  
[Anonymous], 1985, ERODING SOILS OFF FA
[4]  
[Anonymous], EC VALUATION STATE P
[5]   A comparison of stated preference methods for environmental valuation [J].
Boxall, PC ;
Adamowicz, WL ;
Swait, J ;
Williams, M ;
Louviere, J .
ECOLOGICAL ECONOMICS, 1996, 18 (03) :243-253
[6]  
CHRISTIE M, 2002, 2 WORLD C ENV RES EC
[7]  
Colombo S, 2003, J SOIL WATER CONSERV, V58, P367
[8]  
COLOMBO S, 2002, 10 C EUR ASS AGR EC
[9]  
FEATHER P, 1999, AER778
[10]  
Hanley N., 1994, COST BENEFIT ANAL EN