IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecolec/v68y2009i11p2834-2841.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A comparison of citizen and "expert" preferences using an attribute-based approach to choice

Author

Listed:
  • Colombo, S.
  • Angus, A.
  • Morris, J.
  • Parsons, D.J.
  • Brawn, M.
  • Stacey, K.
  • Hanley, N.

Abstract

This paper explores whether expert judgements can be taken as a proxy for citizen preferences for determining investment strategies for public goods. As an illustration, we focus on the provision of Public Rights Of Way (PROW) by Local Government Authorities in England. These provide rights of passage over property to those other than the owners, and little information is available on the welfare effects of changes in the provision and use of PROW. Given limited funds, reliance on expert judgement could be a cost effective alternative for decision-making compared with stated preference surveys of citizens. Two methods are compared. The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) is used to elicit expert judgement to proxy citizen preferences for different attributes of PROW. The Choice Experiment (CE) technique is then used to derive preferences directly through personal interviews with citizens. Overall it was found that judicious use of AHP by experts can, in this instance, be used to represent citizen views. However, this result may not be easily generalisable to other settings.

Suggested Citation

  • Colombo, S. & Angus, A. & Morris, J. & Parsons, D.J. & Brawn, M. & Stacey, K. & Hanley, N., 2009. "A comparison of citizen and "expert" preferences using an attribute-based approach to choice," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(11), pages 2834-2841, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:68:y:2009:i:11:p:2834-2841
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921-8009(09)00226-2
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Fredrik Carlsson & Mitesh Kataria & Elina Lampi, 2011. "Do EPA Administrators Recommend Environmental Policies That Citizens Want?," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 87(1), pages 60-74.
    2. Fredrik Carlsson & Peter Frykblom & Carl Lagerkvist, 2007. "Preferences with and without prices - does the price attribute affect behavior in stated preference surveys?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 38(2), pages 155-164, October.
    3. R. M. Bennett & R. B. Tranter & R. J. P. Blaney, 2003. "The Value of Countryside Access: A Contingent Valuation Survey of Visitors to the Ridgeway National Trail in the United Kingdom," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 46(5), pages 659-671.
    4. Anna Alberini & Alberto Longo & Patrizia Riganti, 2006. "Using Surveys to Compare the Public’s and Decisionmakers’ Preferences for Urban Regeneration: The Venice Arsenale," Working Papers 2006.137, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
    5. Louviere,Jordan J. & Hensher,David A. & Swait,Joffre D., 2000. "Stated Choice Methods," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521788304, January.
    6. Saaty, Thomas L., 1990. "How to make a decision: The analytic hierarchy process," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 9-26, September.
    7. Wiktor Adamowicz & Peter Boxall & Michael Williams & Jordan Louviere, 1998. "Stated Preference Approaches for Measuring Passive Use Values: Choice Experiments and Contingent Valuation," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 80(1), pages 64-75.
    8. W. Michael Hanemann, 1984. "Welfare Evaluations in Contingent Valuation Experiments with Discrete Responses," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 66(3), pages 332-341.
    9. Begoña Álvarez-Farizo & Nick Hanley, 2006. "Improving the Process of Valuing Non-Market Benefits: Combining Citizens’ Juries with Choice Modelling," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 82(3), pages 465-478.
    10. Krinsky, Itzhak & Robb, A Leslie, 1986. "On Approximating the Statistical Properties of Elasticities," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 68(4), pages 715-719, November.
    11. Hanley, Nick & Adamowicz, Wiktor & Wright, Robert E., 2005. "Price vector effects in choice experiments: an empirical test," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 27(3), pages 227-234, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Abbie Rogers & Jonelle Cleland, 2010. "Comparing Scientist and Public Preferences for Conserving Environmental Systems: A Case of the Kimberley's Tropical Waterways and Wetlands," Environmental Economics Research Hub Research Reports 1080, Environmental Economics Research Hub, Crawford School of Public Policy, The Australian National University.
    2. Fredrik Carlsson & Dinky Daruvala & Henrik Jaldell, 2012. "Do administrators have the same priorities for risk reductions as the general public?," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 45(1), pages 79-95, August.
    3. Eggert, Håkan & Kataria, Mitesh & Lampi, Elina, 2016. "Difference in Preferences or in Preference Orderings? Comparing Choices of Environmental Bureaucrats, Recreational Anglers, and the Public," Working Papers in Economics 669, University of Gothenburg, Department of Economics.
    4. Nannan Zhao & Zheng Liu & Yanliu Lin & Bruno De Meulder, 2019. "User, Public, and Professional Perceptions of the Greenways in the Pearl River Delta, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(24), pages 1-16, December.
    5. Doherty, Edel & Campbell, Danny & Hynes, Stephen, 2012. "Exploring cost heterogeneity in recreational demand," Working Papers 148832, National University of Ireland, Galway, Socio-Economic Marine Research Unit.
    6. Fredrik Carlsson & Mitesh Kataria & Elina Lampi, 2011. "Do EPA Administrators Recommend Environmental Policies That Citizens Want?," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 87(1), pages 60-74.
    7. Chen, Kee-Kuo & Ho, Hui-Ping & Chang, Ching-Ter, 2015. "Estimating attributes importance for container shipping industry by closing the listening gap with maximum convergent validity," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 145-163.
    8. Abbie A. Rogers & Michael P. Burton & Jonelle A. Cleland & John C. Rolfe & Jessica J. Meeuwig & David J. Pannell, 2020. "Expert judgements and community values: preference heterogeneity for protecting river ecology in Western Australia," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 64(2), pages 266-293, April.
    9. Hearnshaw, Edward J.S. & Cullen, Ross, 2010. "The Sustainability and Cost-Effectiveness of Water Storage Projects on Canterbury Rivers: The Opihi River Case," 2010 Conference, August 26-27, 2010, Nelson, New Zealand 97265, New Zealand Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    10. Rogers, Abbie A., 2011. "Is Choice Modelling Really Necessary? Public versus expert values for marine reserves in Western Australia," 2011 Conference (55th), February 8-11, 2011, Melbourne, Australia 100704, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    11. Edel Doherty & Danny Campbell & Stephen Hynes, 2013. "Models of Site-choice for Walks in Rural Ireland: Exploring Cost Heterogeneity," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 64(2), pages 446-466, June.
    12. Eggert, Håkan & Kataria, Mitesh & Lampi, Elina, 2018. "Difference in Preferences or Multiple Preference Orderings? Comparing Choices of Environmental Bureaucrats, Recreational Anglers, and the Public," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 131-141.
    13. Rogers, Abbie A. & Burton, Michael P. & Cleland, Jonelle A. & Rolfe, John & Meeuwig, Jessica J. & Pannell, David J., 2017. "Expert judgements and public values: preference heterogeneity for protecting ecology in the Swan River, Western Australia," Working Papers 254025, University of Western Australia, School of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
    14. Violeta Keršulienė & Zenonas Turskis, 2014. "A hybrid linguistic fuzzy multiple criteria group selection of a chief accounting officer," Journal of Business Economics and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 15(2), pages 232-252, April.
    15. Erick Arellanos & Wagner Guzman & Ligia García, 2022. "How to Prioritize the Attributes of Water Ecosystem Service for Water Security Management: Choice Experiments versus Analytic Hierarchy Process," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(23), pages 1-19, November.
    16. van Rijnsoever, Frank J. & Farla, Jacco C.M., 2014. "Identifying and explaining public preferences for the attributes of energy technologies," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 31(C), pages 71-82.
    17. Tienhaara, Annika & Pouta, Eija & Lunner Kolstrup, Christina & Pinzke, Stefan & Janmere, Lana & Järvinen, Maija, 2014. "Consumer preferences for riding lessons in Finland, Sweden and Latvia," 2014 International Congress, August 26-29, 2014, Ljubljana, Slovenia 182732, European Association of Agricultural Economists.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Domínguez-Torreiro, Marcos & Soliño, Mario, 2011. "Provided and perceived status quo in choice experiments: Implications for valuing the outputs of multifunctional rural areas," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(12), pages 2523-2531.
    2. Siikamaki, Juha & Layton, David F., 2007. "Discrete choice survey experiments: A comparison using flexible methods," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 53(1), pages 122-139, January.
    3. Hoyos, David, 2010. "The state of the art of environmental valuation with discrete choice experiments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(8), pages 1595-1603, June.
    4. Vivien Foster & Susana Mourato, 2003. "Elicitation Format and Sensitivity to Scope," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 24(2), pages 141-160, February.
    5. Niroomand, Naghmeh & Jenkins, Glenn P., 2018. "A comparison of stated preference methods for the valuation of improvement in road safety," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 138-149.
    6. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Hensher, David A., 2021. "The landscape of econometric discrete choice modelling research," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 40(C).
    7. repec:ehu:biltok:5571 is not listed on IDEAS
    8. Benoît Chèze & Maia M. David & Vincent Martinet, 2017. "Farmers' motivations to reduce their use of pesticides: a choice experiment analysis in France," Post-Print hal-01800261, HAL.
    9. Siikamaki, Juha & Layton, David F., 2006. "Discrete Choice Survey Experiments: A Comparison Using Flexible Models," RFF Working Paper Series dp-05-60, Resources for the Future.
    10. Robert J. Johnston & Kevin J. Boyle & Wiktor (Vic) Adamowicz & Jeff Bennett & Roy Brouwer & Trudy Ann Cameron & W. Michael Hanemann & Nick Hanley & Mandy Ryan & Riccardo Scarpa & Roger Tourangeau & Ch, 2017. "Contemporary Guidance for Stated Preference Studies," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 4(2), pages 319-405.
    11. Mogas, Joan & Riera, Pere & Bennett, Jeff, 2006. "A comparison of contingent valuation and choice modelling with second-order interactions," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 12(1), pages 5-30, March.
    12. Morten Mørkbak & Tove Christensen & Dorte Gyrd-Hansen, 2010. "Choke Price Bias in Choice Experiments," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 45(4), pages 537-551, April.
    13. Ortega, David L. & Wang, H. Holly & Wu, Laping & Hong, Soo Jeong, 2015. "Retail channel and consumer demand for food quality in China," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 359-366.
    14. Chaikaew, Pasicha & Hodges, Alan W. & Grunwald, Sabine, 2017. "Estimating the value of ecosystem services in a mixed-use watershed: A choice experiment approach," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 23(C), pages 228-237.
    15. Choi, Andy S., 2013. "Nonmarket values of major resources in the Korean DMZ areas: A test of distance decay," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 97-107.
    16. de Ayala, Amaia & Hoyos, David & Mariel, Petr, 2015. "Suitability of discrete choice experiments for landscape management under the European Landscape Convention," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(2), pages 79-96.
    17. Concu, Giovanni B., 2007. "Investigating distance effects on environmental values: a choice modelling approach," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 51(2), pages 1-20.
    18. Adam Finn & Stuart McFadyen & Colin Hoskins, 2003. "Valuing the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation," Journal of Cultural Economics, Springer;The Association for Cultural Economics International, vol. 27(3), pages 177-192, November.
    19. Rolfe, John & Windle, Jill, 2008. "Testing for differences in benefit transfer values between state and regional frameworks," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 52(2), pages 1-20.
    20. Ortega, David L. & Wang, H. Holly & Wu, Laping & Olynk, Nicole J., 2011. "Modeling heterogeneity in consumer preferences for select food safety attributes in China," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 318-324, April.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:68:y:2009:i:11:p:2834-2841. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolecon .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.