IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/foreco/v15y2009i1-2p131-146.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Testing the stability of the benefit transfer function for discrete choice contingent valuation data

Author

Listed:
  • Matthews, D.I.
  • Hutchinson, W.G.
  • Scarpa, R.

Abstract

We examine the stability of the benefit transfer function across 42 recreational forests in the British Isles. A working definition of reliable function transfer is put forward, and a suitable statistical test is provided. The test is based on the sensitivity of the model log-likelihood to removal of individual forest recreation sites. We apply the proposed methodology on discrete choice contingent valuation data and find that a stable function improves our measure of transfer reliability, but not by much. We conclude that, in empirical studies on transferability, function stability considerations are secondary to the availability and quality of site attribute data. Modellers’ can study the advantages of transfer function stability vis-à-vis the value of additional information on recreation site attributes.
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)

Suggested Citation

  • Matthews, D.I. & Hutchinson, W.G. & Scarpa, R., 2009. "Testing the stability of the benefit transfer function for discrete choice contingent valuation data," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 15(1-2), pages 131-146, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:foreco:v:15:y:2009:i:1-2:p:131-146
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1104-6899(08)00025-1
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

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

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Scarpa, Riccardo & Chilton, Susan M. & Hutchinson, W. George & Buongiorno, Joseph, 2000. "Valuing the recreational benefits from the creation of nature reserves in Irish forests," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 237-250, May.
    2. Ferrini, Silvia & Scarpa, Riccardo, 2007. "Designs with a priori information for nonmarket valuation with choice experiments: A Monte Carlo study," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 53(3), pages 342-363, May.
    3. Jushan Bai & Pierre Perron, 1998. "Estimating and Testing Linear Models with Multiple Structural Changes," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 66(1), pages 47-78, January.
    4. Dadi Kristofersson & Ståle Navrud, 2005. "Validity Tests of Benefit Transfer – Are We Performing the Wrong Tests?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 30(3), pages 279-286, March.
    5. Small, Kenneth A & Hsiao, Cheng, 1985. "Multinomial Logit Specification Tests," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 26(3), pages 619-627, October.
    6. Roberto Leon-Gonzalez & Riccardo Scarpa, 2007. "Robust Benefit Function Transfer: A Bayesian Model Averaging Approach," Discussion Papers in Economics 07/01, Division of Economics, School of Business, University of Leicester.
    7. Raymond J.G.M. Florax & Peter Nijkamp & Kenneth G. Willis (ed.), 2002. "Comparative Environmental Economic Assessment," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 1945.
    8. Scarpa, Riccardo & Hutchinson, W. George & Chilton, Susan M. & Buongiorno, Joseph, 2000. "Importance of forest attributes in the willingness to pay for recreation: a contingent valuation study of Irish forests," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 1(3-4), pages 315-329, December.
    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. Longo, Alberto & Hutchinson, W. George & Hunter, Ruth F. & Tully, Mark A. & Kee, Frank, 2015. "Demand response to improved walking infrastructure: A study into the economics of walking and health behaviour change," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 143(C), pages 107-116.
    2. Erda Wang & Ling Zhao & Ying Zhou & Bertis B. Little, 2013. "Valuing Outdoor Recreation Activities Using a Meta-Analysis Model in China: An Empirical Study," Tourism Economics, , vol. 19(2), pages 415-432, April.

    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. Rosenberger, Randall S. & Stanley, Tom D., 2006. "Measurement, generalization, and publication: Sources of error in benefit transfers and their management," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(2), pages 372-378, December.
    2. Czajkowski, Mikołaj & Bartczak, Anna & Giergiczny, Marek & Navrud, Stale & Żylicz, Tomasz, 2014. "Providing preference-based support for forest ecosystem service management," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 1-12.
    3. Agimass, Fitalew & Lundhede, Thomas & Panduro, Toke Emil & Jacobsen, Jette Bredahl, 2018. "The choice of forest site for recreation: A revealed preference analysis using spatial data," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 31(PC), pages 445-454.
    4. Kelley, Hugh & van Rensburg, Thomas M. & Jeserich, Nadine, 2016. "Determinants of demand for recreational walking trails in Ireland," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 173-186.
    5. Brander, Luke M. & Ghermandi, Andrea & Kuik, Onno & Markandya, Anil & Nunes, Paulo A.L.D. & Schaafsma, Marije & Wagtendonk, Alfred, 2010. "Scaling up Ecosystem Services Values: Methodology, Applicability and a Case Study," Sustainable Development Papers 60689, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM).
    6. W. George Hutchinson & Riccardo Scarpa & Susan M. Chilton & T. McCallion, 2001. "Parametric and Non‐Parametric Estimates of Willingness to Pay for Forest Recreation in Northern Ireland: A Discrete Choice Contingent Valuation Study with Follow‐Ups," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 52(1), pages 104-122, January.
    7. Aline Chiabai & Chiara Travisi & Anil Markandya & Helen Ding & Paulo Nunes, 2011. "Economic Assessment of Forest Ecosystem Services Losses: Cost of Policy Inaction," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 50(3), pages 405-445, November.
    8. Genty, Aurélien, 2005. "Du concept à la fiabilité de la méthode du transfert en économie de l’environnement : un état de l’art," Cahiers d'Economie et de Sociologie Rurales (CESR), Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA), vol. 77.
    9. Longo, Alberto & Hutchinson, W. George & Hunter, Ruth F. & Tully, Mark A. & Kee, Frank, 2015. "Demand response to improved walking infrastructure: A study into the economics of walking and health behaviour change," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 143(C), pages 107-116.
    10. Stellin, Giuseppe & Candido, Alice, 2006. "The Transfer of Benefit Measures: The Applicability Conditions and the Results," Conference Papers 6627, University of Minnesota, Center for International Food and Agricultural Policy.
    11. Robert J. Johnston & Kevin J. Boyle & Maria L. Loureiro & Ståle Navrud & John Rolfe, 2021. "Guidance to Enhance the Validity and Credibility of Environmental Benefit Transfers," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 79(3), pages 575-624, July.
    12. Akosah, Nana Kwame & Alagidede, Imhotep Paul & Schaling, Eric, 2020. "Testing for asymmetry in monetary policy rule for small-open developing economies: Multiscale Bayesian quantile evidence from Ghana," The Journal of Economic Asymmetries, Elsevier, vol. 22(C).
    13. Kelly Burns & Imad Moosa, 2017. "Demystifying the Meese–Rogoff puzzle: structural breaks or measures of forecasting accuracy?," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 49(48), pages 4897-4910, October.
    14. Matteo Mogliani, 2010. "Residual-based tests for cointegration and multiple deterministic structural breaks: A Monte Carlo study," Working Papers halshs-00564897, HAL.
    15. Czajkowski, Mikołaj & Zagórska, Katarzyna & Letki, Natalia & Tryjanowski, Piotr & Wąs, Adam, 2021. "Drivers of farmers’ willingness to adopt extensive farming practices in a globally important bird area," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    16. J. Cuñado & L. Gil-Alana & F. Gracia, 2009. "US stock market volatility persistence: evidence before and after the burst of the IT bubble," Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, Springer, vol. 33(3), pages 233-252, October.
    17. Vincent Dekker & Karsten Schweikert, 2021. "A Comparison of Different Data-driven Procedures to Determine the Bunching Window," Public Finance Review, , vol. 49(2), pages 262-293, March.
    18. Kar, Sabyasachi & Pritchett, Lant & Raihan, Selim & Sen, Kunal, 2013. "Looking for a break: Identifying transitions in growth regimes," Journal of Macroeconomics, Elsevier, vol. 38(PB), pages 151-166.
    19. Mariam Camarero & Juan Sapena & Cecilio Tamarit, 2020. "Modelling Time-Varying Parameters in Panel Data State-Space Frameworks: An Application to the Feldstein–Horioka Puzzle," Computational Economics, Springer;Society for Computational Economics, vol. 56(1), pages 87-114, June.
    20. Bernard, Jean-Thomas & Idoudi, Nadhem & Khalaf, Lynda & Yelou, Clement, 2007. "Finite sample multivariate structural change tests with application to energy demand models," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 141(2), pages 1219-1244, December.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Benefit function transfer Function stability tests Transfer reliability Forest recreation values Contingent valuation Split sample;

    JEL classification:

    • Q26 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation - - - Recreational Aspects of Natural Resources
    • H41 - Public Economics - - Publicly Provided Goods - - - Public Goods
    • C25 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Single Equation Models; Single Variables - - - Discrete Regression and Qualitative Choice Models; Discrete Regressors; Proportions; Probabilities

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:foreco:v:15:y:2009:i:1-2:p:131-146. 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/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/701775/description#description .

    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.