IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/enreec/v12y1998i2p241-247.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Using Contingent Ranking to Estimate the Loss of Amenity Value for Inland Waterways from Public Utility Service Structures

Author

Listed:
  • Guy Garrod
  • Ken Willis

Abstract

A contingent ranking exercise was used to estimate the amenity loss for recreational users associated with pylons, overhead cables and pipelines along canals. Over 80% of canal users were willing to pay higher utility bills to reduce the number of service structures found along canals. Aggregated across all canal users, mean annual willingness to pay for a 1% decrease in service structures was estimated to be nearly £750,000. The implications of these findings could be significant in any future negotiations between British Waterways and those companies responsible for siting pipelines and cables along canals. Copyright Kluwer Academic Publishers 1998

Suggested Citation

  • Guy Garrod & Ken Willis, 1998. "Using Contingent Ranking to Estimate the Loss of Amenity Value for Inland Waterways from Public Utility Service Structures," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 12(2), pages 241-247, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:enreec:v:12:y:1998:i:2:p:241-247
    DOI: 10.1023/A:1008290112833
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1023/A:1008290112833
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1023/A:1008290112833?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    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. Beggs, S. & Cardell, S. & Hausman, J., 1981. "Assessing the potential demand for electric cars," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 17(1), pages 1-19, September.
    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. Turner, Robert & Willmarth, Blake, 2014. "Valuation of Cultural and Natural Resources in North Cascades National Park: Results from a Tournament-Style Contingent Choice Survey," Working Papers 2014-01, Department of Economics, Colgate University, revised 23 Jan 2014.
    2. Jeanne Dachary-Bernard, 2004. "Une évaluation économique du paysage : une application de la méthode des choix multi-attributs aux Monts d'Arrée," Post-Print hal-00450861, HAL.
    3. Schlapfer, Felix, 2006. "Survey protocol and income effects in the contingent valuation of public goods: A meta-analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(3), pages 415-429, May.
    4. Jeanne Dachary-Bernard & Jean Cavailhès, 2004. "Une évaluation économique du paysage ; suivi d'un commentaire de Jean Cavailhès," Économie et Statistique, Programme National Persée, vol. 373(1), pages 57-80.
    5. Anna Alberini & Stefania Tonin & Margherita Turvani, 2009. "The Value of Reducing Cancer Risks at Contaminated Sites: Are More Heavily Exposed People Willing to Pay More?," Working Papers 2009.60, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
    6. Foster, Vivien & Mourato, Susana, 2002. "Testing for Consistency in Contingent Ranking Experiments," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 44(2), pages 309-328, September.

    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. Patil, Vikram & Ghosh, Ranjan & Kathuria, Vinish & Farrell, Katharine N., 2020. "Money, Land or self-employment? Understanding preference heterogeneity in landowners’ choices for compensation under land acquisition in India," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 97(C).
    2. Ito, Nobuyuki & Takeuchi, Kenji & Managi, Shunsuke, 2019. "Do battery-switching systems accelerate the adoption of electric vehicles? A stated preference study," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 85-92.
    3. Pavel Kireyev, 2016. "Markets for Ideas: Prize Structure, Entry Limits, and the Design of Ideation Contests," Harvard Business School Working Papers 16-129, Harvard Business School.
    4. YingHua He & Thierry Magnac, 2022. "Application Costs and Congestion in Matching Markets," The Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 132(648), pages 2918-2950.
    5. Kumar, Sushil & Kant, Shashi, 2007. "Exploded logit modeling of stakeholders' preferences for multiple forest values," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 9(5), pages 516-526, January.
    6. Alexandros Dimitropoulos, 2014. "The Influence of Environmental Concerns on Drivers’ Preferences for Electric Cars," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 14-128/VIII, Tinbergen Institute.
    7. Dickinson, David L. & Masclet, David & Peterle, Emmanuel, 2018. "Discrimination as favoritism: The private benefits and social costs of in-group favoritism in an experimental labor market," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 220-236.
    8. Ralph Stevens & Jennifer Alonso Garcia & Hazel Bateman & Arthur van Soest & Johan Bonekamp, 2022. "Saving preferences after retirement," ULB Institutional Repository 2013/342267, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    9. Siikamki, Juha, 2001. "Valuing Benefits of Finnish Forest Biodiversity Conservation: Fixed and Random Parameter Logit Models for Pooled Contingent Valuation and Contingent Rating/Ranking Survey Data," Western Region Archives 321696, Western Region - Western Extension Directors Association (WEDA).
    10. Barbara Baarsma, 2003. "The Valuation of the IJmeer Nature Reserve using Conjoint Analysis," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 25(3), pages 343-356, July.
    11. Laurent Gobillon & Dominique Meurs & Sébastien Roux, 2022. "Differences in Positions along a Hierarchy: Counterfactuals Based on an Assignment Model," Annals of Economics and Statistics, GENES, issue 145, pages 29-74.
    12. Gopindra Sivakumar Nair & Sebastian Astroza & Chandra R. Bhat & Sara Khoeini & Ram M. Pendyala, 2018. "An application of a rank ordered probit modeling approach to understanding level of interest in autonomous vehicles," Transportation, Springer, vol. 45(6), pages 1623-1637, November.
    13. Tong Wang & Congyi Zhou, 2020. "High school admission reform in China: a welfare analysis," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 24(3), pages 215-269, December.
    14. Yana Gallen & Melanie Wasserman, 2021. "Informed Choices: Gender Gaps in Career Advice," Working Papers 2021-025, Human Capital and Economic Opportunity Working Group.
    15. Kim, Junghun & Seung, Hyunchan & Lee, Jongsu & Ahn, Joongha, 2020. "Asymmetric preference and loss aversion for electric vehicles: The reference-dependent choice model capturing different preference directions," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 86(C).
    16. Hajivassiliou, Vassilis A. & Ruud, Paul A., 1986. "Classical estimation methods for LDV models using simulation," Handbook of Econometrics, in: R. F. Engle & D. McFadden (ed.), Handbook of Econometrics, edition 1, volume 4, chapter 40, pages 2383-2441, Elsevier.
    17. Tamara L. Sheldon & J. R. DeShazo & Richard T. Carson, 2017. "Electric And Plug-In Hybrid Vehicle Demand: Lessons For An Emerging Market," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 55(2), pages 695-713, April.
    18. Bryam Paúl Lojano-Riera & Carlos Flores-Vázquez & Juan-Carlos Cobos-Torres & David Vallejo-Ramírez & Daniel Icaza, 2023. "Electromobility with Photovoltaic Generation in an Andean City," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(15), pages 1-16, July.
    19. Thijs Brouwer & Fabio Galeotti & Marie Claire Villeval, 2023. "Teaching Norms: Direct Evidence of Parental Transmission," The Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 133(650), pages 872-887.
    20. Bernard, Kévin & Bonein, Aurélie & Bougherara, Douadia, 2020. "Consumer inequality aversion and risk preferences in community supported agriculture," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 175(C).

    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:kap:enreec:v:12:y:1998:i:2:p:241-247. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.