IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/applec/v39y2007i10p1245-1252.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

'No-choice' options within a nested logit model: one model is insufficient

Author

Listed:
  • Arianne de Blaeij
  • Paulo Nunes
  • Jeroen C. J. M. van den Bergh

Abstract

We examine the impact of providing a 'no-choice' option in attribute-based valuation experiments. The aim of the experiment was to assess monetary values of cockle fishery management practices in the Dutch Wadden Sea for different stakeholder groups, namely Dutch citizens, local residents and tourists. The current policy debate about the management of the Wadden Sea stresses the fact that individual preferences with respect to cockle-fishery differ. The aim of this article is to analyse the individual preferences in a objective way. Special attention is given to the influence of including a 'no-choice option', which is analysed using a nested logit model. We test whether the full set of options can be considered as close substitutes. The estimation results show that the influence of including the no-choice option differs among the stakeholders considered.

Suggested Citation

  • Arianne de Blaeij & Paulo Nunes & Jeroen C. J. M. van den Bergh, 2007. "'No-choice' options within a nested logit model: one model is insufficient," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 39(10), pages 1245-1252.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:applec:v:39:y:2007:i:10:p:1245-1252
    DOI: 10.1080/00036840600852955
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00036840600852955
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/00036840600852955?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. Peter Groothuis & John Whitehead, 2002. "Does don't know mean no? Analysis of 'don't know' responses in dichotomous choice contingent valuation questions," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 34(15), pages 1935-1940.
    2. Elisabetta Strazzera & Riccardo Scarpa & Pinuccia Calia & Guy Garrod & Kenneth Willis, 2003. "Modelling zero values and protest responses in contingent valuation surveys," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 35(2), pages 133-138.
    3. Mandy Ryan & Diane Skåtun, 2004. "Modelling non‐demanders in choice experiments," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 13(4), pages 397-402, April.
    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. Taro Ohdoko & Kentaro Yoshida, 2012. "Public preferences for forest ecosystem management in Japan with emphasis on species diversity," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 14(2), pages 147-169, April.
    2. Silvia Banfi & Massimo Filippini & Andrea Horehájová, 2012. "Using a choice experiment to estimate the benefits of a reduction of externalities in urban areas with special focus on electrosmog," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 44(3), pages 387-397, January.
    3. Dissanayake,Sahan T. M. & Beyene,Abebe Damte & Bluffstone,Randall & Gebreegziabher, Zenebe & Martinsson,Peter & Mekonnen,Alemu & Toman,Michael A. & Vieider,Ferdinand M., 2015. "Preferences for REDD+ contract attributes in low-income countries : a choice experiment in Ethiopia," Policy Research Working Paper Series 7296, The World Bank.
    4. Rakatama, Ari & Pandit, Ram & Iftekhar, Sayed & Ma, Chunbo, 2018. "Heterogeneous public preference for REDD+ projects under different forest management regimes," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 266-277.
    5. Taro Ohdoko & Satoru Komatsu & Shinji Kaneko, 2013. "Residential preferences for stable electricity supply and a reduction in air pollution risk: a benefit transfer study using choice modeling in China," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 15(3), pages 309-328, July.
    6. Mahmood, Talat & Schömann, Klaus, 2009. "The decision to migrate: A simultaneous decision making approach," Discussion Papers, Research Unit: Competition and Innovation SP II 2009-17, WZB Berlin Social Science Center.

    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. Richard T. Carson, 2011. "Contingent Valuation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2489.
    2. Joachim Marti, 2012. "Assessing preferences for improved smoking cessation medications: a discrete choice experiment," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 13(5), pages 533-548, October.
    3. Lee, Juyong & Cho, Youngsang, 2020. "Estimation of the usage fee for peer-to-peer electricity trading platform: The case of South Korea," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 136(C).
    4. Stephanie F. Stefanski & Jay P. Shimshack, 2016. "Valuing Marine Biodiversity in the Gulf of Mexico: Evidence from the Proposed Boundary Expansion of the Flower Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary," Marine Resource Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 31(2), pages 211-232.
    5. Mahdi Rezapour & F. Richard Ferraro, 2021. "The impact of commuters’ psychological feelings due to delay on perceived quality of a rail transport," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 8(1), pages 1-8, December.
    6. Anastasio J. Villanueva & Klaus Glenk & Macario Rodríguez-Entrena, 2017. "Protest Responses and Willingness to Accept: Ecosystem Services Providers’ Preferences towards Incentive-Based Schemes," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 68(3), pages 801-821, September.
    7. Miguel Ángel Tobarra-González, 2015. "A new recoding method for treating protest responses in contingent valuation studies using travel cost data," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 58(8), pages 1479-1489, August.
    8. Clint Cook & Anna Dóra Sæþórsdóttir & David Cook, 2024. "Preferences and Willingness to Pay for Preservation: The Case of a Proposed Hydropower Project in Southern Iceland," Land, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-29, January.
    9. Raut, Nirmal Kumar & Shrestha, Devendra Prasad, 2011. "Why Low Adult Immunization? An inquiry into the case of Hepatitis B Vaccine in the Peri-Urban Areas of Kathmandu Valley," MPRA Paper 61711, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised Jan 2015.
    10. Steven B. Caudill & Peter A. Groothuis, 2005. "Modeling Hidden Alternatives in Random Utility Models: An Application to "Don’t Know" Responses in Contingent Valuation," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 81(3).
    11. Brouwer, Roy & Martín-Ortega, Julia, 2012. "Modeling self-censoring of polluter pays protest votes in stated preference research to support resource damage estimations in environmental liability," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(1), pages 151-166.
    12. Gillespie, Jeffrey & Lewis, Darius, 2008. "Processor Willingness to Adopt a Crawfish Peeling Machine: An Application of Technology Adoption under Uncertainty," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 40(1), pages 369-383, April.
    13. Sebastian Neumann-Böhme & Iryna Sabat & Carolin Brinkmann & Arthur E. Attema & Tom Stargardt & Jonas Schreyögg & Werner Brouwer, 2023. "Jumping the Queue:Willingness to Pay for Faster Access to COVID-19 Vaccines in Seven European Countries," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 41(10), pages 1389-1402, October.
    14. Matthew Motta & Daniel Chapman & Dominik Stecula & Kathryn Haglin, 2019. "An experimental examination of measurement disparities in public climate change beliefs," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 154(1), pages 37-47, May.
    15. Groothuis, Peter A. & Cockerill, Kristan & Mohr, Tanga McDaniel, 2015. "Water does not flow up hill: determinants of willingness to pay for water conservation measures in the mountains of western North Carolina," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 88-95.
    16. Alessandro Mengoni & Chiara Seghieri & Sabina Nuti, 2013. "The application of discrete choice experiments in health economics: a systematic review of the literature," Working Papers 201301, Scuola Superiore Sant'Anna of Pisa, Istituto di Management.
    17. Sun, Chuanwang & Yuan, Xiang & Yao, Xin, 2016. "Social acceptance towards the air pollution in China: Evidence from public's willingness to pay for smog mitigation," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 313-324.
    18. Hu, Wuyang, 2006. "Use of Spike Models in Measuring Consumers' Willingness to Pay for Non-GM Oil," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 38(3), pages 1-14, December.
    19. Elisabetta Strazzera & Elisabetta Cherchi & Silvia Ferrini, 2010. "Assessment of Regeneration Projects in Urban Areas of Environmental Interest: A Stated Choice Approach to Estimate Use and Quasi-Option Values," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 42(2), pages 452-468, February.
    20. Ahlfeldt, Gabriel M. & Maennig, Wolfgang & Mueller, Steffen Q., 2022. "The generation gap in direct democracy: Age vs. cohort effects," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 72(C).

    More about this item

    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:taf:applec:v:39:y:2007:i:10:p:1245-1252. 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: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/RAEC20 .

    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.