IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/teepxx/v12y2023i4p524-538.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Does validity matter for policymakers? Evidence from choice experiments on urban green

Author

Listed:
  • Malte Welling
  • Alexandra Dehnhardt
  • Sophie-Marie Aß

Abstract

Stated preference methods such as choice experiments are frequently used for the valuation of environmental goods. Studies suggest that the impact of valuation results on policymaking is rare. How the validity of stated preference results is perceived by policymakers may be a neglected barrier to use in policymaking. The study investigates (1) how valuation results are used by policymakers, (2) how policymakers perceive their validity, and (3) how these perceptions matter for the use of the results. We conduct choice experiments on urban green, directly involving local policymakers in the process. The policymakers, who were interviewed later, report frequent informative use of the results. Although concerns regarding validity exist, they are not a major barrier for informative use but maybe for decisive use. Our findings provide new insights on the use of valuation results by policymakers, as our study is the first to focus on stated preference results and on the role of perceived validity and enables an in-depth analysis by interviewing policymakers involved in a transdisciplinary process. We derive recommendations for researchers on how to design and communicate stated preference studies to increase their use in environmental policy-making.

Suggested Citation

  • Malte Welling & Alexandra Dehnhardt & Sophie-Marie Aß, 2023. "Does validity matter for policymakers? Evidence from choice experiments on urban green," Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 12(4), pages 524-538, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:taf:teepxx:v:12:y:2023:i:4:p:524-538
    DOI: 10.1080/21606544.2023.2186954
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/21606544.2023.2186954
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/21606544.2023.2186954?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.

    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:teepxx:v:12:y:2023:i:4:p:524-538. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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/teep20 .

    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.